Review: Meek's Cutoff (Reichardt, 2011)
May 7th 2011 00:39
Meek’s Cutoff (Reichardt, 2011)
Written May 6, 2011
Meek’s Cutoff is a compelling tale of human struggle and ethnic, racial, and religious divide. Set on the Oregon Trail in 1845, the film picks up where most would begin its second act; notably, it ends where most might begin their third.
There’s a shot in the beginning of Act I that is dazzling. Director Kelly Reichardt (Wendy and Lucy, Old Joy) shoots from a low angle, the actors and a horse moving into the foreground, before passing by and off screen. The shot then seamlessly dissolves to the wagons traveling in the background. A few seconds later it changes again; the wagons are still in the background but the brook in the foreground is now solid ground. The image is gorgeously breathtaking.
Reichardt’s direction is controlled and measured. She sets the scene immediately; a group of families are traveling along the Oregon Trail. They are, as the carved into rock reveals, ‘lost’. Presumably, they either met up with or hired outright a man named Stephen Meek (a wonderfully gruff, unflinching performance by Bruce Greenwood), who is a self-professed expert. They’ve put their faith in him but when our story begins they are weary and lost, low on water and unable to find another source. The conflict outright is a decision whether or not to hang Meek, yet this is not the main focus of the story. Conflicts come and go, discoveries are made, and tensions run high. Throughout it all, however, the premise is theme over story. We are meant to focus less on the events occurring and more on the small moments of daily life, the intricate work processes, and the balance between men and women and their roles.
It is especially interesting to see the contrast between the relationships of Emily (Michelle Williams) and her husband Salomon (Will Patton) and Glory (Shirley Henderson) and her husband William (Neil Huff). Emily at one point says, ‘Your husband didn’t discuss this with you?’ Emily’s equality as a wife and semi-leader is explored beautifully, when the other two women are mostly kept in the dark or told to keep quiet. Emily takes initiative; she’s brazen, honest and a true pioneer.
The complexities in the film come to the forefront when the group takes an Indian slave. Meek immediately wants to kill the man, spinning tale after tale of the things he’s seen and leaving the audience to repeatedly wonder if he is a reliable narrator. His methods are undoubtedly draconian in his approach and Emily in particular questions the man’s insight and ignorance. The group as a whole prefers to keep the man so he can lead them to water. That which follows is an unflinching look at the racial and cultural divide through fear and curiosity as well as a subtle look at religious faith and the difficulty to reconcile and accept these beliefs. Again, nearly everything within the film is suggested and implied rather than overtly stated. Reichardt and screenwriter Jonathan Raymond allow their scenes to unfold slowly and meticulously, allowing the audience to form their own thoughts while watching each and every seen rather than have these feelings decided for them.
Michelle Williams gives a perfectly restrained, non-showy performance in which she continues to display her phenomenal talent. Nevertheless, there is definite melodrama peppered throughout the quiet, static shots. Millie, (Zoe Kazan) in particular, is extreme in her reactions and it somewhat disrupts the hushed tone. This can be jarring but at the same time is necessary to show the different character extremes. Paul Dano plays her husband Thomas and is yet again a paranoid, loud, and intense character; it makes one long for his quiet, reserved turn in Little Miss Sunshine.
Reichardt frames the film in mostly long shots and medium shots as well as establishing. She keeps the viewer at a distance, a spectator, able to take in the harsh conditions around the characters and their struggle. The evening scenes are naturally lit; so dark that when we cut to daylight it feels like looking at the sun. She laces the second act with surprising yet incredibly subtle sexual tension between Emily and their Indian captive. In one scene, Emily’s actions garnered a shocked utterance of ‘wow’ from a person in the audience. The response was interesting in that it occurred at all. Reichardt is clear from the start regarding the fundamentals of Emily’s character; she is critical and brash when it comes to Meek and does not shy away from confrontation. Her decision in Act III is completely appropriate given her character’s arc and the story’s natural progression.
The film’s conclusion (which approaches so rapidly we feel we could still be watching another 20 minutes of film) is a marvel to be hold and the last image is haunting in its simplicity. Reichardt and Raymond defy the general rules of filmmaking and screenwriting, choosing to end the film in a way that is not easily parsed or accepted. This was expressed clearly by a couple in the audience whom actually broke into nonsensical, near mocking laughter. The reaction was offense and uncalled for, especially when one is attempted to intake the full effect of the gorgeous last sequence. In response, another person mused aloud, ‘I wasn’t aware this was a comedy.’
It’s precisely this type of ignorant reaction which projects the ideology that Reichardt’s ending is a manifesto to not only the stringent laws of filmmaking but also a counter to mainstream cinema’s overt need to adhere and conform to this type of expectation. Reichardt has crafted an Independent film that cares less about appeasement and more about controlled direction, breathtaking cinematography, and the quiet details that get lost within films that thrive on dialogue but fail to let the images on the screen do the talking for them. She is truly a visionary director.
| 28 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
