Original title: The 15:17 to Paris · Clint Eastwood · USA · 2018 · Script: Dorothy Blyskal · Interpreter: Anthony Sadler, Alek Skarlatos, Spencer Stone…
The same thing happens with Clint Eastwood's films as with many other established creators.. When it is perceived that it is right, everyone joins the celebration. When you sense that you have failed, most commentators seem very willing to take the supposed setback for granted. But, in my humble opinion, It is surprising the lightness with which certain analyzes are made that, more often than it should, They forget that Eastwood is a more intelligent filmmaker than he seems and that, even in his minor works, hides some pearls that we cannot despise. ¿Es 15:17 train to paris a good movie? Bueno, well it depends. Is it well built? Yeah. Do you get what you are looking for? In spades. It is true that, in its development, there are some dead spaces, as we will see. It's true, also, that a part of the message it contains may be indifferent to us. However, as we said, That does not mean that it does not contain some things of interest to us..
The key to our thesis can be found in one of the apparently least relevant sequences of the film.. Spencer Stone, one of the protagonists of this story, He is in the middle of a class at a military base where he is preparing to enter the army., when an alarm announces the imminence of an attack. It's not a drill, It's a real assault. Following the protocol, all students, together with the teacher who teaches the class, They hide under the desks waiting for what is going to happen. But Stone doesn't seem very happy with that passive role in the action.. If the base is under attack, he wants to do something. So, neither short nor lazy, comes out of hiding and, against orders, He stands next to the classroom door with a pen in his hand as the only defense ready to face the aggressors. After a few tense seconds of waiting, the sirens turn off. It was a false alarm, announces one of the soldiers at the base. More relaxed, all the students return to their desks and evaluate the situation. But, although Stone feels satisfied with his act, You are not going to receive the praise you expected. With some sarcasm, the teacher asks the class: Who thinks Stone has been an asshole?? Most people raise their hands.
Anthony Sadler, Alek Skarlatos and Spencer Stone are three childhood friends who are going to live an extraordinary experience: on the way from Amsterdam to Paris during a European vacation, an Islamist terrorist attacks the train they are traveling on with the intention of committing an attack. In a fit of courage, Stone, Skarlatos and Sadler launch themselves against the terrorist ready to stop him. And there the thing remains. From that moment, The film takes a trip to the past and tells us about the lives of these men, from their childhood to that crucial moment in their lives when they will become heroes.
What interested me least about this 15:17 train to paris? Well, first of all, the theme. Eastwood takes us by the hand to introduce us to the lives of these three heroes so that we know their concerns, your personal development and everything that, we understand, encouraged the decision to intervene in that complicated situation. Forks, on this ground, where one can feel more distant from the film and its three main characters (interpreted by the real men who lived the events it narrates). It's not so much that Eastwood has portrayed their lives poorly., such as the fact that what motivates them may seem foreign to us or, simply, do not lean on us. His emphatic patriotism, his childhood passion for weapons, his dull school life, that desire to enter the army (as if there was no other way to “serve” your country), his devotion to the culture of effort and sacrifice, his routine family life, your tastes and hobbies (drink beer, watch football lying in an armchair) They show us three ordinary men in everyday situations without great dramatic interest. This persistence to show us that everyday life in a very realistic way makes, besides, despite its tight footage (barely an hour and a half long), There are moments when the pace of the film suffers, how it happens, For example, on that long trip through Europe of which they offer us many details, perhaps unnecessary, and which will culminate with the train sequence. And so, on the edge of the credits, the final speech in honor of the heroes of that act of bravery delivered by the authentic former president François Hollande, and the prayers of Private Stone in which he refers to his mission to fill this world with love and that gives meaning to his life, they may seem corny to us, a closing that only comes to highlight that somewhat snooty tribute, depending on which passages, What Eastwood does to his protagonists.
Everything described above could distance us from this film, but, as we said at the beginning, here's something else. Because what Eastwood has done in his latest production is nothing more than his umpteenth update of that hero (even if there are three, Deep down the center of everything is Stone) that so much populate other films from his already long filmography. Eastwood's traditional hero is an independent man who, in the face of adversity, decides to take the bull by the horns, breaking the rules imposed by society and a bureaucracy, that of the army in this case, that of prudence and “common sense”, to solve problems that threaten him or those around him. in another world, with another aesthetic, with another tone, and in these terms that I mention, Doesn't the young soldier Stone have a lot in common with other names in fiction like Walt Kowalski? (Gran Torino), Butch Haynes (a perfect world) o Bill Munny (No forgiveness), to give some examples? It's just that the hero of 15:17 train to paris has lost that epic aura that illuminated many of these characters. this hero, Stone (also his two companions) he is a simple man. In fact, as we said above, doesn't seem very smart. He doesn't do well at school, fails to pass the tests that entitle him to enter the army as a soldier and, together with his companions, shows signs of a somewhat simple character. Es, we said above, a bit of an asshole. Even his act of heroism can be understood as a recklessness that only luck has allowed to turn out well. (we will not give clues about it). But luck is also an element to take into account in life.. And it is that, sometimes, the unthinkable can happen. However, to make it happen, we need a Stone to take the first step. And that's when everything stated in the film makes sense and we see the director's true strategy., Well, what has happened is not something that Eastwood invented, it really happened. that day, that crazy and daring act, recklessness of Stone and his friends to confront the terrorist, saved many lives. And now?
As it happened in The sniper, Eastwood takes the public and puts them at a crossroads (to some, others will not have this conflict). It would be quite easy to classify these three characters into a perfectly recognizable label.. If we sat at the bar of a bar to chat with them, We would soon discover that we don't have much to say to each other or, doing the exercise of starting a conversation, we would probably hit the wall of a kind of postulates (those who pronounce throughout the film, product, among other things, of his religious education) against which it would be difficult to bring in other kinds of arguments. There is nothing else in their lives that is noteworthy.. Stone, Skarlatos and Sadler are, besides, and depending on the point of view from which we see them, failures in almost any field in which they have tried to put their efforts. Stone fails to join an army that questions his intellectual aptitudes, Skarlatos is a downright clumsy soldier. (memorable Afghanistan scene), and we know or sense from Sadler that he will never excel in a job for which any notable qualification is required because, simply, does not store any (He has no training nor does he seem to have many skills.). What interest do they have?, so? Apparently, none. So, What did Eastwood intend?? Well, what he wanted is for us to know them intimately., remove them from the anonymity of the mere recounting of events on a page of the newspaper and present them as a close relative with whom we may have little in common, but whom we do not see as a stranger, but to someone we live with, and that is why the bulk of the film has focused on describing their lives.. Eastwood breaks the barrier that distances us (sentimental, politically, even) and forces us to place ourselves next to these men with whom, in no other circumstances, we would have a lot to see, to force us to walk with them and invite us to understand that, with its many miseries, They are ordinary people. In the end, although they have made us blush for a few moments, they don't seem like bad guys. Nos dice Eastwood: They are part of society, These people... also count. Is Eastwood right?? Well, this will depend on how each person feels about the question.. But what there is no doubt is that this is what he intended and he has done it impeccably.. Not taking these nuances into account, it would be negligent.
A few last lines to dedicate to the brilliant final scene, the one about the train assault, with which Eastwood closes this feature film. A sign that, whoever wants to defenestrate him as director, is very wrong. It is not only the mastery with which he manages the timing of what we could define as dramatic tension., is that he has achieved a sequence of strong physical emotion. Eastwood cuts the sequence into multiple planes like the best Hitchcock would do., imposing an overwhelming rhythm that catches us in every frame. But where it really gets us involved is in the treatment of those bodies that fight for mere survival.. And there we feel in our own flesh each blow, every wound, every bruise, the difficult confrontation of bodies that desperately confront each other, no tricks, until the last breath. There are no nuances in this situation. It is about, in this case, to die or stay alive. Pure cinema. GERARDO LEON
