"Not a mouse Shall disturb this hallowed house. I am sent, with broom, before, To sweep the dust behind the door."
Winter’s Bone is by far and wide the best reviewed live action American film of the year (beat out on Metacritic only by the Ozu re-release I was Born, But. . ., the brilliant Un Prophete, and Toy Story 3.) The modern day Ozark noir has some of the best performances of recent memory, a gripping narrative, beautiful Red camera cinematography, and nail-bite pacing. So what’s wrong with it? Glad you asked.
The film wears its naturalism on its sleeve through understated performances and realistic lighting, photography, and locations. However, this calculated play for naturalism magnifies a gaping lack of realism in one particular area: the characters.
I’ve never been to the Ozarks, so I can’t reliably testify to the accuracy of the meth-hopped locals. But I do know that something felt very off about their characterization. I grew up in a small southwestern Kentucky town, and I’ve encountered my share of backwoods meth addicts while working at my family’s hardware store. We were never sure what percentage of the muriatic acid we sold actually went to etching concrete, and we found an empty Chore Boy package on average of once a week. The jittery, disorganized, intellectually-stunted (sorry) meth-heads of my experience are nothing like Winter’s Bone‘s subdued, well-organized, earth-salted Shakespeares who espouse economical nuggets of profundity. Though the Red camera photography is as sharp as ever filmed, director Debra Ganik shoots the South through soft focus. Characters deliver their lines in droll deepness. The racism that is too-often associated with real life Southern meth-makers has been suspiciously excised from this portrayal. Perhaps that would be one nail too many in the coffin for audience empathy? The gutting of a squirrel is played with such reverence you’d think we were witnessing the painting of the Sistine Chapel. The wife-beating, meth-cooking, evidence-withholding uncle comes off as a hero. I don’t mean that as a criticism of the glorification of drugs and violence; I just find it as unbelievable of a plot point as Star Trek‘s Enterprise escaping a black hole.
Many reviewers who are not from the South are unencumbered by the distracting lack of realism. And that makes me ponder if our enjoyment of films is inextricably linked to our familiarity with the subject matter. Do those with real-life mafia connections write-off The Godfather as an unrealistic portrayal? I read an Iraqi war veteran’s review of last year’s best rated film The Hurt Locker, and he trashed the film for its lack of realism. Having never been there myself, I was able to watch without the furrowed brow. And the film worked for me in spades.
We are more willing to forgive (or completely miss) flaws in films with exotic locales. (Is this part of why I love international cinema? Would Vertical Ray of the Sun lose something if it were in English?) And Winter’s Bone is no less inherently exotic than any film by Tran Anh Hung or Ousmane Sembene. That voyeuristic fascination or ho-hum familiarity happens inside the viewer.
But if you want your film to work in the local market, the devil is in the details.
Tony Youngblood is the current Foursquare Mayor of the Belcourt Theatre, a film and music snob, and producer of the experimental improv music blog and podcast Theatre Intangible. His favorite films include Eric Rohmer’s The Green Ray, Abbass Kiarostami’s The Wind Will Carry Us, Ingmar Bergman’s The Magician, Lee Chang Dong’s Oasis, and Rob Reiner’s This Is Spinal Tap.
- – -
Jett and Gareth reviewed Winter’s Bone on This Episode of The Film Talk
[...] The Film Talk » Thoughts upon Winter's Bone [...]
I appreciate this post because I had the same reaction! It definitely felt like it was made by a city person on a romantic vacation.
Winter's Bone was a darling at the Florida Film Festival this year. Lines wrapped around corners. I can't wait to be able to see it for myself.
You do mention several ideas and make some excellent clarifications that I and many others would not be able to reveal ourselves. I do hope that this post doesn't ruin my experience when I finally see it.
[...] The Film Talk » Thoughts on Winter's Bone [...]
Hi. I actually interviewed Debra Granik last week, and we spoke in length about Southern caricatures and the depictions of Winter Bones' characters. Having read your post I disagree completely with you assessment. First, the film was based on a novel written by Daniel Woodrell, a Southerner whose book was closely adapted to the big screen. Second, many locals were used in minor yet important roles, and they were often asked to share their input in regards to how the characters spoke, acted, etc. Third (and final), John Hawkes (who played Teardrop) didn't want to play the meth addict caricature (nor was he encouraged to), and closely followed Woodrell's description of the character.
Cheers, Matt
So the question becomes, with all that you've pointed out, why does the film feel contrived?
is it that no matter the fantastic work put in by folks John Hawkes and the solid direction by Debra Granik the film can't help but feel conventional and 'false' due to the standard narratives tricks such as a 'ticking clock' = the fews days left to save the house, etc?
Greetings, Matt.
Thank you for your comment. I would argue that citing what pains the filmmakers went through for a realistic portrayal is irrelevant. We should evaluate strictly what made it on the screen (Granik is putting forth a film not a diary on the making of one); and for me, it felt off. You could argue with my after-the-fact musings on why it felt off; but if felt off all the same.
I do admit having trouble placing meth-addicts in the role as a victimized, misunderstood, marginalized minority. Meth is a VERY bad drug, not just altering the brain, but rewiring it. http://www.seattlepi.com/methamphetamines/body….. Home-cooking meth contaminates your home for generations, causing life-altering illness for those that live there. A cleanup can cost in the triple digits.
“Home-cooking meth spreads toxins to every inch of the room where the meth was cooked and beyond. Nothing escapes contamination—the carpet, walls, furniture, drapes, air ducts, and even the air itself becomes toxic. ‘Ingesting some of these chemicals, even a tiny drop, can cause immediate death,’ Smith says.” (excerpt from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?i…).
I don’t have much sympathy for those who would sell out the health of their children and grandchildren as a means (at worst) to make a quick buck or (at best) to escape poverty. We don’t sympathize with a murderer when he shoots a store clerk for the contents of the register — why should we sympathize with the hawker of a drug that lays a slow waste to not only the addicts but also the innocents?
I don’t mean to say that a film about meth-cookers shouldn’t be made. On the contrary, it should be made. We need a portrayal that looks at the drug unflinchingly, with intellectual honesty, not hammered and pegged into a conventional mystery plot with the desire to understand usurped by the desire to empathize at any cost.
Hi Jett,
Very sorry about the late reply. Had a very busy last week.
To answer your question, I did not feel that the film was contrived in any way. In fact, I found it refreshing in its approach to southern stereotypes, and as a mystery/thriller where I actually felt for the Jennifer Lawrence character and was engrossed by its story.
At the end it just comes down to our opinions, no?
Cheers,
Matt
hi Matt -
please don’t worry about late replies = we’re all busy running around! ;)
+ for me it’s probably down to context = if i hadn’t heard the hype about WINTER’S BONE i’d probably enjoy as a well made, tight little thriller rather than being disappointed in it’s characterization of marginalized peoples.
[...] WINTER’S BONE, and their absence is quite intentional. (My review of WINTER’S BONE is here.) There were a number of other films I really loved that deserve an honorable mention. Among these [...]
What I found implausible was the manner in which the story was resolved — we’re to believe that Ree can take the hand into the sheriff’s office and go back home to tranquil domesticity? Won’t there be a murder inquest? Won’t she be a suspect right out the gate? Won’t she be, if excluded as a suspect, a key witness — against all the same vicious, violent people she just spent the whole film barely surviving?
She was doomed as the film opened. Having gone through the series of events depicted in the film, she is now further traumatized and just as doomed. And yet it wants to end on some kind of hopeful, triumphant, dauntless-Ree-overcame-obstacles note. Whuh?
I call BS.
I would be interested to hear from anyone who has read the book and can comment on whether the film adaptation, especially the conclusion, was prettied-up for the good favor of Hollywood distributors / producers / etc.
Dale,
Excellent points. I had not considered her inevitably-dire future prospects.