This musical movie moment is a bit of a stretch — the song plays for just a bit and very much in the background — but I wanted an excuse to sing the praises of Captain Phillips, so please cut me some slack.
This film rocketed to my top five based on three tried-and-true moviegoing theories, which I will detail below.
Theory One: Expectations Matter
The more you expect of a film, the more likely it is to disappoint you. And the less you expect, the more likely it is to surprise you.
I didn’t expect to love Captain Phillips, for a number of reasons. First, while I acknowledge director Paul Greengrass’ talent, I’ve never been a fan of his shaky camerawork. I’m a fan of strong composition and calculated camera movement, so his handheld documentary style can be distracting and even nauseating.
Second, I had followed the story of the Somalian pirate takeover of a U.S. ship pretty closely in the news, and not too long ago, so the movie didn’t feel entirely necessary. Unlike Zero Dark Thirty, which told the back story of a decade-long hunt for bin Laden as well as taking viewers inside the compound, this movie promised lower stakes and a smaller scale.
Finally, I must have seen the trailer a dozen times over the past six months, to the point that I felt I had seen the film already and couldn’t imagine that it had any surprises in store. And it’s one of those trailers that hits every beat of the film, compounding the problem.
Needless to say, my tempered expectations were wildly exceeded. Greengrass doesn’t overuse the handheld camera but still manages to put you right in the middle of the unfolding action. While there wasn’t a lot more to the story than I already knew (through the news and the trailer), the actual mechanics of what took place were harrowing and fascinating. And the smaller scale proved to be one of the film’s greatest strengths, as it beautifully explored one man’s traumatic experience.
Theory Two: Stick the Landing
Movies with great endings become great movies.
Howard Hawks famously said that to be good a movie needs “three great scenes and no bad ones.” That’s genius. And I’ll take it a step further and say that if one of those great scenes is the movie’s ending, you’ve got the makings of a classic.
Captain Phillips has a phenomenal ending, probably the best of any film I saw in 2013. It sends you staggering out of the theater, overwhelmed. When a movie does that, it doesn’t need to do much else.
Theory Three: Full Heart, Wet Eyes, Can’t Lose
I’m not a crier. I can’t remember ever being moved to actual tears by a work of art. But if a movie makes me well up to the point where it feels like I might cry, I give it extra bonus points. The ending of Captain Phillips did that, big time.
Tom Hanks’ performance over the final ten minutes of the film is staggering in its emotional vulnerability, and I found myself viscerally and physically affected. That experience alone pushed this movie near the top of my year-end list.
Note on the SOTD: Eric Clapton’s ‘Wonderful Tonight’ plays quietly on a computer during an early scene while Captain Phillips exchanges emails with his wife.
She’ll put on her make-up and brushes her long blonde hair.
And then she asks me, “Do I look all right?”
And I say, “Yes, you look wonderful tonight.”
We go to a party and everyone turns to see
This beautiful lady that’s walking around with me.
And then she asks me, “Do you feel all right?”
And I say, “Yes, I feel wonderful tonight.”
I feel wonderful because I see
The love light in your eyes.
And the wonder of it all
Is that you just don’t realize how much I love you.
It’s time to go home now and I’ve got an aching head,
So I give her the car keys and she helps me to bed.
And then I tell her, as I turn out the light,
I say, “My darling, you were wonderful tonight.
Oh my darling, you were wonderful tonight.”
Meet Me In Montauk 
I don’t mind the movie/music connection stretch at all, particularly when it leads to this type of analysis and praise for Captain Phillips. By the way, this song deserves some analysis and praise as well. It’s a classic that works so well in this film, even in the background, because it is such an earnest, authentic and timeless love song. It’s always been one of our favorites.
As for the movie, I agree it was a great one and I like your three theories. On the “expectations” factor, though I think it is absolutely a valid criteria, my own personal expectations, both generally, and specifically as to this film are a bit different. I happen to really like the director’s past work, particularly the gripping United 93, though I too am not normally a huge fan of shaky camera work. This guy has proven that he REALLY knows how to tell a true story you thought you knew with incredible authenticity and emotion. Both Unite and Phillips in the hands of a lesser visionary could have become cheesy movie of the week fare. Instead, they were nothing close to that. So knowing Greengraas directed this made me want to see it more, not less.
Second, while I certainly remember the pirate incident, I didn’t follow it so closely that I felt I couldn’t learn more. Besides, I, like everyone else, thought we knew the United 93 and 9/11 story throu news, but that didn’t diminish the greatness of that film
Third, I too saw the trailer a lot, but it only made me want to see the whole film more. Frankly, as far as expectations go, it arguably begins and ends with Tom Hanks. Put that guy in your teaser preview and expectations go way up in a good way.
I, like Dana, was eager to see the film based on Hanks, and, especially, Greengrass (because of his deft handling of United 93), though the trailers left me cold (lowering my expectations and annoying me that the filmmakers were “giving everything away.”) When we saw the film, I knew as soon as Catherine Keener’s face (or at least the sliver of it you get to see) was on screen that we were in good hands. The use of “Wonderful Tonight” worked for all the reasons Dana mentions, and, like you, by the end of the film, I was emotionally spent (and had cried buckets of tears, no “welling up” for me).
The only thing I’d add to the expectation theory is that I was concerned that our love for the film and high praise of it might then raise your expectations, causing you to be disappointed, as sometimes has happened in the past. Since we saw it the first weekend it came out, in a great theater in the heart of Boston, we only had to deal with whatever expectations were raised (or lowered) by the usual methods… we didn’t have the additional burden of awards buzz, coffee cooler chat, etc. to combat.
Love this song; love this movie!
I, too, loved this movie. I did have some expectations since we lived in Vermont and it was a huge story there because Capt. Phillips was from Vermont. But the ending, the ending, I welled up just reading your comments about that ending. I wouldn’t mind at all if he won the academy award this year; I’ve always loved him as an actor, and he nailed this one.
Interesting and well-expressed piece. I challenge only the expectations theory. The film exists regardless of the audience expectation. Expectation has everything to do with the viewer and nothing to do with the film, which will remain what it is – for ever.
Unless it was made by George Lucas. 🙂
Expectations have everything to do with the viewer, but the quality of a film is subjective, and therefore only expressed in terms of each viewer.
Every audience member brings a certain amount of baggage to a film that colors his experience. I mentioned yesterday that part of why I enjoy Frozen is that its characters remind me of my daughters. Had I watched the film 12 years ago, that wouldn’t have been the case.
My interest in Bob Dylan’s early years certainly made me more receptive to Inside Llewyn Davis, just as my disdain for millennial angst made me less receptive to Frances Ha.
Expectations are another form of baggage. If you expect a film (or an album, or a pastry) to be the best thing you’ve ever experienced, it is more likely to disappoint.
I’d argue that the only thing approaching an objective assessment of a film as “good” is the consensus of many different viewers (each with his or her own biases).
First, and most importantly, your first line literally made me laugh out loud! 🙂
No argument with that perspective. It’s one that applies to every art form., individual experiece shapes the reader/viewer/listener response. I just think that if I had to reduce to three my criteria to film quality, viewer expection would not be one of them. Unless George Lucas made the film.
I’m not sure that Clay was suggesting that the viewer’s expectations have anything to do with whatever “objective” quality exists within the film. Rather, that such quality is likely to be considered in the context of what a viewer anticipates. If you think you’re going to see a mediocre film, and the film winds up stunning you with magnificent performances, a subtle script, or beautiful cinematography, you’re more likely to be “blown away” than if you go into that same film expecting it to be the best film you’ve ever seen. The film is the film, but the experience is quite different.
I’m not sure I’m getting the “George Lucas” references ?? Help.
Doug said “the film will remain what it is – for ever” so I referenced Lucas, who has a horrible habit of adding new elements to his old films and re-releasing them.
Ahhh, thanks for clearing that up for me 🙂