Working Man
2.5/4
Starring: Peter Gerety, Billy Brown, Talia Shire
Not Rated (probably PG-13 for Brief Language and Some Disturbing Images)
Robert Jury, the man who wrote and directed "Working Man," has something important to say. He's calling attention to the plight of the manufacturing class that's been beaten to hell over the past few decades. His film, like many others, is a cry for justice for the men and women whose jobs have been lost to automation, globalization and corporate cronyism. This is not a new subject for movies, but for a while it looked as if it would tackle the situation head on as opposed to use it as a springboard for a feel-good fantasy like so many other filmmakers do. But in the end, that's what it turns into.
It's the last day of operation at a plastic factory. Everyone grumbles about their lost jobs, not least because they had to work an extra half day just to collect their paycheck. They all leave for the unenviable situation of unemployment in a Rust Belt town that is completely dependent on the now-closed factories. All except one. His name is Allery Parkes (Gerety), who keeps working until the end of his shift. The next morning, he does something strange: he sneaks back into the factory. Of course, with no power there isn't much that he can do, but that isn't the point. He "works" then he comes home. His wife Iola (Shire) is befuddled. One day the new guy, Walter Brewer (Brown), joins him. Soon the two of them have inspired the whole town to get back to work and hopefully save the factory.
"Working Man" is not the movie I wanted to see. Or thought I was going to see. Of course reviewing that movie isn't fair as the late great Roger Ebert occasionally pointed out. So I must review the one that Jury made instead of the one I thought he should have made. On that level, the film is a mixed bag. On one level, the film does a good job of setting the stage. These people have lost their jobs, and that means the town is going to die. Their pain and resentment is painfully real. Allery's act of rebellion is thus inspiring on some level.
Apart from that, the film doesn't work. There are a few reasons for this. One is Allery himself. Allery is a man of deep reserve and clings to his habits at any cost. He has his reasons, but don't we all? Watching him is an uncomfortable experience because he seems to be on the verge of senility rather than an emotionally closed off person. Watch his eyes and how he talks. Whether it's an issue of how the character is written or how the actor is directed, or if it's simply that Gerety is too good in the role, the character doesn't land the way that Jury probably intends. His co-star Billy Brown is solid in a role that demands a lot of range and the ability to surprise.
Another aspect of the film that doesn't work is its tone. The film is too bleak for a feel-good fantasy (think "The Full Monty") and too light for something more substantial. It is entirely possible to create a a feel good fantasy while making some telling points about this world (the Brits have been doing it for thirty years). But it takes a delicate touch that eludes Jury. He seems to be unable to decide whether he wants the film to be fanciful or grounded. As a result, the film seems facile, artificial and occasionally patronizing.
As formulaic as the film is, it did get me guessing about where Jury was going to take this story. The film can only conceivably end in one of two ways, but I didn't know which one was going to use. I suppose that's an accomplishment. I'd be more sympathetic I guess if its plot trajectory was earned rather than contrived.
It's long past time that a filmmaker use narrative to examine the cost of the major economic shifts that have been plaguing the Rust Belt. There is a wealth of dramatic material to unearth, and many people don't know the pain that these changes have wrought on communities that have no way of shifting their course without any sort of government or corporate investment. Michael Moore has touched on this occasionally, but he's too divisive of a figure to be heard by anyone but his own fans. But alas this isn't that movie. And the one that we get instead just isn't very good.
Starring: Peter Gerety, Billy Brown, Talia Shire
Not Rated (probably PG-13 for Brief Language and Some Disturbing Images)
Robert Jury, the man who wrote and directed "Working Man," has something important to say. He's calling attention to the plight of the manufacturing class that's been beaten to hell over the past few decades. His film, like many others, is a cry for justice for the men and women whose jobs have been lost to automation, globalization and corporate cronyism. This is not a new subject for movies, but for a while it looked as if it would tackle the situation head on as opposed to use it as a springboard for a feel-good fantasy like so many other filmmakers do. But in the end, that's what it turns into.
It's the last day of operation at a plastic factory. Everyone grumbles about their lost jobs, not least because they had to work an extra half day just to collect their paycheck. They all leave for the unenviable situation of unemployment in a Rust Belt town that is completely dependent on the now-closed factories. All except one. His name is Allery Parkes (Gerety), who keeps working until the end of his shift. The next morning, he does something strange: he sneaks back into the factory. Of course, with no power there isn't much that he can do, but that isn't the point. He "works" then he comes home. His wife Iola (Shire) is befuddled. One day the new guy, Walter Brewer (Brown), joins him. Soon the two of them have inspired the whole town to get back to work and hopefully save the factory.
"Working Man" is not the movie I wanted to see. Or thought I was going to see. Of course reviewing that movie isn't fair as the late great Roger Ebert occasionally pointed out. So I must review the one that Jury made instead of the one I thought he should have made. On that level, the film is a mixed bag. On one level, the film does a good job of setting the stage. These people have lost their jobs, and that means the town is going to die. Their pain and resentment is painfully real. Allery's act of rebellion is thus inspiring on some level.
Apart from that, the film doesn't work. There are a few reasons for this. One is Allery himself. Allery is a man of deep reserve and clings to his habits at any cost. He has his reasons, but don't we all? Watching him is an uncomfortable experience because he seems to be on the verge of senility rather than an emotionally closed off person. Watch his eyes and how he talks. Whether it's an issue of how the character is written or how the actor is directed, or if it's simply that Gerety is too good in the role, the character doesn't land the way that Jury probably intends. His co-star Billy Brown is solid in a role that demands a lot of range and the ability to surprise.
Another aspect of the film that doesn't work is its tone. The film is too bleak for a feel-good fantasy (think "The Full Monty") and too light for something more substantial. It is entirely possible to create a a feel good fantasy while making some telling points about this world (the Brits have been doing it for thirty years). But it takes a delicate touch that eludes Jury. He seems to be unable to decide whether he wants the film to be fanciful or grounded. As a result, the film seems facile, artificial and occasionally patronizing.
As formulaic as the film is, it did get me guessing about where Jury was going to take this story. The film can only conceivably end in one of two ways, but I didn't know which one was going to use. I suppose that's an accomplishment. I'd be more sympathetic I guess if its plot trajectory was earned rather than contrived.
It's long past time that a filmmaker use narrative to examine the cost of the major economic shifts that have been plaguing the Rust Belt. There is a wealth of dramatic material to unearth, and many people don't know the pain that these changes have wrought on communities that have no way of shifting their course without any sort of government or corporate investment. Michael Moore has touched on this occasionally, but he's too divisive of a figure to be heard by anyone but his own fans. But alas this isn't that movie. And the one that we get instead just isn't very good.
Comments
Post a Comment