Winter’s Bone (Review)

Winter’s Bone sort of works on the level of a standard mystery story, but doesn’t live up to its own semi-docudrama ambitions leaving it, ultimately, a failure.  It’s straight-jacketed by a highly structured plot precluding any of the spontaneity of a more naturalistic structure that we might expect from an independent darling of the Sundance Film Festival.  Characters show up to do what the story needs them to do without any room for unstructured moments that might stray from the demanding and rigid plot.  Director Debra Granik (who co-wrote the screenplay with Anne Rosellini) does a strong job with the formulaic mystery story, but the characters aren’t fully developed and the entire rural backdrop torn apart by the meth epidemic feels exploited rather than considered with any depth.

Ree Dolly (Jennifer Lawrence) is a 17-year-old struggling to hold together her family in the Ozark region of Missouri.  Her mother is ill, unable (or unwilling) to talk or do much of anything else, and her father is nowhere to be found, lost in the world of meth.  She stands in as the surrogate matriarch for her younger brother and sister, stepping in to teach them the necessities of survival.  The scenes where Ree instructs her siblings on the basics of hunting or cooking are some of the best of the movie, but they come and go so fast that we don’t have time to savor them.  I was especially taken by the scene where Ree is teaching them how to shoot, but it peters out because Granik rushes back to the tiresome plot.

It isn’t enough to explore the complexities of rural life marred by methamphetamines in modern America.  Early in the film the local sheriff visits the house and he tells Ree that her father’s court date is in a week and she needs to be sure he shows up.  Her father put up their house for the bail and if he fails to appear they will lose it.  Ree sets out to find him, but meets resistance from family and assorted meth addicts and dealers along the way.  Despite dead ends and threats, Ree continues her search, determined to save her family’s home and keep her siblings together.

I grew increasing frustrated as one person after another warned her away from her pursuit, telling her some people don’t want to be found or her father has to make the choice to turn himself in.  Even after she tells them why she needs to find him they still refuse to help her.  I didn’t understand why it was such a bad thing for her to try to save her family home.  (I kept waiting for Ree to ask people flat out why they won’t help, but she inexplicably never does.)  By the time the big mystery is revealed at the end I almost threw up my hands.  That was the big secret?  It wouldn’t have taken much for any one of the people she approached to help her.  In fact, after all the threats and the beating she endures, some of them actually end up doing just that, leading her to her father.  It isn’t really clear why they couldn’t have helped her 45 minutes to an hour earlier.

Meth is a major problem in the United States and rural communities are particularly affected by it.  Granik could have made a thoughtful film about meth tearing apart families and communities, much like the HBO miniseries The Corner did for crack in the inner-cities.  Instead she uses the subject as a convenient backdrop for a standard Hollywood story.

The characters are surprisingly shallow as well, because they exist solely to propel the plot forward.  One exception is Ree’s Uncle Teardrop, memorably brought to life by John Hawkes.  In early scenes Teardrop is unpredictable and threatening, but as we come to understand him he grows on us, though we never fully accept him.  Despite the distance we feel from him we recognize that he is more conflicted about his brother’s disappearance than we were lead to believe early in the picture.  Hawkes delivers a convincing performance, unpredictably wavering between threatening and comforting.

I also liked how Ree is written with intelligence, a quality female roles often lack even today.  Every chore is an opportunity to teach her siblings something and she goes about it with such patience and cleverness that those scenes (as I wrote above) are a joy to watch.  And her determination to find her father doesn’t cloud her natural intelligence.  Late in the film after she is beaten by a large group because she refuses to stop looking (and why would she quit if her family will end up homeless?) one of her attackers asks what they are going to do with her.  She calmly wipes the blood from her mouth and says, “Kill me, I guess.”  Writing the scene with her cowering and crying would have been the easy way to go, but Granik and Rosellini were smart enough to keep Ree tough and not intimidated.

Other than Teardrop and Ree the others in the movie are mostly caricatures of rural life, revealing nothing more about small town residents or their lives that I couldn’t have imagined on my own.  I didn’t learn one thing about what life in the Ozarks is like beyond the movie’s stand that everyone is a rotten meth-head or meth dealer looking out for themselves.  Where is the depth or the insight for which so many filmgoers flock to independent moviemaking?  It is absent here, as though the entire script were written from the confines of LA or New York without even a visit to the area or interaction with people the movie portrays.  The dirty little secret of independent movie fetishists is that most independent movies are just as empty-headed as big Hollywood pictures.  Like Winter’s Bone, they simply plug characters absent from Hollywood productions into standard screenwriting school scripts.  Granik missed a real opportunity here to say something meaningful about the scourge of drugs on rural America.  Instead the themes worked in service of the plot rather than the other way around.

Grade: C



Filed under Uncategorized

7 responses to “Winter’s Bone (Review)

  1. Hmmm…interesting…one of the few unfavorable reviews I’ve come across. You bring up some good points, but I think you are hung up on the setting.

    The setting is just that…it’s a backdrop. I don’t think Granik ever intended to give some kind of searing portrait of meth addiction in rural America.

    I think the intent was to tell a story about a stubborn and determined young woman working her way out of a dangerous predicament to save her family. It’s a universal tale of family bonds and the struggle for survival…and how sometimes family bonds can be deadly just as they can be protective. The film just happens to take place in the Ozarks. I thought the setting made for a great atmosphere, but it could’ve taken place anywhere at any time.

    And being that it was filmed on location, with many locals in the cast and crew leads me to believe that the LA/NY filmmakers did plenty of research and were knee-deep in the milieu – though I take your point that this could be seen as a jaded outsider’s view (yet another spin on poverty-porn).

    At any rate…here’s my counter review:

    • Thank you for your thoughtful response. I can see from your own review that you think highly of this movie and I can see why. This isn’t an awful movie, I was just disappointed that it didn’t give me another view of American life that is usually absent from U.S. movies. Hollywood has nothing but contempt for working class characters, to say nothing of the rural poor. I think that if an independent filmmaker is going to depict an underrepresented group, why not give me a story that gives me some insight or is particular to the people of that time and place?

      You put your finger on my problem when you wrote that this story could have taken place any time and and any place. I’ve never understood why that’s a virtue in a movie. Give me something specific, something fresh, something I’ve never seen before. This movie didn’t do that for me.

      Clearly, however, you and most critics responded to the movie and I can see why. Lawrence is compelling as Ree and it’s easy to identify with her. I wish the material was as compelling as Ree herself. But I like the connection you made about family bonds being potentially both nurturing and destructive. That was a take I hadn’t thought about. While that is an interesting point, I still wish there was more respect for its characters and place. “Poverty porn” is an apt term for a lot of exploitation pictures though I don’t think I would go quite that far for this one. It wasn’t exploitative exactly, but it wasn’t terribly thoughtful. I guess my expectations are higher for movies that win such acclaim from Sundance.

      But thanks again. Thoughtful comments are always appreciated!

  2. I can see how it might leave some “wanting more” one way or another. I was initially let down by the lack of suspense after it had been billed as a type of American Gothic Noir, but then I realized that probably wasn’t the intent and I accepted that and began to think more deeply about what the film was really about – those family bonds.

    I do think it was thoughtful in some ways…some subtle (like the way Ree’s character, and the “character” of the setting were revealed in how they people talked and what they said — Ree was a woman of few, but powerful words) and some not so subtle (the excellent music). I think Granik did a good job of being respectful and non-exploitative. The scenes with the kids were especially well done (which you pointed out) and presented hope that things don’t have to be so bad for these folks.

    At any rate, it great to talk about a film with someone who doesn’t necessarily see eye to eye but makes a strong case. Thanks for hopping over to my blog and reading my take.

    • I completely agree that it’s nice to talk with someone with a different point of view. I will be sure to follow your blog and link to it when we’ve commented on the same movies.

  3. I’ve just got back from seeing this and looked up your review. Must say I mainly agree with you, although I did like the movie in patches… mainly the patches where nothing much was happening and people were wandering round shooting and skinning squirrels or drinking cups of tea, and the kids jumping up and down on that trampoline. The Ozarks setting is fascinating to me but I’d like to have a lot more of it. Whenever the plot kicks in with a heavy melodramatic scene, I felt that the film falls off. I see from the imdb that the movie is adapted from a “country noir” crime novel and I think that is probably the problem for me – the crime plot has to unfold, but everything happening around the edges of that is a lot more interesting. I think Jennifer Lawrence and John Hawkes are both great, anyway. I do also really like the hillbilly music in the film and looked up the singer, Marideth Sisco – I see from her blog that she was still paying off a student loan when the film was made and had no idea she would suddenly find herself in demand to cut CDs!

    • Good to know I’m not alone on this one. This has been getting praise from all over the place. I had exactly the same problem with the movie you did and I liked all the parts you liked. The mystery part of the story just felt forced and phony. And, as I said before, I still don’t have any idea why her family members don’t just tell her what happened earlier. Oh yeah, then there wouldn’t be a movie. And I also agree about Lawrence and Hawkes — they were very good. Interesting tidbit about Sisco too. It’s amazing how quickly one’s fortunes can change!

  4. Pingback: Killing Kin in the Ozarks « The Schleicher Spin

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s