Virginia 1958. Mixed-race couple Richard Loving (Joel Edgerton), a bricklayer in an all-white gang of builders, and Mildred (Ruth Negga) are deeply in love and decide to get married following her becoming pregnant. Because such inter-racial marriages are not recognised in their state they go to Washington D.C. to have their very modest ceremony. Returning home, one night their house is invaded by police, they are dragged from bed and carted off to police cells where he is temporarily released the following morning, she remaining imprisoned until the magistrate can hear their case a few days later. Obviously he is distraught at having had to leave her in police custody. When the case is heard they are each given a one year prison sentence, suspended provided that they leave Va. and do not return together or see each other again in the state for 25 years. They move to Washington D.C. to live. She has the baby - then the story jumps five years and another two babies later. They both long to return home and it's suggested that she writes to Attorney General Robert Kennedy about her case, which she does, and the matter gets passed on to the American Civil Liberties Union to pursue, first in Virginia itself and then, if necessary all the way up to the Supreme Court - which, of course, happens.
There's no doubt that the real-life subject matter is powerful and, indeed, distressing, though I did find the film for at least the first half a little understated. There were no real surprises and it seemed pretty standard stuff, upsetting though some of it is. However, in the second half I did find myself gradually warming to the film.
Ruth Negga has been nominated for 'Best Actress' Oscar and although she was good, I found the un-nominated Joel Edgerton in the role of her blond, crew-cutted, hunky, quiet husband as the one who made the greater impression. Although he's a man of few words and he keeps his understandable anger internalised, he appears in more scenes than she does and one never knows what he's going to do next, whereas her actions and emotions are fairly by-the-book predictable.
Another thing I liked, which some may see as a weakness, was that there was no grandstanding or triumphalism at the Supreme Court verdict - which you can guess at if, like me, you didn't know about this case.
It's an unassuming film, not at all preachy, and left to speak for itself - though some may feel that it missed a chance in not pushing it, especially when such reactionary attitudes which were relatively widespread in the middle of last century are, very regrettably, worryingly and horribly, becoming more 'acceptable' again, even if it's only occurring in pockets.
I didn't know the name of director and writer Jeff Nichols at all, this being just his fifth film to date, but he did enough here to keep me interested - even if in the end it wasn't a particularly exceptional cinematic experience.......................6.5.
1 hour ago
I first noticed joel Edgerton in the remake of The Thing
ReplyDeleteRemarkably attractive!
I knew the name quite well but would have been hard pressed to name any of his films, J.G. Now I look him up I see that for me his most notable appearance would have been in 'The Great Gatsby'.
DeleteI hadn't realised there'd been a re-make (or re-re-make) of 'The Thing'. The 1982 John Carpenter version was, for me, one of the most chilling films EVER.
In 'Loving' J.E.'s appearance is not especially appealing to me, though there is something of the 'gentle giant' in it. However, it will probably be what will linger in my mind more than the rest of the film.
Well it was more a prequel as i remember
DeleteThat's both a relief and a disappointment, J.G. I don't want anything to replace the John Carpenter version in my mind and if it's a prequel it can't do that anyway. I'm still curious about it, though.
DeleteI LOVED this one. Loved both Negga and Edgerton. Such a wonderful film, and a piece of history that we all need to remember.
ReplyDeleteThat's good to hear, Bob. I was wondering to what extent the names of this couple are known as part of American history. Seeing this film it was complete news to me, and I find it disturbing to realise that all this was happening while I was starting my teenage years and just becoming politically aware - even worse, if I'd been conscious of the situation I probably just would have shrugged my shoulders in a "So what?" fashion. But th filmis was an education to me, late as it comes - and, as you say, we certainly do all need to remember it.
DeleteI loved this film as well. This is the Supreme Court case that laid the groundwork for legalization of same sex marriage. I was raised in Virginia and grew up with people just like the Lovings. The Lovings were uneducated hillbillies, just like my neighbors and relatives. I was also old enough when this case was decided to know that something significant had happened. The Lovings had no agenda, they just wanted to live life and love equally as anyone else was. This film was well done.
ReplyDeleteI had no idea, F.B., that this couple was part of the American consciousness of its history. I'd wrongly assumed that most Americans would have been as ignorant as me about the case, which is clearly not so at all - though I very much doubt if many outside your country would have heard of it. But I stand well corrected, especially my then being at an age where I ought to have noticed that something significant had taken place. I can't help wondering why there's been no notable film of the case up to now, at least none that I've hard of.
DeleteA I infer above, one of the things I did like about the film was that it let the event speak for itself without any pointing in a particular direction. It struck me as an honest film. Strange that in the awards season which is just about on us, apart from Ruth Negga's nomination, there's been little fuss over it.