Under Suspicion

If you are going to film a cat and mouse game, you’d be well advised to have a very good cat and a very good mouse. “Under Suspicion” manages that, in the redoubtable persons of Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman, but that’s about all it manages. Based upon the movie “Garde à Vue,” which in turn was based upon the book “Brainwash,” this version of the story is static and talky, almost as if it were a play plunked down in front of a camera. A lot of the tricks that director Stephen Hopkins uses to sustain our interest are exactly the sort of things you would do if you were trying to “open up” a play.

But those tricks rarely work, and they certainly don’t here. Even solid, workmanlike acting on the part of the two principals cannot seem to drag this picture out of its rut. Set in San Juan, Puerto Rico, “Under Suspicion” is essentially one long conversation between Hackman’s Henry Hearst, a wealthy lawyer, and Freeman’s police captain Benezet, who suspects Hearst of the rape and murder of two young girls. The interrogation is intercut with flashbacks to events that may or may not have happened precisely the way Hearst says they did. Adding a layer of complexity is the fact that the two men have a personal friendship as well. Unfortunately, the movie takes place mostly in Benezet’s rather poorly lighted office, and, although there are some scenes set elsewhere, the picture has a dark, claustrophobic feel to it, as if they didn’t have quite enough budget to turn on the lights. Even the requisite scenes of a San Juan carnival that happens to be taking place at the same time as the interrogation fail to brighten the tone.

In fact, they are the most clichéd shots in the picture, and they add nothing to the story. One is forced to conclude that they are there solely to try to inject some life into the rather dry proceedings. (The filmmakers do concoct one effective device for the flashbacks; as they are shown, Benezet shows up in them, asking questions about what happened.) Hearst and Benezet spar and circle and challenge each other, in a fine display of master class acting that unfortunately never gets very involving. They engage in mutual accusations, recriminations, and veiled (and not so veiled) threats, but it is hard to see past the spectacle of two actors putting on a show. From a plot standpoint, Hearst's failure to call in a fleet of lawyers the minute things seem to be getting hostile is inexplicable. And when Benezet starts worrying about Hearst “lawyering up,” he sounds like a cop in the squad room over at “NYPD Blue.” Thomas Jane is on hand as the apparently very angry Detective Owens, and, while showing some good screen presence, his role is seriously underwritten. Monica Bellucci, as Chantal, Hearst’s much younger wife, doesn’t have much to do except stand around and look ravishing, a task which she accomplishes with ease.

Bellucci may be a good actress, but it’s hard to tell from her role here. The movie plugs along determinedly but without inspiration, all the way to an ending that is much more deus ex machina than inventive. In the end, not much of significance emerges, other than the not terribly startling revelation that men are often attracted to younger women. Does that make Hearst a murderer? I’ll never tell. It is difficult to discern what attracted Hopkins, not to mention his two stars, to this material, since it seems to offer nothing new. Even as a genre piece it falls short, since the thin script and displeasing look of the picture outweigh the good acting it contains. “Under Suspicion” is a film that only huge fans of these two fine actors should take the time to see. Hackman and Freeman (fresh from his superb work in “Nurse Betty”) battle it out like the skilled elder statesmen that they are, but what they are fighting over doesn’t seem quite worth the effort. (9/23/2000)