‘Loving’ Review: The Beauty of Understatement
So many movies these days, almost regardless of genre, have a certain roided up sensibility, where every shot and every cut is intended for maximum effect and the point of every scene is overstated. Perhaps in the age of the internet, people’s senses have slowly dulled to the point where they must be overstimulated to feel anything. What makes Jeff Nichols‘ 2016 masterpiece Loving so exceptional is that everything it does flies in the face of what is standard filmmaking these days. It is understated, perhaps to a fault, but in doing so lets the heart of its story shine through honestly and without manipulation.
Loving tells the story of Richard and Mildred Loving, whose court case against the state of Virginia went to the Supreme Court in 1967 and resulted in the prohibition of all laws banning interracial marriage. However Loving eschews the righteous grandiosity that often goes with historical movies that deal with these kinds of subjects. Rather than portray its main characters as heroes in the classical sense, the film shows them as ordinary people who were swept up in the forces of history, which were out of their control, and merely held true to what they believed. The couple was known in real life as being quiet, humble, and keeping to themselves, to where it is almost a grand accident that people so uninterested in the world at large would become such important historical figures. In the film, the plain, matter of fact photography and editing goes to demonstrate this quality about them. The love they have for each other is pure and uncomplicated, and it is strong enough to outlast every challenge they face.
The film also makes the interesting choice of divorcing its story from the larger historical events occurring around it. For example, there is no climactic courtroom scene inside the Supreme Court, because in reality the Lovings were never in attendance. They weren’t there because they didn’t want to be, and they didn’t really care about it. All that mattered to them was each other and their family.
With such a simple presentation, the film relies tremendously on its writing and its leads to deliver the goods, and they do. The dialogue is efficient, sharp, and naturalistic. Nothing about it feels unnecessary or clever, but it all works. The leads, Joel Edgerton and Ruth Negga, bring their A-game, with chameleonic performances where they disappear completely into the people they are playing. Nick Kroll also gives a solid performance as the over eager ACLU attorney Bernard Cohen, who got the Loving’s case to the Supreme Court and presented their arguments.
Loving does not ooze saccharine sentimentality like Spielberg. It doesn’t have the grandiosity of Selma. It doesn’t have the over-the-top camera moves or ADHD editing of today’s blockbusters. Because of all that, some may find it a bit dull, but its their loss. Loving is fantastic. It’s dramatic, funny, and incredibly moving all without ever trying too hard to be any of those things.
