Annals of the Overrated: ‘Beasts of the Southern Wild’
There’s been a lot of Oscar chatter about the fact that “Argo” seems on track to win the best-picture trophy this year – despite the fact that its director, Ben Affleck, was left off the list of best-director nominees.
What seems to have gone undiscussed is the elephant in the room – why Affleck’s nomination went instead to Benh Zeitlin, who directed the wildly overpraised “Beasts of the Southern Wild.”
Cheap, amateurish and sometimes just plain hard to watch, “Beasts” enjoyed a wave of overwrought critical hosannas, going all the way back to when the film first was shown more than a year ago at the Sundance Film Festival (where it won the always-suspect grand-jury prize, frequently given to an all-but-unwatchable film). It then got a much-vaunted sneak preview at last year’s New Directors/New Films series and, by the time it was released in June, was on track to be one of the best reviewed films of the year.
I didn’t see it until a couple of weeks prior to its release, having heard it buzzed about and hyped as this magical bit of breakthrough movie-making that dealt with race, poverty and Katrina politics, all in one slight film starring a 5-year-old.
And then I actually saw it and thought, well, geez, there’s not much there and I can’t imagine what I would write about it.
Fortunately, its opening came on a week I took as vacation, so I didn’t feel compelled to review it. Indeed, I felt no compulsion to even think about it any further; it neither moved me, nor stuck with me.
Still, given the critical response when the film was released, I assumed it would be a major contender when critics groups began to vote. But while it was competitive in the category for best first film when I voted with the New York Film Critics Circle in early December, it was easily bested by “How to Survive a Plague,” the first documentary to win that award from that group.
And, as the other critics’ groups voted through the month, it never really picked up any momentum. Oh, it won a few – most promising newcomer for Zeitlin from the critics in Chicago; best directorial debut from the National Board of Film Buffs, er, Review. But there was no groundswell for “Beasts.”
Instead, I saw it as one of those films which, released in a June plastered wall-to-wall with super-hero and special-effects movies, looked so different that critics pounced on it as a palate cleanser. But even if it wowed you, it apparently wasn’t a movie that grew in the imagination after you see it, the way a few movies do. Instead, it faded and was replaced with other enthusiasms, as most movies are.
Then, along came the Academy voters, who apparently suffered the same kind of momentary contact high that critics did, and they handed “Beasts” a best-picture nomination, squandering Affleck’s directing nomination on Zeitlin.
When that happened, I popped in my awards-season screener of the film and watched it again, together with a couple members of my family who were curious because of the Oscar nominations.
When it was over, I was still baffled: What was it that these Oscar voters were seeing that so obviously was eluding me?
Instead of a charming or involving piece of Louisiana magical-realism (isn’t that phrase redundant?), it seemed mildly condescending to me: the tale of the plucky, abused and neglected black child who somehow overcomes a physically menacing father to survive the big storm and rise above, even after her father dies. It seemed like a contemporary throwback to the odious notion of the noble savage.
It was not dramatic; it was barely anthropological. And its attempt at the mythic was obvious and heavy-handed, with little Hushpuppy (Quvenzhane Wallis) and her hallucinatory visions of buffalo-sized boars with multiple tusks. I get it: They’re the dark forces of an uncaring world, converging on this forgotten little girl to see if she can survive the heaviest stuff the world can throw at her.
Wallis’ performance was honored by a number of well-meaning critics’ groups and given an Oscar nomination that would have been better spent on Marion Cotillard or even Judi Dench. Is it even really acting?
I would argue that it more closely resembles directed behavior, like playtime in kindergarten: “OK, pretend you’re angry. Now roar like a lion.” All acting performances amount to playing pretend – but not all examples of playing pretend can be considered acting performances.
There are a couple misguided Oscar forays like this every year. For 2012, however, this overrated film took up Oscar slots it didn’t deserve – and will be forgotten by this time next year.
Print This Post
February 14th, 2013 at 1:59 pm
Dear Mr. Fine,
first of all: Beasts of the Southern Wild is an amazing, breathtaking and audacious movie.
I could now think about why a self-entitled film critic combines his last name with Hollywood and, to emphasize this, even comes up with two street signs that – again – combine these names.
But I don`t. I am rather asking myself what it is that makes a successful person like you (just read your bio)to be so begrudging about a gifted, young actress from Louisanna. (Who is actually 10 years old.)
You are not getting tired to stress that you did not see the movie and did not see it and did not see it.
Why? (I am not pronouncing this word with an “Y” but rather like “Whaa” as Dolemite does. But don`t worry: I am a white German guy.)
Whaa? I mean, Wallis only performs weak… You “would argue that” [her acting] “closely resembles directed behavior, like playtime in kindergarten: ‘OK, pretend you’re angry. Now roar like a lion.’ ”
Is that all you could come up with as a three times chairman?
Maybe you were too busy posting the article you had written on “How to Kill a Mockingbird” when you were just three years older than Quvenzhané Wallis. (By the way, there has to be an accent aigu over the last e in her name.)
I would have expected more from the Godfather of Movies for Smart People.
Quvenzhané Wallis is just starting her career. And she will be fine.
I wish you are very pleasant day, sir.
February 15th, 2013 at 9:11 am
Oh lord! Thank you for writing this. I can’t believe how many people fell for this movie. I thought I was alone in my boredom. And it’s a damn shame and a damn mistake Ben got slighted.
February 16th, 2013 at 7:48 am
After reading your review I’m not surprised this movie was lost on you.
February 18th, 2013 at 1:56 am
Thank you for this review. Just watched the film — thank god it was only 90 minutes — and am equally stumped as to the accolades for this piece of dreck. Only comment I’d have is with your use of the term “slightly condescending.” This picture was obviously written by people who have never been poor a day in their lives, which, I guess, leads to the “po’ but proud” racism inherent in the movie’s message. I mean, the only thing that could have saved this movie for me — and yes, I realize this is harsh — would have been if they all drowned on their way back to the bathtub. That shocking bit of realism would have rescued this movie.
February 18th, 2013 at 10:08 pm
While I agree that this film may not have necessarily deserved a nod for Best Director over Affleck’s, I don’t think looking at your review of Beasts that you “got it”.
February 21st, 2013 at 5:44 am
loved this film. the director got very lucky – he made a classic about a six year old poor girl where he dared us to not be transfixed. he won. i agree with oprah: truly a work of art.
t
March 4th, 2013 at 6:23 am
Thankyou for honest review! The fact that such tasteless, boring and story-less movie gets through Sundance and gets nominated for Oscars shows the level of hypocrisy of our society in general. No way this piece of junk qualifies as ‘art’. Pure hypocrisy; movie doesnt offer hope, joy, happiness, thrill..it doesnt even make u sad…its just an attempt to do something different to get ‘oscar’.
March 4th, 2013 at 9:10 am
I am not sure from your review that you have kids, or like them. I teach little ones her age who are in highly transient and below the poverty line. This is a good portrayal of how they see the world and how they see reality.
While the movie was amateurish in production, it was fitting for the topic. Your website is subtitled “Movies for Smart People”, but I must think the smartness is a facade for something else, perhaps lack of experience with children or with people that live in poverty. The review had a obtuse tone suggesting arrogance and ignorance. I am not sure this review was for “smart” people, but for people wrapped up in intellectualism and not reality.
May 4th, 2013 at 4:54 pm
Interesting and professionally written review, and I agree.
I cant get too excited about this movie either. The symbolism of the aurochs wasn’t too subtle and if the theme of the movie is that ‘bad things happen and you just cant be a pussy about it , just deal with it’ Well, if the aurochs had reached down and swallowed little hushpuppy whole, then I would have dealt with it.
I bet that uncivilized Wink could drink more than $20-$30 /day
worth of cold beer Dont know where that money comes from.
And how do they get Lectricity down at the bathtub anyway?
And what kind of gas does take to run that truckboat not to mention that snazzy little speed boat.
At least we now know why the levee failed during Katrina.