While it can reasonably be argued that we have too few films about failure, that the real-life story of Donald Crowhurst is a somehow-dramatic and intriguing one, that Britain was once a country in which the hard-struggling amateur was lionised, and that ... several other things; this 2018 film from James Marsh is ultimately going to strike most viewers as a waste-of-time film about a waste-of-time action. Notwithstanding the presence of Rachel Weisz, Colin Firth, David Thewliss, Mark Gattis and others doing all that might be expected of them (Weisz probably more), a film that starts off looking erudite ends up looking stuck up its own backside with wordy portentousness (notwithstanding the probability that the words we hear are actually from Crowhurst's own diary entries).
The bottom line remains that for the crazy and highly selfish-looking reasons characteristic of many professional "adventurers" (be they climbers, sailors, explorers or whatever), a rank and conceivably deluded amateur who couldn't get his home-made boat ready on time set off to meet a challenge he could not possibly meet, and so lied, went increasingly mad with loneliness, discomfort and guilt, and ended up leaving forever a loving family he loved dearly to manage without him.
While there may be no way - and no need - to put a positive spin on that, a film that chooses this subject matter has to adopt one tack (pardon the pun) or other. Are we trying to understand why Crowhurst and others not entirely dissimilar from him do what they do? Are we trying to blame those who egg adventurers on for the former's pleasure/entertainment (as Weisz's last lines in the film would suggest)? Are we trying to ridicule the whole enterprise, or even to condemn Crowhurst? Are we trying to say that it is good we still have people like this? Are we trying to say that Crowhurst's voyage was great ... even though basically it wasn't?
Perhaps there are elements of all of these approaches in "The Mercy", but nothing seems to crystallise sufficiently to make this film any less messy than the cabin of Crowhurst's boat...
The bottom line remains that for the crazy and highly selfish-looking reasons characteristic of many professional "adventurers" (be they climbers, sailors, explorers or whatever), a rank and conceivably deluded amateur who couldn't get his home-made boat ready on time set off to meet a challenge he could not possibly meet, and so lied, went increasingly mad with loneliness, discomfort and guilt, and ended up leaving forever a loving family he loved dearly to manage without him.
While there may be no way - and no need - to put a positive spin on that, a film that chooses this subject matter has to adopt one tack (pardon the pun) or other. Are we trying to understand why Crowhurst and others not entirely dissimilar from him do what they do? Are we trying to blame those who egg adventurers on for the former's pleasure/entertainment (as Weisz's last lines in the film would suggest)? Are we trying to ridicule the whole enterprise, or even to condemn Crowhurst? Are we trying to say that it is good we still have people like this? Are we trying to say that Crowhurst's voyage was great ... even though basically it wasn't?
Perhaps there are elements of all of these approaches in "The Mercy", but nothing seems to crystallise sufficiently to make this film any less messy than the cabin of Crowhurst's boat...