I rented Frozen River this week in anticipation of the Oscar ceremony, curious to see the career making performance of Melissa Leo. Then, after I got the DVD but before I had started to watch it, she won the Spirit Award and my interest was piqued further. Ultimately, it took me three tries to get through this unremittingly grim and mostly improbable film.
Perhaps poverty is a hard subject to treat on film because in real life it is characterized by monotony. But as other critics of this picture have noted, it is so darn grim that it hurts to watch. Many plot points are improbable, and the actions of the protagonists are not just dumb, but in some cases suggest that they were already a bit morally bent even before hard times come. (Starting with this one: why does she already have a handgun at the beginning of the film?) Melissa Leo's performance is not bad, but honestly I did not find myself finding empathy--or even sympathy, which should be easier--for this character. (To be fair, the last ten minutes or so are a little more involving and maybe she has a bit of a character transformation, but not all that much.)
I found myself comparing this to the Showtime series Weeds. Of course Weeds starts with the advantage of the gorgeous and hilarious Mary Louise Parker, and it takes place in a more prosperous and thus less unremittingly grim social setting. But beyond that, it has a sense of satire and fun, even in the face of miserable circumstances, that is just missing here. For example, I can think of a number of films that deal with Native American poverty without getting completely bogged down in morosity on a level with Thomas Hardy: off the top of my head, Smoke Signals, and the fascinating character played by Tamara Podemski in Sterlin Harjo's excellent Four Sheets to the Wind, come to mind. Bad things happen, they don't have any money, but they still live with spirit and humor. Whereas in Frozen River these people seem to have already been beaten up so much before the film even starts that it is very hard to watch. I guess this might be realistic for some, but it doesn't really make for a great film.
Perhaps poverty is a hard subject to treat on film because in real life it is characterized by monotony. But as other critics of this picture have noted, it is so darn grim that it hurts to watch. Many plot points are improbable, and the actions of the protagonists are not just dumb, but in some cases suggest that they were already a bit morally bent even before hard times come. (Starting with this one: why does she already have a handgun at the beginning of the film?) Melissa Leo's performance is not bad, but honestly I did not find myself finding empathy--or even sympathy, which should be easier--for this character. (To be fair, the last ten minutes or so are a little more involving and maybe she has a bit of a character transformation, but not all that much.)
I found myself comparing this to the Showtime series Weeds. Of course Weeds starts with the advantage of the gorgeous and hilarious Mary Louise Parker, and it takes place in a more prosperous and thus less unremittingly grim social setting. But beyond that, it has a sense of satire and fun, even in the face of miserable circumstances, that is just missing here. For example, I can think of a number of films that deal with Native American poverty without getting completely bogged down in morosity on a level with Thomas Hardy: off the top of my head, Smoke Signals, and the fascinating character played by Tamara Podemski in Sterlin Harjo's excellent Four Sheets to the Wind, come to mind. Bad things happen, they don't have any money, but they still live with spirit and humor. Whereas in Frozen River these people seem to have already been beaten up so much before the film even starts that it is very hard to watch. I guess this might be realistic for some, but it doesn't really make for a great film.