If
I had seen Hell or High Water during its theatrical run months ago, I'm
not sure I would have thought as much of it. Having seen it more
recently, I think I appreciate it more -- but not because of the bit of
awards buzz it's been gathering.
Hell
or High Water is the story of two brothers: Toby, a divorced father of
two, and Tanner, an ex-con. Desperate for money to save their family
farm, they embark on a series of bank robberies. Soon they're pursued by
a pair of Texas Rangers, one on his last case before he retires and
hands the reins over to the other.
So, not to go too far down a "think piece" kind of road here... but since
the election of Donald Trump as president, a lot of pundits have
embraced the narrative of the poor white voter: suffering just like
impoverished people of color, but overlooked in the focus on minorities.
Hell or High Water is in no way a politically charged film, and race is
not its central issue. But it is all about what desperate acts people
will turn to for lack of money, and I can't help but feel this movie
plays differently now in that post-election narrative.
This
theme of desperation plays out again and again in the movie, and not
just with the two brothers who turn to robbing banks. Multiple one- or
two-scene characters rail against how they too are kept down by the
powers that be. The Texas Rangers never do anything questionable in
their investigation, yet are largely made the heavies of the piece both
by other characters and the script itself. The movie's original title,
Comancheria, was a nod to a scene between Tanner and a man of Comanche
descent -- an exchange I won't spoil, but which also reflects on the
theme of systemic subjugation.
I
think there's room for comparisons between this movie and No Country for Old Men. As that's an Oscar Best Picture winner (and a Coen
Brothers movie to boot), I imagine most people will find this movie
coming up short in such a comparison. For me, Hell or High Water is
actually the better experience. Both films have two concurrent plots
about the criminals and the lawman chasing them; this is the movie that I
think integrates those two threads better. And in my mind, it's
certainly the movie that has the more effective social commentary.
It
might just have the better performances too. While it's true that
nothing in Hell or High Water approaches the chilling specter of Javier
Bardem's Anton Chigurh, there is an across-the-board consistency here.
Chris Pine plays Toby, and while the movie is absolutely trading on his
charm and looks as a starting point for audience sympathy, his
performance has plenty of depth on its own. Ben Foster is excellent as
the screw-up brother, in turns noble and despicable. Jeff Bridges is
perfect casting for the retiring Texas Ranger, and Gil Birmingham is
great as the partner (outwardly) eager to be rid of him.
All
that said, though a lot of this movie feels true, I also felt the hands
of the writer and director deliberately manipulating the strings. The
movie offers plenty to think about, but not many moments that made me feel much emotion. And its "stick it to man" ethos crumbles a bit in the
face of the collateral damage that begins to mount up, damage that
rises to a level higher than the moral ambiguity I think they were
aiming for.
Good but not great, I'd give Hell or High Water a B.
No comments:
Post a Comment