A stupid point of view

In case you didn’t know, we are currently involved in a war on terror.

If you turn on any cable news station, you’ll hear (accompanied by some fantastic logos) a lot of phrases like “We had the world’s sympathy,” or “Act strong or be strong” or something equally cliche. Talking points are repeated endlessly, and yes, we are always reminded of the endless war.

Vantage Point, a new thriller starring Dennis Quaid and Forest Whitaker, uses those very same quotes, and wants to make sure you know about the war just as fervently as the news does. The film blasts the topic into the audience’s psyche at least twice as many times as the film changes perspectives. And all the audience gets is a film that offers no substance of any kind.

The story is set in Spain during an anti-terrorist summit. It’s a landmark event with leaders from around the world signing a treaty to vanquish terror from the earth after a deadly attack on American interests. Crowds of people have gathered to watch the leaders speak before signing the treaty.

But something goes awry. Very awry.

The president is shot, bombs explode, and we are taken through the panic of the moment several times through the eyes of different witnesses, a news crew, secret servicemen and the terrorists themselves. Each perspective offers a piece of the puzzle for the secret service, which is trying to track down the culprits. Thomas Barnes, played by Dennis Quaid, is one of these secret servicemen trying to solve the mystery by quickly reviewing video captured by the news and bystanders.

Suspense is what works best for Vantage Point. Each time the narrative resets to noon and begins with a new viewpoint, it’s enjoyable to get more of the story. As the movie progresses, though, this trick becomes old hat–��Vantage Point‘s strongest hand folds 30 minutes in. What started as a solid thriller devolves into cliché dialogue, boring twists (the second biggest one revealed in the preview trailer), illogical events and predictable scenes that try very hard at being nail-biters. But it gets worse.

Vantage Point, like the Kurosawa masterpiece Rashomon, tells the story of a samurai that ends up dead. This is the only fact the handful of witnesses and participants can agree on, and the film is structured through each of their individual vantage points. The film employs a landmark narrative that challenges the concept of truth. Vantage Point uses the same technique, but doesn’t challenge anything.

Instead of a measured look or critique into differing perspectives (like in Rashomon), Vantage Point provides a colorless thriller featuring obligatory chase scenes through foreign streets, and we’re expected to be satisfied when yet another fruit stand is obliterated by a fast car.

Maybe the film explores how the differing “vantage points” affect these people’s ideologies? Nope. Does the film offer a modern update on the themes of Rashomon by arguing for or against the idea of photographic imagery being just as subjective as human perception? Not at all.

Maybe Vantage Point is just as vacuous as the faux debates on cable since 9/11, without any irony, or self-awareness? Bingo. Even when judged as a vapid thriller, this film often misses the mark of its genre.

Vantage Point doesn’t need to explore that subject matter, but the opportunity seems ripe for a critique of the multiplication of digital perspectives. Why do I assume this film has to say something? Why can’t it just be another entertaining thriller? Because that’s not what it’s trying to do; it’s blatantly trying to be relevant to topical events, but offers nothing of interest to the subject. The disagreement and opinions coming from the characters sound like they’ve been taken straight from CNN’s Crossfire.

The dictionary definition of “vantage point” is a place or position affording a good view of something. Vantage Point doesn’t even offer its own definition.