Beasts of the Southern Wild — 4/10

BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD (2012, Behn Zeitlin): 4/10

For a second I felt like the only person not enchanted by this obnoxiously self-congratulatory, cliche-ridden, smugly directed ripoff — after all, it’s currently at an 85 on Metacritic — but then I did some research and found that luckily I’m not alone. This critic, while a bit too concerned with some vague connection Zeitlin has to Levi’s ads, nails the phoniness of the film’s magical realism and the revisionist attitude that Katrina didn’t actually bring out the worst in human nature (seriously, read the tales of what happened at the Superdome). And Deadspin does a good job identifying the film’s cliches, the most annoying of which is the pointless hand-held camerawork — which to me reeked of desperate grittiness. And while we’re ladling on the hate, I’ll risk being the jerk that points out Dwight Henry is not a good actor. I know this cast were all non-professionals, and sometimes that works — but professional actors work hard at being good at what they do, and for a reason; Henry pitches his drunk, sick father character at the same level throughout his screen time and it’s really grating. That said, there’s no professional substitute for the awesome charisma of Quvenzhane Wallis as Hushpuppy. Zeitlin struck gold in his search for the right vessel to play his innocent protagonist — but Wallis deserved better material than a C-grade photocopy of Terrence Malick and early David Gordon Green.



Filed under Uncategorized

2 responses to “Beasts of the Southern Wild — 4/10

  1. Awesome review, glad I wasn’t alone in being disappointed by this one. I also like how you put down the hand-held camerawork which I generally am not the biggest fan of, though I think it at least served a purpose here to give that same level of gritty realism that never really connected with me in any case.

  2. LW

    I read those other reviews and was glad to know I am not alone or as much of a hard core cynic as I imagine. What bothers me the most is how accepting we can be of such intellectual laziness. Then again, when few are challenged with honest critiques of their work (K-12 through university…) what can we expect? The movie suffered most from the lack of development on any topic – poverty, environmental disaster, childhood imagination, death, life… let alone provide any “cohesion” between them.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s