BEFORE: I'm back on fiction films, finally, with a clear path toward Christmas. I had several possible lead-outs from that Conan O'Brien documentary, but this one pleased me the most - I had a whole Idris Elba chain planned here, maybe four or five films, but the bulk of that has now been moved to September, because I needed them as a lead-in to the films that are going to be my lead-in to October. Makes sense? That's just how this crazy linking thing works, I can make a plan but then I realize I need to revise the plan, and I don't stop revising until I know there's a path to Christmas. Even then, I don't stop revising. But it feels great to be watching fiction again, those documentaries have a high body count and that can get depressing, they're a little too real. Now let me watch a Western where there's probably still a high body count, but at least I know all the death isn't really real.
Deon Cole carries over from "Conan O'Brien Can't Stop".
THE PLOT: When an outlaw discovers his enemy is being released from prison, he reunites his gang to seek revenge.
AFTER: Well, it's good to be back into story-land, even if the story isn't the biggest selling point of this film. This is mostly standard Western-type fare, which means a lot of gunfights, bank robbery, train robbery, and general mayhem. What makes this film different is the minority representation, obviously - I haven't seen a decent all-black or mostly-black western since "Posse", and I think maybe I'm overdue for a re-watch of "Posse".
A film like this, one that messes a bit with the role of black culture in the 1800's, is always going to perhaps better represent the time in which it was made, rather than the time in which the story takes place. Like, there was no hip-hop music in the late 1800's, but if this film wants to have a soundtrack that represents 2021, I suppose that's all well and good. Jay-Z and Jadakiss and Ceelo Green and Kid Cudi are on the soundtrack, so that should be a tip-off that this ain't your daddy's type of Western. Or maybe your daddy's very down with hip-hop, I don't know. The cast is about 90% African-American, and the few token white people exist only to get shot, so there's that. But it's an equal-opportunity shoot-em-up, because nearly everyone gets shot over time, and I'm not entirely sure that's a good thing. Is this really the message that we want to be sending out to the black youths of America, that it's cool to rob banks and blow up wagons and have quick-draw competitions in the middle of the street? Sure, the film language of Westerns says that all those things are cool, and almost a required part of daily life, but you know, sometimes I like to think that we've progressed as humans and gotten beyond all of that. Maybe the second step in changing the culture, after passing sensible gun control legislation, is to stop making films that make gun violence look cool. Hey, it worked for smoking, didn't it? The movies made an effort to not depict smoking as cool, and hardly anybody smokes any more, now they vape instead which I'll admit doesn't seem like much of an improvement. It's a stretch to think that Hollywood might take a stand and stop the depiction of gun violence, but I don't know, maybe films could focus more on the consequences, other than being dead?
A film like this, one that messes a bit with the role of black culture in the 1800's, is always going to perhaps better represent the time in which it was made, rather than the time in which the story takes place. Like, there was no hip-hop music in the late 1800's, but if this film wants to have a soundtrack that represents 2021, I suppose that's all well and good. Jay-Z and Jadakiss and Ceelo Green and Kid Cudi are on the soundtrack, so that should be a tip-off that this ain't your daddy's type of Western. Or maybe your daddy's very down with hip-hop, I don't know. The cast is about 90% African-American, and the few token white people exist only to get shot, so there's that. But it's an equal-opportunity shoot-em-up, because nearly everyone gets shot over time, and I'm not entirely sure that's a good thing. Is this really the message that we want to be sending out to the black youths of America, that it's cool to rob banks and blow up wagons and have quick-draw competitions in the middle of the street? Sure, the film language of Westerns says that all those things are cool, and almost a required part of daily life, but you know, sometimes I like to think that we've progressed as humans and gotten beyond all of that. Maybe the second step in changing the culture, after passing sensible gun control legislation, is to stop making films that make gun violence look cool. Hey, it worked for smoking, didn't it? The movies made an effort to not depict smoking as cool, and hardly anybody smokes any more, now they vape instead which I'll admit doesn't seem like much of an improvement. It's a stretch to think that Hollywood might take a stand and stop the depiction of gun violence, but I don't know, maybe films could focus more on the consequences, other than being dead?
Two steps forward, one step back, I guess. Kudos for messing with history and making a film with African-American characters in positions of power, but for every black mayor or sheriff in this film there are ten black gang members, so that's not an overall improvement. But I will say that there is at least some emphasis placed on the cyclical nature of violence, because it's violence in the past that sets characters on the path for revenge, and thus creates more violence in the future. Is that the take-away? I'm not sure, it seems like more emphasis is placed on creating chaos and getting ahead via illegal means. And often the characters seem to be working at cross purposes with themselves - Rufus Buck is an outlaw gang leader who's being moved by train from one prison to another, when he's freed by his former gang members, who present a full pardon that Rufus has received. OK, but if they have the pardon, why do they have to kill the agents that are transporting him? And if they're going to kill the agents on the train to free him, then why do they need the pardon? Big NITPICK POINT here, the whole scene doesn't make much sense. Is the pardon valid or not? I can't tell, it's really unclear.
The plot synopsis on Wikipedia seems to suggest that the pardon is valid, and the U.S. Army soldiers on the prison car are corrupt, so I guess that makes it OK to kill them, but even with that, the storyline doesn't really work. If Rufus Buck was pardoned then there would be a reason, a purpose, something he'd have to do to justify his release, but then he and his gang hit the town of Redwood and hold it hostage, he beats up the town's mayor and demands money from the residents, either as protection money or a fee for him to leave, this is also fairly unclear. Rufus' main complaint about the mayor was that he was using his position to profit at the expense of the town, but then doesn't he proceed to do the very same thing? Am I missing something here?
Rufus also wants the money from a bank heist that his gang (Crimson Hoods) pulled off, which apparently was stolen by a rival gang, the Nat Love gang. Nat was a young boy when Rufus came to his house, killed his parents and carved a cross on his forehead, so yeah, there's some bad blood there. Love's gang stole this money from the Crimson Hoods while Nat Love himself was tracking down and killing Cortez, who was also there working for Rufus the day his parents were killed. Soon after this (and a visit to "Stagecoach" Mary Fields, his on-again, off-again girlfriend and owner of several saloons) Love is captured by Bass Reeves, a U.S. Marshal who needs his help to take Rufus Buck down. Of course, Nat Love is down for this, it fits in neatly with his ongoing plan to get revenge on Buck.
Mary enters Redwood first, under the guise of looking for another saloon to add to her franchise, but Rufus Buck and his associates see through her ploy and hold her hostage. This brings Nat Love into the town to try to get her back, but he's also captured and beaten. Rufus sends out the Nat Love gang to get his stolen money back, plus interest, and this requires them to rob yet ANOTHER bank in a nearby white town. Umm, sure, reparations and all that, but again, we're kind of sending out the wrong message here. It's great to depict a female black entrepreneur in the saloon business, even if it's not historically accurate, but overall it feels like more people here are getting ahead via illegal means, so again, it's two steps forward and one step back.
I'm probably overthinking everything, that's just what I do, but stories have morals and messages, and filmmakers need to think about the messages they're putting out there, especially if they're trying to update an old format like Western movies. Are we really putting out the message in the world that African-Americans in the 1800's could only get ahead via illegal methods, and then what is the effect of that message in the world? This film screened last fall in the theater where I work part-time, and now I'm really wishing that I'd listened to the Q&A with the cast, because that would have maybe given me some insight here on what this film was really trying to achieve.
Notably there's one gang member, Cuffee, who is played by a female actress, but the character dresses and acts like a man. This of course is very forward-thinking according to modern sensibilities, and again, this represents more of how we think about gender now rather than how people thought of gender back then. But it's also a bit unclear whether, within the story, this was a woman dressing like a man, or a man who was somewhat feminine, or a truly gender-neutral person, or what. They didn't have to over-explain it, I get that, but it would have been nice to know exactly what this character was meant to represent, without that, they're kind of a big question mark. Were there transgender people back then? I don't think so, but is this meant to depict someone who wanted to be the other gender, at a time when it wasn't medically possible to change? And it would also be helpful to know whether the other characters around Cuffee are aware of her situation, or are ignorant of it or don't understand it. Nope, let's just show everybody just not talking about it.
It's more of a shock to find out that Nat Love, Mary Fields, Rufus Buck, Bass Reeves and Cherokee Bill are actual historical figures from the Old West, even if the film doesn't depict real events from their lives, this is still somewhat notable to realize that they did, in fact, exist in some form. (Bass Reeves was the first black Marshal in America, and part of his story was also referenced in the HBO series "Watchmen".)
All in all, despite a few NP's, it's a very cool film that I'm probably guilty of over-analyzing - it feels like the kind of film Quentin Tarantino wishes he could make. (Tarantino made "The Hateful Eight" and the working title for this film was "The Notorious Nine", so I don't think I'm that far off here.)
Also starring Jonathan Majors (last seen in "Da 5 Bloods"), Idris Elba (last seen in "The Suicide Squad"), Zazie Beetz (last heard in "The Bad Guys"), Regina King (last seen in "How Stella Got Her Groove Back"), Delroy Lindo (last seen in "Malcolm X"), Lakeith Stanfield (last seen in "Judas and the Black Messiah"), RJ Cyler (last seen in "White Boy Rick"), Danielle Deadwyler (last seen in "The Leisure Seeker"), Edi Gathegi (last seen in "The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 2"), Damon Wayans Jr. (last seen in "Super Troopers 2"), DeWanda Wise (last seen in "Fatherhood"), Julio Cesar Cedillo (last seen in "Sicario"), Manny Rubio (last seen in "Sicario: Day of the Soldado"), Mickey Dolan (ditto), Chase Dillon, Woody McClain, G. Mac Brown, Jacobi Howard, Tait Fletcher (last seen in "Running with the Devil"), Dylan Kenin (last seen in "Gamer"), Kevin Phillips (last seen in "Red Tails"), Mark Rhino Smith (last seen in "The Frozen Ground"), Terrence Clowe, Michael Beach (last seen in "Broken City"), Sadiqua Bynum, Aahkilah Cornelius
RATING: 6 out of 10 gold teeth
No comments:
Post a Comment