Lawless (2012) ***/*****
When Matt Bondurant found out that his grandfather, Jack, and his great-uncles, Howard and Forrest, were once upon a time infamous and prolific bootleggers who were involved in a dramatic shootout with authorities, he took it upon himself to start compiling a telling of their tale. His efforts resulted in the novel, “The Wettest County in the World,” and that novel resulted in this film adaptation, Lawless. From director John Hillcoat (The Road), Lawless casts Tom Hardy as the stoic and stubborn Forrest Bondurant, Jason Clarke and the haunted and dangerous Howard Bondurant, and Shia LaBeouf as their insecure but ambitious little brother, Jack.
The film recounts the true story of how the brothers set up a bootlegging business in prohibition-era Franklin County, Virginia, how they kept their business in the face of opposition from cutthroat gangster Floyd Banner (Gary Oldman) and corrupt official Charlie Rakes (Guy Pearce), and how their efforts encapsulated the fierce spirit of independence and general mistrust of authority that have been at the core of the American experience from the very beginning. Also, it finds the time to fill itself full of fast-moving car chases, violent showdowns, and even a little bit of romance. In theory, the life and times of the Bondurant boys seem perfectly suited for being the subject of a crowd pleasing Hollywood blockbuster. In theory. In execution, the results are a little bit muddier than you might expect.
The biggest problem with telling the true story of the Bondurants is the fact that it’s a true story in the first place. Real life is seldom structured as satisfyingly for drama as fiction, and in recounting the messy and random nature of real life events, “based on a true story” movies often end up playing like a series of interesting events that don’t quite add up to being a meaty whole. Sure, the Bondurants involved themselves in thrilling and illegal activities, they had a reputation for being indestructible badasses, and they had a group of dangerous adversaries looking to take them out — but when you start to dissect their story in regards to concepts like overarching themes, character development, and delivering a satisfying payoff, that’s when their lives start to look less like acceptable movie fodder.
Of the three brothers featured, only LaBeouf’s Jack gets any sort of personal journey to take. Hardy’s Forrest starts and ends the film as a stubborn individualist, Clarke starts and ends the film as a broken drunk — which leaves Jack and his development from sheepish coward to vein braggart to shoulder the weight of creating all the dramatic intrigue. And, admittedly, it might have been enough if the character’s succumbing to pride and vanity had the dire consequences that it would in your typical film noir or revenge Western. But due to Lawless’ need to adhere to how things actually played out in real life, instead we get a ton of build where Jack makes mistakes, keeps acting stupidly, and seems to be leading himself and his brothers to total damnation… and then nothing all that dire really ends up happening. Sure, there’s a big action climax, but the conventions of drama that have developed over the centuries have taught audiences to expect a character that gives in to sin to eventually pay a price. When the pattern that we’re accustomed to gets set up but then doesn’t end up playing out to its logical end point, your “based on a true story” movie starts to look very commendable for sticking to the facts, but also pretty unsatisfying when compared to fictional crime stories you’ve seen that have more teeth.
There’s a lack of focus that can come from retelling the muddy details of real events as well, and often times Lawless feels like a movie that doesn’t quite know what it wants to be. What’s the point of Jessica Chastain’s character, for instance? At the beginning of the film we learn that she’s taken a job at the Bondurants’ gas station/diner, but then her presence in the story doesn’t end up leading to anything other than a romance subplot that doesn’t jibe with the themes that are being explored in the rest of the film. Was Chastain’s character given such an artificially prominent place in the story just so there could be a girl up on screen? Or merely because the Bondurants really did have a girl working for them in real life, so she had to be represented in order to maintain authenticity? Either explanation doesn’t seem like sturdy enough justification for all of the fruitless screen time she was given.
There’s a strange jerkiness in Lawless’ pacing that’s going on as well. For the first half of the film it feels like we’re watching a very small story, a building of tension between the Bondurants and the new authorities in town that’s going to mostly be established through dialogue scenes, but eventually lead to a showdown. But then, somewhere in the middle, we’re suddenly thrust into a lengthy montage sequence that covers the rapid growth of the Bondurants’ criminal empire, the thrills that come from always being one step ahead of the law, and the out of control escalation of Jack’s showboating and sloppiness. It felt like an entirely different movie playing out in the middle of one you’re already watching, like if you stopped a showdown movie like High Noon and watched an extended trailer for a movie that takes an all-encompassing look at a criminal career, like Goodfellas, in the middle of it. Once again, this appeared to be the results of the storytellers worrying about cramming in all of the facts of what really happened rather than sticking to a simple focus on one type of story, one overriding theme, and then crafting everything that appears on screen to serve those goals completely. When a story starts trying to do too many things, nothing gets the proper attention, and the results are generally slight movies that come and go from your memory in an instant. Lawless is an entertaining enough experience while you’re sitting in a chair watching it, but it’s not the sort of story that’s going to end up sticking with you.
Which is a shame, because there were a lot of talented people involved, and it really did seem like it had the promise to be something special. Not enough can be said about Hardy’s ability to project competence, danger, and masculinity, all while remaining soulful. He does it all in this film, once again, and he does it while silently sitting in chairs and wearing dashing sweaters. Just imagine what he could have accomplished if he had actually been given something to do. Pearce is a joy to watch as the villain. He’s all sunken in eyes, greasy hair with an inch-wide part, and sleazy sneering. He practically seems to be leaking oil, and he’s one of the most contemptible bad guys who’s been on screen in a while. So just imagine how amazing he could have been if he was given a character that got explored and developed instead of being stuck preening like a cartoon bad guy.
If this had been a movie that concentrated on building to a climactic showdown and then delivering a payoff, that focused on the libertarian philosophy of the Bondurants vs. the “get in line” approach of Pearce and his out-of-towners, then it might have been able to dig around enough at the heart of its story to give us something memorable. But instead we had to watch while everyone tried their hand at dating, while LaBeouf’s character tried to start his own venture on the side, while Gary Oldman showed up and acted badass once or twice but didn’t end up serving any further purpose, and while Chastain’s character hinted at a troubled past that never got revealed. Instead we got an interesting look at some stuff a guy dug up about his ancestors, and not a piece of art trying to speak to the human condition.
One thing that always stands out when you’re watching a John Hillcoat movie, however, is how effective he is at making the violence that’s happening on screen come off as horrific and scarring. Often the violence in films gets portrayed as being glamorous or thrilling, but in a Hillcoat film, whenever someone resorts to violence, the results make you wince, squirm in your seat, and understand in a deep way how awful what you’re watching is. Even if the stakes never felt quite grave enough for the Bondurants, and the consequences of their actions were never as devastating as they should have been, there will be consequences for the viewer for having sat through Hillcoat’s explicit gore. I guess that’s something that will stick with you, and something is better than nothing.
