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

Believe me, Mr Bond, I could shoot you from Stuttgart und still create ze proper effect.

Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)
(SPOILERS) Some of the reactions to Spectre would have you believe it undoes all the “good” work cementing Daniel Craig’s incarnation of Bond in Skyfall. If you didn’t see that picture as the second coming of the franchise (I didn’t) your response to the latest may not be so harsh, despite its less successful choices (Blofeld among them). And it isn’t as if one step, forward two steps back are anything new in perceptions of the series (or indeed hugely divisive views on what even constitutes a decent Bond movie). After the raves greeting Goldeneye, Pierce Brosnan suffered a decidedly tepid response to his second outing, Tomorrow Never Dies, albeit it was less eviscerated than Craig’s sophomore Quantum of Solace. Tomorrow’s reputation disguises many strong points, although it has to be admitted that a Moore-era style finale and a floundering attempt to package in a halcyon villain aren’t among them.

The Bond series’ flirtations with contemporary relevance have a…

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…

Remember, you're fighting for this woman's honour – which is probably more than she ever did.

Duck Soup (1933)
(SPOILERS) Not for nothing is Duck Soup acclaimed as one of the greatest comedies ever, and while you’d never hold it against Marx Brothers movies for having little in the way of coherent plotting in – indeed, it’s pretty much essential to their approach – the presence of actual thematic content this time helps sharpen the edges of both their slapstick and their satire.

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

On account of you, I nearly heard the opera.

A Night at the Opera (1935)
(SPOILERS) The Marx Brothers head over to MGM, minus one Zeppo, and despite their variably citing A Night at the Opera as their best film, you can see – well, perhaps not instantly, but by about the half-hour mark – that something was undoubtedly lost along the way. It isn’t that there’s an absence of very funny material – there’s a strong contender for their best scene in the mix – but that there’s a lot else too. Added to which, the best of the very funny material can be found during the first half of the picture.

I still think it’s a terrible play, but it makes a wonderful rehearsal.

Room Service (1938)
(SPOILERS) The Marx Brothers step away from MGM for a solitary RKO outing, and a scarcely disguised adaption of a play to boot. Room Service lacks the requisite sense of anarchy and inventiveness of their better (earlier) pictures – even Groucho’s name, Gordon Miller, is disappointingly everyday – but it’s nevertheless an inoffensive time passer.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

This better not be some 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea shit, man.

Underwater (2020)
(SPOILERS) There’s no shame in a quality B-movie, or in an Alien rip-off done well. But it’s nevertheless going to need that something extra to make it truly memorable in its own right. Underwater, despite being scuppered at the box office, is an entirely respectable entry in both those arenas from director William Eubank, but like the recent Life (which, in fairness, had an ending that very nearly elevated it to the truly memorable), it can’t quite go that extra mile, or summon that much needed sliver of inspiration to set it apart.

Goodbye, Mr Chimps.

At the Circus (1939)
(SPOILERS) This is where the brothers sink into their stretch of middling MGM movies, now absent the presence of their major supporter Irving Thalberg; it’s probably for the best this wasn’t called A Day at the Circus, as it would instantly have drawn unflattering comparisons with the earlier MGM pair that gave them their biggest hits. Nevertheless, there’s enough decent material to keep At the Circus fairly sprightly (rather than “fairly ponderous”, as Pauline Kael put it).