A One Mann’s Movies review of “Where the Crawdads Sing” (2022).
“Where the Crawdads Sing” is based on the bestselling novel by Delia Owens and has been getting a lot of hype as a “big summer film”. But it ultimately left me with mixed feelings.
I saw this as part of a #CineworldUnlimited special preview screening. It’s out in cinemas from Friday.
Bob the Movie Man Rating(s):
Plot Summary:
Kya Clark (Jojo Regina when young, then later Daisy Edgar-Jones and Leslie France) lives in the marshlands of North Carolina. Having had a tough childhood, with a visciously abusive father, she ends up growing up alone as “The Marsh Girl”, shunned and ridiculed by most of the local townfolk. But as she grows into a beautiful teen, she draws attention from two of the local youths – Tate (Taylor John Smith) and Chase (Harris Dickinson). When Chase ends up dead, suspicion falls on Kya and a trial by her ‘equals’ is held.
Certification:
Talent:
Starring: Daisy Edgar-Jones, Taylor John Smith, Harris Dickinson, David Strathairn, Michael Hyatt, Sterling Macer Jr.
Directed by: Olivia Newman.
Written by: Lucy Alibar. (Based on the novel by Delia Owens).
Twitter Handles: #CrawdadsMovie.
“Where the Crawdads Sing” Review:
Positives:
- The North Carolina swamplands are gorgeously filmed by the British cinematographer Polly Morgan (who did “A Quiet Place Part 2” and “Lucy in the Sky“).
- I also loved the music score by Mychael Danna, which had some beautiful little riffs in it. However, the Taylor Swift song over the end credits left me cold…. which probably means it will be a HUGE hit!
- On the acting front, Daisy Ridley-Jones does well in what is her ‘big-break’ for a tent-pole feature release. (She looks like she will ably fill a niche here for roles that five years ago would have been a slam dunk for Kristen Stewart.) But it was David Strathairn that most impressed me, doing his ‘Atticus Finch’ part as the smalltown lawyer fighting an uphill battle against prejudice from the masses. His performance reminded me of the late great Jimmy Stewart.
Negatives:
- What is this movie trying to be? There are a whole bunch of interesting themes in here, many of which never get properly explored. The whole “To Kill a Mockingbird” courtroom drama – with an “outsider” representing the racial aspect – could have been really interesting. But it never felt engaging or tense enough, constantly being diluted by cut-aways to the melodramatic love triangle. Some elements of the story (e.g. the one concerning social services) are dropped in and then never referenced again! They might have usefully been left on the cutting room floor. And another interesting relationship – reflecting the social similarities between the outcast Marsh Girl and Jumpin’ and Mabel – the two kindly black storekeepers – is similarly never properly bottomed out.
- The two love interests, Tate and Chase, are such cookie-cutter ‘All American’ boys that I genuinely struggled to distinguish them. Thank God one of them had blond hair! Taylor John Smith did a decent job as Tate, but I was never fully convinced by Harris Dickinson’s Chase. This was a shame, since I was impressed with his role in “The King’s Man“.
- The script occasionally drops such clunking lines into the melodramatic moments that I actually groaned outloud. True, they are few and far between, but you wonder if they test-screened this before release.
- Above all, you end up with just SO MANY questions at the end of the film remaining unanswered. The film almost needs a post-credits “monkey” to say “OK, so this is what REALLY happened”. (I can’t go into more detail here without dropping spoilers for the key twist, but I’ve added a “Spoiler Section” below the trailer at the foot of this post.) I have not read the book, but this feels like the sort of adaptation that fans of the book will absolutely loathe! (I may be wrong – please comment!)
Trigger Issues
Note that there are a number of issues in the film that could be triggering to audience members. I think it’s worth flagging these in advance:
- Domestic Abuse. The early part of the film features Garret Dillahunt as a highly abusive father, beating his wife and kids. The male on female violence is such that I’m genuinely surprised the film got a PG-13 certificate: I think the BBFC got this right with a “15”.
- Attempted Rape. At one point there is a violent assault and attempted rape.
- There is a deflowering scene which, although showing no explicit detail, is highly offensive to those men – like me – expert in the art of love-making!
Summary Thoughts on “Where the Crawdads Sing”:
For sure, there are far worst films around this year than “Where the Crawdads Sing”. It’s beautiful to look at, intriguing in parts and, as a way of spending 2 hours in an air-conditioned cinema, especially during the current UK heatwave, is enjoyable enough. It’s both trying to be a melodramatic pot-boiler and a courtroom drama, and neither work particularly well. It just feels like it’s trying to cram too much into a movie. This could instead have been a wonderful Netflix mini-series, shown over 10 one-hour episodes. The condensed material just has you coming out with too many questions: I feel like I need to buy and read the book now. (I noticed that Harper-Collins was listed as one of the production companies: perhaps this is part of their cunning plan all along!??)
By the way (since I had to look it up), a Crawdad is a freshwater lobster. It doesn’t “sing” as such, but it does make a noise “through their scaphognathite, which is a thin appendage that draws water through the gill cavity. They move the scaphognathite and produce sound and air bubbles”. (Ref: here).
Trailer for “Where the Crawdads Sing”
The trailer is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY3808Iq0Tg .
Spoiler Section:
Don’t read past this point if you’ve not seen the movie.
…
…
…
NO, SERIOUSLY!
…
…
…
So, the twist in the tale is when the older Tate (Sam Anderson who, if you’re trying to place him, was Bernard in “Lost”) finds the hidden shell necklace in Kya’s book. This strongly implies that Kya was indeed responsible for the death of Chase. But why, and how? To have this be true would have required Kya to come back from the other town on the bus (“in disguise”), do the murder, catch the return 2:30am bus (again in disguise, and surely likely to be about the only passenger at that time of night!) and then appear “bright and breazy” for her publishers the following morning. Since the alibi does seem so good, the movie deserves, post-twist, to have some sort of flashback scene to explain HOW it was done.
Perhaps this is all covered better in the book? But it left me feeling short-changed and perplexed.
