By Dan Cohen, Santa Monica Film Critic
Right from the start, we know that a mysterious loner named “Mud” will mean trouble for two adolescent boys in Jeff Nichols’ finely crafted drama about growing up in Arkansas’ river country. And when we see the way Mud holsters his pistol– lodged in his belt, behind his back—we know that sooner or later the jeopardy will go beyond the usual issues in coming of age dramas. I think it was Jean Luc Godard who once wrote that all a movie needed was a guy, a girl, and a gun. Well this one adds two terrific kids to the mix.
For most of its solid, two hours, we feel pretty certain about where the movie is headed, because “Mud” makes to attempt to mask its devices; the loner in the woods, a shadowy woman, vengeful out-of-towners, and the domestic tension of two, down at the heels families, are all familiar elements. But writer/director Nichols realizes them with such a sure and inspired hand, that we warmly welcome all that reminds us of other movies…
Two teenagers, Ellis and Neckbone, find an abandoned boat on a small island and make it their secret hideout. Receding flood waters have left the craft in the crook of a tree, high above sea level; useless to anybody but kids seeking a respite from struggling families and confusing signals from girls.
Like the raft in Twain’s “Huckleberry Finn,” the boat becomes the vehicle for the boys’ journey to adulthood. It’s an old device, but with a new twist: stuck as it is, the boat mirrors the way the two boys are rooted in their lower middle class lives. Before the situation has a chance to stagnate, a stranger intervenes, a wily adult, who seizes the craft for his own purposes; shelter first, and then, if the boys will help him, escape. Intrigued by his charm, the boys ally with Mud in a dangerous gambit to reconnect him with a former lover and flee his past.
The same psychological territory has been covered in so many popular books and movies that we anticipate the beats long before they occur. But writer/director Nichols embellishes them with wit and fresh detail, mainly through sturdy dialogue and strong casting. As a writer he’s thought the characters through so well, and honored them with so many small quirks, that when the expected plot turns play out– for the most part, effortlessly–we gladly suspend our disbelief to go along with them. A lesser talent might have descended into sentiment, but Nichols is crafty; he deftly uses the predictable as a launch pad to the more idiosyncratic.
Although the movie fleshes out a town full of characters, it’s most satisfying creations are the two boys. Ellis, the more idealistic and callow of the two, identifies with the stranger’s need to reconnect to his lost love, and takes the problem on, to make it his own. Neckbone, his best friend, places his loyalty to Ellis above his skepticism about Mud and his shadow lover, and reluctantly becomes an accomplice. But the girl Mud is after, the idealized object of Ellis’ feelings, has been compromised in a way the two boys fail to grasp. Soon, they’re in harms’ way.
The story is loaded with kind of symbols that could have stripped it of genuine feeling, but a wealth of warmth, humor, and attention to detail, keep it light on its feet. As written and played the two boys are ingenious, reckless, and totally disarming.
Mathew McConaughey ‘s strong presence in the title role provides an important hook in the opening moments. A generous actor who immediately hits the right level in almost anything he takes on, McConaughey wisely avoids grandstanding; he never shouts when a whisper will do. Reese Witherspoon, in a smaller but effective part, projects her characters’ ambivalence in simple but vivid strokes. Sam Shepard, Michael Shannon, and the rarely seen Joe Don Baker, hold down lesser, but important roles. And Ray McKinnon, another reliable character actor, is especially effective as Ellis’ quiet and frustrated Dad. But the movie really belongs to the two teenagers, played by relative newcomers Tye Sheridan and Jacob Lofland. You won’t soon forget them.
“Mud” makes an excellent companion piece to “Beasts of The Southern Wild,” the standout drama from last year, (now available on DVD.) While the two films couldn’t be more different in terms of style, they both bring fresh visions to similar settings. “Beasts,” a vivid and deeply felt look at river dwellers in Louisiana, sidesteps Hollywood conventions to focus on a little girl, her sometimes father, and their impromptu neighborhood–a storm ravaged bayou they call the “bathtub.”
“Beasts” moves with the rhythm of its characters and pays no heed to the conventions that “Mud” embraces. No matter, both are first rate examples of different approaches to the same kind of material.
“Mud” is the sort of material the studios routinely took under their wings and nurtured to success during the 60s, 70s, and 80s. In opposition to the big hits, these middle budgeted movies were staples in past decades; what the studios used to refer to as “solid doubles.” No more. For the most part lower budgeted dramas like “Mud,” depend on complicated financial deals that involve numerous funders and advance sales from overseas distributors. This one, shepherded into distribution by the stronger and stronger “Lions Gate,” (home of the mega-hit “Hunger Games,”) is easily the most entertaining American movie of the spring. My hope is that the word of mouth brings more like it.
Oblivion
This handsome and expensive sci-fi extravaganza has taken more than a back seat to the onslaught of “Iron Man 3.” The monster success of the Marvel franchise has sent Tom Cruises’ latest into the trunk and locked it there. I liked the production design and the ultra-patrician looks of Andrea Riseborough, but by the time Morgan Freeman and his band of rogues rose up to defy the killer drones, my eyes were at half-mast. I don’t know whether it was the script that was tired or me, but I barely lasted through its two solid hours.
