Rating: 3.5/5
Synopsis:
Director Ari Aster continues to push the boundaries with his filmmaking. Here, he decides to examine the year 2020, where COVID-19 lockdowns and social unrest plague the country. It even reaches small towns like Eddington, New Mexico, where a disgruntled sheriff feels that the mask mandates are a government overreach. He decides to challenge the current mayor, who appears to be the voice of reason on the surface. However, as more events take place…we see that even he has hidden ambitions that may cause a rapid change to this small town. What follows is a tumultuous and unrelenting conflict that pits the public against one another, leaving the citizens to be victims of deceit, distrust, and misinformation.
Positives:
“Eddington” is a film that caught my interest while stirring a wave of concern due to the tense political nature of the film. To my surprise, the film has more to say than expected. Ari Aster is more interested in examining the delicate line between civility and lawlessness when it comes to contemporary causes. We see a small town in New Mexico that gets caught in the crossfire of narcissism and misinformation. This predicament is meant to be viewed from a perspective that feels relatable. But we also see how close to home these events feel, where people we know behave in such an outrageous way due to a perceived connection to a cause. The events of 2020 are explored in a way that is humorous at times, but also concerning to believe that people actually behave in such an intense way. What I loved about the film is that it examines these events in a way that pokes fun and criticizes both the left and the right. Each side’s talking points and perspectives are highlighted where misinformation is a key component of social unrest. We see those in power weaponize campaign slogans, the media, and people’s fear to their advantage. We also see citizens who use these causes as tools to get what they want, even if they don’t care about said cause. The film is fascinating on so many levels, so credit to Ari Aster for crafting a story that left me pondering the events long after the film ended.
The film also has lots of visual symbolism that is likely to be missed unless close attention is paid. Whether it be campaign slogans, different objects in the background, or even the creepy dolls created by one of the characters, there is a lot to unpack that is weaved throughout the plot. It is one of those circumstances that would benefit from multiple viewings (if one is willing to subject themselves to this material on several occasions). The performances across the board are awesome. The story circles around Joaquin Phoenix’s character, who has more going on than resentment to mask mandates. His character is one filled with regret and trauma. His mental deterioration throughout the film is showcased through his perceived loss of power as a sheriff and a husband. The film can be viewed through his perspective, but also reflects the unraveling of society as a whole. Pedro Pascal plays the mayor, whose calm and welcoming persona is just a blanket for larger ambitions. Luke Grimes, Emma Stone, Austin Butler, and other cast members each contribute in unique ways that help this story come together. If I can compliment the film in any way, it’s that the story is unlike anything I’ve seen before (mostly for the better).
Negatives:
Ari Aster again tests his audience where most other filmmakers would play it safe. This is likely going to create an experience that is one of the most polarizing films of the year. I can imagine audiences who skew in different political directions claiming the film supports their ideas, where it actually pokes holes in both sides of the debate. The film is more concerned with examining the polarization and division caused by these events rather than picking a side. It highlights the extreme behavior that everyone can get caught between. In doing so, the film tries to examine a lot. I don’t think every idea introduced gets the care it needs to feel integral to the overall story. Many issues and perspectives are showcased here. There is so much going on in one movie that some ideas feel less explored than others. Much like Aster’s other films, the runtime is too long. The story lingers in certain scenes where it feels more like a stylistic choice rather than a compelling reason to stay in said scene. If Aster made better use of deliberation in these sequences, the runtime could have been trimmed or each idea could be explored in a more profound way. The final act in particular felt extended beyond its natural runtime. Then again, the film doesn’t drag as long as “Beau is Afraid”, so credit where it’s due.
Conclusion:
Ari Aster’s exploration of the 2020 craze is sure to turn heads. While the subject matter won’t be for everyone, it will be rewarding for those who give it a chance. It thrives on its character driven narrative, where each character is seemingly intertwined to one another due to the unrest happening in the town. This exposes larger issues about society, where power grabs and weaponization of outrage become the norm. It also highlights a greater idea that events like this could be larger distractions to keep the public occupied while larger, more sinister events are taking place. This outrage seemingly makes little change while a larger shift in power happens right under the nose of these characters. The film could have been tightened up in the narrative department and made better use of its runtime. But even so, “Eddington” is a fascinating film to dissect and one that I will be thinking about for a while.
