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. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  2. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  3. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  4. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

  5. The story that you have shared is quite interesting and also the information is very helpful. Thanks for sharing the article. For more info: http://www.treasurecoastbailbonds.com/

ADVERTISEMENT