Crazy Like a Fox

Nothing at the 2004 Savannah Film Festival was quite as frustrating to watch as the non-dimensional, feature-length helping of twisted Southern principles, "Crazy Like a Fox." The plot: A man sells his house to rich snobs and, after being tricked, changes his mind. He manages to conjure up the support of his fellow Southern folk in an effort to drive the outsiders out of their town. U.K. actor Roger Rees plays Nat Banks, a Virginian farmer who even after living his whole life in the South still hasn't been able to stop speaking with a British accent (seriously, he does, and without explanation).

The bad guys, played like cartoon characters, manage to purchase Nat's house fairly and squarely. Unable to deal, Nat begins camping out on their property. Eventually, he musters the courage to seize the house with the support of the police, judges and anyone else who doesn't care about breaking the law.

Perplexing and ultimately unsettling, "Crazy Like a Fox" argues that law, order and a free market are not valued in Virginia and that rich, snobby people are mean and should be kicked out of small towns. More astounding than this movie being accepted into the film festival is the fact that someone, somewhere, funded this 98-minute disaster.

I loved this movie. I live in an area where the surrounding countryside is being eaten up by fast-growing townhouse communities and their accompanying shopping malls, and where most of the local legislators are too busy slurping at the real estate developers' trough to take any notice of the fast-fading farmland. Crazy Like a Fox shows what happens when neighbors unite to help one of their friends, played wonderfully by Roger Rees. Rees, who mistrusts everyone including his own wife and his good friend the real estate agent , fights back against the forced sale of his estate by moving to a cave on the property. Somehow, Rees manages to make that bizarre action seem like the only rational choice.

Christina Rouner and Paul Fitzgerald, as the wealthy city lawyers who are clearly looking to make even bigger bucks in real estate investments, are terrific. Not only do they look the part -- young, attractive, well-dressed -- but they are both able to convey the subtle signs of "I'm- ever- so- much- better- than- you- are-ism" without forcing the issue. And Howard Koons (in what I gather must be his first movie role) is absolutely wonderful as the hired hand, lack of teeth and all.

Right up there with the acting is the photography. It is achingly beautiful, capturing the Virginia countryside in all its glory. The score, written by the director, is perfect.

Even if your town isn't (yet) threatened by developers, Crazy Like a Fox should still be on your list. This is a thoughtful, beautiful and sometimes very funny movie you'll think about long after the last credit has faded from view.

Crazy Like a Fox is a deeply flawed film that nonetheless has its merits. Well acted (mostly) and beautifully filmed, the movie suffers from a ham handed script and dubious direction. The plot when analyzed simply doesn't make much sense. The occasional voiceovers do more to muddle the story than to clarify:

Nate (Rees) sells his historically rich but dilapidated house, finds out the new owners want to tear it down and decides to live for months in a cave on the edge of the property (in Civil War military garb). When the owners go out of town he moves back in as a squatter. He elicits the sympathy and help of the locals, the sheriff and the local judge who back him up despite the fact he is clearly in violation of the law and collectively and somewhat inexplicably they eventually drive the new owners away.

OK, sure we're sympathetic to ruthless developers raping the land, but what exactly did Nate living in a cave accomplish other than cast doubt on his sanity? And are we to be sympathetic to people who take the law into their own hands, and use nepotism and small town politics to usurp the rule of law simply because they don't like outsiders? Who exactly then are the bad guys?

Shakespearean actor Roger Rees in his first film role is generally good, problems with his accent aside and Mary McDonnel gives a very nice performance. One feels that both would have done better with more coherent direction. The cinematography and the score (by Washington composer David Kane) are both first rate.

All in all, CLAF represents opportunities lost.

One of the most beautiful opening sequences ever filmed starts this movie out on a positive note. The actors are so well cast that you will find it hard to believe they are acting. The young and beautiful villains are so very, very real. At the same time the "hero" is older and not very well shaven, but you feel his pain with every scene. He embodies several generations of Southern Gentlemen. He loves his home, his land and his heritage with a love that is palpable and endlessly enduring.

This story wrenches your emotions this way and that as practicality takes a backseat to honor. The well-fare of his well loved previous employees hangs in the balance. A threat to the very existence of his family home forces the hero to make some unusual decisions and bend the law considerably.

The photography is superb. It is both moving and heart-wrenching when one knows that so much of that same land is about to be paved over with "progress". Nature is given a brilliant part in the over all list of characters. And what an actress she turns out to be!

This film should be required "watching" for anyone thinking of exchanging city living for a country experience. Can you tell? I LOVED this film. See it and judge for yourself!

I was delighted to be part of the audience when this film was shown in Washington, DC,at the National Museum of Women in the Arts. The storyline reflected a frequently overlooked "scenario" that is part of many small, southern towns, i.e., the mandatory sale of large, plantation style houses because they are too expensive to maintain in today's economy. I thought each of the actors demonstrated an "honest" portrayal of the emotions and internal conflicts that would be a part of this kind of situation, especially when these homes have been in families for many generations. I also think this movie was sensitive to another part of this scenario that is seldom addressed, because in today's world it is not considered "politically correct." In many instances, some of these changes adversely affected the domestic staff, because they considered themselves to be part of these families. With that being said, I think that Myrrh Cauthen gave dignity and honesty to the role of the housekeeper. And, this story was carried out amid the beautiful scenery that is part of rural Virginia. Great Job.