The Southerner

Beautifully shot, absorbing film about the close-knit Tucker clan - Sam (Zachary Scott), the handsome dad who loves being a farmer, Nona (Betty Field), a good wife and mother who always seems to look well-groomed in spite of her hard work, two really cute kids, and then there's ornery old Granny (Beulah Bondi), she of the sharp tongue and stubborn will. In a gorgeously photographed scene where they are working for hire in the bright, sunlit fields picking cotton - the couple watches as their Uncle dies in the fields saying in his last breath "Grow your own crops", and they decide to do just that. Soon they have rented a property where they can raise cotton and be their own masters, so to speak - well, the house turns out to be nothing but a broken-down, ramshackle shack, the whole place needs loads and loads of work - but one good thing" it has "good earth". Troubles ensue - trouble with the neighbors, trouble getting food, sickness troubles, weather troubles, oh brother!

Well, this is an excellent, heartfelt, and well photographed film done in an unusual, distinctive style. The actors who play the Tucker family do a good job in making this actually seem like a real family and make you want to root for them - but it is Beulah Bondi as cantankerous Granny who really steals this film for me - I really enjoyed her scenes and thought they added a little spice to this! The hardships this clan has to go through can be hard to watch sometimes, but the story is involving and the film is quite memorable.

"The Southerner" is a very good film starring Zachary Scott, Betty Field, Beulah Bondi, Norman Lloyd, J. Carrol Naish, and Blanche Yurka. It's the story of a man, Sam Tucker, working as a cotton picker along with his wife and parents. As his father lays dying in the field, he tells his son to own his own land. Sam quits his job and makes arrangements to work the land of his former boss, with the goal of ownership. He's not welcome by his closest neighbor (Naish) and the house on the land is nothing but a shack. The family nearly starves during the winter; the daughter can't go to school because she doesn't have a coat; his son falls ill with "spring sickness" (probably rickets). Nevertheless, Sam and Nona (Field) keep working, Sam knowing that working the land and feeling the sun is the only way he can live.

This is a very absorbing film. You not only see, but feel the struggles of the family and how hard they work no matter the odds, with strength and determination.

Betty Field was a good choice as Nona - she's plain and tired-looking, with a bright smile. The devotion she has to Sam and he to her is very touching. As a couple, she and Scott are very effective. Beulah Bondi is very good as the irascible, annoying, wizened grandmother either complaining or predicting doom and gloom. Naish gives an excellent performance as a jealous and unhelpful neighbor, and Norman Lloyd is appropriately slimy as his worker. It's always hard to relate the skinny Lloyd, who usually played villains, with the older, revered Dr. Auschlander in "St. Elsewhere" - he's had quite a career. As of this writing, he's 93 and still working.

Zachary Scott is okay as Sam but it's not a comfortable fit. The part required more warmth, more depth, and more internal grit; it's a Henry Fonda role. Still, for not being Scott's normal type of sophisticated or villainous part, he handles it well.

A good film, beautifully directed by Jean Renoir, who was nominated for an Oscar. There are some stunning cinematic moments as well. Worth watching for sure.

The opening shot amounts to a wonderfully compelling hymnal to the land and those who toil there, while the rest of the movie attempts to follow through with that noble theme. There's no doubt that this is one of the most laudable movie projects to come out of the decade. But for all the earnest concern, there's still too much of the theatrical for my liking. I know, the film is generally hailed by critics, and there's much to be said for its consistent down-and-dirty look at the plight of the southern share-cropper. But there's also a staginess to many of the characters and scenes that blemishes director Renoir's naturalistic approach.

Consider Beulah Bondi's over-the-top turn as Granny. She's supposed to offer amusingly caustic comments on events as relief from the rigors of the plot. The trouble is that both she and the camera rub our nose in the role. They just as well have hung a sign around her neck saying "crusty old woman". The bad make-up job doesn't help either and serves as a constant reminder that the Tuckers are after all only a make-believe family. Since she's a central character, the flaws in her wild eye-rolling performance are hard to ignore.

The other acting is fine, especially from Scott in the lead role as Sam. However, both he and wife Nona (Field) are more stereotypes than multi-dimensional people. He's the noble, tireless worker, and so is she. Together, they are unwavering in their support of each other and the farm. And when Sam does waver after the flood, it's Nona providing the strength to persevere. Thus, it's the whole family and not just Sam plowing the field that will make the farm a success. That's a good point for the script to make. The trouble is that Sam and Nona are simply too good to be believable in the face of all the adversity. At least one breakdown scene where the emotional toll of the wrenching burdens is expressed would have added a more human dimension. Writer Renoir is simply too insistent on the nobility of the two characters, turning them more into symbols than complex real people.

On the other hand, the hostile neighbor Devers (Naish) is the most interesting of the characters. His dark resentful nature would appear to come from uncredited co-writer William Faulkner who specialized in such Gothic personalities. The real agonizing story of what it means to start up a farm is told by the embittered old man in what I take to be the movie's central scene. He's made a success, but that success has made him hard and mean, and now he lives in fear of anyone rising above him. I wish the screenplay had not betrayed that dark impact for the price of a big fish in what strikes me as a very implausible turn- around scene on the riverbank.

The film's virtues are pretty obvious. There's a real effort at showing rural poverty and its effects on people, never a Hollywood biggie. When little Daisy lovingly puts on the crude blanket-coat, I was reminded of a world so easily passed over in a nation of commercialized malls. Ditto the well-done possum feast, where the simple act of eating means so much more. And especially when the family and we gather around the little hearth fire to peer into the glow through eyes much more ancient than our own. These are indelible scenes that transcend the movie screen and alone are worth the price of the movie.

Maybe it took a European auteur outside the usual studio framework to want to deal as honestly as possible with such a non-commercial theme. But the location shooting and insistence on the unglamorous, even down to the very unHollywood barfly, add up to what looks like an effort at honest depiction. Of course, Renoir's well-known humanism and rollicking humor show up in the party scene in what amounts to a folk celebration of life and community. Then too, there's that telling scene between Sam and Tim (Kemper) where each comes to appreciate the contributions of the other in supplying the community's needs. Whatever the film's regrettable flaws, the message remains a powerful one that needs constant retelling, especially in our own cynical times. Too bad Renoir didn't stay on this side of the Atlantic. His influence on our own movie-makers would have pushed them in a much needed direction.

Life in Renoir films is always one damned thing - or one absorbing incident - after another, which is why the ideal Renoir film (a) sticks to the one subject, or the one place ("Grand Illusion" WOULD be as great as everyone says it is, if only it didn't wander about so), and (b) doesn't even purport to have a plot. (Not that the second requirement matters so much as the first.) In any case, the material Renoir had here suited him down to the ground. The fact that the central character is tied to the land, the fact that he has a clear goal (to survive by means of farming) without having any particular quest, allows Renoir to let whatever will happen, happen, without there being any danger of the film falling apart.

A delightfully warm film, but one with a real bite. It carries a real charge when the established farmer, after treating the newcomer with such unjustified coldness you start to feel he must be positively evil, begins to reveal his humanity and open up a little - only to describe, in detail, why he's so bitter - and determined to remain bitter. But this is just one perfectly realised scene among many. There's so MUCH to this film, not one segment of which could profitably be lost - except, of course, the minute-long spoken prologue, which contributes about as much to the overall effect as Cecil B. DeMille's anti-communist rant contributes to "The Ten Commandments". But ignore that last nit-pick.

I have a copy of this movie and have watched it several times. Most of my family has as well. My father has a speaking part in the movie. His name is Isadore J. Blanco and is the 17 year old that is featured while working out in the field. My father passed away On Veterans Day November 12, 1996. He was a wonderful human being and it's a joy to be able to see and hear him speak as a teenager.

Many of the younger generation do not know of the lives of these poor field working families. Many of the older children did not complete elementary school because working to put food on the table was much more important. Survival was what drove these families. Many young men later enlisted in the military to better their lives.