MovieChat Forums > Winter's Bone (2010) Discussion > My problem with this movie, that NOBODY ...

My problem with this movie, that NOBODY has brought up

posted 10 years ago by doughazelrigg
16 replies | jump to latest

The acting was fine, and of course the location shooting and Art Direction were perfect. But the characterizations bother me. It strikes me as Hollywood's idea of what rural people MUST be like, who live in relative poverty in the Ozarks. Almost every character comes off as dark, depressed, criminal, and even soulless. I find this not only quite insulting to my intelligence, but my gut tells me it's WILDLY inaccurate.

I realize that the author Daniel Woodrell is known for having more or less created this genre called "Country Noir," and I also know he is from this area and still lives there. Therefore, in all honesty, I cannot account for his depiction of his fellow Ozarkians as sub-human criminals, but I am still quite sure it is wrong.

No, my gut tells me the people of this region first and foremost identify with some form of passive, loosely organized but quite ubiquitous Evangelical Christianity, and that the relative simplicity and poverty in their lives has not made them bitter, indolent, and hateful, like the people in this movie, but hopeful, positive in outlook, and faithful to the commands of the Good Book.

Personally, I have not spent time in this region, but I HAVE spent time in similar regions, particularly rural Southern Illinois (in the Shawnee National Forest and "Liitle Egypt" areas) and in stark contrast to this dark movie, the folk there are cheerful, caring, and benevolent people.

The director, Mrs. Granik herself, has testified in an interview that, given she is a Northeasterner, she had no clue what the people in the Ozarks region were like:

[QUOTE]"Second was the idea that the story was set in a place that we didn’t know. We didn’t know any of the details about that kind of life. We thought, what would be the ability of filmmakers from a very specific geography to then go to a place they don’t know? Could we find the collaborators down there, and could that process be interesting and rich?"[UNQUOTE]

I think this subject is important, because even if it was unintentional, the false depiction of these regionals only serves to perpetuate the false, and subtle political characterizations (or not so subtle) that Hollywood typically applies to almost everyone that lives between the two coasts --

[–] lizcarlo87 10 years ago

A lot of other stuff is accurate in the movie. They did great job with the certain stuff with the characters though. The way they fixed their hair, speak, clothing, fix their hair, people helping her, stuff they cook, hunting, Ree taking care of her brother and sister, skinning their own meat is realistic. I have family in Missouri who at least does couple of the stuff I listed. I like that they did it in Missouri. Not everybody in real life is like the people in this movie. They are defiantly in the minority. I really like the movie anyway. I would hope people don't think all rural people are just like the ones in this movie.

[–] Miss_Sui_Generis 10 years ago

I think the point was not "this is hour rural people behave" but "this is how meth dealers behave." Teardrop was a very interesting character;one could see that there was a better man behind the drugs. Ree was devoted to her younger siblings. That kind of loyalty is easy to respect.

I agree that the art direction was excellent. The landscape was incredibly beautiful.

Send lawyers,guns and money/The *beep* has hit the fan

[–] doughazelrigg 10 years ago

Fair point

[–] mathmaniac 8 years ago

Meth does not improve a person's life, from what I see in movies. Doing drugs is not a step up the ladder to happiness, from what I see in movies.

[–] pdlussier1 8 years ago

Don't trust what you see in movies.
Try meth. Other drugs, too.
Then you'll know for sure.
And knowing is half the battle!

😝 (Yes, I'm only kidding.)

[–] spookyrat1 10 years ago

Almost every character comes off as dark, depressed, criminal, and even soulless.

This was my main issue with the film as well. How could so many people in this community be so alike and so anti - social (to put it in the mildest of terms)?

[–] Consul_Incitatus 9 years ago

Bear in mind, most of the people we see in the movie are in the same criminal circle and apparently related to each other, so its not like we're seeing normal Ozarks people.

Haven't been to the Ozarks, but I have been to other Appalachian areas and the people I encountered were warm an friendly.

Growing up in Iowa, most of the people are pretty friendly and nice, but there are some shady types around that mainly associate with other shady types, that you might encounter if you live there long enough. And generally they aren't very pleasant individuals. This is probably true of most places to varying degrees.

[–] titans_58 8 years ago

I am from Tn and even the poor in the remote areas are nice and happy people and make to do with what they have. Its the nasty people that move in and start the meth labs not usually people from here.The way these people are in the movie is if that was my life I think I would either move away or do away with myself because keeping a life like those meth heads in the end means death.

[–] SataiDelen 10 years ago

You're trying to compare southern Illinois to the Ozarks? Really? You really (as you said) have no grasp of just how different these two regions are!

I believe people of the Ozarks and similar areas tend to be truly distrustful of "outsiders." It's not that they're hateful or bitter, it's that they live VERY differently from the majority of people (including Southern Illinois). This doesn't make them any better or worse than anyone else, just different. Different in a way that "outsiders" cannot understand. Yes, they're religious; sometimes almost fanatically so. Hunting isn't a sport to them, it's a way of life. It puts food on their table, and oftentimes, clothes on their back. They make do with what they have. They work when and where they can. And they will likely fight to the death to keep what is theirs, or what they perceive to be theirs.

I feel that this movie pretty accurately portrayed them. It was a good, gritty, and to me, real film. I feel that this was one film that Hollywood DIDN'T sink its claws in to too deeply, and that helped make it a much btter film than it would have been had Hollywood truly sunk its claws in deep.

Do some research in a library on this region and the people in it. I think you'll be surprised.

[–] GirlwonderReturns 10 years ago

I don't think, first of all, that the portrayal was as much about the region as about the climate and what was happening as far as the meth cooking and addiction. In any area where such a thing is rampant I can't imagine things would be all sunshine and rainbows and "look at me, I'm poor and desperate and addicted to one of the foulest substances on earth, but I'm happy!" I've heard people from the Ozarks region say that the film portrayed the climate of the region pretty accurately. John Hawkes also said he spent a lot of time in the area learning about it and its people in order to get the characterization right, as did Dale Dickey.

Secondly, I don't think they were all terrible people or "subhuman". Certainly Teardrop showed that behind the addiction was a decent man; his wife also tried to help Ree. Sonya and Blond made sure the family and even their pets were fed. The dad's lady friend was helpful. That Megan girl, though she was a little creepy, seemed to want to help initially. Even Merab seemed regretful about what she clearly felt she was forced to do; she was faced with the possibility that helping Ree, or Ree getting the info she was looking for, could get her husband thrown in prison.

Ultimately the film is about the situation and circumstances, not the geographical location.

Saying "I apologize" is the same as saying "I'm sorry." Except at a funeral.

[–] rod-311 10 years ago

Not sure where to jump into this. Except to say that I'm not from that region.

The novel (and others that I've read in the rural noir category -- a category that the writers all have problems with) show the changes that meth has had on what was a marginal, but maybe viable, culture. Small gardening and squirrel shooting just don't seem to be surviving in competition with meth cooking.

[–] raymondunc 9 years ago

doughazelrigg» Therefore, in all honesty, I cannot account for his depiction of his fellow Ozarkians as sub-human criminals, but I am still quite sure it is wrong.

It is wrong. Yes, taken to the extreme, family who has owned the land for generations and continue to all live in the same rural areas will protect each quite often. Often in situations most would not.

But as someone quite familiar with this type culture, it doesn't go to this extent. Most people have their limits at some point. I don't know anyone not a young male who will act like the characters in this film acted. It is the rare young male trying to prove their manhood who will side with the murderer.

This film, and possible new genre, portrays this criminal attitude as romantic and common. It just isn't either, anywhere. There might be drug infested city areas that have a bit of this, but not whole rural communities. No community can have all of this and no sanity and survive.

Life is like Wikipedia: There are no Facts, Just Popular Opinion

[–] dakoko 9 years ago

Interesting characters in this movie. I wondered if it was a fair representation of the people in the Ozarks, and as someone pointed out, not so much representing the Ozarks folks but more the meth dealers in that area. Good distinction. I've never seen people like this, and I know some very poor folks.