Papillon is based on the memoirs by Henri Charrière, who also went by the nickname Papillion. The events are – even by his own admission – loosely based on his experience going to a penal colony in French Guiana. It’s been adapted into a film before with 1973’s Papillon, which starred Steve McQueen and Dustin Hoffman. It’s been so long since I’ve seen the original film that I don’t remember much for the sake of comparing this and the new adaptation, written by Aaron Guzikowski, and directed by Michael Noer.
We meet Papillon (Charlie Hunnam) in Paris being a small time thief and safecracker who gets screwed over by a crime lord. He is immediately taken into police custody framed for a murder, and soon sentenced to life at a prison in French Guiana, which is on the northeast coast of South America. There, he forms an unlikely alliance with a convicted counterfeiter, Louis Dega (Rami Malek), and they plan out an escape, forming a kinship along the way.
Prison break movies are like heist movies. You seen one, you’ve kind of seen them all, yet there’s a distinct pleasure in experiencing a story that involves a group of skilled individuals being pinned in a tense situation and using their wits to accomplish a goal. The difference between Papillon and any other prison break movie is that – given its fact-based nature – doesn’t indulge in the mechanics of their escape(s) as much. It ends up being more about the bond that forms between these men, who likely would not have seen eye-to-eye out in the real world.
So, because it’s more focused on the relationship, it lives and died by the performances. And on that level, it’s a bit mixed. Charlie Hunnam and Rami Malek aren’t quite the movie stars on the level of Steve McQueen or Dustin Hoffman, so they rely less on that inherent charisma and more on grounded emotional stakes that the film sets up in an opening, which gives some context to their lives before prison, and how it shapes their decisions as time moves on. Hunnam and Malek are great here, except when they have to work directly with each other on screen. It’s like watching two people act really well at each other, as opposed to with. The chemistry is somewhat lacking, and while certain moments in the third act do finally bring a spark between them, their bond is only believable in the sense that they constantly say how much their friendship means to each other. It’s not as distracting as you might think it is, because their individual performances are so good, but it does feel a bit off.
The film is very well made. It does a great job evoking the early 20th century setting. It’s appropriately gritty, muddy, nasty, and violent. You do buy into the threat that these characters have to face in the prison, and with the work that they’re forced to do. Cinematographer, Hagen Bogdanski, captures everything with a good intensity and intimacy with lots of close ups and medium shots, putting you right there with the characters. It’s not overtly stylish, but there is a grace in the way its staged that makes it quite effective as an experience. It does feel its length, but it feels appropriate given the way the events unfold.
That’s really all I can muster up about Papillon. It’s by no means a bad movie, it’s well made, the story is compelling, and it’s occasionally harrowing and moving, but it’s just never done in a way that is surprising or fresh. It feels like business as usual for one of these kinds of movies. That’s not a bad thing, since it probably never intended to be anything beyond a straightforward retelling of this material, and again, I should reiterate, this is coming from someone who has no attachment to the original. If you like prison break movies, this is a more than serviceable addition to the genre that brings some interesting elements with its period setting. Though, it did make me more curious to check out the books.