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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT