If you have been reading my
reviews for any length of time (and a big thank you to all five of you who have
remained stalwart in that capacity), then you know of my distaste for the great
outdoors in general and the less civilized areas of same in particular (the
size and amount of which are expanding exponentially, especially in more
populated areas, in my humble opinion).
Even so, swamps and bayous fascinate me.
It’s not that I have any desire to ever visit one and get eaten alive by
any of a cavalcade of animals either predatory or parasitic, but they do have a
particularly beautiful look to them, don’t you agree? They can be as alluring as they are
forbidding. Like the angler fish or the
pitcher plant, it would be easy to be lured into a fen just by following your
sense of wonder for nature (not necessarily because a swamp smells good enough
to eat, though, I’d wager) only to have the deadly trap sprung faster than you
can say “gator bait” and wind up as bulk in some animal’s stool. I suppose it’s within the realm of
possibility that you could be rescued by, say, Swamp Thing or Man-Thing, and
many people have proven that one could even live and thrive in marshland, but I
tend to think my luck wouldn’t hold out.
It’s the optimist in me.
The late Charles B Pierce’s The Evictors (aka Leadsville Nights) opens in 1928 in
Shreveport, Louisiana, as the Monroe clan is (not so ironically enough) being
evicted from their home. Naturally, the
Monroe’s disagree with the bank’s claim, and they open fire on the banker (Jesse Cagle), G-Men (Owen
Guthrie, Thomas Ham, Ron White),
and assorted deputies who are there to enforce the eviction notice. Needless to say, things don’t exactly pan out
for the Monroes. Fast forward to 1942, as
local realtor Jake Rudd (Vic
Morrow) accompanies young couple Ruth and Ben Watkins (Jessica Harper and Michael Parks, respectively) as
they begin the process of moving into the old Monroe house. Soon, a creeper who looks suspiciously like
Dwayne Monroe (Glen Roberts)
starts popping up and menacing Ruth, and not even wheelchair-bound neighbor
Olie Gibson (Sue Ane Langdon)
may be able to help.
Much like Mr. Pierce’s more famous (or
infamous, depending on your perspective) films, The Legend Of Boggy Creek, Boggy
Creek 2: And The Legend Continues, and
The Town That Dreaded Sundown, this
one starts off with the claim (or disclaimer?) that the events depicted are
based on a true story. Leapfrogging off
the Docudrama genre, The Evictors
emphasizes the idea of storytelling, itself.
As the plot trots along, we are treated to multiple flashbacks detailing
the history of the Watkins’s new house since the Monroes were ousted. This device performs multiple duties. One, it gives us some exposition to try to
piece together just what’s going on (though, honestly, there is very little
mystery in the film to be sussed out).
Two, it gives us foreshadowing and builds some tension as to what is
waiting in the wings for Ruth and Ben.
Three, it gives us a little bit of action and violence to hold over the
more bloodthirsty in the audience (though, honestly, there is very little [if
any] bloodshed on screen to be ogled).
Of course, like any story told
enough times, the details are bound to change, the original meaning muddied or
lost altogether. Pierce allows the
flashbacks to play out but is always sure to remind us that what we have been
seeing is being related by other characters who should not have been present to
witness the scenes described and (we assume) were told these stories by someone
else who was also not present when they took place, in all likelihood. Aside from the fact that other owners of the
house died, we cannot necessarily assume that they were killed by one of the
Monroes (though the implication is definitely there). By that same token, we can also make the
assumption that there is a chance that not only are the flashbacks truthful but
also could possibly be giving us more information than is present in the
stories as told around the town. In this
way, then, they are fact and fiction, historical truth and urban legend.
The film also deals to some
degree with the notion of the American Dream becoming the American Nightmare. The Monroes owned their house, surely a
component of their own dream. Yet, for
whatever reason, this dream becomes a nightmare when they are evicted. Not only do they lose the house, but they
come to physical harm when they fight against their eviction. Likewise, the couples who inhabit the house
after the Monroes are also starting from the perspective of the American Dream
(and let’s just take it as given that owning one’s own house is part of the
American Dream or at the absolute least was some years back). And they all meet their deaths for stealing
someone else’s dream, turning their own to nightmares. There is also a facet at work that the house
itself may be haunted and stands on cursed earth, though it’s never really
explored, just sort of mentioned.
The Evictors plays with themes about the corruption of traditional
values as embodied predominantly in the character of Ruth Watkins. She and Ben are seemingly the perfect
couple. They are young, hard-working,
honest, and pleasant. Outwardly, there
is no reason whatsoever given by the filmmakers to not like these two. Yet, they are abjured by just about all the
local townsfolk. The audience knows
there is no reason for such treatment, so the problem must be with the locals,
not Ruth and Ben. That the couple desires
to be accepted by the people who are signified as having the actual problem is
exactly what will pollute the Watkins’s values and drag them down. Ben is offered draft deferment and a large
bonus in return for working long hours, in some capacity turning away from the
idea of service to his country in a time of war to further his personal gain
and by extension neglecting his wife and leaving her vulnerable to dangers both
emotional and physical. Ruth learns to
shoot a gun, a trait which she takes to like a duck to water but which is a non-traditional proficiency for a woman
(at least for the time the film is set and for the sort of background Ruth
seems to come from but not necessarily for the story’s location or for all
women, certainly). These factors add up
over the course of the film, culminating in a conclusion perhaps best described
as mildly apocryphal.
With that in mind, I need to get
something off my chest in regards to this film.
When everything is finally revealed, the effect was not one of discovery
for me, it was instead one of indifference.
None of what goes on in the film is anything other than what it appears
to be. We know within just a few minutes
of screentime how the entirety of the story will play out, what twists are
going to pop up, and when they will do so.
The only two reasons I stuck around were to find out if I could possibly
be wrong and receive a pleasant surprise (which didn’t happen) and because the technical
level of filmmaking is indeed quite accomplished. It’s like finding out that the woman you dig has
inexplicably taken up with some chump you know for a stone fact is worthless, but
there is nothing you can do, because the choices made that created the
situation were not yours to make. Your
choice is how to react (or not react, which as we all know is also a reaction,
anyway) afterward.
MVT: The acting in the film
from the main performers is spot-on, and the players appeared to care about the
material (and if they didn’t I perceived no indication, thus reinforcing my
claim that the acting in the film is very good).
Make Or Break: The Break for
me is the big disclosure scene, and that’s because there is decidedly nothing in
the least disclosed that I didn’t already know.
There is no surprise in this surprise, and it doesn’t even add a little
bit of color to make the non-reveals vary even slightly from what I knew was
going to be revealed.
Score: 6/10
No comments:
Post a Comment