MovieChat Forums > Nomadland (2021) Discussion > Nomadland: Pros and Cons

Nomadland: Pros and Cons

posted 3 years ago by ecarle (14979)
10 replies | jump to latest

For what it is worth, I have a couple of criticisms of "Nomadland":

ONE: The "documentary" part -- as real Nomads tell their stories and we learn about exactly how this existence operates....is mixed in with a "fictional drama" for Frances to emote in, along with that very respectable and gentle actor David Strathairn(the only other recognizable "pro" in the cast). The documentary part is exemplary, but the fictional drama part is a bit too predictable and pat -- borderline trite -- and beneath the quality of the drama in Frances' other Oscar winners(Fargo and Three Billboards.) I get why, I think: "Nomadland" shouldn't be expected to support a densely plotted "movie story" -- the documentary part is meant to dominate.

TWO: Frances is very good in this, truly the "star" who makes the tale navigable, but in scenes in which she interacts with the "real poor people" with empathy and compassion, I couldn't help thinking "This woman has been married to a Coen Brother for decades; they have to be worth upwards of 50 million." It is the actor's craft to portray all classes of life, and Frances played middle to working class in Fargo and Three Billboards -- but HERE, sharing scenes with real people who aren't doing so well, well, it felt a little bit condescending to watch. And yet: how could Frances avoid this? She here uses her Hollywood power to illuminate the struggles of people well below her wealth, and that's a good thing.

Those two elements above held me back a bit from "going" with Nomadland, but overall, it is a moving and unique experience, and of course it centers one on the following idea: "Could I do this? Cut to the chase: the movie asks "could I live in a van all the time?" and reminds us that crucial issues on a daily basis are: (1) Going to the bathroom(both ways) and (2) Getting a shower or bath.

The truth of the matter is -- you don't really need to shower or bathe every day. The movie suggests that RV parks and campgrounds have shower facilities.

As for matters of the restroom -- you're in the great outdoors, but the story focusses on the need to "take care of your own s'--t"(one character literally teaches the others HOW, using this very line) and the emphasis is on using a bucket and tending to disposal of the contents. Our Best Actress nominee indeed enacts such a scene. I don't remember Kate Hepburn doing that.

My take: if you had to take care of your own s--t on a daily basis, you would get used to it, and closer to your "essence." I guess.

There's a very good scene in which Frances -- as part of the temporary, short-term, itijerant work she seeks on the road -- works in a giant Amazon packing and mailing facility, and you are reminded how much of the American population depends on this level of dull, rote work for a living. (Frances' houselessness begins when the gypsum plant that her late husband and she worked in for years closed and closed the company town of Empire, Nevada with it.)

What's good about the Amazon scene(filmed with their permission and thus "positive" about the company) is that we are reminded that human beings will seek work and work...if there IS work. But alas, that job ends(it was Xmas seasonal; Amazon paid for Frances' van parking for that time) and Frances must find another....in another town, for there is no more work here. CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

And eventually comes something I was waiting for: the van she drives for hundreds of miles ...breaks down. And money becomes a serious issue.

Nomadland invariably busies itself on how to survive in this "utopia"....showers? defecation? food? freezing temperatures? Money(an RV park quotes Frances a monthly rental of $375...you can't live ENTIRELY off the land.)

Social security benefits enter in to the story and we realize that a lot of these nomads are...older people, done with earning a big living and somehow not able to retire. (The nomad population that we see is rather white, as I recall, not sure what to make of that.)

But occasionally a "shock on the road" appears: young families with young children among the nomads. One lone teenage boy, all by himself. One gets the feeling that you shouldn't be a nomad when you are too young...it is a killing lifestyle better for finishing out one's life.

The "socio-political" aspects of Nomadland(in which everybody is pretty nice to everybody else; I liked that) yield to the cinematic poetry of vistas of American desert and mountains(and eventually redwood trees and coast)...it is a movie of stark beauty with a moving musical score..THAT's not documentary style. This is also a major plus of the movie.

Funny bit: in a near-empty, depressed and depressing desert town..Frances stands by a battered movie marquee: The Avengers. One realizes that the billion-dollar MCU sometimes visits very poor and desolate pockets of America.

Food for thought: This was filmed before COVID. One figures that these nomads would survive COVID well. They are outdoors and distanced most of the time.

[–] moviechatterer (13216) 3 years ago

" monthly rental of $375"

You've got to be shitting me!
thats about $11 per night , which is great for one night , but if there for months you'd get some kind of bulk deal?
you could pay a mortgage on a small apartment with that kind of money!

[–] snepts (11123) 3 years ago

When is a small apartment eligible for purchase? In my experience, you rent it, over and over again and have to keep up with inflation (somehow). I guess there are condominiums, but I don't think you can purchase them for $375/mo.

But I don't know everything.

[–] joi2049 (5488) 3 years ago

FOUND THIS which apparently also indicates the $375 /mo rate is pretty cheap in comparison to what they charge in the LA area:

Ask the customer service rep at the front desk about their monthly RV space rental rates, which you may find are surprisingly affordable considering nightly costs of $75+ at some of the fancier campgrounds. Monthly rates might start around $400 or $500 at a modest destination, or climb as high as $1,000 or more in a trendy locale like Los Angeles.

Long Term RV Parks: Tips for Monthly Long ... - RV Rentals

rvshare.com/blog/long-term-rv-parks/

Imagine paying $30,000 per year just to rent a RV space when all you make is MIN wage which is about $15,000 per year.

And Paying $500 or $15,000 per yr on an income of $15,000 per yr doesn't make things any easier for a person making a min wage.

And CONGRESS still hasn't done anything to pass a bill to INCREASE that inadequate amount that people are being paid.

🙄

[–] liscarkat (16469) 3 years ago

Increasing minimum wage to the point anybody could actually live on it would cause economic chaos that would hurt the people it was intended to benefit. Inflation and business failures would ensue. Low-skill jobs are easy to fill. In order to earn more money, people need to learn skills that are worth more.

[–] joi2049 (5488) 3 years ago

Increasing minimum wage to the point anybody could actually live on it would cause economic chaos

Is raising the minimum wage ruinous?

>>Seven Decades of Historical Data Find No Correlation Between Minimum Wage Increases and Employment Levels Since the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938, business interests and conservative politicians have warned that raising the minimum wage would be ruinous.

>>perennial predictions of job losses when minimum-wage increases are proposed are rooted in ideology, not evidence.

Raise Wages, Kill Jobs? Seven Decades of Historical Data ...

https://www.nelp.org/publication/raise-wages-kill-jobs-no-correlation-minimum-wage-increases-employment-levels/

As you can see, for almost 100 YEARS Members of the GOP have been repeating that SAME SILLY MYTH ever since the 1930's, but each time the MIN WAGE was increased NOTHING happened like they or like you PREDICT that it would.

And that's also the reason why the MIDDLE CLASS who PAYS TAXES continues to DISAPPEAR (whereas the RICH CORPORATIONS like AMAZON who do not pay taxes keep getting BIGGER and RICHER).

And that's also why we now have something like 1% of the POPULATION with 98% of the WEALTH, or with them having MOST of the MONEY PIE, while the rest of the POPULATION continue to STRUGGLE with trying to BUY FOOD and PAY RENT (which the government also buys for them with the SNAP program and other programs that help people to pay their rent).

The Top 1 Percent Owns Nearly Everything in the US.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2020/10/united-states-class-based-wealth-distribution

>>In basically every demographic group, the top 20 percent owns around 80 to 85 percent of the group’s wealth, while the bottom half owns zero to 5 percent of it.

In other words, INFLATION and BUSINESS FAILURES didn't ENSUE each time the MIN WAGE was raised.

And the pay of CEO's have increased to where they now get 500 times as much as the average Joe (whereas they use to only make about 20 or 30 times more).

These CEOs Make 1,000 Times More Than Their Employees – 24 ...

https://247wallst.com/special-report/2019/04/16/these-ceos-make-1000-times-more-than-their-employees/

>>Apr 16, 2019 · More often, however, it is a combination of large CEO pay (the lowest is $8.8 million) and very low median employee annual pay, as many of these companies employ part …

>>chief executives earn in less than an hour as much as their typical employee earns in an entire year.

And the ECONOMIC CRISIS of 2008 was due to GREED and to the SLEAZY TRICKS of RICH people who LIED about how much companies were really worth (and by handing out worthless mortgages to POOR FOLKS which also made them look more rich than they really were).

And WHO PAID for that BIG MESS???

Not the RICH (who got paid a HUGE BONUS for what they did and then also NEVER went to JAIL for it like they should have). And they also never went to prison for the other S&L scandal either.

https://www.thebalance.com/savings-and-loans-crisis-causes-cost-3306035

>>The Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation paid $20 billion to depositors of failed S&Ls before it went bankrupt. More than 500 S&Ls were insured by state-run funds. Their failures cost $185 million before they collapsed. The crisis ended what had once been a secure source of home mortgages.

>>The Savings and Loan Crisis was the most significant bank collapse since the Great Depression of 1929. By 1989, more than 1,000 of the nation's savings and loans had failed.

>>The crisis cost $160 billion. Taxpayers paid $132 billion

And others have also gone into HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of dollars in DEBT (STUDENT LOANS) in order to get DEGREES, only to find that there were NO JOBS available to them to pay them after they got one. There was also a girl on the news a week or so ago, for instance, with a degree in business who had that happen to her.

So learning NEW SKILLS is also NOT the answer either.

ECONOMICALLY SPEAKING, you're basically BARKING UP the WRONG TREE.

🌳

[–] ShogunofYonkers (71425) 3 years ago

It wasn't my kind of film at all but I found that I quite enjoyed it

McDormand was excellent, those gross bathroom scenes would not be taken on by an actress of lesser caliber and I admire her courage in taking on a roll where she was WAY less than glamorous and dolled up
I too noticed the scenes where she worked at Amazon and it seemed like a great time...

Overall a very good movie and somewhat sad

[–] liscarkat (16469) 3 years ago

It's safe to assume that everybody has to pinch a loaf from time to time. There is no artistic justification for making us watch them do it, or for any audience member to want to watch them do it. Dropping a deuce in front of a camera does not make her an actress of higher caliber.

[–] JoWilli (14976) 3 years ago

do they show the dookie?

[–] joi2049 (5488) 3 years ago

sharing scenes with real people who aren't doing so well, well, it felt a little bit condescending to watch. And yet: how could Frances avoid this? She here uses her Hollywood power to illuminate the struggles of people well below her wealth, and that's a good thing.

I'm confused. You say using her power "to illuminate the struggles of people" who have none is a good thing, yet you still find doing so to be a little bit CONDESCENDING???

And you also say:

the fictional drama part is a bit too predictable and pat -- borderline trite -- and beneath the quality of the drama in Frances' other Oscar winners(Fargo and Three Billboards.)

So is your complaint that you'd rather watch a film about PSYCHOPATHS that CHOP UP DEAD BODIES inside of a WOOD CHIPPER (like in FARGO) than watch something with people who are not CRIMINALS???

Because wasn't the character Frances portrays in FARGO also what one could call TRITE??? Remember the way she was also about 9 MONTHS PREGANT and how her husband creates illustrations for postage stamps??? In other words, wasn't her home life also kind of on the PREDICTABLE side as well???

I'm also still looking forward to a 3 BILLBOARDS SEQUEL where Frances and her other PAL find the person who murdered her daughter and then chop their body up inside a wood chipper.

😉