She, the Jury: Some notes on “Three Billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri”

Last updated on: December 13, 2017 at 10:21 am by Eve Tushnet

She, the Jury: Some notes on “Three Billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri” 2017-12-13T10:21:35-04:00 Eve Tushnet

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

A movie about which I have intensely mixed feelings! A lot of these thoughts were formed in conversation with Charles Lehman, for which I am grateful.

# Early on, we see a guy reading Flannery O’Connor and so we can guess that this violent story will show us a world somehow mangled, misfired. And my favorite thing about the film is structural: It’s about a series of attempts to get justice which kind of ricochet off their intended targets and end up bringing either justice or mercy (or the hope of justice) to some totally different situation. Human efforts don’t achieve their ends, but that doesn’t make them pointless or ineffective. Their effects are startlingly powerful–they just take place far away from where you’d expect.

# The story starts when grieving mother Mildred Hayes (Frances McDormand doing her gritty thing) buys three billboards on a deserted stretch of rural road. The billboards will go up at Easter (“That’s perfect”) and they will say, in giant letters against a lurid red background, RAPED WHILE DYING/AND STILL NO ARRESTS?/HOW COME, SHERIFF WILLOUGHBY?

Charles called this attempt to get justice for her daughter’s murder an act of “civil disobedience” and that phrase gets at a big part of what’s going on in the movie. Because what Mildred does is legal–and yet many people in the town treat it as if it’s a crime. She’s harassed and threatened, her friends and allies are arrested and brutally beaten, the public provision of justice has completely broken down.

The one cop who does not treat the billboards as an attack is the sheriff himself (Woody Harrelson). In one of the movie’s many twists, he comes to Mildred and basically admits defeat. He even pays for the billboards to stay up (in a weird mercy-as-punishment twist which I especially loved). They have this conversation where Mildred is like, “Pay your debts and do your duty!”, and he says, “I have tried, and I can’t,” and it’s that admission which begins to break up the miles-thick ice of mistrust and contempt in which the whole town is locked.

# On one level this is a movie about contempt, which you guys may have noticed is one of my obsessions. Three Billboards shows contempt as painfully understandable defense strategy, without ever making it actually defensible.

# Part of how contempt shapes the movie–and I’m wandering, but I’ll get back to the justice thing in a moment–is that we get two characters who are kinda dumb, not sharp or competent, who nonetheless understand things which are close to the movie’s heart. This is a character type I always fall for tbh. One of these characters is Penelope, the young girlfriend of Mildred’s ex-husband. She says something the movie proves to be pretty obviously true, which she got off a bookmark: “Violence begets more violence.” And it’s played for laughs: “Penelope said ‘begets’?”, one of the film’s great lines. But she says it because she, unlike a lot of people here, is able to recognize its truth.

The other character of this type is the hapless dumb racist thug cop (Sam Rockwell, mostly selling a hard character to sell) whose story is as central to the film as Mildred’s. He’s a guy for whom contempt might even be justified if contempt could ever be justified. He’s the thug as schlemiel: dominated by his crass mom, hopeless in an alcoholic way which I recognized, willing to suffer intensely to transform his life and bring justice as soon as somebody in authority tells him he’s capable of change. He suffers quite a bit of redemptive violence and is the object of more than one of the movie’s acts of forgiveness.

# Okay, here we get into the problems. Three Billboards has all kinds of weird glitches and one huge misstep. There are things which just seem out of place–the scene with the priest is weird, even though it does work to show the festering anger, judgment, and contempt which shape the town. There are tone shifts which undercut the movie’s characterization–the first time the thug cop talks about “people-of-color torturing” it seems to be a savage bit of semi-self-aware gallows humor, which I do in fact buy from this slow junkyard dog of a man, but then later it seems like he seriously thinks the problem with his brutality was his language? There are moments when he’s dumb in a cartoon way that goes for the cheap laugh over the painful laugh.

Or take the reason for Mildred Hayes’s furious grief. She feels guilty about her daughter’s horrifying death–of course she does, that’s how anyone would feel. But the film doesn’t trust us to accept that anybody would feel that way. The movie has her feel guilty because she literally, exactly in these words told her daughter to go walk in that field and get raped and murdered, and then she did!!!!!, and it’s just all so on-the-nose and unnecessary. It’s chintzy.

# The huge, sad and sordid problem with the movie is that racism and black people are ciphers in an alphabet used to talk solely about the sins and redemptions of white people. Racism is a theme the movie insists on grappling with but it just cannot do it well, because the black characters aren’t people. They are plot furniture who might as well blink out of existence as soon as they’ve performed their role in the moral drama of the white folk.

Matt Zoller Seitz summarized some of what’s going on here on twitter: “From responses I can see that there’s a major split between people who think this movie is a political, sociological failure and those who think it’s a success in theological/karmic ones.” And you guys know already that I would add that the political failure to use racism as more than a macguffin is also a theological failure. Anyway, Seitz’s whole thread is worth reading.

# The ending acts like an unresolved ending, one of those things where the filmmakers aren’t willing to commit and pick a side, which I a million percent hate. But Charles argued, and I think this is right, that the ending does take a stand: in favor of private deliberation, a private search for justice rather than a public monopoly on it. The characters’ uncertainty (he said, & I agree) is “a feature of the actual pursuit of justice (the distance b/t human justice and capital-J Justice, if you’re feeling platonist).”

Throughout the film we see that private and public/official justice are separate processes which nonetheless interpenetrate–the boundaries between public and private are porous. People want and need public justice, in part because public justice says that your life has value even if nobody else recognizes it–even if you don’t have an avenging mother to take up your cause. Three Billboards is a movie about two different kinds of failure of public justice: the normal human failure where we can’t accomplish what we need to do, and the sinful failure where we don’t even try to acknowledge and fulfill our duties. The attempt to rectify the first failure provokes instead a rectification of the second.

# There’s a suicide-note scene which so perfectly replicates actual arguments actual suicidal people make in their heads that my gut reaction is that it’s evil and shouldn’t have been filmed. Charles pointed out that I tend to be unusually sensitive to suicide scenes (as I’m unusually numb to violence and sexual perversity) and I realize that there’s a later, quite powerful scene in which the movie shows you that these justifications for suicide are false. I basically don’t ever want to be in a theater hearing heroic lies about how suicide is “bravery.” (The note’s author means that it’s charity, but Americans don’t talk about charity so he uses this much less girly word.) But maybe to most audiences the suicide scene plays as so horrifying that you already get that the justifications for it are awful even from within the note’s own premises.

# The music is fantastic. The look of it is great, although I do feel like somebody got an idea in his head that he wanted to see tough, chewed-up Frances McDormand in a jumpsuit so we get a whole lot of that.

Art

abuse of power comes as no surprise

forgiveness

order is chaos

race

redemption through violence

Previous Post

December 12, 2017

"Free Choice Is a Lie": I review Joyce Carol Oates's new novel

Next Post

December 13, 2017 Gay Catholic Whatnot--on Russian Catholic Radio!

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Art Best-Of Gay Catholic Whatnot Mackerel-Snapping self-obsessed Too much is never enough Uncategorized

Select a Month November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 August 2022 July 2022 May 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 October 2002 September 2002 August 2002 July 2002 June 2002 May 2002 April 2002 March 2002 February 2002 January 2002

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

True or False: 2 John is addressed to Gaius, the beloved friend.

Select your answer to see how you score.

FALSE TRUE