Lawless (2012, John Hillcoat)

This seemingly hackneyed tale of cops-and-robbers blossoms beyond a mere exercise in narrative thrills, focussing on a formalist level of mythic storytelling, a rites of passage telling of a young man's confrontation with worldly evil. Lawless sees director John Hillcoat further materialise himself as a rising auteur and though the film seems over tuned compared to his previous work, there is little to be disappointed with here.

Based on the novel The Wettest County In the World, author Matt Bondurant drew inspiration for his story from his own family history; his grandfather and two brothers and their participation in The Great Moonshine Conspiracy of 1935. Shia LeBeouf plays youngest brother Jack, with Tom Hardy and Jason Clarke as his older more world worn brothers. The three of them make ends meet selling homemade (illegal) liqueur during The Great Depression in Virginia; the brothers are neither greedy nor are they violent unless called upon, they are merely honest and good natured people working a living in a depraved world. Though these characters are capable of great violence, they are not bloodthirsty, though others unfortunately are. Lawless isn't for the faint hearted.

In steps villain of the piece Special Agent Charlie Rakes played by Guy Pierce; Rakes is an incarnation of evil and perhaps the slimiest most detestable villain we're likely to see all year. Working for a crooked politician, his purpose is to press down on the Bondurant brother's business to take a cut of their earnings like everyone else in the county. So begins a war of pride and steadfastness as the brothers, particularly Hardy's 'invincible' Forest, refuses to bow down. As the journey into bloodshed commences so does Jack's personal journey, with LeBeouf providing a very fine assured performance of a young man dragged rather than drawn into a war zone. The adolescent Jack shown in the opening segment who didn't have it in him to kill a farmed pig is soon long forgotten as the horror sets in. The turns in violence that grow throughout and emphasis on family strikes genuine notes of tragedy in a similar manner to that of Jeff Nichols' brilliant Shotgun Diaries.

Survival and the family unit under pressure has formed the basis for Hillcoat's last three features; the father/son relationship of The Road and the three Burns brothers of The Proposition - the film that Lawless relates to most. Like the mythic beast that was Arthur Burns, in Lawless we have a similar figure, albeit a more compassionate one in Forest Bondurant; his presence brings the weight of experience with it, a still fairly young life hardened by the world. Forest, like his damaged veteran brother Howard know that for their young Jack to survive he must be like they are, waiting for the event to finally bring that transition around.

All three of Hillcoat's films take place in brutal landscapes where life has becomes cheap and human bonds tested to lengthy extremes and Lawless is no different, save for a feeling of economy in the storytelling more apparent than the others. Nick Cave's screenplay is a driven and purposeful one set on accomplishing it's goals without pretension, an admirable quality that finds the picture feel rather hemmed in when put against the expansiveness of his more at ease approach for The Proposition. Perhaps it's due to there being more tasks to complete this time round; there is, after all, the love interests for Jack and Forest played by Mia Wasikowska and Jessica Chastain respectively. Then there's the matter of shoehorning Gary Oldman's criminal master Floyd Banner into the picture, a catalytic addition that helps along Jack's transition. Oldman is left with only two major scenes despite his name earning top billing, whether that is satisfactory will depend on the viewer's adoration over one of the world's finest performers. With such a striking screen presence Lawless would only have benefitted from more of Oldman's Banner, in fact the film could have benefited from being longer. At just under two hours it feels rather condensed, sometimes feeling stifled in its developments. Some extra time would have allowed it to unfurl more comfortably, leaving the incredible ensemble of actors feeling more necessary in their involvement.

The fact that Matt Bondurant dug up his family history through the grapevine and old documents provide the film with a touching personal quality of melancholia, a feeling of times past but with an essence of hope due to the story's timeless message of mortality. The film is bathed in a romanticised nostalgia, with Benoit Delhomme's photography producing as if from memory, Jack's memory? Or perhaps our version of memory as we try to imagine life of the past, relying only on films such as these to take us there. The photography heightens the landscape of the film's Virginia setting, a glorious land that probably didn't have trees as luscious as shown, or fields as vast and healthy, but if Jack Bondurant were alive today he would most likely imagine them as so.

As Lawless ascends to levels of ever increasing intensity before giving way to its impressively warm finale, the pieces of understated performances come together to form a rewarding conclusion, revealing how attached we've become to these largely reticent characters. Some well placed moments of humour are also fitting and work well to ease the nerves after an explosive third act. To analyse Lawless on the merit of narrative structure, characterisation, and plausibility would be ill advised as it clearly wasn't the intention of all involved to operate on such regular levels. This is a film playing off mythic conventions with archetypal characters representing more than the individual,  something bigger than all of us yet something unavoidable. For this, it's easier to forgive its imperfections - its clashes of performance and narrow narrative space  - because it's clear these were conscious decisions made to make the film work on a particular level, and it works just fine.

Take Shelter (Jeff Nichols, 2011)

Take Shelter appears to be an exercise in genre from afar, an apocalyptic tale full of Godly spite and Biblical allegory; up close it's actually a shockingly intimate drama playing down expectations instead embarking on a familial drama charting resurgent mental illness. No need to feel gipped here though as the film is steeped in ambiguity regarding its central character who may (or may not) be plagued with prophetic dreams of the world's end, keeping the stakes high enough for an uncomfortable ride.


Michael Shannon plays Curtis, husband to Samantha (Jessica Chastain) and father to their young deaf daughter Hannah. He works as a construction worker and seems generally happy with his existence, that is until he's haunted by dreams of a deadly storm, a terrifying vision of post-apocalypic hysteria not too distant from Cormac McCarthy's The Road (2009). As the dreams intensify and hallucinatory symptoms emerge causing Curtis to confuse dream with reality he starts pushing those closest to him away as they become involved in his night terrors. With his behaviour become increasingly erratic his wife starts to doubt his health as he becomes determined to protect his family from the oncoming storm, obsessively building a bunker to save them at all cost.


What at first starts as an apocalyptic story not unlike many others proving popular as of late it divulges a different purpose all together; though we're never sure whether Curtis' psychotic episodes are imagined or part of a supernatural prophecy, Take Shelter ripens into a character study regarding the effects of mental illness in the family. Hardly a subject to depict in ease the drama never sets a wrong foot, always sincere and fully realised at every turn it never assumes anything and feels entirely confident in its execution. This is largely helped by the talents of Shannon and Chastain, as we witness the foundations of their marriage crumble we're completely transfixed in their troubles and feel both sides of their desperation. The film's two hours are spent almost entirely focussed on Curtis therefore sidelining Samantha; Jessica Chastain adds such depth and emotion to her that despite following another character throughout she manages to become our emotional compass as we feel her pain and worries over her husband's inexplainable behaviour. We're able to attach to both sides of the marriage making for a successfully conflicting and affective drama.

Writer/director Jeff Nichols announced himself as a young talent to watch with the stunning Shotgun Stories in 2007, which also starred Michael Shannon. With Take Shelter there's no doubt in Nichols as a rising filmmaker seeping with these two understated productions to his name. His knack for building atmosphere and wonder from the most acquainted of subjects - in this case small town America -  brings to mind the ponder-some otherworldly qualities of Terrence Malick. Like Malick who emerged in the 70s, Nichols has arrived as a fully formed talent producing confident stately pictures, an occurrence rarely seen in directors this early in a career. In just two films it's clear that Nichols has great affinity for actors, crafting deep resonating scenes around the talents of his cast; with Michael Shannon starring in his third film Mud we're seeing an exciting actor/director relationship continuously evolve. With Shannon - a huge talent with possibly the most impactful presence of any actor working today - able to be contained and used with precise craft by a director showing as much promise as Nichols, anything produced from them in the future will be highly anticipated.


Take Shelter is impossible to fault, those that can were perhaps expecting a middle-of-the-road genre picture offering cheap thrills. It operates as both a subjective supernatural thriller and topical family drama with the most fulfilling of results. It may not offer any new revealing notes regarding mental illness remaining reticent in its dealings though consistently respectful to the topic. This of course was never the sole aim and by remaining ambiguous till the end we never know how much truth was in Curtis' visions but from either side of the truth both remain fully realised and impressive. Everything about Take Shelter is stirring making it a firm recommended watch.

The Tree of Life (Terrence Malick, 2011)

There is only one Terrence Malick in this world and for his cinematic output we should be extremely grateful. Not that his output shares anywhere near the numbers of prolific peers such as Francis Coppola, Martin Scorsese or Woody Allen; Since 1973 when Malick released his debut feature Badlands up until the release of his newest film The Tree of Life he has only directed five films. However, what he lacks in quantity he makes up for in quality, a unique quality that sets him apart from any other filmmaker ever to have lived and one that divides audiences right down the middle. His films aren't necessarily hard to digest, they just aren't for everyone; over the years Malick's style has remained consistent yet constantly developing and evolving, taking aspects of his visual style, themes, and obsessions and pushing them to the limits while focussing less and less with a pushing narrative.

In his debut film Badlands (1973) we saw his fictionalised account of the notorious Starkweather-Fugate killing spree that took place during South America in the 1950s. His next film Days of Heaven (1978) focussed on the fall of grace between a chronically ill farmer and his two workers while caught in a love triangle. It would be twenty years before Malick would complete work on his third feature The Thin Red Line (1998) a World War II film based on the autobiographical novel by James Jones, it was at this point in his career that the true essence of his style had come to fruition; The wandering narrative picking up with one character one minute then dropping them and picking up with another without any introduction, long lingering shots of nature whether it be a wide shot of trees bending, a close-up of a snail crawling, or native children playing. It was also at this point in Malick's career where as a fan you either had abandoned him or stepped over the edge with him. His next film, 2005's The New World further cemented Malick's sensibilities as a filmmaker even further, again like his previous outing this film was a wondering meditative poem to cinema that although follows the troubles between the native Americans and the English settlers during the 17th century, seemed more hung up on the relationship between man and nature once again. Like his war film the action sequences are beautifully but tragically filmed from a God's eye point of view that reminds us of the complicated evil humans are capable of whilst surrounded by the simple sereneness of nature.

This slight overview of Malick's career is importantly referenced when talking about his new release The Tree of Life as it sees the auteur director pushing perhaps even his most loyal follows to their limits.

Like Badlands this new story (if you can call it a story) takes place in the 1950s, it follows a family of two boys brought up by a stern world worn father (Brad Pitt) and an angelic idealistic mother who seems to be and is literally shown to be at one with nature at times. We learn at the beginning that one of the sons has been killed, how?, we never learn but we suspect Vietnam, from then on we follow the remaining son Jack as an adult (played by Sean Penn) and as a young boy (Hunter McCracken). The loose narrative is fragmented and the editing is brutal, there must be more jump cuts present than Godard could even dream of; one moment adult Jack is working in what seems to be an extremely high end job (architect?), then we cut back to Jack as a boy playing in the garden with his brother, going to church, being told off or hit by his father. Then we are thrown back into Jack's adult life minutes later where he wanders aimlessly through streets with no direction. If all this wasn't enough to take in, Malick pulls us out of the intimate 1950s family life when we have just got settled in and takes us back to the dawn of time, yes that's right, nothingness. This segment lasts 20 minutes and slowly but surely we see the world being made, as atoms collide into other atoms we finally arrive at something that resembles a liveable habitat, then after that cells collide with other cells and organs grow and limbs and lungs are built we see the creation of sea creatures and eventually land dwellers. These creatures eventually become dinosaurs and Malick follows them around while we feel more and more like we're watching a BBC production, then in the blink of an eye we are back to being thrown around between the events of Jack's life once again.

While this all sounds ridiculous and like too much hard work the film for all its innovations and gutsy decisions has a simple agenda at its core. Malick's camera once again roams around as if hoping once again that he will capture God on film, that he will see both God and nature as one. In following Jack's young life we see how he is torn between his upbringing; his father is deeply rooted in the ways of the cruel modern world but his mother remains rooted in the simplicity and serenity of nature, these factors conflict inside him and end up as burdens he carries into adult life. As a man Jack has become part of the corporate world, a world that has lost touch and so therefore he has lost touch. How do we place ourselves on Earth and maintain a purpose when we are no longer part of it?

As much as The Tree of Life offers no answers it gives us the chance to think about life's many questions and helps us to confront our disillusions with the modern world and where we come into the equation. The daring creation sequence that the film fearlessly shows might feel jarring and perhaps unnecessary to some but its purpose is important to remind us that the problems we face no matter how big they feel in proportion to our everyday day hum drum lives are not important when you take a step back. Malick gives us the chance to step back; as the opening Biblical quote from Job 38:4 declares, God said unto Job, "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand".

Some are saying that Malick has gone too far this time (not that this kind of statement gets thrown at him very often) and others are declaring The Tree of Life a milestone of cinema on the same level as Kubrick's 2001. What side of this verdict you'll fall into will depend on how much you're willing to invest in what can easily be called the most beautifully profound film ever made. You get out of it what you put in to it, it's all up to you.