In all of human history, precious little has caused as much division and bloodshed as religion. We have debated, disputed, clashed and killed over higher beliefs so often, that it is now a task to name many conflicts that arose for any other reason. Just over ten years ago, Kevin Smith told us the beliefs might be more trouble than their worth, since getting to change a personal belief is so tricky. People believe in so many different things…in so many ways…and sometimes to everyone standing on the outside, a belief can be wildly misguided. That’s what Smith’s latest film RED STATE is here to tell us.
At least, that’s what I think it’s here to tell us, in it’s own half-assed way.
RED STATE introduces us to the Five Points Church and its pastor Abin Cooper (Michael Parks). Five Points is the sort of ultra-Christian church that to the rest of us seems to have lost the plot. For instance, they routinely picket funerals of deceased homosexuals and holler about how much God hates fags.
Inhabiting the same town as Five Points is a teenager named Travis (Michael Angarano). One afternoon, two of Travis’ friends are surfing around the internet, and show him a Craigslist-type site where people post listings for sexual hook-ups. Thinking that they have found a chance at a night of group sex in their sleepy little town, the boys respond to an ad, and head out into the backwoods in search of carnal knowledge.
Unfortunately, they end up with more than they bargained for as the ad is little more than a trap set up by Five Points to lure in the morally corrupt. Soon after they find the woman who supposedly posted the ad – a homey looking woman named Sarah (Melissa Leo) – they realize the beer she has offered them was spiked, and they all pass out and are taken captive. When they come to, they find themselves bound within the walls of Five Points, and witness to a grizzly sacrifice of a homosexual man.
As the boys await their fate, a scuffle arises that manages to get local authorities’ attention. While the local authority cannot do anything about the problem for reasons I won’t reveal, the sheriff (Stephen Root) does reach out to the federal authorities who have been investigating Five Points for some time. This gets ATF Special Agent Keenan (John Goodman) tapped to go to Five Points and look into the matter.
And as we all know by now, if there’s one thing religious zealots love, it’s the ATF on their doorstep.
Before I delve too far into my reactions to RED STATE, I should point out that everything in this review will pertain only to what was on the screen. Much has already been made about the film’s distribution pattern, which has given the film a certain level of hype/buzz/backlash/etc. While I do have a thought or two about the decision to roadshow the film, I did my best to put those thoughts out of my brain when I settled in to watch this movie. Any thoughts on the film’s distribution will come in a whole separate post – if I even decide it’s worth discussing.
RED STATE comes across as a film that starts into a conversation, and after a long stretch of continued ranting asks “Wait…what was I talking about again?”.
The film claims to be a horror/thriller, but oddly is neither all that horrific or thrilling. There is a slight creep factor that comes when we watch with Travis as the Five Points congregation perform their ritual sacrifice…but that’s as intense as it ever gets. Nothing before that or after ever achieves any real tension, not even the boys’ late night drive out to the back woods which is usually a gimme for chills. Nothing in this story or its execution ever comes close to being scary – and I say that as someone who is pretty easy to scare. Nay, the film doesn’t even try to get points on the board by throwing in a jump scare. Indeed, if this is a horror film, it has dethroned The Twilight Saga as the least frightening horror genre ever.
If it isn’t a horror, then perhaps it’s meant to be a thriller (lord knows the gunfight that lasts a full third of the film suggests as such). By his own admission, Kevin Smith is not that talented when it comes to the mechanics of directing. Keep in mind, that he has said this about his previous films which are almost all people standing around and talking. So, if Smith knew he wasn’t so hot at directing talky films, why on earth did he decide to double-down and go for action? The shootout scene is claustrophobic, spastic, poorly shot, even more poorly edited, and lacks gravity, geography, or audience investment.
What Smith does do well…what he has always done well, and will likely never not do well…is write. There are several moments in RED STATE where the script is witty and honest. Specifically, Smith is perhaps at his all-time best during a final scene that allows John Goodman to map out the surreal final moments. The scene gives its characters moments of weariness, truculence, and introspection…all without anyone getting up from their chairs. Knowing the writer’s work as well as I do, I truly feel as though it is one of the best scenes he has ever written. The only knock against it, is that it might come far too late to save everything that has come before it.
But as I reflect on the writing on a whole, I have to openly wonder what this film was trying to achieve as a whole? The Christian parish in this film comes with traces of real life built into it, and like the screenwriter I am continually perplexed at some of the things that have happened in the world in the name of morality. However, I can’t help but feel as though this story turns the parishioners into charicatures. There’s a raving preacher, his devout adult flock, and the youth of the parish that seem devoted but are conflicted. They are a fascinating engine to use to drive the story, but I can’t say I got any insight into why they believed they were doing the right thing.
Perhaps the moral of the story is “You can’t outsmart crazy”, but with an outlet like film, it’s not enough just to dig in against fundamentalism and say “You’re wrong”. That’s what fundamentalists in the world are saying to the rest of us. Such an argument approach is not a two-way street.
So while we’re treated to a performance by Michael Parks that draws us in and unnerves us all in the same scripture passage, and an equally earnest performance by John Goodman, it’s ultimately all for naught. The film without scares, or likewise a fleshed-out thesis, comes off looking claustrophobic and tremendously cheap. Aesthetically, this is his worst-looking film since CLERKS, and that film cost less than 1% of what it cost to make RED STATE. Kevin Smith deserves full marks for trying something new and getting out of his comfort zone, but perhaps the ultimate result of the experiment is that he should stick to what he does best.
Note: While it is not the fault of the production, I thought it worth noting that the presentation at my screening of RED STATE was terrible. I paid full admission in a major theatrical chain, and for my hard-earned was treated to a digital presentation that was not colour balanced, and a sound mix that felt like it was designed for two channels but force-fed through eight. Even if I loved the film, I can’t help but consider such shoddy presentation a massive rip-off from a film that hits dvd in mere weeks.
17 comments
Jake Cole says:
Oct 3, 2011
Precisely. This film has all the focus of his Twitter tirades, and it’s just as fragmented. The closest I can find to a point is the idea that both church and state have extremist responses, but the latter’s response is too calculated as a cheap offset to avoid condemnation because everything about this movie is half-assed and cowardly. The church sect hates gays, yet gays hardly factor into this at all. Authorities are rightly called in to investigate murders and the stockpiled arsenal, yet they are quickly written off as corrupt (I’m no proponent of unchecked law enforcement, but this is just a way to make a Coen brothers movie of anticlimaxes without any of the Coens’ intelligence). And don’t even get me started on that ending. And thank you for saying how shitty it looks. I don’t know why editing with all the precision of a game of exquisite corpse is somehow an achievement. This is the worst-cut film of the year, and I say that in a year when a Michael Bay film came out.
Good on you for leaving out all of the insipid distribution talk, even if it is hard. The film practically exists to brag about Smith’s self-marketing (it certainly doesn’t have anything in it to make it work as a FILM), but that’s already been beaten past death to the point that I tried my best to avoid mention of it in my own review. Besides, there’s enough wrong with the movie itself that one need not puncture the ludicrous cult of personality built up around it.
Ryan McNeil says:
Oct 3, 2011
I think at the end of it all, the film and filmmaker were a bad fit. I’d love for Smith to branch out like this again, but next time perhaps he should crawl before he tries to run. Likewise, I think a narrative film about these sorts of religious groups can make for a compelling film, but needs to come from a writer and/or director that can flesh things out further and give it a bit more nuance.
Here’s hopin’…
Kurt says:
Oct 3, 2011
I think this is an unexpected work from Kevin Smith, and I liked the fragmented approach, 4 distinct movie unusual structure, even if every shift in tone seems to undermine the previous tone. I was surprised several times by what went on screen, and always looked at this film as a genre film first, and any message-mongering second…it’s a fallacy to have it the other way.
http://www.rowthree.com/2011/07/15/fantasia-review-red-state/
http://www.rowthree.com/2011/09/28/kurt-video-reviews-red-state/
Ryan McNeil says:
Oct 3, 2011
Even as a genre film, I don’t think it succeeds. I got far more investment and entertainment from films like RUBBER or YOU’RE NEXT than I did from this. There was precious little tension here, and a horror film without tension is like pasta without the sauce.
The thing is, I don’t think Smith was out to make a straight genre film – the traces of true-to-life biggotry are far too centre-stage to be ignored. This isn’t a film about subtext, Smith took dead aim at (admittedly reprehensible) real-life events. When time came to make his counter-argument, all he could seem to come up with is “You’re wrong”.
Jake Cole says:
Oct 3, 2011
I can understand where you’re coming from, Kurt, at least in theory. But RED STATE doesn’t even know what genre it wants to be, much less working as any one of them. The horror part pretty much ends when Parks has his long diatribe that saps the tension, and the thriller aspect ends with the abrupt handling of the last kid. From then on it’s an action movie, and a poorly directed one at that. And every time it is broken up (which is often), it stalls the plot to monologue about its murky message. As Ryan said, there’s no subtext. Everything the film does is in service to Smith’s talky rants.
Kurt says:
Oct 3, 2011
Also to say that Clerks cost 1% of Red State is flat out wrong and this is why: YOu are talking what Smith paid to get the film made, not the final $$ that brought Clerks to an acceptable transfer/sound-mix for cinemas. I’m guessing Miramax kicked in $3-400k in post-mixing, which would leave Clerks costing about an 8th (or 1/10th) not 1/100th as you mention. The $27000 price tag for clerks was no less a marketing gimmick than for Jonathan Couette’s $218.00 Tarnation. It takes real money to get a film in condition to be exhibited in a cinema.
And Ryan, I feel you pain for the craptacular disregard for its customers that is CINEPLEX ENTERTAINMENT in Ontario. Ewww.
Ryan McNeil says:
Oct 3, 2011
True, but we’re arguing Hollywood Economic Semantics. It’s the same as how a film can be reported to cost $100M to produce, but because it cost an additional $75M to market it’s total budget should really be considered $175M.
Regardless of how much cash Smith got after CLERKS was bought, and even after we adjust it all for inflation, it still cost a pittance compared to what he dropped on RED STATE.
Other filmmakers – filmmakers of Smith’s level, and indeed filmmakers of lesser professional stature – have done far more with less. There’s no reason at $4M for RED STATE to look this cheap.
Kurt says:
Oct 3, 2011
I’m not talknig cash that Smith got, I’m talking cash that was sunk into the technical polishing of the film before its release. NOBODY except for a few distribs saw the $27k version of the film, which by the way didn’t have that soundtrack, as Smith couldn’t afford the rights to those songs, etc. etc. $4M is pretty cheap, especially considering that he is paying a couple Emmy/Oscar winning actors, etc. etc. I’m not defending Smith, I’m merely attacking the fallacy above in terms of budgets.
Nope, it is not Semantics.
Sam Fragoso says:
Oct 3, 2011
A profound case of building up so much hype, that the final product would have to be some sort of revelation from God himself, in order to live up to the standards implemented by audiences worldwide.
Ryan McNeil says:
Oct 3, 2011
Actually no – I’m not all that susceptible to hype. There’s enough problems filmmakers face in pulling off a good film, they shouldn’t have to compete with my expectations.
This just purely and simply missed as a piece of filmmaking.
Sam Fragoso says:
Oct 5, 2011
I’m not saying you in particular Ryan.
The hype, despite what you may say, built an unreasonable amount of speculation and expectation within everyone.
I agree that it shouldn’t account when reviewing, because we’re (as critics) supposed to reflect on what we saw on screen – but its undeniable.
Ryan McNeil says:
Oct 6, 2011
I understand what you’re saying, and I still disagree. Overtime I have become less and less susceptible to hype…primarily because I shield myself from a lot of the sources (advance posts, production details, repeated trailers).
Hype and expectation are subjective, and indeed possible to remain unaffected by.
Tom Clift says:
Oct 5, 2011
The film is a total mess, but as I’ve said in a great many places, including in my review, I really, really liked it. I think through the farce of the film Smith makes some rather good points about how people in not just “Church”, but also “State” enforce their personal beliefs on others (this point is made especially clear in the epilogue, which I loved). And while I don’t think it really sticks to any particular genre (and definitely not horror), farce/satire is probably how I’d categorize it, which is why I’m ok with the cartoonish quality to many of the characters (see: Parks’ dancing towards the end of the movie).
I also totally disagree about the film being poorly directed. It’s raw as hell (spastic is actually quite a good word, although I would use it in a positive way…if that’s possibly), but I think that matches the subject matter and frenetic nature of the shootout. Of course if it didn’t work for you then it didn’t work for you, but I found it to be an incredibly intense and thrilling experience, and it will almost certainly be on my Top 10 at the end of the year.
Ryan McNeil says:
Oct 6, 2011
I hear what you’re saying, but I don’t think Smith went nearly far enough with the angle of church/state entitlement. I really could have done with one more *good* scene of dialogue on each side…might help his point (whatever his actual pout was) feel less short-sold.
As for Smith’s level of direction this time around, compare this genre film to the direction in something like ATTACK THE BLOCK. For how experienced he is, I expect Smith’s films to come with more polish than this one does.
Tom Clift says:
Oct 6, 2011
When they finally get around to releasing ATTACK THE BLOCK down here (in December, I believe), I’ll be sure to get back to you
Fitz says:
Oct 9, 2011
I wasn’t expecting much from the guy who made Clerks 2. Smith was quite fixated on making a film railing against religious fundamentalism, but he forgot to craft a plot. Cardboard characters only do a disservice to satire.
Ryan McNeil says:
Oct 12, 2011
Funny thing is that he has the bones of a plot here, he just forgot to put any meat on those bones by way of character, philosophy, or suspense.
Pity.