Set in Georgia in 1949, this movie makes Tennessee Williams' Southern dramas seem light and fluffy in comparison.
The thing that drew me to the film was the cast. It has two terrific actors Barbara Hershey and Ed Harris, and one who has always been harder to define, Dennis Hopper.
Hopper plays Paris Trout, a bigot and a racist. As portrayed here, he is without a redeeming feature.
Paris runs a general store with his wife Hanna. When Paris believes a young black man owes him money, he goes to the man's home and shoots his sister and twelve-year old niece. It's a tough scene in a movie that has quite a few tough scenes.
Paris is charged with murder. His racism is so ingrained that he feels hard done by. He pleads self-defence and is defended by his somewhat compromised lawyer Harry Seagraves (Ed Harris). However, Paris' wife Hanna (Barbara Hershey) believes him guilty and draws away from him. This sets off a violent reaction in Paris; he attacks her, violating her sadistically. Hanna then has an affair with Harry. Although he gets off the murder charge, Paris finally goes over the edge with jealousy and rage, leading to a bloody climax.
For all I know, Georgia may have been swarming with Paris Trouts in 1949 just as depicted here, but there are couple of things I feel let the movie down.
The first is that Dennis Hopper's performance as the objectionable Paris Trout is very one note – the only thing he doesn't do is strangle someone's pet kitten. However, there is little attempt to explain his brutality. He mentions that he had been in World War One. It's a throw away remark, but surely that experience should have been given more significance – it could even explain some of his behaviour.
The second follows from the first. Why did Hanna marry such an ignorant, mean-spirited man as Paris Trout? She is beautiful, intelligent and kind; the connection just doesn't ring true. At one point she tells Harry, "There was a sureness about him that was missing in my own life", but it's hard to buy. I feel more information was needed before we can fully believe their union. There may have been more in the book, which didn't end up in the screenplay although both are by the same hand.
Maybe I'm alone in this, but I think more shading with Hopper's character would have made it a more balanced movie, and probably an even more tragic one.
The thing that drew me to the film was the cast. It has two terrific actors Barbara Hershey and Ed Harris, and one who has always been harder to define, Dennis Hopper.
Hopper plays Paris Trout, a bigot and a racist. As portrayed here, he is without a redeeming feature.
Paris runs a general store with his wife Hanna. When Paris believes a young black man owes him money, he goes to the man's home and shoots his sister and twelve-year old niece. It's a tough scene in a movie that has quite a few tough scenes.
Paris is charged with murder. His racism is so ingrained that he feels hard done by. He pleads self-defence and is defended by his somewhat compromised lawyer Harry Seagraves (Ed Harris). However, Paris' wife Hanna (Barbara Hershey) believes him guilty and draws away from him. This sets off a violent reaction in Paris; he attacks her, violating her sadistically. Hanna then has an affair with Harry. Although he gets off the murder charge, Paris finally goes over the edge with jealousy and rage, leading to a bloody climax.
For all I know, Georgia may have been swarming with Paris Trouts in 1949 just as depicted here, but there are couple of things I feel let the movie down.
The first is that Dennis Hopper's performance as the objectionable Paris Trout is very one note – the only thing he doesn't do is strangle someone's pet kitten. However, there is little attempt to explain his brutality. He mentions that he had been in World War One. It's a throw away remark, but surely that experience should have been given more significance – it could even explain some of his behaviour.
The second follows from the first. Why did Hanna marry such an ignorant, mean-spirited man as Paris Trout? She is beautiful, intelligent and kind; the connection just doesn't ring true. At one point she tells Harry, "There was a sureness about him that was missing in my own life", but it's hard to buy. I feel more information was needed before we can fully believe their union. There may have been more in the book, which didn't end up in the screenplay although both are by the same hand.
Maybe I'm alone in this, but I think more shading with Hopper's character would have made it a more balanced movie, and probably an even more tragic one.