Rich Hill

Released:  August 1^st, 2014

Rated:  Not Rated

Distributor:  The Orchard

Starring:  Andrew, Harley, Appachey

Directed by:  Andrew Droz Palermo, Tracy Droz Tragos

Personal Bias Alert:  familiar with lower-class American life

4.8 of 10

            The unfortunately named town of Rich Hill can be found in western Missouri and contains just 1,362 residents, 19 percent of which live below the poverty line.  Missouri is two states west of me, and the small-town makeup seems very familiar.  Granted, I’m two generations removed from the level of poverty seen in this film, but much of my family still subsides near that line.  As someone that has touched the kind of lifestyle that Rich Hill portrays, I may be more acutely aware of its slant, its doe-eyed skimming of a life that is rich and tragic just like everyone else’s.

            The film takes an unusual approach in focusing on three teenage boys, Andrew, Harley, and Appachey.  Each are living at the low end of the economic spectrum, but this isn’t the only thing that ties them together.  There’s also mental health issues, faltering parents, and a growing list of things they want but will never have.  It’s a rather dreary setup, which directors Andrew Droz Palermo and Tracy Droz Tragos mine for every ounce of pathos they can get.  The customary socio-political talking points are all hit here, and the lack of surprise or true insight is what really holds this film back.

            If all the filmmakers were wanting was a textbook portrait of ‘rural’ (this word gets thrown around a lot when describing this film, but it’s actually a small town) Midwest life, then they chose their cast well.  Each boy is surrounded by unfortunate circumstances that pile up in front of them, and yet they still retain a brash hope for their future.  They believe in their smarts and don’t realize how many things have to fall their way to have a chance at bettering their circumstances.  The film feeds on our knowledge of the class system in America, expecting us to extrapolate the dysfunctional homes and lackluster educations into the wheel-spinning that keeps families living in the same nowhere town generation after generation.  Watching the boys entertain ideas of other lives seems tragic in this context, giving the film an admittedly affecting but sleazy core.

            Perhaps if the film had given us a glimpse of the various ways out, which do exist, it would’ve seemed less exploitative.  And yes, it is exploitative to drop in on someone’s life, document their tragedy, and manipulate it into such a meaningless portrait.  Without some larger awareness of their circumstances, the dive into lower-class life is nothing but cultural tourism, a way for those who would normally turn up their nose at the boot and hat wearing boys to feel educated about their plight.  Sure, the people watching will feel bad for them, but that’s far from understanding how to right the situation.  Films like Rich Hill, if anything, only makes the situation worse, subtly deepening the divide between the haves and the have nots by singling out these boys as different from its festival-going audience.

            The fact is that Rich Hill is nothing more than a well-orchestrated manipulation.  In picking boys so familiarly stuck, it gets to play up the beats we’re used to and ignore the more troublesome complications.  If only the film had the nerve to follow a well-rounded group, kids who had support and solid motivation, we could understand the social biases that are actually holding them back instead of feeding into them.

Other Notes:

Ø  I get why some people are enamored with this film.  Two of the kids have shiny personalities underneath all their problems, and it’s kind of impossible not to root for them.

Ø  I know this is a portrait piece, but it gravely lacks an arc.

Ø  Whoa, is it safe to light a cigarette with a toaster?