Skip to main content

When you’re small, you got to fix what you can.


Beasts of the Southern Wild
(2012)

It’s usually a clear warning sign when the Oscars embrace a heart-warming or uplifting tale of triumph over adversity. The results often tend to simplify issues, reduce themes to their most facile, and bang out notes that just don’t ring true. While it is always welcome to see independent movies get nominated, it can’t escape notice that when they do (Little Miss Sunshine), their trajectory is invariably one of punch-the-air uplifting overpowering sadness or misery. Which is no bad thing in theory; life-affirmatory sentiments are grand things. The downside is that, if these messages are not put together with a nuance, skill and craftsmanship that belies their apparent straightforwardness, they comes across as cheap or manipulative. In Beast of the Southern Wild, director Benh Zeitlin creates an environment that is arresting and immersive, but as co-writer he fails to fully evoke the child’s eye viewpoint that is central to the premise.


Zeitlin and Lucy Alibar’s screenplay (based on her one-act play Juicy and Delicious) is narrated by Hushpuppy (Quvenzhane Wallis), a six-year old girl living with her alcoholic father Wink (Dwight Henry) in an isolated community called the Bathtub. They are situated in a Louisiana bayou cut off by a levee; this is an edge-of-the-world existence to Hushpuppy, and the idiosyncratic schooling she and other children receive gives rise to a rich fantasy world filled with an imminent threat of melting ice caps and the encroaching presence of prehistoric boar-like animals called Aurochs (the actual name of an extinct bovine species). As her father’s physical condition worsens, so the Bathtub is flooded during a storm and the community’s tentative existence becomes even less certain.


If Hushpuppy’s narration and fantasy world feels like a highly calculated device, it’s because the writers are unable to successfully integrate it with the main narrative. Hushpuppy’s internal monologue never feels less than over-writing by adult(s) attempting to imbue her with the kind of innocent cutesy-wisdom that sends grown-ups all misty-eyed. And then it goes further, making the mistake of thinking this untutored innocence can teach us something. Because its artificiality is so clear (i.e. adults are the writers) it comes across as patronising rather than inspiring. We end up with a rambling gabble of homespun homilies, bearing more resemblance to Forrest Gump’s (another Academy darling) pearls of wisdom than anything that borders on essential truths.


There are doubtless a number of debates to be had over the film’s depiction of race and class (as plundering of stereotypes as the film may appear, it is worth noting that the play on which it is based feature white leads; nevertheless, the affected vernacular the writers have come up with is at times slightly too much, as if this is extant dialogue from Tom Hanks’ character in Cloud Atlas), and the pervading push-pull of what we are shown versus what we hear. The writers might have done something provocative with this material, but what their approach is relatively straightforward.


The Bathtub folk extol the virtues of their freedom from the system, which as an idea is an attractive one (although some have interpreted this in libertarian terms). But the “truth” we are shown is that the adults subsist on alcohol, while the father’s physical deterioration is a direct result of the surrounding squalor. Indeed, the refrain to the children is to toughen up and don’t be a pussy (these are kids who, like Max Rockatansky, think nothing of eating cat food; it’s near-as a post-apocalyptic world); this is an environment where the kids show reluctance to learn necessary survival skills (catching fish, eating crabs), and in the mind’s eye (of Hushpuppy) are starved of true parental affection.


To an extent, the movie succeeds in conveying the state of mind of child who accepts the only world she knows for what it is and imagines a further one, but this is almost entirely by means of Ben Richardson’s evocative cinematography and a charging music (by the director and Dan Romer), rather than the achievements of the writers.  The fall back mode of “life is beautiful despite it all” is not redundant because it is naïve or simplistic, but because the only means the Zeitlin and Alibar have of expressing it is through overstatement. This is perhaps best exemplified by the triumphant, heart-swelling score (cynical as I am of Academy motives, I feel sure this was a major selling point), which rouses the audience with the finesse of a master manipulator whenever Hushpuppy’s has a some glib self-actualisation to impart. So too, the means by which she pieces together her understanding of the world are clumsily rendered; this is magical realism romanticised to the point where the subjective world of the child becomes overt commentary, rather than one we empathically experience.


As a result, certain aspects work better than others; when Hushpuppy punches her ailing father, and he succumbs to a seizure, we engage fully with how her reaction; moments, before she told him she wished he were dead. Later, the odyssey on which she and her friends embark treads the line between fantasy and reality perfectly; up until the point where her yearnings for a mother are verbally expressed to a mother figure (a prostitute who feeds her alligator; her actual mother shot an alligator on the day she was conceived, we are told). The preceding scene, where the surrogate mothers/prostitutes dance with the children at a whorehouse called Elysian Fields (geddit?), has a wordless beauty to it. It is in this he sequence, with its fragmented, non-linear pose (beginning with the kids swimming out to a boat, which takes them to an underworld/heaven, the captain of which informs Hushpuppy that he likes retains all his chicken biscuit wrappers because “The smell makes me feel cohesive”) that the film nears the sense of transcendence it seeks. Then, when Hushpuppy announces, “I have to go back” and is transported to the vicinity of the Bathtub, it is the author’s voice not the child’s that intrudes.


As is usual in a tale of this ilk, the fantasy elements reflect the dramas of the real world and eventually converge at a climactic moment. We are introduced to fantasy imagery of melting ice flows and thawing creatures, but somehow this never really ignites the way it should. Perhaps the world Hushpuppy inhabits is so palpably different, and key moments such as the visualisation of her running through a trail of sparklers, are so arresting and heightened that the “actual” flights end up curiously flat. The poetry of her imaginings is forced. The advancing boars always feel surplus to the text, rather than integral. And worse they seem obvious inventions, rote mythmaking, just as Hushpuppy’s conversations with her absent mother are too common a touchstone. Compare Hushpuppy’s journey to the much less accessible path trodden by Eliza-Rose in Terry Gilliam’s Tide Land, and it feels as if Zeitlin goes for easy elation every time.


Wallis received an Oscar nomination of course, on account of her being a stoically cute little moppet, with hair outcrop of hair loving framed against the Sun. It’s hard to say how good this performance actually is; Wallis has a wonderfully expressive eyes but Hushpuppy’s character is so informed by the over-egged narration, I suspect it will take a few more roles to assess whether this is a one-off. Annie will likely either bag her an Oscar or have her re-assessed as a one hit child wonder. It’s Henry who really impresses, from his drunken delirium and aggression, to the chinks in his armour when he shows how much he cares for his daughter, to his more convivial side. He’s strong enough that, even when the film drifts into sentiment during the final stages, Wink remains a fully inhabited character.


Beast is enjoyable enough on its own terms, but the hype has overwhelmed its content. Independent cinema that leaves you in mind of Hollywood cinema but without the budget is not necessarily a strike, but it becomes one when, instead of resonance and depth, there is emotional rhetoric and slickness. Beasts is well-performed, possessed of a striking visual palate, and blessed with a stirring score, but it is also very far from profound.  

***

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.