
Every year, a handful of smaller films come out that rely on critical acclaim to find an audience. As a critic, you walk a fine line between trying to help those smaller, worthy films find an audience, and making sure the films you champion are worthy, to keep from burning your audience and becoming the boy who cried wolf, making film critics even more irrelevant than we already are. Beasts of the Southern Wild is a critic-bait film that’s already won a Camera D’or at Cannes, Best Narrative Film at the LA Film Festival, and been nominated for Best Film at the Independent Spirit Awards. Here’s why the critics whiffed on this one.
As an MGMT video, Beasts of the Southern Wild is pretty good. It’s got soaring music, pretty cinematography, fantastical imagery that borrows heavily from Where the Wild Things Are, an impossibly cute little girl, and deep south swamp locations exotic to urbanized yankees like me (“look, crawdaddies! Isn’t that a funny word, Brent? ‘Crawdaddies?’”). But if you can see past the craft, this tale of deep south swamp hobos and feral children that eat cat food has all the depth of one of those Levis slam poetry commercials. I thought we weren’t supposed to fall for the Magic Negro and the Noble Savage anymore? Yet here it is, a whole movie full of them, plus folksy Cajuns who can’t open their mouths without homespun crypticisms aw shucksing their way out.
“Hushpuppy” (yes, the main character’s name is Hushpuppy) is the adorable little black girl in question (it really cannot be overstated how cute she is), played by spell-check nightmare Quvenzhané Wallis when she was just five years old (an impressive performance, to be sure). Hushpuppy lives with her daddy beyond the levees in a swampy section of rural Louisiana called “The Bathtub.” Or as Hushpuppy narrates it to us, “I’m recording it for the scientists in the future. In a million years, when kids go to school, they gonna know that once there was a Hushpuppy and she lived with her daddy in The Bathtub.”
As it turns out, that’s also pretty much the entire plot. Hushpuppy originally delivers this assertion as she’s drawing on the inside of a cardboard box in which she’s hiding after setting her trailer/hovel/shanty on fire while cooking up a can of cat food on the stove. At the time, you wonder, how would future kids know about Hushpuppy or her father? Because of drawings on the cardboard box that’s about to burn? I interpreted the reason as “because of this movie,” the id of a film so preoccupied with its own importance that it believes schoolchildren will be discussing it a million years from now.
Hushpuppy’s daddy is this sort of rural human dung beetle who’s dying (more on that later) and drinks too much, but exists in a state of spiritual richness because of his closeness to the land. He lives amongst a band of fellow rascals who don’t need jobs or money or possessions, because why bother with that when you can just dig in the dirt and get drunk and eat crabs with your hands all day? (It sounds great, I admit) The whole first half of the film is basically that scene in Titanic where Rose leaves her stuffy old first class soirée so Jack can show her some real fun down in steerage, where Irishmen and negroes drink frosty brews and dance jigs to lively flute music. OH MY GOD, YOU GUYS, POVERTY IS SO MUCH FUN! WHY HAVEN’T WE COME DOWN HERE BEFORE?!
You could argue that what happens next in Beasts of the Southern Wild de-glamorizes the life of the mud-poor have-nots, but the scene where Hushpuppy’s daddy and his band of primitivist troglodytes lead a cargo-cult raid on the evil levee that keeps their swamp flooded and the city dry (can someone check the science on this, please?) makes the implication pretty clear: Society = hollow, inevitable. Swamp people = romantic, doomed.
Screenwriter Lucy Alibar originally wrote Beasts of the Southern Wild as a play called Juicy and Delicious, which was about an 11-year-old white boy and his father in southern Georgia, where she grew up. In adapting it to a 6-year-old black girl in the Louisiana swamps, Queens-bred director Benh Zeitlin turns it into a maudlin exercise in cultural tourism. Juicy has been described as “a boy who feels like the whole world is collapsing as his father is dying,” and if that’s true, Zeitlin gets it backwards, setting up the collapsing world before the dying father, so that Hushpuppy’s dad getting sick feels like a symptom of the place instead of the cause for it, and a cliché symptom at that, of a place Zeitlin doesn’t seem too familiar with beyond the usual stereotypes in the first place. How do I know it’s cliché? I explained the premise of the movie to my podcast co-host, Brendan, and he described an entire scene from Beasts almost perfectly without ever having seen it. How stereotypical? Hushpuppy’s dad tells her the story of how she was conceived the day he watched her topless (now dead, of course) mom kill a gator with a shotgun. (*eye roll*) Later, Hushpuppy visits a whorehouse/restaurant, where all the whores wear lacy white dresses and slow dance to smokey jazz music while eating fried gator tail, a place which I’m pretty sure hasn’t existed since the antebellum days. There’s also a scene where Hushpuppy’s dad teaches her how to fish for catfish with his bare hands, and catches one without even getting out of the boat, barely getting his elbow wet. Who knew noodling was so easy?!? I hate to sound like Holden Caufield here, but PHONY PHONY PHONY PHONY.
When you live in the city and you buy your meat wrapped in cellophane and styrofoam, it’s a pleasant fantasy to believe that people who sleep in the dirt and gut their own dinners are possessed of a spiritual richness that you’ve always felt deep down you’re somehow lacking. It’s also a really old fantasy. Like, REALLY old. It’s fine to recognize that feeling in yourself and write about it (human condition and all), but it’s a bit presumptuous to apply the antidote to the mysterious “other” just because you don’t know them that well.
Also, call me cynical, but watching po’ black characters deliberately misuse words and grammar in folksy phrases written by white people (“cavemens,” for example) feels hokey at best and offensive at worst. Keep in mind, I knew nothing about the filmmakers before I watched this film. It just reeked of theater kid fantasy, and I’ve seen enough Hurricane Katrina narratives written by liberal arts students in New York to recognize this as one. Art students be lovin’ Katrina narratives like fictional Cajuns love crawdads, you all.
Beasts is beautiful and the filmmakers are young, and may still have some great work in them yet, and you’ll hear lots of people describe Beasts as “poetic.” But Beasts has a lot of that kind of poetry that’s not the work of someone employing a non-linear form to more closely illustrate their thought process as they grope towards meaning, it’s more like someone using poetry to obfuscate a story that wouldn’t work as prose, because there just isn’t much there. A lot of swamp-jazz hocus pocus and gumbo mumbo jumbo, so to speak.
The kicker for me was the scene where Hushpuppy swims her way out to a boat captained by a friendly stranger who, wouldn’t you know it, is full of all sorts of profound advice.
HUSHPUPPY: Which way we goin’?
OLD MAN BAYOU: It don’t matter, baby. This boat’ll take you exactly where you need to be. It’s that kinda boat. ….Wanna chicken biscuit? It’s good for you. I’ve been eating these all my life. (*emotional music starts to swell*) I keep the wrappers in the boat, because they remind me of who I was when I eat each one. The smell makes me feel cohesive.
Get it? His identical empty chicken wrappers remind him of who he was. Pass me one of those chicken wrappers, Pierre, I need to hork in it.
GRADE: C-



Isn’t that a funny word, Brent? ‘Crawdaddies?’”
I just like the way Southerners say daddy. It’s always “m’Daddae”, as in, “That’s m’Daddae”.
fyi, we don’t call them “crawdaddies” in Louisiana
“How poor were we? We were SO poor that we didn’t have cell phones. We had to make our phone calls on baby chickens.”
“Hello? Can you hear me now? Hey, wazzup, peeps?”
Peep this: we was so po we had to smoke quack.
Old Man Bayou: Now, you lissen heah, Hushpuppy. You hold dat chicken up against yo’ head an’ you tell me what you heah.
Hushpuppy: It’s a real quiet whisperin’ noise. Is that the ocean waves?
Old Man Bayou: Naw, chere, dat be the fryer it goin’ end up in. Where you think these heah chicken biscuits come from? *chomp chomp chomp*
Yeah, I’m going to watch this just because that little girl is so damn adorable.
Also, I want a chicken biscuit.
I heard there was an early version of this in which “Hushpuppy” is known as “The Cutest Geek” and bites the head off that chicken.
Are we sure “Quvenzhané” isn’t pronounced “Ozzy?”
I went to college in Louisiana (Southeastern Louisiana University, class of 2000, go Lions!), and I have to say, a lot of my fondest memories are of getting drunk and eating crabs and crawfish. Good times.
Ironically, after Magic Negro got shot down for what producers called “highly offensive even for us,” Nobel Savage is now my porn name.
I thought there were supposed to be some sort of monsters attacking the swamp or something? Is that just a metaphor for her dad too?
Definitely a metaphor.
When the f*ck did my favorite snarky movie blog turn into my family’s lost diary? BECAUSE THAT IS EXACTLY HOW WE ALL LIVE DOWN HERE!!!
I knew it! It is a combo of Duck Dynasty and Nell in Louisiana, isn’t it?
You forgot Swamp People.
I haven’t seen a realistic portrayal of Louisiana since Angel Heart. Holy crawdads, rent that shit.
Port of Call N.O. was solid too.
i disagree…idk why but everything in this movie worked for me, maybe a shitty week before i saw it or ive just gotten tired of city life but i appreciated everything about the setting. it reminded me of simpler times with my father, not rushing to the interwebs, not checking the phones, it was weird…found myself tearing up at b-roll and of how simple everything seemed in the bathtub.
it gave me a glimpse into a world that was the opposite of where i was, and it felt legit. and yes most of the reasoning behind much of the movie was “because of the movie”, it felt like a modern folk tale about a town that never was.
idk im black and i didnt find much to be offended about. does ur problem come from the fact that the creators were white? i left the theaters feeling better than i did going into it..
It didn’t help, but like I said, it’s not something I knew going in. It’s something I intuited while I was watching the movie. It felt a lot like a couple undergrad plays my girlfriend dragged me to in New York. Like, scarily similar.
I’ve spent some time in rural Louisiana and New Orleans (pre-Katrina) on various volunteer service trips and I’ve never met anyone who talks like that, but it seems to be quite common in movies about poor black Southern people made by white (typically northerners). Maybe if you approach it as a folk tale, it might work, haven’t seen it.
The reason why I find myself not liking stuff like this is that I wouldn’t like an entire movie based around white characters who talk in the Dave Chappelle “white guy” voice he uses (even though that shit is hilarious). Hope that makes sense.
maybe its im not as big of a cynic as i thought but all the sappy cliche notes hit me like a rock, lol…looking at some of the lines in your review, it does read bad….but i felt like this added to the storybook feel.
i didnt feel like the movie was trying to be real life, if that makes any sense…i thought everything about the bathtub was this really weird hodgepodge of the bayou, the “off the radar” type folks, and some weird dreamy fable like place. it felt like i was looking at old childrens book on screen, it had fleeting moments of real worldliness, but overall i felt like i was watching a mother goose type story.
not sure if i made my point, or if i made any sense..lol
It makes total sense. I think the fable aspect would’ve worked better if it didn’t feel so much like it was doing the noble savage thing. I’d be interested in seeing the original play. I felt like almost everything that didn’t work could’ve been partially the result of changing the setting.
ok cool, after re-reading ur review i can see where our differences came from. i saw it as a folk tale story while u didnt, its interesting looking back at the movie and not seeing it with childlike wonder, i think thats where the emotion came from for me…
from the first frame i thought “this doesnt look real at all” and from then on i was in the bathtub, some random island away from all this, where people talked funny and bad dads dreamed of topless gator hunters….and all i thought was “i want to go there”
and damn that lil girl was adorable
I really wanted to like this movie.. But the ending did not work for me :/
Is the message to always wrap your chicken biscuit before you choke it?
Everyone knows that , Fek. Wrap that Fifi.
The…case?
I haven’t seen the movie, but I’m down for an adorable little girl using a baby bird as a phone.
I would’ve been way down for that movie. Sadly, there’s only like two minutes of baby chicks.
vince, you would have been way down for a movie that had the girl walking around in her underwear and being all cute. it should have been about her winning a child beauty contest! we know all about you vince.
tss
Was there an unexplainable(new word) angry ass white person anywhere in this movie?
“Get out of the pool!” – Bill Burr
Baby bird as a phone?! They’re crawling with disease! She’s gonna get bird-AIDs
and that’s why the movie sucked….? you must have loved the aviator.
tss
Where did I say the movie sucked?
The two main leads of the film are played by non-actors, who happened to live in the area near the production company, Court 13‘s offices. Dwight Henry, who plays the father of Hushpuppy (Quvenzhané Wallis), worked at the donut shop across the street. He Does a decent job in the role, but most of the accolades have gone to Wallis, who has been touted to possibly become the youngest Oscar winner….now this is where I start to say ‘Cool it!’ Don’t get me wrong, she does a fine performance, but Oscar worthy – give me a break! There are plenty of other child actors out there who could run circles around her.
The hype surrounding the film seems completely unjustified to me. It’s a fine début, but not enough to run the rest of the competition out of town. The plot seems to sway back and forth between Malik-esque voice-over and dream-like sequences to full on realism – You could almost imagine there was a loose plot holding the film together, but director Benh Zeitlin couldn’t decide what film he was making, so shot loads of additional material and strung it together for a feature film. There is also another plot, running along side the film, which involves giant warthog-like creatures, called Aurochs, which slowly break out of the melting polar ice caps and race their way to the bathtub, without any obvious intent. Yes I know it’s some sort of metaphor for the environment, global warming, blah, blah…but how that links into the greater theme of the film is a mystery to me.
in general, child actors suck. so circles? probably not. More likely loops that are reminiscent of mario kart tracks.
bioscopist:
the point of your essay is a mystery to me. you seem to want to say one thing, and then another, and just kind of string it together for a paragraph or so. it’s tough to give a paragraph a theme!
tss
I know Lucy Alibar. She’s an adorable southern woman with a great appetite. It’s that damned director that’s to blame. Another victim of the mano-centric male-ocracy
the only victim i see is you. get me an invite to your next pity party.
tss
As a parent, I totally fantasize about abandoning my kids for days at a time. However, I can’t really get into movie where a little kid is treated like shit, and I was pretty stoked when the dad died. Way to be dead, dope.
Larrry, I must say your love of Angel Heart has now made us best friends. Prepare for stalking.
Eib, you need to stalk me on Twitter and Johnny Favorite all my tweets. Hahaha yeesh.
larry;
he was making it easier for her to mourn him, by not letting her see him as her whole world. that was part of what he was doing by being harsh. the other part was trying to nudge her into self-reliance, and knowing her own power to be strong.
tss
Through the use of “you all” instead of “y’all” Vince has cleverly inverted our syntactic expectations thus illuminating the lie that is the bourgeois poverty porn core of the film. Armond White silently nods in approval.
WAS IT NOT ENOUGH FOR YOUR 49ERS TO RAPE MY SAINTS WHY DO YOU HAVE TO SHIT ALL OVER A MOVIE THAT WAS SET/FILMED APPROXIMATELY 7 MILES FROM THE HOUSE I GREW UP IN, MANCINI?!?!?
Maybe if your Saints had a defense made of something other than swiss cheese they wouldn’t get their buttholes plundered by a bunch of overgrown ladyboys from San Fran. In conclusion, go Falcons.
IF YOU WOULD HAVE DONE YOUR GODDAMNED JOB AND CRITICIZED THIS MOVIE I WOULDN’T HAVE TO! GO NINERS! TED GINN SUCKS!
Hey, at least you’ve got the Super Bowl.
Hey Cajun boy, Shame on you! You of all people should know what a bunch of bs this movie is! My family’s from around there and most of them grew up poor and I was appalled at this film. Those mythical monsters were the least of the fantastical stuff. If you are abjectly poor and in distress, you don’t burn down your home and you don’t break your shit, cause its not like there’s a Walmart in the “Bathtub” to replace things. And just where did that Daddy get ice for his cooler in his no electricity/ no plumbing shack? and you Cupey Kakes below, the problem with you is your family had money. That’s why you think this film was the shit, well it bs. My family was not formerly educated and I have older in laws of that sort who have taken their kin by force out into the bayou and caused miscarriages and almost death by sticking coat hangers up into them because they didn’t like the guy she was dating. I’m sorry poverty, ignorance, no running water or electricity, mosquitoes, fleas, mold and more mold and fungus and alcoholism to try to escape it all is not poetic. It sucks!!! Thank God for modern conveniences like electricity, antibiotics, education and air conditioning. Anyone who knows the south, knows that southerners worship their air conditioning almost as much as they worship JESUS. Get real people!!!!
My paternal family and my Daddy are from the south. This story hit home for me because it did an awesome job of capturing a glimpse of just a small piece of how simple and poetic life can be in the South. The small things won me over: “No cryin” exactly what and how my Daddy said it when he learned he was dying; the dialect; the unity between the races in this type of town; the hard to master hunting styles; too many details to list here, but they all served as excellent and accurate snapshots I can still vividly see when I think about introductions to my Daddy’s family during holiday visits and funerals. It’s southern culture to teach your young early to fend, to accept death as a transition to heaven and not to cry. My family, black folks, were formally educated, owned property and operated a successful business during Jim Crow. Upwardly mobile like my family or simple folks, like the characters in the movie, the messages of the southern experience in this movie are strikingly beautiful and deeply simple.
I really enjoyed the film while I was watching it, but after I walked out of the theater I couldn’t help but think about how condescending and borderline racist so much of the movie actually was.
This plus infinity. All I could think about was that Key & Peele skit where the Magical Negroes duel over the right to say cryptic bullshit to the white guy.
Wow. I had a totally different take on this film. I guess I went into it with completely different expectations. I was fairly sure I wasn’t going to be seeing a narrative film, but something more akin to a filmic representation of lyrical expressionism. That’s pretty much exactly what I got. For you it seemed to be attempting to cover up the flaws of the film, but for me it WAS the whole film. *shrug* The comparison to Where the Wild Things Are is apt, I guess, except, for me personally, every place WtWTA stumbled, BotSW seemed to nail. I came away from WtWTA bemoaning the sort of artificial cold starkness of it all, but quite the opposite from BotSW. I also didn’t feel like the character’s were meant to be heroic in any sense but I saw them as just sad and quixotic (not in a romantic way, more literally: pointless and ineffective). Hushpuppy was the only truly “heroic” character in the film and this was due to her innocence more than anything she actually, you know, DID. Spoiler alert, I guess?
Did anyone else realize the woman on the floating brothel was Hushpuppy’s mom? Her dad talks about the fried alligator tail and here we have a woman cooking up alligator tail. A hushpuppy is a cornmeal fried ball probably similar to what the woman was using to bread up the gator. I don’t know it just seemed to click for me.
on the mom:
it definitely was the same actress, same voice. i wish he had made it a little clearer. maybe hp was supposed to feel like it was her mom? would her mom (if that was her) show so very little emotion around seeing her daughter again?
it was a very, very sad moment when mom walked away from her.
tss
I posted way down below about the mom. I thought it was pretty clear that was Hushpuppy’s mom – the look, the bonding, the gator, ‘puppy yelling for her across the water toward the light. mom left ‘puppy way back when she was defenseless, so yeah, letting her go again isn’t a stretch.
This post is so far off the mark of what this movie is about, strives for, and hits, it’s unbelievable. This is a film about a little girl’s understanding of her world, a world in which she’s alone with her father and the folks of her town, struggling to be strong without a mother and with a father who’s at best distant and at worst negligent. The backdrop of a post-Katrina small-town Louisiana fight for survival is an external representation of a young girl getting old enough to wonder about her parents and her place in the world. It’s a character study first and foremost about a child in need who doesn’t understand what’s going wrong around her, so she puts on a brave face.
People looking at this movie like it’s Treme or some kind of journalistic look at a world they’ve never seen before or some broader examination of poverty vs. establishment or whatever you seemed to think it was meant to be are totally ignoring the magical realism of the story and the emotional subtext that drives the action. Also, the fact that there are giant beasts set free by melting icecaps should be a clue that the movie is steeped in symbolism rather than reality.
It’s such a sweet, heartfelt, heartbreaking story about family, perseverance, and childhood (that yes, owes a bit visually and thematically to Where the Wild Things Are, which FYI isn’t some expose on the weird and wild world of white suburban single parents, in case you didn’t realize that since that seems to be what you watch movies for), I just can’t imagine not being moved by it or floored by its beauty. The script alone is pure poetry, and the performances are all top-notch.
I suppose a movie with such a unique vision is open to different interpretations, some of which can be somehow offensive to people looking for offensive things in movies that aren’t about anything particularly offensive. But reading your whole diatribe left me shaking my head in disbelief at how far off the mark you are about nearly every single point.
“Steeped in symbolism” is a very kind euphemism for “bullshit.” This movie was made by a Wesleyan graduate named Benh. I need a New Yorker (whose parents are *urban folklorists*) romanticizing the nobility of being dirt poor, neglected and uneducated like I need another whole in my glans. Read the guy’s IMDb profile–he has “been to Prague” been to Prague.
Larry -
By the way, Chris Nolan did not grow up in Gotham. George A. Romero has never actually met a real zombie. David Fincher was six when the Zodiac killer murdered his first victim. Also, he’s never made soap.
Client Eastwood? Never a cop. George Lucas? Never traveled to space! Now or a long, long time ago!
Who gives a crap where someone went to school or where they live? Either they can tell a story or they can’t.
Arguing that you didn’t like this movie because of the director’s street cred is ridiculous. But it looks like you didn’t even see it. So it’s even more ridiculous to comment on it.
Oh I saw it. I didn’t know anything about the director when I did, but finding out about his background explained a lot of the reasons I though the movie sucked. He has street cred, but lacks dirt road cred. His attitude toward the people in the movie ran the gamut from patronizing to extremely patronizing, and he clearly aced Liberal New York Vision of the South 101. He fetishized crushing poverty and horrible parenting in ways that only somebody who has experienced neither could.
The problem with your patronizing (word of the day) analogies is that the good directors you list made the effort to do research create believable characters who react to their surroundings in ways that human beings might. Romero is actually a good comparison in that he has turned zombies into a metaphor for everything, which makes the metaphor useless. And the fact that Lucas has never been to space is pretty clearly evidenced by Jar Jar. His best movie is American Graffiti, in which he depicted a world he knew intimately.
Alrighty then. It threw me off a bit that you spent your reply mostly ripping on the director and not the movie itself. There are perfectly good movies that I love that were made by people I’d punch in the face if I saw them in real life. I’m not sure what good it does to say ‘This movie sucked because the director was not born in the right place and went to the wrong school.’
My guess is that there are movies out there made my Wesleyan graduates that did not take place in New York that you like perfectly well, too.
Larry, you’re just trolling, it’s not a very good form of criticism. Picking on the director for his name or where he’s been is just stupid.
I was excited for this review because I happened to watch BotSW on Saturday and Vince articulated my problems with the movie extremely well. Ben with an h is not doomed by his alma–Joss Whedon, Michael Bay and Matthew Weiner also went there, so there is not a clear creative ethos with which students are indoctrinated. My problem is that the movie fits every stereotype of the vision a liberal education hipster would impose on the impoverished, and it goes so far to the left that it becomes a weird embrace of libertarianism.
Thing is, there is a lot he does exceptionally well as a craftsman–excellent performances from unknowns, for one–and if he gets his metaphors and odd condescension under control he could make movies I would dig. I’m concerned that he’s being overpraised for his most alarming tendencies.
Larry, I really have to take issue with your point about the subject matter of the film and the bizarre attacks you’re making on “liberal education hipsters” (whatever that means), as I think you’re still off the mark on what this film is even about.
This is a film of magical realism told from the perspective of a child. Problems and their solutions are simplified or made magical because this is how a kid views the world. It “romanticizes poverty” only in so much as this is how a poor child views her surroundings and the people in her life. The argument over the content of this film and its supposed patronizing nature seems to stem from whether or not you take it as a literal, face-value account that is somehow true to life, and it simply isn’t. Emotionally, it’s got a very real relationship between a father and her daughter that is impactful because it’s so heartfelt, but the reality of the film is so far from our own reality, and so clearly, intentionally far from our reality, that attacking it for its portrayal of minorities or for its portrayal of the poor or its political leanings is absurd. Note that no one’s saying anything about the white characters in the film, who talk and act the same way as the black characters do, but somehow it’s racist because real black people don’t talk like that? Please.
This is a fantastical drama from the point of view of a little girl whose father is dying and whose world is changing and she doesn’t understand why or what she can do to make things right. It’s not aiming for gritty realism or hard-hitting journalistic attention to the plight of the poor minority or a National Geographic special. It’s a dream-like little tale a little girl tells to make sense of her life and to come to grips with the things that are happening to her. It’s emotionally honest even as its fantasy is unusual, just like all good fantasy should be.
I didn’t say anything about racism–don’t put words into my, I guess, comments. The movie would have been just as dopey if it starred the next Fanning.
It, and you, try to have it both ways. It depicts, and demands our emotional reponse to, some pretty harsh realities–abuse, alcoholism, natural disaster–but the defense of the movie is that it’s a flight of fancy. Other than the magical beasts, we’re supposed to believe that everything we see is actually taking place. We’re supposed to feel sad for one of the worst parents in cinematic history (although again, it’s a very good performance). The childlike perspective is Zeitlin’s, and yours.
“This is a film of magical realism told from the perspective of a child.”
I have read a lot of comments like this, and I just don’t get it. It’s misguided romanticizing. I saw a kid who spent a lot of the time hungry (“I might have to eat my pets”), yearning for her mom, and living “with” a bipolar father in abject poverty. The aurochs were a cheap device to take the movie into the “metaphysical” realm. Bluh.
I really liked Beasts and I think you’re way off the mark, but I know what it’s like when everyone seems to love a certain film and I think it’s balls. Like Antichrist. I swear every Internet film blogger wanted to suck Lars’ floppy noodle (and swallow) for that awful, pretentious piece of poop juice. I just don’t get it, man.
I’ve lived that life. American Beauty, Being John Malkovich, The Piano, Breaking the Waves. Guuuuh.
I agree with you 100%. I didn’t care about anything that was happening in the film.
Ha, what does hork mean?
Excellent review, +10 relevancy unlocked
Maybe that’s the beauty of this film, that everyone gets something different out of it. I didn’t love it, thought it was sort of ‘meh’ overall but I appreciated it as being something different and undoubtedly beautiful to look at. In some ways it was perplexing.
Being six months removed from when I saw it, my take is/was that the entire story was from Hushpuppy’s perspective. Some of the images are real, some fantasy, but all efforts to explain her world and surroundings. I didn’t take a lot of the movie literally.
My wife has daddy issues (Jesus I hope she never finds this and reads it) and the relationship between Hushpuppy and her dad worked for her on an emotional level. Not so much for me but it didn’t matter since I let go and was enjoying it on a more base level.
If you’re up for something different (not new), something polarizing but perhaps enjoyable on several different levels, by all means try to find it.
Or if you’re in inhumane monster like Vince, don’t waste your time.
Vince, I knew the director in school. The guys from mgmt were there too. benh was every bit as pretentious and self obsessed as you might expect, and certainly one of my least favorite people. I groaned when i heard the subject matter, knowing the probable treatment. mgmt are sweethearts though.
Outstanding. Benh with an h. He probably played in the East-West Bowl.
worse. hipster kickball league…
As opposed to the kickball leagues for jocks. Ha ha.
Regardless of how douchy this guy is, with the exception of perhaps Clint Eastwood, that is the MO of directors and a lot of other filmmakers. If you discounted movies because a douche made it, you’d basically be watching That Thing You Do over and over again.
You seem educated enough to know what magic realism is, but decide to completely ignore it for your benefit to to play devil’s advocate. If I would criticize your criticism, it feels jealous and unbalanced, and has somehow opened the flood gates for stupid frat boy trolling.
Is this directed at me? Yes, I know what magical realism is, and I think it’s a cop out about 95% of the time (I thought it worked in Where the Wild Things Are, much, much better than it did here). Also, again, all this talk about modern fairytales and magical realism – magical realism doesn’t involve so many torn-from-the-headlines plot points and quasi-social commentary. You want to make a modern fairytale? Don’t set the thing during what was basically a hurricane Katrina evacuation. The aurochs just felt like a tacked-on thing at the end. They didn’t do a great job of setting up the collapsing world as an outgrowth of her fears about her dad, it just felt like the actual, regular world – again, you’re hurting yourself with so many things that felt like contemporary social commentary.
If I was jealous, unbalanced, or playing devil’s advocate, I would’ve given it an F and not a C-, and I wouldn’t have taken special care to point out the things that it does do well, like atmosphere and cinematography and acting, and even go so far as to say I’d be interested in seeing the director and writer’s future work. To me, that’s balance. Because if everyone just forgives all the patronizing and hokey parts of it because it had pretty pictures and music, the next thing they make is going to be even worse.
for the record, I’d watch me some “Frat Boy Troll” three times before each meal.
also, I thought this was one of the more elaborate and thoughtful reviews you had written, and the fact that many of the plot devices fall directly in line with tenets of generic filmmaking you’ve warned against in the recent past lend zero creedence to zero charisma’s contention.
TROLL! TROLL! TROLL!
In response to Vince’s defense of his own review:
“Magical realism doesn’t involve so many torn-from-the-headlines plot points and quasi-social commentary. You want to make a modern fairytale? Don’t set the thing during what was basically a hurricane Katrina evacuation.”‘
Why not??? You seem to have this bizarre notion that magical realism can only be defined one or two ways, when the very point of magical realism is that it’s an open idea, where the magical element is often an expression of internal struggles or conflicts. You don’t say shit like “you can’t have sci-fi and still have shots that make me think about the environment and stuff,” yet you’ve got this narrow view of magical realism that says, “Well, I don’t get the metaphor, therefore there is no metaphor and it’s meant to be literal and is therefore stupid.”
This movie is told by a child, a really young child at that. Aside from the beasts and the boat captain who brings her to her mother in a place that couldn’t possibly exist in our reality, don’t you think that could be a tip-off that not everything in the film is some literal expose of the true lives of these people? Who aren’t all black, btw, and yet all interact in the same manner, so this notion I’m reading from you that this movie is somehow racist makes no sense. Basically, the only people I know who didn’t like this movie took it at face value as a literal piece instead of a fantasy, and while you’re entitled to look at it that way, you’re intentionally being obtuse about the film’s interpretation. It’s like reading a novel as though it were a news article and saying, “Well, I don’t think this really happened, so it’s not only unrealistic but offensive to my sensibilities, C-”.
Also, magical realism isn’t a “cop out.” It’s a genre. If you’re reading Kafka and saying, “Wait, this guy turns into a bug? Bullshit, it’s just a cop-out to stand in for whatever’s really going on, which is obviously pseudo-intellectual bullshit,” then you’re just plain missing the point and being a dick on top of it. The point of it is to use a different creative method to reach a moral conclusion rather than just blurting it out literally because sometimes the unrealistic take on the situation creates a more potent and lasting subtext that sticks out in a viewer’s imagination later on. If you’re not moved by it, that’s one thing, but saying it’s not valid as an artistic choice is snobbish and ignorant.
In response to Christian’s rebuttal to Vince’s defense of his own review:
!) debating the definition and scope of an elusive and widely debated trope seems trivial when the point wasn’t whether or not the film falls in the ‘magic realism” genre, but rather whether or not the defendant enjoyed watching the film. escape police on a flying bicycle across the moon while entertaining people and nobody thinks about your cedar trees.
#) I don’t think it was right for you to refer to the filmmaker as “a child, a really young child at that”. That’s ageism, and it’s illegal in any galaxy.
*) he didn’t say it wasn’t valid as an artistic choice. said it was a cop out 95% of the time.
other than that we should put our collective intellects together and figure out some pre-production for “Frat Boy Troll” and that’s the bottom line cuz Stone Troll sez so….
Vin:
you misunderstood the film. it’s pretty simple. but you get an “A” in any class on racial politics in any good liberal arts school in the Northeast. Well done! now go fight the struggle again racism from your all-white bedroom community. You rock!
tss
I was beginning to think I was only writer who panned this despicable film.
Thank you for this.
My sentiments exactly, almost……Young children DO believe crazy things, like if they write something on the side of a cardboard box, it will be discovered and studied by scientists many years in the future. I’m pretty sure the makers of this movie don’t believe that or expect you to, either. This depiction was a very realistic portrayal of what a kid that age might do.
Christian H seems somewhat blind to the likelihood that particular political questions are being asked in this movie. To take one of many examples, I don’t know how not to interpret the line in the shelter scene, “when animals get sick here, they plug them into the wall,” as an invitation to wonder if what we normally consider to be modern technology’s greatest benefits are as good for us as we think they are.
That unusual poetic devices are at work doesn’t mean they aren’t referring to things we all know about. If what a little girl sees means anything to us, it’s because we’ve also seen it.
That said, I disagree with the original post about the value of the clearly political part of what the movie is saying. To point out that the “noble savage” trope is being used doesn’t, as far as I can tell, explain why that trope shouldn’t be used or show that there’s no truth behind it. Civilization isn’t unambiguously good. Even if nature isn’t either, that doesn’t mean this should be ignored or that it can be adequately conveyed poetically without recourse to this trope. I think this film uses it well, and in addition to many other, even opposing ones.
I was saying that the noble savage trope is mainly just being repeated, seemingly uncritically, without any commentary on it and without expanding on it or adding any insight beyond the original impulse. In my oh-pinion.
Late to the party with this review (thanks UltraCulture) but it’s refreshing to read this perspective. Although I did ultimately enjoy the film, I felt much the same regarding all of the key points here, and my impression of the characters was irreparably damaged once we saw that the people on the other side of the levee were not the monsters I’d imagined they were.
no monsters, no angels. strong characters who are deeply flawed. too weird an idea for you? turn off the tv, pick up any classic book. start with adventures of huck finn.
you can do it dnwilliams. i got a feeling about you.
tss
Y’all dig on polemics too much. This place exists. These places exist all over America. Film reminds me a little of the documentary Dark Days.
Is Isle de Jean being fetishized? I don’t think so. It doesn’t make a good thing out of child abuse or alcoholism or eating cat food. Her pop is uneducated. The people in Isle de Jean didn’t want to leave. The army wanted them to. That’s the real backdrop of this film. Its portraying people who don’t want to leave where they have roots. That’s not such a crazy thing.
The whole thing is told through the eyes of a girl who grew up thinking Aurochs are real. She only stands up to them when she feels strong enough to grow up in a pretty grim place. I’m sorry if that was a deal breaker for you. Maybe you don’t understand how stories work. Not genre. Not documentaries. Not avant garde or post structure, modernism, post-war, magical realism or whatever lame label you learned at the same school you hate Benh so much for going to.
The fact of the matter is, most stories and films are not academic treatises. But even if they were, I feel like most of your points are off.
Feels pretty good to jnow that im not the only one on this planet, that dislike this flick for the same reasons as this Critic. Extremely over-rated movie that totally feels like a naive filmschool movie.
I shall watch this movie, and either never read your reviews again, or follow you slavishly forever.
Or, I shall read a review once in a while to enjoy the writing w/ no thought to the movie you
describe. Have you ever considered writing something w/ a little more reach?
Angry Angry Aurochs!
Finally, someone who sees this movie the same way I did. I was beginning to wonder what all the fuss was about. Glad to know it wasn’t just me.
My biggest problem with the movie was that none of the characters in the movie were likable, just a bunch of arrogant, prideful, loutish drunks.
yaice:
strong but deeply flawed characters. can’t really wrap your mind around that? try the adventures of huck finn. turn off the sitcoms….
tss
No comment on the movie since I haven’t seen it. However, I would like to say that this was about the dang funniest review i’ve ever read. This Mancini character oughta be writin’ humour!
When i was a girl, Pippi Longstocking had a life enviable to me. I don’t know if that fable was better drawn or if i am unable to see the magical elements anymore as my my mind wanders into wondering if Hushpuppy will also become an alcoholic and ever have health insurance. Or is it, as i suspect, the filmmakers were not wholly committed to their vision and it constantly pulled me out of the tale? But what ultimately irked me was, during the scene at the shelter where Dad starts assaulting the doctor, the thought ‘all these characters behave like animals- WHO assaults a doctor concerned for your welfare for no reason’ came to me. I don’t get people saying this is a charming look at the residents of LA. It insults them.
Well said. I had the same reaction about the father attacking the doctor. Again, it goes back to what Vince Mancini wrote about noble savages. We’re supposed to admire the father for his independent spirit. But to me, he just comes across as pridefully bone-headed.
Yaice:
the father is loving but deeply flawed. too complicated for you?
tss
thineownself:
the film shows us as we are – in all our glory and in all our squalor. too complicated for you? that’s the charm. not the attack on the doctor — that’s just typical. ask a doctor in a city hospital ER.
maybe take a trip out of greenwich, ct (or the one in your one track mind) some day.
tss
I have been on this planet for a very long time. Over half of a century. I lived in LA, Ca. right in Hollywood. I have been to viewings at the SAG theater. I come with a bit of experience. Filmdrunk, you must be really drunk off your behind to give this film a C-. Is it just because there is no T & A or shoot em up and kill em in the movie? Or is it that this movie is way too deep for your intellect and you had to think during the film that you gave it a C-. Not understanding that someone doesn’t want to be controlled by the government may be something most people can’t seem to fathom. However that was the point of the movie. There are microcosm communities in the United States that do not want to be a part of this big mess we made. Geez Bend for one.This movie has done an outstanding job of conveying a very poignant message using realistic fiction. Quvenzhane is one amazing little actress for her age. And yet what you found to criticize about her was her name! Really? Get used to it, because I am positive that you will be seeing it in the future! I stopped watching the SAG awards a few years back. To me there was nothing really worth watching it for. This year is a totally different scenario. Because of Beasts of the Southern Wild, I will be watching the SAG. Just because it is an independent film does not mean it is not worthy. Get off your champagne attitude and take a look at the world around you! Finally, a movie worthy of intellect. It has been a really long time! A movie that is truly artistic! It has been a really long time! I own the DVD and have played the movie many times and will continue to play it again and again. My grade: A
I am a Cajun woman from rural south Louisiana, a survivor of Hurricane Katrina in NOLA, and the mother of a black daughter. As the credits rolled, I wanted nothing more than to jump through the screen and punch the filmmaker in the throat. Rarely has a film enraged me so. I am utterly stunned that friends I consider thinking people have raved about this racist, misogynistic, exploitative turd wrapped in a ribbon.
BBC reviewer Mark Kermode gives a different opinion.
[www.youtube.com]
“Extraordinarily realistic world…” Yeah, no.
how about liking a film just for being something different and captivating as the rest… why dig so deep, surely it’s the impression it leaves behind. Most movie go-ers dont think as deeply as you critics and are often mislead by your comparisons and what-if’s or how-come’s… It’s a bold film and a first venture for this director so lighten up… or get off your ass and make one yourself!
This movie is meant to be experienced and felt much like The Tree of Life is. I cried like a friggin baby more than a few times during this film. I don’t know if the writer was going for all this Katrina-esque stuff you all keep talking about but I didn’t get that at all. Seems the critics are trying to place common themes on the film like they are so darned smart they got it aaaaaaalllllll figured out…Oh it’s so racist! Oh those rich kids don’t know poverty! Oh Aurochs don’t have 4 tusks!! Seriously people! This is one amazing film!! I don’t think the writer is trying to touch on common themes here but more the things we all have a hard time explaining… Our place in this world, creation, nature… We are all vulnerable in this big scary world much like Hushpuppy. Try to see yourself in her and just go on this difficult ride and experience the movie instead if taking it so literal, if you do that you’ll miss so much.
Well said, Christian Hagen! Although didn’t like it as much-reminded me of “Tree of Life”, as well Modestjess.
vince,
you’re a racist. a liberal racist. you think black people are too stupid to see racism when they see it. you want to lead their revolution.
you’re an integrationist who lives in an all white neighborhood. you’re a desegregationist whose kids go to all white schools. i know you. i’ve met you many, many times. most of my friends are you.
tss
You think I want to lead a revolution because I think this movie is stupid? I think you missed the point. I don’t point out when things are racist, I point out when things are a shitty lame cliché. In fact, I think all these people supposedly like me that you’ve met are people like the ones who made Beasts of the Southern Wild. Thanks for signing with your initials though, I don’t know what I’d do if I didn’t know “TSS” wrote that.
Well, as a lifelong resident of Louzianna (yes, that’s EXACTLY the way my daddy pronounced it), it’s obvious to me that Vince Mancini has never met a real cajun, black or white (skin color never has and never will define a “Cajun”), … much less ever heard one speak.
“and catches one without even getting out of the boat, barely getting his elbow wet. Who knew noodling was so easy?!? I hate to sound like Holden Caufield here, but PHONY PHONY PHONY PHONY.”
Hell son, my daddy and uncles could catch fish AND crabs that way. I once saw my daddy pick up a water moccasin, that was coiled around his foot, by the back of its head and toss it 6 feet in the air and then shoot it before it hit the ground! REAL, REAL, REAL, REAL.
In my youth, I spent many summers in “Cajun Country”. Fishing and shrimping and crabbing and crawfishing. I met many folk like “Old Man Bayou”. They don’t know or care about no “Holden Caufield”. They ARE filled with wisdom and some of the worlds best metaphors. (Don’t mock what you don’t understand!) They have an unmatchable work ethic and infinite kindness.
Mr. Zeitlin ‘nailed’ the Cajun! The real Cajun (regardless of skin tone). Probably because he’s spent the last few years living among them. He knows their dialect. He understands their fears, hopes, nightmares and dreams. It’s, truly, a shame you could neither recognize nor appreciate the underlying truth and beauty of this movie.
No, not everyone in Louisiana calls crawfish “crawdaddies”; but, some do! Not everyone sucks (heads) but, some do!
My apologies for not being able to post under my real/actual name. It seems WENDY was already in use. Awww, shucks!
PS: Allow me to explain this one to you, please!
“Get it? His identical empty chicken wrappers remind him of who he was
Who he was is who he is. Who he is = who he was meant to be. Get it now? Got it? GOOD!
You’re welcome! Anytime.
I’m a bit late to the party, having just now watched this film. But thank you so much for this review. After the film ended I related my horror to a family member, then got online to see if any reviewers had felt the same way. The first thought that had come to my mind was “noble savage,” and I’m so glad to have seen you include it in your review. The characters were just one-note personality traits (the “happy drunk;” the “caring prostitute;” the “wise ship captain,” etc.) with no depth and no explanation for any of their actions. They were not real people. They were caricatures created by some more-entitled scriptwriter who was not interested in building believable characters but rather romanticizing what he found to be glamorous about a life not dictated by formal society. I was hoping for something with the emotional weight of Pan’s Labyrinth and instead found something more akin to Avatar, where the non-industrialized people can do no wrong purely because of their ties to the land. It’s lazy writing and absurdly classist, and I am shocked that it received such a warm welcome.
You had to make sure a “critic” saw it the same way you do? Wow. Not really too much more I can say to that. That’s telling in itself.
as big a load of contrived, poorly made, crtic friendly crap as i’ve ever seen. typical of the silly-ass rubbish that gets touted around sundance.
d.
I agree with a lot of your criticisms, but loved the film because of the portrayal of the relationship between Hushpuppy and her dad. You could call other aspects of it clichéd, but her anger and the complexity of that bond felt truthful. I liked that their relationship, which had painful aspects to it, was not sentimentalised or sanitised. It reminded me of films by Andrea Arnold (Wasp, Fish Tank) in which it is complicated family dynamics that are driving the film, and the emotions and needs of the suffering or angry child. Iif you go back to fairy tales most of them deal with similarly difficult subject matter – the fantastical setting is peripheral to that. I did also feel the threat of the storm in a visceral way, despite the possible sentimentalising of the community caught up in it. I can’t judge the authenticity of that.
Another late party goer…
Am I nuts? I’m pretty sure the woman at the Elysian Fields Floating Catfish Shack was Hushpuppies’ mother. Her real mother. ‘puppy was always calling for her mom and looking out toward the light of the shack across the water. There was an obvious bond between the two, mom cooked up some freshly shot ‘gator and gave it to ‘puppy just like in the old days, and ‘puppy took some back to her dad. When Wink ate it it sure looked like it brought back memories of the way his babymomma used to cook.
Yeah, yeah, Greek mythology, etc., that gator takeout was real, right?
BTW, I agree with your review.
I come from the deep, hurricane tormented, shrimp and crawdad eating, oily gulf southern lands and just watched this movie. I’m away from home and homesick. “Beasts” made me happy. I find it interesting that the director is not from the south. I imagined this movie was directed by a real southerner who had contemplated not leaving (a very real thought—the “bathtub” reminds me of a “what-if” scenario that I know I have thought through before evacuating category 5′s), knowing that she’s not doesn’t make the movie any worse but makes me question where her inspiration came from (television? how many Katrina news clips did she watch to feel inspired?). I also really enjoy gator tail and love that this was featured in the movie. Also, it is fiction, not a documentary. I can’t understand why/how it seems that northern people get so bent out of shape about supposed racism and cultural blah blah blah all of the time. Most of the northerners are extremely opposed to southern racism percieved or real, but also seem to have their own, more insulting breed of racism.
That was meant to read “Most of the northerners I know…”
It is so interesting to read the comments…. One of the biggest stand outs is the idea that the movie is “racist” and has a racist theme. I pray that each and everyone of you that are offended by the racism are the first in line to fight for the rights of others where ever and when ever these issue arise since you seem to have such a “moral compass.” It really confuses me how this movie is racist…. well then again was not Django a racist movie? Did it not play on the stereotypes of races? Oh right it was shoot em up movie and the however many gratuitous N words thrown in there made it all the more amusing. Mean while….. children 26 children dead in Newtown CT and we screaming gun control…. 65 young innocent black children killed by guns in Chicago last year everyone looks the other way…. where were you all when we needed to people scream racism?
Oh wait the author of the “blogger” for lack of a better term on this review is still irrelevant.
I think it’s worth pointing out (and someone might have already said this) that the characters aren’t exactly poor. They have gasoline for their truckboats. They’ve got bunches of alcohol. Bunches of crabs. Bunches of chickens. They aren’t rolling in cash, but they don’t seem to be lacking much either. It’s a different kind of economy, sure, but I think poverty might be a reductive/inaccurate word for it. Which I found to be a significant part of the film, personally… Just a thought.
Thanks for a spot-on review. I am from south Louisiana and this movie was so contrived on so many levels, that it was difficult to watch. The best line of the review was “I’ve seen enough Hurricane Katrina narratives written by liberal arts students in New York to recognize this as one.” I think that sums it up quite well.
Thank you, George, for making me feel not crazy.
you missed it. this film is different in many ways: dad is taking care of little girl, but he’s trying to toughen her up because he knows that she has an uncertain future, kids worlds are just kids worlds they don’t have to make sense to anyone but them, life they live is just life they live, its tough dirty like in many other parts of the country, what is unique is the music, music is a big part of LA life and so is the food. this film to me is more about a statement about being poor and being hit by a huge storm and being unable to recover. NO is still trying to recover from Katrina, while we are talking about Sandy – which is a tragedy as well. If you look too hard sometimes you miss everything.