Convicts

I don't know what to make of this film. It is certainly original and well-crafted. Duvall is outstanding as usual, as well as the supporting cast. Overall, the acting is superb, even young Horace, who is a bit stilted in his role, but that is the way the story is written. The plot never goes anywhere, and that is what is disappointing - the unidimensional nature of the story. More of a character study than a story. All in all, I may feel more strongly about the film in time, because it is the sort of cinema that stays with you, and that is the mark of a good film, anyway. Definitely unique and different and if you enjoy quirky movie, you may like this one.

If you care for fine acting and excellent characterization, try this film. It doesn't take the commercial, slick, easy approach to the storyline about the reason for use of convict labor on Southern plantations, or about the treatment of the convicts unlucky enough to be doing time at hard labor. Filled with well-thought-out glimpses of the declining southern gentry, the economics of plantation ownership, racism, and other tough subjects, it is also a commentary on human fragility.

Robert Duvall is one of America's treasures. He should be given a Lifetime Achievement Award annually at the Academy Award ceremonies, and this film allows him to demonstrate, once again, how it's done. If you agree, by all means run, don't walk, to your nearest video store and rent "Rambling Rose", another of Duvall's gems...which, incidentally, also co-stars Lukas Haas, another underrated and terrific actor, as he shows in "Convicts". Most of Lukas' contribution is in the form of reaction to Duvall's ramblings, but the two of them, along with everyone else in the film, create a marvelous since of realism. Duvall is a mentally addled old drunk who can't remember that he said the same thing to you a few minutes ago, or what you told him, and it's to Duvall's credit that he manages to avoid being boring, as this sort of character so easily could have been. Duvall's character is also disreputable and mistreats the convict labor he has contracted for to work on his farm, but still you empathize with him. Lukas is, as always, wide-eyed (no one had larger eyes, or used them better) and innocent but not stupid. Horton Foote provided realistic dialog and a sure sense of place. This is a film not only to enjoy, but to study.

"Convicts" is very much a third act sort of film. All the dialogue and character interaction that occurs within it comes out of the long wind-down of a late southern day. And, by extension, the life of its main character, Soll (Robert Duvall).

This is the first collaboration of director Peter Masterson and writer Horton Foote. Six years earlier, the worked together on "The Trip to Bountiful", a film that seems almost action-packed in comparison to this one. Masterson is not necessarily a good director. In fact, he's just barely this side of adequate. The slow pace leaves a lot of room for cinematographer Toyomichi Kurita, who infuses the film with just the right sense of fragile light & warmth.

Because this is essentially a filmed play, with little in the way of editing or directing prowess, it all comes to the acting. As far as I'm concerned there's no flaws here. Robert Duvall and James Earl Jones, two of the best American actors (both born in January 1931), create characters that are wholly real, uninterested in anything besides living. Lukas Haas, a young actor who I was familiar with from "Testament" and "Witness", plays a character very much like his other early roles. He is quiet, withdrawn, slightly scared and sad, somehow. These are qualities that seem natural from him.

Perhaps a title like "Convicts" is a disservice to this film. That title, along with the opening scene, seem to create an image of a far more high-strung western type picture. If slow-paced stage productions don't interest you terribly, you'll want to pass on this one as well. Otherwise, this might be exactly the film you wish they made more often.

Enjoy.

Like many stage adaptations, this film is a collection of set pieces without a tight overarching narrative. Not only is it adapted from the stage, but from the middle of a three-act play, which serves to remove some of the context; the viewer is just plopped into the middle of this one.

I thought the performances were good overall, but the production was somewhat lacking. Perhaps the streaming version I saw was a bad transfer, but the cinematography was nothing to write home about, the contrast was way too high in many of the daylight scenes, and the colors looked as if the film was shot on old, faded film stock.

A bit of a strange soundtrack too, but I liked it and I thought it was fitting.

I would recommend it if you like Foote, Faulkner, or Duvall.