Skip to main content

But that was then. And this is now. I'm back home. Right where I belong.

Mudbound
(2017)

(SPOILERS) Mudbound has had to make do with just the four Oscar nominations, all well-deserved (although honestly, I’m not so fussed by the overly earnest song), failing to trouble the big four categories, but it’s a much better film than at least several of the nine selected for the top prize. Perhaps that’s a reflection of the Netflix factor, or that Academy members only feel inclined to given the nod to one movie about racism per year. Mudbound, set in and around Jim Crow Mississipi in the ‘40s, isn’t just about racism, but it’s infused into its characters and locale such that all other themes are informed or affected by it. At times, there’s a sense that it’s trying to achieve too much, spread its canvas too broadly for the time it has, but when it hits its stride, it’s outstanding.


Director Dee Rees adapted (with Virgil Williams) Hillary Jordan’s 2008 book of the same name, which may partly explain the overly novelistic approach of the opening sections as, attempting set up so many different perspectives, she adopts successive voiceover monologues for each individual, white and black, serving to foster varying degrees of empathy and understanding, dependent on their own self-awareness. The reliance on this device diminishes as she, and we, become more secure in the setting and those occupying the farm. There’s a sense, in combination with cinematographer Rachel Morrison’s earthily – muddily – textured landscape, of Malickian ruminations on the cards fate has dealt, only minus the nebulous existentialism.


Not everyone is favoured such insights – what would it serve other than to further disavow him (if that were possible), to gain access to the inner processes of Jonathan Banks’ racist monster Pappy? And Jason Clarke’s Henry, whose foolhardiness brings the McAllans to the farm, is allowed rare comment, which is interesting as his is the most self-perpetuating mind-set, tolerating the Jacksons because of economic realities but coming down on his father’s side when it’s about preserving the status quo (the scene with Ronsel being told to leave the general store by the back door).


Henry is contrasted with Hap Jackson (Rob Morgan), forced to teach resignation to the way things are to his offspring in the name of self-preservation while qualifying it with the need to aspire to something better than their lot (his daughter wishes to be a stenographer, he wishes to own land, while conscious of the fragility of any rights therein for a black man; “And so I ask, what good is a deed?”) His relationship with Henry is one of take-take on the latter’s part, calling upon Hap’s help, but when Hap is in need, budging not an inch (Hap breaks his leg, but rather than lend him a mule to aid in planting the crops, Henry loans him one).


Florence (Mary J Blige, able to say much while saying very little and easy to see why she garnered that Oscar nomination) too is positioned in a place of reservation and considered distance, but the picture’s point of crossing race boundaries comes via common concerns, such that her shared motherhood with Laura McAllan (Carey Mulligan), while the latter (mostly) dutifully submits to her husband’s edicts, allows for a degree of tacit understanding (Laura may be “one of the good ones”). One might say that both patriarchs endure mutual hardship, but since that’s true of everyone working the land it isn’t such a communicable element, certainly not one acknowledged in any respectful manner by Henry (and Hap has little time for Henry’s introduction of a tractor).


Initially at least, Laura is the audience identification figure, a sheltered, sensitive woman rudely thrown into unfamiliar circumstances and required to sink or swim, but while we return to her inner monologue throughout, it holds gradually less prevalence and importance. Consequently, there’s a sense that the only fully developed plotline is one that forms almost halfway through the proceedings.


The friendship between Ronsel (Jason Mitchell, previously memorable as Easy-E in Straight Outta Compton), Hap’s son, and Jamie (Garret Hedlund), Henry’s younger brother, quickly becomes the core of the movie, displacing what looks at the outset to be shaping up as a love triangle between Henry, Jamie and Laura (it’s there, but ultimately tangential). Again, it is the shared experience that offers the bond, the bruised psyche of the combat veteran. We don’t have much insight into Jamie’s views on race prior to World War II, but he cites an experience when he was saved by Tuskegee Airmen in response to Ronsel querying “Why you being so nice to me?”. But as conscious as Henry is of “the way things should be”, Jamie is entirely disinterested in propping them up, and his dependency on alcohol leads to carelessness that has tragic results for Ronsel.


Ronsel has glimpsed a better life, ironically, at war (“But them Europeans don’t have a problem with us at all”), and is offered an olive branch of solace at the end of the picture (diverging from the novel, as Jordan’s forthcoming sequel finds Ronsel’s mixed-race son setting off for America to find his father). There’s a catharsis of sorts in the revenge Jamie takes on his father (“I wanted to make sure I looked you in the eye”), although he professes to feel no peace as a result. But, while the Jacksons are shown to eventually have their much-prized own place to live, there isn’t the same sense of completeness to either their or the remaining McAllans’ stories.


Rees employs a flashback structure, introducing us following Pappy’s death and with the knowledge that something has happened to make the Jacksons reluctant to help the McAllans. It’s an effective device, one informing attentions and casting a spell of foreboding over subsequent events; not all the choices in this adaptation are equally successful, but her eye for detail is unstinting, and, through observing rather than preaching, Rees communicates the manner in which, while progress has been made in legal terms, the undercurrents of discrimination persist and endure, not least generationally. The results are never less than powerful and engrossing.


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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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.

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.

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

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 .

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.

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.

I don’t like fighting at all. I try not to do too much of it.

Cuba (1979) (SPOILERS) Cuba -based movies don’t have a great track record at the box office, unless Bad Boys II counts. I guess The Godfather Part II does qualify. Steven Soderbergh , who could later speak to box office bombs revolving around Castro’s revolution, called Richard Lester’s Cuba fascinating but flawed. Which is generous of him.

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 ?