There are many true-story movies about whistleblowers. Some highlight oil companies, some cigarette manufacturers, some water pollutants, some snooping governments; some have cemented the reputations of big industry names such as Russell Crowe, Michael Moore, Julia Roberts and Mark Ruffalo. One recent afternoon I saw “Relay” (Black Bear) and, by thirty minutes into the film, my assumptions about whistleblowing had been upturned as if sand in an hourglass. What if a whistleblower changes their mind and decides to return their meticulously smuggled evidence to the organisation from which it was extracted? How would they even go about doing so?
From a storytelling perspective this idea is a triumph because it is validated by numerous other classic movies with which the audience will likely be familiar. Clandestine operations, personal risk, and giant media outlets such as the “New York Times” can all be repurposed. However, a consequential asymmetry of power relations arises—because the company retrieves the big secret which might have been of interest to those media outlets in the first place. What’s to keep them honest? A brand-new middleman emerges, the broker—pocketing a fee from both sides—whose role in the deal is so interesting that they naturally gravitate towards becoming the star of the film. Such a film could have been set in the nineteen-seventies, like “The Mastermind,” or included some conspiracy theory or other, like “Bugonia” (this weekend’s other terrific thrillers). But “Relay” is a runaway success of a movie which is fresh enough to startle and well-made enough to captivate.
It helps that the broker is played by Riz Ahmed, who can really act with his face. The broker has been doing this sort of thing for a while and requires both parties to follow a number of unbreakable rules. “Sometimes we have to walk away,” he says. “Not everybody listens.” Lily James plays Sarah, a scientist who removes a report from an multinational agricultural corporation which proves that the company suppressed data about side effects caused by their newly invented insect-repellant wheat. The corporation is just about to be acquired; the report appearing in the media will scupper that deal. (This deadline serves as a device for the filmmakers to increase the urgency of the story.) Meanwhile the company involved also wants to find both Sarah and the broker and deploys four people to the broker’s one, plus throws a huge budget behind the endeavour. Through this triangular structure (Sarah, the broker and the thugs hired by the corporation) the filmmakers pull off a sophisticated film which can turn on a dime between any of these relationships. True, the first thirty minutes take a bit to parse and it requires work from the audience to get what is going on (the first scene in the diner, for instance, is only understandable later). But this itself is a ruse to get the audience intellectually engaged—our minds love a puzzle and this is a really juicy one. Plus there are two absolutely breathtaking twists at the end (about which I will reveal nothing).
The taut screenplay is full of poetic lines such as “Message from my boss: you’re parasitic scum;” “You have ‘til end of day tomorrow to confirm your acceptance [of our terms];” “Cute liberal fantasy;” “I felt I had a duty to take a copy…as evidence. Is that stealing?” But the screenplay is but a foundation; I experienced the delightful feeling of my heart beating inside my chest during three anchor set-piece scenes. One, at Pittsburgh airport, where there are so many things going on—involving all three parties—that it is riveting to watch. Two, a later scene in a full concert hall, with a classical trio performing on stage. And three—best of all—a fast-paced, baton-passing scene involving a missing document, Times Square, a newspaper stand and a homeless woman.
Mr Ahmed steals every single scene in which he appears. Much of the time, he is typing onto a device that places calls through a relay service to avoid their being traced. His fingers fly across the keyboard while at the same time he indicates the emotional meaning behind the words with his face. Most of the time, he wears a hoodie pulled tight over his head; there is one point at which he reveals a face of remarkable sadness, just for a fleeting moment or two, and then moves beyond this inefficient emotion to the next logical step. And towards the end, in a taxi with Sarah, his face is at once heavy with desire and entirely impassive. We desperately want to trust him but we know we can’t—he lives for himself and, after all, takes fees from both sides.
As well as the complex cinematography required to execute the three big scenes I have described, there are many shots underneath permanent structures—elevated-train lines, steps down to the subway, the Manhattan bridges—as if to reinforce that the broker works in the shadows. “That’s the best frame of his face we have,” one of the corporation’s hitmen says in the Times Square, highlighting that the audience has, in fact, been awarded many excellent frames of his face throughout.
The filmmakers might choose a different city from New York for a sequel (Chicago would be perfect) and dispense with the rather strange and far-fetched chase with guns towards the end. Still, “Relay” is a strong contender for film of the year 2025. There is oodles more scope in the idea; as the broker says, “Our client would like to return the document and never to mention it again.”
Adam Poole
12th November 2025
If you are interested in viewing this screening, please book your tickets here
