Criminal Ethics and Business Asea in Captain Phillips and A Hijacking

"You said you were a businessman! Is this how you do business?" 

  Captain Phillips (Tom Hanks)

THERE BE SPOILERS AHEAD

In one of the earlier moments of Captain Phillips, Tom Hanks (playing the title character) exclaims this hysterically to prevent one of his crew from being murdered at the hands of the pirates who have captured his ship. Surprisingly enough, it works. This is just the terse beginning to a movie heavy with as much business weight as it is with suspense. In Captain Phillips, a 2013 release I was just able to catch on DVD, the weight of the situation is always felt by its audience. It approaches the real-life incredible story of the Somalian hijacking of the Maersk Alabama ship in 2009 and reveals the events with a humanistic approach to all involved. Paul Greengrass directs the film with a definite concept of moral ambiguity based on the societal pressure felt by the pirates of the film. Brilliantly casted with real-life Somalians, the pirates of Phillips don't just look the role, they feel it. You can sense a complete personal understanding on behalf of the four young men playing the film's antagonists. Their desperation is never masked. And yet the same societal pressure that put them aboard the ship Phillips helms requires that they return to their homes with enough to make their heist worthwhile. This is part of the "business" that Muse (Barkhad Abdi) explains to Phillips. While it would be easier to walk away with the ship's original cash and belongings, the requirements of the village they're from would not be met without a much bigger loot. 

Now consider A Hijacking, a film I watched on Netflix right after finishing Phillips. This film was released just a year prior to Phillips, but didn't really surface abroad (no pun intended) until this year's festival circuits. Hijacking is a Danish film with a coincidentally similar plot but a substantially different take on its theme. It's ship belongs to a private Danish company who's CEO and business holders intend to keep the incident under wrap without the use of hostile takeover. While the events of Phillips prove that an American ship hijacking will be responded to swiftly and with the assistance of the Navy, Hijacking suggests that in the same incident involving an International ship, negotiations are not out of the question. In the brilliant first ten minutes of the movie, the questionable CEO is shown keeping a relatively profitable deal on his terms by negotiating it almost ten million dollars under the original deal. While this seems to shed a negative light on the Danish film, Hijacking implies that there are no good or bad guys when it comes to business, only victims.

And the business of A Hijacking is exhausting stuff. In Phillips there is a constant sense of urgency and immediacy with the business of protecting the Captain while appeasing to the pirates. The movie zips through its two-plus hour length with ease. Hijacking on the other hand, while almost thirty minutes shorter, drags along with no immediacy but a growing sense of dread. The business handled in the film is approached with a criminal and inhumane bartering on behalf of the Danish company. The CEO's play their sympathy towards their captured crew with a careful card, keeping more concern over how much money they're prepared to offer towards the pirates. When the victim Mikkel, a cook aboard the ship is present for some of these phone transactions, his voiced cries for help are twisted by the company's insistence that the crew is safe as long as they're alive, and the pirates are forcing words into their mouths for the sake of making a better deal. Yikes. Meanwhile, the number constantly changes, and leads to even exhaustion on behalf of the ship's pirates, who have families of their own they're away from. The deal takes months. 

Meanwhile both films keep their humanism towards the pirates intact. The business of piracy is complex stuff. The Somalians of Phillips seem to be successful in their past heists and Muse even boasts of a six million take from another country. When Phillips asks why he needed this heist however, Muse's lack of response suggests a lack of control over the business back home. Meanwhile, Muse keeps a steady hand over the protection of Phillips. His life and safety are not just important for the ransom Muse can keep for himself, but it means a personal ethical control over the crime too. This is the same for the pirates of A Hijacking. The translator on behalf of the pirates, Omar, stays in charge of the business of negotiating with the CEO's over the phone. He's the only one ever revealed to speak English aboard the ship of Somalian pirates. And yet he protects his identity and perhaps dignity by denying he's ever a pirate. Aboard a ship of criminals, Omar is the worst of them all. While the other pirates eventually partake in fishing and even drinking with the prisoners, Omar keeps a constant threat looming over the crew, which includes almost killing the crew to keep the ransom in the millions. 

When it comes to personal preference, I'd say A Hijacking is the better of the two films, but that's not to discredit the excellence of Captain Phillips. Phillips just manages to maintain the presence of heroes within the movie, crediting the Navy and the real life Captain to saving the day in time of the crisis. And in the real-life scenario of the 2009 incident, they were heroes. But A Hijacking is an even more complex film, one that deals with no true heroes but asks whether the villains were truly the pirates aboard the ship, or the pirates who stayed on land and kept the victims aboard for months while they tried to keep their money. Who truly stayed dry in the end?