Widows
A common complaint in many a film review, if the film isn’t flawless, is that there was fluff. Fluff is extra, unnecessary material that does not have a purpose and is only in the movie to lengthen the runtime. Fluff is called out because it makes a movie boring. It is uninteresting and takes the viewer out of the story. The strange thing about “Widows” is that there are a lot of extra scenes and plot points in the movie; but instead of boring the viewer, they are engaging and compelling subplots. In fact, the movie has so many intriguing subplots that the filmmakers can’t juggle them and a few fall flat. Here’s something you don’t normally see in a movie review: “Widows” should have been longer.
“Widows” is director Steve McQueen’s (“12 Years a Slave”) latest film, and is mostly about the aftermath of a heist-gone-wrong: the widows of the dead criminals, led by Veronica (Viola Davis), attempt to pull off a job armed with the plans left by Veronica’s husband, Harry (Liam Neeson). So far, sounds like a pretty good crime caper. Yet that’s not all. The story takes place in Chicago, where Jack Mulligan (Colin Farrell) is running against Jamal Manning (Brian Tyree Henry) for Alderman of the 18th ward. The Mulligan family, currently headed by Tom (Robert Duvall) has held political power for 60 years, and doesn’t expect to lose it anytime soon. The Mulligans are white, and Jamal would be the first African-American to hold the position. Except there’s more. The heist-gone-wrong that started this whole thing stole money from Jamal, and he wants it back. So he sends his brother, Jatemme (Daniel Kaluuya), to collect a debt from -- who, exactly? Ah, yes. The widow of the mastermind of the heist. Because she would have the $2 million that burned up in the explosion that killed her husband.
These plot threads are certainly not confusing, and are handled quite well -- on their own. The political scheming is timely and engrossing, the heist plan is compelling, and the debt collection -- well, is only made interesting by Kaluuya’s haunted - and haunting - performance. Nonetheless, the best plot points come from the personal lives of each of the widows. Fulfilling the promise of its title, the film authentically and desperately portrays four women who each have very good reason for putting their lives on the line for a bit of cash. Along for the ride with Davis are Elizabeth Debicki as Alice, whose mother wants her to sell her body to rich men, Michelle Rodriguez as Linda, whose clothing store was shut down because of a debt her late husband owed, and Cynthia Erivo as Belle, Linda’s babysitter (yes, I know she isn’t a widow. But she’s needed as a driver). Each actress is impressive in her own right, yet Davis and Debicki steal the show. Davis fully embodies the strong leading role in the heist while she deeply mourns the loss of her affectionate husband in private. Debicki’s character longingly yearns for a better life while at the same time resigning herself to what must be done to survive.
The problem is that the different plot points are not interwoven effectively at all. One part of the movie solely focuses on the heist, while the next is on the election. In addition, there is not conclusion to half of the storylines. The women all get a fitting finale, but the election and the Manning brothers’ plotlines are merely brushed over at the end. We aren’t even allowed to see what happens to them after the election. The results are told to us via the radio. The different plotlines are almost like entirely separate films, the only links being Jamal and, of course, the superb filmmaking.
“Widows”, despite its narrative flaws (which also include a very pointless plot twist that adds nothing to the film), is a well-made film. The cinematography is enthralling. Whether the camera statically stares into the eyes of its protagonists or wildly circles nervous gang members, the visceral nature of the interactions between the characters is felt. Two scenes of particular exceptionality are: a long take of Jack’s car driving from the “run-down” neighborhood to the “affluent” one, where the camera is mounted on the car and is an objective observer, and a scene where Jatemme threateningly circles two goons who have displeased him. The first is as ironic, heartbreaking, and authentic as the second is terrifying, dizzying, and shocking.
The cast aside from the widows does a stellar job. Farrell does a great job portraying the oft-conflicted Mulligan, while Duvall is tremendous as his father. He is blatantly racist, and Duvall makes him easily despicable. However, there is another level to his character that Duvall elicits: he is a character to pitied as well. His empire is on the verge of collapse, and the disappointment he sees in his son is etched into Duvall’s balding head and creased lines.
“Widows” is a thoroughly entertaining flick. McQueen attempts to balance crafting an artsy film and a popcorn flick, and while he doesn’t quite achieve the former, “Widows” certainly embodies a high-level version of the latter. It is one of the most enjoyable pictures of the year. The plots are a pleasure to watch, and the superb acting on display is an attractive draw. Even if “Widows” doesn’t fulfill on its very ambitious structural promise, in the end, the extraordinarily high level of filmmaking capacity leaves you wanting more.
{★★★☆}