Once a director gets classified as a provocateur, it’s a label that can be hard to shake off. Rick Alverson earned that title three years ago with The Comedy, his extremely uncomfortable (and funny) takedown of ironic detachment. In that film, Tim Heidecker played someone who thrived on being repulsive and confrontational, and it was easy to treat his character as a symbol for a specific, rotting part of today’s culture. Entertainment, Alverson’s follow-up, is another piece of provocation that will naturally get compared and contrasted with The Comedy; Heidecker returns to co-write the screenplay (and show up in a cameo), and Alverson continues showing off his knack for creating interactions that can have people crawling in agony towards the exits. But Entertainment provokes in a more insidious manner than The Comedy. If Alverson’s previous film focused on attacking character, stretching a protagonist’s “likability” to the breaking point and beyond (think of Heidecker’s character as less of an anti-hero and more of an asshole), then his latest work sets its sights on dismantling structure and narrative. That makes Entertainment feel more specific and less like a commentary or something symbolic, so it can be harder to glean what Alverson’s real intent might be with his increasingly surreal story. The results are murkier, for better and worse.

So it makes sense to cast someone like Gregg Turkington in the central role, a person whose career involves blurring the lines between reality and fiction. Turkington is known best as Neil Hamburger, a comedian who specializes in antihumour, taking familiar aspects of stand-up comedy and performance and aggressively going against expectations. But in recent years he’s also played “Gregg Turkington,” a version of himself that co-hosts the web series On Cinema, along with being involved in its spinoff Decker. In Entertainment, Turkington plays “The Comedian,” a stand-up travelling across the Mojave Desert with his act (an exact version of Turkington’s Neil Hamburger character). A young clown (Tye Sheridan) appears from time to time as an opener with his own baffling act, but The Comedian travels alone, making pit stops in between his performances to indifferent crowds. Alverson expectedly basks in every millisecond of painful silence that comes after Turkington/Hamburger barks out another one of his offensive jokes. Enjoying these scenes, and enjoying Entertainment as a whole, is largely a make or break affair; either you like Turkington’s brand of comedy or you don’t.

The majority of Entertainment plays out as a portrait of one man’s loneliness, with Turkington usually framed in a way that makes him look swallowed up by the desert landscapes (Lorenzo Hagerman’s cinematography is one of, if not the best parts of the film). His interactions with people are usually brief, except for a sequence where he visits a cousin (John C. Reilly) who’s too business-minded to comprehend what The Comedian’s purpose really is. A series of voicemails The Comedian makes to his daughter (who’s never seen or heard) throughout also provides a little bit of characterization, even if it feels like it’s there to make the character look like more of a desperate sad sack. It’s only until a meeting with a chromotherapist (Lotte Verbeek), followed by a brutal encounter with a drunk heckler (Amy Seimetz) that Alverson starts letting go of his formal grip on the film, providing one surreal encounter after another that escorts The Comedian from the purgatory of his desert tour to some sort of deranged, Lynchian hell. Levels of discomfort get ratcheted up considerably as The Comedian’s disdain of others, along with accepting his own pitiful existence, reach a fever pitch when he makes it to the final stop on his trip. Entertainment ends with the image of The Comedian laughing hysterically, which is both the character’s most expressive moment in the film and the point where Alverson lets go of the film’s connection to any form of reality. The Comedian’s eventual acceptance of his own existence as a punchline doesn’t land as strongly as it should, a result of Alverson’s tendency to create compelling scenes that stand on their own yet link together in an aimless fashion, but there’s something powerful in Entertainment’s ability to push down into the darkest depths without any hesitation. Alverson, whose singular style makes him one of US indie’s most important voices right now, confirms what The Comedy established three years ago: he’s a filmmaker brimming with potential, but for the time being someone to watch rather than behold.

Kyle Alvarez’s The Stanford Prison Experiment depicts the controversial study that saw 24 male college students assigned roles of prisoner or guard in a mock prison environment. Overseen by Dr. Philip Zimbardo, the experiment was shut down after only six days, as the students began falling into their roles to a disturbing, unhealthy degree. Despite its divisive ethical implications, Zimbardo’s findings went on to greatly impact the field of psychology, specifically guiding the conversation of how good people can be influenced to do bad things in certain environments.

Avarez’s film is chilling in its unadorned depiction of the events that took place in the basement of Stanford University. It boasts cast of rising young actors including Tye Sheridan, Michael Angarano Olivia Thrilby and Ezra Miller, along with screen vets Billy Crudup and Nelson Ellis.

In San Francisco, I spoke with Alvarez and Dr. Zimbardo, who was the primary consultant on the film. The Stanford Prison Experiment is in theaters now.

What’s the biggest misconception about the experiment?
Alvarez: I think people are misled when people speak about whether it was ethical or not. They confuse the issue of ethics versus the value of the experiment. In making a film, part of you is inherently endorsing it. You’re saying, “This is worth looking at.” The critics dismiss the conversation around the experiment because they get lost in the question of ethics. That’s not to say the question of ethics isn’t important; it’s just a different conversation as far as I’m concerned. Obviously, this set in motion a lot of review board changes about why an experiment like this could never happen again. But that doesn’t say that we shouldn’t still be talking about it. That’s where I actually get kind of upset now that I understand the experiment on a deeper level. Don’t say we can’t have a conversation about this because you wouldn’t be able to stage the experiment today. That’s the misconception: to discuss the Stanford Prison Experiment is to discuss it as ethical or non-ethical. That’s a much lesser conversation to be had about it.

Zimbardo: To me, one misconception is that the study proves that everybody is evil. Lots of people say that. I think there was a New York Times piece that says, “Zimbardo Believes Everyone Is Evil.” No. I believe everyone is capable of evil. I believe, actually, that people are born good and can be corrupted by being put in certain situations. That’s a very different thing. We picked people who are good on every dimension we could figure, and we put them in a bad place and the bad place dominated them. We brought out the evil within, and we were able to switch their ordinary, good, wholesome orientation into a cynical, pessimistic, negative one if they were guards, and a helpless one if they were prisoners.

The experiment was of course a pivotal moment for the field of psychology. Talk about the importance of representing its events accurately.
Alvarez: It was a huge part of the initial inception of this iteration of the film. People have been trying to make it for ten years. Phil came onboard and worked closely with a screenwriter, Tim Talbott. Tim was the first one of the many screenwriters who tackled this project to say, “What happened here is enough for a movie.” To me, that was the defining thing for me. That’s not a criticism of Das Experiment, which is a form of entertainment in itself. But in terms of that movie being a representation of the Stanford Prison Experiment, what’s unfortunate is that it’s only cinematic in that it ends with someone killing someone else. That the message is only clear if we take it that far.

I fundamentally disagree with that. We talk about representing specifics of the experiment, but how about the broader things? I made sure that we hired kids to play the roles. These weren’t 35-year-olds playing teenagers. We have a 17-year-old on the cast. Part of the power and effectiveness of the story is their vulnerability and how impressionable they are. In other versions, they’re adults. They have backstories and you learn about their girlfriends and wives. You lose a universal quality to it.

I think there’s actually a stakes problem happening in filmmaking in general. It’s happening with our blockbusters especially. It used to just be, “Peter Parker has to save Mary Jane.” Then, it’s “Peter Parker needs to save New York.” Then, it’s “Peter Parker needs to save the world.” Then, “Peter Parker needs to save the universe.” It’s this thing where you engage less and less. I’m interested in how you make the audience engaged in something where the stakes are [more intimate]. Devin Faraci wrote a great piece about why Inside Out was so important because the stakes were mental well-being of an 8-year-old girl. There’s not a drop of blood in my film. No one dies in the end. How do you make that intense without the things we normally rely on? That was the challenge that was really exciting.

I was incredibly riled up after watching the movie. I was with a friend and I felt bad because I was not fun to be around after the movie.
Alvarez: You’ve got to give that to the actors. They really, really threw themselves into it. Chris [Sheffield] doing the push-ups, Michael [Angarano] being so committed to that guard and understanding how it would go from fun to disturbing to evil. The amount of work they put in to creating that mood was a big part of it.

Dr. Zimbardo, I think one of the keys to the film is the progression of your mental state, as portrayed by Billy Crudup.
Zimbardo: Billy does a beautiful job of being me. There are several points of key transformation where I become the prison superintendent and not the researcher. One of the points is when the parents come to complain about how bad their son looks when they visit him. I never say, “I’m sorry.” Instead, I flip it around and say, “What’s wrong with your son? Does he have insomnia?” Essentially, I turn it to say, “There’s nothing wrong with my situation; there’s something wrong with your kid.” The mom says, “He told me you wake them up at all hours of the night,” which was true. I say, “Well of course, lady. This is a prison. Guards have to account for everybody to make sure no one’s escaped.” She says, “I don’t mean to make trouble,” and that’s a red light. If she says it, she’s going to do it. And she’s right; her kid broke down.

I turn to the husband and say, “Don’t you think your kid is tough enough to take it? That’s a sexist thing. I know exactly what he’s going to say. “My son’s a leader,” blah blah. I shake his hand, eliminating the wife. She’s not going to make trouble now. As soon as her husband starts talking, she shuts up. A woman would never talk over her husband back then. It’s not until I looked at the video of that exchange afterwords when I thought, “Oh my god. You’re the thing you hate.” I work hard never to be a sexist, and here I am, saying these things. That was one of the first times I remember being aware of myself moving towards being a prison superintendent.

Talk about how your findings, specifically within the prisoner group, can be used to benefit other, larger groups of oppression, like the black community or the gay community.
Alvarez: The gay community is starting to achieve equality via exposure. A huge part of the misconception of the gay community is how it’s being portrayed. Suddenly, you start portraying gay people with families and things like this, and that’s where the media portrayal plays a big part. Me being more of a pacifist, I’ve always appreciated people being more aggressive. It’s Martin Luther King Jr. versus Malcolm X. Sometimes I find the gay community isn’t angry enough. Prop 8 took too long. When you look at the Stanford Prison Experiment and the revolting prisoners, specifically Ezra Miller’s character, it takes Nelson Ellis’ character to say, “He was just a part of the system. By revolting, he wasn’t revolutionizing the system; he was allowing the system to grow more powerful.”

Zimbardo: The consultant, Carlo Prescott—who’s maybe the most articulate person I know—he didn’t finish high school. I was teaching a Psychology in Prison course at Stanford and I brought him on as co-instructor. I got him a business card. Suddenly, he’s all the things he never was. He comes into the experiment thinking he’s the only black guy, and here’s this other black guy, a graduate student who’s much younger than him and very talented. Clearly, Carlo went, “That could have been me.” There was instant resentment. “You got all the breaks. I was in prison while you went to school.” There’s a little bit of that in the movie.

Alvarez: The scope of what happened was so hard to capture. So much happened in six days. Some of the most painful stuff on a writing and directing level was, “What do we lose? What do we cut?” The challenge of making a film in 25 weeks is that each moment needs to really count. Gaius Charles was so studious. He had notes for himself on scenes he wasn’t even in. It was great to work with Nelson Ellis as well. Olivia Thrilby only worked on the movie for three days. It’s almost embarrassing to work with such great talents.

The movie put me in the headspace of those boys, which was difficult, although that’s definitely a good thing. What I found most interesting was how unadorned the story was, cinematically.
Alvarez: Sometimes people want more of the director’s influence or more of a moral center, but in this case I was just interested in taking that kind of voice out of it and letting the events speak for themselves. So then you say, “Where am I the director on this?” With this film, it was really shot selection. Me and the DP said, the movie’s going to start of where you’re really aware of the geography of this space. You’re always going to see these two walls and everything is going to feel cramped in. This group of people fills the frame. Then, as the movie goes on, the individual people fill the frame. The claustrophobia changes. Reading the exit interviews from the experiment, a lot of the guys felt like it was a real prison. But it was just a back hallway of a building; they were grad student offices. My goal was to have the audience forget how small of a space it was. It’s very rigid early on, but then I deliberately didn’t care if the camera went out of focus near the end. Sometimes it’d go out of focus for five, six seconds.

There’s that shot where Michael is walking away from the camera.
Alvarez: That was not planned, but I saw it in the edit and I was like, that looks so good! I’ve done that twice in movies, where something goes out of focus in a “wrong” way, and it comes directly from The Graduate, where [Katharine Ross] realizes he’s been sleeping with her mother, and she turns back to him, and she’s totally out of focus for a good one-and-a-half seconds before we see her face. When you see it, it’s the director saying, “this is a film, and someone’s pulling a knob.” But because it’s so motivated by the experience the character is going through, it works.

Speaking of Billy Crudup, there’s a great deleted scene where he and Patrick Fugit have a conversation about how they love the mess-ups on a Marvin Gaye record. Marvin does a “Woo!” or “Ow!” on the song, and it’s their favorite part of the song. Sometimes the errors or roughness can be the texture of the movie as much as the clean cuts.

Zimbardo: I couldn’t be more happy with the movie. I can remember sitting at Sundance and saying, “Finally! The wait was worth it!” The acting is brilliant. The directing, the editing. Even the sound. Billy does a great job of being me, and Olivia Thrilby, although she has a small part, really has the charm my wife does.

Alvarez: If I had more time, that would be the character I would give more definition. But if the character’s only going to have three scenes in the movie, you need someone like Olivia to carry it.

In 1971, Stanford professor Philip Zimbardo began what was supposed to be a two-week experiment on the effects of a prison environment on both prisoners and guards. A group of male students, still hanging around during the summer break, volunteered to take part in the study for its guarantee of $15 dollars a day. Classrooms turned into prison cells, a hallway became the cafeteria, a broom closet acted as “The Hole,” and the volunteers split into two groups: prisoners and guards. Zimbardo had no idea how dangerous and unethical the experiment would turn out to be. Both sides almost immediately absorbed into the roles they were given, with the guards physically and psychologically abusing their prisoners. Zimbardo pulled the plug on the study six days in after the abuse—and his allowing of it—reached a breaking point. Zimbardo’s project, like Stanley Milgram’s studies on obeying authority figures (coincidentally receiving its own cinematic treatment this year as well), is now known one of the most infamous experiments on social psychology. The ethics of the experiment are dubious, but the outcome continues to remain a chilling reminder of how fragile our identities can be underneath the power of societal structures.

That kind of material begs for a film adaptation, and after nearly 45 years of false starts, Zimbardo’s experiment has finally made it to the big screen in The Stanford Prison Experiment. The plain, descriptive title reflects director Kyle Patrick Alvarez and screenwriter Tim Talbott’s approach to the material (adapted from Zimbardo’s 2007 book The Lucifer Effect); this is little more than a straight up re-enactment of the experiment itself. Billy Crudup plays Zimbardo, and aside from a moment with his girlfriend and former student Christina Maslach (Olivia Thirlby), the film’s focus is more procedural than personal. This choice makes perfect sense, and it’s not the first time someone has stubbornly stuck to the facts to make their point clear. Craig Zobel did the same thing with Compliance, a film that meticulously recreated an incident so preposterous it was difficult to believe it really happened. Zobel’s direction was stomach-churning by design, and it worked brilliantly. Alvarez does the same thing here, and while the results are certainly effective, they’re not as powerful.

That could be due to the fact that Alvarez has a bigger scale to work with, considering The Stanford Prison Experiment has an ensemble of around two dozen actors. Talbott’s screenplay winds up honing in on a few of the test subjects, including Ezra Miller & Tye Sheridan as the more rebellious prisoners in the group, and Michael Angarano playing a prison guard who fully embraces his ability to torment and abuse the inmates. The ensemble works together quite well, with most of them taking full opportunity of the brief moments they get to shine. Crudup turns out to be one of the weaker links since the attempts to sympathize with him fall flat as he allows the experiment to devolve more and more. Miller, Sheridan, and Angarano are all standouts, but the most impressive turn comes from Nelsan Ellis as Jesse Fletcher, a former prisoner hired on by Zimbardo to ensure the experiment’s authenticity. A sequence where Fletcher improvises a brutal takedown of one prisoner (Johnny Simmons) during a mock parole hearing is riveting to watch, as Fletcher begins relishing in his chance to play the part of those who oppressed him for so long.

In fact, the most compelling moments of The Stanford Prison Experiment occur between the observers and not the participants, with Zimbardo and his colleagues slowly realizing they’ve become a part of the study. But the ongoing turmoil in the mock prison is what primarily drives the film, and it’s fascinating to watch how quickly things spiral out of control. Alvarez doesn’t sustain the tension from the situation as each day passes, and much like the experiment itself it feels like the film starts to slip out of his hands once the two-hour runtime starts getting felt. By the time the climax hits—where Zimbardo finally reaches his breaking point—its impact doesn’t match the psychological degradation shown earlier.

But at least the lacking conclusion—including an awkward and misguided coda that has the cast re-enacting documentary footage—doesn’t take away from the power of what came before it. Alvarez does a terrific job at cranking up the tension over the first two acts, and at some points it’s easy to get immersed in the roleplaying going on, believing in the simulation because of the very real emotions going on within it. Jas Shelton’s excellent cinematography goes a long way in keeping the claustrophobic, oppressive mood going, mainly by shooting the tight, cramped and dull office settings with a wide Cinemascope ratio, a choice that makes every character look as trapped as they feel. The Stanford Prison Experiment’s procedural approach to Zimbardo’s now legendary study may only work up to a certain point, but even so it’s hard to deny how gripping this fact-based drama can get.

Joe

Director David Gordon Green returns to the indie festival circuit after last year’s Prince Avalanche with a new film starring Nicholas Cage and Tye Sherdian entitled, Joe. Named after one of the main characters (Cage), Joe is about an ex-con who operates a forest clearing business. Set in the hot and humid summer in the Deep South, Joe hires a 15-year-old drifter named Gary (Sherdian) who is eager to work under any circumstances.

If Gary isn’t throwing punches at people that underestimate his strength, he is receiving punches from his abusive piss drunk father. Joe takes it upon himself to take Gary under his wing and begins to form a father figure type bond with the young teenager. What unfolds is brutally violent film that centers on this unlikely friendship that provides a safe haven from his nasty home life.

The biggest problem in Joe is that the film insists on reinforcing what has already been well established. Just about everyone in the film holds a drink in one hand and a cigarette in the other, and if you add up the aspirations of all the characters, it would amount to almost nothing. Strong performances and beautiful scenery found within Joe are undeniable, but the graphic exploitation of its characters takes so much focus that it becomes overwhelmingly exhausting.

RATING: 6.6

Faults

Austin native Riley Stearns hits it out of the park with his first feature-length film Faults, which follows an eccentric cheapskate named Ansel Roth (expertly played by Leland Orser) who is considered an expert deprogrammer of cult members. Willing to do anything for a free breakfast, Ansel agrees to hear out a husband and wife’s plea to deprogram their daughter named Claire (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), who has been brainwashed by a cult called Faults. He accepts the job after his previous manager demands a large sum of cash that he is unable to pay back.

Faults starts off as a comedy–a fantastic opening scene involves Ansel trying to use an invalid coupon at a restaurant–then quickly morphs into darker territory when Ansel is hired to kidnap and deprogram Claire. This beyond bizarre comedy features an incredible plot twist near the end that involves Ansel losing own mind while attempting to correct Claire’s. Faults is challenging film in all the right ways and was the most satisfying film that I have seen at SXSW so far.

RATING: 8.4

Jeff Nichols’ latest film is now finally hitting the theaters after nearly a full year since its warm receptive premiere at the 2012 Cannes Film Festival. Mud centers on two teenage boys who end up befriending a fugitive that is looking to dodge the men who are out looking for him. Nichols elects to bring back the lead from his previous thriller (Take Shelter) Michael Shannon, but gives him a much smaller role in this film. The lead in Mud is given to Matthew McConaughey, who has been on an amazing ride of films as of late, and dominates the screen the moment he appears. This film just solidifies the fact that Jeff Nichols is a director to keep an eye out for in the future.

Mud (Matthew McConaughey) just can’t seem to catch a break. Just as he is getting settled into his new home in a boat that is stuck in a tree, the appropriately named Mud’s world is invaded by two young boys. The developing friendship is less than ideal, but both groups are sincere and honest with each other, and both have much to learn from the situation. Jeff Nichols finds a nice niche yet again with his original take on the coming of age story. Mud pulls many elements together nicely to mark a solid third film for the young director.

Ellis (Tye Sheridan) and Neckbone (Jacob Lofland) are young, poor, and best friends. The spend most of their free time working odd jobs with family members and dreaming of an easier life. They live on a river in the backwoods of Arkansas and despite their outcast appearance are intelligent and well meaning. While exploring one day, they stumble across Mud, a dirty, mysterious figure living in an unusual circumstance. The two groups decide to form a loose business relationship and the boys soon learn there might be a more dangerous side to their new friend.

Mud‘s screenplay blends a lot of nice dramatic elements and, despite some slow pacing, really hooks the viewer in. The acting is phenomenal on a lot of levels. Matthew McConaughey takes over the film the second he appears on screen. Mud looks like a cartoon character, but is portrayed with a nice subtlety that makes the audience instantly finds themselves sympathetic to his cause. He has made mistakes, but deep down is a good man. The two young friends are portrayed well, they are well meaning, but generally don’t understand the world around them. Their relationship with Mud becomes the most straight forward aspect of their life as they struggle through the tough life lessons of adolescence.

Mud suffers from uneven pacing and while the climax is thrilling and well executed, the final few minutes seem out of place compared with the themes and mood of the rest of the film. Despite some flaws, Mud is a clever film that really hits on a lot of positive notes. Jeff Nichols is steadily developing his craft, and definitely looks to be a big time director in the near future.

Emanuel and the Truth about Fishes

Sitting in the 9am screening of Francesca Gregorini’s Emanuel and the Truth about Fishes, I was surrounded by sleepy film fans and people uncertain of what to expect from what they were about to see. Myself, I had taken an interest in Gregorini’s film as soon as I saw the synopsis hit the Sundance web page late last year. I then watched the interview with her on the Sundance YouTube channel and became increasingly eager to see her story.

Emanuel and the Truth about Fishes was an incredible artistic, poignant and heartfelt tale drawing upon Gregorini’s personal issues about loss, guilt and pain whilst focusing on the courage to overcome individual trauma. The narrative also highlights the strong emotional connection humans can hold for each other, and in Emanuel’s case (portrayed by Kaya Scodelario), the effects on a troubled child longing to find a mother figure in her life.

Emanuel meets Linda (Jessica Biel), the mysterious lady who moves in next door, she is a new mother it would seem and Emanuel is instantly intrigued by this woman. Their relationship grows when Emanuel volunteers to babysit Linda’s newborn baby, and develop an affectionate bond towards each other.

Kaya Scodelario is the heart of this story, her emotion is so unbelievably real throughout the entire film – if not lead astray by Hollywood, her career will only continue to progress and her performances, excel. Many closed-minded men may disagree as the film was extremely feminine and focused on trauma only women can really relate to. Others that may focus more on dialogue could find faults within the screenplay as some criticized it as being very “written after attending a screenwriting seminar” feel. However, Emanuel and the Truth about Fishes is overall a fantastic achievement for Francesca Gregorini and an absolute pleasure to watch.

RATING: 9.4

A.C.O.D

Going into this film I undoubtedly had expectations in regards to it being a comedy, as the chosen cast were renowned for their humour. Adam Scott and Amy Poehler work as such an amazing comedic couple in Parks and Recreation that knowing their characters were the complete opposite of that in A.C.O.D, where Poehler is now Scott’s stepmother – I expected hilarity to ensue. Ultimately I was very disappointed with the lack of overall chemistry of the cast. That said however, I did enjoy A.C.O.D as it was a ‘good’ comedy; it just didn’t utilize the actors’ comedic potential enough.

Carter (Adam Scott) was unknowingly part of a research study focusing on observing Children of Divorce when he was younger; in fact the woman investigating this study, Dr Judith (Jane Lynch) wrote a book about him and other children involved. As Carter’s brothers wedding in announced and the preparation commences, Carter is responsible for getting his parents to be civil towards each other ready for the ‘big day’. This results in extremely comedic scenes and Carter eventually getting in touch with his old therapist, Dr Judith.

Scott was the perfect guy to represent the awkwardness of Carter’s character as his blunt and dry self-conscious sense of humour really highlights the effects of the trauma he is undergoing through his parents messy relationship.

Although A.C.O.D was not my favourite film of the day, nor is it one likely watch again – I’d certainly say it’s worth seeing at least once. It gives you the chance to see the diversity of Adam Scott’s abilities as an actor as they really shine through, and there are some real classic comedic moments that shouldn’t be overlooked.

RATING: 7.6

Mud

Mud is a story focused on a compassionate fugitive deserted on a lonely island surrounded by the Mississippi Rivers. This is until two adventurous young boys stumble across this rugged man whilst trying to salvage a lost boat. The two boys, Ellis (Tye Sheridan) and his best friend Neckbone (Jacob Lofland) are hesitant when they first meet Mud, as he is an unkempt looking man, whose sun dyed skin and worn out appearance gives them reason for caution – that and the fact he has a pistol tucked into his trousers. Mud introduces himself and tells the boys that he is waiting for a woman to meet him and asks if they could bring him food the next time they visit the island.

Tye under the impression that Mud is undergoing this hardship for love wants to help him and Neckbone being his best friend agrees to assist Tye in doing so. There are certain scenes that highlight the personalities of these two young boys and these are what made the film – their chemistry and on screen relationship has been likened to the young boys in Stand by Me.

Illustrating immersive imagination and extracting impeccable performances from all members of the cast, Jeff Nichols did a fantastic job representing a carefully constructed Deep South dramatic feature. Mud will do extremely well through it festival experiences, and will, without a doubt make it onto the big screen with huge success.

RATING: 8.6