1. There were so many strong performances in this movie. Tom Hardy continues to be excellent in everything he's in and I even warmed up to Guy Pearce's off putting portrayal of a corrupt Chicago lawman. I would have loved more Gary Oldman. The cast only had one weak link- Shia Labeouf- and unfortunately the script relies on him to serve as the emotional center of the movie. I'm not sure if it's the prejudices I brought into this movie before hand, I've hated all his non-Even Stevens work, or if it was a function of the character he played, but I could tell I was supposed to feel empathy for him, but only felt a mild disgust. Rather than thinking "Jack Bondurant is falling victim to the follies of youth, in fact I can see my own mistakes reflected in his actions." I thought, "Wow, Shia Labeouf really comes off like an asshole." I want to emphasize, this is the best performance I've ever seen him give. Given the central role LaBeouf's character has in the film, this directly undercuts its emotional impact. Because of this I did not like this movie nearly as much as I wanted to, or felt I should have.
2. In the film Jack Bondurant's older brother's challenge him to do whatever it takes to protect his family. At the end of the movie we are supposed to believe he rises to this challenge when he finally takes up a gun and shoots a crazed Guy Pearce to death. The nature of this action, however, is fundamentally different than what his brothers have been pushing him to do. When his brothers act, in a brutal and decisive fashion, it is always to protect their family from harm or limit further harm. What Jack does, does not protect the people he cares about- his best friend has been killed, his boot-legging business dismantled and he has just watched his older brother (and hero) presumably shot to death. He is not acting out of a sense of loyalty nor out of any limiting principle. At this point the actions taken against him are irreversible and Guy Pearce's character has already been rendered incapable of hurting them further within the bounds of the law. Since Jack has waited past the point where he can prevent or limit harm to his family, he is not protecting his family but only acting out of malice and a desire for revenge. While Guy Pearce's death is a moment of emotional catharsis for the audience, Jack Bondurant has fallen short of his brother's test.
3. The symbolism in this movie was heavy handed to say the least. Jack and Cricket are about to enter a violent confrontation- cut to two chickens fighting! Jack is taking the girl he likes on a care free ride in his new car- cut to horses galloping through the countryside, directly evoking the conversation he just had about his car's horsepower! A conversation about how the laws and rules in Franklin county are different then other places is wrapping up- cut to the bridge over the river that serves as the county line! Have the lighting darken... ominously. Have the final confrontation on that very bridge! I did not necessarily think it was a bad thing, but it's overbearing nature did sometimes take me out of the reality of the film.
4. This was a movie where terrible things happened to people constantly. After the the rape scene (off camera and implied, but chilling) I started bracing myself for something jarring every time a character had a smile on their face. The fact that these moments were not actually that predictable, and long stretches would go with relatively little hardship, made the moments of inhumanity that much more off-putting. This is not a movie that believes in the intrinsic goodness of man. It was... more than a little uncomfortable (which, of course, was the intent).
5. I don't know if this was intentional, but I think the climactic scene illustrated why gun control is important. The showdown at the bridge was tense but ultimately resolvable, especially as the local police were coming over to Jack's side in taking on Guy Pearce. The addition of the older Bondurants, armed with guns, is what elevated the situation to lethal. When the entire town showed up with shotguns any chance of this being talked through, or casualties being limited to just the villain, were dashed. Guns did not serve as a deterrent because there was no Mutually Assured Destruction. Instead they served only to escalate the conflict. In conclusion- guns are not nuclear weapons.
*Steps off soap box*
I would recommend this movie, but only on Netflix Instant.
LAWLESS!!
No comments:
Post a Comment