The Mauritanian

Human civilisation and time is scarred by our choices and indiscretions, some of which are so grave that we cast aside our very humanity. Kevin Macdonald’s American drama The Mauritanian, is the true story of one of these many scars that has been instigated by the “war on terror”, and the imprisonment without charge of Guantánamo Bay detainees by the U.S Government.

Based on the best-selling memoir Guantánamo Diary by Mohamedou Ould Slahi (Tahar Rahim), the film recounts his own fight for freedom, with the help of defence attorney Nancy Hollander (Jodie Foster) and her associate Teri Duncan (Shailene Woodley). Leading the prosecution is Lt. Colonel Stuart Couch (Benedict Cumberbatch), a formidable figure who uncovers shocking truths that brings him into conflict with the military and his own government.

A new film from Macdonald rightly stirs up interest, and his back catalogue of documentary and fiction makes the prospect of him tackling the subject of Guantánamo Bay an exciting one. Reflecting on the film, what immediately strikes me is an intriguing parallel with his documentary of mountaineers stranded in Touching the Void (2003). Slahi’s imprisonment, and his striking up a friendship with a fellow detainee he never sees face-to-face, juxtaposes man with nature as the respective antagonists.

Technically efficient, with solid performances, The Mauritanian is haunted by the underwhelming feeling it provokes. The suspense and urgency struggles to explode that sees it fall short of other captivating works of true stories, such as All the President’s Men (Pakula, 1976) and Spotlight (McCarthy, 2015). If it can be most aptly described as a sober account of Slahi’s experiences, this is ironically where the film’s strength lies.


The expectation is for Foster’s character to be a tour de force, the injustice and bullying tactics of the government adding fuel to her fire. Instead she’s a more tempered presence, as is Cumberbatch’s prosecutor, neither spiralling into a dramatised idealism. It’s a choice that leaves us feeling that a part of the film’s soul is missing. The sobering restraint ultimately comes to pay tribute to the source material, in a way that can perhaps be likened to photographers who combine image with text to communicate ideas and meaning.

Throughout feelings are provoked, a mix of anger and sympathy, and we question his innocence as the two sides prepare for trial. It’s not until the end that the full weight of our indignation is felt. Macdonald depicts events that are dramatic, intense and uncomfortable to view. We see acts of torture that are in breach of international law, perpetrated against detainees who have not been charged with any crime. There’s a definite full stop as the director builds to a crescendo of condemnation, articulately tempered with facts in white text on a black background. The film was borne out of words on a page, and so it ends with words onscreen.

According to Amnesty International, “The Guantanamo prison remains open today with 40 men still imprisoned there. The vast majority have never been charged with a crime.” The text references that Slahi’s struggle for freedom ran into the Obama/Biden Administration, and to this day, Obama’s promise to close the Guantanamo prison remains unfulfilled.

The Mauritanian is not a look back at a past heinous act, it’s a window into the horrors being experienced by detainees as we are watching, thinking and talking about the film. There are those for who what we witness is their reality, human beings denied their dignity that continues to besmirch a contemporary America supposedly built upon the values of freedom and equality, a nation struggling to discover its soul.

Neither the entertaining compelling or suspenseful experience that one may expect, what the film does is trust its story will resonate with the audience as an experience recounted. Slahi’s story as shown here, is an experience we should value and appreciate, for it makes us conscious of the hurt we inflict upon one another, and the consequences that make victims out of men, women and children.

The Mauritanian is streaming on Amazon Prime

You Were Never Really Here

Dazzling. Kaleidoscopic. Violent. Psycho. Taxi Driver. Scottish director Lynne Ramsay’s latest film is at once a rare piece of virtuoso cinema playing with the possibilities of the form and a dark journey into a Hellish American underbelly. The images are the cinematograph’s answer to great paintings courtesy of production designer Tim Grimes and director of photography Thomas Townend: the music is an unforgettable, sometimes pounding score by Jonny Greenwood interspersed with classic songs like If I Knew You Were Coming I’d’ve Baked You A Cake, in this context all the more unsettling for their homeliness.

Joaquin Phoenix’s performance is completely out there. One could say he dominates the movie, but actually Ramsay’s images and sounds dominate it just as much as Phoenix does. He has a much bigger role here than he does playing Jesus in Mary Magdalene, out next week. It seems almost disingenuous that of the two roles, You Were Never Really Here is the one that should tower above the medium. Maybe that’s the problem with portraying good and evil: it’s much easier to make evil stand out. Not that Phoenix’s character here is entirely bad: his antihero possesses a certain moral ambiguity.

Joe (Phoenix) is a mercenary employed by rich fathers of disappeared teenage girls to track them down and rescue them from captivity – meaning enforced sex work in houses used by paedophile rings. Joe’s modus operandi is to work out how many people including guards or security are inside, then take a hammer and bludgeon them to death as he encounters them one by one in order to safely remove his client’s daughter and return her to her father.

But this is no linear plot. The narrative is fractured so that, for example, events seen at the start turn up again later on. Were you watching a flashback? A flashforward? These games are constantly played with the audience, so much so that the piece may actually play differently to you if you go back and watch it again. There are moments cutting from the adult Joe to glimpses of him experiencing trauma as a child, for example breathing with a polythene bag over his head. Who is Joe? What happened to him in the past to make him the way he is now? We are given hints but told nothing specific and expected to draw our own conclusions. A multiplicity of interpretations, perhaps?

He constantly looks in on the home of his ageing mother (Judith Roberts) to check she’s okay. When he first visits, she’s been watching a TV rerun of Psycho (Alfred Hitchcock, 1960) and it’s scared her. As in, she’s enjoyed watching a really scary movie. She takes a shower. She’s as independent and strong-willed as he is – and Joe is torn between being frustrated by the fact and being a devoted son. He mimics knife-slashing outside her bathroom door while she showers inside.

The other major female character is Senator’s young daughter Nina (Ekaterina Samsonov), drugged to her eyeballs when Joe rescues her from a paedophiles’ brothel. A young girl with no idea of what’s going on or being done to her. Very different from the seemingly savvy underage child prostitute played by Jodie Foster in Taxi Driver (Martin Scorsese, 1976) and apparently at the opposite end of things from Joe’s own mother – young, healthy and adrift rather than old, frail and anchored. And yet, these archetypes are undermined in the course of the film: mother has become the victim and Nina has been rescued.

Finally, who is Joe? In the closing minutes, he performs an extreme act of violent self-harm right before our eyes. Or perhaps not. Perhaps it’s in his imagination. Or perhaps it isn’t and the narrative’s happy ending is in his imagination.

Cut to somewhere in the middle of the film. Joe has delivered hammer blows to the head of two suited thugs. One of them, who has admitted that he wasn’t the murderer on this occasion, lies dying on the floor. Joe lies down beside him and allows the dying man to hold his hand. A moment of tenderness in the aftermath of violence.

The film constantly shifts the audience’s allegiances like this. Sometimes we warm to Joe. At other times, he’s our worst nightmare. He doesn’t say a lot. The strong script is generally sparse on dialogue, preferring to provide the wherewithal for the film to weave its magic/wreak its havoc in sounds, images, performances, editing and music. As such, it’s a highly visceral experience almost unimaginable in a medium other than cinema. It’s also indubitably dirty in its subject matter, in its manipulation of the cinematic medium and in its dealings with the audience. Even down to its enigmatic title, taken from the book from which it was adapted. If you were never really here, then that begs the question, where were you really? Should you have been here or should you have been somewhere else? Or did you really imagine the whole thing?

You Were Never Really Here was out in UK cinemas on Friday, March 9th. It’s available for digital streaming on Monday, July 2nd.