Ballast is, according to IMDB, set in the Mississippi Delta area. Reading this was a surprise to me, as the landscape and chilly atmosphere of the film really reminded me of rural Canada, or somewhere in the northern prairies of the states (CN railcars are featured in several shots too, but I guess they go all over the continent). In some respects, the South does fit better with the primarily African-American cast—for some reason, I found it hard to picture there being a large population of African-Americans in rural North Dakota, maybe I'm wrong.Anyways, racial profiling aside, let's talk about the film. If I were to give it a rating out of ten, I think I'd say a 7. Not bad, but nothing that curled my toes. It is filled with a pretty tragic cast of characters, poverty seems to be an overwhelming force in most of their lives. The plot of the film is very minimal, and basically follows the banal sufferings of three main protagonists.
I think that it is really important for film to represent these more "authentic" (and, no doubt, more common) experiences of "real" people. Our culture has a surplus of representations of how tough high school is for rich white girls. However, I am at the same time always a little suspicious of these glimpses at the poor and downtrodden produced by wealthy intellectuals. My attention quickly turns away from a desire to learn about the characters’ experiences to a critical analysis of the filmmaker’s motivations for showing these experiences to us. Perhaps this is a leftover from my art school days, when superficial Marxist analysis was drilled into our heads. However, some films work in a way that lets me get past this suspicion—Pasonlini’s films, Ermanno Olmi’s, Harmony Korine’s, etc. This one didn’t. I’m still suspicious. I think my problem with Ballast is that, while it may engage with the misery of the majority of Americans' lives, it does not offer a what Pasonlini and Co. offer—an agency, creativity and beauty within these tragic figures. These characters seem empty, powerless and worthy of pity. This is often how wealthy people represent the poor.
All that being said, Ballast is a very beautiful film. There are some gorgeous, lonely, heart-breaking shots in it that made watching it worthwhile. This is Lance Hammer’s first film, and so his character development may mature. However, at present, I think I’d suggest waiting for more by Lol Crawley (the cinematographer) than more by Hammer.
13 comments:
Interesting comments about Ballast Graham. As you know I was rather taken with this film and found it had rather the opposite effect on me. I didn't find the characters in Ballast pitiful or empty in the least, it was instead their quiet sense of dignity and deep humanity that came through. Facing a shared tragedy, the three leads end up uniting in an attempt to overcome their circumstances together. In my mind, it doesn't get much more creative or beautifully human than that.
I wonder if Ballast hadn't been done by a white, L.A.–based filmmaker whether it would have been received any differently. One could argue that the presumption that a film about the Mississippi Delta underclass would need to come from within the black community harkens back to a not-too-distant past where cultural segregation was the norm. Coincidentally, I rewatched Spike Lee's Do the Right Thing last week, wondering how well it might have aged over the past 20 years, and beyond some slightly silly late-'80s clothing and hairstyles, the heart of the film remains intact. Lee's fascinating treatment of Danny Aiello's Italian heritage seems both authentic and realistic and might be one of the earlier examples of a modern filmmaker operating in a quasi-post-segregation style. Lee's subsequent tirades against Tarantino's portrayal of African-Americans notwithstanding, Do the Right Thing is interesting partly because it isn't set elusively within the filmmaker's cultural community.
It would seem as though rich liberals are still overtly sensitive and suspect of any foray by a white filmmaker into the African-American experience. I seriously considered not mentioning Ballast's mostly African-American cast in my year end writeup, something I now think I probably should have pursued more vigorously. While race certainly plays a role in the film, it's also hardly the point of Ballast. It could have easily been set in North Dakota with an entirely white cast, a Sino-Hispanic director and a crew of Gypsy dwarfs and told the exact same story. For this reason, I think focusing too much on ethnicity and race is exactly what you shouldn't do watching the film. Hopefully, at some point in the near future, who says something will become less important than what they're saying. Personally, I think Ballast is a step in that direction.
Points taken, sporge. But I don't think you understand me completely. I certainly am not trying to argue that middle class intellectuals should not make movies about other cultures. Like I said, there should be more diversity in the characters we see on the silver screen. I also feel that this has been done very sensitively and beautifully in other films: Gummo, Half Nelson, Il Posto being some outstanding examples. I just felt this film missed that mark, somewhat.
I think that I share the hope that someday it will be less important "who says something." But I think that day will not come through more forgiveness of white, rich pastoralism. Instead it will come when there are more black, poor, or even gypsy dwarf directors and producers out there, rather than just characters. Cultural segregation is less in the past than we'd like to think.
I haven't seen Ballast yet but I admit that I have similar feelings to Graham regarding the making of films about minorities or disengranchized people by priveleged people who haven't tasted any of the experience of the characters they are trying to represent.
Like I said, haven't seen Ballast, no idea if this discussion pertains to this movie particularly (in fact it sounds like it doesn't have much to do with it at all), but I do feel strangely when I come across films like this that represent the the struggle of someone, or a group of people, based on something the writer/director has very likely never had to experience. I think it would be extremely difficult for an English person to represent the story and struggle of Irish people, and considering the amount of racism towards black people in North America that STILL exists I can't see how a white person would be the best option for making films about this sort of racism.
I agree with Graham that it will be a lovely day when it doesn't matter who makes the film, only whether a good film was made, but I don't know that this will be realized for me until the rampant racism in NA is obsolete, and when racism exists there will be far fewer movies about it except in a historical mode of story-telling.
Anyways. It's early, I'm tired, pretty much what I'm trying to say is Fuck Paul Haggis.
Well Chandles make sure you steer clear of almost EVERY film you've ever seen.
Avatar? Sadly Cameron has never been to Pandora and run with the NAvi.
Most film directors have been to some form of film school and are yes, privileged.
If every film was about rich people then i wouldn't go to the movies. just saying.
and yes, fuck Paul Haggis... and fuck Crash. WORST MOVIE EVER
"I think it would be extremely difficult for an English person to represent the story and struggle of Irish people[...]"
yeah, i KNOW!!! imagine how completely misinformed and stupid it would be for say, a black director from london (uk) to make a film about white irish prisoners on a hunger strike. what a disaster something like that would be!
oh, wait....they're MOVIES!!!!!!!!!!! if they're successful and effective, who in fuck's name gives a fuck who made what with whom?
can a human being not see the pathos and beauty in the life of another human being? sadly, issues of upper-class white guilt seem to be getting in some viewers' way here...
Again, to reiterate my point, my criticisms are not coming from a place of neo-liberal guilt. Like I said, I totally and wholeheartedly agree with the idea that someone from one culture can represent people from another in a sensitive and beautiful way. Most art I love does this. I can't stand the knee-jerk, art school, liberal response that calls every film by a privileged person "exploitation." HOWEVER, some films ARE exploitative (Run Bitch Run for example!). I don't know that I think Ballast was, I just said I felt suspicious of the director's motivations. This also comes from reading and interview of him about the film, in which he seemed to totally aestheticize the subject matter and not really engage with the politics of it or his position of privilege (perhaps the interviewer's fault, however).
So to reiterate...... Graham and Kendall both loath their own ethnicity and want to be po' sharecroppin' filmmaka's.... our only minority (Tom) has deleted his (very likely racist) comment, Kris points out that even Avatars get the Navi-blues, Graham has once again misconstrued a blatant criticism of his loopy position as misinterpretation of some point he was trying to make eons ago, Joe hates the Irish and along with me, liberal weenies and everyone despises Paul Haggis. Have I got everyone?
Get back to Mexico, faggots.
Interesting comment coming from an illegal, Tom.
Has anyone noticed that this film deals more so with suicide and its effect on family? As for the directors "suspect" goals how about to make a film that is pretty to look at and sadly moving?
Good point mysterious one. By focusing on the racial elements of Ballast, I think one can easily miss that at the heart of the story, it's about suicide, its effect on the survivors, and how people come to terms with loss, all profoundly humanist explorations regardless of race and culture.
Post a Comment