Every year, there’s at least one movie that I don’t see in time for the voting, a movie that I hear mixed things about, and then when I finally catch up to it, I fall in love.
Junebug is that film for 2005. Looking at my current list, I’m going to find it a place in the Top 10… probably the Top 5. I loved it.
I’ll be writing about it soon, praising it and urging everyone to rent it and check it out. (It’s rated R for some harsh language and fleeting scenes of sexuality.)
It’s all done with such subtlety and honesty. People who found it to be a cruel caricature of the South must not be from the South. This is a far cry from the tendency toward caricature we see in Alexander Payne or the Coen Brothers. Payne’s films don’t make me feel like he has much affection for his characters (although Sideways was a step in the right direction). And the Coens clearly have affection for their characters, but they also can’t help but exaggerate everything to the point of Looney Toons.
I disagree with the critics who called it a cruel caricature of Southern life, and it’s the farthest thing from cheesy and formulaic. The characters are three-dimensional, believable, and compelling. The portrayal of Southern-style American Christianity is honest and gracious. And I was deeply impressed by the complexity of the relationships. I never lived in the South, but I recognized that church body from my own upbringing in a similar church in Portland, Oregon. I think it’s the most honest and gracious portrayal of American Christians on the screen since The Apostle. My wife was recognizing all kinds of things, from the pregnant silences to the nuances of conversation at baby showers to the throwaway comments loaded with meaning and even judgment. It had a powerfully emotional effect on her, drawing her back into a world that she both loved and reviled.
Amy Adams is brilliant, and I hope she wins the Oscar. In fact, I think it’s the only truly Oscar-worthy performance on the supporting actress list.
But I thought everyone was convincing. Even the eccentric Alessanrdro Nivola, who is sometimes so odd as to be distracted, creates a unique character with a conflicted heart who was fascinating to watch.
The slow pace of the film, the quiet moments in empty spaces… this felt like a real place, a real family, with real problems.
The screenwriters, the director, and the cast all demonstrate remarkable restraint throughout, giving us a lot to think about.
I’m giving it an A. This is this year’s The Station Agent for me. It’s the one that got away. (I’m wishing it was technically a 2006 film, so I could count it as such, like The New World. But alas, I’ve got to treat it retroactively.)
It’s a shame the majority of the Christian press (including me) didn’t pick up on this when it opened. I’m glad Andrew Coffin at World did, and he appreciated it for what it was. But we at Christianity Today Movies really missed the boat on this one, and I’ll have to take some of that responsibility.
i’m glad you liked it so much! that and sally potter’s yes were my two favorite movies of last year (which was another one that i thought had some interesting things to say about faith).
i remember running into you on campus right after seeing junebug and recommending it to you. not to toot my own horn, but it’s nice to have my love of that movie affirmed by a real live professional film critic.
I was actually wondering where Junebug was on your year-end list. What a fantastic movie. As a Southern Christian, I found it touching on so many different levels. Just an amazing, eccentric, heart-warming film.
David,
It was your recommendation that made this one stay at the top of my Must-See list. Every time I tried to get out and see it in the theater, something interfered. So I’m glad you were so enthusiastic. That made me distrust the reviews I’d read.
So… what ELSE do you want me to see?
This was one of a number of movies that I almost certainly would have caught in any other year, but 2005 being the year in which I got married and began to slack off on my moviegoing … this one got missed. Now that it’s got an Oscar nomination or two, however, I shall definitely have to try to see it soon.
As a life-long Southerner, I’ve never trusted the critics’ take on what the South is really about.
I’ve been looking forward to seeing Junebug myself; I heard several enthusiastic comments about the film from other Southern filmmakers at the Indie Memphis film festival last fall.
However, regional (and ethnic) filmmaking can be tricky, to produce and to classify… in any given category there are a myriad different subdivisions: Arkansasa South is quite different from Florida South or North Carolina South.
Each story has to be true to itself. And I think it takes an exceptionally astute filmmaker to go outside their own experience and authentically present a foreign point of view (which is why Hollywood has such a difficult time making films that can really connect).
I saw it back when it was in the theaters…I was wondering where it was on your list, so I’m glad it didn’t get forgotten…I found it interesting that so many thought it was a knock on the south, I felt that there was as much a knock on the cultural eliteness found in Embeth Davidtz character…definitely one of my top movies for 05.
well, then i’m twice as glad you enjoyed it because otherwise i’d be responsible for you having an unenjoyable movie-watching experience!
well, like i said, yes was my other favorite movie of the year.
beyond that, i’ve been enjoying watching korea’s film renaissance (hey, you’ve got to root for the home team). i don’t remember if it was 2005, but i thought oldboy was great (although i completely misunderstood it until i saw sympathy for mr. vengeance). i’m mure sure 3-iron was 2005 and it would finish behind junebug and yes on my list. i’m a huge fan of kim ki-duk, especially of his last two efforts, 3-iron and spring, summer, fall, winter… and spring.
i wish i could recommend more, but i really didn’t watch much this year. the only of the best picture noms i’ve seen is crash and i didn’t even like it that much! i blame my three months working at hollywood video which sucked any and all the joy out of watching movies.
5. I thought he did a wonderful job in The Cat’s Meow. But I’m only slightly interested in the question because I doubt any film role will ever come close to duplicating what he does with his stand up.
2. Michael Moore. No question about it.
1. I had no interest in the film until I read Prager’s piece (http://tinyurl.com/etovw), and now I’m determined to see it… “The only people likely to object to this film are those who don’t want Americans to become aware of just how conscienceless, cruel and depraved our enemy is, or those who think that our enemies can always be negotiated with and therefore object to depicting Americans actually fighting back.”
4. As far as the DVC goes…i’m just really disappointed in the movie poster…movie about Da Vinci/Jesus/Famous Art, funny picture of Tom Hanks…what were they thinking???
2. Of the choices…James Frey…my real choice…Christopher Walken!
Rummy would make a fine Mephistopheles: he’s got the finesse required for the role. When it comes to unknown unknowns, he is the master!
It would be awesome to see him playing the part with Tom Hanks’ hair from Da Vince Code.
re: Flight 93. I completely agree that there cannot be a “SHOULD” about this film, (or any film), for that matter.) But, I was also “down the street,” in Midtown Manhattan, on 9/11. It was my city. My best friend’s wife quit her job in the South tower the year before the attacks and knew many who died. I want to see the film simply to add to my knowledge, (emotional and intellectual), of what happened that day and am glad it was made. It’s amazing to me how many folks think our own government engineered it. Sigh.
Re: Flight 93
You said: When we look at someone else’s manifestation of an event, it can affect our memories of that event.
That sums up why I have absolutely no desire to see this movie. These were real people, and I do not believe anyone in “the industry” can really tell this story objectively and dispassionately. If it was a pro bono effort by a non-profit production company, maybe I would go, but the shadow of exploitation of a tragedy for publicity and profit hangs over the whole thing, whether justly or unjustly. I know it’s inevitable, but I think it’s just too soon to turn 911 into a cinematic trend to turn a profit. I find it unseemly at best, offensive at worst, to treat the story of Flight 93 as entertainment.
Coincidentally, your quote is exactly why I did not go see “The Passion.” I did not want Gibson’s personally skewed and biblically flawed expression of Christ’s suffering and death to replace in my mind’s eye the inspired, biblical description of that eternal and sacred event. For me anyway, God’s version is much more accurate than Gibson’s.