Country :
USA
Americans seem to really like writing about stubborn people who, refusing
progress, won't leave their old homes and lands to which they are utterly
attached and devoted, even if it means to die alone after everyone else left.
I saw several of these
stories, including in Star Trek shows... In Wild River, the story
starts after a stock footage of floods that ravaged the Tennessee, before
passing to Chuck Glover, a bureaucrate the TVA (Tennessee
Valley Authority) sent to evict Ella Garth, an octogenarian stubborn woman
who refuses to let go of her attachement to this old, wild home of hers. Chuck
not only has to find a convincing argument to peacefully make her leave, but
faces locals' abuse and bigotry after he shows his far too progressive projects
for their racism...
As usual, I like Montgomery's portrayal of a man, strong in his
convictions, and yet showing some frailties in personality.
At first, I felt that Lee Remick's character should've been improved, but upon discussing the topic with my wife, came to agree that after all, there was a certain realism to this character's extremes and thus the romantic side-plot made more sense to me.
I like
Elia Kazan's directing, overall. I find that he directed the cinematographer
and cast in a clever way ; for instance, during some of Chuck's attempts to
persuade Ella, the screen is busy with people, shacks, plants and so on...
(part of it was difficult for me to watch due to my carnophobia and aversion to
depictions of characters's chopping and handling animal corpses, but it lasted
only a few moments and wasn't the focus of the camera).
On the
other hand, as Chuck returns for renewed attempts to talk to Ella, the busy
elements around him fade until at some point, it's only him, in the center of
the screen, surrounded only by the soil - talking to Ella. I found that it
emphasized the battle of wills and stubbornness - all the whilst, the camera's tilted to tell us that they each also recognize one another's points of view.
I found
it very realistic that Chuck'd face all this hillbilly racism, at such a remote
location in Tennessee, in the 1930's. His character was just too progressive in
his ideals, and I find it scary that things haven't moved too much away from
that prejudiced mentality since then.
Furthermore,
regarding Kazan's directing of this movie set in his past (movie : 1960, story
early 1930's) : I didn't see any noticeable anachronisms and I really liked his
attention to details - for instance, that a house, mostly closed for a
few years, and set by the river in a very damp place would have molding walls
and that pieces of wooden furniture would be damaged and rotting. Even this was shown in a progressive manner, coming from the doorway further and further into the house, to tell us that in actuality, it's just as destroyed as its owner is struggling with grief and trauma.
I really
like certain scene's camera angles or how some are shot in such a way that the
characters are cropped - by a window, a door...
I loved
the very minimal usage of music throughout the movie, most of the time focusing
on dialogues and complicated situations. Thus, all the silences fill-in the
dramatic effect and form an overall entertaining movie, though imperfect.
Cast :
Comments
Post a Comment