Flawless (2007)
Michael Caine - Mr. Hobbs
Demi Moore - Laura Quinn
Michael Radford, director
Edward Anderson, screenwriter
Flawless is a revenge, heist movie.
Set in 1960’s London, Flawless stars Michael Caine as the near-retirement maintenance man at the London Diamond Corporation. Demi Moore is the brilliant, American IVY Leaguer who has eschewed marriage and family to pursue executive-level responsibilities. But she is routinely overlooked for promotion in favor of men who are less deserving and qualified. At first these disappointments fuel her resolve to fight on until she can succeed in her goal to attain a position in the company’s elite executive circle. But the film shows us lots of quick scenes of Quinn alone at home, smoking somewhat despondently, and basically killing time until she can show up at work early (again) only to stay late (again.)
So, we know early in the film that Quinn is facing a kind of injustice, and that she has been plowing tirelessly in a barren field. How long will she last? In fact, the movie begins in the present with Quinn as a much older woman meeting for an interview with a female journalist who is working up a story on the role of woman leaders in business. Early in their meeting Quinn produces an enormous diamond presumably stolen from the London Diamond Corporation. And thus begins the flashback and the movie.
The role of Mr. Hobbs unfolds more slowly. Once Quinn’s plight has been established, Mr. Hoobs informs her about the company’s plan to terminate her. He has overheard this news in a “fly on the wall” sort of way. “It’s amazing what people will say to one another in the presence of the maintenance man,” he tells Quinn.
But, Hobbs says, he has a plan. His plan will balance the scales. Of course, it’s a plan to steal some diamonds. What’s his angle, Quinn asks. Hobbs demurs and pleads his need for retirement security. So, they begin to execute his plan. The key to gaining access to the state of the art safe is having the combination code which Hobbs had conveniently discovered on a type of post-it note one night while cleaning under the CEO’s desk. It’s a simple three digit code like those used for most any right/left/right combination lock. I thought this has to be the dumbest CEO in the history of the world.
In any event, for some reason Hobbs didn’t act on this information at that time so now he must enlist Quinn’s assistance since, as he tells her, the code must have been changed by now she will have to help him discover the new code. He assumes the new code will now be at the home desk of the CEO since it is no longer at his office desk. Fortunately, there is an office party coming up at this home. So, voila, we now see why Hobbs has pursued Quinn’s assistance. Hobbs needs her on board so she can find the new code when she is at the party.
So, in a mini-heist version, Quinn recovers the new code. This all at least makes sense, but still it’s contrived. Hobbs assumption about the whereabouts of the new code is especially gratuitous and silly. But now that they have the code it would seem to be a proverbial piece of cake except the company has just installed brand new security cameras. Quinn panics and despairs. Hobbs holds her steady and encourages her to reveal her observation about the cameras’ blindspot which they deduce can be exploited to gain access to the safe. (I wondered why there was not an alarm on the safe door or at least a camera that records the inside of the safe. How much did they spend on this security system? But I digress.)
At this point, there’s not much more for Quinn to do but look nervous. The action has switched to Hobbs and we watch him gain access to the safe. We watch the camera security guard utterly fail in his duty to, you know, actually watch the monitor.
Fortunately, there is a bit of a twist from this point. And here is where the film redeems itself for me. Up until now it’s been a nice-looking film; well-acted; characters playing recognizable roles. The “female facing the glass ceiling” angle was compelling although I was a little annoyed at the stock portrayal of the corrupt corporate type. And, as I mentioned, there are obvious leaps and contrivances.
Anyway, the film brought to my mind a couple of questions
1. How should we expect justice to be accomplished?
2. Do our actions in the service of justice actually cause even more injustice? And if so, what are we supposed to do?
The film doesn’t seek to answer these questions. I’m not even sure it seeks to ask them. It ends with the revelation that Quinn, at the end of her life, 40 years in a kind of self-imposed exile from her previous life has spent these 40 years distributing the money Hobbs gained through this heist to all kinds of worthy causes.
The film does specifically ask: Are you a giver or a taker? I would say Hobbs and Quinn were both, and aren’t we all.
Posted by brightlightbooks 
Posted by brightlightbooks 
Posted by brightlightbooks 