Gringo

Gringo is funny…

Eventually.

It is also brutal and action-packed and philosophical and tragic (for some). Tonally it reminds me a bit of The Full Nine Yards. When there are laughs, they are big laughs. But there’s also something dark and cruel and self-indulgently ugly going on. Gringo really relishes showing us characters who are bankrupt (morally and otherwise) and deplorable. The film tackles the flaws of the ruthless with a fetishistic glee. It’s hyperbolic and driven by larger-than-life characters whose behavior leads them into uncannily shocking situations.

Gringo also reminds me a bit of the rarely celebrated and little seen Drowning Mona. When I discovered that one of the writers, Matthew Stone, also worked on Intolerable Cruelty, I realized that it has a similar feel to that film, too. It’s enjoyable, but off-kilter, well acted, but odd.

More than anything, it impressed me as a movie destined for future drinking games. It would be fun, for example, to drink every time Joel Edgerton adjusts his pants/zipper/belt after sex. By the end of the movie, someone would have to pick you up off the floor. And I’m pretty sure the whole movie could be re-edited into one amazing ad for Dos Equis.

The Good:
David Oyelowo is a great actor. He probably should have gotten an Oscar nomination for his work in Selma. I love him on Star Wars Rebels. I’ve never seen him give a bad performance, but I had no idea he was so funny.

A lot of scenes in this movie would not work if not for his total commitment to the role. Gringo devotes most of its early scenes to establishing Oyelowo’s Harold as a sympathetic character (surrounded by dangerous egoists). So we’re predisposed to like and feel for Harold but maybe a little surprised when his misadventures become so hilarious. Every character in this movie is over-the-top, so all the performances are exaggerated, but Oyelowo manages to give the biggest, craziest performance of them all. He stares, he yells, he begs, he runs, he screams. He’s surprisingly entertaining all by himself. He infuses every scene he’s in with so much energy, and he has this amazing ability to let us laugh at him even while we deeply sympathize with his suffering. Oyelowo is very gifted with comedy, apparently, and he has to be to make this material work because the humor is uncomfortably off-kilter.

Oyelowo nails the unenviable task of being almost antically hilarious and yet totally relatable.
Charlize Theron and Joel Edgerton have the equally difficult job of being despicable yet still funny and engaging.

As I watched Theron’s performance, I couldn’t help but think this was probably the kind of character Cameron Diaz was going for in The Counselor, except Theron was making it work. (It’s not fair to blame Diaz for her performance not working, though. The Counselor probably works better on the page.  A lot was off there.) Theron’s Elaine Markinson seems insufferably obnoxious at first, but she kind of grows on you. There’s a lovely realistic coherence to the character lurking under all those layers of shallowness that are caked on like so much make-up.

Theron is clearly having so much fun playing Elaine. The character is so hard edged and cynical that it is hard to believe the actress is the same person who played Rita on Arrested Development. 

I think ultimately Elaine makes more sense to me than Joel Edgerton’s Richard Rusk. I look at Rich Rusk and Sharlto Copley’s Mitch Rusk and think, “What in the world was going on in that home?” I can’t tell if Rich is confusingly drawn or if that’s the point. He’s obsessed with telling people to show dominance and take risks and man up, and yet he’s such a weak failure. Maybe that is the point.

I enjoyed Edgerton’s performance. He’s good at playing an alpha male executive, though it’s very hard for me to believe he’s American. I can’t tell if that’s happening because I know he’s not American, or if something in his manner really is off.  Edgerton is fun to watch, though. And it’s also fun that his relationship with his brother is such a crucial element of the film since Joel Edgerton’s real life brother Nash is the director of this movie.  (I’m not sure how this project came together.  I did find it amusing that neither of the two obnoxious American executives is played by an actor from America, though I guess Theron does now live here and have American in addition to South African citizenship.)

The supporting cast is pretty great, too. Amanda Seyfried is a scene stealer who gets quite a few big laughs.  Melonie Diaz (who I know from Fruitvale Station) makes a good impression for someone in such a small role, and do you know what else? Paris Jackson (daughter of Michael) is in this movie! Jackson appears in just one scene, but she’s very convincing and surely has a future in film.  Harry Treadaway, Hernán Mendoza, and Carlos Corona have some good moments, too.  And so does Alan Ruck (who came through for me by being himself.  Immediately after the film when I said something to my husband about “the guy from Ferris Bueller’s Day Off,” and he didn’t know who I meant, I started second guessing myself and ended up raving in a panic, “Is that not him, and I’ve been confusing the two of them all these years?!  Then who’s the other guy!!!”)  But Alan Ruck is himself and he has a couple of really funny moments.

It takes a talented cast to sell material like this. Much of the humor in Gringo arises from the sheer outrageousness of the situations in the film. Some of these situations seemed designed to elicit feelings of discomfort in the audience. And that’s the joke. Ha. Ha. Ha?

Some very shocking things happen. Sometimes they’re funny, and sometimes they’re sad. Some questions raised are genuinely thought-provoking.

I’m curious. Are we meant to take some of Harold’s remarks to Mitch seriously and interpret this whole thing as some sort of morality play (I mean, don’t forget that Yul Vasquez is named Angel!).  Or is this more of a, “It’s just a bunch of stuff that happened” (as Homer Simpson might say) situation?

One other thing, when the end credits rolled, my husband and I noticed that one of the editors is the recently Oscar nominated Tatiana S. Riegel (sister of Sam Riegel, star of our family’s favorite D&D show Critical Role).  I’ve never paid much attention to who is editing films (unless it’s Oscar night), but I think I’m going to start.  If I can occasionally comment on score and cinematography, surely I can sometimes take note of the editing, too.  So from this point forward, I’ll find out who is editing a film before I watch it.

Best Scene:
David Oyelowo makes Harold’s first call begging for the ransom money a moment of increasing hilarity.  (Diego Cataño and Rodrigo Corea are great here, too.)

Best Scene Visually:
I really love butterflies, so if the Monarch sanctuary visit had lasted any longer, it would have easily won my vote. (By the way, I love that when Sunny asks, “What are we doing?” she doesn’t mean it the way I expected.)

But actually one scene I loved to watch was Charlize Theron’s breakdown in the car. She does it so well, and it gives us such tremendous insight into her character. It’s so disturbing, and that’s why it’s funny. Theron knows it’s disturbing. And she almost certainly finds it funny. But the character is dead serious. 

I love, “Who’s Daddy’s blue-ribbon girl?” I have the strange desire to put that on a T-shirt, but I’m not sure who would wear it. (And I need to figure that out because that would be the punchline.) (Maybe Rita on a new episode of Arrested Development!)

Best Action Sequence:
Harold gets taken away in cars so many times by so many people that it’s hard to keep it all straight. But I think his dramatic prayer for God’s help giving way to all the mayhem that follows makes for engrossing cinema.

The Negatives:
I wish we got to see more of Thandie Newton. Her character is so easy to hate on paper. But then her last big scene (before the one at the very end) turns out to be so much more powerful than I expected, more because of her acting talent than anything she’s given to work with. She almost becomes a tragic figure. Her character deserves a better send off than what she gets. I don’t particularly like the suggestion that she’s somehow getting her just deserts. It seems a bit misogynistic and petty. But then, for all its preaching of love and kindness, Gringo is pretty harsh (even cruel) in its appraisal of most of its characters.

Brutal is probably the best word to describe the sensibility of Gringo, and that’s not going to work for some people. It’s a comedy, yes, but what it seems to find most funny is the unfairness, randomness, and brutality of life. (Of course, the ending could be read as a hint that the whole thing may be a bit allegorical, in a sort of loose, “the good are rewarded after their death” kind of way).

But my point is, if you’re looking for comedy that is not derived from finding the humor in horrible, unlikely situations lived out by horrible, unlikable people then you will probably find Gringo horrible and unlikable.

Overall:

Gringo is worth seeing for David Oyelowo’s performance. Even if you don’t find the film palatable overall, it’s hard not to appreciate his talent. In the end, Charlize Theron is pretty great, too, though hers is a cumulative performance that you may have to warm up to like I did. 

I laughed out loud many times during Gringo, though some of that laughter arose from sheer incredulity. This is not your typical comedy, but it will make you laugh if you’re willing to cringe a little during the process. I liked it, but I’m guessing not everyone will.