Papillon

Paris 1931: Safecracker Henri Papillon Charrière (Charlie Hunnam) makes a fatal mistake when, after a heist, he withholds some of the loot from powerful crime boss Castili. In retaliation, he becomes the victim of a frame-up, at the end of which he is innocently accused and convicted of murder. He must serve his sentence in the notorious penal colony of St. Laurent in French Guiana. For Papillon it is clear: He must escape from here. But he needs someone to finance his escape. He finds the ideal candidate in the inconspicuous forger Louis Dega (Rami Malek). Papillon offers him protection in exchange for payment. Guided by an iron will to leave the penal colony as soon as possible, Papillon is able to survive physical and mental torture. But when his first escape attempt fails, he is punished for it in a way that will push him to the limit of his endurance.

Papillon is the second big screen adaptation of Henri Papillon Charrière autobiographical books, following the 1973 classic starring Dustin Hoffman and Steve McQueen. Measured against that film, the remake feels a little too slick and the characters too underdeveloped to achieve similar emotional power. And that's precisely why it's particularly unpalatable that the film is only being released in cinemas in this country in a significantly abridged version. Around 15 minutes were removed for the theatrical release, which will later be included again on DVD and Blu-ray. These are not violent scenes that were cut for a lower release. Rather, they are scenes that serve character development and add some substance to the story.

And this is necessary, because already in the uncut version some moments seem a bit rushed and the characters a bit unelaborated, especially compared to the 1973 version. With the fact that the German distributor apparently doesn't trust its viewers to have enough patience for a film of over two hours (or to pay the overlength surcharge), it hasn't done itself any favours. Because the story doesn't live (only) on the spectacular escape attempts, but on the characters and what the penal colony makes of them.

Charlie Hunnam was obviously at pains to portray Henri Papillon Charrière as authentically as possible. He even allowed himself to be locked in solitary confinement for a week in order to even begin to empathize with what Charrière has had to endure over the years. Still, his acting doesn't always come across as convincing. Especially in scenes where Hunnam tries to convey the desperate struggle for survival purely through his facial expressions, it is revealed that Hunnam is not an actor who can convey emotions believably. His almost stoic manner suited him well in Sons of Anarchy, and his pared-down facial expressions didn't seem out of place in Pacific Rim either. But here, it just would have taken something more to really get the audience attached to the character and carried away by his fate.

Papillon is not a bad film, no question about it. But whether in direct comparison with the 1973 original, or even as a standalone work, it simply has too many flaws to adequately convey the very power of the story. A few great images and depressingly intense moments are still enough, however, to be able to certify the whole thing a worth seeing - although this applies to the shortened theatrical version only with restrictions!

An article by Frankfurt-Tipp