There is an argument to be made that the terrorists won on Sept. 11. To support this theory, one would only need to point to the various security measures and broad powers that our law enforcement agencies enjoy, often at the expense of our personal liberties. But as Americans, do we really have it so bad? Across the pond, London is littered with enough cameras to track nearly every movement of British citizens. It's a situation that would make George Orwell perpetually spin in his grave.
It is that world of paranoia and surveillance that is front and center in "Closed Circuit" (2013). Despite the film's best efforts, it takes its potentially rich artistic content and squanders it with a run-of-the-mill story that even author James Patterson wouldn't stoop so low to.
After a bombing destroys London's Borough Market, two lawyers (Eric Bana, Rebecca Hall) are assigned to defend the man accused of planning the attack. Yet as the two pry deeper into the case, they realize that there is a far more sinister plot lurking.
And what is that sinister plot? Why, it's the fact that the government is actually evil! But not entirely, because they're actually trying to protect the country! But at what cost? No, really. I want someone to tell me the costs.
For a movie that bases itself in a pressing issue in modern political theory, "Closed Circuit" is awfully scant on delivering any sort of coherent social commentary. While it starts off seemingly promising, it eventually devolves into Hall and Bana running around London trying not to die. If I ever get good enough with editing software, I'll be sure to try and edit some Yakety Sax over it and speed it up for further effect.
The evil government trope is not new, and there are two ways to deal with the Leviathan as an antagonist. The first way is the Jason Bourne route, where the main character can literally ifhgt his way out of the predicament. The second way is for the protagonists to realize there is no way out, a la "1984," and resign themselves to their fates. If you had to classify "Closed Circuit," it would definitely be the latter, but they can't even manage to do that correctly. The main characters are not Bourne but they try his strategy of fighting back (in their own way of course) and it just doesn't feel right.
And that's just what makes sense about the movie. Did I mention that Hall and Bana's characters were once lovers? Not that it matters anyway; you could take it out and nothing of importance will be lost from "Closed Circuit." It's a plot point that should have had more gravitas and more relevance, but instead, it seems like something that would seem ludicrous even in a Katherine Heigl movie.
I can't completely fault "Closed Circuit." It has its moments, but its most unforgivable sin is that it's utterly forgettable. This is the kind of movie you see at Redbox months from now and seriously debate about whether it's truly worth spending a dollar on. That's 100 cents! You can't waste that kind of money on such trivial purchases.
And of course, I suppose I shouldn't have been completely surprised when the film failed to stick the landing. After a logical ending, it is seemingly retconned in the epilogue for some sort of pseudo-happy Hollywood ending where everything is sort of all right, and this flies in the face of films about oppressive governments. They're not supposed to have happy endings, no matter how bittersweet they are.
It's supposed to be bleak and hopeless, but instead, you get an ending that feels as out of place as rooster in a hen house.
All in all, "Closed Circuit" feels like the product of an eighth grader trying to write a deep treatise on why infringing on personal liberties, even if for a good reason, is bad. There are spelling and grammar mistakes galore, the third paragraph was copied from Wikipedia and there's sauce all over the works cited page. But hey, at least he remembered to put his name on it.
