Mainstream filmmakers are too obsessed with genre filmmaking. Typically, B movies are a welcome change of pace from the self-serious, proper Hollywood fare released throughout the year. These movies can be thoughtless fun while showcasing exciting new talents who find creative ways to shoot because of a lack of resources or a need to make something interesting out of bad material. But the recent drive toward “elevating” genre filmmaking to the level of high art has hurt more than it has helped its case. B movies can be high art, but the ones considered among the canonical classics are great examples of their genre first. It’s in finding the artistry within the confines of their genres that these films become masterpieces, not in trying to be something more.
Respect to Dev Patel for being so ambitious with his first directorial project. He is the latest in a line of Hollywood not-quite-A-listers to find some control over the films they make by taking over the producing, writing, directing, and acting roles. And although he has collaborators in many of these roles, this is a film that Patel wants to put his stamp on. In an age when mainstream films, especially genre pictures, are overproduced and lacking in vision, “Monkey Man” is as much an auteurist statement as any mainstream director has put out in recent memory.
Unfortunately, Patel isn’t a good filmmaker. At least, not yet. He attempts to elevate a dumb B movie into a grand social statement and ends up with two unsatisfyingly mashed-together movies. The first is a simple revenge tale in the vein of “John Wick” (a franchise “Monkey Man” is so indebted to, that it namechecks the series multiple times). This is the action movie half, full of your standard action movie tropes and unimaginative set pieces. Patel has a decent handling of hand-to-hand combat staging, but anything more than that is straining to keep the viewer engaged. The second is a politically blunt treatise on India’s oppressive, violent treatment of minority groups, social stratification, and the dangers of nationalistic police states. In fairness, this is by far the more interesting half of the film, but it doesn’t blend with the action movie. The pacing is choppy, taking forever to get to another set piece before suddenly launching into 45 minutes of non-stop action. The seriousness with which Patel treats his social commentary melts into the B movie portions, and he forgets to have fun with the film. The filmmaking is so functional — from the compositions to the action staging — that “Monkey Man” becomes too indebted to its story to show off whatever talent Patel might have as a director. And when the narrative is as much of a mess as it is here, there isn’t much to enjoy about the film.
Maybe Patel will be able to find himself in a less chaotic production. The overly brutal violence in the film is quite visceral, even if it doesn’t work for the kind of movie he is making. And Patel has something to say with his work, which cannot be said about most genre filmmakers today. But he doesn’t seem to have the creative intuition to help him thrive as a low-budget filmmaker. There’s not enough spontaneity in his filmmaking and it robs the movie of any personality or emotion. It turns “Monkey Man” into a suffocating slog without much merit.
