Dir. John Hillcoat
Written: Nick Motherfucking Cave
Starring Shia LeBeouf, Tom Hardy, Jessica Chastain, Mia Wasikowska, Jason Clarke, Guy Pearce, and Gary Oldman.
I
don’t usually write about movies which are still in the theaters, since
I feel like the hundreds of thousands of trained monkeys who already
write about them around that internet I keep hearing about have that
subject pretty well covered. But every once in awhile a film comes along
that changes you in a profound way. That teaches you to look at the
world differently, to experience more deeply, to love more richly. OK
this isn’t that film, but it’s a damn fine one which is about 10 times
better than it’s rap and what the hell, they haven’t made a new
PUMPKINHEAD sequel in awhile so I figured I’d use my valuable time to
tell you that you’ve really got to see this one. It’s awesome.
And
of course, you have every reason to think it would be. John Hillcoat
already has made two films which are available to you, those being THE
PROPOSITION (2005) and THE ROAD (2010) and those both being one of the
best films of their respective years. And screenwriter and composer Nick
Cave has done many things cinematic and otherwise, all of those being
the best ever regardless of year. This is the guy who wrote that famous
rejected script for GLADIATOR 2 where Maximus is reincarnated by Roman
gods to defend people throughout history. This is a guy who has played
with Shane MacGowan, fucked PJ Harvey, covered Leonard Cohen, inspired
praise by Wim Wenders, starred alongside Brad Pitt, written two novels,
and authored an introduction to the fucking bible.
How could anything he touches not turn to badass gold? Plus you got Tom
Hardy, who has been doing amazingly ballsy work on everything from
BRONSON to his shirtless Sean-Connery-plays-Darth-Vader turn in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES. Plus Guy Pearce, who would have top-tier badass
credentials from THE PROPOSITION alone, even if you didn’t know about
MEMENTO and L.A. CONFIDENTIAL and so on. And Gary Oldman, who has
notably played Sid Vicious, Dracula, Lee Harvey Oswald, Pontius Pilate
and Jean Baptiste Emanuel Zorg. That all totals up to a pretty good
badass pedigree, from a purely scientific standpoint.
So
I’m thinking maybe it’s that pedigree that causes it problems. Because
that’s the only possible explanation I can think of for reviews like,
“The center of narrative gravity is hard to locate; for whom are we
rooting, and does anything really ripple outward from this nasty local
fight?*” or “An inescapable sense of "so what?" sets in early with
"Lawless,"** or most patronizingly, “Mr. Hardy mostly grunts, growls and
ribbits, occasionally interrupting his angry bullfrog impersonation to
deliver down-home bromides that make him sound like Toby Keith choking
on a Cheeto.”***
It’s
hard to fathom how otherwise generally sane critics could react to a
film this good with that level of vitriol. In fact, only that nutball
Richard Roeper seems to have gotten what the movie was going for. His
review: “Bad-ass from start to finish.”
Seriously,
this is one fucking badass movie. And really, that’s all there is to
it. It’s a bad-ass movie made by a bunch of badasses at or near the top
of their game, committing most of their formidable badass resources to
making something really God Damn
kick-you-in-the-gut-burn-down-your-village-defile-your-women badass.
Still doesn't forgive TRANSFORMERS. |
But
for some reason, everyone wanted something different from this movie,
so many critics turned to my least favorite trend in film criticism,
which is criticizing a movie that doesn’t exist. They all list different
specific deficiencies, but this movie that exists isn’t the one they
wanted. What exactly is should have been no one can agree on, but
definitely it should have been something different. They want more
drama, or more scenes in the city, or more from the women, more real
history, or most infuriating, more point to all the bloodshed. Everyone
seems to be of the impression that because it’s an extremely violent
film, it must have some noble objective to enlighten us and teach us a
valuable lesson about humanity. No you jackasses, it’s just damn
entertaining. Does DOG DAY AFTERNOON really have a big philosophical
point to it? Does THE WILD BUNCH reach some big epiphany about our place
in the world? Shit, does THE GODFATHER really
have so much to teach us about the nature of evil in man? No god damn
it, they’re just phenomenally made badass stories which are told by
great storytellers. Now, this isn’t quite that caliber of filmmaking,
but it’s in the ballpark. It’s an enormously gripping, meticulously
constructed period gangster film, and that’s all it ever needed to be.
It’s like when X-FILES: I WANT TO BELIEVE came out and everyone said it
was horrible because there were no aliens in it. How bout actually
giving the film that does exist a chance, rather than whining that it’s not the film you personally imagined?
So, having gotten that out of the way, how about the actual film, bud? Is it any good?
Sure it’s good. Let me count the ways.
What
we got here is a pretty simple period gangster story based on real
history and then augmented in ways which make it more enjoyable. Hardy,
LeBeouf and Clarke play three brothers in prohibition-era Appalachian
Franklin County, Virginia. They, like seemingly everyone else in the
county (dubbed “the wettest county in the world,” also the title of the
book it was based on) are ignoring prohibition completely and making a
tidy profit through their expertise in moonshining. As the money piles
up, a corrupt D.A. and his sadistic enforcer Deputy Rakes (Guy Pearce)
move in to try and take the business for themselves, only to find that
the three brothers in question don’t take kindly to being pushed around.
Most of the movie consists of the ever-escalating battle between these
two groups, and the ways in which the illegal alcohol trade pushes the
brothers to grow (in particular youngest brother Jack, played by
LeBeouf).
What
are we supposed to learn from all this? Well, there might be some
feasible parallels to the war on drugs, as we watch organized crime
wrack bitter years of violence on this once-peaceful community. There
might also be a hint of the Afghan war, with the US represented by smug,
condescending outsider Rakes thinking that he can use force to change
the culture of this isolated and proud region in his favor. There may
even be something to take from it about the seductive nature of
violence, and the way our own mythologizing about it can lead us places
we can’t back away from.
moonshine has many uses around the home. |
But
really, it’s just a tense, terrifically acted story of attack and
reprisal, with a little period color thrown in for texture (which may
well be one of those mixed metaphors you always hear about). And as
such, it’s a pretty wild success. All three brothers are spectacularly
good, but special praise should be reserved for Hardy as the
monsyllablistic, supposedly indestructible eldest brother Forrest. He
can express so much with a mere grunt that we may seriously have to take
Billy Bob Thornton’s SLING BLADE crown and award it to Hardy for best
non-language performance in American history (although Chewbacca still
probably remains king of this category). Hardy draws Forrest as a truly
unique creation -- more man of action than thinker, but perhaps not as
simple as he might first appear. He’s the leader of the brothers, with
an aura of quiet authority and an understated sense of both purpose and
unassailable power. But he’s also a long way from infallible, as a
series of miscalculations and surprises makes clear. It’s an understated
performance of an oversized character, and it makes for one of the most
memorable screen badasses in recent years.
But
that’s Tom Hardy, you expect him to be great. But were you expecting a
great performance from Shia LeBeouf as well? Well happy Rosh Hashanah
kid, you got one. LeBeouf’s Jack is the heart of the movie, and his
transformation from sensitive kid to merciless killer is the chief
narrative thread that links the concatenation of bloodshed. It’s a
really great performance because of how subtle the character shift is --
there’s not a single moment of transition, but rather a gradual slide
which is never explicitly address but always mutedly apparent. Less
subtle but equally successful is Guy Pearce, fearlessly taking his
loathsome antagonist to heights of hateability rarely explored by less
adventurous actors.
There’s
a long and storied cinematic history to hateable villains intended to
stoke our bloodlust, but you gotta respect someone playing a classic
song with this level of perfection. Creating a truly detestable villain
and transferring audience hatred into genuine cinematic catharsis is not
as easy a thing to do as it might seem -- it takes careful,
well-executed filmmaking of a story which is all broad strokes. Hillcoat
pulls it off with such verve that it seems almost hilariously simple --
just like any well-orchestrated magic trick. In fact, I think part of
the reason this film was so easy to write off is that it’s such a
well-oiled machine that it never seems to be working very hard. It’s
easy to miss the stunning dexterity Hillcoat shows in navigating between
humor, moments of awkward humanity, hauntingly poetic visuals, and
shocking bloody violence because it all feels so natural. In a lot of
ways, I think LAWLESS got punished for not showing off enough. It has
fantastic performances but no high-drama Oscar Clip scenes. Visual
poetry to spare but only in service of the story. Sharp, well-staged
action sequences but no over-the-top showstopper setpieces. A top-notch
soundtrack but few scenes that overtly call attention to it. It’s
interested in working as a whole, rather than showcasing how good its
parts are -- which makes for a really great movie but not one which
seems ostentatiously impressive.
Scars and stripes forever |
Thinking
about that also kind of explains everything about the lukewarm
reception this thing got. Like poor EUREKA, it’s a movie they started to
make as kind of a weird arty historical hybrid film, but then someone
got the idea that the cast and the premise might actually make them some
money. So suddenly, the name gets changed from the admittedly terrible
“The Wettest County” to the completely generic “Lawless.” Horrible
posters get struck up to emphasize the stars and play down everything
unique and interesting about it. They do a series of character posters
as if we’re going to fall in love with each character separately and
demand a lucrative LAWLESS franchise with its related marketing tie-ins,
product monetization, and cheapie spinoffs. They demand a running time
of under two hours, add some narration to make sure no one gets lost,
make sure everything has a nicely wrapped-up happy ending. None of this
ruins the movie, but it’s all designed to try and lure an audience of
normal people who will just find it off-putting and weird. Meanwhile,
the highbrow film snobs look at the chintzy poster, the needless
narration, the slightly shallower shorter cut, write withering reviews,
and prevent a more adventurous audience from checking it out in the
first place. And hence a perfectly excellent film with a great cast
manages to alienate it’s entire audience and disappear from theaters
without anyone who would actually like it ever having taken a look at
it.*****
That having been said, there are a few problems here. For one, this cut does
have a whiff of being trimmed down beyond what was good for it. A
number of elements it introduces seem oddly truncated, most notably
story threads relating to the strict German Baptist community that lives
alongside our more sinful heroes and most story threads having to do
with the city mobsters lead by Gary Oldman (who end up with a total of
maybe four minor scenes). Neither feels exactly extraneous, but they
both scream of themes which were intended to be further developed and
subsequently feel noticeably unfished. Both female characters are
simultaneously well-acted and underdeveloped, but you’re used to that.
More troublingly, there’s a very occasional narration by LeBeouf which
painfully over-explains things that are already obvious from watching.
Both Hillcoat and Cave are smart enough to show us rather than tell us
-- they know that this kind of storytelling shortcut is both alienating
and unnecessary, and so I’m assuming it was a concession to the studio
and a way to shave minutes off the runtime. But they should have put
their foot down against it, because it’s about as necessary and seamless
as Harrison Ford’s narration in the theatrical cut of BLADE RUNNER. I
suspect there’s a longer cut out there somewhere which manages to
achieve the classic status that this cut is slightly too flawed to
reach, which makes it a bit frustrating.
Who thought this would make people want to go see it? It looks like a Seagal DTV flick with a festival win. |
Beyond that, there’s that [LIGHT SPOILER] troublesome and unnecessary happy ending which probably sums things up a little too
neatly. The happy ending, amazingly, is true to history - maybe they
felt like they had to include it, but it’s the only part of the film
which comes across as labored and awkward. It feels like the end of
AMERICAN GRAFFITI or HARRY POTTER PART 7 PART 2 where they unnecessarily
lay out a bunch of stuff that happened to the characters after the
story reaches its logical conclusion, undermining the finality of that
closure and presenting nothing of particular relevance anyway. What, we
need to know that everyone got married? If so, all we need is a final
establishing shot of the clan all together to gather all the information
we need. Having LeBeouf explain who married who, what jobs they got,
what tax bracket they ended up with, where they’re insured, where they
buy their gingham and so on belabors what should have been a simple,
quiet grace note of an ending. [END LIGHT SPOILER]
Still,
none of these things is enough to really hurt the LAWLESS experience.
Even if its flaws keep it from the greatness that could have been, its
still pretty damn great on its own terms. There’s a rootsy cover of the
Velvet Underground’ “White Light/White Heat.” A series of
tooth-shattering brass-knuckle beatdowns. Guy Pearce with hair so greasy
it looks like it was painted onto his head. Why get bogged down in what
might have been when what we got here is a genuinely fine little
gangster movie, completely unique and filled with great touches? If it’s
not quite CASINO, it’s at least THE LONG GOOD FRIDAY. You can complain
about it if you want, or you follow the example that Tom Hardy sets
here: man up, drink some moonshine, and know when to shut up and have a
good time.
*Anthony Lane, New Yorker
**Ann Hornaday, the Washington Post
***A.O. Scott, New York Times****
**** What, you thought I didn’t know how to use actual footnotes?
*****By the way, what kind of world do we live in where Roger Ebert gives LAWLESS and THE MASTER two-and-a-half-stars while POSSESSION and END OF WATCH get 3-and-a-half?
Your review has piqued my interest further, but even before reading, I really wanted to see this movie because a) Virginia b) moonshining and c) the author of the book is also an alum of Dan's & my alma mater, and we shared several writing professors. I have also personally drunk Virginia-made moonshine, though admittedly in a less historically and personally badass context, but nevertheless, I feel like that forges some degree of personal connection to the history depicted here. I mean, not to the degree that the grandson of Shia LaBeouf's character who wrote the book has. But a little bit. I'm also just generally intrigued by this movie's potential to actually make me find Shia LaBeouf cool.
ReplyDelete