"A Most Wanted Man" at Durham Library Thursday

Movie Notes by Don Bourret

A Most Wanted Man is a very good film. Unfortunately the buzz around its release and the reason it may be most remembered is that it was Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s last movie before succumbing to a drug overdose. But it deserves remembrance for so much more. It is a tense espionage thriller adapted from a John le Carre novel, but with nary a car chase, bombing, shoot-out or killing in it. The tension comes from the shrouded interactions of its characters and the intricate drama that unfolds.

Gorgeously shot on location, the film turns the port city of Hamburg into a character itself, as old-world charm clashes with modern sterility.

The most wanted man is Issa Karpov, a Chechnyan fugitive fleeing from oppression at home who arrives illegally in Hamburg wanting political asylum in Germany. As Karpov is the son of a deceased Chechnyan terrorist, Gunter Bachman (Hoffman), head of a small covert anti-terrorist group, wants to try to use him to infiltrate Islamic terrorist groups in Germany. Annabel Richter (Rachel McAdams) is a lawyer working for a group that helps illegal immigrants and who wants to help Karpov find a safe home in Germany. Police authorities and even the CIA think he is a terrorist like his father and want to throw him in jail. This is a complicated, thoughtful story that requires your close attention, and is worth it.

Bloated, flushed, Scotch-drinking and chain-smoking, Hoffman is superb in the film’s central role. He is a humane man haunted by past betrayals just trying to do the right thing without hurting anyone but knowing he cannot trust anyone either. His riveting but understated performance underscores our loss of a great talent.

In a bonus feature on the DVD, le Carre comments on his intentions in writing the novel. He feels that one of the great dilemmas of our post-9/11 era is the erosion of personal liberties in pursuit of some greater good, namely, as is quipped several times in the film, “making the world a safer place.” He wrote the story to try to explore both sides of the issue, to ask if a dubious gain is worth what it costs, namely a threat to democracy. The issue is not black and white. There are no real bad guys here. Each agency and character wants the world to be better and safer and believes his is the best way to achieve this. This feels authentic. You can expect to be shaken at the end of the film and likely will have your own thoughts on the issue. And you can expect to appreciate the filmmakers for entertaining you as they make you think.