'Ransom' is here with US$2 million at stake

By Laksmi Pamoentjak-Djohan

JAKARTA (JP): Ever since an aging Bob in Indecent Proposal asked a doe-eyed Demi the million dollar question and knocked the socks off moronic Woody, some moviegoers have long pined for some other farsighted moviemakers to raise the stakes. The time has finally arrived.

Ransom is here with the staggering two million dollar question: Would you pay a beefy ransom even though you're certain that your precious child will be killed regardless?

With the action-suspense genre currently undermined by star egos and childishly unrealistic premises such as saving the world from alien invasion (Independence Day), a frustrated American general with a personal score to settle (The Rock), and a mind- blowingly silly tornado (Twister), director Ron Howard has hit the year's jackpot with this remake of the 1956 Glenn Ford-Donna Reed drama.

Since child abduction is a very real issue and is the greatest fear of every parent, this movie seems the ideal sanctuary for suspense-lovers starved of soul. As the premise challenges our strongest natural instinct -- to protect our offspring -- emotional hijacking can be elevated to new and dizzying heights.

Furthermore, kidnapping stories conventionally follow an inescapable, easy-to-follow canonical structure: First the child is kidnapped, then the parents go nuts, then the ransom is negotiated, and finally there is some sort of a payoff. In between, there is plenty of room for a gamut of human emotions -- shock, anger, fear, torment, despair -- all practically battling for projection. There is certainly more potential for character- building. There is also definitely space for twists and turns, the definitive mark of imagination.

But the bottom line stays: There is no way that a product of Disney studios, let alone one directed by Happy Days' Ron Howard, is going to allow an innocent little boy to be killed off. Known for making feel-good comedies (Parenthood) and epic adventures (Far and Away), this is Howard's first real venture into the action-suspense thriller genre.

But first, here is the rundown: Tom Mullen (Mel Gibson), a self-made multimillionaire airline magnate, is shown to have it all: a swanky penthouse in New York, money up to his ears, power, social standing, a beautiful and dedicated wife, Kate (Rene Russo) and a young and loving son, Sean (Brawley Nolte, son of Nick). But his world starts to collapse when one day, Sean is snatched from the junior science fair by a group of techno-savvy kidnappers comprising alcoholic computer-hacker Miles (Evan Handler), bitter and high-strung Maris (Lili Taylor), juvenile criminal Clark (Liev Schreiber), and his unstable kid brother Cubby (Donnie Wahlberg of New Kids on the Block fame). This half- hearted psychedelic crew is led by a corrupt NYPD cop, Jimmy Shaker (Gary Sinise in a mesmerizing performance).

Demanding the sum of US$2 million for Sean's release, Shaker has it all neatly planned. That the FBI doesn't run a check on cops or ex-cops as potential suspects is more than a trifle odd. While FBI-bashing is now an accepted Hollywood trait, this particular movie portrays the Feds as a totally useless bunch who does very little beyond offering vague advice, listening in on phone conversations, and botching up the rescue operation.

In one high-adrenaline car scene en route to the ransom rendezvous, Shaker tells Mullen through the car phone about the Morlocks. They are futuristic subterranean drones in H.G. Wells' novel The Time Machine. The purpose of their lowly and underprivileged existence is to serve the rich and pampered Elois. "From time to time, the Morlocks snatch one of the Elois from above and make him suffer like them," he says menacingly. So, despite a strange Hollywood trend of mining wisdom from H.G. Wells (see John Frankenheimer's recent The Island of Dr. Moreau), the whole exercise turns out to be a misguided effort to turn the oppressors into the oppressed and to make one Morlock a filthy rich man.

At that point, Mullen is intelligent enough to know that the only resource he has left is his own instincts. He is convinced that paying the ransom will mean killing his son.

So Mullen appears on TV making an announcement that instead of paying the ransom, he's offering the demanded sum as a bounty on the kidnappers' heads.

And it is at this table-turning point that Ransom shows its strength. While the subsequent cat-and-mouse game between Mullen and Shaker allows the film more unexpected twists and a disappointingly mainstream finale, it wisely allows the compulsory edge-of-the-seat trappings of modern thrillers to take a backseat to a currently neglected element of film-making: character-building.

Take Mullen, for instance. His radical stand against the kidnappers is perhaps as much a result of guilt besides a slightly lop-sided logic. Beneath all that nice-guy surface appeal lurks something more ominous: the amoral entrepreneur. Having made his fortune largely through dirty dealings with assorted "human garbage", he once bribed a union official named Jackie Brown (Dan Hedaya) in order to save his airline. After denying involvement, he engineered Brown's trip to jail and kept his own hands clean.

But more questionable are his values. We know Mullen is a big- time risk taker and he has his instincts, but why in heaven's name was he capable of bribery to save his airline, yet refused to pay a cent for his son's safe return? His breakdown scene on the balcony -- the best depiction yet of a man's world falling apart -- seems to be the answer: he also wishes he knew why.

Beyond the film's ethical dilemmas, Howard's humanism allows us a grim look into human nature. Although the kidnappers aren't the most endearing characters in the world, they are a realistic study in urban paranoia. A chilling prison scene in which the imprisoned union official (Hedaya) refuses to sympathize with Mullen's predicament is also particularly believable. Why should he if he isn't even allowed to see his six kids? Even FBI agent Lonnie Hawkins (Delroy Lindo), although thoroughly miscast in a rather thankless role, also reeks of occasional realism.

However, the movie truly belongs to Gibson and Sinise. While Gibson is heartbreaking as a father tormented by the potential consequences of a wrong decision, Sinise has actually managed to make greed and ruthlessness attractive. His understated, steely- eyed coolness is simply breathtaking.

Only Russo is a bit of a disappointment. Although she holds her own as the mother-wife in distress, it's hard to see her in any other role after she eats up the screen in Tin Cup.

Updated to suit the 1990s by screenwriter Richard Price, Ransom achieves some of the basic objectives of its genre. It certainly is restrained enough not to push itself beyond its natural pace and rhythm, and even its camera work is matter-of- fact, free of stylistic pretenses.

Yet it could certainly have benefited from a better script, as its dialogue is passable at best. The attempt to create moral ambiguity for Mullen also falls flat on its face because there is no way that we wouldn't commiserate with the woes of the Sexiest Man in the World, however sinful he's been in the past.