I think the most shocking revelation in the entirety of Beirut was during the credits when I found out that the director was Brad Anderson. As in Session 9, The Machinist, Transsiberian Brad Anderson. Unfortunately, Beirut falls more in line with some of his more recent efforts like The Call, Vanishing on 7th Street, and Stonehearst Asylum.
Being the second film revolving around the Israel/Palestine conflict this year to feature Rosamund Pike (the other being 7 Days in Entebbe), Beirut follows Mason (Jon Hamm), a former diplomat, who has been brought into Beirut after a decade due to act as a negotiator for a potential prisoner trade-off.
The film is scripted by Tony Gilroy, known mostly for his work in the Bourne franchise, and a lot of the political intrigue from those films can be found here. What’s missing is the same attention to character. Many characters, including Mason, have moments that suggest more to them that’s worth exploring, but the film simply refuses to do so, instead choosing to simply keep the plot moving forward. Which, on one hand, is admirable, and typically makes for a good thriller, but on the flipside, it forgoes giving the audience a foundation to really care about what is happening. And that is despite the fact, an opening sequence sets up a potentially interesting dynamic between Mason and Karim (Idir Chender), who has kidnapped Mason’s former colleague. However, the dynamic setup in the opening sequence is not paid off in a meaningful way.
It’s also worth noting that the film has a weirdly Islamophobic undercurrent throughout. Many of them fall into the background, and tend to be victims of violence or perpetrators of it, and the most uncomfortable aspect about it is how the film treats it as something that’s expected and just part of the norm. The way a character will go on and on in describing Beirut as some kind of hell hole before derisively, “welcome to Beirut.” It never comes from a place of knowledge and authenticity, as if the filmmakers saw pictures of rubble and war, and figured it would be a neat backdrop for a fairly standard thriller. There are many chances presented where the film could’ve gone into the nuance of the history, the murky morality of the conflict, and the tricky tightrope walk with Mason trying to satisfy multiple parties with his negotiation, but it doesn’t take advantage.
Jon Hamm certainly tries his absolute best to breathe some life into the film, and I think for the most part, he is successful. He has a good screen presence that somehow hasn’t translated well to the big screen after dominating the small screen with Mad Men for many years. He’s very good in this. Everyone else doesn’t get much an opportunity to shine, and even when they have the opportunity, the material simply isn’t strong enough. Actors like Rosamund Pike, Dean Norris, Mark Pellegrino, and Shea Whigham are at the mercy of a half-baked script, and they do a serviceable job with what they’re given.
As I was watching Beirut, my mind kept getting reminded of Bridge of Spies, which deals in a very similar story about a negotiator being in over his head within a political minefield. However, Beirut has neither the craft, the humor, nor the empathetic moral conviction that Bridge of Spies did. I suppose it is unfair to compare a Steven Spielberg film to a disposable thriller, but to create a thriller in this environment without having a solid understanding of the culture surrounding it feels exploitative and irresponsible. If the film was a more enticing thriller, then I could possibly make an argument about the film being worthwhile despite its faults. It is best left behind among other reductive relics of Hollywood’s past where it belongs.