The Paperboy centres around the character of Hillary Van Wetter (John
Cusack) who is in prison, accused of committing murder. Charlotte Bless (Nicole
Kidman) who has a ‘thing’ for prison men, exchanges letters with him, and believing
he is innocent seeks help from the paperboys (newspaper journalists): Ward Jansen
(Matthew McConaughey) and Yardley (David Oyelowo), with Ward’s little brother Jack
Jansen (Zac Efron) watching through naïve goggles and often taking part in the
search for the truth. It’s narrated by Anita (Macy Gray) the Jansen family maid,
in the form of her recalling the events to another reporter, so it’s kind of
meta-journalistic. It’s not really a free-the-guilty-man story though; it’s
much more than that, with each character having their own effed up issues. The portrayals
of these issues (sex, violence, bizarreness) have been criticised (with people
saying it’s too much, too graphic, unnecessary etc), as has the fact that the
film is such a big mess with things going all over the place.
I agree it’s a mess, both content-wise and structure-wise, but I disagree
with all the criticism. I don’t think anything has been portrayed just for the
hell of it or to purposely gross us out. The common thread to their issues is
the subject of ‘repression’. Sex-obsessed (misunderstanding it for love?) Charlotte gets a
kick out of the repressed sexual desires of prison men who express their yearnings
in letters. I don’t want to give anything about Ward’s character away but he also
faces a repression, by the time and setting (1969 Florida), and this affects the
way he views himself. Jack has an Oedipal passion for Charlotte , and his
unfulfillment despite being at a sexually ripening young age is unbearable. All
of this has been brilliantly transmitted in the form of the unbearable heat and
oozing sweat, constantly on the surface. Once things start to get unleashed,
both literally and metaphorically, drama results and truths are discovered. If
finding the true killer was the primary goal, indeed they find him, in his
truest form.
The film is extremely engaging and memorable. It’s one hell of a feast, so
if you’re a light eater don’t see it. I like feasts as long as there’s both
quantity and quality, and this film has both. It’s not superficial, it’s a
montage of human desires, repressed and liberated. It's meta-journalistic (recollection of a recollection) so structure-wise it would be a bit 'messy'. The cinematography is good, and
the performances are absolutely fantastic with all the actors very far out of their
comfort zones. Had I seen this last year (it only recently opened in UK cinemas)
it would certainly have been in my top 10 of 2012.
No comments:
Post a Comment