Skip to main content

Grasping in the Mud


So this is a film that came out on Netflix some time ago, but now that it’s got Oscar nominations, I’m compelled to watch it. Mudbound is directed by Dee Rees from a novel by Hilary Jordan about two families of different races living in Mississippi in the 1940s, and the impact the Second World War veterans in each kin have on them. It boasts some unique direction and filmmaking, and quality acting, though it’s often narratively underwhelming and contrived.
Owning a farm outside Marietta, Henry McAllan (Jason Clarke) has higher aspirations for his family, but is confined by his situation and a loveless marriage with Laura (Carey Mulligan). Working the farm is Hap Jackson (Rob Morgan) while his wife Florence (Mary J. Blige) is a caretaker to the McAllan children. Both Hap’s son Ronsel (Jason Mitchell) and Henry’s brother Jamie (Garrett Hedlund) go off to fight in the war, but ultimately return changed, stirring up relations between their two families.
This is one of those movies that begins at the end, and the action of the plot is entirely revealed in flashback, which is a device I’m not usually fond of in storytelling. Given the details in this scene too, it becomes pretty easy to predict after a while what’s going to happen. The premise is really good, and how it holds a lens up to the specific racism of the American South in the 1940s in contrast to the rest of the world. This is certainly what Ronsel notices while abroad, and what he wants to change back home. And I like the relationship between Ronsel and Jamie, who in his own way has been enlightened by his service. There’s some interesting conflict relating to the nature of racism that could be addressed. However apart from a few ideas raised and some character explored on the part of these two protagonists, there’s nothing new to any of the thematic content of this film. It’s still a case of progressive thinkers vs. bigots, a very simple conflict. It never forces the racist characters to confront their biases or have a discussion, it merely boils down to hateful people being hateful without reproach. That’s not an inherently bad thing to portray, as sometimes it’s certainly the case in real life, but there have been decades of movies like this showing that kind of behaviour and action is wrong -going back all the way to In the Heat of the Night and To Kill a Mockingbird. There’s brutal imagery and violence to this film, yes; but even that doesn’t stand out in as vivid a way as something like Mississippi Burning or even this years’ Detroit.
The casting however is very good. Garrett Hedlund and Jason Clarke hold their own really well, balancing each other out. Jamie’s PTSD is played well, as is his recovery from war, while in the early parts of the movie Henry’s bubbling resentment makes for an interesting characterization. Rob Morgan is quite strong and Mary J. Blige (who also sings this films’ Oscar-nominated song “Mighty River”) is great. The face of racism in this movie is Henry and Jamie’s father, played to horrifying excellence by Jonathan Banks. Even as a one-dimensional character who on paper is incredibly easy to hate, Banks reminds us how scary he can be. The best performer in the movie though is definitely Jason Mitchell, who knocks it out of the park as a confident yet uneasy war veteran who has a need to speak his mind. The weight of prejudice is constantly on him and you feel it. Sadly though, in contrast to this, Carey Mulligan isn’t done justice. She plays her part as well as she can, which is still quite impressive being Carey Mulligan, but ultimately she doesn’t really matter a whole lot. Her primary subplots don’t resolve, and given the real drama concerning Jamie and Ronsel and even Henry to a degree (though he too isn’t entirely developed), you can’t help but feel her problems are a little pointless. She seems to exist purely for tension. Also, Laura narrates for parts of the story, as does Hap; which is a little inconsistent considering the film doesn’t appear concerned much with them after the first third.
This is a very skilfully made film though. The cinematography especially is well done, by Rachel Morrison of Fruitvale Station and Dope. It’s shot in such a naturalistic way that’s very appealing for this kind of story. It’s smart and even visually creative at times. Rees certainly knows how to construct numerous scenes in an engaging way. I love the editing in one sequence in particular that cuts between parallel actions in Mississippi and Europe in a very sharp rhythm.
But in the end, despite the efforts to make it look great, Mudbound is weakened significantly by an underdeveloped plot and characters that could have said something new, but preferred not to. Rees ensures that it doesn’t do what it does poorly; but it offers little more than you could get from any other similar race-relations period movie.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...
Post a Comment
Read more