First let me say at the very outset that I did enjoy this film; I thought that the acting, with one or two glaring exceptions, was superb and the story was both important and well-told. The last thing I want to do is throw any shade on attempts to tell tough stories about the reality of the modern economy. Forty years ago, "Roger and Me" really opened my eyes to the reasons and consequences for the collapse of the middle class. "99 Homes" I think attempts to do much the same thing- and, as I said, I did enjoy this film- but also fails on a number of levels.
First- the ethos of the film seems to be that if you are already in a home and you are earnest in your belief that the house belongs to you, missing mortgage payments simply should not matter. If a bank requires a homeowner to live up to his contract, that bank is Evil and Wrong, especially if the homeowner has a wife and kids or is a senior citizen. In short, home ownership is a Sacred Right. I wonder if the writer of this film has the same grace toward renters who don't pay their rent- can we be evicted if we fail to pay? What if we have children? Is the right to renege on a contract exclusive to people who buy property?
Second- Laura Dern's character is just infuriating throughout the whole film. She lives with her son and grandson and "runs a business" (is a hairdresser) out of the home. She worries about money when they are forced to move into a motel but makes no effort to get an actual job that would pay a regular salary, being perfectly comfortable to put the entire burden on her son. Then she rages at her son for taking a job foreclosing homes- a job which will get them out of the motel and back into their home. Then, when he decides to sell the family home to buy a better one, she flies off the handle, insisting that she wants "their" home back and will not live in the new house.
Um, the old family home is not yours, lady. Your son bought it. He can sell it if he wants. What is the matter with you? Why are you acting as if you have a say in this? But it gets worse- she decides to take her GRANDSON away with her rather than live in the beautiful new house. Um, excuse me? How does she have the right to do this? Isn't this kidnapping? THAT IS NOT YOUR SON, LADY. If you "can't" live in the new house, there's the door. But you don't take the boy with you. What planet are you from, anyway?
Third- with one exception, every single person who faces eviction in this film is a victim of their own choices, yet acts as if they are under attack by "The Economy" and "The Rich" and "The Banks." At one point the "bad" guy points out that one couple failed to make their mortgage payments after taking out a stupid loan to add an extension they didn't need. That improvement could just as easily have been a swimming pool or a Disney vacation- it was a decision to borrow money which must now be repaid, but we are told to be angry at the creditors. The one exception is the guy at the end who keeps his house because of a technicality (an unfiled legal form) and not because he actually paid his mortgage. Warms the heart, it does.
I don't know- maybe I'm just getting cold-blooded in my old age, but my empathy meter didn't move much during this film (except for the widowed old guy who got scammed by a reverse mortgage; I felt bad for him.) Maybe it's because I've rented my entire adult life and even during the great housing fire sale of 2008 I didn't take the jump and tie myself down to 30 years of payments I was not sure I could make. Am I really supposed to have sympathy for people who have lived in appreciating assets during the same time but for some reason failed to make their payments? Because I don't. Someone explain to me why I should.
Michael Shannon is not a villain in this film, Andrew Garfield is not a villain in this film, and Laura Dern is not a heroine in this film (she's just a screechy anchor around her son's neck. And a kidnapper.) Ok, I'm done.
No comments:
Post a Comment