Midnight Special (Jeff Nichols, 2016)

[The Narrator Returns]

Jeff Nichols' Midnight Special

[Black Hat]

Has anyone seen Midnight Special yet?

Felt like a cross between A. I. and a compilation of M. Night Shyamalan's worst contrivances. It's a chase film, but you're not exactly sure what you're running from or why you're being chased. It's a science fiction film, but you don't know what the science or the fiction is about. It's a family film, but it felt like this was the first time this family had ever met. Don't get me wrong Nichols tries to do it, but you're left saying, 'You really went there? That's your fix? Come on man.'

Michael Shannon does his best to make it work, but not even his talents were able to save this from meandering incoherence. If Adam Driver had any screen charisma let alone talent he would be making a career out of being Woody Allen's stand in. The film's worst sin, of which there are many, was giving Kirsten Dunst absolutely nothing to do. As she usually is, Dunst was the most interesting screen presence, but as often has happened in her career the director has no clue what to do with her. Shannon was miscast because there's no way I could see these two making a baby. Shannon from what I've seen of his work lacks sexuality, sensuality and sensitivity. This made it hard to buy the pieces of his performances requiring these emotions.

The film's ending is a spectacular exercise of unintentional comedy. It's quite an accomplishment for a director to indulge himself in self parody without yet having a career.

[mfunk9786]

I don't think it's out anywhere other than NY and LA and I don't see any info on when it'll be released near me. Your implication that this is a director who "doesn't have a career" is one of the most absurd things I've ever read on this forum, though. Bravo.

EDIT: It'll be out on Friday, April 1st in more cities (but Philadelphia not among them - great)

[warren oates]

For me this is easily Nichols' second best feature, behind Take Shelter. It plays, as one friend put it "like Spielberg without the bullshit," by which I think he meant: excesses of feel-good emotion, faux mysticism and over-explanation. The film has very mainstream trappings and aspirations but gets there by way of considerable restraint. The storytelling is taut and gripping, hewing to the minimal and procedural veins of the material instead of the blockbuster conventions you might be expecting. A number of scenes and beats that others would turn into major set pieces are elided or played obliquely, not because Nichols can't afford to show us something but more because his interest simply lies elsewhere. All of the performances are excellent, though the standout for me was Joel Edgerton who's always great but has maybe never been as deeply humane or thoroughly convincing.

The shiftiness of the story mentioned above is part of what's so fresh about Nichols' approach to genre. Like a few of the very best filmmakers and writers around the world, Nichols is a lover of genre(s) who seems keenly aware of their need for continual renewal. And his method is as much about what he leaves out or up to the imagination of the viewer as it is in the genre head-fakes, mash-ups and recombinations that may frustrate some but that kept me engaged and guessing. In contrast to the work of M. Night Shyamalan -- who was invoked above -- not once in this film did anyone even suggest reductive or hackneyed concepts like the boy could be some kind of

SpoilerShow

"alien" or "angel."

And I can't imagine how anyone would see "unintentional comedy" in the ending, which for me was, again, refreshingly low-key. It honestly felt more like the ending of a good science fiction short story by someone like Bradbury or Ballard. And the most interesting thing about the ending is how easily I can see many a production executive or even someone like Spielberg himself saying: "Is that all there is? But what does it mean? It just doesn't feel big enough to justify this journey." Yet Nichols' instincts about his ending are right and are precisely what rescue it from the cliches that other less imaginative minds would demand.

Once again, Nichols takes the Christian Bible seriously, not as doctrine but as metaphor and as deeply embedded cultural narrative, every bit as much in need of reinvention as the other genre tropes he's working with. If Take Shelter was about what it's like to be

SpoilerShow

a modern day prophet of doom like Noah

then Midnight Special is about what it's like to be

SpoilerShow

a contemporary Joseph, earthly father of Jesus.

[Black Hat]

mfunk - To go as broad as he did after 4 movies which have had zero impact on the culture was a bit much. Maybe the other side of this is to credit him for trying, but to me you can't fall this short. To say this wasn't Another Earth would be an understatement.

Warren - You're right Edgerton was very good in the film. The film clearly connected with you far better than me, but a few questions about what you wrote.

When you said Nichols' interest 'lie elsewhere' my question is where? One of my biggest problems with taking the film seriously is feeling like it had no sense of what it wanted to be. Even then a film like this could work as long as there is an emotional thread tying everything together, but I felt nothing.

Second, I thought it was suggested numerous times the boy was a kind of angel or alien

SpoilerShow

shown too at the end

. In fact how often this was done was one of the things that annoyed me.

About the ending

SpoilerShow

are you describing the lost city of Atlantis being exumhed as low key or are you referring to the last shot of Shannon in prison looking out? I saw the prison stuff as an epilogue rather than an end and the city appearing then disappearing with the aliens I just could not buy into.

A smaller thing that bugged me was

SpoilerShow

when the whole city pops up and he's doing the montage their car remains flipped over with none of the military people in sight. Nichols really lost me here.

On Dunst's character

SpoilerShow

where exactly had she been or even came from? At the end what happens with her, she's on the run? If so what about her character makes one believe she's strong or clever enough to pull that off?

[mfunk9786]

You're not the arbiter of how much or how little impact films have had, or whether that "earns" a filmmaker the ability to make a different kind of picture. Take Shelter, in particular, received a good amount of recognition, and his film that's coming later this year is expected to be a strong Oscar contender.

[swo17]

Zero cultural impact? He practically spearheaded the McConaissance for cryin' out loud.

[Black Hat]

Of course I'm not the arbiter. There's plenty of evidence supporting the notion his work has yet to make a dent on popular culture. If you want to argue people outside of film world know who Jeff Nichols is or have heard of one of his movies be my guest.

I don't think that's right swo. It was not even the movie, but the trailer for The Wolf of Wall Street with McConaughey beating his chest that rejuvenated his career. It went viral with gifs that permeate the web to this day. By comparison nobody saw Mud.

[mfunk9786]

So if I wanted to argue something that is entirely your notion of the situation and can't be proven one way or another? No thanks.

[Black Hat]

It's not my notion dude. You know there are ways to measure these things right?

[mfunk9786]

Which measurement, the $21.5 million dollar box office for Mud in limited release, or the 41 awards that Take Shelter won? Neither of which should dictate one way or another what Nichols should be authorized to make at this point in his career, by the way.

[domino harvey]

That's more money and awards than Knight of Cups will garner

[knives]

Which measurement, the $21.5 million dollar box office for Mud in limited release, or the 41 awards that Take Shelter won? Neither of which should dictate one way or another what Nichols should be authorized to make at this point in his career, by the way.

Not to mention how that is the highest gross for its distributor. While he obviously hasn't made the impact Nolan has that can be attributed to how short his career is so far as much as anything else. Four features in Nolan had only just started to make a cultural dent and that's with him going to Hollywood much more quickly then Nichols has. Black Hat's argument is fairly strange considering how many great directors have had no influence outside of film circles and how few directors in general have had any noteworthy success in terms of cultural imprint five films in.

[mfunk9786]

Also worth mentioning is that Killer Joe (which is a superior film to Mud in my estimation but beside the point), directed by one of the most culturally relevant directors of all time and with the same star, made less than $2 million the year before

[Black Hat]

Exactly Domino and I will never argue Malick in 2016 is a relevant filmmaker.

Mfunk, maybe a better way of understanding what on earth you're saying (or those who agree with you) is to ask to explain how Jeff Nichols' films have resonated with our culture?

Knives that's my point. To date his films haven't burrowed their way into popular culture. Even in film culture I don't think he has accrued a following yet, 'can't wait to see the new Jeff Nichols movie!'. Maybe he has, but I would point out this film was released five days ago in NYC & LA and until I posted about it a few hours ago there wasn't even a thread about it here. So how relevant really is he at this stage of his career?

[mfunk9786]

I can't wait to see the new Jeff Nichols movie.

[knives]

Knives that's my point. To date his films haven't burrowed their way into popular culture. Even in film culture I don't think he has accrued a following yet, 'can't wait to see the new Jeff Nichols movie!'. Maybe he has, but I would point out this film was released five days ago in NYC & LA and until I posted about it a few hours ago there wasn't even a thread about it here. So how relevant really is he at this stage of his career?

My point though is why does that matter. By that measure Rosoulof is irrelevant which doesn't stop him from being a great director.

[Black Hat]

It doesn't matter at all in that respect. When I wrote about the film I said I didn't feel he had the cinematic gravitas to attempt this kind of film without nailing it. This led to mfunk challenging me that Nichols has been in fact relevant and we've been debating it since.

[knives]

Why does anybody need 'cinematic gravitas' to make anything? What even is cinematic gravitas? Also I doubt he thought he was failing so the last part of your sentence seems completely besides the point.

[Black Hat]

You need it if you want to make a film that's different, challenging and ambitious and have your audience treat it as such. No director ever thinks he's failing, but the film, especially it's ending does not work.

[knives]

Well, could you define what it is because as is its a rather nonsense sounding term that you seemingly just invented. Also you need to help me understand how Nichols is failing to achieve this gravitas when far more ambitious etc directors with less name recognition like Greengrass with United 93, Winding Refn with the Pusher films, Eimbecke in general, Costa in general, Sean Baker in general, Sono in general, and so on and so on. At the moment from where I'm standing it seems like you are making up restrictions to further insult Nichols because you didn't like his film.

[Black Hat]

I'm still not sure why it's so insulting to say Nichols' films have yet to make a cultural impact.

Having a cinematic gravitas simply means having a resumé, an established relationship with your audience. Scorsese, both Andersons, Fincher just to name a few have it. Nichols is clearly being talked up as the next one to reach this tier, but I don't see it.

Lastly I didn't understand what you meant by mentioning the other directors. Are you asking why one director can be ambitious where as Nichols isn't? Well first off I'm not saying a director isn't allowed to be ambitious. I'm saying if a director of Nichols' ilk tries they should be successful because otherwise it comes off as confused slapdash. That said if my understanding is correct, it's a simple answer — the director, lets say Pedro Costa for example, was successful with what he was trying to achieve.

[knives]

So if I'm understanding you correctly all I have to do is say Nichols is successful at what he is trying to achieve and your whole argument craters?

[Black Hat]

I can't wait to see the new Jeff Nichols movie.

Yes the forum's excitement over this film's production, promotion and release had been palpable, hard to contain.

[DarkImbecile]

Well first off I'm not saying a director isn't allowed to be ambitious. I'm saying if a director of Nichols' ilk tries they should be successful because otherwise it comes off as confused slapdash.

I spent ten minutes trying to come up with a snarky response to this that encapsulated all the ways it doesn't make sense, but I failed. Hopefully I have enough forum gravitas for this failure to be acceptable.