En el punto de mira
This film is a fascinating study in what is wrong with movies but also what is right with them ca. 2007/2008. The movie was of particular interest to me and those with whom I viewed it as the "story" is set in Salamanca, España--my current place of residence.
From the NYT review "“Vantage Point,” a gimmick in search of a point, is nothing if not, er, timely. Set in the picturesque Spanish city of Salamanca (otherwise known as Mexico City), this jigsaw puzzle exploits a repellent conceit — the shooting of an American president (William Hurt, effectively insincere) — in a vague attempt to explore questions of narrative and subjectivity (like “Rashomon”) through the box-office-friendly form of a thriller"
This film has done big box office in the US which goes to part of my point. More on that later. The film was mostly shot in Mexico as the city of Salamanca refused to allow the film maker to take over the Plaza Mayor for 3 months in order to film. This is the heart of the city and would effectively shut down the commercial core of the city for months. So the crew shot some scenic shots and did some ariel filming as well and then meticulously reconstructed the Plaza Mayor in Mexico. The effect in the movie was very good. . . . but once the film moves outside of the Plaza it is evident to anyone who has been to Salamanca or Spain for that matter this the film was not shot in Spain. The streets and shops are all wrong--even the cars are wrong. And in the film's climax there is a chase in and around an autopista -- and there is no autopista in Salamanca! These are mostly esthetic complaints that would slide right past most US viewers. The big problem with the film is there is no story or character development in the film. The plot (what there is of it) is the US president visits Salamanca to make a speech about terrorism signaling new cooperation etc. He gets shot as he is giving the speech and then there are several timed explosions. The tale is unraveled for the audience through numerous retellings from different vantage points (thus the title) so that a different version is seen each time. We come to find out that the president wasn't actually the one who was shot but rather a double who was a stand in. But . . . the killers knew this and actually also attack the hotel where the real president is and kidnap him. It was partially an inside job and one of the Secret Service guys figures out what is going on and chase the rogue agent and subsequently rescues the president. The problem is that we have no investment in any of these characters and there is no ( I repeat no) explanation as to why the terrorists are trying to kill and/or capture the US president. Why the terrorists are Spanish/Latino (who are these guys? and who are they supposed to represent? ETA is the implication but it is never articulated. They have never engaged in this kind of action either so . . . . ). Why did the US plant a phony president? why is the real president there also? why did the "terrorists" kill the fake president if they new the real one was nearby and they were going to capture him any way? It is all left to the imagination. There is some merit to the idea of exploring narrative and subjectivity but this film leaves much of the narrative up to the audience and the motives are left to our subjective view as well. This is yet another example of recent film failings in my view. If you keep the pace fast and the visuals exciting it will work at a visceral level and make money. The film maker got that part right as he was able to turn one big explosion (blowing up the Plaza Mayor) and 5 minutes worth of plot in to millions of dollars at the box office.