Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri

[Glebe]

Yes, I too admit McDonagh confusion.

[EDIT]New page utter fuckity fucking twat.

[monolith]

Just saw this, enjoyed it but do rapist murderers who set their victims on fire really go around bragging in bars?

[phantom_power]

I imagine a lot of them aren't that bright and don't think through the consequences of their actions

Sorry, is that rapistist?

[greenman]

There's a comment under this that asks why McDonagh would even waste time characterising a racist as anything but a racist, also implying that it's somehow fascist of Hollywood to do so in film and 'normalise' this kind of thing. The comment is presumably from a black POV, and feels that it should be black filmmakers who are the ones telling these kind of stories, not "old white men." I pretty much agree on that count, as I like drama to feel authentic and prove to be thought-provoking, but something makes me queasy about the idea of any filmmaker, of any race or gender, not feeling able to paint their character as anything more than one-dimensional if the dimension in question is problematic.

Nonetheless, everyone I know from Not on Twitter World seems to have really enjoyed this film, with some reservations, as I had too. I'd say that the 'anger begets great anger' message that the film literally expresses is simply unfashionable in the current climate. As such, this will definitely win Best Picture!

Honestly to me it seemed like the Dixon character was very carefully judged, not just something thrown in for shock value. We don't see him "one up" those giving him deserved criticism and we don't see him get his job back, rather we see him seemingly take on some of that criticism and show some kind of personal growth. I tend to think a lot of such responses highlight why a lot of Oscar bait drama is so simplistic in its morals/politics.

I can't really see this film as "taking the spot" of a black director/writer looking to comment on the subject either.

[phantom_power]

Why should a black film-maker be telling this story anyway? It is a story of grief, loss and anger in a small town of mainly white people. I could see the criticism for something like Django Unchained where it is about a black experience but the only thing you could level at this film is maybe that the writer is English and so doesn't insight into small town America. Even then there is something to be said for the outsider view

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

This wasn't quite what I was expecting. In Bruges obviously dealt with some grim subject matter, but the tone here felt a lot more bleak. I didn't keep count, but I think they might have jammed all of the funny lines into the trailer. I am surprised at all the awards. Obviously it's dealing in some weighty themes, and is a real actors' actor type of film, but it doesn't seem like your typical Oscar bait.

I'm not sure how I feel about it really. I don't like it as much as In Bruges, but then that's one of my favourite films, and had the benefit of lower expectations (the chatty gangster subgenre being played out at the time). I think I'd rate it higher than Seven Psychopaths, which I've also only seen the once (I would rewatch it but, stupidly, Netflix have gone and dropped it right when it has become relevant).

At the risk of sounding like one of those All Lives Matter types, is Dixon actually shown to be racist, rather than a violent bully in general? I can well believe that he did torture a prisoner but, as with much in the film, a racial motive is a matter of hearsay. Meanwhile, we see him first hand brutalising Red and his secretary. He arrests Mildred's coworker, but her being black is coincidental. Whether McDonagh is wise to evoke such emotive issues so casually is a good question, but after one (half remembered) viewing, I wonder if the anger over the race angle is possibly misdirected. The film could probably have done with a more rounded black character to explore this theme more effectively - maybe replacing Peter Dinklage's character.

Having Dixon's backstory delivered through the letter felt clumsy to me. We'd seen his home life already, so there was no need to pause for a big monologue about how he's just angry because his dad died. Not to mention bluntly spelling out the big theme of the film (which happens again with the 19 year old and her bookmark).

[greenman]

I viewed that less as "backstory" for the character and more a reveal of Willoughby's feelings about him which needed to come after Dixon had reacted to his death throwing Red out the window.

[Mister Six]

Yeah, it's a catalyst for his transformation, just like Willoughby's suicide happened to give him a push off the rails. Essential character development, not backstory.

[Small Man Big Horse]

Turns out this was another Marvel origins story in disguise:

[ieXush2i]

I viewed that less as "backstory" for the character and more a reveal of Willoughby's feelings about him which needed to come after Dixon had reacted to his death throwing Red out the window.

I think this was the first big clunker of the film for me. Why would Woody think Sam Rockwell is an OK bloke really, despite all of his actions and attitude? Seemed forced to try and give the living character a semblance of an arc/moral depth.

[Dr Rock]

So I finally got around to seeing this. Avoided all spoilers so I didn't even realise it was directed by the same guy as In Bruges or I may have had different expectations. So I was all ready to think it was overrated or not for me, but although I've now read all the criticisms, for me it was flawless. Apart from Willoughby's wife's accent going all over the shop in that once scene. I was gripped, I laughed, I was shocked, in all the appropriate places.

Spoilers ahead.

One thing nobody has mentioned, Dixon was a repressed homosexual wasn't he? That's why he always picked on Red (who was also probably gay) and said how they shot fags in Cuba... also he was listening to Abba in one scene so that's case closed for me. Oh and another thing that this thread has brought up, Mildred assaulted several people, it's a bit of a plot hole that she never gets more than that one arrest that goes nowhere. She'd be the main suspect in the arson of the police station too, whether or not she has Dinklage vouching for her, she'd be hauled in. Or hey, as it has been said it's like a Western, maybe it's like High Plains Drifter and she's the vengeful ghost of her dead daughter. Unmystically, she is I suppose.

I got the feeling quite quickly it was unlikely this film was going to wrap up the case by the end. I loved the ambiguity and unexpected turns of character (or a scene makes us reevaluate things). And even though it didn't turn out to solve the case, I thought the scene with Dixon overhearing the guys in the bar, and presumably weighing up what to do before... collecting DNA in that manner, ha, genius move. Even though he knew it would get him a kicking.

10/10, fucking excellent stuff x