WRONG MESSAGES, EDITING HURT FILM
Film Review by Fiore
“There’s a danger when you taste
brown sugar. Louie fell in love
overnight.” – the
stories.
Director
Jeff Nichols helms and pens an interesting tale of Richard and Mildred Loving,
a married couple who filed lawsuits until the Supreme Court shot down laws
banning interracial marriages. While
much of the film is dramatized for the sake of pacing and continuity, several
unintentional (at least I hope they were) messages seep through the story,
sabotaging the civil rights message.
The film
opens with Richard and Mildred sitting on the front porch, while Mildred
announces she is pregnant. The rest of
the film depicts their fight to stay together at a time when the culture did
not permit interracial marriages. This
concept died in the late 60’s and early 70’s.
In fact, it reversed; people, especially young women, were encouraged to
date and marry men of other races by the social engineers who sought an America
with so many blended races, not one would be dominant.
It was an
interesting construct, until the mores of the black culture left many women as
single mothers, which forced many government programs for these individuals to survival
and made the woman’s re-entry to her own race for dating nearly
impossible. After the rubber band effect
ended, we achieved a society where interracial marriages were not disparaged,
nor reveled. They were just
marriages. This was until the past eight
years of the Obama Regime when the cultural lines between the races were torn
and separated by one of the most racist leaders this country has ever seen. This whole social merry-go-round actually
began with the Lovings.
Richard is
played by Joel Edgerton. I thought he
should have won the Best Actor Award for his portrayal in BLACK MASS some years
ago. He continually improves on his
screen performances and is becoming as adept at acting as his brother Nash is
at SFX. This performance, however, is
not as strong. He plays Richard, along
with the solid help of the make-up department, almost as a country boy Forrest
Gump. There is a difference between a
man of few words and one who is ready to go full retard. Edgerton often blurs the line. The script implies, in more than one scene,
Richard’s judgement is not going to shift him from the short bus to the regular
bus. This is one of the unintended
messages; that only a boy light in the head, would consider marrying a girl
from another race.
Ruth Negga
plays Mildred Jeter, who becomes Mildred Loving after an ill-advised trip to
Washington D.C, to marry. She plays
Mildred as a simple, country girl, willing to let life lead her by the
decisions made by her man. Try selling
that theme to today’s Disney-bred females.
She is not the take charge woman lead, controlling and enabling
situations. Rather, her only major
decision in the film is to write a letter, done on a whim, to Attorney General
Robert F. Kennedy, asking for assistance in returning to her home in Virginia.
KEY SCENES TO LOOK FOR:
1.
THE BEDROOM RAID
Nichols’
script becomes suspect when it takes an exceptionally long time for the local
authorities to react to the marriage.
The script also alludes to the strong possibility that someone from the
black community turned the couple in to the law, thereby suggesting the racial
prejudice was also present among those persecuted. Probably another unintended message.
From the
moment Mildred writes to Kennedy, the film takes on a Hollywood mien. Everything falls into place when two lawyers
come to the aide of the Lovings. In what
has to be the film’s biggest faux pas, LOVING depicts both as Jewish attorneys
more concerned with taking a case to the Supreme Court for their own personal
gain and recognition, than the cause to help people. The scripting augments stereotypes already prevalent
at the time about Kennedy and Jewish lawyers.
If Nichols intended these messages, then he has far more hutzpah than
his peers and colleagues.
LOVING is too long. This seems to be a common comment in my
reviews, but nonetheless is a critique that rings true. After the letter to Kennedy, the movie moves
at a break-neck pace, subtracting from all the gravitas built to that point. Julie Monroe cuts the film like a sophomore
college student writing a term paper; she starts great, but when she realizes
she has more material than she needs for the paper’s length limit, she tries to
jam everything in at the end.
Conversely,
Chad Keith is in top form recreating the look of the 1960’s; even though one
scene has a disc brake symbol on a car, you’d only find it if you were looking
for it. Cinematographer Adam Stone uses
a lens fogging technique to help capture the period. Everything in the 1960’s was a little foggy,
anyway.
LOVING had potential as a dramatized slice
of history. The editing and the
unintended messages hurt the film’s impact.
As such, LOVING is worth a view, but not worth the price of a theatre
ticket.
THE GRADE FOR LOVING = D.
No comments:
Post a Comment