Ransom
I watched Ron Howard’s “Ransom” 18 times in theatres. Yes, that is way too many for any movie, but especially one about the kidnapping of a child. Some context is required. My mother was a lunatic for Mel Gibson in the 1990s (it subsided many years ago), and in many ways, I was along for the ride. She watched his movies more than I did, and this one was 26 for her. I genuinely loved this movie at the time, though (some of those were solo viewings), and watching it with 23 years removed, I was impressed by how well it holds together as a thriller, and a star vehicle, even if Mel Gibson’s star faded long ago.
I’ve always wanted to watch the 1956 Glenn Ford thriller this movie takes its name from, and that intrigued returned on this viewing. This may be one of my very favorite crime and suspense movies of all-time, and a huge part of that is the way Howard and his screenwriters, Alexander Ignon and, especially, Richard Price, structure the film. The film has a bit of Hitchcock’s “The Man Who Knew Too Much” in it, as Gibson’s Tom Mullen, an airline tycoon, and his wife, Kate (Rene Russo), deal with the kidnapping of their son, Sean (Brawley Nolte, the son of Nick Nolte), in broad daylight, but what makes this film interesting is how we follow the kidnappers as much, and in a way, more so than the Mullens. Howard has made a handful of thrillers in his career (“Backdraft” before this film, and the Dan Brown adaptations afterwards), but none have quite the impact that this one does. We see the kidnapping primarily from Tom and Kate’s perspective after Sean is taken, but we also start by seeing the kidnappers prepare the room they will hold him in, and stake out the science fair in Central Park they’re snatching him at. This makes it feel less like a star vehicle and more like a character study, as we see the different dynamics that pop up around Tom and Kate, and the people holding their son. In 1996, this film felt as good as “Fargo” did in how it used the trope of a kidnapping to reveal things about the people involved in it. I don’t feel quite that way now, but “Ransom” has some chops that surprise me to this day.
This film is, primarily, a star vehicle for Gibson, but my goodness the cast he has around him is excellent. As his wife, Russo may give her best performance (although 1996’s “Tin Cup” and 1999’s “The Thomas Crown Affair” are up there). Between this and the last two “Lethal Weapon” films, it’s obvious that her and Gibson had a genuine chemistry and affection for one another that feeds into the moments they share together, whether it’s the tenderness after the party that opens the film; the terror that simmers after they lose Sean; the disconnect that exists after Tom makes a bold choice in trying to get Sean back; and the anger she feels towards him after it looks like he got Sean killed. This is as fully formed a character as she has ever played, and it’s one that isn’t content to just stand on the sidelines and let her husband take care of everything. As Lonny, the FBI agent on the case, Delroy Lindo is fantastic as a by-the-books lawman who does what he can to keep it that way, but adapts, if necessary, to the situation, as it unfolds. As the kidnappers, Liev Schreiber and Donnie Wahlberg are brothers who care for one another, but have different outlooks on the situation, and Evan Handler is very funny as the tech genius behind the calls, with Lili Taylor showing some steel in trying to exert her will with all three. Gary Sinise is also in the film as detective Jimmy Shaker, who has an unexpected role to play in all of this, and, in one discussion with Mullen, brings up a theory for why he might have been targeted by discussing the classic sci-fi film, “The Time Machine,” with its above-ground Elois giving little regard to the Morlocks who do the heavy work below the surface. The haves vs. the have nots. This is a message for Mullen to start realizing that he isn’t immune to the dangers people who don’t have his wealth and influence have to struggle with every day, even if his relationship with Jackie Brown (Dan Hedaya, in a riveting single scene), who is behind bars for facilitating union kickbacks, suggests otherwise. That Howard and his writers- and Price was established to have been a big part of crafting the final script- managed to fit so much depth and compelling story threads into a two-hour potboiler is a credit to them as storytellers and filmmakers.
Howard’s work as a director has rarely been better. This came on the heels of “Apollo 13” and the underrated “The Paper,” and the breathless energy he instilled into both of those films with his longtime editors, Mike Hill and Dan Hanley, is front and center here. His cinematographer, Piotr Sobocinski, and he have made a film that looks darker and grittier than anything else the director has made before or since, and the way they shoot sequences like the kidnapping, the first drop attempt, Tom’s big move against the kidnappers in the film, and especially a final phone call that led to Gibson’s famous call to “Give me back my son!” is fluid, engaging, and earns that approach. This is a film where each scene matters in one way or another, and while some of those scenes feel a bit more contrived than others (such as one involving Kate and the kidnappers), they all lead up to the final sequence where things play out in both an expected, and unexpected way, between Mullen and the kidnappers. The final piece to the puzzle is the soundtrack. Originally, Howard Shore was set to write the score, but Howard was evidently not a fan, so he turned to his longtime composer, James Horner (coming off of duel nominations for “Apollo 13” and Gibson’s “Braveheart”), and rewatching the film, it not only made me miss Horner, but also remember why I loved this soundtrack so much. Yes, Horner reworks familiar motifs and musical colors, but this is its own beast compared to his work for both Howard and Gibson, and some of the cues are among his best. Adding to the musical atmosphere are original tracks by Smashing Pumpkins’s frontman Billy Corgan, which played at the kidnapper’s hideout to mask their voices from Sean. It’s a great touch, and has me relistening to the soundtrack as I write this.
That brings us to Gibson, who not only was nominated for Best Actor at the Golden Globes, but whose face is all over the poster. This film is, first and foremost, a star vehicle, and it’s Gibson at the peak of his powers as an actor. Other performances are better, but this is definitely in the top 5 of his work as an actor, and regardless of how profoundly flawed and broken Gibson seems as a human being right now, there’s no question that he is one of the most magnetic screen presences of the past 40 years. His Tom Mullen is a natural extension from Mad Max, Martin Riggs and William Wallace, a seemingly invincible force with a vulnerable emotional core where his natural tendency is tested, and he makes choices that seem rash, but are well within his character. Gibson has always been an underappreciated actor, I think, and this remains one of my favorite performances of his. The big moments in this movie have weight because of the way Gibson and his co-stars invest these characters with a humanity that has always been one of the best parts of Ron Howard’s work. That he took care to do so in a dark thriller is a credit to him, and the people he worked with in bringing this movie to the screen. It remains a pretty great one.
