ILNews

Hammerle on ... ‘Mud,’ ‘No’

Robert Hammerle
May 8, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


 Hammerle-mud.jpgMud

It wasn’t that long ago that I would have given Matthew McConaughey the same chance of receiving an Oscar nomination as the Supreme Leader of North Korea receiving a Nobel Peace Prize. Times haven’t changed on the Korean Peninsula, but they certainly have in Hollywood.

Serving as a powerful lesson to other actors locked in mindless films such as Katherine Heigl, Kate Hudson and Jennifer Aniston, Mr. McConaughey has decided to challenge himself in an artistic fashion previously adopted by Bradley Cooper. In the process he has transformed himself into a serious actor who has left regrettable performances like those seen in “Fool’s Gold” (2008) and “Ghosts of Girlfriends Past” (2009) in his cinematic rearview mirror.

He makes Jeff Nichols’ “Mud” a vibrant film on multiple levels. Mr. McConaughey plays a character simply known as Mud, a fugitive wanted for murder hiding on a small island on the Mississippi River. He is discovered by two 14-year-old boys who are looking to claim an old boat nestled high in the trees as a result of a prior flood. The boys, played by Tye Sheridan and Jacob Lofland, are the center of a plot that is as irresistibly charming as it is unnerving.

Mud is a loveably confused man who previously killed a wealthy Texan for abusing his ex-girlfriend. That girlfriend, Juniper, played by Reese Witherspoon in a role that mirrors Mud’s desire to think small, is a low-life who unfortunately loves Mud along with any other available man who will buy her a cheap drink.

As the delicious plot unfolds, it actually focuses on the confusing nature of love itself. Sam Shepard plays Tom, Mud’s disgusted father, who lives in isolation on a houseboat. He has a questionable past as an assassin in the CIA, and Tom could help his son if he could overcome years of family revulsion.

Michael Shannon plays Galen, the young Lofland character’s caring uncle who plumbs the river’s depths for clams. Joe Don Baker plays the father of Mud’s victim, who leads a group of bounty hunters with one goal, namely to kill him. Revenge and love become twisted in a knot as Mud’s fate hangs in the wind.

The heart of this film deals with a coming of age story as Ellis (Sheridan) wrestles with his parents’ decision to divorce. Confused over his own affection for his first girlfriend, he seeks to help Mud reunite with Juniper regardless of the consequences. After all, Mud loves her, so isn’t that enough?

Mr. McConaughey gives a rich and endearing performance as the ever hopeful Mud. He is as good as he was as the defense lawyer in “The Lincoln Lawyer” (2011); as the prosecuting attorney in “Bernie” (2011); a reporter trying to save a man on death row in “The Paperboy” (2012); the owner of a male strip club in “Magic Mike” (2012); and as a psychotic hitman in the NC-17 rated “Killer Joe” (2011). I feel like we are watching a young Gregory Peck or Gary Cooper, so time will tell.

No

While “No” was nominated for an Oscar last year in the Best Foreign Film category, it is a movie that needs to be seen in this country. Focusing on the 1988 plebiscite in Chile which was to determine the fate of General Augusto Pinochet, their longstanding dictator, it serves as an uncomfortable mirror into Washington in 2013.

Pinochet’s excesses finally led a galvanized world community to demand a “si” or “no” vote by the Chilean electorate to decide if Pinochet stayed in power. The process allowed both parties 15 minutes on television every day during the 27 days before the election to argue their cause. As crazy as it sounds, Gael García Bernal plays an ad executive who helps the “no” campaign gain traction by emphasizing seemingly simplistic concepts of hope, fun and happiness. At that moment the movie captures the human heart.Hammerle-no.jpg

But what is truly chilling about the film is its focus on Pinochet’s campaign in pursuit of a “yes” vote. Careful to not use the phrase “everyone,” the campaign actively attempted to mislead the Chilean people by saying that the private sector under Pinochet would see that “anyone” could become wealthy. They further sought to exploit the opposition by claiming that the opposition simply sought a larger government to provide handouts to the poor who were simply too lazy to work. Sound familiar?
  
What is going on in the United States today is not that different than what was happening in Chile in 1988. Millions of Americans are unemployed, yet we’re supposed to trust the private sector to right the ship. We don’t care that the infamous sequester cut funds for U.S. attorneys, federal public defenders and Head Start programs, but God forbid if we should let the comfortable people in our society have to wait a few extra minutes in an airport.

We’ll suspend the protections of the Fifth Amendment to aggressively question a bombing suspect for his role in killing three people during the Boston Marathon, but we can’t take a similar role when it comes to the Second Amendment, though thousands of people are being brutally killed around this country every year. We foolishly invade Iraq on false information that costs this country billions of dollars in taxpayers’ money, yet we won’t spend that same amount in this country where we could help restore our infrastructure while employing vast numbers of Americans.

We are told to say “no” to tax increases unless you want to finance luxury boxes at Lucas Oil Stadium. While pious Christian politicians in Washington attack food stamps and other programs designed to help the poor, they conveniently forget Jesus Christ’s words, “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”

“No” is a film on how the people of Chile had the strength to save their own government. In the process, they saved their own country. There is a lesson to be learned here if we intend on doing the same thing.•

__________

Robert Hammerle practices criminal law in Indianapolis. When he is not in the courtroom or working diligently in his Pennsylvania Street office, Bob can likely be found at one of his favorite movie theaters watching and preparing to review the latest films. To read more of his reviews, visit www.bigmouthbobs.com. The opinions expressed are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT