Rural neo-noir with a gender reversal but no real homme fatale, and some potentially problematic depiction of male legal and military authority. Institutions are not depicted in a classic noir style of course, but their opposite female network of informal "soft" power is portrayed as incredibly brutal of necessity/in result. This is troubling, in the sense that it could be interpreted as supportive of a victim-blaming or culture of poverty model for understanding the local dynamics on screen. The ending suggests a fragile shell of more traditional culture surviving in the old and very young, but this remainder is barely hinted at.
As neo-noir it is excellent with superb direction and performances all around, but the implications of some other artistic choices were troubling. I'm curious as to what they reflect more - period genre style or a particular regional view. It is personal, which makes it moving, and the strong female lead and director build on that. But I think it reflects that experience in a depiction of informal social networks, (female power behind the throne) as cruel and backwards while institutional male authority is rigid but rational.
I'd be curious to know how much of that is from the novel vs. screenplay or any improv. There's a mix of neo-noir elements with the rural coming-of-age ordeal - the latter tying into a literature and film subgenre that has been wrapped up in stereotypes, victim-blaming and a model of rural development that goes far back.
But the feminist elements complicate interpretation, as female power is behind the informal power structure that is set up opposite the male-dominated military/legal authorities. Of course, the females inflict a rite of passage which is portrayed as highly ruthless and almost animalistic - which again ties into stereotypes of rural poverty as the self-inflicted product of backwards culture.
The alternative to this dichotomy between informal female/formal male powers is, I think, the really interesting character of Teardrop. Of course, he stands up to both of them - but it's also partly a byproduct of him being a borderline psycho, drug-addicted 'Nam vet. It reflects many of America's social problems that make it a highly significant film. But I think it also does so in some troubling ways, characterizing these issues in ways that twist - but ultimately rely upon stereotypes and simplistic ways of blaming poverty's victims for their own lot. Survival is possible, but only through submission to primitive forms of justice - with a small hope for progress in the next generation.
As neo-noir it is excellent with superb direction and performances all around, but the implications of some other artistic choices were troubling. I'm curious as to what they reflect more - period genre style or a particular regional view. It is personal, which makes it moving, and the strong female lead and director build on that. But I think it reflects that experience in a depiction of informal social networks, (female power behind the throne) as cruel and backwards while institutional male authority is rigid but rational.
I'd be curious to know how much of that is from the novel vs. screenplay or any improv. There's a mix of neo-noir elements with the rural coming-of-age ordeal - the latter tying into a literature and film subgenre that has been wrapped up in stereotypes, victim-blaming and a model of rural development that goes far back.
But the feminist elements complicate interpretation, as female power is behind the informal power structure that is set up opposite the male-dominated military/legal authorities. Of course, the females inflict a rite of passage which is portrayed as highly ruthless and almost animalistic - which again ties into stereotypes of rural poverty as the self-inflicted product of backwards culture.
The alternative to this dichotomy between informal female/formal male powers is, I think, the really interesting character of Teardrop. Of course, he stands up to both of them - but it's also partly a byproduct of him being a borderline psycho, drug-addicted 'Nam vet. It reflects many of America's social problems that make it a highly significant film. But I think it also does so in some troubling ways, characterizing these issues in ways that twist - but ultimately rely upon stereotypes and simplistic ways of blaming poverty's victims for their own lot. Survival is possible, but only through submission to primitive forms of justice - with a small hope for progress in the next generation.
