Powerful drama, seems like a Greek tragedy, about poor rural life in Arkansas with no way out for every character to explore and find their dreams and how this way of life drive them to desperation, loneliness and human loss for two families. Acting in silence from the unknown but very solid in their roles Michael Shannon (Son), Douglas Ligon (Boy) and Barlow Jacobs (Kid) as the three brothers. First Attempt to direct from Jeff Nichols (who also wrote the script and produced the movie) ,with beautiful cinematography, winner of New American Cinema Award in Seattle International Film Festival, this is a chilling, tragic and original story to see.
42 Reviews
kept me awake
manofgirth2 February 2009
I must start by explaining the summary comment. I put this in the DVD at 11:30pm after watching the Superbowl and doing the required beer drinking that goes with that. I was pretty sure I would be re-watching "Shotgun Stories" in the morning as I planned to fall asleep. I was amazed that a very slow moving, no real action to speak of movie did such a great job of keeping my interest up. Kicked it out of the DVD at 1:00am, reminded myself to find out who the star was and see what else he had been in since I do not remember him from anything. Michael Shannon is a great friggin actor. I had no interest at all in "Revolutionary Road" but will see it now just to watch his Oscar nominated work.
"Shotgun Stories" is well worth the hour and a half. You may find yourselves waiting for something big to happen and then realize it did without the gun play or explosions.
"Shotgun Stories" is well worth the hour and a half. You may find yourselves waiting for something big to happen and then realize it did without the gun play or explosions.
"Shotgun Stories" is a moody melodrama of Southern rural life smartly observed.
nesfilmreviews16 June 2013
"Shotgun Stories" is a moody melodrama of Southern rural life smartly observed. Jeff Nichols shoots his first feature film, trusting the scenery, the faces of his actors creating the atmosphere while he relies on small town, everyday life circumstances for character building. "Shotgun Stories" is a tragedy that unfolds beautifully as an intimate family drama. It serves as a passionate cry to end senseless violence, as well as a stark reminder that we possess the power to determine our own destinies.
Set against the backdrop of rural Arkansas, "Shotgun Stories" follows an escalating feud between two sets of half-brothers who differ in every way, except for one side of their parental heritage. We are first introduced to Son (Michael Shannon), Boy (Dougls Ligon), and Kid Hayes (Barlow Jacobs), born to a drunken father who didn't have the decency to give his offspring names, and rejected by a mother who was too bitter to care for them. The father decides to abandon his first family to find sobriety, God, and to begin a new life with another family. He fathers four more sons who were given the real names and the upbringing they deserved. The second Hayes family owns a cotton and soybean farm and is comfortably middle class. Son, in contrast, works at a fish hatchery and loses all his money trying to perfect a "system" he thinks can beat the local casino. Kid sleeps in a tent in Son's yard, and Boy lives in a van by the river. When their father dies the sets of brothers are brought together at his funeral, and their previously harbored hostilities erupt and further escalate.
Nichols makes a point not to show us the actual violence on screen. He often cuts away at the critical moments of a confrontation, and it is Nichols' approach to film making that strips away any glamour associated with the violence while being consistent with his message.
It should be noted that the pacing here is pretty slow – albeit realistically so. Thankfully the performances alone are sufficient to keep this counter-revenge tragedy on track. The performances are uniformly excellent with veteran character actor Michael Shannon as the film's emotional anchor. There is plenty to enjoy in "Shotgun Stories," just don't anticipate all the fireworks.
Set against the backdrop of rural Arkansas, "Shotgun Stories" follows an escalating feud between two sets of half-brothers who differ in every way, except for one side of their parental heritage. We are first introduced to Son (Michael Shannon), Boy (Dougls Ligon), and Kid Hayes (Barlow Jacobs), born to a drunken father who didn't have the decency to give his offspring names, and rejected by a mother who was too bitter to care for them. The father decides to abandon his first family to find sobriety, God, and to begin a new life with another family. He fathers four more sons who were given the real names and the upbringing they deserved. The second Hayes family owns a cotton and soybean farm and is comfortably middle class. Son, in contrast, works at a fish hatchery and loses all his money trying to perfect a "system" he thinks can beat the local casino. Kid sleeps in a tent in Son's yard, and Boy lives in a van by the river. When their father dies the sets of brothers are brought together at his funeral, and their previously harbored hostilities erupt and further escalate.
Nichols makes a point not to show us the actual violence on screen. He often cuts away at the critical moments of a confrontation, and it is Nichols' approach to film making that strips away any glamour associated with the violence while being consistent with his message.
It should be noted that the pacing here is pretty slow – albeit realistically so. Thankfully the performances alone are sufficient to keep this counter-revenge tragedy on track. The performances are uniformly excellent with veteran character actor Michael Shannon as the film's emotional anchor. There is plenty to enjoy in "Shotgun Stories," just don't anticipate all the fireworks.
Hoolywood Blockbuster, No.
EXodus25X28 July 2008
This film is not an action movie like the title might imply, far from in in fact, it is slow moving yet relentless in it's growing tension. You feel that it will all reach a breaking point eventually and that's what kept me interested, along with very believable performance from the entire case. I don't want to get into any of the plot for fear of spoiling anything so I won't. I knew very little going in and I think that was for the best. I'm not trying to make it sound like this is a film full of big twists, because it's not, but what it is, is a film of moments, key moments that define the film, it's story and it's characters. These moments at times are surprises and other times inevitability. All said this story is well done, I do believe it could have been done better by a different cast and some rewrites, but that's not to say that this is a bad film at all, for what it was and what it had it all feels both good and right.
Powerful film-making about the futility of hostility
paulmartin-226 July 2007
This is a chilling film made with minimal resources that grabs you by the jugular and doesn't let go - a family tragedy that reeks of Shakespeare. A father has died leaving two sets of sons behind (by different mothers). The older sons were abandoned when young and when they turn up at the funeral held by the younger sons, old hostilities surface. Much of the narrative unfolds without explicit explanation, and often with minimal dialogue. We get into the minds of the various protagonists largely by their actions.
Set in the cotton-growing region of Arkansas, it gives a view of Americans struggling in semi-rural life. The film cast is mostly with unknown actors and this is a strength that adds a level of realism to a film. While there is a sense of dreaded inevitability throughout, there is also plenty of room for the unexpected, but not in a contrived Hollywood manner. The film is both very well written and impeccably directed. Remarkably, this is a directorial debut by Jeff Nichols who also wrote and produced the film. He is definitely a talent to watch.
As a slight negative, I don't know if it was the film or the venue, but the visuals and sound didn't seem quite up to scratch. This bothered me slightly at the start, but once the story got into gear (pretty early in the piece), it was barely noticeable. I found the music enjoyable, adding ambiance without being in your face.
I saw Shotgun Stories at the Melbourne International Film Festival.
Set in the cotton-growing region of Arkansas, it gives a view of Americans struggling in semi-rural life. The film cast is mostly with unknown actors and this is a strength that adds a level of realism to a film. While there is a sense of dreaded inevitability throughout, there is also plenty of room for the unexpected, but not in a contrived Hollywood manner. The film is both very well written and impeccably directed. Remarkably, this is a directorial debut by Jeff Nichols who also wrote and produced the film. He is definitely a talent to watch.
As a slight negative, I don't know if it was the film or the venue, but the visuals and sound didn't seem quite up to scratch. This bothered me slightly at the start, but once the story got into gear (pretty early in the piece), it was barely noticeable. I found the music enjoyable, adding ambiance without being in your face.
I saw Shotgun Stories at the Melbourne International Film Festival.
Strong, authentic debut
Morten_525 August 2018
A strong debut from gifted writer-director Jeff Nichols, "Shotgun Stories" (2007) features some fine performances from Michael Shannon and the rest of the cast. It's dark but down-to-earth in the depiction of the mechanisms of poverty.
In the Name of the Father
MacAindrais17 June 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Shotgun Stories (2007) ****
Having been ignored and pushed aside by big studios and distributors, and overshadowed by big money makers, Jeff Nichols Shotgun Stories has gotten limited release. As much as I enjoy finding the hidden gems, it always makes me a little bit sad to see a film so great passed over. Filmed primarily in 2004, and released last year, Shotgun Stories has gotten a nice word of mouth and critical following. Roger Ebert announced it would play at his Overlooked Film Festival, and recently published a 4 star review.
The film centers on Son Hayes and his brothers, Boy and Kid. They were given their names by their alcoholic deadbeat father, who birthed them, left them as if they were never born, then reformed his ways, stopped drinking, became a born again Christian and fathered a new family. The boys were left, as Son says, to be "raised by a hateful woman," who taught them to hate their fathers new family, and they do. When their father dies, the brothers show up at his funeral, make an impromptu speech, which the new sons, with proper names, do not take kindly to.
Writer/director Nichols handles his film with the greatest of care. Not a word of dialogue is uttered that seems implausible. Nothing is wasted on exposition. For instance, what we know about the Father, we learn only through the brief speech made by Son at the funeral. It feels real, it feels to the point, and best of all, in a few short words it never feels like exposition. Nichols takes his time, never rushing, but wasting nothing. The end result is a visceral experience. The actors all deliver excellent performances, especially Michael Shannon, who seems to be off and on in a lot of roles. Here he is definitely on.
This film gets under your skin, takes you into the world of these characters and never lets you go. There are deaths in the film, and when it happens midway through, a sense of loss, of sadness, and of rage is felt by the audience for the remainder.
It never boils down into a standard revenge film, but simply muddles in the mundane and sad lives of its characters. Although this film exudes a sense of sadness that few other films could aspire to, its not depressing. I would not dare reveal the films resolution, only to say that it comes sensibly, after a moment of great realization. Nichols shows himself to be a serious filmmaker to watch in the future. This is a profound and wise film. And a great one too
Having been ignored and pushed aside by big studios and distributors, and overshadowed by big money makers, Jeff Nichols Shotgun Stories has gotten limited release. As much as I enjoy finding the hidden gems, it always makes me a little bit sad to see a film so great passed over. Filmed primarily in 2004, and released last year, Shotgun Stories has gotten a nice word of mouth and critical following. Roger Ebert announced it would play at his Overlooked Film Festival, and recently published a 4 star review.
The film centers on Son Hayes and his brothers, Boy and Kid. They were given their names by their alcoholic deadbeat father, who birthed them, left them as if they were never born, then reformed his ways, stopped drinking, became a born again Christian and fathered a new family. The boys were left, as Son says, to be "raised by a hateful woman," who taught them to hate their fathers new family, and they do. When their father dies, the brothers show up at his funeral, make an impromptu speech, which the new sons, with proper names, do not take kindly to.
Writer/director Nichols handles his film with the greatest of care. Not a word of dialogue is uttered that seems implausible. Nothing is wasted on exposition. For instance, what we know about the Father, we learn only through the brief speech made by Son at the funeral. It feels real, it feels to the point, and best of all, in a few short words it never feels like exposition. Nichols takes his time, never rushing, but wasting nothing. The end result is a visceral experience. The actors all deliver excellent performances, especially Michael Shannon, who seems to be off and on in a lot of roles. Here he is definitely on.
This film gets under your skin, takes you into the world of these characters and never lets you go. There are deaths in the film, and when it happens midway through, a sense of loss, of sadness, and of rage is felt by the audience for the remainder.
It never boils down into a standard revenge film, but simply muddles in the mundane and sad lives of its characters. Although this film exudes a sense of sadness that few other films could aspire to, its not depressing. I would not dare reveal the films resolution, only to say that it comes sensibly, after a moment of great realization. Nichols shows himself to be a serious filmmaker to watch in the future. This is a profound and wise film. And a great one too
Fantastic
Red_Identity24 December 2014
What a great feature film debut. Nichols shows a certain restraint and control of everything on screen here in a way that makes you think he's a pro, even if visually the fllm looks rather simple and to-the-point. The ensemble here is really fantastic, led by an always-reliable Michael Shannon. The film could've easily came off as having escalated way too quickly, and maybe even unrealistic, but Nichols manages to handle everything with restraint and, again, a clear hand of how to demonstrate a story like this realistically. This film certainly is contemplative in its nature and not a 'thrilling" film by any means, and nichols needs to be congratulated for not embracing the violence as just some entertainment.
Modern Existential Western
Waerdnotte25 June 2008
Underneath this story of a modern southern family feud, is a Ford / Wayne western struggling to get out. If you dressed the men in ten gallon hats, cowboy boots, gave them a horse, holster and guns, and shifted the story back to the end of the 19th century, you wouldn't know the difference.
However, that is what is so admirable about the movie. The fact that it is a modern take on the western, investigating the same themes and ideas. Yet, the feel of the film is more that of a seventies Americana indie movie - The sparse realistic dialogue, the vast cinematic sweeps, and the ambient washes of sound. Nichols has obviously struggled with a small budget and lack of studio interest, but he brings us a movie that shows that given more money and a more complex screenplay he could prove to be a significant directoral talent.
However, that is what is so admirable about the movie. The fact that it is a modern take on the western, investigating the same themes and ideas. Yet, the feel of the film is more that of a seventies Americana indie movie - The sparse realistic dialogue, the vast cinematic sweeps, and the ambient washes of sound. Nichols has obviously struggled with a small budget and lack of studio interest, but he brings us a movie that shows that given more money and a more complex screenplay he could prove to be a significant directoral talent.
Brothers vs. brothers
dave-sturm24 July 2010
Southern American culture is rich in storytelling tradition and part of that is the story of the blood feud. But Shotgun Stories is not about those ancient yokels, the Hatfields and the McCoys, but contemporary families in rural Arkansas.
One father, two wives. Two sets of sons. With first wife, father was an alcoholic ne'er to do well who abused his wife. The boys by this wife are poor. He cleaned up his act when he ran off with this second wife and became a farmer. The sons by this wife are middle class. The sets of sons hate each other.
The father dies. At his funeral, his first set of sons shows up, brazenly unkempt to spite the well-dressed second set of sons. The oldest makes a speech condemning the father for abandoning them, then spits on the casket. A fist fight breaks out. Vengeance is sworn.
And so the movie begins. And blood is shed.
The information above about family history does not emerge all at once. Bits are doled out as we get to know the Hayes family, the sons, their wives and girlfriends, friends (some, like Shampoo, disreputable) and their children. An often unmoving camera fixes on the details on these young men's lives, especially the older ones, Son, Kid and Boy (Yes, that's their names).
Just about everybody in the movie has known each other since childhood.
This is not a fast-paced movie, but the tension builds to almost unbearable levels as retribution leads to worse retribution. Interestingly, the most serious violence occurs off camera.
Eventually, a peacemaker emerges in a most unlikely (but maybe not) persona.
Shotgun Stories is the kind of movie film festival goers adore. Low budget. Unknown actors. Local color. Rich dialogue. Evocative cinematography.
If that's not your bag, stay away. But if it intrigues you, check this out.
One father, two wives. Two sets of sons. With first wife, father was an alcoholic ne'er to do well who abused his wife. The boys by this wife are poor. He cleaned up his act when he ran off with this second wife and became a farmer. The sons by this wife are middle class. The sets of sons hate each other.
The father dies. At his funeral, his first set of sons shows up, brazenly unkempt to spite the well-dressed second set of sons. The oldest makes a speech condemning the father for abandoning them, then spits on the casket. A fist fight breaks out. Vengeance is sworn.
And so the movie begins. And blood is shed.
The information above about family history does not emerge all at once. Bits are doled out as we get to know the Hayes family, the sons, their wives and girlfriends, friends (some, like Shampoo, disreputable) and their children. An often unmoving camera fixes on the details on these young men's lives, especially the older ones, Son, Kid and Boy (Yes, that's their names).
Just about everybody in the movie has known each other since childhood.
This is not a fast-paced movie, but the tension builds to almost unbearable levels as retribution leads to worse retribution. Interestingly, the most serious violence occurs off camera.
Eventually, a peacemaker emerges in a most unlikely (but maybe not) persona.
Shotgun Stories is the kind of movie film festival goers adore. Low budget. Unknown actors. Local color. Rich dialogue. Evocative cinematography.
If that's not your bag, stay away. But if it intrigues you, check this out.
Too Low-Key
davepitts5 February 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Here is a good film where the director makes artistic choices, shapes the material, and never goes for the sensational. The acting is very natural and the setting is interesting (small-town Arkansas.) But, having seen it two weeks ago, I've already forgotten most of the narrative. In too many scenes, the dialogue is just too ordinary and the antagonism between the characters is too plateaued. The basic plot is a blood feud between two sets of half-brothers. Outside of the feud, their lives seem to center on tapedecks, burgers, and boozing. You get the parched quality of small-town Ozarks life, but that doesn't necessarily lend to dramatic form. The scars on lead character Son's back could have been a recurring motif (and meant more); in the director's commentary you learn why that plan was abandoned. A good film which lacks the extra fire that makes you want to return to it.
One of the best American Indies of the past 10 years.
MOscarbradley10 January 2017
Jeff Nichols' debut film "Shotgun Stories" marked him out as a major talent, something than has been more than realized in the ten years since it was made. It's a great piece of back-roads Americana, thinly plotted but brilliantly observed and superbly acted by a largely unknown cast, (only a young Michael Shannon is familiar to me), as well as being beautifully photographed by Adam Stone in a style reminiscent of early Malick and the early films of one of its producers, David Gordon Greene.
It's set in rural Arkansas and deals with a family feud between two sets of half-brothers. The pace is leisurely and there's little in the way of action despite the promise of the title. When violence does finally erupt it is shocking, if not unexpected, and largely happens off-screen. It remains one of the best American Indies of the last 10 years.
It's set in rural Arkansas and deals with a family feud between two sets of half-brothers. The pace is leisurely and there's little in the way of action despite the promise of the title. When violence does finally erupt it is shocking, if not unexpected, and largely happens off-screen. It remains one of the best American Indies of the last 10 years.
We don't own the square-root of sh*t.
lastliberal25 January 2009
I've seen Michael Shannon in too many movies to mention, but he may get his due this year with an Oscar nomination for Revolutionary Road. This indie, shot in the State I spent a lot of my growing up years in, is an excellent performance for him. Most of the others in this movie about family tension and revenge are new to acting.
Wars between families and clans are nothing new. There are the famous Hatfields and McCoys, and I just watched L' Héritage (The Legacy) that had the same subject. Here, a daddy left three sons and went off to start a new family. They come together at the funeral, but the abandoned clan set off a feud when they dissed the old man.
It was a slow movie, with a few fights, and it verged on exploding, but family wins out and bloodshed is minimal.
Wars between families and clans are nothing new. There are the famous Hatfields and McCoys, and I just watched L' Héritage (The Legacy) that had the same subject. Here, a daddy left three sons and went off to start a new family. They come together at the funeral, but the abandoned clan set off a feud when they dissed the old man.
It was a slow movie, with a few fights, and it verged on exploding, but family wins out and bloodshed is minimal.
Would this be worth watching without Michael Shannon?
edebee16 February 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Would this be worth watching without Michael Shannon? I don't think it would be!
I watched this film after seeing Take Shelter which was a solid 7 maybe even an 8. Don't get me wrong Shotgun Stories kept my interest but only because of Michael Shannon. Normally for these kind of movies to keep me interested they need to have more than one or two great actors/actress. I really wonder if when this came out people were just starting to discover Michael and that's why it has a 7 rating. I was not impressed with some of the main characters performances. I do think Jeff Nichols did a great job on this one.
I watched this film after seeing Take Shelter which was a solid 7 maybe even an 8. Don't get me wrong Shotgun Stories kept my interest but only because of Michael Shannon. Normally for these kind of movies to keep me interested they need to have more than one or two great actors/actress. I really wonder if when this came out people were just starting to discover Michael and that's why it has a 7 rating. I was not impressed with some of the main characters performances. I do think Jeff Nichols did a great job on this one.
Indie mini-masterpiece
tieman6410 June 2010
Warning: Spoilers
"Blockbusters have become the laugh track to our national experiment. The very vacuousness of these films is reassuring, for they ratify for the viewer the presence of a repressive mechanism and offer momentary reprieve from anxiety with this thought: 'Enough money spent can cure anything. You are a member of a country, a part of a system capable of wasting two hundred million dollars on an hour and a half of garbage. You must be somebody.' " – David Mamet
"And it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against his brother Abel and slew him." - Genesis, 4:8
"Shotgun Stories" was the debut of director Jeff Nichols. The film merges Greek Tragedy (specifically King Lear) with the Southern Gothic genre, but is most interesting for the way it knowingly opposes or subverts traditional Hollywood action-movie mechanics.
The plot? A feud erupts between Son, Boy and Kid (those are their names in the film - the plot functions on a purely stripped down, archetypal level) and their four half-brothers. Why they're fighting is not important. Nichols is more interested in chartering both the irrational escalation of violence between the two groups of men, and his audience's predisposition to expecting or desiring violence as a form of conflict resolution.
Like a tale torn from the pages of the Old Testament, the film makes references to serpents, blind men, Cain and Abel, divided bloodlines, warring sons, kins, familial bonds and masculine heartache. There's therefore an almost Biblical portentousness to the film. It stars Michael Shannon as Son, the tragic, moral centre of the picture. Shannon's body, riddled with shotgun wounds, suggests learnt rationality and an almost preternatural wisdom borne of past pain. But though he possesses an intelligence and foresight which allows him to see where the film's cycle of violence will end, he is ultimately unable to escape the film's bloody vortex.
"An eye for an eye leaves us all blind" and "violence begets violence" are common sentiments found in "revenge movies" (and westerns, which the film resembles), but Nichols goes several steps further. He shows the film's violence to be self-perpetuating, short circuits his audience's expectations by constantly cutting away from cathartic violence, forces his audience to question its own programmed behaviour and constructs his tale such that both audience and cast must "outgrow" their basest instincts if they are to "mature". Bizarrely, while Nichols constantly undermines audience expectations, "Shotgun" feels more violent than your typical action movie.
Interesting scenes abound: one brother comments that their ghost town feels like it belongs to them whilst another points out that if he owned it, he would "sell this worthless place". The brother's are at once kings and rats, royalty and the forgotten. But the emotional and psychological heft that Nichols injects into these supposedly "smaller moments" is remarkable. From grabbing cards to dismantling a tent, the film's narrative gradually tightens. Rather than build toward violence, though, Nichols structures the film as a series of increasingly contemplative scenes. What you respond to, what you're shocked by, is the sheer weight of each violent contemplation.
As in classic Greek tragedy, a Jester or Fool character exists to relate information to the principals. Here the film's unwitting provocateur is a one eyed guy called Shampoo, through whom the film's events spiral out of control, catastrophe literally organically sprouting from a kind of blindness or myopia.
Films typically highlight acts of violence whilst underplaying the consequences of violence. Nichols inverts this. Just as it appears as though a character is about to suffer a traumatic injury, Nichols deprives the viewer of the actual image, the certain act. In one climactic moment, just as the viewer has been offered enough visual information to ascertain precisely what is about to occur, Nichols sagely cuts to black. Of course revenge and action tales (even films which purport to be "anti violence", "Unforgiven" for example, a late western) secretly relish violence. Such violence is always treated as an antidote, purgative, underlined and served up as a form of catharsis. But Nichols seems repulsed by the concept of violence being cinematically fetishized, preferring instead to linger on the toll with a sad heart.
Truffaut once said that no film which featured war could ever be considered truly antiwar. Cinema has a way of making everything about life, particularly violence, exhilaratingly delirious (even sexual; violence and sex occupy the same space). But time and time again, Nichols denies his audience the catharsis that his on screen characters actively seek. In other words, what the audience is denied and called to meditate upon is precisely which the characters are unable to deny and objectively meditate upon. What we are denied is the very cause of the film's violence.
Beyond this, the film is almost sublime in the way it conveys an air of total waste and senselessness. Conversely, it seems as though the prospect of violence is all that can lift these perpetually morose and spiritually exhausted characters out of their squalor and/or apathy. Watch too how Nichol's writes his female characters. They exist firmly outside of the boy's story - in another genre and another world itself - unable to fathom the roiling testosterone. And of course you can extrapolate much more. One can look, for example, at one of the son's actions, his desire to fight, as an attempt to escape the futility of his abysmal life by choosing a pathway to glorified suicide. Likewise, the film's inter-familial war is akin to certain recent global conflicts, unrepairable damage always escalating from a certain point which, when viewed in hindsight, is usually very petty.
Incidentally, the film was produced by David Gordon Green, a friend of Nichols. Green is heavily inspired by Terrance Malick, who would produce one of Green's own films. All three directors started off in the Southern Gothic genre.
9/10 - Worth two viewings.
"And it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against his brother Abel and slew him." - Genesis, 4:8
"Shotgun Stories" was the debut of director Jeff Nichols. The film merges Greek Tragedy (specifically King Lear) with the Southern Gothic genre, but is most interesting for the way it knowingly opposes or subverts traditional Hollywood action-movie mechanics.
The plot? A feud erupts between Son, Boy and Kid (those are their names in the film - the plot functions on a purely stripped down, archetypal level) and their four half-brothers. Why they're fighting is not important. Nichols is more interested in chartering both the irrational escalation of violence between the two groups of men, and his audience's predisposition to expecting or desiring violence as a form of conflict resolution.
Like a tale torn from the pages of the Old Testament, the film makes references to serpents, blind men, Cain and Abel, divided bloodlines, warring sons, kins, familial bonds and masculine heartache. There's therefore an almost Biblical portentousness to the film. It stars Michael Shannon as Son, the tragic, moral centre of the picture. Shannon's body, riddled with shotgun wounds, suggests learnt rationality and an almost preternatural wisdom borne of past pain. But though he possesses an intelligence and foresight which allows him to see where the film's cycle of violence will end, he is ultimately unable to escape the film's bloody vortex.
"An eye for an eye leaves us all blind" and "violence begets violence" are common sentiments found in "revenge movies" (and westerns, which the film resembles), but Nichols goes several steps further. He shows the film's violence to be self-perpetuating, short circuits his audience's expectations by constantly cutting away from cathartic violence, forces his audience to question its own programmed behaviour and constructs his tale such that both audience and cast must "outgrow" their basest instincts if they are to "mature". Bizarrely, while Nichols constantly undermines audience expectations, "Shotgun" feels more violent than your typical action movie.
Interesting scenes abound: one brother comments that their ghost town feels like it belongs to them whilst another points out that if he owned it, he would "sell this worthless place". The brother's are at once kings and rats, royalty and the forgotten. But the emotional and psychological heft that Nichols injects into these supposedly "smaller moments" is remarkable. From grabbing cards to dismantling a tent, the film's narrative gradually tightens. Rather than build toward violence, though, Nichols structures the film as a series of increasingly contemplative scenes. What you respond to, what you're shocked by, is the sheer weight of each violent contemplation.
As in classic Greek tragedy, a Jester or Fool character exists to relate information to the principals. Here the film's unwitting provocateur is a one eyed guy called Shampoo, through whom the film's events spiral out of control, catastrophe literally organically sprouting from a kind of blindness or myopia.
Films typically highlight acts of violence whilst underplaying the consequences of violence. Nichols inverts this. Just as it appears as though a character is about to suffer a traumatic injury, Nichols deprives the viewer of the actual image, the certain act. In one climactic moment, just as the viewer has been offered enough visual information to ascertain precisely what is about to occur, Nichols sagely cuts to black. Of course revenge and action tales (even films which purport to be "anti violence", "Unforgiven" for example, a late western) secretly relish violence. Such violence is always treated as an antidote, purgative, underlined and served up as a form of catharsis. But Nichols seems repulsed by the concept of violence being cinematically fetishized, preferring instead to linger on the toll with a sad heart.
Truffaut once said that no film which featured war could ever be considered truly antiwar. Cinema has a way of making everything about life, particularly violence, exhilaratingly delirious (even sexual; violence and sex occupy the same space). But time and time again, Nichols denies his audience the catharsis that his on screen characters actively seek. In other words, what the audience is denied and called to meditate upon is precisely which the characters are unable to deny and objectively meditate upon. What we are denied is the very cause of the film's violence.
Beyond this, the film is almost sublime in the way it conveys an air of total waste and senselessness. Conversely, it seems as though the prospect of violence is all that can lift these perpetually morose and spiritually exhausted characters out of their squalor and/or apathy. Watch too how Nichol's writes his female characters. They exist firmly outside of the boy's story - in another genre and another world itself - unable to fathom the roiling testosterone. And of course you can extrapolate much more. One can look, for example, at one of the son's actions, his desire to fight, as an attempt to escape the futility of his abysmal life by choosing a pathway to glorified suicide. Likewise, the film's inter-familial war is akin to certain recent global conflicts, unrepairable damage always escalating from a certain point which, when viewed in hindsight, is usually very petty.
Incidentally, the film was produced by David Gordon Green, a friend of Nichols. Green is heavily inspired by Terrance Malick, who would produce one of Green's own films. All three directors started off in the Southern Gothic genre.
9/10 - Worth two viewings.
Needs Some Work
samkan14 May 2010
I'm partial to these slice-of-life Americana films. I enjoyed SS and, if you're not looking for big budget thrills, you should enjoy SS too. The movie is set in rural Arkansas and deals with semi-poor folk who tend not to complicate life with much more than sweat, blood and spit. Like many films of this type, its heavy on slow shots of sunsets, sunrise (emphasizing simple day-to-day existence), has simple, clipped dialog, finger-picked guitar scoring and uncomplicated storyline.
Notwithstanding, SS doesn't work as well as others of this type. The background story is just a little too bare. We know the premise is a man who fathered two families (simultaneously?) though the resulting hostilities are largely unexplained; e.g., the mother of the downtrodden clan has a three minute scene where she is trimming a hedge and...well, that's all that happens. Missing is just a hint of motivation, distinction or background to the families and the many individuals sons/brothers. As a result, SS comes across as being a bit too smug, taking too much for granted.
I still don't regret watching the film. All involved, writer, director, actors, etc., show much promise. And if you like movies of this type, watch THE REAL GIRLS, LONESOME JIM, TULLY, YOU CAN COUNT ON ME, THE GOOD LIFE or THE CAKE EATERS.
Notwithstanding, SS doesn't work as well as others of this type. The background story is just a little too bare. We know the premise is a man who fathered two families (simultaneously?) though the resulting hostilities are largely unexplained; e.g., the mother of the downtrodden clan has a three minute scene where she is trimming a hedge and...well, that's all that happens. Missing is just a hint of motivation, distinction or background to the families and the many individuals sons/brothers. As a result, SS comes across as being a bit too smug, taking too much for granted.
I still don't regret watching the film. All involved, writer, director, actors, etc., show much promise. And if you like movies of this type, watch THE REAL GIRLS, LONESOME JIM, TULLY, YOU CAN COUNT ON ME, THE GOOD LIFE or THE CAKE EATERS.
Solid film portraying a very real America
olz_1523 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Ever want to know how those supposed family feuds happen, when two groups end up killing each other on site? Stories of these age-old battles have been curiously explored in literature such as Huckleberry Fin which tackles the subject with daring accuracy. This is the first film to show us not only a convincing portrayal of one of these family feuds, but showing us how they start; often by human beings who are hot-headed and overly defensive, potential bad-seeds which can take the whole family down with them, and in a poor society that allows such aggression to ferment and be propelled forward onto another family. I think it is important to note that there are no real villains in this film, only people offended and wanting satisfaction for their own grief.
Now to judge it more as a physical film, the lead actor is terrific and captivates us throughout the entire film. The other actors give solid performances but not stand-out ones. The sound design is masterful, and much needed for there is a lot of silence, and not a lot of dialogue, yet the sound design keeps us on edge whenever we need to be. Direction is fine, and the writer/director obviously knows where to pull his punches without overdoing it (so he doesn't labour his points and thus overall message of the film).
I don't agree with the soundtrack, and I think it takes away from the film a little. A few too many sequences of beautiful cinematography with music goes a little longer than necessary, but this is nitpicking and overall an excellent and original film.
Now to judge it more as a physical film, the lead actor is terrific and captivates us throughout the entire film. The other actors give solid performances but not stand-out ones. The sound design is masterful, and much needed for there is a lot of silence, and not a lot of dialogue, yet the sound design keeps us on edge whenever we need to be. Direction is fine, and the writer/director obviously knows where to pull his punches without overdoing it (so he doesn't labour his points and thus overall message of the film).
I don't agree with the soundtrack, and I think it takes away from the film a little. A few too many sequences of beautiful cinematography with music goes a little longer than necessary, but this is nitpicking and overall an excellent and original film.
Watch Before Take Shelter..
jinola1017 February 2013
I watched this movie after watching Jeff Nichols' next movie TAKE SHELTER. One thing that I think Nichols does well - like Paul Thomas Anderson - is creating the atmosphere for a story that has only one possible outcome - a bad one. That sense of dread in a movie means you HAVE to stay and see what happens. In SHOTGUN STORIES, Nichols - along with his cast, including Michael Shannon, manage to capture a futility of American existence - almost Godot-esque. The three men, at the centre of the piece are called Boy, Son & Kid. These boys were not handed out a winning hand at the start.
At the centre of the story is a family dispute - more specifically, a step-family dispute - that comes to the fore at a funeral. In that scene alone you get a great sense of how the actions of one man can still hurt many people down the years.
I enjoyed this film - but I don't think everyone will. Atmospherically, excellent, and the story within is a good one for anyone with skeletons in their own family closet - however - it feels a little long in places - and I'm not sure how satisfied people will be with the ending once it arrives - I wasn't - but I enjoyed it.
At the centre of the story is a family dispute - more specifically, a step-family dispute - that comes to the fore at a funeral. In that scene alone you get a great sense of how the actions of one man can still hurt many people down the years.
I enjoyed this film - but I don't think everyone will. Atmospherically, excellent, and the story within is a good one for anyone with skeletons in their own family closet - however - it feels a little long in places - and I'm not sure how satisfied people will be with the ending once it arrives - I wasn't - but I enjoyed it.
Wow
Zrn874 December 2008
This was a great film. I expected slow and uninteresting. But I really loved it. Michael Shannon is a stud. This guy is going to be huge. Great performance. I'm shocked he didn't get Oscar nod consideration for this - but given the apparent lack of viewers, it's understandable I supposed. Nichols has a great script. He sticks to his desire to battle convention and really let the story unfold slowly. I was really impressed. I've read other comments on here about people becoming frustrated with the nod to Terrence Malick - and I completely understand that, and I suspect there will be several more nods to Malick thanks to the NC School of the Arts, but this was a great movie. I've been watching David Gordon Green's movies this week and now this one - and they both attended the same school and I suspect there was a lot of Malick-like influence from the professors.
Interesting story; wasted potential
MessyStinkman26 May 2008
I was so disappointed by this. The story has so much potential, but the execution is poor. The trailer is much more interesting. The music is fine, but out-of-place, it takes away from the tension. This could've been a tight, solid revenge thriller but it took too many breaks with pointless scenes. The acting was bad with the exception of Michael Shannon who never fails to impress. The dialogue is weak and the writing is clichéd. The characters and visuals are interesting, though. There were points where you could feel the rage and tension, but I'm mainly just so disappointed - it could've been fantastic in the hands of a talented director/writing team.
Not Actually About Shotguns, Turns Out
Heres_Johny21 August 2016
Warning: Spoilers
***Some Minor Spoilers***
Shotgun Stories takes a while to bust out the shotguns. I was feeling a little itchy waiting.
I'll save you the trouble of wondering: it was worth it.
This tragic indie-drama focuses on a blood-feud which spirals toward the clash of two sets of half-brothers. Son, played by the underrated Michael Shannon, and his younger brothers, Boy and Kid, were abandoned by their drunken father early in life. After the separation, their father went on to sober up, find Jesus, and raise a Mulligan-family of four brothers born of his second wife. His new family (the Hayes), operate a successful farm, which the reformed father built once he crawled out from the bottle and into Jesus's hands.
Son, Boy, and Kid are impoverished - Boy lives in his van, Kid in a tent outside Son's trailer - so it's no surprise that they hate the Hayes and the life their father built for them. Then one night their vengeful mother shows up at Son's house to inform the three brothers that their father is dead.
Hitherto we've only seen Son as a quiet, relatively pacifist protagonist. The turning point is when he interrupts the funeral with his brothers in tow, demanding to speak.
With all the Hayes family in attendance, he basically calls their father a piece of crap. He caps it off by spitting on the old man's casket.
That's when I busted out the popcorn.
The second wife intercedes to prevent an outright brawl, and Son and his brothers depart without any violence, but there's not a doubt in my mind that this is only the beginning. The Hayes brothers, befuddled by grief for the good man they knew as their father, are out for blood, and Son, Boy, and Kid are happily willing to unleash their lifetime of rancor for the man they knew as a violent drunk.
Writer-director Jeff Nichol's impressive debut is unmistakably indie in tone and theme. There's a lot of 'negative space' here: a character stares off into the distance, and the audience must decipher a tick of the eyebrow or quirk of the lips. Son's character carries the majority of the weight there: a lesser actor might have sunk the project, but Michael Shannon packs marvelous punch with his limited dialogue, and he manages the 'simple man' affect without seeming dumb. Au contraire. His long pauses and nuanced expression deliver the exact opposite: we see an intelligent man who's slow to speak his mind (and is even something of a doormat when it comes to confrontation) but - once the tension and violence amp up - doesn't hesitate to defend himself and his family.
Plot-wise, the violence is brutal and gut-wrenching, but it isn't the focus. The worst of it all occurs off-screen, and the gamble pays off. Shotgun Stories' global themes specifically deglorify violence.
Most of us haven't incited a familial feud by spitting on our deadbeat dad's casket, but the themes of senseless division and reckless hate are more prescient than ever. Whether it's Shiites and Sunnis or Republicans and Democrats, we're all too aware of the cultures of division, partisanship, and sectarianism. The viewer will undoubtedly connect to Shotgun Stories and its overarching theme. While you won't find any Juliet to Son's Romeo- besides perhaps his wife, who's just left him at the film's opening scene- there are definite parallels between the age-old Capulet-Montague dynamic. Considering the self-defeatism the film portrays as inherent to such a conflict, one might argue it reaches back to Shakespeare's own source material, the Greek tragedy. The deeper Son and his brothers delve into the conflict brewing with the Hayes clan, the more we come to understand that nothing good can possibly come of it.
Besides Shannon, the acting is good but not noteworthy, excepting perhaps Son's wife (Nicole Canerday), the criminal but likable Shampoo (G. Alan Wilkins, an apparent nobody who I'd love to see more from), and Cleaman Hayes (Michael Abbot Jr.). Cleaman's character stands out especially as the single reasonable Hayes brother, and Abbot's acting delivers a convincing portrait of a brother trying to keep the peace but unwilling to let his brothers fight a war on their own.
Aside from Cleaman, however, the Hayes closely resemble human-shaped turds. I spent a decent portion of the film hoping Son would go grab that promised shotgun and finish them already, even knowing the film wasn't headed that direction. If I had any major complaint with Shotgun Stories, it's that it didn't fully convince me that the majority of the Hayes didn't deserve to be wiped from the face of the earth, which is clearly not what the film aimed for. Aside from Cleaman, two of the brothers are all but villainized, and the final brother has the screen-presence of a wet noodle. Though Son is the unquestioned protagonist, Nichols wanted me to sympathize with the Hayes brothers as the other side of the same coin, which I simply couldn't do. Regardless of the fact that Son did spit on their daddy's casket, I couldn't see the Hayes as anything but instigators and 'the bad guys' until the end, which was too late a reversal for me to buy in. I'll give Nichols a pass, though, since he met, and sometimes surpassed, the mark he aimed for everywhere else.
Overall I'm glad a TRUSTED friend recommend this; otherwise, I might have bailed early on an amazing film. While the themes and acting are powerful, the opening is slow, and I wouldn't recommend it to everyone. It's a little more in-your-head than the average American viewer might want from even a drama. Regardless, I'd stand by it as a recommendation for anyone looking for a character-driven story heavy on themes of family loyalty and the hopelessness of hatred.
Shotgun Stories takes a while to bust out the shotguns. I was feeling a little itchy waiting.
I'll save you the trouble of wondering: it was worth it.
This tragic indie-drama focuses on a blood-feud which spirals toward the clash of two sets of half-brothers. Son, played by the underrated Michael Shannon, and his younger brothers, Boy and Kid, were abandoned by their drunken father early in life. After the separation, their father went on to sober up, find Jesus, and raise a Mulligan-family of four brothers born of his second wife. His new family (the Hayes), operate a successful farm, which the reformed father built once he crawled out from the bottle and into Jesus's hands.
Son, Boy, and Kid are impoverished - Boy lives in his van, Kid in a tent outside Son's trailer - so it's no surprise that they hate the Hayes and the life their father built for them. Then one night their vengeful mother shows up at Son's house to inform the three brothers that their father is dead.
Hitherto we've only seen Son as a quiet, relatively pacifist protagonist. The turning point is when he interrupts the funeral with his brothers in tow, demanding to speak.
With all the Hayes family in attendance, he basically calls their father a piece of crap. He caps it off by spitting on the old man's casket.
That's when I busted out the popcorn.
The second wife intercedes to prevent an outright brawl, and Son and his brothers depart without any violence, but there's not a doubt in my mind that this is only the beginning. The Hayes brothers, befuddled by grief for the good man they knew as their father, are out for blood, and Son, Boy, and Kid are happily willing to unleash their lifetime of rancor for the man they knew as a violent drunk.
Writer-director Jeff Nichol's impressive debut is unmistakably indie in tone and theme. There's a lot of 'negative space' here: a character stares off into the distance, and the audience must decipher a tick of the eyebrow or quirk of the lips. Son's character carries the majority of the weight there: a lesser actor might have sunk the project, but Michael Shannon packs marvelous punch with his limited dialogue, and he manages the 'simple man' affect without seeming dumb. Au contraire. His long pauses and nuanced expression deliver the exact opposite: we see an intelligent man who's slow to speak his mind (and is even something of a doormat when it comes to confrontation) but - once the tension and violence amp up - doesn't hesitate to defend himself and his family.
Plot-wise, the violence is brutal and gut-wrenching, but it isn't the focus. The worst of it all occurs off-screen, and the gamble pays off. Shotgun Stories' global themes specifically deglorify violence.
Most of us haven't incited a familial feud by spitting on our deadbeat dad's casket, but the themes of senseless division and reckless hate are more prescient than ever. Whether it's Shiites and Sunnis or Republicans and Democrats, we're all too aware of the cultures of division, partisanship, and sectarianism. The viewer will undoubtedly connect to Shotgun Stories and its overarching theme. While you won't find any Juliet to Son's Romeo- besides perhaps his wife, who's just left him at the film's opening scene- there are definite parallels between the age-old Capulet-Montague dynamic. Considering the self-defeatism the film portrays as inherent to such a conflict, one might argue it reaches back to Shakespeare's own source material, the Greek tragedy. The deeper Son and his brothers delve into the conflict brewing with the Hayes clan, the more we come to understand that nothing good can possibly come of it.
Besides Shannon, the acting is good but not noteworthy, excepting perhaps Son's wife (Nicole Canerday), the criminal but likable Shampoo (G. Alan Wilkins, an apparent nobody who I'd love to see more from), and Cleaman Hayes (Michael Abbot Jr.). Cleaman's character stands out especially as the single reasonable Hayes brother, and Abbot's acting delivers a convincing portrait of a brother trying to keep the peace but unwilling to let his brothers fight a war on their own.
Aside from Cleaman, however, the Hayes closely resemble human-shaped turds. I spent a decent portion of the film hoping Son would go grab that promised shotgun and finish them already, even knowing the film wasn't headed that direction. If I had any major complaint with Shotgun Stories, it's that it didn't fully convince me that the majority of the Hayes didn't deserve to be wiped from the face of the earth, which is clearly not what the film aimed for. Aside from Cleaman, two of the brothers are all but villainized, and the final brother has the screen-presence of a wet noodle. Though Son is the unquestioned protagonist, Nichols wanted me to sympathize with the Hayes brothers as the other side of the same coin, which I simply couldn't do. Regardless of the fact that Son did spit on their daddy's casket, I couldn't see the Hayes as anything but instigators and 'the bad guys' until the end, which was too late a reversal for me to buy in. I'll give Nichols a pass, though, since he met, and sometimes surpassed, the mark he aimed for everywhere else.
Overall I'm glad a TRUSTED friend recommend this; otherwise, I might have bailed early on an amazing film. While the themes and acting are powerful, the opening is slow, and I wouldn't recommend it to everyone. It's a little more in-your-head than the average American viewer might want from even a drama. Regardless, I'd stand by it as a recommendation for anyone looking for a character-driven story heavy on themes of family loyalty and the hopelessness of hatred.
Great story, but could have been done better
zetes23 November 2008
A great story that should have been a great movie. It's unfortunately pretty poorly directed, and the writing could have been tighter. I can still appreciate it for what it is, and hopefully writer/director Nichols, whose debut this is, will come up with something as good in the future and do better by it. Michael Shannon, Douglas Ligon and Barlow Jacobs play three men named Son, Boy and Kid. Their father left them when they were kids, which led to their mother abandoning them emotionally. Son, the oldest, basically raised them, and their lives are pretty lousy, though seemingly normal for the setting, rural Arkansas. When they hear their father has died, the three men attend his funeral and speak badly of the man who couldn't have cared less about them. This deeply offends the old man's second family, consisting of four brothers, and a war begins between them. What the film really has going for it is the great characterizations, very well performed by mostly amateurs. I pegged Michael Shannon last year, with his performances in Bug and Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, as being one of this generation's finest actors, and he does well by that promise here. Nichols almost undoes it all with awkward pacing and way too much wallowing in the town's redneckiness. The film is mostly pitched as a serious indie with copious comic moments, all involving how trashy everyone is. The movie probably does not play well in the South. I think maybe the script's biggest problem is that it really contains only one idea, and Nichols doesn't want to spend it all in one place.
Gripping family tragedy set in the American South
Robert_Woodward6 July 2008
Shotgun Stories, Jeff Nichol's impressive directorial debut, is an intense portrayal of a host of social ills in the Southern US: poverty, lawlessness, broken homes and guns. Set in a town in Arkansas, the film picks up the story of three brothers, all young men, named Son, Kid and Boy. The father of this unfortunate trio abandoned them when they were at a young age and they grew up in the home of a bitter, vindictive mother. Of the three, Son is the least hopeless case in a truly dysfunctional trio, but his relationship with his girlfriend and pre-teenage son is decidedly rocky due to his gambling addiction. The shared rapport between the brothers is one of the few comforts in a bleak situation and it makes the subsequent tragedies all the more painful to watch.
The tragedy begins to unfold when the three brothers learn of the death of their father. When they turn up to the funeral they confront the four brothers that their father raised after he left his first family behind. The unpleasant encounter at the funeral stokes up the resentments on each side and initiates an escalating blood feud. The reprisals become increasingly violent as new weapons are used to settle the scores: words, fists, knives and, lastly, inexorably, guns. The violent clashes are filmed only fleetingly, rather than in voyeuristic close-up detail, but the tragic consequences are felt with sickening force on both sides of the family. It is telling that the police intervene only once during a fight and do so without leaving their car vigilantism is left unchecked. A further tragedy in all of this is that the young child fathered by Son is witness to so much of the violence.
The landscape of the American South is beautifully observed in Shotgun Stories; the fecundity of the cotton fields and the warm glow of golden sun on the fields are contrasted with images of sewage flowing into rivers and lily pads decaying in muddy ponds. The bittersweet soundtrack complements the mixed imagery, using a simple palate of acoustic guitar and cello to considerable effect and playing again and again in your ears long after the credits roll. In the final scenes, the desperately sad and tragic events wind up in a curious ending, neither happy nor sad, but about as heartening a cinematic experience as I have had this year.
The tragedy begins to unfold when the three brothers learn of the death of their father. When they turn up to the funeral they confront the four brothers that their father raised after he left his first family behind. The unpleasant encounter at the funeral stokes up the resentments on each side and initiates an escalating blood feud. The reprisals become increasingly violent as new weapons are used to settle the scores: words, fists, knives and, lastly, inexorably, guns. The violent clashes are filmed only fleetingly, rather than in voyeuristic close-up detail, but the tragic consequences are felt with sickening force on both sides of the family. It is telling that the police intervene only once during a fight and do so without leaving their car vigilantism is left unchecked. A further tragedy in all of this is that the young child fathered by Son is witness to so much of the violence.
The landscape of the American South is beautifully observed in Shotgun Stories; the fecundity of the cotton fields and the warm glow of golden sun on the fields are contrasted with images of sewage flowing into rivers and lily pads decaying in muddy ponds. The bittersweet soundtrack complements the mixed imagery, using a simple palate of acoustic guitar and cello to considerable effect and playing again and again in your ears long after the credits roll. In the final scenes, the desperately sad and tragic events wind up in a curious ending, neither happy nor sad, but about as heartening a cinematic experience as I have had this year.
A promising debut by Jeff Nichols
fredrikgunerius19 October 2023
Jeff Nichols gives his stark impression of American small-town/rural life, depicted via an escalating family conflict between a deceased man's two sets of sons, none of whom were born with a silver spoon in mouth. Set in Nichols' home state of Arkansas, Shotgun Stories depicts people living in modern times leading antiquated ways of life. His rivaling families adhere to the values of the old west, with pride, bloodline, revenge and property as key defining terms. Nichols has more compassion than respect for his characters, but he asks us to understand them, see their actions and urges in light of their background - a background which shows the extreme contrasts in modern USA.
The talented Michael Shannon drives the action forward with his steadfast, powerful performance. He is Son, the acting pater familias of three brothers with an estranged, unloving mother and a father who left them as kids to start a new family with another wife. Their daily life consists of emptying beer cans sitting on lawns and patios, living in a desolated town populated by the few whose pride and lack of ambition have kept them staying. Family is all that matters, and Son has two underachieving brothers, Boy and Kid, played with a disquieting affinity by Douglas Ligon and Barlow Jacobs. When their father dies and the three brothers decide to show up at the funeral to voice their opinion about the man who once abandoned them, his new family reacts and instigates a long-dormant conflict.
Although Nichols has both the local knowledge and the artistic talent to create a harrowing authenticity for his account, his film also turns out to share its characters' single-mindedness. Like the brothers, he knows where this is heading, and he doesn't make an effort to conceal it or pause along the way. The film's tone and tempo is characteristically indie, which gives it a sense of truthfulness, but also keeps the undoubted tension of the story a little at bay, as Nichols always maintains a certain distance as he observes with his camera. Shotgun Stories is a promising debut from a filmmaker who certainly has got something to say and the ability to make the observations to go along with it.
The talented Michael Shannon drives the action forward with his steadfast, powerful performance. He is Son, the acting pater familias of three brothers with an estranged, unloving mother and a father who left them as kids to start a new family with another wife. Their daily life consists of emptying beer cans sitting on lawns and patios, living in a desolated town populated by the few whose pride and lack of ambition have kept them staying. Family is all that matters, and Son has two underachieving brothers, Boy and Kid, played with a disquieting affinity by Douglas Ligon and Barlow Jacobs. When their father dies and the three brothers decide to show up at the funeral to voice their opinion about the man who once abandoned them, his new family reacts and instigates a long-dormant conflict.
Although Nichols has both the local knowledge and the artistic talent to create a harrowing authenticity for his account, his film also turns out to share its characters' single-mindedness. Like the brothers, he knows where this is heading, and he doesn't make an effort to conceal it or pause along the way. The film's tone and tempo is characteristically indie, which gives it a sense of truthfulness, but also keeps the undoubted tension of the story a little at bay, as Nichols always maintains a certain distance as he observes with his camera. Shotgun Stories is a promising debut from a filmmaker who certainly has got something to say and the ability to make the observations to go along with it.
Slow moving without much insight into its characters
nathanandersonw25 September 2021
Michael Shannon is always good. But you can definitely see him get better in later films. And I know you have to set the atmosphere. But nothing happening for 35 minutes is a bit much. There's a lot of uninteresting conversations between bored men without many options. There's a chubby friend that seems to exist only as comedy relief. He does goofy things like trying to put a house air conditioner into his van. Not funny. Not pathetic enough to be sad. Then there's a goofy guy named shampoo. Another silly aimless young man. With no prospects. The movie seems to shamble slowly from one generic Country Boy scene to another, setting up the final showdown. It's hard to say all these things because of all the good reviews. It's not bad. But it's also not worth watching.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
