Lawless

The Immortal Bondurants

John Hillcoat is a very good director, though I've only seen two of his films. The first was his Australian western The Proposition, starring Guy Pearce, which was a great entry into the recent western genre canon. He then made the bleak, harrowing adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's identically titled novel The Road, which was an amazing film. Now he brings us a period piece set mostly in 1931, during Prohibition, based on a book "The Wettest County In the World," which chronicles the true story of the Bondurant family; specifically, three brother bootleggers operating out of Franklin County, Virginia. The brothers are Jack (Shia LeBeouf), Forrest (Tom Hardy), and Howard (Jason Clarke) who, with the help of a young boy named Cricket, operate a bar and make moonshine on the side.

Trouble starts when Special Deputy Charley Rakes (Guy Pearce) comes in from Chicago to lean (heavily) on the bootleggers. He informs Forrest he wants a cut of all the money the Bondurants make (and makes similar threats to the other bootleggers of Franklin County). Forrest informs him to leave, and if he returns, Forrest will kill him. Other key characters include Maggie (Jessica Chastain), a dancer from Chicago who is hired by Forrest to be a waitress at the bar, Floyd Banner (Gary Oldman), a Chicago gangster, and Bertha (Mia Wasikowska), daughter of the local preacher and love interest of Jack.

The Bondurants. Three brothers, all with very different personalities, but still believably brothers. Jack, the youngest, wants desperately to get in on the bootlegging business, but he doesn't have the grit that Forrest and Howard do. When he's severely beaten by Rakes, Forrest informs him that he needs to learn to stand up for himself. Forrest (in a wonderful performance from Tom Hardy) is a big guy who's generally calm and considerate in his actions, unlike Howard who's a hothead drunk that'll go off on anybody in a split second. Forrest is a big guy, and if it comes to it, he'll beat you nearly to death with his iron knuckles. The Bondurants are considered immortal via local legend. It does eventually seem as if they live up to that reputation, especially with everything Forrest survives.

The film is one of those fascinating stories that drops us into a world that few people really understand or have experienced (especially given the long-ago time period), surrounded by unique characters that are distinct and important to the escalation of the plot. The story employs the oft-used technique of empathizing with and humanizing criminals, particularly by making the authorities even badder. Rakes is an evil, soulless man, who commits some of the most brutal crimes in the film.

The acting is phenomenal, though at times Guy Pearce feels as though he's trying too hard ("going over the top"), which is interesting because he played the lead role in Hillcoat's The Proposition with a fascinating subtlety. Gary Oldman is great, though his role is set-up as large, and then he fades away, which was a shame. Tom Hardy is absolutely wonderful as Forrest Bondurant, showing yet another angle of acting agility (compare the man in this film, then The Dark Knight Rises, Warrior, and Bronson - he's great). Most surprisingly to me, Shia LeBeouf is also great as Jack Bondurant, playing the character with a naïveté and burning desire to be like his older brothers with fascinating ability.

The filmmaking is stellar, with special credit given to the cinematography, set and costume design. Everything feels like Prohibition era backwoods of bootlegger territory. The characters from Chicago are noticeably different in character and appearance than the "hicks" of Franklin County. The script is well-written, but not without its flaws. There seems to be no acknowledgement of the repercussions of revenge; that's the Bondurant answer to every problem - vengeance. But what of its consequences? The film seems to care little about that, though at times it felt like it may address the issue, but then side-steps it, instilling a feeling of frustration. The climax is overcooked. Without spoiling anything, I am unsure why so many people are involved in the climax, aside from it being necessary for more bullets to fly. The epilogue is hopelessly unnecessary, and in fact seems to validate many of the actions of the Bondurants; yet another example of side-stepping the likely consequences of violence and revenge.

All considered, this is an exceptionally well-made, stupendously acted gangster crime film that realistically drops us into an unfamiliar setting, with unique and fascinating characters. The story waffles sometimes between profundity and sheepishness to reality. It clearly strives to be a much greater film than it ultimately is, but in doing so, it still remains a good film worth seeing. And it very much makes me await Hardy's next role.

3.5/4