Skip to main content

You may not wanna wake up tomorrow, but the day after that might just be great.

Blood Father
(2016)

(SPOILERS) There are points during Blood Father where it feels like Mel is publically and directly addressing his troubled personal life. Through ultra-violence. I’m not really sure if that’s a good idea or not, but the movie itself is finely-crafted slice of B-hokum, a picture that knows its particular sandpit and how to play most effectively in it.

Jean François-Richet has put a toe in English language movies before, in the form of the okay-but-unnecessary Assault on Precinct 13 remake. Since then, he made the pretty good two part Mesrine. As expansive as that was, Blood Father is contrastingly tight and trim, cutting to the chase and not stopping until it has said what it has to say. 


John Link’s a character made for the current persona of Mel, awash with regret, addictions (he’s attending AA), a past full of dark characters and, naturally, simmering irrepressible rage (Mel exploding righteously is one of the main reasons you check out a Gibson film, something in the ballpark of “I’ll see you on the inside, you chickenshit motherfuckers!”). He also like his tats (in itself, this seems like a subconscious reference to the cameo Gibson lost in favour of the less controversial Nick Cassavettes in The Hangover Part II. Or it might just be a call back to Father’s Day). 


As a result, Link’s given to near-the-mark advice and recriminations, telling his daughter, who blames herself for the manner in which psycho Jonah (Diego Luna) has invested in her, and from whose destructive influence she has fled, “Kid, you’ve got the mind-set of a battered housewife”. Gibson’s religious crutches come in for stick too. Hitching a ride with some illegal Mexicans, Lydia defends their presence against Link suggesting they’re stealing jobs: “I bet no white person has ever picked a piece of fruit off a tree ever”. “What about Eve?” responds Dad. “Eve was not white” she retorts, before asking if he thinks the Garden of Eden was in “fucking Norway” And lo and behold: Link/Mel shows off a sense of humour at such bating. Later, hooking up with old biker cohorts (Michael Parks and Dale Dickey) who are making a living from selling fascist memorabilia (“All the losers make the money. Nazis and confederates”), Link rebukes their “Nazi bullshit!” It comes across as an unsubtle attempt to address his own family history. 


But mainly, there’s Mel going apeshit and getting desperate, which he does repeatedly, be it his response to a crime gang turning up at his trailer, fleeing the bad guys hot on their trail or boldly telling Jonah how it is (“Yeah, I know all about you, and that’s why you’re going to stay on the phone”). The final confrontation is the only point where Blood Father enters slightly plodding territory, and while I’ve no problem with heroes pegging it in movies, it doesn’t quite feel earned in this case. I suspect part of that is down to central pulse of the picture, and its main miss.


Being Link’s unreconstituted, resumed relationship with his daughter. This isn’t down to Mel, rather Erin Moriarty’s merely sufficient performance as Lydia. Blood Father needed someone who could match Gibson tirade for tirade, and Moriarty simply isn’t up to the task. She’s there, but she doesn’t make you care (likewise, her scenes with Luna: he does all the heavy lifting, not that he’s backwards in revelling in bug-eyed sociopath mode).


William H Macy has little more than a cameo as Link’s best AA bud with a line in very-Mel ribaldry (“You know the difference between fitting and proper? ... I could shove my thumb up your arse right now and it would probably fit… but it wouldn’t be proper”) and hanging tough ("You boys picked the wrong rednecks"). Occasionally, Link too spits out the barbed, pithy comeback; a motel clerk asks of Lydia, “Hey man, where’d you find her?” “In the fucking delivery room” Link growls back, refraining from giving him a beating to boot. When they steal a station wagon and it becomes a known property, he comments “Our first family car, and now we’ve got to dump it”.


There’s an attempt at commentary on a clueless current generation, for whom the rebels of yesteryear have been turned into fashion items, but really, ‘twas ever thus. Blood Father’s mostly sensible enough to steer clear of such pitfalls, though, understanding its best footing is to show up, get the job done, and get out. If not for the slightly lacking father-daughter relationship, it would be up there with the first tier of such pictures; it’s certainly a damn sight more vital than the superficially-similar father-rescues-daughter-in-trouble Taken series.


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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove  or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia ( Lolita , Eyes Wide Shut ), MKUltra programming ( A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket ), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords ( 2001: A Space Odyssey ), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining ). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove ?