Mel Gibson’s absence from the big screen has spanned from my high school days and through the college years and beyond. I remember watching, for the first time, “We Were Soldiers” during this long absence, roughly three years into it. I was extremely perturbed by his presence, it seemed so foreign an idea to see him in a relatively recent film I had not yet viewed. To see Gibson onscreen in any form.
My first exposure to Gibson was a theatrical trailer of “Conspiracy Theory,” which I was not allowed to see, and “Payback,” the first Gibson film I ever watched in theatres. “Payback” is my touchstone of reference for Gibson’s new film, “Edge of Darkness,” although many say “Ransom” is far more comparable (I have not seen that film.) “Payback” is a tale of revenge, as is “Edge of Darkness,” although for far more superficial reasons, a stolen 70,000$ that is perpetually mistaken for 150,000$.Gibson’s character, Porter, only wants what is fair, what was taken for him. It is here where he shares traits with Thomas Craven, Gibson’s Boston Detective whose daughter is gunned down on his front door.
Gibson plays dotting father cop Thomas Craven, whose only family member, a twenty-something daughter, is home for an unspecified visit. It is early on obvious that she is sick, but before Craven can get her explanation, she is graphically shot-gunned down, sending Craven on mission for justice that uncovers a shady government-contracted plant and even shadier weapons construction. Craven is up against some powerful players, including the head of the corporation and a corrupt Republican senator, and may or may not be being aided by a British clean-up man. Craven’s search for the truth turns violent and lawless when he is left with no other options to fight these economic, political, and social giants.
Both trailers and reviews for “Edge of Darkness” have unfairly cast it as revenge porn, which, quite frankly, I would have been happy with alone. “Mad Mel,” as he was so astutely described in “Entertainment Weekly,” has always been a favorite of mine. However, Thomas Craven uses brains and investigative techniques, and rarely projects bland rage at his antagonists; Craven prefers to learn what he can quietly, raging only when left no other choice. It is in this way that the film becomes something of a hybrid. It is a thriller, not entirely suspenseful but not with the obvious plot some have accused it of, and also a bloody, brutish revenge bath. These two styles fit together quite nicely, as they are both balanced enough within to satisfy the viewer’s thirst for both. Gibson gets his and doesn’t; vengeance is both wrought and punished.
A bit has been said about how the movie’s plot treads in unrealistic waters. This is true to a point. It isn’t believable, as “The New Yorker” ably put it, that “one man, it seems, can stanch the flow of evil.” Yeah, but so what? With every movie out there these days trying to out-realistic the next, it’s a breath of fresh air to see a well-constructed thriller that doesn’t want to induce suicide within the viewer due to it’s unforgiving closeness to said viewer’s real, dreary, miserable life. “Edge of Darkness” isn’t a whodunit, more of a whatnowdunit. Craven’s reaction to his tragedy is perhaps the surprise of the film; satisfaction comes slowly and bitterly in this film.
