A Bland and Chaotic Remake: “Papillon” (2017)
A lackluster remake of a Hollywood classic that fails to offer anything new to Henri Charrière’s story.
Henri Charrière, a safecracker nicknamed “Papillon” (Butterfly), is framed for murder and sentenced to a penal colony in French Guiana, from which he is never expected to return. But Papillon has other plans. With the help of a wealthy counterfeiter, Louis Dega, he plots his escape. And then another. And another.
The idea of remaking “Papillon” (1973) seemed questionable from the start – not because Schaffner’s original, a pioneer of “New Hollywood,” is inherently difficult to surpass. The problem is that Henri Charrière’s memoirs have inspired so many escape stories, spawning countless plot devices and tropes within the genre, that a reimagining of his story is inevitably derivative. The new “Papillon” finds itself in the position of a simulacrum – a copy of a copy, whose original, if it ever existed, is now irrelevant.
Danish director Michael Noer, inexplicably chosen to remake an American classic, could have been saved only by a fresh perspective, a different angle, perhaps a unique tone. However, the changes Noer brings to “Papillon” are neither improvements nor attempts to create something new. They are a plague, a typical ailment of sequels and reboots: the desire to make everything bigger, bolder, brighter, to maximize all the positive aspects.
The result is the opposite: in an attempt to expand the story and show more of Charrière’s life, Noer severely disrupts the pace, gets lost in the events, and ultimately turns the film into a chaotic mess. This drastically diminishes the value of certain episodes in the hero’s life. For example, the final escape, which should be the culmination of Papillon’s years-long struggle for freedom, takes up barely three minutes. And the final jump, one of the most powerful scenes in the original, loses its sense of doom in the new film. The jagged rocks of Devil’s Island seem to pose no threat to the hero. Here, all Henri needs to escape is, just like in sentimental postcards, to simply believe in himself.
Over the Top Brutality
Liters of blood, guts, excrement, protein-pumped bodybuilders instead of emaciated prisoners, literal butterflies instead of symbolic ones – the new “Papillon” tries its best to create an image of a brutal, harsh, and unscrupulous film. But this brutality is akin to that of professional wrestling matches: it may look impressive, but it’s all too contrived. Even Charrière’s hallucination scenes come across as showy, as if shouting, “Look what I can do!” They don’t feel like something a person who has spent years in solitary confinement might see – more like a clumsy attempt to play with cheap symbolism.
Miscasting and Missed Opportunities
It hardly matters that Charlie Hunnam is no Steve McQueen, and Rami Malek’s portrayal of Dustin Hoffman’s character is more like a parody. The total miscasting of the actors is lost among other missteps, turning “Papillon” from a classic tale into a far from stellar episode of the “Prison Break” series.