★★★½☆
3 November 2016
A movie review of LOVING. |
“I’m going to build you a house right here. Our house,” Richard Loving (Joel Edgerton)
More often than not social justice cinema feels the need for big moments and big emotions. LOVING sidesteps the non-believability and triteness of such situations, offering up instead the war of attrition and elongated time frame it actually takes to create legal change. The film’s meditative pace at times frustrates, observing the lives of two people who do not speak unless it seems necessary, but one is aware that movies like SELMA and LINCOLN are rare beasts – both politically astute and propulsive. LOVING, by its very title, is of course a romantic story, not just the surnames of the leads, and also quietly effusing a societal dream.
More often than not social justice cinema feels the need for big moments and big emotions. LOVING sidesteps the non-believability and triteness of such situations, offering up instead the war of attrition and elongated time frame it actually takes to create legal change. The film’s meditative pace at times frustrates, observing the lives of two people who do not speak unless it seems necessary, but one is aware that movies like SELMA and LINCOLN are rare beasts – both politically astute and propulsive. LOVING, by its very title, is of course a romantic story, not just the surnames of the leads, and also quietly effusing a societal dream.
“I’m pregnant” are the first words of the film, the catalyst for Richard (Joel Edgerton – barely saying a word and economically conveying what is necessary through physicality) marrying Mildred (Ruth Negga – defiant and dignified, though contrasting her ferocious turn in television show PREACHER). 1958 Virginia, USA, and such a union is illegal. This is not the apple pie, wish fulfilment version of the era seen in AMERICAN GRAFFITI, though there is an initial car race – an inter-race race. It is an ironic early bit of action showing the pointlessness of segregation.
Law enforcement villain, Sheriff Brooks (Marton Csokas), all sneers and threats, is superficially cartoonish, but he represents the unedifying face of occasional politeness. Most of us want courtesy in everyday encounters from strangers, but true manners are genuineness, tied to empathy and compassion for others. Certain segments of society pride themselves on surface, and LOVING, as a mere aside, shoots that down.
The state legal system forces Mildred and Richard to either dissolve their matrimonial union or permanent exile from Virginia. The religious hypocrisy of permitting inter-race coupling (implicit only when the man is Caucasian) out of wedlock, while using the word of god to justify profound mistreatment, is not lost on the filmmakers.
LOVING might have been claustrophobic, but the creative team have faith in the performances and subject matter, and with thematic consistency show a countryside idyll – a beautiful place full of hate: Surface verses reality. Pockets of the state are, however, benchmarks of forward-thinking harmony where Native Americans, African Americans and Caucasians work and socialise at ease. These bastions are presented as a threat to racial injustice. The idea of community is an enemy to those who wish to exploit. LOVING contrasts the urban environment containing different pressures. (Check out documentary THE HOUSE I LIVE IN, which explores some of those issues.)
For audience members expecting a dour 123 minute slog, be allayed – brief humorous respites are not from obvious quarters. (Nick Kroll’s lawyer arriving is not a version of his patented douche persona (PARKS AND RECREATION, SAUSAGE PARTY)). Believe it or not, Michael Shannon is an unusual channel of relief. (He dials down his patented intensity, and perhaps proves to be director Jeff Nichols’ lucky charm.)
LOVING’s main achievement is painting the bigger picture, while not losing focus of the two protagonists.
Using these Google Adsense links help us keep Filmaluation free for all film and arts lovers.