Le passager

It's weird, this film; you get the impression that the makers of this snooze-fest spent more time in the local bars than on set. In fact, it's a surprise not to see Harry Alan Towers' name on the credits; it certainly has the flavour of one of his tax-shelter productions but here the motivation behind the project seems to be for all involved to enjoy a prolonged stay in Provence. Despite the fact that the film is supposed to take place all over the region, Les Baux and the area around it stands in for almost everything.

David Birney makes for a spectacularly colourless hero - as Michael Lonsdale says at one point "you're a walking cliché". What Lonsdale is doing in this is anyone's guess. For some reason, the most interesting character, played by Rampling, is sidelined, whereas, regardless of the book, she should have been the central figure because she clearly has the skill to carry the movie (which would have been dull anyway, but at least we'd have got more of something pretty to look at).

All in all a pointless affair that is only worth watching to see how action-less an action movie can be.

American Neil Bowman is traveling through France when he meets British photographer Lila. They are hired by French land owner Duc de Croyter to escort a Hungarian scientist to New York. But they soon realize that the job is not a cushy number, and have to deal with a gang of kidnappers who will stop at nothing to get their hands on the scientist.

One of my favourite Alistair Maclean novels is turned into a flat and dull cinematic affair, lacking the excitement, the suspense and thrills that Maclean is renowned for, however there are some bright spots such as the scenery of Provence, the culture, the aerial shots, and some exciting action scenes especially the bullfighting scene at the end. It's just a shame the film overall lacks that spark, not very engaging, and dull. I normally like David Birney and he looks the part but his character isn't too likeable and he smirks most of the time. It's a shame that this doesn't match up with the exciting book. The problem is that the filmmakers deviated significantly from the book, which had a great plot and was tailor made for the big screen, and settled for what now is on film. A big faux pas on their part.

It's not exactly encouraging at the outset; plot development, dialogue, and scene writing alike all feel very thin, and one simply has to accept it at face value or immediately give up outright. David Birney spends a lot of scenes looking like a deer in the headlights, and some supporting cast members similarly don't come off well; in fairness, there are no few times when I can only question Geoffrey Reeve's choices as director. I recognize plenty of swell ideas in every regard, which I assume follow from Alistair MacLean's novel, but even the adapted screenplay has issues with narrative flow, nevermind particular instances of editing or sequencing. There is a complete, cohesive story being told, but the simple fact of the matter is that with the way 'Caravan to Vaccarès' is made, sometimes it really doesn't feel like it.

It all looks good, at least. There are many stunts and effects throughout, and they come off well; the filming locations and production design are excellent. The costume design, hair, and makeup are easy on the eyes; Stanley Myers' score isn't anything special, but it's enjoyable, and lends flavor. The narrative is actually fairly compelling, despite its weak cinematic treatment and the extraordinary leaps of faith it often requires as a viewer. Then again, even the heartiest suspension of disbelief can't withstand some of the storytelling decisions made here, and the Just So sensibilities that characterized the writing from the start collide with distinct dubious moments to place significant, low upper limits on one's engagement and entertainment. It would have taken astonishingly little to realize this as a satirical Euro-spy comedy, but no, it's an earnest action-adventure thriller. This poses a problem.

I don't think 'Caravan to Vaccarès' is altogether bad. It is, however, sadly middling, and even its best ideas just don't amount to much of anything. Insofar as it's enjoyable, it's a title one is able to enjoy very passively, without actively watching. There are worse ways to spend one's time, sure, but even if you're a major fan of someone involved, nor is there any specific reason to watch; Charlotte Rampling and Michel Lonsdale are rather wasted. Oh well. Check it out if you want, I won't stop you. Just don't get your hopes up.

It's a shame that such a lame plot should be hung on such picturesque locations, with some documentary style reportage shoved in for extra length. A shorter film may have held the tension a little more, and a more charismatic lead may not have mangled his lines so much. The female lead also, was not allowed to do enough resulting in a pretty but boring affair. It builds towards the end but the lead actor's own redemption is too little too late and should have been revealed earlier in the film. Not awful, just a pity. Unexciting but nice enough to grace TV schedules of the early hours.

The last time I saw this was in high school on the last day of term when you were allowed to watch a movie in class. We were looking forward to watching something like the Karate Kid when one of our classmates, Murphy, excitedly whipped out this tape THAT HE HAD BROUGHT IN SPECIALLY - this film, Caravan to Tedium. To our utter dismay our Geography teacher put it on and the class spent a double period thoroughly disenjoying themselves watching this Alastair Maclean snoozefest - all except Murphy that is, who was lapping it up big time. When our class wasn't collectively daydreaming about shoving Murphy's face into a vat of pig excrement we endured PG rated thrills and Wednesday afternoon level excitement as Charlotte Rampling and David 'personality' Birney run around dodging bullets while attempting to achieve something tiresome. I watched it again today, so the question is, was it better 34 years later? No, not really. Murphy if you're out there, this unfortunate event may have happened in 1986 but you're still a bell end for instigating it.