Skip to main content

I never met nobody got away with anything ever. You?

Hell or High Water
(2016)

(SPOILERS) Of the 2016 Best Picture nominees, Hell or High Water is the one that most felt like it was there to make up numbers, the one no one really thought was in any serious contention for taking the top award. Why, it stood even less chance than the science fiction nominee. Maybe that’s why it turns out to be one of the most satisfying of the nine: it has no pretensions to leading with an earnest statement (not that it doesn’t have things to say), concentrating instead on occupying its crime genre status to the best of its abilities. It additionally helps that the movie was roundly passed over, as it can avoid accompanying defamatory cries of undeserved recognition.


Taylor Sheridan’s screenplay is as satisfying as his previous for Sicario was a disappointment. That was a beautifully shot movie whose delusions of seriousness evaporated once its third act opted to revolve around the exploits of a lawyer turned ninja assassin (for some unearthly reason, Benicio Del Toro’s crackpot character was so popular, he’s back for the sequel). Hell or High Water is, in contrast, resolutely grounded. It has a conceit, sure, but it’s a conceit that knows how unlikely it is, and when the conceit partly pays off, Sheridan and director David Mackenzie are careful to establish that there can be no peace of mind from living the kind of life that only happens in movies. Or, as a witness comments, their actions “seems foolish”, as the days of trying to live by robbing banks are long gone.


The days of making any kind of living appear to be long gone, and while Sheridan continually references the death of towns and industries, he’s never in danger of polemicising.  We’re put in a position of rooting for Chris Pine’s Toby Howard (accompanied by his hot-headed ex-con brother Tanner, played by Ben Foster) on his quest to steal enough undetectable cash to pay off the mortgage on his mother’s property before it defaults, so the oil found on it remains in the family (he sets up a trust so his sons are entitled to it).


Toby’s a driller by trade, but there’s no call to square off the rock and hard place of the bank versus the environment (at least it isn’t fracking); anything that’s one in the eye for the lenders, squeezing the life out of the little people, is something to get behind (the irony of “Let me ask you a question, d’y’all manage trusts?” is lovely, signing up the very people he robbed, and it works like a charm, since all they’re interested in is the money their customer will bring in).


And yet, there’s a down-at heel-inevitability to all this, a situation where the only choices available are ones of perpetuating the beyond-repair system. Toby is under no illusions that this has given him anything, and doesn’t even really know if this will be good for his kids. But there’s a principal to which he has married himself, to his cost, and the low-key final scenes suggest a man who would perhaps take it as no great loss if his life too was forfeit, even if he poses it in terms of the Ranger’s (Jeff Bridges’ Marcus Hamilton) burden (“Maybe I’ll give you piece of mind”: “Maybe I’ll give it to you”).


If Toby, typically of such tales, ends up in a situation with repercussions he did not intend (because, typically of such tales, a capable but reckless wild-card character is essential to disrupt the best-laid plans), he wins sympathy for intentions. Although, one wonders at the conveniently against-the-clock timing, that he left it until a week before foreclosure to initiate his plan.


Lost hope is all around. At one point, we hear a rancher leading cattle away from an oncoming bush fire opine “Is it a wonder my kids won’t do this for a living?”, while the towns on the brothers’ list are exhausted of inhabitants due to the entropic effect of big business sucking them dry. On the other hand, Ranger Alberto Parker (Gil Birmingham) is there to draw attention to this not being some new phenomenon; Native Americans have been disenfranchised long before the white man’s current woes.


Toby: I didn’t kill your partner.
Marcus: Yes, you did, by setting this in motion.

And just as the myth of the bank robber, the death or glory, hell or high water, is shown to be, at best, in the mind of a maniac getting high on the sheer escalation of events, so justice itself is something less fixed and reliable than in storybooks. Hamilton dispatches Tanner with due precision, but he isn’t happy about it; relieved might be the best way of putting it.


He never expected to have his friend and colleague Alberto shot in the head (fair to say, neither did we) and his presumption of confrontation with the surviving member of the duo is left in a state of impasse, neither party able to resolve matters, and perhaps in part reluctant to do so. It’s underlined, sure, but the coded costuming of the principals is effective here; earlier, Marcus mocks Alberto for copying his dress sense, a suggestion of aspiration to the better ranger, the more experienced justice bringer, yet in the final scene Hamilton is outfitted as Toby is, for now he is outside the law in his uncertain mission.


Marcus: This is what they call the white man’s intuition.
Alberto: Sometimes a blind pig finds a truffle.

Sheridan has also created a quick-witted, frequently very funny piece, from Marcus’ casual racism/sly teasing as he affectionately pushes Alberto’s buttons, attempting to get him to meet him on the same level (it seems to work, as eventually he does respond in kind, as per the exchange quoted above). The banter between Tanner and Toby, when not sparring, is often humorous, or a combination of the two, and there are well-observed incidental pleasures throughout; the waitress attracted to Toby who refuses to return Marcus his tainted tip has, we later learn, also failed to identify him from his photo. Marcus and Alberto frequent a diner where they can order anything as long as its steak (“Well, I tell you one thing, nobody’s going to rob this son of a bitch”). 


The brothers’ pursuers, after the reckless final robbery, hightail it when Tanner pulls out an automatic rifle and lets loose. And the latter’s last stand makes for a curiously unexpected diversion into fatalism; Tanner doesn’t expect to get out of this, and doesn’t appear to mind, although perhaps he wasn’t expecting such a sudden exit (“Lord of the plains! That’s me”). The concerned public citizen who takes Marcus to a vantage spot is just itching to do the deadly himself (“Let me take the shot. It’s my gun”) to Marcus unwavering dismissal (“Not on your life”).


Bridges is served a feast of a character and duly tucks in, such that his Best Supporting Actor nod was a no-brainer. Marcus nonchalantly pursues his prey like a 10-gallon Colombo, with a near-unerring insight into their types, goals and modus operandi. To be honest, I could do without the actor’s now habitual choice of mumble mouth, though, like he’s just tucked in to a whole bag of dentures.


It seems like Foster’s probably played the crazy one time too many by this point, but the character is saved by the brotherly affection he holds for Toby, despite their being worlds apart in temperament and intent (questioned on why he agreed to the scheme if he thought they couldn’t succeed, he replies, “Because you asked, little brother”). And, between this and Z for Zachariah, Pine shows he’s at his best avoiding the blockbusters (or at least letting them allow him to navigate this kind of fare).  


Hell or High Water is also a movie possessed a satisfyingly-considered scheme on the part of the hoodlums, no matter how wrong it goes; the plan for laundering and then protecting the money has the ring of veracity, even if the likelihood of it working out, had Toby’s culpability been established, is debatable. Many of the reviews cited this as a western, which in terms of setting, and certainly in terms of hats, I guess it is, but I watched it with the eyes of the crime/heist genre, a picture sharing a cross-pollinated affinity with the likes of No Country for Old Men. Director David Mackenzie has had a patchy career, in terms of material rather than proficiency, but this and Starred Up represent a significant uptick (I’m only grateful Peter Berg didn’t make the picture; we dodged a particularly knuckle-brained bullet there). Certainly, Sheridan will have his work cut out for him if he’s to match the quality of either Mackenzie and Villeneuve on his upcoming Wind River. Hopefully, his torture porn debut Vile won’t prove representative of his talents behind the camera.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.

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.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

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).

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.