The Mauritanian and The Report – 2 Reviews and a Mystery

When I recently prioritized watching the films that could make it onto my top ten list for 2021, I did not include The Mauritanian. The critics did not seem to be impressed, and I’d heard little buzz. So, even though I’d had it earmarked for some time, I decided to wait until my top ten were done. Mistake.

I believe The Mauritanian to be impressively made while telling a very important story, and it would easily have made my top ten list for 2021. The story is that of Mohamedou Slahi, imprisoned without charge at Guantanamo Bay following 9/11 and represented in court by pro bono crusader, Nancy Hollander. The acting is excellent, especially performances by Jodie Foster, Tahar Rahim and Benedict Cumberbatch. I thought the style of storytelling was artistically shaped and made the right impact (and this is not an easy impact). And I thought it was fair storytelling; this should be a film for everyone, whatever one’s politics.

I followed up my viewing by watching The Report, which deals with a similar theme – the torture that was government sanctioned at Guantanamo. It’s an excellent complement to The Mauritanian, filling in many details from a different point of view – in this case, it’s the story of Daniel Jones as he persevered in investigating, writing and insisting on the public communication of the Senate investigation into CIA torture.

Before I compare them (to make a point), I want to be quite clear that I recommend both films. These are important films; watching them should be somewhat parallel to Germans being made to see images of the concentration camps. This is history that we must know and feel or we will make the same mistakes again. And the films are not just stories of moral outrage, but they clearly demonstrate why Guantanamo should be seen as a huge mistake from all sides.

But here’s the mystery: The Mauritanian was relatively panned by critics (53 on Metacritic) and completely snubbed by the Oscars (though not by BAFTA). The Report was, appropriately, not a huge critical favourite, but it did score a significantly higher 66 on Metacritic. And yet, I can’t help but believe that The Mauritanian was a far better film than The Report. What’s going on here?

Both films are quite “earnest” in approach; these are serious dramas based on true stories. But The Mauritanian feels human and framed in a powerful and effective way; whereas The Report feels nearly like a documentary that is heavy-handed and dry. One frustrates you in way that you feel deep in your gut and the other in a way that is more intellectual. The acting is probably ok in The Report, but it’s hampered by mediocre writing that gets downright caricatured and cliched when it’s the dialogue of the film’s villains (especially the psychologists, Mitchell and Jessen, who are like evil clowns).

But my point is this: The Mauritanian seems like a better quality film on all counts and yet the critics overlooked it and evaluate it notably lower than a comparable, but inferior, film. Why could this be?

Of course, I speculate. But it seems to me that the key difference is that The Mauritanian humanizes a devoted Muslim associated with Al Qaeda. This is its strength, but I’m not sure the critics could handle it. I’m not sure they could handle a Muslim Guantanamo detainee talking about his God’s invitation to forgive his American torturers. Maybe there are other reasons, but this is all that I can see.

If you can stomach some scenes of torture (or work your fast forward button), I’d urge you to check out The Mauritanian; then if you want to understand more, follow it up with The Report.