Runtime: 1 hour, 55 minutes
Rating: R
Director: John Hillcoat
Quick Impressions:
Ever recognize an actor you weren’t expecting in a movie and realize, “Of course! He/she is in everything lately?” Can you imagine how weird it would be if that happened every time somebody new showed up on screen?
Well, imagine no further. I give you Lawless, a film based on the true story of the moonshine running Bondurant brothers, featuring solid performances by some of the day’s most omnipresent actors—Tom Hardy, Jessica Chastain, Mia Wasikowska (who gets special mention for greatest variety of roles), and Shia LaBoeuf (who admittedly isn’t in everything anymore. Still, I think that’s only because he’s previously been in everything already). Rounding out the cast are such familiar supporting chameleons as Gary Oldman and Guy Pearce, and relative new comer Dane DeHaan, who really impressed me with his star turn in Chronicle back in February.
The Good:
As you might have guessed from the impressive (though familiar) cast list, the performances are good. (The actors have a lot to work with and make the most of it.)
What a shame that nobody believed in this film enough to secure it a decent release date! The movie’s failures certainly aren’t the fault of the talented cast. All of the principles give strong performances, and even some relatively minor characters (especially Bill Camp as Sheriff Hodges) really shine.
Gary Oldman is fantastic as successful gangster Floyd Banner, who impresses young Jack Bondurant (La Beouf) by spraying his enemies with bullets with a wink and a smile and stays ahead of the game through cunning and clear-headed decisions. Banner is a seldom seen (though somewhat important) character, so Oldman doesn’t have a lot of screentime, but he sure makes the moments he has count.
Shia LaBeouf does some of the best acting of his career, and Tom Hardy once again proves himself more than capable of playing a surprisingly sympathetic force to be reckoned with. Forest Bondurant is a formidably scary guy but certainly commands respect. Hardy has a knack for playing guys like that. And, as usual, as woman-running-from-her-past Maggie Beauford, Jessica Chastain turns in a performance that could give her a shot at a supporting actress nomination, (but I doubt that will happen since the movie doesn’t seem to have much support).
Lawless isn’t going to win Best Picture, but still, it’s better than its release date. True, the ending doesn’t pack enough of a punch (for reasons I’ll discuss later), but the story is coherent (which is more than you can say for many summer movies), the set decoration is captivating (you really feel like you’re in the backwoods during Prohibition), the music feels right, and the performances are universally solid. If I were an actor, I definitely wouldn’t look back on Lawless as a bad decision or a weak spot in my résumé. It’s not a great movie, but it contains some great performances and some brilliant moments that hint at future greatness for the filmmakers.
Most Promising Scene:
So much about this movie impressed me. I’m not familiar with John Hillcoat’s earlier work, but I’ll watch what he does in the future. Certain elements—obviously carefully considered choices—really stand out. Sadly, these moments never quite come together to create something greater than themselves. Still, taken individually, they’re quite arresting.
I loved the scene that takes place in church. The power, the rhythm of the congregation’s singing made the moment stand out and the sanctuary seem like a place apart. Though she doesn’t say anything, Mia Wasikowska is memorable here as Bertha Minnix, the plain-dressing preacher’s daughter that Shia LaBeouf’s Jack Bondurant spends most of the movie admiring (first from afar, but gradually from acloser and acloser). The scene also benefits from the added scintillation/horror of the ritualistic foot washing and the inebriated panic so conspicuously experienced by Jack. The moment is wonderful and suggests giftedness for filmmaking that may mature in future efforts.
Visually:
I don’t know whether to credit cinematographer Benoit Delhomme, director John Hillcoat, screenwriter Nick Cave, or the writer of the source material, Matt Bondurant, but at least one of them is obsessed with women in mirrors.
First I thought it was just a good aesthetic choice. Jessica Chastain looks so great in her period costumes, so a shot of her in the mirror only enhances an already well dressed scene. But then it happened again. And again. And again. Eventually I lost track of the number of times that we see either Chastain or Wasikowska reflected in the mirror. I’m not talking about the characters looking at themselves in the mirror. I mean that when one of these women is in a scene, quite often instead of seeing the original, we see her reflection.
Why? Is this some kind of symbolism? Is it some reminder that women in the movie are seen mainly through the male gaze? Do such shots heighten our awareness of the fact that there are other angles of view, that someone always could be watching or creeping up behind the protagonists? Does it mean that women are given to reflection? When they were decorating the sets, could no one could find any wall hangings more interesting to look at than Jessica Chastain, so they just went with a mirror? Is it a convenient and artistic way of getting a close-up of both stars who are facing each other?
All this mirror business went on for so long that I half suspected we were being set up for the fact that the Guy Pearce character was actually a vampire. (His hair style was kind of evocative of Bela Lugosi’s Dracula.)
I’m not sure what was going on with the women in mirrors, but it reflected just one of many intriguing visual choices that didn’t seem to go as far as they could.
An early scene where men gathered for a meeting in the firelight also sent thrills through me. One man’s craggy face just looked so fantastic lit by the flickering fire.
The movie really didn’t capitalize on all its potential, which is a shame. Still, it’s interesting to look at throughout, as is. I haven’t seen such rich set decoration since visiting Disneyland’s new Cars Land back in July.
Best Scene:
The night when Howard doesn’t come becomes highly memorable for several reasons. Early on, Dane DeHaan shines as Cricket, a character far more courageous (and less rash) than his best friend Jack Bondurant. Later when Forest leans in to examine a car engine, I felt my face contorting into all sorts of ghoulish grimaces. At the end, I’m not sure who looked more like a jack-o’lantern—me or Forest.
In terms of acting, Jessica Chastain does wonderful work both here and later when she revisits what happened here. If anyone from this film gets an Oscar nomination, I’m sure it will be Chastain. Tom Hardy and Shia LaBeouf give strong performances, too, but Best Actor is a crowded category, and I’m nearly positive it’s too competitive for either of them to get noticed. Besides, neither of them is as beautiful as Chastain, though both do have lovely eyes.
Best Action Sequence:
Shia LaBeouf’s Jack Bondurant is just about as brilliant a tactician as Battleship’s Alex Hopper, but, unfortunately, things work out more realistically for Jack. His cringe-worthy decision to try to impress girl-of-his-dreams Bertha (Mia Wasikowska) by giving her a private tour culminates in probably the most intense scene in the entire movie. What’s happening on screen is nerve-wracking enough, but, watching, it’s hard not to bite your nails down to the quick worrying about what’s probably about to happen.
The Negatives:
I’m starting to think I just don’t like Guy Pearce. Maybe his make-up in Prometheus wasn’t so bad after all. Maybe he’s just weird looking. (As I write this, I’m confident that one day, I’ll be starving and desperate, and Guy Pearce will be the only person who can save me by giving me a job. But he won’t do it. No, he’ll remember this review. Meanwhile, Alex Hopper from Battleship will be President of the United States.)
I think Pearce’s character is, at moments, a little too over-the-top. I mean, you’re not supposed to like him. He’s the antagonist. But what a weirdo! I would have appreciated more efforts to humanize him (or further dehumanize him) by revealing more of his backstory and motivations. Obviously he didn’t like people to think he was “nancy.” Maybe he shouldn’t have worn such strong perfume. (But then, perhaps, they just would have mistaken him for Dracula.) Charlie Rakes is a man who obviously missed the part in the Bible about not mistreating the widow and the orphan and all that. Almost every character in the story is some kind of criminal, yet he comes across as the only villain, which doesn’t ring quite true. Rakes seems like a character from a Victorian melodrama, and I can’t decide if the problem is Pearce’s performance or the way the character is written. It’s probably a combination of the two.
Now, I know all this is based on a true story, and that story was written down by someone who seems to be a descendant of Jack Bondurant, but I feel like the movie would have benefitted by either taking a more realistic view of Charlie Rakes or making its bias against him more explicit. (The narrator seems so reliable and neutral, which is unlikely given that this is a story handed down through family.)
My husband and I agreed that the movie disappointed at the end. At first, we couldn’t decide quite why the ending didn’t satisfy us. As we drove home from the theater, my husband concluded that for him, the problem was that we didn’t get to see one of the most crucial acts in the movie. Despite a movie full of build-up (beginning with the first scene) preparing us for this key act, the moment itself takes place in shadow. My husband said he felt cheated. We agreed that based on the ending narration, not really showing the moment may have been a conscious choice designed to make a point. But cinematically, it just didn’t feel right. It wasn’t satisfying, and it left us both feeling kind of blah.
Overall:
I’m really glad I saw Lawless. For one thing, while writing this review, I finally learned to spell Wasikowska (a name that’s certain to come up again, probably in a future write-up of Oscar nominees). I feel sort of sorry for this movie, honestly. It’s too pretentious for the summer and not quite impressive enough for the fall. If you get a chance, though, see it for its solid performances, well dressed sets, fitting music, and suspenseful, bullet-ridden scenes of backwoods, Prohibition-era distillers getting their moonshine on.