Daily Archives: Saturday, June 13, 2015

  • Mud

    Jeff Nichols (2012)

    Take Shelter had a fascinating idea but Jeff Nichols painted himself into a corner in the matter of how to resolve the story.  Although Mud is another original screenplay by Nichols, its plotting and themes are more conventional, in some ways almost cliched.  The geography and the teenage boys’ adventure aspect naturally bring to mind Mark Twain.  At the centre of Mud is the friendship between the two kids – Ellis and Neckbone (Neck for short) – and a charismatic stranger who’s wanted by the law:  this suggests Great Expectations and Whistle Down the Wind (and, to other viewers, no doubt, other books and films) – and risks making the movie feel secondhand.  This time, however, Nichols extricates himself successfully from the inherent difficulties of the material.   Qualities that Take Shelter and Mud have in common are the convincing, sometimes complex characters and Nichols’ excellent direction of the actors.  He’s tenacious in Mud in going deeper into these characters and enabling the actors to bring out the truth of them and to make the story credible and sometimes moving.   Nichols is an organised, thrifty writer.  There are details which, although they’re not planted emphatically, you take in early in the film – poisonous snakes, a character’s abilities as a sharpshooter – and which will matter later on.  And because these elements, when they return, occur in a dramatically and emotionally charged context, the payoff doesn’t seem merely predictable and convenient.  Early on in Mud, Neck’s eccentric uncle Galen explains to the boys the lyric of the Beach Boys’ ‘Help Me, Rhonda’, which has been playing on the radio.  Approaching the end of the film, I was hoping Nichols would use the song (which I like anyway) for the closing credits because it had, as the movie built, become so apt.  He does.

    Nichols achieves various resonances in the course of Mud (which, at 130 minutes, is a bit too long:  it dips in the middle before reaching its exciting climax).  There’s at least one instance where something that rings false at first rings true eventually.  The events of the story are seen so much from the points of view of Ellis and Neck that it feels like a mistake the first time there’s a scene without them.  That scene features instead the eponymous Mud, a fugitive who hangs out on a small island in the Arkansas River, and Tom Blankenship, an older man who’s known Mud throughout the latter’s troubled life.   Nichols has to resort to this in order to get across information that he can’t convey within the narrative structure used up to this point.  The closing scene, in which Mud and Tom appear together, has a quality of healing:  it contrasts effectively with the earlier angry exchange between them – and makes their first scene seem right in retrospect.  There’s also an instance of a resonance being achieved instantly.  In the middle of a conversation with Mud and Neck, Ellis looks up at birds in the sky.  I’m not sure how Nichols does this but he makes you feel this is an image that will always stick in the boy’s mind.  (You know this from your own experience – certain things lodge in the memory even though you can’t explain why:  they weren’t unique and didn’t happen at a time that dictated they’d be unforgettable.)  Within the plot of Mud, these birds foreshadow the nightingale tattoo on the hand of Mud’s ex-girlfriend, Juniper, whom he’s desperate to get back with.  He tells Ellis and Neck about the tattoo and it’s a powerful moment when the boys see it on the hand of a woman in a supermarket.

    You believe increasingly in Ellis’s determination to do what he sees as the right thing.  He’s attracted to May Pearl, a girl several years his senior and feels strongly enough to fight over her with an older boy.  (The black eye Ellis gets as a result is useful for the plot later on but you nevertheless accept his fearlessness in taking on the other boy.)   Ellis is convinced that May Pearl will like him back:  it’s the combined strength and implausibility of this conviction that makes it credible – it’s rooted in character (it doesn’t make sense but Ellis insists that it must be so).  In comparison, the difficulties in Ellis’s home life – his reasons for needing a life outside it and to believe, because of his parents’ failing marriage, in couples who love each other – are a bit contrived.  The eventual physical removal from the Arkansas River of the houseboat on which the family has lived is too neatly symbolic (although it has real emotional impact).  Nichols uses the landscape superbly.  The film realises the different possibilities of water – its offer of freedom, its claggy and imprisoning potential, its subaquatic secrets; the emptiness of the urban landscape that we see from time to time is expressive too.  Nichols and his DoP Adam Stone have achieved some fine lighting effects.  I especially liked a scene in which Ellis’s father, Senior, admits his sense of failure to his son and the camera picks out Senior’s eyes, bright with shame, in the darkness.  (As Senior learns to accept the end of his marriage, he seems gradually to come into the light even though the film’s ending is hardly a happy one.)

    It takes time to adjust to the level of the voices – and those of Ellis and, particularly, Neck continue to be furry.  Ellis is played by Tye Sheridan, whom I barely remembered from The Tree of Life.   He has an odd moment early on here when, breathing heavily, he seems to be acting artificially but Nichols directs him skilfully.  Sheridan is quiet – possibly sometimes too quiet – but this really pays off when Ellis bursts into tears and anger.   Jacob Lofland’s Neck is contrasted obviously with Ellis at the start – using swear words to demonstrate his independence and holding on to them desperately when he gets scared:  circumstances cause Neck to grow up in the course of the movie but not in a decisive, summer-I-became-a-man way.  Matthew McConaughey’s work in 2012 has transformed his standing, with critics anyway.  I can barely think of anything he did before last year, except for A Time To Kill (which seems to be on television regularly).  I parted company with Magic Mike halfway through and haven’t seen Bernie or Killer Joe.  I thought McConaughey was good in the early part of The Paperboy but Mud is the first time that he’s really registered with me.  There’s the occasional moment when he seems locked into intensity but he’s often excellent – for example, in registering Mud’s shock when Ellis and Neck first bring him provisions (this naturally recalls Magwitch – although Ellis and Neck are more loyal than Pip) and at the hospital with Ellis when the boy has been bitten by a snake.

    In the climax to the story, Matthew McConaughey’s intensity feels true and makes sense.  Mud’s feelings about Juniper are undoubtedly strong (he’s wanted for the murder of a man who made her pregnant then caused her to lose the baby) – yet there are moments when McConaughey suggests those feelings are fortified by the certainty of separation from Juniper (when the pair see each other briefly the effect is powerful).  Sometimes McConaughey looks like a mythic idea of a romantic fugitive rather than a real one but this works fine because Mud is often seen through Ellis’s eyes.  Reese Witherspoon’s career seems to have been on a downward trajectory ever since she won the Oscar for Walk the Line so the substance of the character and her playing of Juniper amount to something of a comeback.   She’s touchingly believable when Juniper tells Ellis that she loves Mud but doesn’t want to spend the rest of her life with him:  she’s miserable without Mud but realises that she’s not strong enough to sustain a relationship with him.

    Sam Shepard, Michael Shannon and several of the actors in the smaller parts are wonderful.  Shepard as Tom Blankenship is great when Ellis lets rip at him and Tom knows the charges are both true and false.  Tom is lonely, and we learn why:  Michael Shannon’s Galen, who scrapes a living diving for clams, expresses a different kind of loneliness, less explicit but no less communicative, as Galen dispenses kindly advice to the boys whose companionship he needs.  (Jeff Nichols has a real feeling for people who are, in various ways, isolated.)  Shannon gives a beautiful, witty performance – deeply refreshing because the character is so different from the ones he usually plays.   Sarah Paulson and Ray McKinnon have depth as Ellis’s parents, and Bonnie Sturdivant does well as May Pearl.   (When Ellis’s father remarks to his son that she has two names – ‘like your mother’, whose name is Mary Lee – it’s an affecting moment, suggesting Ellis’s literal-minded but deeply-felt desire both to find a girl he can be happy with and somehow to resurrect his parents’ marriage.)  The decent score is by David Wingo.   I’ve found it hard to write about Mud and to explain clearly why I rate it highly but these difficulties reinforce my belief that it’s a good film.  When Ellis and Neck first arrive on the island they believe to be deserted but where Mud is hiding out, the boys find a boat lodged high in a tree.  The image brings to mind Werner Herzog but Mud is a movie by an original American talent.

    13 May 2013

  • Rebel Without a Cause

     Nicholas Ray (1955)

    The misleading title sounds like it’s borrowed from The Wild One (1953), in which Marlon Brando’s Johnny Strabler famously answers the question ‘What are you rebelling against, Johnny?’ with the words ‘Whaddaya got?’[1]   You can’t argue with the impact of Nicholas Ray’s film at the time of its release – a month after James Dean’s death – or with its status as the popular paradigm of American youth alienation cinema of the period.  Seeing Rebel Without a Cause years after its name had passed into the language and its star had been mythicised, it’s both easy and difficult to see what the fuss was about.  The opening titles literally announce this as a red-letter movie and the dialogue is nothing if not florid.  (The screenplay is by Stewart Stern, from a treatment by Irving Shulman, from a story by Ray.)  The generation gap message comes through so relentlessly loud and clear that it seems an honest relief when, at the film’s climax, a policeman actually uses a megaphone.

    There are foreshadowings of West Side Story – in a knife fight, in the well-meaning psychiatrist (Edward Platt) whom the satirical singers of ‘Gee, Officer Krupke’ might have had in mind, in the edgy, turbulent, melodramatic score by Leonard Rosenman.   The main, misunderstood teenagers – Jim (James Dean), Judy (Natalie Wood) and Plato (Sal Mineo) – lament the constraints and pointlessness of their lives.  When Jim asks Judy, ‘Is this where you live?’ she replies, ‘Who lives?!’   Much more striking than the monologues, nearly all of which sound as if they’re being delivered from a public platform rather than by a character, is the insignificance-of-human-life speech of a scientist (Ian Wolfe) lecturing to the high school kids at a planetarium, where the film’s climax also takes place.   This calm description of how the universe was created and how the Earth will die gives the story an odd, circumscribing sense of futility more disquieting and implacable than the ‘What’s the point?’ histrionics of its young protagonists.  The problems of Plato, a pathological case of parental neglect, aren’t, for the most part, as hysterically exaggerated as the less extraordinary traumas being inflicted on Jim and Judy.  Perhaps this is because Plato’s parents are absent and therefore, unlike the parents of the other two, are not overacting before our eyes.

    John ‘Plato’ Crawford is so admiringly devoted to Jim that you might think Fido a better choice of nickname if it weren’t for the fact that Plato is in the police station at the start of the picture because he’s been shooting puppies.   (There’s little in what follows to substantiate the psychopathology that implies:  Plato mostly seems just another mixed-up kid.)   At this distance in time, the movie often feels generic, with set pieces like the ‘Chicken Run’ car race between Jim and the high school gang leader Buzz (Corey Allen).  But the direction and performances have an exceptional bombastic intensity, even if most of the acting is intensely bad.  To call Ray’s direction overemphatic would be putting it mildly.  For example:  Jim’s parents (Jim Backus and Ann Doran) have a fractious marriage and Frank, the ineffectual father, is dominated by his snooty bitch of a mother (Virginia Brissac), who lives with the family; Jim arrives home to find his father wearing an apron, on his hands and knees, picking up things from the supper tray he’d prepared for his mother and dropped.  We get the point instantly; it’s briefly justified by the way Jim grabs his father by the straps of the apron and yells at him to become a man he can admire; but Frank is still in the damned apron even in the next scene.  It could be argued there’s a generation gap in the acting (William Hopper and Rochelle Hudson as Judy’s parents are perhaps the worst of all, although it’s close) but most of the youngsters aren’t too hot either.  It’s no surprise that Dennis Hopper went on to a more substantial screen career than anyone else – as one of the gang members, he has very few lines but he’s already a strong presence and the confidence not to work at projecting it.

    James Dean’s performance isn’t as free and affecting as in East of Eden but he conveys Jim’s vulnerability delicately and with an unpredictable humour.  He draws you in through a combination of emotional transparency and opacity.  There are some brilliant details, such as Jim’s imitation of a police car siren and a tiny gesture he makes to Judy after she’s given him dirt to rub on his hands for the car race.  Dean can turn the emotional temper of a scene instantly and his playing is wonderfully quick and economical compared with the deliberate, predictable acting of Natalie Wood and Sal Mineo – although, to be fair, Wood is, by her standards, unusually convincing in Judy’s opening outburst at the police station.  James Dean’s intelligent reserve enables him nearly to bring off the film’s impossible big finish.  In trying to mediate between Plato and the menacing adult world, Jim acts not merely like a man but as the father figure that he is to Plato.  Jim’s mature courage shows the grown-ups how parents should really behave.    Thanks to the cluelessness of the actual grown-ups, his efforts are thwarted.  The scene thus expands both Jim’s heroism and how much he suffers at the hands of the older generation.  What’s finally distinctive and effective about this manipulative piece of work (and ironic about the film’s cachet) is that its teenage hero is a rebel with an unassailable cause – that of moral superiority, validated through physical and emotional courage.  The rebels without a cause, such as they are, are the gang of lesser teenage mortals, who can express themselves only in acts of hollow, violent bravado and whose collision with Jim’s integrity and insecurity catalyses the plot.  Nicholas Ray and Stewart Stern wisely keep quiet on whether the gang members’ parents are the cause of their maladaptation.  Perhaps they do suffer at home but they need to stay bad boys to keep us aware that Jim, Judy and Plato are admirably different from their contemporaries.

    28 May 2010

     

    [1]  According to Wikipedia, the source was actually a 1944 book, Rebel Without a Cause: The Hypnoanalysis of a Criminal Psychopath, by the psychiatrist Robert M Lindner.

Posts navigation