Have you ever wanted to see a comedy about price fixing and corporate embezzlement? If so, "The Informant" might be just the film you're looking for. For some, however, "The Informant" might prove to be a crushing bore. I'm somewhere in between but I'll get to that later.
"The Informant" tells the real life story of Mark Whitacre, the highest ranked executive to ever turn whistleblower in U.S. history. It's based on the book of the same name published in 2000 by journalist Kurt Eichenwald. This is one of those instances where truth is, indeed, stranger than fiction. A lot stranger. How does one make sense of a guy who worked his way up the ladder of success at Archer Daniels Midland in Decatur, Illinois, makes up a story about a Japanese saboteur working at the company, hooks up with the FBI to blow the whistle on price fixing that he and others had been involved in all around the world, defrauds nearly $10 million from ADM in the years that he was working undercover for the FBI, hopes to become CEO of ADM once the case is over with, makes up stories about physical abuse against the FBI agent he was working for, and then winds up spending more years in jail than the corporate criminals he helped to nab? The film does offer at least one explanation for Whitacre's strange behavior: bipolar disorder. I'm not sure if that's enough.
Mark Whitacre is portrayed by Matt Damon in another one of those roles that he seemed born to play. He's Hollywood's go-to actor for stories about men on the run from the law, spies, heists, or corporate swindling. It's a strange performance in a film filled with odd creative decisions. For example, the film contains an ongoing voice-over narration from Matt Damon as Whitacre that is just one stupid non sequitur after another. The narration has nothing to do with anything and only serves to highlight Whitacre's odd behavior. One particular piece of narration, as I recall, involves Whitacre discussing how he used to mispronounce the word centimeters. The humor in these monologues is very random, to say the least. Either you go for this sort of humor or you don't. I didn't but I must admit that many people in the theater that I saw it in were laughing. I got the sense that many of them would probably laugh at anything.
Another thing that bothered me about the film is the quirky and eccentric score. "The Informant" contains one of the most bizarre musical scores I've heard in recent cinema. The composer seemed to spare no expense to remind the audience that we were, indeed, watching a comedy. Violins, whistles, and horns are used throughout to the point where I was reminded of a T.V. variety show where the orchestra would provide the necessary comedic cues. Does it work in this film? I don't think so. In fact, I was so distracted by it to the point where I was taken out of the film completely. I had to fight to keep my interest in what was going on up on the screen. This underscores my general problem with "The Informant." It seemed to be trying too hard to be clever, quirky, and funny. Whenever the odd voice-over narration showed up or the music reared its head, it's as if the filmmakers were putting up a big sign that said, "look at how funny this is!" Satire must be handled right and this film's problem is with its tone. I was constantly taken out of the film instead of being engaged by it.
There's still a lot to recommend about "The Informant," however. The performances are mostly good (although Joel McHale seems oddly miscast in the role of an FBI agent), the story has some surprising twists and turns, and I did find myself laughing a bit towards the end at Whitacre's odd behavior. It's competently directed by Steven Soderbergh ("Traffic," "Ocean's Eleven") who is no stranger to these kinds of stories. But most of the film takes place in corporate boardrooms and hotels and the screenplay is very "talky." And because it's based on a true story, its dramatic potential is limited. I think this is the kind of story I would rather read a book about instead of seeing a movie on it. I don't think "The Informant" ultimately succeeds either at what it set out to do: get inside the head of Mark Whitacre. Who was this man really and why did he do the things he did? I never really got a satisfactory answer and the film's quirky demeanor kept me at an emotional distance.
"The Informant" tells the real life story of Mark Whitacre, the highest ranked executive to ever turn whistleblower in U.S. history. It's based on the book of the same name published in 2000 by journalist Kurt Eichenwald. This is one of those instances where truth is, indeed, stranger than fiction. A lot stranger. How does one make sense of a guy who worked his way up the ladder of success at Archer Daniels Midland in Decatur, Illinois, makes up a story about a Japanese saboteur working at the company, hooks up with the FBI to blow the whistle on price fixing that he and others had been involved in all around the world, defrauds nearly $10 million from ADM in the years that he was working undercover for the FBI, hopes to become CEO of ADM once the case is over with, makes up stories about physical abuse against the FBI agent he was working for, and then winds up spending more years in jail than the corporate criminals he helped to nab? The film does offer at least one explanation for Whitacre's strange behavior: bipolar disorder. I'm not sure if that's enough.
Mark Whitacre is portrayed by Matt Damon in another one of those roles that he seemed born to play. He's Hollywood's go-to actor for stories about men on the run from the law, spies, heists, or corporate swindling. It's a strange performance in a film filled with odd creative decisions. For example, the film contains an ongoing voice-over narration from Matt Damon as Whitacre that is just one stupid non sequitur after another. The narration has nothing to do with anything and only serves to highlight Whitacre's odd behavior. One particular piece of narration, as I recall, involves Whitacre discussing how he used to mispronounce the word centimeters. The humor in these monologues is very random, to say the least. Either you go for this sort of humor or you don't. I didn't but I must admit that many people in the theater that I saw it in were laughing. I got the sense that many of them would probably laugh at anything.
Another thing that bothered me about the film is the quirky and eccentric score. "The Informant" contains one of the most bizarre musical scores I've heard in recent cinema. The composer seemed to spare no expense to remind the audience that we were, indeed, watching a comedy. Violins, whistles, and horns are used throughout to the point where I was reminded of a T.V. variety show where the orchestra would provide the necessary comedic cues. Does it work in this film? I don't think so. In fact, I was so distracted by it to the point where I was taken out of the film completely. I had to fight to keep my interest in what was going on up on the screen. This underscores my general problem with "The Informant." It seemed to be trying too hard to be clever, quirky, and funny. Whenever the odd voice-over narration showed up or the music reared its head, it's as if the filmmakers were putting up a big sign that said, "look at how funny this is!" Satire must be handled right and this film's problem is with its tone. I was constantly taken out of the film instead of being engaged by it.
There's still a lot to recommend about "The Informant," however. The performances are mostly good (although Joel McHale seems oddly miscast in the role of an FBI agent), the story has some surprising twists and turns, and I did find myself laughing a bit towards the end at Whitacre's odd behavior. It's competently directed by Steven Soderbergh ("Traffic," "Ocean's Eleven") who is no stranger to these kinds of stories. But most of the film takes place in corporate boardrooms and hotels and the screenplay is very "talky." And because it's based on a true story, its dramatic potential is limited. I think this is the kind of story I would rather read a book about instead of seeing a movie on it. I don't think "The Informant" ultimately succeeds either at what it set out to do: get inside the head of Mark Whitacre. Who was this man really and why did he do the things he did? I never really got a satisfactory answer and the film's quirky demeanor kept me at an emotional distance.