SHERDOG MOVIE CLUB: Week 82 Discussion - Ain't Them Bodies Saints

[Guestx]

NOTE to NON-MEMBERS: Interested in joining the SHERDOG MOVIE CLUB? Shoot me a PM for more info.

Here's a quick list of all movies watched by the SMC. Or if you prefer, here's a more detailed examination.


@Caveat takes us to Texas this week and we spend a bit of time with Ben Affleck's brother.

Our Director​

Born in Milwaukee, Wisconsin on December 26, 1980, David Lowery is the eldest of nine children born to Madeleine and Mark Lowery, a Catholic family. When David was seven, his family moved to the suburb of Irving for his father's work. Some of his younger siblings were born there. His father is a Professor of Theology at the University of Dallas; he has also has served as departmental chairman and editor-in-chief of the Catholic Social Science Review. Interested in film, Lowery watched everything he could before beginning to make his own work after he graduated from Irving High School.

At the age of 19, Lowery wrote and directed his first film, Lullaby, a short work which he no longer permits to be seen. In this period, he met some other young men interested in film, and they have worked together on some projects.

Lowery had his breakthrough with his first feature film, St. Nick (2009), which follows two runaway children abandoned by their guardians. The film was shown in the South by Southwest festival in 2009. It won the Texas Filmmaker Award at the 2009 AFI Dallas International Film Festival.

In 2011, Lowery wrote and directed the short film entitled Pioneer, which played at the Sundance Film Festival that year.

In 2013, Lowery wrote, directed and edited his second feature film, Ain't Them Bodies Saints, starring Casey Affleck and Rooney Mara. The film was nominated for the Grand Jury Prize at the 2013 Sundance Film Festival. It was selected to compete at the International Critics' Week section of the 2013 Cannes Film Festival. Lowery has said that he drew from great directors and their works for this film, citing Claire Denis's 35 Shots of Rum, Robert Altman's McCabe & Mrs. Miller, and Paul Thomas Anderson and David Fincher as influences.

In addition to having edited films such as Amy Seimetz's Sun Don't Shine and Shane Carruth's Upstream Color, Lowery co-wrote Pit Stop with director Yen Tan. At the 2014 Cannes Film Festival, it was announced that Lowery would write and direct the film adaptation of the novel The Yellow Birds, written by Iraq War veteran Kevin Powers; it was a 2012 National Book Award finalist. The film was eventually directed by Alexandre Moors and stars Jack Huston, Tye Sheridan, Alden Ehrenreich and Jennifer Aniston.

In July 2016, it was announced Lowery would direct an episode of Breakthrough for National Geographic Channel. In November 2016, it was announced Lowery had shot a new film, A Ghost Story, over the summer with Rooney Mara and Casey Affleck as a secret project.

In March 2017, it was announced that Lowery would direct The Old Man and the Gun, to star Casey Affleck and Robert Redford.

Our Stars​

Casey Affleck: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000729

Rooney Mara: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1913734/

Ben Foster: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0004936

Film Overview and YouTube Videos​

Premise: The tale of an outlaw who escapes from prison and sets out across the Texas hills to reunite with his wife and the daughter he has never met.

Budget: $4 million
Box Office: $1 million (worldwide)

​

Trivia​

* The title is director David Lowery's "mondegreen" - a mishearing of a song lyric - and has no actual meaning.

* Rami Malek originally auditioned for the role of Sweetie, but the role went to Nate Parker. However director David Lowery was so impressed with Malek's audition that he decided to give him the small role of Will later in the film.

Members: @shadow_priest_x @europe1 @jeicex @MusterX @Coolthulu @Scott Parker 27 @the muntjac @Caveat @sleepwalk @Cubo de Sangre @sickc0d3r

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

Malek was much better suited to the role he got imo.

 

[MusterX]

Happy Thanksgiving guys. I'm busy this week doing the family thing but I'll try to respond later this weekend for the movie. Maybe if we are around this time next year we should skip a week for Thanksgiving and Christmas, that way whoever is up that week won't get screwed on replies. Just something to think about.

 

[Guestx]

Happy Thanksgiving guys. I'm busy this week doing the family thing but I'll try to respond later this weekend for the movie. Maybe if we are around this time next year we should skip a week for Thanksgiving and Christmas, that way whoever is up that week won't get screwed on replies. Just something to think about.

Happy Thanksgiving, bro.

Though we did vote the movie in on the 17th. That's a full week before Thanksgiving to watch that shit.

 

[MusterX]

Happy Thanksgiving, bro.

Though we did vote the movie in on the 17th. That's a full week before Thanksgiving to watch that shit.

My point is I won't be really free until at least Friday. My presence here will be limited due to family in from out of town and my wife staring at me even as I type this. Its kinda like, I'm on Sherdog laughing and it draws her attention.

 

[Guestx]

All right, well I guess I'll be the one to kick off the real discussion for this one.

First off, like Drugstore Cowboy, I was uncertain of the time period. From the trailer, I was thinking this was going to be set in the first half of the 20th century. And then after actually starting the movie, I thought it must be early 1960s. But like DC, apparently it is also set in the 70s.

This is basically an indie Western. Like, a Western made Terrence Malick style, or if you will, the Short Term 12 of Western films. The whole style of the movie oozes an independent sensibility, and that sensibility leads to a film that is languorously paced, and I have to tell you, when a movie is paced like this it never can quite keep me 100% invested. I'm not saying it's bad by any means, but its slowness in and of itself acts as a kind of barrier to my full engagement. There have been a few slow-paced movies that have worked hard to grab every ounce of my interest and mostly succeeded--2001 and The Assassination of Jesse James come to mind--but as a rule it's just a given that I'm going to pick up my phone a few times and glance at the clock here and there.

Don't take that to mean I didn't like the film though. I did enjoy it. I thought it was a well-made, interesting, less violent, more humanistic take on Bonnie and Clyde. More or less. It's ultimately a film about true love and sacrifice. Because I'll tell you, going to prison for something you didn't actually do to save someone else from the same fate takes a hell of a lot of love and is a huge sacrifice.

Casey Affleck has never been actor that I've particularly loved or hated. I wouldn't say I'm indifferent; more than I'm ambivalent. I kind like him while at the same time finding something off-putting about him. I think he did a good job here though. As for Rooney Mara, after breaking out in The Social Network and then landing Dragon Tattoo, I remember thinking that she was going to blow up, but she didn't really do that. Instead she's mostly been doing smaller projects with the occasional appearance in a bigger film. And lastly, Ben Foster is not a guy who's ever really been on my radar, but I thought he was excellent here.

I was glad to read this in the trivia: "The title is director David Lowery's 'mondegreen' - a mishearing of a song lyric - and has no actual meaning." Because I was like what in the FUCK does "Ain't Them Bodies Saints" mean and what does it have to do with this movie? Seems like a weird choice to roll with for a title, but it's at least distinctive.

All in all, I think this is an interesting take on the Western genre. It feels like it straddles some sort of weird line between being a classical Western and a modern Western. It's probably not the kind of film that I'm going to return to over and over, but it's another one of those that I'm glad I've at least seen once.

7.5/10

 

[the muntjac]

Just wanted to pop in and say I won’t be able to to chime in until later this week. Happy Thanksgiving SMC peeps.

 

[jasonrest29]

All right, well I guess I'll be the one to kick off the real discussion for this one.

First off, like Drugstore Cowboy, I was uncertain of the time period. From the trailer, I was thinking this was going to be set in the first half of the 20th century. And then after actually starting the movie, I thought it must be early 1960s. But like DC, apparently it is also set in the 70s.

This is basically an indie Western. Like, a Western made Terrence Malick style, or if you will, the Short Term 12 of Western films. The whole style of the movie oozes an independent sensibility, and that sensibility leads to a film that is languorously paced, and I have to tell you, when a movie is paced like this it never can quite keep me 100% invested. I'm not saying it's bad by any means, but its slowness in and of itself acts as a kind of barrier to my full engagement. There have been a few slow-paced movies that have worked hard to grab every ounce of my interest and mostly succeeded--2001 and The Assassination of Jesse James come to mind--but as a rule it's just a given that I'm going to pick up my phone a few times and glance at the clock here and there.

Don't take that to mean I didn't like the film though. I did enjoy it. I thought it was a well-made, interesting, less violent, more humanistic take on Bonnie and Clyde. More or less. It's ultimately a film about true love and sacrifice. Because I'll tell you, going to prison for something you didn't actually do to save someone else from the same fate takes a hell of a lot of love and is a huge sacrifice.

Casey Affleck has never been actor that I've particularly loved or hated. I wouldn't say I'm indifferent; more than I'm ambivalent. I kind like him while at the same time finding something off-putting about him. I think he did a good job here though. As for Rooney Mara, after breaking out in The Social Network and then landing Dragon Tattoo, I remember thinking that she was going to blow up, but she didn't really do that. Instead she's mostly been doing smaller projects with the occasional appearance in a bigger film. And lastly, Ben Foster is not a guy who's ever really been on my radar, but I thought he was excellent here.

I was glad to read this in the trivia: "The title is director David Lowery's 'mondegreen' - a mishearing of a song lyric - and has no actual meaning." Because I was like what in the FUCK does "Ain't Them Bodies Saints" mean and what does it have to do with this movie? Seems like a weird choice to roll with for a title, but it's at least distinctive.

All in all, I think this is an interesting take on the Western genre. It feels like it straddles some sort of weird line between being a classical Western and a modern Western. It's probably not the kind of film that I'm going to return to over and over, but it's another one of those that I'm glad I've at least seen once.

7.5/10

Id have to agree that this is a movie I'll gladly discuss and chime in "yeah I saw that one" but not something I would sit through again and again like shawshank or anything. Not to take anything away from the movie, I'm glad I saw it.
And the scenery helped to get through the slow parts. I thought.

The one point that I might disagree with and probably will be alone on this.... is the cop, Patrick. When a movie starts, ya kinda get an idea of where its going but, I could never quite get a handle on what it is that he wants. does he want the girl or the fugitive. Initially, before watching the movie, I watched the trailer and thought oh I get it.

Dude goes to jail for girl.
Girl gets lonely, falls for someone else. (maybe even the exact opposite of her first love)
Dude comes home and.......big problem... but it never actually goes there. even though we're lead to believe it will.

In fact, Im kinda left not knowing at all what the cop's true intentions were.
Maybe thats my fault for assuming what the endgame was.

7/10

 

[Guestx]

Id have to agree that this is a movie I'll gladly discuss and chime in "yeah I saw that one" but not something I would sit through again and again like shawshank or anything. Not to take anything away from the movie, I'm glad I saw it.
And the scenery helped to get through the slow parts. I thought.

The one point that I might disagree with and probably will be alone on this.... is the cop, Patrick. When a movie starts, ya kinda get an idea of where its going but, I could never quite get a handle on what it is that he wants. does he want the girl or the fugitive. Initially, before watching the movie, I watched the trailer and thought oh I get it.

Dude goes to jail for girl.
Girl gets lonely, falls for someone else. (maybe even the exact opposite of her first love)
Dude comes home and.......big problem... but it never actually goes there. even though we're lead to believe it will.

In fact, Im kinda left not knowing at all what the cop's true intentions were.
Maybe thats my fault for assuming what the endgame was.

7/10

I thought that a lot was left ambiguous in the film.

I was at a bit of a disadvantage because I didn't realize that Patrick was the same cop that got shot early in the film. Until it's mentioned again almost at the end, that was totally lost on me.

Regarding his motives, I don't think of him as a vengeful guy. I think him trying to take down Bob was just him doing his job, not something that he felt driven to do for personal reasons. I think most of his personal energy was directed toward Ruth. He genuinely loved her and wanted the best for her. He was an old-fashioned kind of guy, the sort of dude that we just don't see much of these days.

You mention that Ruth "falls for someone else," and I think that on some level she did, but it wasn't an impulse she really acted on. It's obvious that their relationship has never been physical, and she also seems sincere in her intention to reunite with Bob when it's safe to do so.

 

[jasonrest29]

I thought that a lot was left ambiguous in the film.

I was at a bit of a disadvantage because I didn't realize that Patrick was the same cop that got shot early in the film. Until it's mentioned again almost at the end, that was totally lost on me.

yeah I couldn't forget that mustache that took over his face. noticed it right away.
and also I dont think he ever knew it was her that shot him. yeah lots of ambiguity in the film.
I also thought that would be a big moment in the end... him finding out it was her that shot him.

You mention that Ruth "falls for someone else," and I think that on some level she did, but it wasn't an impulse she really acted on. It's obvious that their relationship has never been physical, and she also seems sincere in her intention to reunite with Bob when it's safe to do so.

I guess thats the key to understanding those two. it wasnt clear from his end but she was definitely trying to skip town with Bob until the kid slipped up.

 

[europe1]

So, this is one of those movies I categorize to as "pathos-movies". The film is entirely about how much you care about the emotional tribulations of its main characters. It lives and dies by that factor, as there are no alternative sources of stimulation in the film.

Man did I think this was dull. And the problem was precisely that -- I never once got invested in the emotional tribulations of the main characters. It's not enough to say that your protagonist misses his wife and daughter. You have to conjure the feeling. The approach this movie took definitively didn't work for me.

Likewise, I just really didn't dig this movies visual style. It's all muted colours and an inelegant camera. It complements the pacing, editing and the mood that they're going for. But man does it not build any poignancy or momentum. It's this drab, ambling sensation. And if you have a pathos movie that doesn't manage to build any pathos for it's main characters -- then that's especially grevious.

In a way... this movie reminds me of reading a Victorian novel. The prose of those old books is so full of euphemism, understatements, muted emotions and an all-around lack of omph. This ambiance of being sensetive and old-timey in your mannerism just isn't very impactful. Which is especially bad since... if you watch old movies... they're not at all like this.

One thing that has been irking me more and more as I get older... is this trope of feuturing criminals that are sensetive, romantic and fundementally quite well-adjusted people (or supposed criminals in this instance). The more I see of them the more I crave those really mean-pieces-of-work that, say, British crime flicks so excelled at. I'm thinking Get Carter, Gangster No 1, Sitting Target, McVicar, movies sporting protagonists that were truly callous and the the films unblinking in portraying them so. Movies like that make a movie like Ain't them bodies Saints feel so toothless and lackluster.

God damn Terrance Malik!

Happy Thanksgiving guys. I'm busy this week doing the family thing but I'll try to respond later this weekend for the movie. Maybe if we are around this time next year we should skip a week for Thanksgiving and Christmas, that way whoever is up that week won't get screwed on replies. Just something to think about.

Just wanted to pop in and say I won’t be able to to chime in until later this week. Happy Thanksgiving SMC peeps.

Happy Turkey Genocide Day my fellow SMC guys! May a multitude of fat birds fall before your knives!

I was uncertain of the time period. From the trailer, I was thinking this was going to be set in the first half of the 20th century. And then after actually starting the movie, I thought it must be early 1960s. But like DC, apparently it is also set in the 70s.

While watching this film, I was ruminating on how it utilizes its ambiguous time period. Not specifying a time and place allows a filmmaker to keep things vague and blurred. One one hand, the movie keeps the technology and lingo low. There are no cellphones, some definitive old-timey clothes, and people speak with soft words. However, the social mores are more modern. No one brings up the fact that Mara is a single-mother raising a child on her own -- which would have been quite and eyebrow-raiser back in the day. And people seem quite lax about people of other races, for instance.

more humanistic take on Bonnie and Clyde

Screw humanism. This is where Bonnie and Clyde is at!

1 second of the ending of Bonnie and Clyde contains more romantic poignancy and impactfulness than the entierty of this film.

I remember thinking that she was going to blow up,

Might be her looks. Not excactly a classical leading lady.

 

[europe1]

I was glad to read this in the trivia: "The title is director David Lowery's 'mondegreen' - a mishearing of a song lyric - and has no actual meaning." Because I was like what in the FUCK does "Ain't Them Bodies Saints" mean and what does it have to do with this movie?

It's such a weird title that on this side of the pond it was retitled as "A Texas Love Story".

Think about that... they didn't change the title into a Swedish one, as is normally done with a title is translated in Europe. They just changed it into another English sentance that doesn't sound so weird and obtusive.

It's like they said, "This title is just to damn weird. Let's just change it but keep the english language so that we can pretend that that's what it was called in America to begin with."

 

[Guestx]

and also I dont think he ever knew it was her that shot him. yeah lots of ambiguity in the film.
I also thought that would be a big moment in the end... him finding out it was her that shot him.

It seemed for a second like that was maybe going to happen. There was the scene near the end in the house where she says something along the lines of, "Not everything you know about that day is true."

I thought maybe she was to tell him the whole story right then but she didn't.

The thing is, even if she had, I'm not sure it would've changed his opinion about her.

I guess thats the key to understanding those two. it wasnt clear from his end but she was definitely trying to skip town with Bob until the kid slipped up.

I think it's obvious that ultimately she was still loyal to Bob, even though the reality of the situation had dulled her somewhat to his affections, as well as opened her up to at least considering the affections of others.

One thing I didn't understand was this: Did she never go visit him with the baby? It didn't seem like it. But if not, then why not? Was he just too far away?

 

[Guestx]

Screw humanism. This is where Bonnie and Clyde is at!

1 second of the ending of Bonnie and Clyde contains more romantic poignancy and impactfulness than the entierty of this film.

I still haven't seen that one. . .

Might be her looks. Not excactly a classical leading lady.

I find that with Rooney Mara, it all depends on how she's made up to look.

She looked great in The Social Network:

It's such a weird title that on this side of the pond it was retitled as "A Texas Love Story".

Think about that... they didn't change the title into a Swedish one, as is normally done with a title is translated in Europe. They just changed it into another English sentance that doesn't sound so weird and obtusive.

It's like they said, "This title is just to damn weird. Let's just change it but keep the english language so that we can pretend that that's what it was called in America to begin with."

That's funny.

Sometimes I wonder how often titles have helped, or hurt, a film. For instance, some people have suggested that The Long Kiss Goodnight would've been more successful with another title, because some moviegoers no doubt thought it must be a romance.

 

[europe1]

Sometimes I wonder how often titles have helped, or hurt, a film. For instance, some people have suggested that The Long Kiss Goodnight would've been more successful with another title, because some moviegoers no doubt thought it must be a romance.

Title changes were common on the B-movie circuit. Back in the day -- and you're going to love this -- titles would often be re-released under a different title so to fool the audience into thinking that it was a new picture. Likewise, if a movie was initially released regionally before going nation-wide, they would change the title if it did not do well.

I remember reading an article full of examples of films that improved their box-office with a title change, there was a lot of Corman titles on there... but for the life of me I can't remember them now.

One especially hilarious example is the initial Django movie from 1966. It was an Italian movie and Italy... didn't have especially firm copyright law. So afterwards there were about 50 unofficial Django sequels (most of them filmed with other titles in mind and had the Django title slapped on afterwards) all made to cash-in on it's popularity. The funny thing is... it worked... beautifully.

 

[chickenluver]

I thought this was pretty good. My favorite thing was probably the dialogue. It felt naturalistic yet not banal.

Rooney Mara was the heart of this film for me. I really felt for her dilemma. It's not an exact situation I can relate to, but I think anyone understands wanting something so bad but being unable to have it. She knew if she met up with Casey that they would most likely be caught. At the same time I feel like she also desperately wanted/needed some normalcy, and the fact that Casey was still alive, and later at large kept her from moving on. I think she did develop an attraction to Ben Foster, and maybe if Casey had a life sentence or was killed she would have been able to form a relationship with him.

Speaking of Ben Foster, I've disliked him ever since 3:10 to Yuma, but he was positively charming here. A very good, subtle performance. I always like Keith Carradine, and Casey Affleck is growing on me.

At first I was kind of hoping for more information about their crimes, basically everything that happened before the movie that we didn't see. I was confused about who Keith Carradine was until about halfway through the movie. I think now what we got is sufficient, although my one major gripe is that I didn't understand what the deal was with those guys who were pursuing Casey, and still really don't. Carradine said something to Casey about pissing a lot of people off and them being after, the wiki calls them bounty hunters, but then when he was talking to one after shooting him, Casey asks why, and he responds something like It was the things you did??? I guess we're just not meant to know.

In the very last scene I was debating with myself whether it was the right thing for Ben Foster to take the daughter away. On the one hand, the guy has never met his daughter, and has a chance in his dying moments to see her and maybe say a few words. But on the other hand, should a child that young see her own father die from gunshot wounds? Could be emotionally scarring. I guess I'll conclude that it was good for Casey and his daughter to get a glimpse of each other, but it was also good for Ben to prevent her from seeing him die.

I was uncertain of the time period. From the trailer, I was thinking this was going to be set in the first half of the 20th century. And then after actually starting the movie, I thought it must be early 1960s. But like DC, apparently it is also set in the 70s.

I thought it was set in the Depression until it showed white and black people together in Nate Parker's bar. I'm not really that much of a fan of an ambiguous timeline, but I guess it didn't really detract from this particular movie.

I was glad to read this in the trivia: "The title is director David Lowery's 'mondegreen' - a mishearing of a song lyric - and has no actual meaning." Because I was like what in the FUCK does "Ain't Them Bodies Saints" mean and what does it have to do with this movie? Seems like a weird choice to roll with for a title, but it's at least distinctive.

I honestly hate the title. And that trivia doesn't even tell us what song the misheard lyrics are from? Did they even play it in the movie? I don't recall any songs with lyrics except one played on the juke box in the bar. Maybe that was the one.

Regarding his motives, I don't think of him as a vengeful guy. I think him trying to take down Bob was just him doing his job, not something that he felt driven to do for personal reasons. I think most of his personal energy was directed toward Ruth. He genuinely loved her and wanted the best for her. He was an old-fashioned kind of guy, the sort of dude that we just don't see much of these days.

You mention that Ruth "falls for someone else," and I think that on some level she did, but it wasn't an impulse she really acted on. It's obvious that their relationship has never been physical, and she also seems sincere in her intention to reunite with Bob when it's safe to do so.

Agree on all points.

I guess thats the key to understanding those two. it wasnt clear from his end but she was definitely trying to skip town with Bob until the kid slipped up.

Woah at first I thought for sure that she was skipping town to go somewhere Casey couldn't find her. But now I'm thinking maybe her letter that she gave to Carradine was meant to dupe him.

In a way... this movie reminds me of reading a Victorian novel. The prose of those old books is so full of euphemism, understatements, muted emotions and an all-around lack of omph. This ambiance of being sensetive and old-timey in your mannerism just isn't very impactful. Which is especially bad since... if you watch old movies... they're not at all like this.

So you're saying you don't like Victorian novels?

Might be her looks. Not excactly a classical leading lady.

She looked great in The Social Network

I'm into her.

One thing I didn't understand was this: Did she never go visit him with the baby? It didn't seem like it. But if not, then why not? Was he just too far away?

Yeah that doesn't really make sense. They agreed his daughter shouldn't see him behind bars? I don't know.

 

[europe1]

So you're saying you don't like Victorian novels?

Hey did you ever see that Kenneth Branagh movie where he gets Tornado Kicked in the face ala Shogun vs Rampage?

The entire segment in its context has to be the funniest part of his entire ouvere.

I... I'm sorry. I just had to say something to raise your spirits after being such a dissapointment.

 

[chickenluver]

Hey did you ever see that Kenneth Branagh movie where he gets Tornado Kicked in the face ala Shogun vs Rampage?

The entire segment in its context has to be the funniest part of his entire ouvere.

I... I'm sorry. I just had to say something to raise your spirits after being such a dissapointment.

I have not seen that. It looks awesome, what's the title?

 

[europe1]

I have not seen that. It looks awesome, what's the title?

Dead Again from 1991. It's basically his homage to Hitchcock... delivered with the usual Branagh side-order of campy silliness. It's another one of his team-ups with Emma Thompson. It's really good, actually, with some definitive highspots that I didn't see comming. And as I said -- that scene in it's full glory is just gold.

 

[chickenluver]

Dead Again from 1991. It's basically his homage to Hitchcock... delivered with the usual Branagh side-order of campy silliness. It's another one of his team-ups with Emma Thompson. It's really good, actually, with some definitive highspots that I didn't see comming. And as I said -- that scene in it's full glory is just gold.

Spirits thoroughly raised