A rural drama that packs a punch but takes a while to get there
With Mudbound, a tale of two families in good(terrible) ol' Mississippi in the 1940s and the daily struggles for the men and women getting by in the most rural elements imaginable, I wanted to like it more, even love it. The period feel and authenticity Rees and her team have makes an impression and it's all surely lived in to where you feel the pain and literal dirt for white and blacks (so, in other words, a brief mention of 'A Tale of Two Cities' has textual resonance).
But the first half is rough going with way overdone narration, with too much that gives more information and dictating character beats than near necessary, robbing moments of poetry and grace. It almost gives the impression of a tougher/rougher shot yet far less eloquent version of The Southerner by Renoir. Not bad but not... Cinematic enough. It feels too literal a translation of a book (and it is an adaptation of one, unread by me).
Yet, once Hedlund and Mitchell, who don't get too developed before they go off to war and only get some in the scenes when they're in battle (all done in brutal and brief bites), come home from the war, the drama all around gets intensified. The narration gives way to emotional scenes between characters - or just conversations showing an understanding that wouldn't have happened if not ironically for the horrors of war- and all the acting by everyone goes to 100 (Jonathan Banks shows a much... "Poppy" kind of side to his talents).
It may be more of a history lesson than anything else, but the intimacy Rees has with her performers gets the material to its peak too. If you aren't sure of where it's going, or want Rees to stick to the farm scenes and not cut back to the war, just wait and the patience will pay off.
But the first half is rough going with way overdone narration, with too much that gives more information and dictating character beats than near necessary, robbing moments of poetry and grace. It almost gives the impression of a tougher/rougher shot yet far less eloquent version of The Southerner by Renoir. Not bad but not... Cinematic enough. It feels too literal a translation of a book (and it is an adaptation of one, unread by me).
Yet, once Hedlund and Mitchell, who don't get too developed before they go off to war and only get some in the scenes when they're in battle (all done in brutal and brief bites), come home from the war, the drama all around gets intensified. The narration gives way to emotional scenes between characters - or just conversations showing an understanding that wouldn't have happened if not ironically for the horrors of war- and all the acting by everyone goes to 100 (Jonathan Banks shows a much... "Poppy" kind of side to his talents).
It may be more of a history lesson than anything else, but the intimacy Rees has with her performers gets the material to its peak too. If you aren't sure of where it's going, or want Rees to stick to the farm scenes and not cut back to the war, just wait and the patience will pay off.
- Quinoa1984
- Dec 25, 2017