Skip to main content

It’s not your job to interpret tears.

Short Term 12
(2013)

Destin Daniel Cretton’s film, based on his experiences working in a group facility for troubled teenagers, is an expansion of his 2009 short of the same name. Even given the best of intentions, it would be very easy to misjudge the tone with this kind of subject matter, leading to results so raw and heavy-going they are difficult to endure or ones that over-indulge the opportunities for melodrama. For the most part Cretton’s choices are astute and subtle. He opts for underplaying and sensitivity where it would be easy to choose bombast and preachiness. It’s only during the final act that he goes astray, succumbing to the urge to inject several over-dramatic developments that slightly mar the preceding fine character work.


Grace (Brie Larson, outstanding, but then so is every member of the cast) is the supervisor at the titular home. Remarkably able and assured at dealing with the residents, most of them victims of abuse, she is less capable in coming to terms with and confronting her own past. This comes into sharp focus when Jayden (Kaitlyn Dever, just as good here as she was in Justified) arrives, whose experiences bear stark similarities to her own. The responses it triggers in Grace put her at loggerheads with her boss Jack (Frantz Turner) and create tensions with boyfriend Mason (John Gallagher Jr.), to whom she cannot open up. The pressures of an unexpected pregnancy and her father’s imminent release from prison gradually further push Grace to breaking point.


If this sounds as if it might become overwrought, for the most part Cretton treads softly. Partly this is down to the restrained performances of Larson and Gallagher Jr. Partly it’s because Cretton maintains a focus on the day-to-day environment of the home. We experience the stories of other residents including Marcus (Lakeith Lee Stanfield), fearful at the prospect of leaving on turning 18, and new co-worker Nate (Rami Malek), who must balance his natural instincts for empathy and friendship with the need to show reserve and authority.


Cretton utilises handheld camera throughout and, in contrast to many a director’s arbitrary decision making in this regard, it’s the correct approach. Again, this is down to the mediated approach the writer-director takes. He’s interested in creating a feeling of immediacy and authenticity, but not so much that it unbalances his goal. There can be little doubt that stories from such a facility could be unbearable, and Cretton is no doubt aware of this. It’s surely why, for all the trauma of the residents (and the workers) he is careful to imbue the proceedings with a quiet optimism. This is a worthwhile and enormously valuable occupation and service and Cretton is clear that it can make a difference, however incremental. Joel P West’s score, occasionally putting me in mind of the ambience of early Hal Hartley, also maintains a tone that refuses the possibility of hopelessness winning out.


It’s where his dual role script-writer hangs large that Cretton perhaps overplays his hand. We aren’t talking about Dead Poets Society levels of indulgence, but because the general tone is so stripped down, anything that isn’t completely naturalistic translates as a over-cooked. There are a couple of book-ended stories told by Mason that are perfect examples of how to deliver clearly scripted dialogue. They have sense of actual events retold, and Gallagher Jr.’s delivery enforces that. Cretton also achieves an appealing symmetry with the “As it starts, so it continues” of the movie’s opening and closing; no matter who goes through the doors of Short Term 12, there is never any final resolution. But he stumbles with Jayden’s octopus story, so calculated in its construction that it throws the viewer out of any appreciation of its resonance. And Grace’s visit to Jayden’s father’s house is no less unlikely for Jayden drawing attention to her behaviour (“That’s a little extreme, don’t you think?”)


Nevertheless, taken as a whole this is an acutely well-observed, wonderfully performed and achingly affecting picture. It will be interesting to see what Cretton does next, as semi-autobiographical beginnings such as this don’t necessarily lend themselves to career permanence, but on this evidence he has a powerful and intimate voice.


****  

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I think I’m Pablo Picasso!

Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021) (SPOILERS) I get the impression that, whatever it is stalwart Venom fans want from a Venom movie, this iteration isn’t it. The highlight here for me is absolutely the wacky, love-hate, buddy-movie antics of Tom Hardy and his symbiote alter. That was the best part of the original, before it locked into plot “progression” and teetered towards a climax where one CGI monster with gnarly teeth had at another CGI monster with gnarly teeth. And so it is for Venom: Let There Be Carnage . But cutting quicker to the chase.

Are you, by any chance, in a trance now, Mr Morrison?

The Doors (1991) (SPOILERS) Oliver Stone’s mammoth, mythologising paean to Jim Morrison is as much about seeing himself in the self-styled, self-destructive rebel figurehead, and I suspect it’s this lack of distance that rather quickly leads to The Doors becoming a turgid bore. It’s strange – people are , you know, films equally so – but I’d hitherto considered the epic opus patchy but worthwhile, a take that disintegrated on this viewing. The picture’s populated with all the stars it could possibly wish for, tremendous visuals (courtesy of DP Robert Richardson) and its director operating at the height of his powers, but his vision, or the incoherence thereof, is the movie’s undoing. The Doors is an indulgent, sprawling mess, with no internal glue to hold it together dramatically. “Jim gets fat and dies” isn’t really a riveting narrative through line.

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.

These are not soda cans you asked me to get for you.

The Devil’s Own (1997) (SPOILERS) Naturally, a Hollywood movie taking the Troubles as a backdrop is sure to encounter difficulties. It’s the push-pull of wanting to make a big meaningful statement about something weighty, sobering and significant in the real world and bottling it when it comes to the messy intricacies of the same. So inevitably, the results invariably tend to the facile and trite. I’m entirely sure The Devil’s Own would have floundered even if Harrison Ford hadn’t come on board and demanded rewrites, but as it is, the finished movie packs a lot of talent to largely redundant end.

Fifty medications didn’t work because I’m really a reincarnated Russian blacksmith?

Infinite (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s as if Mark Wahlberg, his lined visage increasingly resembling a perplexed potato, learned nothing from the blank ignominy of his “performances” in previous big-budget sci-fi spectacles Planet of the Apes and, er, Max Payne . And maybe include The Happening in that too ( Transformers doesn’t count, since even all-round reprobate Shia La Boeuf made no visible dent on their appeal either way). As such, pairing him with the blandest of journeyman action directors on Infinite was never going to seem like a sterling idea, particularly with a concept so far removed from of either’s wheelhouse.

I can do in two weeks what you can only wish to do in twenty years.

Wrath of Man (2021) (SPOILERS) Guy Ritchie’s stripped-down remake of Le Convoyeur (or Cash Truck , also the working title for this movie) feels like an intentional acceleration in the opposite direction to 2019’s return-to-form The Gentleman , his best movie in years. Ritchie seems to want to prove he can make a straight thriller, devoid of his characteristic winks, nods, playfulness and outright broad (read: often extremely crude) sense of humour. Even King Arthur: Legend of the Sword has its fair share of laughs. Wrath of Man is determinedly grim, though, almost Jacobean in its doom-laden trajectory, and Ritchie casts his movie accordingly, opting for more restrained performers, less likely to summon more flamboyant reflexes.

Five people make a conspiracy, right?

Snake Eyes (1998) (SPOILERS) The best De Palma movies offer a synthesis of plot and aesthetic, such that the director’s meticulously crafted shots and set pieces are underpinned by a solid foundation. That isn’t to say, however, that there isn’t a sheer pleasure to be had from the simple act of observing, from De Palma movies where there isn’t really a whole lot more than the seduction of sound, image and movement. Snake Eyes has the intention to be both scrupulously written and beautifully composed, coming after a decade when the director was – mostly – exploring his oeuvre more commercially than before, which most often meant working from others’ material. If it ultimately collapses in upon itself, then, it nevertheless delivers a ream of positives in both departments along the way.

I’ll look in Bostock’s pocket.

Doctor Who Revelation of the Daleks Lovely, lovely, lovely. I can quite see why Revelation of the Daleks doesn’t receive the same acclaim as the absurdly – absurdly, because it’s terrible – overrated Remembrance of the Daleks . It is, after all, grim, grisly and exemplifies most of the virtues for which the Saward era is commonly decried. I’d suggest it’s an all-time classic, however, one of the few times 1980s Who gets everything, or nearly everything, right. If it has a fault, besides Eric’s self-prescribed “Kill everyone” remit, it’s that it tries too much. It’s rich, layered and very funny. It has enough material and ideas to go off in about a dozen different directions, which may be why it always felt to me like it was waiting for a trilogy capper.

Madam, the chances of bagging an elephant on the Moon are remote.

First Men in the Moon (1964) (SPOILERS) Ray Harryhausen swaps fantasy for science fiction and stumbles somewhat. The problem with his adaptation of popular eugenicist HG Wells’ 1901 novel isn’t so much that it opts for a quirky storytelling approach over an overtly dramatic one, but that it’s insufficiently dedicated to pursuing that choice. Which means First Men in the Moon , despite a Nigel Kneale screenplay, rather squanders its potential. It does have Lionel Jeffries, though.

Beer is for breakfast around here. Drink or begone.

Cocktail (1988) (SPOILERS) When Tarantino claims the 1980s (and 1950s) as the worst movie decade, I’m inclined to invite him to shut his butt down. But should he then flourish Cocktail as Exhibit A, I’d be forced to admit he has a point. Cocktail is a horrifying, malignant piece of dreck, a testament to the efficacy of persuasive star power on a blithely rapt and undiscerning audience. Not only is it morally vacuous, it’s dramatically inert. And it relies on Tom’s toothy charms to a degree that would have any sensitive soul rushed to the A&E suffering from toxic shock (Tom’s most recently displayed toothy charms will likely have even his staunchest devotees less than sure of themselves, however, as he metamorphoses into your favourite grandma). And it was a huge box office hit.