Home Artists Posts Import Register

Content

50/100

In theory, I respect and admire Bradley's decision to almost entirely ignore the details of the Richardsons' crime—why they decided to rob a bank in the first place (all we ever hear is that they felt desperate), how it went down, what happened at Rob's trial, etc. Arguably, none of that matters to either of the twin levels on which the film works: (1) as agitprop, arguing (very persuasively, not that I needed persuading) that a 60-year prison sentence for a non-violent crime* is unduly, ruinously punitive; and (2) as a mood piece that attempts to convey the sheer weight of all those lost years. I would have preferred a stronger emphasis on one or the other, though, and we get juuust enough information over the course of (1) to raise questions that distract from (2)'s power. At one point—I can't recall whether this was in present-day or archival home-movie footage—there's a fleeting reference to a plea-bargain offer, which made me wonder how Rob got such a severe sentence. This isn't a wrongful-conviction story, after all; there would seemingly have been no reason for him to go to trial. So I looked it up afterward, discovering an inept-counsel travesty speaking to major systemic issues in the U.S. justice system (that almost surely disproportionately affect people of color)...but Bradley chose not to include any of that in the movie. Similarly, my interest was piqued when Rob's lawyer (I assume) observes, with concern but no hint of judgment, that they may be having trouble with parole hearings because Sibil and Rob approach the board by firmly demanding their rights, rather than by humbly soliciting a favor (a variation on the age-old dilemma of how a legitimately innocent person who nonetheless wound up in prison should "express remorse")...but there's no subsequent discussion about whether strategic considerations of that sort should or shouldn't outweigh righteous dignity. Point is, there's a lot more to this family's situation than Time has time for at its slim 81 minutes. And while scenes in which Sibil sits waiting for responses on the phone make us feel the seconds ticking by (and then extrapolate), Bradley's juxtaposition of past and present hit me hard only in the last couple of minutes, when she runs the little-kid stuff backwards and it sinks in that Rob will never be able to go back and experience any of it firsthand. Give me an entire movie that poetic (black-and-white imagery + a pervasive piano score aren't enough), or give me one that digs deeper into the ways that the court system fails African-American families, even when defendants are actually guilty. This one just doesn't go far enough in either direction for my taste.

* The "armed" part of armed robbery offers the potential for violence, admittedly (though that charge can apply to just a finger pointing through a jacket pocket). But in my liberal-softie opinion, anything more than maybe 10 years for a crime that didn't physically harm anyone is unconscionable. You should only spend a large percentage of your life imprisoned if you're genuinely dangerous to others. There are better solutions for everything else.

Files

Comments

No comments found for this post.