Western filmlerinin ölmediğini kanıtlıyor, Tommy Lee Jones. Hem oyunculuğu ve hem yönetmenliğini yaptığı The Homesman'de vicdanlarımızı uzun bir yolculuğa çıkarıyor. Kadınların erkekler tarafından uğradıkları fiziksel ve zihinsel şiddeti vahşi batıdaki anlatılmamış bir hikaye tarzıyla izleyene ulaştırıyor. Filmi izlediğinizde yolun bize öğrettikleri kadar kadınların erkeklere öğrettiklerini de görüyoruz. Vicdan.
I laughed, cheered, cried, and grimaced — Tommy Lee’s attentiveness to the strangeness of frontier life, and the awkward frankness of sensitive human emotions, foregoes tonal consistency, as it did in his also great-yet-beguiling Three Burials. The sneaky Meryl Streep and Hailee Stienfeld cameos are a badass move.
Segmented story - Swank alone then with Jones then Jones alone. Couldn't see why the Spader segment was needed - after the characters left the prairie/desert the screenplay seemed a bit directionless and the whole thing could have been wrapped up a half-hour earlier. The locations were well served by excellent photography. Another unattractive role for Hilary which she takes in her stride.
An anti-feminist film believing itself feminist. Swank's strong performance is marred by the inconsistency of her character's choice with that of a lone woman successfully carving a life in an inhospitable land. Only a man could fail to comprehend a heterosexual woman establishing a life in which he bears no role, and for whom she has no need: he must write himself in.
I see that unfortunately there’s a certain lack of sensitivity in those who dislike this film. I consider this work an Arthouse film and I welcome and celebrate Tommy Lee Jones’s courage and outstanding talent creating this, directing, playing the main acting role, producing, casting... a complete and mature master of filmmaking. Arthouse is not just industrial filmmaking focused in entertainment, you’ve to earn it.
Since so much of American myth and legend is connected with the Western genre, it's no surprise that Tommy Lee Jones has chosen that genre for his two directorial outings (so far). He and Swank are the heart of this film; her absence at the end cuts that heart in half. Some fine cinematic set pieces by Prieto and Silvi. And as director, Jones wraps up the film himself, penniless but shooting, dancing, and drinking.
First of all, a beautiful and minimalist photography, and wonderful actors, all of them. After a while I was asking myself: who is the craziest? Life in the territories is shown as based on contractual agreements: between husband and wives, man and god, and is empty of humanity. Those who don't lose their minds are the ones who just follow either religion or greed and mostly refuse to see their desperate situation
Hilary Swank is brilliant in this otherwise mixed western, one with an abrupt two-act structure that likely worked better in print - here, it feels tonally uneven, as though Tommy Lee is intruding on a more interesting plot. The cinematography by Pietro is excellent, not least in his depiction of a house in flames and the transition from winter to summer. Stark, bleak, but beautiful in parts - keep directing Tommy.
Doesn't live up to the promise of the premise, but perhaps it wasn't supposed to. Lots of implausibilities here, especially on the mental illness front. Such implausibilities might be excused for doing what westerns are best at--the making of myths--but then why not make a more thoroughly feminist myth that could show at least one woman persisting and not giving in to hopes of marriage as a source of self-worth?
A very significant work of art. How The West Was Survived. Life as brutal, harsh, and short. In a world of harsh climes, a distant God, financial hardships, and people whose most significant interactions with each other are ones of hurt, the only agency one has, is to do the opposite of what is expected. Every furrow of Tommy Lee Jones’s face tells of pain, his rheumy eyes of things he’d rather not have seen.
I'm just not sure how I feel about this. After recently watching Von Trier's "Anti-christ", quite a lot comes to mind comparing how both (male!) directors handle issues around women's mental health, trauma, hysteria... as a viewer, a lot of critical thought should be engaged. I liked the "oddness" in the plot and dialogue though.
There's not an ounce of fat or cliche on or in this narrative film--so, scene by scene, it impressively grows into almost an abstraction--and all its performances are exceptionally able. The big question, though: what does it mean? Or: what is it trying to say? A taut trajectory for its first ninety minutes seems to unhinge in its last thirty, so I can't answer either question. Should you see the film? Absolutely.