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.  

***

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.