Tuesday, January 30, 2018

Three Billboards, many critics

I am a lazy consumer of literature, in that I let the critics and award-makers decide what was the best of a given year, and then I check those titles out.  That is how I select many of the books I read, and it's how I select most of the films I see.

In that spirit, we've seen a couple of Oscar-nominated films in the last couple of weeks, including Martin McDonagh's much-praised Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
First of all, my recommendation is: if you haven't seen it yet, then try to see it.  It's a very good film - maybe the best new release I've seen in several years.

I consume film criticism backward: first I see the movie, then I read what various critics thought about it.  A site like Rotten Tomatoes is very handy for compiling dozens of reviews.  Why do I do it this way?  I am never completely sure why I do anything, but in this case, I suppose it accomplishes two things: it allows me to form my own views of a work, unencumbered by the influences of the influential; and then it allows me to see where I stand vis a vis the critical consensus.  I fancy myself an independent thinker, but it's good to stay anchored in the culture. 

And regarding consensus: perhaps it is a function of choosing to see films from curated lists, but it seems that there is rarely a lot of divergence of opinion regarding the films I see.  Three Billboards fits the pattern: virtually all of the reviews I have read state that Frances McDormand's performance is riveting, that the story is bleak, filled with grief-fueled anger and even rage, and that there is a good deal of black humor in it.  All that is true.  But I am not completely sure those aspects of the film explain why it makes such a deep impression.

It seemed to me that there is a (very) ambiguous sacrifice in the center of the film.  The Top Critics at Rotten Tomatoes, at least those whom I sampled, didn't mention it.  Inasmuch as sacrifice is a religious theme, I wondered whether any of the Catholic critics picked up on it.  I have to say that, based on some website poking around, I'm a little disappointed that, as far as I can tell, neither Commonweal nor America nor Catholic News Service has yet published a review.  I'd be glad to stand corrected on that.

So, casting around for a critic to do some hard thinking on my behalf, I googled "catholic film critic three billboards".  And I came up with this review.  The blog at which it resides, Catholic Stand, is not one I'm familiar with, nor with the critic, Patrick Malone.  I think he spends too much time on the character of the priest, who only appears in one scene, but I admit he wrings a lot more significance out of the character than I would have.  And he takes up the question of sacrifice pretty thoughtfully.  On the whole, I would say it's a pretty decent bit of Catholic criticism.

At any rate: as I say, if you get a chance, see it.


12 comments:

  1. An excellent movie. That Martin McDonagh is a playwright as well as film director contributes to the pleasure of watching a very painful film. It showed, by contrast, how sloppy many movies are about the text/narrative of the story. Further, the acting, even in minor parts, was excellent, even of reprehensible characters. Frances McDormand is ****, even though she is among the reprehnsibles.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It is a sad sign of our times that when Margaret rated McDormand four stars, I read it as an expletive at first.

    Have yet to see "Billboards," but loved "Seven Psychopaths" and "In Bruges," which also show the same care in writing and storytelling. Dark humor, many reprehensibles.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great minds, etc. After I posted it occurred to me that four***could be taken other than I meant it.

      Delete
  3. I watched the movie and was often angry with the characters, especially McDormand's and the deputy. But I guess that's a tribute to their talent and the force of the movie. It certainly was a better usage of time than watching another reworked, refried, rebooted, overextended franchise movie. I am trekked out, starwarzed out. Enough was enough.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, they are both very angry people with the consequent results in what they do. This is not a compassionate, feel good movie. Of course, I am still puzzling over the final scene. Where are they going? What will they finally do?

      Delete
    2. I think non-ending endings are kind of a thing now. Last year I read a collection of best short stories of the year or some such, and quite a few of them didn't really come to a resolution, either.

      Delete
  4. Stanley - I would add "Marveled out".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What about the sheriff (Woody Harrelson)? Explains the difficulty to McDormand of solving such crimes. Pays for the ads down the line. And kills himself? Post-modern chaos? Very Irish???

      Delete
    2. Yeah, that's the ambiguous sacrifice I had in mind. People start to show glimmers of forgiveness and self-control after that. The anger seems to dissipate a little bit.

      Delete
    3. Also ambiguous: deputy correctly identifies the rapist by his bar fight but the new "sheriff" takes the military's word that it couldn't be him. Deputy and McDormand nonetheless continue their pursuit at the end of the movie--or do they?

      Delete
    4. EEEKKKK!! Jim, put a spoiler alert on this, willya?

      Delete
    5. Yeah. Marvel. And I'd add Dr. Who, X-Men (also Marvel, I think). And everything has to be dark and the superheroes moody. That automatically makes it profound. Yeah, I'll take McDormand anytime. Although she did appear with Liam Neeson in that darkest of comic book movies, "Darkman".

      Delete