“Duplicity”: The Truth Is So Boring

A little over 30 minutes into Duplicity (2009), Ray Koval (Clive Owen) and Claire Stenwick (Julia Roberts), if those are their real names, agents, respectively, for MI6 and the CIA, have just spent three carefree days in a Rome resort filled with lovemaking and room service. You know, how most of us spend our Labor Day weekends. They are laying in bed. Romantic flamenco guitar lilts on the soundtrack. But then……

Claire realizes she has missed her wakeup call. She’s supposed to be in Geneva. So what? wonders Ray. He was supposed to be in Cairo two days ago. “You told me London,” exclaims Claire. “The point is I blew it off,” replies Ray. She wants to be sure no one called. He points out she was in the room. She points out she’s a heavy sleeper. Back and forth they go. Parry and riposte. He’s convinced she’s playing him. She’s convinced he’s playing her.

It turns again. Claire says: “I’m thinking how terrible it is that I think that way. Then I realize we both think that way. Then I’m thinking, is that what makes this so worth it?” Maybe it is. Maybe, they wonder, if they team up they can acquire, say, a cool $40 million and live like it’s a three day weekend in Rome seven days a week every week.

Really, though? Is that REALLY what they want most? Because later there is another scene in another scenic hotel (this time in Miami) where Ray explains he has placed himself in the midst of a war between two companies and this might be their play for the scheme of a lifetime only to then have Claire explains she has placed herself in the midst of a war between two different companies and that this might be their play for the scheme of a lifetime. They will both have to follow through, to not look suspicious and to ferret out which one is better. They sit down in front of a wide open vista of clear blue water. “This is what we wanted,” says Claire. Of course, she’s not talking about the hotel and the wide open vista of clear blue water.

Essentially every scene Ray and Claire share ends in or at the very least contains an argument. Later when they meet up in The Cleve (Duplicity really globe trots) Claire calls Ray out for having a pair of, ahem, womanly panties that are so obviously not hers. Of course, they actually are hers, because she was just testing Ray. “You still don’t trust me,” says Ray. Ray must say “You still don’t trust me” at least 266 times in this movie.

Tony Gilroy, writer/director of Duplicity, adores mind games. In The Bourne Identity, which he wrote, a man pulled from the sea finds he has an account number to a safety deposit box in Zurich (huh?), is fluent in German (er…) and can kung-fu anyone to death (what the what?). Michael Clayton, which he wrote and directed, opens with Michael Clayton’s car blowing up as he stops to say hi to some horses and then rewinds (sort of) and unfolds as a non-linear jigsaw puzzle with so many pieces only Gilroy himself seems able to see how they all go together. And Duplicity might be his twistiest work thus far, a film stacked with switchbacks.

My first time with it I confess I had nowhere near a full grasp of all that was happening and who exactly was who and so on and so forth. I could not have cared less. Others, however, did not share this mindset. “But shouldn’t even a film constructed around a labyrinthine espionage plot have to make actual narrative sense?” Slate’s film critic Dana Stevens asked. “(I)s it too much to ask that a spy movie unravel its secrets, at least the explicitly plot-bound ones, on a single viewing?” Perhaps it isn’t too much ask, perhaps it is, and though I can attest the movie makes more narrative sense on its second and third viewings I fear focusing on logistics with Duplicity can potentially undermine its sheer entertainment.

Everyone in Duplicity gets off on mind games. The Presidents, played brilliantly and comically by Paul Giamatti and Tom Wilkinson, of the two corporations for whom Ray and Claire go to work, do not enjoy earning their millions and billions of bucks as much as they enjoy engaging one another in mind games. Ray gets off on mind games. Claire gets off on mind games. And so their relationship is not so much about the result of the con as it is about the con itself. In the end, Duplicity is not so much about goverment espionage as emotional espionage. It’s a rom com with leads who prefer lies to truth, most especially if their (loosely defined) significant other is the one doing the lying.

In the last scene, when the con has not, for reasons I will not reveal, gone precisely as intended, Ray opines “At least we have each other.” To which Claire replies: “It’s really that bad, isn’t it?”

DID YOU LIKE “DUPLICITY”?

TAGS: , , ,

7 Comments

  1. Andrew K. says:

    DUPLICITY is the unlikely romance/comedy/thriller/farce which gets so much better upon re-watch – and I liked it from the onset. For one, I think it’s Gilroy’s finest hour. A joyful mix of genres and styles and incredibly (sometimes improbably) fun. Significantly, too, it features a sharp performance from Julia Roberts and a well utilised supporting cast.

    I’d be speculating of course, but I always think that the somewhat cold (albeit vaguely positive) initial reaction was because the film itself was so unusual in its “comedy”.

    • Nick Prigge says:

      I’m still slightly partial to “Michael Clayton” over this one, but only slightly. A great one-two.

      And I think there’s something to your theory. It’s not a traditional rom com, not at all, and it can be confusing and when you combine confusing with untraditional, well, that’s not always a good box office recipe.

  2. ruth says:

    Even with the fine Clive, I found this movie so darn boring!! My guest blogger just talked about this movie today and how Gilroy disappoint on his second feature after the excellent Michael Clayton.

  3. Rs says:

    The movie was average. Felt like it thought it was being really clever when it wasn’t.

    No one however, seems to notice the massive plot hole (or lack of motive). So we understand more and more how the main protagonists deceive their employers and so on to steal the formula. So far, fine. Then we discover it was all a ploy to make Paul giamattis character ruin his company. Again fine. BUT in order to do that the other CEO had to have inside people in the other team which he did. SO what the hell was he point in ‘duping’ the main two: it requires not only the same amount of resources (Ie moles), remember he already had one inthe other team, giamatti could have been fooled anyway. Moreover we’re supposed to believe he actively sought these two out to do the plot. This is simply mad: they aren’t necessary to dupe giamatti, he doesn’t know (or have a greviance against) them, including an additional dupe (against the main two) just raises the risk of being found massively.

    This is one of the types of plot holes I hate. It’s not logistically wrong per se, but totally fails to be credulous on a human level: it can’t remotely rationalise a motive for what people are doing. Surely a movie (book/play) fails when characters do things for dramatic effect for no tangible benefit or defined motive.

    Think about it. Why on earth Would Tom wilkinsons character bother with finding a pair of fraudsters he doesnt know who could be placed in such a way that they would both steal the formula they believe to be real (just for fun?) whilst simultaneously planting both the formula and its fake purpose inthe mind of another CEO to ruin a rival (seems more of a priority). No one would go to the extra trouble of the first bit. It sticks out as a sore thumb as ‘for the sake of a twist’.

    Bah! Terrible.

  4. Rs says:

    Fair point. The characters and story telling should in principle make up for plot oversights, but given what came before the dominant reaction to the twist was finding myself thinking

    “wait, what? Sorry no way”

    When you could almost hear the screenwriters anticipating the response

    “I never saw that coming how clever!”

Leave a Comment


Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

Trackbacks