Shotgun Stories

What? You want us to review another movie? Again? All right, fine. We'll do it this one time. But we're not going to make a habit of it.

If you must know, we watched Shotgun Stories, a little-known indie film by the (it seems to me) up-and-coming director Jeff Nichols. It's main star is Michael Shannon, an extremely talented actor whose career has blossomed of late. He's like an American Tom Hardy. Anyways, the movie came out in 2007.

Netflix: Yea sure

Picker: Dylan and the Dominoes

Mark:  I honestly did not know what to expect when I went into this movie.  I mean, I read the description -- two sets of brothers begin an argument that escalates and whatnot -- but I thought this would turn into a overly violent movie.  What with the title of Shotgun Stories and all.

Dylan: Well, you have to remember that, low-budget indie film that it is, it would be inclined to steer away from a lot of action and violence. But yea, the description made me think of that miniseries Hatfields and McCoys, insofar as Southern families feuding and everyone ending up getting killed over a pointless generations-old argument. But that’s not really how this went. Here’s a synopsis, I guess: in a poor Southern (Western?) town, a trio of brothers get into an argument with their step mother's sons at their father’s funeral. This leads to a back and forth that turns out bad for everybody. And yes, there are...two or three shotguns involved. None of them tell a story.

Mark: And there is that escalation throughout the movie, but it’s played remarkably realistically, at least I thought.  After the argument, things didn’t just become a shotgun buffet with fists flying as a dessert.  Rather, things grow gradually.  The tension and anger boil up over time.  Little things become bigger things, and further and further.  But what really drives all of this are the really well characterized characters, at the very least the main brothers with Michael Shannon.  You see their lives, who they are, and watch as the anger begins to come through them.

Dylan: Sometimes I want to question your understanding of how buffets work...and maybe guns too. But anyways, I agree. Through a few short, not necessarily wordy scenes, we get the entire picture of these three men. We meet the mother, briefly, and see how she interacts with Son (and Kid and Boy). And in the scene following the car wash confrontation, we really get to understand the dynamic between the three of them. And then you have Son's co-workers who place bets with each other about the origin of Son's scars, which tell a story of their own about their father and their childhood. It was very well done I think.

Mark: Not saying that the dialogue was sparse or anything, but rather it was to the point.  No one prattled on about things.  It was another dimension of these characters, how they speak and how they interact with one another that you get a sense of them.  For me, the best parts were when you watched Son, Boy, and Kid react together to things, or rather seeing their family dynamic.  How close they are, through everything they’ve faced, and how that defines them.  The standout was Michael Shannon, at least I thought he was.  He’s always been able to pull of this quiet but strong demeanor, and you can sense this kinda rage beneath the surface he hides so well.  And you really get to watch that demeanor start to crack throughout the movie.  But the other brothers were just as good, working well as a unit.

Dylan: I just had one issue with Boy, and it was that he reminded me too much of Kenny Powers (from HBO's Eastbound and Down). Aside from that I thought he was pretty good. In fact, I determined that the story is actually about Boy, not Son. Not because he is the one to take action at the end. Well, not solely for that reason. But he is the one who changes over the course of the film. He is shy and obedient. But has his passion for basketball. He stays out of the first little dust-up between the families and gets reprimanded. But we learn that it’s not really because he is afraid; he’s just not like that. Kid is the hot-head who jumps into things. Son is the protective eldest. Boy is probably the middle child. He respects Son and wants to make him proud, but still faces the responsibility of protecting his family.

font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Mark: I agree, I did see Kenny Powers.  It’s the hair, it was way too similar to make me think of anything else.  And yeah, we really seem to see a lot of it through Boy’s eyes, and he is the one to grow throughout the movie.  And I think the basketball parts were a nice leave from all the tension, just to see what else goes on in this town, and the people.  Speaking of the town, and the setting in general, I really liked the way it was done.  A lot of the times we get a Southern setting, somehow it always seems too alien.  Like backwards, you know, the stereotypical view of the South, with trailer parks and people just sitting about with guns and looking like hillbillies.  But here everyone is really hard-working, determined, and there's a great sense of community created throughout the movie.  Like how no matter what happens, everyone hears about it, which in turn drives the plot a bit.  It was just a great use of the setting without making us feel out of place.

Dylan: I’m no sociologist, but the setting fits perfectly with the story. I mean, in a sense, this is sort of a culture that we as New Yorkers (oh, wait, where are you from again?) don’t really understand. So it comes off as being more fascinating to us than it probably would to people from Arkansas or something. Like that time we watched Winter’s Bone and were like “damn, these people lead depressing lives.” The broken and yet tightly-knit families, the honor and loyalty between siblings and all that. It’s pretty interesting.

Mark: I'm from Boston, but I get what you’re saying.  And exactly, with the Winter’s Bone comparison.  It doesn’t feel like a world outside of our own.  Some dark, depressing world I wouldn’t even want to go to.  Though the director did have a tendency to fall back on long takes looking at something.  Like the movie would hit a plot point or some moment between the brothers, and then we’d look at cotton fields for a minute.  Or an empty street.  Or a tractor.  It’s not a bad thing, since it adds to that setting stuff we were just rambling on about, but he falls back to it often enough that I took notice.  But beyond that, there was very little that I didn’t like about this movie.  It’s a slow burner of a movie, building tension really well over time with strong performances.

Dylan: Yea, I was ever-so-slightly disappointed in the mostly uneventful ending. But then again, it works perfectly with the rest of the film, so I can’t complain. I do have to point out one thing though. The entire movie happened because of Shampoo. He casually provoked absolutely every confrontation, and even when serious things started to happen and he was clearly involved, no one seemed to blame him. He’s like...the devil playing both sides against each other just for fun. Did you notice that?

Mark: Oh yeah, totally.  When I said everyone always hears about things, the brothers always end up hearing about everything through Shampoo.  He rolls up, asks for something, and then passes on some info that riles them up.  I mean, it plays to the small nature of the town, but Shampoo is almost always involved.  Also, I know this movie didn’t exactly have the most complex or interesting names, but Shampoo?

Dylan: Well didn’t they say that was a nickname because he used to eat Shampoo and that’s why he’s kind of dumb? Something to that effect. It’s different at least.

Mark: Oh, well clearly I missed that.  Still odd, but that makes more sense.

Dylan: Well that’s really all I have. I know that the next movie we’re doing is by the same director. And it’s interesting that his third, and only other movie, Mud, just came out and is also getting some critical praise. So now I’m excited. Even though - cough, cough - Matthew Mcconaughey.

Mark: True, but after Bernie, I give him a bit of credit.  He can act, I just think he chooses not to.  Also, just like with this one, it’s got Michael Shannon, so I think things balance out well.  He’s in each of the movies this director, Jeff Nichols, has done.  And it’s been a critically acclaimed partnership so far.

Dylan: Well, he's not in Mud. Too my knowledge. But yea. Trivia?

Mark:  Surprisingly very little in terms of trivia, probably coming from the indie background.  However, you want to hazard a guess as to what it’s rating is on Rotten Tomatoes?

Dylan: Umm. 79%. My lucky number.

Mark: Odd lucky number.  But no, in fact it holds a 91%.

Dylan: Well, I had one digit right. So there’s that.

------------------------------------------------------------------

If you usually just skip to this part to see what the next movie will be, forget it! As it happens, we already mentioned the next movie and who's in it in the dialogue. In fact, I can still see it from here. Just glance up like ten lines and...oh, wait...nope, scratch that. I now see that we didn't actually mention the title, only that it stars Michael Shannon and is the second film by Jeff Nichols. And it's called Take Shelter. Fuck, I ended up repeating myself anyway. Oh well.

I hate to be that guy who asks for comments. So let's just pretend that this is Mark typing. I see that we have a bunch of twitter followers. However, since it has come to my attention that just having a twitter account is all it takes to have followers, I am not entirely convinced anyone is actually reading the blog associated with it. So if you don't mind, if you actually read this, give us a little comment at the bottom. Tell us how we're doing. Point out my typos. Call Mark ugly. Just said "read". Or use a sophisticated series of letters, numbers, and symbols to create a large image of a thumbs-up. It's up to you. In the meanwhile, I "got a blind date with destiny... and it looks like she's ordered the lobster."