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.