|
WSWS : Arts
Review : Film
Reviews
Black Snake Moan and Zodiac: No diamonds in
the rough
By Joanne Laurier
13 March 2007
Use
this version to print
| Send this
link by email | Email
the author
Black Snake Moan, written and directed by Craig Brewer;
Zodiac, directed by David Fincher, screenplay by James
Vanderbilt, based on the books by Robert Graysmith
Video footage of blues legend Son House opens Craig Brewers
new movie Black Snake Moan. The tone and theme are set
when House tells the camera: Theres only one kind
of blues...between male and female. Brewer, an American
independent filmmaker, came to prominence in 2005 with his second
work, Hustle & Flow.
Lazarus (Samuel L. Jackson), a broken-down blues guitarist
known in his small Tennessee town for once shaking up the local
honky-tonk, raises vegetables on a ramshackle farm. A bitter,
God-fearing middle-aged black man, he is scarred by the departure
of an errant wife who tired of a bare-bones life.
Things change when he finds a half-naked white girl on the
road, unconscious from a beating. As he stabilizes her, he learns
that Rae (Christina Ricci) has a sexual disorder stemming from
childhood abuse. She has been binging on sex and drugs since her
boyfriend Ronnie (Justin Timberlake) shipped off to army boot
camp in an attempt to overcome their dead-end existence. Ronnie
himself suffers from a case of extreme anxiety, which eventually
gets him discharged from the service.

With misogyny in his heart and Bible in hand, Lazarus decides
to exorcise the demons in Rae. It begins by chaining her to a
radiator! In the end, the revival of Lazaruss musical roots
proves the proper medicine to soothe all the savage and ravaged
breastshis own, Raes and Ronnies.
Black Snake Moan is only partially rescued from an implausible
script that spouts a hollow religiosity by some flair and dynamism.
The film is named after and draws energy from the most haunting,
wicked blues song of all times by Blind Lemon Jefferson,
who wrote the ballad about going blind.
It proved the perfect metaphor, says director Brewer,
for a pivotal scene in the film. There is a moment in the
movie when Lazarus and Rae are confronting their darkest secrets.
Locked in a house in the country with no one around you and the
right amount of thunderstorms on your back and moonshine in your
mug, youre going to tap into something really primal.
Although the towns inhabitants live in extreme poverty
and backwardness, in no way does the film connect their impulses
or states of mind to this reality. Psychological and physical
traumas seem arbitrary. A bad childhood or bad marriage just happens.
Facile prescriptions follow, while emotional steadiness and good
relationships emerge from faith-based good will and a lot of playing
and listening to the blues.
Brewer sees the suffering in people, and genuinely empathizes
with them, but attributes its cause to the emotionally primalthe
moan of loves torment. This is compatible with the
biblical references: Lazarus the resurrector (and resurrected),
Rae the serpentine temptress. All of which too easily suits the
present official championing of religious piety and personal
responsibility.
According to the director, it all boils down to when
you start listening to the music, you feel you are listening to
something that is truly at its irreducible essence: One man, one
guitar and a whole lotta pain.... Im talking about north
Mississippi, blood and guts blues. This is not pretty music. This
is music that comes from raw, emotional state of need.
Whence springs this raw state of need? In one interview, Brewer
explains that the South is the Mesopotamia of American music,
and it all came from poverty, it all came from those collisions
of race, of culture, of gender. Were a better country because
of the South.
This is very confused. No doubt the South has been the birthplace
of a great deal of American popular music. The latter hasnt
simply emerged, however, from povertyas though
poverty didnt exist in every region of the country. It developed
in large measure out of forms of social resistanceto
slavery and racism, to rural poverty, to the exploitation of landowners,
to the depredations of the railroad companies and other representatives
of big businessby populations, black and white, with powerful
musical traditions. The notion of a struggle against existing
conditions, expressed artistically or in any other way, seems
to be a closed book to Brewer, as it is to many contemporary filmmakers.
Black Snake Moan shows poverty; it shows a young
person who enlists in the military for lack of a future; it shows
his peers stuck in a no-mans land engaging in self-destructive
activities.
These social elements, however, are undeveloped and uncritically
approached. Languishing on a primitive level, the films
characters are starved of real definition and purpose. During
the course of its moralizing, Black Snake Moan presents
a few twisted notions: with the proper intentions, holding someone
captive can produce positive results and the rape of a young black
boy when Rae gets the fever seems a legitimate rite
of passage. But this is entirely in line with the notion that
poverty is the source of musical inspiration. According to the
upside-down logic of this argument, opposing social misery or
any other kind of suffering would be downright harmful! Clearly,
the director has simply not thought these things through.
Brewer is simultaneously drawn to and repulsed by violence
and aggression. He is leery of certain consequences, yet attracted
to the possibility of getting to what he views as the core
of things. Raes emotional-sexual pyrotechnics blow
things wide open. Unfortunately, they dont shed much light.
Brewer indolently hangs his movie on a cultural genrethe
blueswhich, as he says, has complex origins. But it is a
culture and a music that defy superficial usurpation. It is Black
Snake Moans numerous raw and exploitative
moments that draw the least from the waters of a deep cultural
well.
* * * * *
Zodiac directed by David Fincher (The Fight Club,
Seven) is a tightly executed film about the unsolved Zodiac
serial killings in the Bay Area in the late 1960s and 1970s, focusing
on the men who spent years trying to crack the case. Based on
two books by one of those individuals, Robert Graysmith (played
in the movie by Jake Gyllenhaal), the film begins with the 1969
shooting of one young couple and the knifing of another.
The self-named Zodiac killer starts sending letters and ciphers
to the San Francisco Chronicle, the daily newspaper where
Graysmith is employed as a cartoonist. He will eventually play
an instrumental role in the marathon investigation (the film is
something of a marathon itself, at almost three hours). The Chronicles
lead crime reporter, Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr.), has connections
to the San Francisco Police Departments Dave Toschi (Mark
Ruffalo). Toschi and his partner William Armstrong (Anthony Edwards)
form the core of the team tracking the murderer.

Only when the case is cold and Avery is out of the picture
does the hitherto background figure, Graysmith, jump into the
frayas an eccentric, but brilliant connector of the dots.
For Avery, Toschi and Graysmith, the hunt becomes a compulsion,
destroying one life and transforming those of the others. Zodiac
implies that they are the most celebratedand perhaps the
most tormentedof the Zodiac killers victims. An implication
that seems cavalier in light of the numerous murdered human beings.
In general, the film pays little attention to the latter.
Why have an extraordinary cast (which also includes Brian Cox,
John Carroll Lynch, Chloë Sevigny, Elias Koteas and Philip
Baker Hall) and high production values been brought together to
tell this particular story?
Zodiac makes much of its refusal to pass judgment. Rather,
it belongs tiresomely to the however warped, this is the
way things are school. It skims over bleak, even horrifying,
events without any explanation. Is this the filmmakers attitude
toward American societys current malaise?
Finchers film presents an avalanche of empirical data.
The investigators in Zodiac are followed like insects in
a glass cage. But to what end? Whats the purpose of all
this? An unhealthy atmosphere pervades the film. It manages to
imply that the killer is a deviant, but then so too perhaps are
the pursuers, the filmmakers and the spectators. One wants to
say, Speak for yourself.
Obsessive conduct as it is presented in the film doesnt
necessarily elevate consciousness or enlighten us about anything,
it may rather darken and dehumanize. Nothing in life, Zodiac
implies, for example, compares to a fixation with the chase.
Attempting to shed light on the content of obsession in Zodiac,
Fincher told one interviewer regarding the three leading characters:
Theyre sort of all pieces of who I am. Avery, the
pro, says things like, This guy killed only five people;
more people die every year in the East Bay commute. Hes
the tortured realist; hed love to get involved and get broken
up about stuff, but he doesnt. And then Toschi, who thinks
you have to let things go. Graysmith is the compulsive part of
my personality.
As a thing-in-itself, obsessive behavior is neither admirable
nor unworthy. Everything depends on its content. However, the
very use of the term suggests something blind or irrational, as
opposed to the conscious pursuit of a socially or intellectually
progressive goal.
Zodiacs mindset on this score is best articulated
by producer Brad Fischer in the movies production notes:
Fincher is able to articulate things about human behavior
and emotion cinematically that make the characters and the world
they inhabit so incredibly authentic. He can give the viewer that
feeling, that they could be watching themselves up there, sinking
down into the rabbit hole without realizing it.
The DNA of this story had so much to do with that, with
degrees of malevolent deviant behavior whether youre talking
about a serial killer or the men whose lives are drained in the
pursuit of something that will probably remain just out of reach
for the rest of their lives.... Its a compulsion that exists
in all of us, and it has the potential to be an incredibly destructive
force.
How helpful is this?
Fincher is talented, although perhaps not as talented as he
and his admirers think he is. But a chronic condescension toward
humanity looms in the films chilly, non-committal stance.
There is no substitute for a concrete analysis of social life
and holding a strong point of view. Vague, nightmarish, obsessive
visions wont do.
Much has happened in the world since the string of Zodiac murders.
(Fincher was growing up in the Bay Area at the time of the killings.)
Why revive an interest in them?
Zodiacs self-consciously and fashionably bleak
view of humanity may explain in part why the long-dormant story
has been resurrected. But one also senses that the grimness is
somehow the line of least resistance. In the end, for whatever
combination of reasons, the filmmakers demonstrate an unwillingness
or incapacity to make sense of the events.
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |