The Owners is about a group of people who decide to take the contents of a safe from a local elderly doctor and his wife, but nothing goes as planned as the stakes keep getting violently raised. If you read the summary elsewhere, it is completely misleading so ignore it. The film features an ensemble cast, which includes Game of Thrones’ Arya, Maisie Williams and a number of unknown actors who do a great job, but also eerily look like more famous actors such as Ian Holm or Jack O’Connell, but are not.
The Owners is a film adaptation of a graphic novel that Hermann Huppen and Yves H wrote, Une nuit de pleine lune translated A Full Moon Night. Americans may be familiar with Huppen from watching a television series called Jeremiah starring Luke Perry and Malcolm-Jamal Warner so even though I may have no interest in exploring the original source material, I am less inclined to think that the movie’s flaws originate there.
The Owners did surprise me though it features a story that would only happen in a movie. After seeing Villains, I began to get a little tired of the home invasion thriller, which lately features a twist based on the premise that people never really know what is going on behind closed doors, and this movie is no different, but it still managed to assemble enough unique notes to keep me invested in the ultimate outcome of the movie. It ultimately did not work for me because while there were no narrative momentum issues, there were enough moments that ruined the cohesiveness of the story to make it ultimately not work for me in retrospect.
The Owners makes one crucial mistake. There is a single, blink and you miss it supernatural moment, which either I misinterpreted or the director intended to convey a different message, but it disturbed the direction that he wanted me to look in from that point on, which means that I have to deduct Brian De Palma points, which is a serious infraction that I cannot overlook regardless of how short the scene is. A bug gets crushed and seems to reanimate when no one is looking. Bugs do not resurrect from the dead so either the story has supernatural elements, which it does not other than that moment, or it was a style note of rewinding the film in the same way as the closing credits, clever, but ultimately detracting from the story’s substance though it is supposed to visually symbolize the ultimate twist in the story. A filmmakers only job is to make me see what the filmmaker wants me to see, and the filmmaker should only want me to see what furthers the story or the story’s emotion, not get cool or neat points, which was the actual goal.
I love a disturbing story, but I have to completely buy it as a comprehensive whole, and The Owners did not do that for me. I am ready to cosign that the cute, old couple that people have known all their lives are actually evil and demented and hiding a horrific secret in that safe, but they are also good at installing so much machinery in their home without anyone noticing? Was it cool in a The Belko Experiment/Purge franchise way? Absolutely. Does it strain my sense of disbelief too much? Also, yes. It made me think too much of the logistics of how they function daily with their extracurricular activity. No one noticed and questioned the installation of certain hardware into their house? The story gets weighted down with elements that make the story seem less credible the more that you think of it. Always match your psychos with the appropriate amount of abilities and skills. This film overshoots its mark by a little too much.
The Owners is aiming for some sort of socioeconomic misogynistic commentary, and I am here for it in the wings ready to cheer them on, but that message is ultimately unclear beyond women have no allies and need to recognize it in order to survive. A general lack of empathy is at the root of all their problems or seeing people as tools to our happiness, not people. We are also at our most vulnerable when we allow empathy to care more for others than ourselves. It is a tricky balance. While it is objectively right to take action in one context, by doing so, it inadvertently puts them in more danger; however the cruelest way is also not the way to go, and the film shows a spectrum of cruel ineffectiveness and cruel effectiveness, but all of it involves manipulation, which is where the class and misogyny seems to play its greatest role. Effectiveness is proportionate to class, which is also a function of education and professionalism.
I know that there would be no movies if people did not do stupid things, but from the opening of The Owners, I kept asking myself why not dump that guy? He disrespects his girlfriend, Mary, and her property, which teaches his mates to do the same. On one hand, she is physically outmatched in this particular situation and cannot exactly take her stuff back, but she did have a bicycle. She does not have to be there. She chooses to be there for initially understandable reasons. Her sympathies are her vulnerabilities, and near the end, when she is made to feel guilty for saving herself and leaving someone behind, I did not see the problem given the broader context. I cannot fight for my life, watch my tone and fulfill someone’s possibly drug-induced fantasies which put me in more physical danger. Put the oxygen mask on yourself first. The other characters have zero guilt about thinking of themselves first.
If The Owners succeeds, it is as a cautionary tale for all women and any men considering in engaging in any illicit activities. Guys, do not join a criminal conspiracy unless you think that you can physically take any of your co-conspirators. Women, do not let your man borrow your car, and once a guy disrespects you, stop looking out for him. Stop brushing away sexual assault, theft, etc. as if they are minor inconveniences or petty character flaws. These people are not your friends. They do not see Mary as a human being.
Unfortunately The Owners suffer from the same problem of not seeing people more than plot devices because while it answered the majority of my questions, it did not answer the main question that the final night scene raises. I read a lot about real life incidents of people in captivity, and The Owners does not resonate on an emotional, human level and fails by never rising above simply allegorical significance. I hate allegories. By watching how Mary reacts to complicit victims gives the viewer an idea of what life is like after that point, but it does not explain the passive, inert and unresponsive reaction to similar threats. Up to this point, people act like people even if they are horrible people, but the final night scene reveals a person not acting like a normal person does to harm, change or opportunity.
While The Owners is not a bad movie, it is not one that I can recommend. Beyond the cool, sensational, prurient violent factor, it fails to create a seamless story that resonates on a clear, deep level. It did not work for me and leaves room for future film adaptors who may be interested in translating the graphic novel for the screen.
