I had enjoyed many movies featuring Robert Redford, mostly from the Silver Age but up to Captain America: The Winter Soldier. These did not make me eager to see what's touted as the last time he'll appear on the silver screen. No, my main reason for watching this in a theater was a Meetup invitation; I hadn't accepted one of those in months.
Set mainly in 1981 in the western U.S., it follows Forrest Tucker decades after he made a name for himself as a prison escapee many times over. Now rather old (if much younger than Redford really is), he counts on people not knowing who he is when he robs banks, usually with two other old guys (Danny Glover and Tom Waits). He takes interest in a less criminal woman (Sissy Spacek) who isn't sure what to make of him. Nearly half the movie focuses on John Hunt (Casey Affleck), who doesn't care much for his police work until he gets the chance to, well, hunt the robbers, primarily Tucker.
It's not clear to me what Tucker's accomplices actually do; he seems to do everything himself, including using a police scanner disguised as a hearing aid. His general MO is to quietly indicate to a teller or exec that he's packing a gun, tho we never see it in his hand and he might never have fired one in his life. Everyone else in the bank probably has no idea there's a robbery until after the "Over-the-Hill Gang" leaves. Apparently, robbers have an easier time getting away when they look too old to be good at it. And all the while, Tucker maintains an air of civility.
From what I read, the movie is mostly accurate in its depiction of Tucker but makes up a lot of stuff about Hunt, who's hard to research outside of articles about the movie. The real guy was an Austin sergeant, not a Dallas detective. He probably didn't have the interracial family depicted herein. The few scenes in which he appears with Tucker never happened. Pretty much the only reason to beef up his role in the story is that he had one choice quotation regarding the gang.
Not that Hunt's made out to be the hero anyway. He makes a few important connections, but the feds take it from there. Besides, unlike Carl Hanratty in Catch Me if You Can, he doesn't really want to catch his target; he's in it for the thrill of the chase. That would explain why he passes up the chance to arrest Tucker on the spot.
Frankly, I kind of hate this version of Hunt. If he gets that much screen time, he ought to leave more of an impact, preferably by keeping his oath to uphold the law and setting a good example for his kids. He's not a compelling character, especially with Affleck's frequently languid delivery. He serves mainly as an alternate perspective, standing in admiration of Tucker, not just for his skills but for his commitment to doing what he loves, which is more than Hunt can say for himself.
From conversations with my parents and other Meetup attendees, it sounds like many viewers saw Tucker as Hunt did, or at least they found him irresistibly charismatic. I didn't. All I saw was an incorrigible phony who cared only about himself. Maybe that's why I feel the way I do about Hunt as well.
The audience at my theater also had a much easier time laughing at lines than I did. From my own feelings, I'd hesitate to classify this as a comedy-drama, let alone a comedy. I'm not sure where the disconnect is. It's not like I never enjoy comedies about criminals anymore.
Perhaps I would have liked the film better if I had realized at the time that it had a basis in fact and therefore wasn't beholden to all the usual storytelling conventions. But again, Hunt's part is mostly fictional anyway. Besides, it feels odd to focus on Tucker's robberies, however unusual, and just cram in his greater claim to fame near the end.
The story isn't the only aspect that didn't sit right with me. I question some of the cinematographer's decisions. For example, in a cafe scene, the camera turns away from the talking major characters and shows other customers. None of them is relevant or does anything remotely interesting. What's the point?
TOMatG manages to feel both thematically hackneyed and structurally awkward to me. I can see that not many agree. Maybe it helps if you grew up with Redford and perceive him tying a nice bow on his history going back to Butch Cassidy. For my part, I'd sooner watch Hell or High Water again.
No comments:
Post a Comment