By Jake Howell jake.howell@utoronto.ca

Cannes Out-Of-Competition Review: All Is Lost

J.C. Chandor’s bold sophomore feature All is Lost, the follow-up from 2011’s Margin Call, is something extraordinary in the literal meaning of the term. A one-man show featuring a titanic Robert Redford, the film is a shipwreck narrative that rises above genre expectations (if there is a ship-wreck genre in the first place), with inspired work from everyone involved. This is some of Redford’s finest acting since 1973’s The Sting, and is sure to prove buoyant in the coming  awards season. Chandor deserves credit too; his directorial hand is firmly on the rudder in a venture that shouldn’t work but absolutely does.

Carrying the film with the strength of Atlas, Redford plays “Our Man,” a recreational yachtsman who is both a savvy sailor and a strong improviser. On a solo cruise afloat the Indian Ocean, disaster strikes: there’s a gaping hole in the hull of the Virginia Jean, which has collided with a floating shipping container (possibly a dig at globalization, given the contents inside). Our Man gets that sinking feeling as his living quarters take on major amounts of water, and the film charts its course from there. Before that, however, we’re treated to All is Lost’s first of only two instances of dialogue: opening the film from black, Redford’s tired voice plays over images of that blasted shipping container, his somber tone in tune with a letter of spiritual surrender. The meaning of the film’s title is self-evident—at this point, all has been truly lost—but we flash back eight days earlier as things begin to go wrong.

Early skepticism surrounding All is Lost boiled down to “how are they going to fill a feature-length film with no dialogue and only one actor?” to which the film replies, “by showing everything this protagonist endures in precise detail.” Indeed, if there is a connection between All is Lost and Margin Call, it’s that Chandor has written another procedural, wanting us to see events with meticulous attention instead of elliptical editing or any other chronological distortion. This is a style commonly associated with extraneous footage, but Chandor’s microscopic focus is the key to propelling the film’s eight-day ordeal. Like a Macgyver of the sea, Redford’s character never stops handling crises; his damaged boat a constant struggle against treacherous weather and churning water. He moves from problem to problem with remarkable calm, fixing issues as they arise with nautical ingenuity and the unflappable will to survive. Whether it’s procuring fresh water or salvaging the last of his supplies, everything Our Man does is given ample screen time, and it’s riveting.

All is Lost is less concerned with what this story is “about”  and more with how it all goes down (to be sure, the picture could be summarized in a single sentence). Rather, the actions and subsequent emotions are the narrative here; the expressions on Redford’s face speaking volumes despite the film’s outright lack of dialogue (though a perfectly-timed F-bomb wreaks havoc in the second half of the film). The only thing we don’t see is Our Man’s dreams, hinting that when he shuts his eyes, his thoughts are empty and alone—a reading in sync with the film’s overall feeling of desperation and linear editing.

The passion on display from both Chandor and Redford is palpable, the 76-year-old Sundance founder ignoring his age to deliver some of the best physical acting in his storied career. Also excellent is the sound design and Alex Ebert’s swelling score: the former textured with creaks, booms, and other noises of foreboding dread, the latter cresting at just the right moments. Notable, too, is the adroit, nimble cinematography, which captures the interiors without feeling cramped and the exteriors with artistic respect to the elements.

Do we know how the film will end? Sure: if you think about it, there are only two real options for a ship-wreck story to play out. But Redford’s lead performance is so nuanced in its emotional range that the film never capsizes from expected beats or cliché, and it’s most certainly not Cast Away or Life of Pi. Against the tides, All is Lost somehow exists as its own breed of survival narrative; one with silent reverence to nature and an adherence to the small-scale that results in overwhelming grandeur.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments are closed.

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon