Crazy Like a Fox

I saw Mr. Squires film, "Crazy Like A Fox", in Leesburg, Virginia two years ago at a special screening.

I am a filmmaker of mostly documentaries and a transplanted Yankee, who, while watching the film was moved to tears several times – something that never happens.

The message in this film, to me, is a strong sense of the loss of ones home, of land, of tradition, of pride, of culture, of history, and of the environment because of suburban sprawl that is driven by quick cash and greed.

In the opening of the movie it could easily have read, "This film is based on a true story", because this tale is happening all over Northern Virginia right now! The beauty of Virginia's piedmont region is captured well. These visuals, juxtaposed with the voice-over speaking of tradition, family, and roots sent chills through me.

The acting, editing, and directing ranged from good to great.

This film exemplifies the all-too-real land-rape of today created by speculators, developers, and local governments. Someday I hope to personally meet Mr. Squires and thank him for his great work and even greater message.

Crazy Like a Fox is a deeply flawed film that nonetheless has its merits. Well acted (mostly) and beautifully filmed, the movie suffers from a ham handed script and dubious direction. The plot when analyzed simply doesn't make much sense. The occasional voiceovers do more to muddle the story than to clarify:

Nate (Rees) sells his historically rich but dilapidated house, finds out the new owners want to tear it down and decides to live for months in a cave on the edge of the property (in Civil War military garb). When the owners go out of town he moves back in as a squatter. He elicits the sympathy and help of the locals, the sheriff and the local judge who back him up despite the fact he is clearly in violation of the law and collectively and somewhat inexplicably they eventually drive the new owners away.

OK, sure we're sympathetic to ruthless developers raping the land, but what exactly did Nate living in a cave accomplish other than cast doubt on his sanity? And are we to be sympathetic to people who take the law into their own hands, and use nepotism and small town politics to usurp the rule of law simply because they don't like outsiders? Who exactly then are the bad guys?

Shakespearean actor Roger Rees in his first film role is generally good, problems with his accent aside and Mary McDonnel gives a very nice performance. One feels that both would have done better with more coherent direction. The cinematography and the score (by Washington composer David Kane) are both first rate.

All in all, CLAF represents opportunities lost.

Nothing at the 2004 Savannah Film Festival was quite as frustrating to watch as the non-dimensional, feature-length helping of twisted Southern principles, "Crazy Like a Fox." The plot: A man sells his house to rich snobs and, after being tricked, changes his mind. He manages to conjure up the support of his fellow Southern folk in an effort to drive the outsiders out of their town. U.K. actor Roger Rees plays Nat Banks, a Virginian farmer who even after living his whole life in the South still hasn't been able to stop speaking with a British accent (seriously, he does, and without explanation).

The bad guys, played like cartoon characters, manage to purchase Nat's house fairly and squarely. Unable to deal, Nat begins camping out on their property. Eventually, he musters the courage to seize the house with the support of the police, judges and anyone else who doesn't care about breaking the law.

Perplexing and ultimately unsettling, "Crazy Like a Fox" argues that law, order and a free market are not valued in Virginia and that rich, snobby people are mean and should be kicked out of small towns. More astounding than this movie being accepted into the film festival is the fact that someone, somewhere, funded this 98-minute disaster.

There is nothing complex about "Crazy Like A Fox". It is the straightforward story, really a fairy tale, of a man who through bad luck or being irresponsible, or both, is forced to sell his historically rich Virginia farm. Most certainly the entire movie is both unrealistic, and yet at the same time quite charming. If at times it seems a bit too "warm and fuzzy", that is because it is. The yuppies seem to give up way too easy, and the joyous singing and dancing is overdone. The performances are fine, the scenery is beautiful, but the story lacks realism and depth. I would not call this a comedy, it is more a family feel good movie that will appeal to some, while others will most likely be dozing off. - MERK

I was delighted to be part of the audience when this film was shown in Washington, DC,at the National Museum of Women in the Arts. The storyline reflected a frequently overlooked "scenario" that is part of many small, southern towns, i.e., the mandatory sale of large, plantation style houses because they are too expensive to maintain in today's economy. I thought each of the actors demonstrated an "honest" portrayal of the emotions and internal conflicts that would be a part of this kind of situation, especially when these homes have been in families for many generations. I also think this movie was sensitive to another part of this scenario that is seldom addressed, because in today's world it is not considered "politically correct." In many instances, some of these changes adversely affected the domestic staff, because they considered themselves to be part of these families. With that being said, I think that Myrrh Cauthen gave dignity and honesty to the role of the housekeeper. And, this story was carried out amid the beautiful scenery that is part of rural Virginia. Great Job.