The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada
These days, westerns are like buses. You’re waiting ages for one, then suddenly three turn up. If like me you’re a fan of the genre, this ought to be great news. Unfortunately, Brokeback Mountain wasn’t really a western (nor was it enjoyable), The Proposition was set in Australia so it shouldn’t count, but Tommy Lee Jones directorial debut The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada is most definitely a proper western, albeit one set in the present.
When ranch hand Pete Perkins discovers his Mexican friend Melquiades Estrada has been shot and left in a shallow grave near the border, he sets about investigating who perpetrated the crime. However, the local sheriff is indifferent, and buries the Mexican in an inaccurately marked grave since he was a “wetback” (illegal immigrant). Despite this, eventually Pete discovers the identity of the killer; a border patrolman named Mike Norton who the other border police are covering up for. Furious at the authorities turning a blind eye, Pete takes the law into his own hands, exhuming his friend for a journey to Mexico where he asked to be buried, should he ever die in the US. Pete also kidnaps Mike and forces him to take the journey with him.
Tommy Lee Jones directs with an effective leisurely simplicity very much in the style of Clint Eastwood. Legendary cinematographer Chris Menges does a terrific job shooting beautiful border locations, and Guillermo Arriaga’s screenplay is as excellent as his previous work on the likes of Amores Perros. The performances are good, especially from Barry Pepper (the religious sharpshooter from Saving Private Ryan) as Mike Norton. January Jones (from Love Actually) also lends fine support as his neglected wife, Lou Ann. But man-of-the-match obviously goes to Tommy Lee Jones, both as an actor and director, and his subtle, understated turn as Pete Perkins provides the enigmatic heart of this unusually good picture.
This is very much a film of two halves. The first is told with multiple flashbacks, showing the different points of view on the murder, plus explaining the backgrounds of Melquiades and Mike. Melquiades had left his wife and children in Mexico for reasons unknown, whereupon Pete hired him and their unlikely friendship developed. On the other hand, Mike came to the town with his young, pretty, fish-out-of-water wife, having been assigned to border patrol. At first he is brutal, stand-offish, and thoroughly unpleasant, even though the shooting of Melquiades turns out to be accidental.
However, in the second half of the film, Mike’s character gradually changes, as he realises the nature of what he has done and comes to regret it. This is a story of redemption, and the film’s message seems to be that whist all of the characters are flawed, none of them are beyond salvation. From a Christian standpoint the film is a powerful, hopeful meditation on repentance and forgiveness containing several vivid images which illustrate these points. One sequence where Mike tries to escape from Pete on their journey to Mexico is particularly interesting. Pete simply lets him run away, knowing that because he is on horseback, he cannot escape. Several amusing shots show Mike desperately running and Pete calming trailing behind on his horse a few feet away. Eventually Mike gives up. This is a superb picture of the futility of running away from God, who will always hold all of us to account for what we have done.
However, the positive Christian messages are negated somewhat by the depictions of adultery in the first half of the film. Incidental to the plot is that almost every character is having affairs, many of them openly with their spouses simply not caring. To be fair, this adultery is a plot device that illustrates the compromised and indifferent attitudes of the sleepy border town. But having Pete participate in them saps audience belief in his moral integrity with regard to his insistence that his friend be properly buried. During the story he says he “doesn’t want to offend” God, but later tries to convince his lover Rachel (who he knows has affairs with other men besides him), to run away with him to Mexico. Of course you could argue that this simply makes him a complex, flawed character, but it also makes him a hypocrite and undermines the moral message of the film.
That aside, there is a little violence, plenty of swearing, and – as previously alluded to –sexual content that will put some Christians off despite the overall positive message. It’s also not a film for everyone; some will find it slow, and possibly confusing in the first half. However, if you stick with it, The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada is an immensely dramatic, thoughtful, darkly funny, poignant and rewarding experience.
Simon Dillon, April 2006.
Haven’t seen this film, but I was wanting to ask if you have written a review of V for Vendetta? I have but it’s not great and I’d like to see your thoughts on it.
Chris
Comment by Chris — 20 April, 2006 @ 3:09 pm
Hi Chris,
Nope, not seen V for Vendetta yet. It came out during a particularly busy period at work, and I ended up missing it because there was always something else on that I wanted to see more. I daresay I will catch up with it on DVD. Shocking I know that such a staunch advocate of seeing films properly - ie on the big screen - should have missed such a major release!
Comment by Simon — 21 April, 2006 @ 10:17 am
Just noticed we haven’t commented on this one yet, and since I disagree a bit with some of Simon’s conclusions I thought I’d wade in.
Barry Pepper gives a committed performance and the viewer is truly repulsed by the character of Mike. I was impressed that Mike remains un-repentant for so much of the film, despite what he is forced to endure - an unconventional bit of plotting that rings true, for a change, in the familiar ’story of redemption.’
Though I have no quibbles with Lee-Jones’ performance I’m not sure that I agree with Simon’s estimation of the character. I love the parallel Simon draws with us/God and Mike/Pete during the whole Pete letting Mike run and waiting for him to return section (though you communicate it in a little bit of a hellfire and brimstone way - God waiting for us to punish us, not God waiting to show us mercy) But aside from that, I don’t really identify much of what Simon considers to be a ‘positive Christian message’ in the character of Pete at all, I think his so-called ‘moral integrity’ is completely at odds with the character of God. The fact is that though he waits for Mike in the desert, he has trapped Mike into running back to him, whereas God has given us freewill. We have the choice, if we desire, to dismiss our faults and failings and mistakes and never to take the gift of repentance. However, Pete ignores the notion that God alone is just, and decides to force Mike into a kind of ‘atonement’ then he ditches him. This is why I wasn’t as surprised/disappointed as Simon by his desire to live with his married girlfriend, I could see that he may have thought in some way that he could ’save’ her too, from her marriage, her life etc. It makes sense, he has extrapolated his own kind of morality from what he knows of Christianity, and I can see that it would be easy to justify a lot if your intentions are good.
This movie is strikingly original, and certainly won’t be everybody’s cup of tea. It’s also incredibly bleak, and I found it initially very hard to stick with because it is so unpleasant in places. I don’t know if I could recommend it, because of some of the content - not because I thought it was particularly gratuitous - the film was made with a certain integrity - but I don’t think that it’s a rewarding experience, there is no moral pay-off, though it is poignant at times, it’s morally flawed. I can’t ‘dirty’ my eyes and mind like that unless I am going to be uplifted, provoked, or changed by what comes after it.
Comment by Heidi — 28 April, 2007 @ 8:18 am