Released: December 14th, 2014
Rated: R
Studio: Roadside Attractions
Starring: Tommy Lee Jones, Hilary Swank
Directed by: Tommy Lee Jones
Written by: Tommy Lee Jones, Kieran Fitzgerald, Wesley A.
Oliver
Personal Bias Alert: haven’t read the book, not a big Tommy Lee Jones fan
6.5 of 10
The Homesman is the second so-called feminist
western I’ve seen this year. These are
rare products, and arguably neither film actually fits into that category. The other film, TIFF 2014 entry The Keeping Room, is set in rural South
Carolina during the waning days of the American civil war. The isolated farm and the events that take
place there feels very much like the lawless west, but alas, South Carolina is
not the west. The Homesman may be disqualified on an even more nitpicky
technicality. Well, two, actually. First, its stars have pointedly stated that
it takes place in the midwest, not
the west. I feel that’s splitting hairs,
especially when talking in the 1850s geographical terms the characters would have
used, but the larger problem I have with it centers on its alleged
feminism. Now, I’m not going to sit here
and argue that this films is anti-women (it’s certainly not), but I would argue
that it’s actually commenting on something much larger than sexism.
The Homesman is largely a two-hander
between Hilary Swank’s Mary Bee Cudy and Tommy Lee Jones’ George Briggs, the
unlikely duo tasked with escorting three crazy women across the frontier to a
mental health facility in Iowa. The
title might more accurately be The
Homesmen, or the title might be a tipoff that the film actually focuses on
only one of the duo at a time, Cudy for the first two-thirds and Briggs for the
ending.
On
the surface, the two characters are a mismatch.
Cudy is a disciplined, godly woman who cuts down the strung-up thief Briggs
only because she needs muscle for her noble task. As the film wears on and shifts focus between
the two characters, we come to understand that they are both outsiders driven
west by civilization’s utter disuse for them.
This is where I began to question the film’s inherent feminism. Cudy and the three crazy women’s problems are
certainly rooted in feminist issues, but Briggs is driven by problems
traditionally inherent to men. So yes,
there’s feminism in there, but it’s secondary thematically to society’s
mistreatment of all outsiders, not just women.
Are
you sick of the thematic talk yet? Then
let’s move on to the Oscar buzz surrounding this film. It’s mostly fallen on Hilary Swank, a
two-time winner that’s never received a nomination and not taken home the
trophy. This is most likely due to how
well she plays a particular type of person:
the dreamer, a person who wants something difficult to attain and goes
for it with a brash enthusiasm that borders on naiveté. Cudy’s desperation for a husband despite her
prickly personality and ‘plain’ looks (only in Hollywood would Swank be
considered plain) allows the part to fall comfortably into her sweet spot. The character isn’t nearly as well-rounded as
her other winning roles were, but Swank works what she has to the best of her
ability, which makes for a very good performance. In a weak year for lead actresses, that might
be just enough to land her a nomination.
Before
everyone actually saw the film, there was much buzz for director, co-writer,
and star Tommy Lee Jones. By playing
such a large part in the making of the film, he would inevitably get lavish
praise if it turned out well. If it
turned out as it did, which is just okay, then you could immediately mark him
off your ballots in every category, even if only particular portions of his
work was sub-par. His performance is
actually quite good, but it’s very Tommy Lee Jones-ish, which won’t get him
anywhere in a crowded best actor field.
His directorial effort is pretty good, too. There’s a stark yet beautiful cinematic style
to the film, classically western without being too flashy. The tone is drearily one-note, but the
overarching themes are so bleak that this downfall is partially hidden. The problems are primarily found in the
writing. The film is a bit loose, too
long at the beginning and too fast at the end.
Characters suddenly beginning doing and saying things that don’t feel
right, and I can’t help but feel that a pass by a more experienced screenwriter
(all three credited writers have very short IMDB lists) could’ve saved the day.
This
is, in essence, a small film about two insignificant people. Jones never loses track of that, focusing in
squarely on these two troubled souls.
The problem is that there’s not many places left for these characters to
go, leaving The Homesman as a beautiful,
interesting, but somewhat monotonous piece of work.
Other Notes:
Ø There
were a couple really obvious continuity issues.
Trust me, those things have to pretty much jump off the screen for me to
notice.
Ø Hey
Hailee Steinfeld, stop hogging the period piece roles.
Ø Jesse
Plemons! A Friday Night Lights connection is always a good thing in my book.
