John Sayles' "Lone Star" is, above all else, a film about the past, personal and historical, and its impact on the citizens of a small Texas town. The opening of the film sets up the theme quite nicely - we can imagine what kind of past Sayles is exploring here when two bullet collectors discover the skeleton of a corrupt sheriff. Surely, it's not a past of flowers and rainbows, but a dark and sordid one, full of conflict, greed and power struggles. Thus it comes as a surprise that a film about people who attempt to uncover the mystery and deal with the findings ends so neatly. In doing so "Lone Star" misses greatness, but it is hardly a bad film.
That's because Sayles understands the interaction between temporal ecstasies rather well. The past affects the present and vice-versa. He shows us that we derive our identity from the past, our sense of belonging and of community. We see this illustrated through the mosaic of stories, a form of narrative brought to its perfection in "Magnolia" or "13 Conversations About One Thing." There is the sheriff played superbly by the pre-"American Beauty" Chris Cooper who gets drawn into the mystery out of duty and because of his father, in whose shadow he lives. There is his former love interest, a Mexican teacher who attempts to justify teaching a more complex version of Texan history to the kids, only to be countered by the white minority of Rio County. And we have Colonel Delmore Payne played by Terminator-2-black-guy-who-dies-to-save-the-future Joe Morton whose misconception of the past prevents a relationship with his father.
The past affects the way these characters perceive themselves, others and it steers the choices they make. However Sayles' film would be incomplete if it settled for a one-sided relationship between the past and the present. Sayles is aware of this. The present, after all, also impacts they way the characters perceive the past. Cooper's Sheriff Sam Deeds is influenced by the image of his father in his investigation. The white parents of school kids carry certain biases which prevent them from understanding the complexity of the past.
These interactions are fascinating when they are unraveling. Relationships build, racial and generational conflicts emerge, perceptions change and choices are made. All this occurs against a large temporal backdrop, but it comes to a far too conclusive end. While you're watching "Lone Star," the atmosphere comes alive, but by its conclusion, it becomes clear that it's a neatly dissected tale about intersecting stories that were designed to come together. The film detaches itself from the viewer and says "all that was supposed to happen happened exactly as planned - you may go." The problem, of course, is that the issues presented by the film should not be entirely resolved. Yes, the mystery of the skeleton, which really occurs in the background (though it drives the story), should arguably be explained. But the rest - it seems like Sayles put a lot of effort into characters that aren't allowed to argue, conflict and interact after the credits.
Still, that's just me quibbling because I really wanted more. The truth of the matter is that "Lone Star" is a remarkably structured and directed film. It's got phenomenal performances by Chris Cooper (who always stars in *almost* great films - e.g. "Adaptation" or "American Beauty"), Kris Kristofferson as the skeleton before he becomes one and Matthew McConaughey (whom I generally don't like) as Cooper's father. "Lone Star" is worth seeing because it has the makings of a great film. It just isn't one.
That's because Sayles understands the interaction between temporal ecstasies rather well. The past affects the present and vice-versa. He shows us that we derive our identity from the past, our sense of belonging and of community. We see this illustrated through the mosaic of stories, a form of narrative brought to its perfection in "Magnolia" or "13 Conversations About One Thing." There is the sheriff played superbly by the pre-"American Beauty" Chris Cooper who gets drawn into the mystery out of duty and because of his father, in whose shadow he lives. There is his former love interest, a Mexican teacher who attempts to justify teaching a more complex version of Texan history to the kids, only to be countered by the white minority of Rio County. And we have Colonel Delmore Payne played by Terminator-2-black-guy-who-dies-to-save-the-future Joe Morton whose misconception of the past prevents a relationship with his father.
The past affects the way these characters perceive themselves, others and it steers the choices they make. However Sayles' film would be incomplete if it settled for a one-sided relationship between the past and the present. Sayles is aware of this. The present, after all, also impacts they way the characters perceive the past. Cooper's Sheriff Sam Deeds is influenced by the image of his father in his investigation. The white parents of school kids carry certain biases which prevent them from understanding the complexity of the past.
These interactions are fascinating when they are unraveling. Relationships build, racial and generational conflicts emerge, perceptions change and choices are made. All this occurs against a large temporal backdrop, but it comes to a far too conclusive end. While you're watching "Lone Star," the atmosphere comes alive, but by its conclusion, it becomes clear that it's a neatly dissected tale about intersecting stories that were designed to come together. The film detaches itself from the viewer and says "all that was supposed to happen happened exactly as planned - you may go." The problem, of course, is that the issues presented by the film should not be entirely resolved. Yes, the mystery of the skeleton, which really occurs in the background (though it drives the story), should arguably be explained. But the rest - it seems like Sayles put a lot of effort into characters that aren't allowed to argue, conflict and interact after the credits.
Still, that's just me quibbling because I really wanted more. The truth of the matter is that "Lone Star" is a remarkably structured and directed film. It's got phenomenal performances by Chris Cooper (who always stars in *almost* great films - e.g. "Adaptation" or "American Beauty"), Kris Kristofferson as the skeleton before he becomes one and Matthew McConaughey (whom I generally don't like) as Cooper's father. "Lone Star" is worth seeing because it has the makings of a great film. It just isn't one.