tiistai 11. syyskuuta 2012

Lawless

I have no idea how to start this post. Because I'm not sure what I think of Lawless. Based on Matt Bondurant's book "The Wettest County in the World" about his own bootlegging ancestors in the 30's, Lawless has been in the making for a long time. You can't actually say that a film about bootleggers is going to be a box office hit. Unless your cast is made of the hottest rising stars.

In the center of the story, we have the Bondurant brothers, Howard, Forrest and Jack who are known bootleggers in the county of Franklin, providing much of their town's alcohol in a time when alcohol was banned, but everyone was craving for it. Forrest is somewhat of a local legend, having survived the Spanish flu, which left him thinking that the brothers are invincible, immortal. Well, that is tested when Chicago hotshot deputy Charlie Rakes (a very distrubing Guy Pearce) walks into town demanding to put an end to the boys' business. Let the corruption and violence begin!

Shia LaBeouf, America's very own robot-friendly actor, is working towards a career where he is to be taken seriously and he's not actually bad. He's not perfect, but there is a credible actor in there. He portrays Jack Bondurant, the youngest brother, as a boy who is eager to be a man and be worthy of his brothers, mostly Forrest, who is played brilliantly by Tom Hardy. LaBeouf's face, especially his huge deer-like eyes are sometimes filled with emotion, but he lets the audience in too easily. We are left craving for some mystique, something to wonder. You can read him like an open book, which suits his role, but also makes you feel kind of cheated. But his transformation from a foolish boy to a revenge-seeking man is interesting, but I'll get back to that later.

Hardy is quickly becoming the next Heath Ledger, he has a very distinct style as an actor, he makes the role his own and isn't afraid to make it a little funny or a little quirky. Forrest is a mama bear, or actually a mama lion, who protects his family to the very end and you actually start to believe nothing can bring him down. His performance will not leave everyone happy, because he mostly just grunts and looks like he's on drugs, but it's a very nuanced, very well-thought-out performance.

The supporting cast is brilliant as well. Gary Oldman's role was a huge let-down for me, because Oldman is one the greatest actors of his time and he killed this role, he proved he still has it. So why left his story so open? Why introduce him and then just forget him? He obviously had a huge effect on Jack when he winked at him when he first saw him, so that relationship could have been explored more.
My personal favourite was Dane DeHaan, who played Cricket, a crippled boy who is best friends with Jack. He gave us the impression of innocence in a time when no one was innocent.
There isn't a lot of women in this motion picture. Two, to be exact. Mia Wasikowska as Jack's love interest and Jessica Chastain as Forrest's love interest. Both were fine and actually better than fine, but their performances were lost in the middle of all the men in the film and their characters were underwritten.

Lawless doesn't shy away from the violence. We have throats cut wide open, genitals mutilated, people beaten to a pulp... But the violence has a meaning. The camera never lingers on the bloodied faces or the injuries, it's only to show that the times, as well as the business, were hard and no one got off easy and if you wanted to survive, you had to strike back. Violence equals survival.

Most of the violence are conducted by the Bondurants or our main antagonist, Guy Pearce's deputy Charlie Rakes, who is one of the creepiest villains I have seen in the last couple of years. He is ruthless and disturbing, much of it coming from his constant need to keep a civilized and clean appearance, but when no one is watching, he is dirty and disgusting.

But unfortunately, Lawless isn't as epic as it wants to be, or as the trailer suggests, which is a let-down, because it had all the ingredients, but the outcome is not as powerful as it could be. It biggest problem is that it has the feeling that the editing process left some great scenes (involving Oldman...) out and replaced them with scenes with more Tom Hardy, who is great, but this really isn't his story. He is charismatic, but at the end you feel that he was given too much room for a supporting character, but too little for a lead. Is this Jack's coming-of-age -story? Or the Bondurants' fight, more so Forrest's, against the corrupted law?

It ultimately is about Jack's journey from an eager young boy wanting to be seen as man, to a flawed individual who has learned that his actions have severe consequences. At the beginning Jack is so eager to be a man. He believes he will be worthy of his brothers if he manages to make some money by selling their liquour to a dangerous gangster, almost getting himself and Cricket killed, but ultimately achieving the respect of Floyd Banner. He buys a camera and a car and new suits, things his brothers would never buy, alienating himself from them. Everything seems to be going great for him, but one stupid move and it all comes crashing down when he not only reveals their hideout for the booze and money, but also getting his best friend killed, indirectly of course, but still, he seems to blame himself even if it was Rakes who actually ended Cricket's life.

So in the end, has he become worthy of his brothers? By seeking revenge, foolishly running into a situation he is not prepared to handle, blinded by rage? After getting kicked around by Rakes, Forrest tells Jack "It's not the violence that sets a man apart, but the distance he's prepared to go" and demands to know what he's about to do next to get himself back in the game. In the end, Jack doesn't expect anyone else to do the job for him, he goes for the kill himself, not sitting around for Forrest or Howard to take care of it. Has he become a man? Maybe, but it was still a stupid move to go against a dozen cops by himself.

All in all, I believe this is a film that will be better with time. In five years, this could be seen as a modern-day classic, because it has some great performances and great scenes, but it will never have the status it actually wants to achieve.



Ei kommentteja:

Lähetä kommentti