Review: Dallas Buyer's Club
Tuesday, November 5, 2013 at 12:04PM This review was originally published in Nathaniel's column at Towleroad
"Silence = Death" was a particularly genius political slogan for AIDS activists in the 1980s. Potently succinct, righteously angry, and, best of all, both literally and spiritually true. The conversations it prompted about systemic gay oppression, political complacency, the importance of frank sexual discussion, and gay liberation -- particularly in regards to the fight against HIV and AIDS -- surely saved countless lives. But isn't it a curious thing that HIV/AIDS in the arts and entertainments still remains so tied to gay-only narratives of roughly a ten year window from the early 80s through the early 90s? Time to tell new stories from fresh perspectives? Enter DALLAS BUYERS CLUB, one of the first AIDS dramas (that I can recall at least) that is not about the gay community.
Matthew McConaughey stars as Ron Woodroff, a hard-living homophobe electrician. When we first meet him he's having a drug-fueled three way with two women behind the scenes at the rodeo. While we're watching him getting it on, he's watching a man getting gored at the rodeo. This opening sequence arguably shoves the entirely less useful 'Sex = Death' argument in your face, but the film quickly finds its footing as an involving drama about a man who doesn't know what's knocked him out and also is too damn stubborn to stay down.
Woodroff's health rapidly deteriorates (McConaughey famously lost 40ish lbs for the role) and at a disorienting visit to the local hospital, he's informed by two doctors (Denis O'Hare and Jennifer Garner, playing unfortunately broad characters - let's call them "Bought & Paid For" and "Compassionate Soul") that he has the HIV virus. He reacts with angry homophobic slurs and informs the doctors that they're wrong.
But one of the smartest details in McConaughey's emotionally detailed performance (he doesn't coast on the physical transformation) is that this feels less like true denial than a hostile attempt at saving face; deep down, you can see the horror of recognition since he knows it's true.
Once Woodroff has accepted the diagnosis the film shifts into something like a medical mystery / con-man drama as Woodroff partners up with a local transgendered woman Rayon (Jared Leto, also terrific) to form a "Buyers Clubs". Buyers Clubs were a little discussed but fascinating substory from AIDS history in which affected regional communities would sometimes form organizations to treat their diseases creatively without waiting on the FDA to release drugs trapped in the lengthy testing/approval processes. Loophole: You can't sell illegal possibly deadly / possibly life-saving drugs, but you can sell memberships to private clubs. And then your club members get "free" drugs. At first the medical establishment looks the other way but soon Big Pharma, with millions riding on the success of AZT, begins to target the Buyers Clubs and views Woodroff as a major thorn in their side if not quite a true threat.
The French-Canadian director Jean-Marc Vallée, best known previously for the slightly dull royalty drama The Young Victoria (2009) and a very feisty Canadian hit called C.R.A.Z.Y. (2005) about the gay son of a conservative family, lands somewhere in the middle with this new film in terms of its energy. He wisely steps back without a lot of visual fuss, often into medium shots, to let you see the astonishing physical commitment of the actors.
Both stars run with the opportunity, or strut with it in this particular case. Woodroff and Rayon are vain peacocks, albeit of different gender identities and sexual preferences. As the cowboy and the queer perform their separate ideas of Texas masculinity and self-identified femininity (Gender Studies majors, take notes!) they often bristle as they pass each other on their personal runways. McConaughey and Leto sell this tetchy friendship and messy business partnership with everything they've got from their rail thin bodies to their gaunt emotive faces. The film makes an interesting counterpart to Philadelphia (now 20 years old) in that though it again pairs a homophobic straight man with an out AIDS victim, it doesn't congratulate the homophobe for becoming "tolerant". This time it sits back impatiently waiting for him to stop being such an asshole!
That's progress, people.
Still, to both actors' credit, Woodroff and Rayon are never entirely reformed people. They are who they are, self-destructive and self-righteous, proud and loud. Their edges aren't smoothed over for simplistic hug it out uplift even when they're, uh, hugging it out.
I'm sure there will be many people who are more well versed in AIDS treatments or history that may bristle at some elements of the movie or omissions from the plot, particularly in regards to its hospital sequences. I'll admit I was confused by the characterization of AZT as something of the film's boogeyman since most AIDS dramas I've seen treat it like a godsend. But in the end I accepted it under the broad umbrella of 'nobody knew what the hell was going to kill people or make them better and everyone was scared shitless').
In the end the medical procedural recedes anyway, leaving only the human drama. What emerges is not a boilerplate 'triumph of the human spirit!' biopic but a clear-eyed glimpse at defiance in the face of indifference, ostracization and death. I loved the arc that the film manages, transforming one of Woodroff's most unlikeable scenes (the diagnosis) into something you have to look back on with admiration. The same misdirected pride that had him lashing out like an ignorant bigot, is also fueling his outspoken fight for life. He won't be going quietly.
Grade: B
Oscar Chances: McConaughey completes his multi-film career renaissance in glorious fashion here, offering up yet another arguably subversive spin on his smooth-talking Texas persona. In a lesser year for Best Actor candidates, he'd already be locked up for the gold but we'll see.
Further Listening: You can hear me talking about this movie with Mister Patches and Katey over at OpKino
Second Opinion: Jason really didn't like it and tells you why in his usual entertaining fashion
Third Opinion: Nick liked it more than I did.
Reader Comments (24)
i can only see Bale being a possible to take over McConaughey in American Hustle only if he really surprises. I wouldn't be surprised if leto lost his momentum though if Jonah Hill or Bradley Cooper surprise. As for McConaughey i have not seen a better lead performance this year. Its also the type that wins oscars. I would compare him more to an erin brokovich win than a Philadelphia win, but thats because this movie refuses to be a pity party. Ejiofor was great as well but i don't walk out talking about his performance. Now 12 years a slave as a film is so hard to beat and it should be. 12 yrs immediately jumped into my top ten of all time, but this film has a real edge with the performances. And everyone leaves the theater talking about the acting first.
What stayed with me from this movie was Leto's performance. Moving, tender and natural - it's a thing of beauty.
what about leto's oscar chances? had they cast an actress in this role it'd be a surefire win
I wished the entire film was about Leto's Rayon, but that would have likely been too sad, to scary, to "weird". He's incredible though. I'd give him the Oscar.
The film, however, I think is less successful. Some really weird script and editing decisions that chop scenes in half that should be longer. It never goes for its big moments, which I guess is commendable but also... hi, your film is about AIDS, audiences will forgive a big scene or two. The Leto scenes in hospital? The scene where Garner is confronted about the pamphlet? Chopped up and we cut back too Woodruff's wacky drug importation scenes. And, really, for a town that is supposedly overrun with AIDS, nobody other than Rayon seems to show it. Even the kid who gets sent away for not having enough money returns six months later and he still looks unblemished and with just the right about of stubble on his 1988 face. Hmmm.
Leto vs. Fassbender for the Oscar etc. at this moment. And that hurts.
(Get thee behind me, Hanks...and Hill...and Abdi.)
FWIW, my favourite Vallee film is CAFE DE FLORE.
When was the last weak year for Best Actor? 2006?
Can't wait to see this one.
You don't think Leto has a shot? You only listed Matthew as a possible Oscar player.
Leto's always been an underrated actor. I suspect because of his good looks. But he's taken his craft extremely seriously, always ---when he played Mark Chapman he totally transformed himself, put on 30 pounds or whatever it was. He's worked with auteurs like Fincher, Aronofsky,
and Jaco Van Dormael for that really fascinating movie, Mr. Nobody.
Never affraid of downplaying his looks in order to be truthful... in Lonely Hearts he was bald, in Dallas Buyers he shaved his eyebrows and dressed in woman's clothes.
Leto's the real deal. As an actor.
As an EMO singer, he sucks. He should blow up Mars and just concentrate on his acting career...
As a viewer, I enjoyed the film. As a medical professional in training, I too was very worried about how AZT and the FDA were presented. AZT is a medication with nasty side effects, but it has also saved millions and the film only mentioned briefly at the end that it ended up being a successful treatment for HIV. Meanwhile, while the FDA is far from perfect (particularly when it dragged its feet during the 80s), it's unsettling that someone might walk away from the film assuming the organization is in Big Pharma's pockets and that the true hero was a man selling vitamins to dying men/women desperate for a wonder drug.
I once saw Leto in person. He was sitting next to me at a high end, fashionable, trendy pizza place in Rio-he LOVES Rio and has been here many times.
My jaw dropped. I was speechless, but not with lust or "young post adolescent girl starstruck with movie star". It was something more like respect, like seeing something transcendent and divine, because he was one of the most beautiful human beings I had ever seen. And continues to be so to this day, years later.
Peggy Sue: The last three years of theirs that I (a man who puts voice acting on an even keel with full "live" performing) would call kind of weak are 2009 (If they weren't willing to delve into animation and bump up Waltz to lead I'd have cut Clooney, Freeman and Renner (the little he was asked to do was effective, but it was VERY LITTLE) to slot in Damon, Chris Addison and either Max Records or Seth Rogen), 2008 (Mickey Rourke and Penn are great, but Langella is only decent and Richard Jenkins in The Visitor and Brad Pitt in Ben Button are...YIKES) and (especially) 2004 (the only performance there that holds up AT ALL is Leo DiCaprio's in The Aviator, having passed over obvious ACTUAL high quality work from Ethan Hawke, Jim Carrey, Tom Cruise (Collateral) and ESPECIALLY Paul Giamatti (I get you don't want your Best Picture and Best Actor to entirely overlap, but you could have made a better choice than the one you actually chose that doesn't overlap) for the doofy Hotel Rwanda, the near unwatchable Finding Neverland, the bog standard Ray Charles biopic Ray and Eastwood getting a nomination for, at best, a single (admittedly great) moment near the end in an otherwise COMPLETELY unspectacular performance in Million Dollar Baby. None really impress at all as being their best picture nominees either, aside from Sideways.)
please wake up people much of the world is in Big Pharma hands, Everything from politicial contributions to the vitamins you take everyday.Yes AZT helped no doubt but not as many as it could have, I work in the industry and I see just how much they control your life choices...no shock here. Come out from under your self-righteous rock and smell the coffee,
I was diagnosed with HIV in 1986. About 2 thirds of my friends (mostly male) were also given the unwelcomed news, either a few years before me, but mostly within the 2 to 5 years ahead of me. During that time, all of those (whom I was friends or acquainted with) that took AZT , ultimately died within 2 to 5 years. Only I and one other person whom I am still friends with, decided not to take AZT. We are still here. I have nothing more to say.
Ishmael- Wow. Did you see the film?
@Josh Yes I did. And the comment by Evan above is beyond offensive to me. Saying millions were saved by AZT could only be uttered by someone who was not there, someone who has a stake in big pharma, or someone who is just a liar and full of shit. I suspect all three. I'm done with this conversation. Frankly I am beginning to shake having to respond to such nonsense, and it hurts way too much.
Ishmael, I'm sorry that I offended you. It certainly isn't my intent. You're correct-- I was not there during the early AIDS epidemic, but I am a medical student studying to be an infectious diseases specialist and I am *rabidly* skeptical of pharmaceutical companies.
I cannot speak to the experience that you and your friends had with AZT, but I can state from my knowledge of the medical literature that AZT helped slow the progression of HIV to AIDS. For many, "slowing" was obviously not enough, but it did help many survive until the time when additional antiretrovirals were available. AZT was for years a mainstay in "combination therapy," the three-drug cocktails that reduce the formation of resistant viruses. It is also currently the WHO-approved first line drug to prevent mother-to-child transmission of the virus.
A synopsis of AZT's effectiveness as a single-drug therapy, as written by an AIDS Advocacy group:
http://www.aidsmap.com/Effectiveness/page/1730905/
And from the WHO: http://apps.who.int/rhl/hiv_aids/jmicom/en/
Again, I'm sorry if I offended. I do, however, resist the notion that I'm uninformed, a liar, or a shill for the drug industry.
I remembered seeing this at TIFF and enjoying it but knowing essentially it was an actor's showcase film for Leto & McConaughey who both by the way are just fabulous in it and sure will be the conversation all season long for awards recognition. I am still sad that Garner gotten not much to do in it besides being quite 1 dimensional as the supportive lady doctor. Am still waiting for the 1 performance from her which she delivers the promise that I know she is capable of just from her 5 years of fantastic work in Alias. Still have no idea why her talents has not translated on the big screen aside from not choosing the best roles.
Great review! I'm been waiting to see this one since I first read about it. You should check out "How to Survive a Plague"...an incredibly doc from last year that really goes into the horrifying reality of the epidemic.
I really thought MM would be a shoe-in for the Oscar, but after seeing 12 Years a Slave, I think Chiwetel Ejiofor will be the one to beat this year.
Ugh, I just can't with this film, this "AIDS film for straight people who have never really had to think about AIDS before" film, this "Straight guy teaches everyone around him about AIDS" bullshit film. We get ONE tiny little scene where he watches the gay protestors getting arrested? That's the only acknowledgement that, yes, gay men actually also fought for their health, their lives and their humanity?
Am I really supposed to find this man's story interesting because it's a homophobic straight man who has to deal with AIDS, who ends up helping gay men? And the one gay character who's actually allowed to have any personality at all is just a tragic, wisecracking sidekick stereotype? Just like a reviewer once noted that every scene in "The Iron Lady" seemed designed only to provoke the reaction of "what a woman!," this film doesn't care about any other person in this story just so we can all admire this one straight guy.
Case in point: the female characters and lack thereof. Garner is totally passive (and yet another character who Woodruff has to teach about life and passion and standing up for your beliefs and AIDS and stuff). And we get scene after scene of Woodruff talking on the phone about drugs (seriously, this movie was long and boring), but they can't give us ONE tiny little scene that introduces Woodruff's new black female...business manager? I don't know even know what her job was, or even what her name was, because all of a sudden she was just there, helping out. How could she afford to devote her time like that? What was her story? And then we finally meet a female AIDS victim...oh, except we don't really meet her. She doesn't even get one line or even a freakin' name, she's just there for Woodruff to finally have sex again! Yay for him!
Sure, McConaughey was entertaining, doing a slightly (slightly!) deeper spin on his Texan huckster shtick. And, I'm sorry, Leto was fine and clearly committed, but I don't get what all the praise is for. I've seen way too many other actors in plays and films play that type of character and give that type of performance to think that Leto's is anything singular or extraordinary.
Maybe it's because I just saw a fantastic production of Larry Kramer's "The Normal Heart" in Chicago a week before I saw this movie, but yeah, it does not fare well in the comparison.
I have no issue with this film focusing on a straight victim of AIDS- and, honestly, it's ultimately a good thing to TELL those stories. It helps to destigmatize HIV/AIDS as a "gay disease." Which it is unfortunately still thought of by many people.
And I did not find Woodroof, even at the film's end, being very admirable or fully embraceable as a hero. He's not any less of an asshole at the end.
I also compared it, in my head, to The Normal Heart. I even called it that work's jerkass straight cousin. But they're similar. Yes, The Normal Heart is FAR more didactic. And it packs more of emotional wallop. But at the same time, THAT work is also populated with many poorly-fleshed out characters who appear from nowhere (giving characters lengthy, emotional monologues when they have little else to do is not the same as building rich characters). Characters who, it should be pointed out, are all white and upper middle class and heteronormative in all aspects other than what they do in bed. The only woman is treated as a hardscrabble saint. The work is angry and wants to throttle the government and throttle the audience until they get it (the upcoming movie, I can only imagine, will suck). But it's just as tunnel-visioned and lacking in diversity as this. Its targets are different, though similar.
Dismissing this as "an AIDS movie for straight people" is reductive.
Austin - you make some good points. By comparing to "The Normal Heart," I by no means am saying that the play is a perfect work. A few things:
1) " (giving characters lengthy, emotional monologues when they have little else to do is not the same as building rich characters..." a good point out of context but not in this case. At least in TNH, those monologues reveal backstories, relationships, motivations and, simply, lives. Sure, we don't SEE those, but that's the limitations of the stage. Leto and Garner are allowed a little of this, but Garner's backstory is pretty undeveloped and basic.
2) "upper middle class and heteronormative..." I'm not sure what versions you've seen, but in TNH that I saw not all the characters were portrayed this way. Unless you mean "heteronormative" as opposed to Leto's transgender character, which seems to be an unusually broad use of that term. Some of the characters are clearly not that wealthy and don't meet society's standards of how a "man" should act.
3) "The only woman is treated as a hardscrabble saint." And yet she's way more interesting than Garner's similar doctor character. She spars, challenges, jokes, grieves, and actually has her own ideas and opinions, all from a handful of scenes. She's not there just to learn from the protagonist.
Again, TNH is by no means a perfect piece. But both it and DBC revolve around a real-life (barely disguised, in TNH's case) prickly, imperfect protagonist. But I felt the DBC filmmakers were just so enamored of their maverick smartass that they thought we would all just sit there in wonder, awe and amusement, caring about nothing or no one else.
I've seen a few productions and am quite familiar with the text- there is no question that the cast of characters is white and well-off, even if they're not talking about their money. Even moments like Bruce's heartrending aria of a monologue seem less, to me, like character revelations than they do Larry Kramer's author tracts. They're a gut punch, but the goal is still mostly to punch.
And yes- I meant heteronormative in the sense that they all, either overtly or no (at least two of the characters explicitly do), can easily pass for straight.
When Larry Kramer first submitted The Normal Heart to Joe Papp at the Public, it was a doorstopper of a script. Joe (and his wife, Gail), after much arguing and shouting, were able to coerce Kramer into making cuts. But you still see that the play was always meant to be less focused on Ned.
The problem, inherently, with works like The Normal Heart and DBC is that they are the stories of individuals in a time of community. You cannot understand the crisis by looking at one person alone- but you also cannot feasibly depict the wide scope without being reductive. As viewed as a part of a greater body of AIDS work, DBC, for me, really worked. I did not think that we needed the wider scope of what was going on elsewhere. Or even what was going on to strangers in Woodroof's club.
I think the film is notable for not depicting the Noble, Beautiful, Tragic AIDS Victim. And notable for showing desperation and acts for survival that weren't pretty or pure.
The story is focused on Woodroof, and delivers Woodroof.
Without having seen this (yet), I'm really feeling that McConaugheyhey is about to become an Oscar winner in that Sandra Bullock / Julia Roberts tradition: A movie star who has made a lot of money for a lot of people, and is popular with the public and who hasn't been rewarded / overrewarded. Oh, and for the performance too.
Not dissing Matthew (I'd play naked bongo with him!) but just a feeling this one's going all the way.