Dee Rees’ “Mudbound” is a complex and invigorating account of post-WWII racial tensions in 1940s Mississippi. The film addresses, with astute sensitivity, the timeless racial struggles still at play in America. Rees, whose “Pariah” remains one of the most underrated films of this decade, tells the story of two soldiers, one white and one black (Garrett Hedlund and Jason Mitchell), returning home to rural Mississippi, having seen the horrors of war and struggling to deal with racial injustices they must confront. They form a friendship that gets the townspeople talking. Neither man cares about the other’s skin color, they just need comfort in each other’s bruised souls, and Rees nails the touching friendship they build. “Mudbound” isn’t just one of the best movies of the year, it’s one of the most vitally important. It encompasses, with many brilliant brush strokes, the problems that lie in the American landscape, problems that still pertain to the political conversation today.
We spoke to the writer-director, whose film is set to screen at the 55th New York Film Festival, about what led her to this film, the parallels to today’s America and her future as a filmmaker.
I saw the movie at Sundance and again, for a second time, this week. I was a huge fan of “Pariah” and this movie exceeded my expectations. How did your post-“Pariah” journey lead you to “Mudbound”?
I was sent the screenplay by Virgil Williams, and I really liked it and then I read the novel, we then tweaked things here and there about the Jackson family. We wanted to tell both stories about both families, and the relationships that developed between them.
So, you read the script, then read the novel. What did you specifically change and add based on the novel?
I added the political [commentary] about country violence, the impossibility of living life in this place. Also, the whole Happy breaking his leg. Most importantly, that conversation with the Jackson family about owning land, I needed to establish the Jacksons a little more, they have a plan, they have a life and it was important to also give them their own kind of drive. I wrote a lot of the sermons as well. I just went deep within the Jackson family, to give them more context that just didn’t come with the house. I wanted to do something more interesting in terms of the connections between both families.
You mentioned land. That’s what these characters are connected by. I do find that to be the most important pull of the story, was it for you as well?
Yeah, they are all rooted in this place. The film, in a broader way, is how possible is it to come home, like finding a home. You have these two soldiers that are basically outside the bubble, they have to come back and reinstall themselves to a smaller place and they can’t do it. You have these two men, Henry and Hap, that are both disinherited. I was fascinated by nature’s indifference to it and the two women that are trying to keep the outside out, however, things leak in, things leak out, it’s impossible to be contained, we’re all an open system.
I love the restraint you show in this film.
Well, the storyline is about the battle at home versus the battle abroad. There are blood and guts abroad, but at home, it may be just as bloody. That location we found for the town it needed to feel like a division of enemy lines. Like, am I going to be able to make it down the street? This idea that we’re all embattled and the way you fight changes. There’s a physical threat and there’s a mental threat. You’re fighting hostilities all the way, whether abroad or at home. The physical threat where women are in danger and men are being lynched, I just wanted to show the simmering tensions but in a very matter of fact way such as “this is the way it is, this is the status quo” and it couldn’t feel too underperformed, it had to feel like it’s just the way people live there every day. It had to be a kind of way of being, this kind of DNA. It had to have a kind of casualness to it.
That casualness very much plays a role in how the script is structured, especially relating to the shifting perspectives. This is a beautifully meshed and edited together film, it must not have been easy to find that kind of fluid flow to your movie.
I have to credit my editor, Mako Kamitsuna, whom I also worked with “Pariah.” She’s really amazing to work with. I knew it would be very tricky to intertwine these different narratives. At the beginning you think this is a story about two brothers, and then we cut to Laura [Carey Mulligan] and she introduces us to how we got to the land, and then Laura hands it to the Jackson family. I worked hard at finding the natural handouts in the story. We said, ok let’s just edit the Jackson family from beginning to end, have it function as its own movie, and then edit just the McAllan family from beginning to end, have it function as its own movie as well, and then kind of see where their interactions naturally fall. Then having known each character, we are much more emotionally involved when they all intersect together with Pappy at the gravesite. We’ve seen all the inner-workings and it has a very different tension then when that same scene is shown opening the film. So we worked that way and Mako is such a great editor with an incredible instinct.
The film comes at such a crucial time in America. What are your thoughts on these timeless themes you’re tackling here and how it reflects who we are today in this country?
I want the viewer to think about our shared connected history. I think what’s happening in our country is making people have an even greater critical distance where they can say “oh yeah, that’s me” or “oh yeah, I’d like to have these ideas passed on.” It makes people relate much more to the film when that happens because they see it happening in their lives now. It can also make us question ourselves. Like what are the ideas we are not interrogating? Like being liable about what you’re passing on. Like Jamie, he’s not going to be as bad as Henry whose not going to be as bad as Pappy. Jamie isn’t a saint either but maybe his son could be a little more evolved than he is. It’s about this continuity, we are a family in a way, we are our history. Just being aware of that and the way in which we try to break it. It’s not a mindful practice as much as it is something that just happens.
It pains me to say that there aren’t many African-American female directors at the moment. With this movie you are most likely going to take that extra step in your career, what does that mean to you?
It means that I will hopefully have a little bit more leeway to do the things that I want to do. I think with cinema, the idea of discovery is what keeps this industry alive. It’s about different ideas, expanded imaginations, knowing what people are capable of doing.
After “Pariah” I was excited about your next project and it took a good six years for it to be realized. What’s next for Dee Rees?
I’m working with FilmNation on a film about the ERA [Equal Rights Amendment] and then I have an adaptation of a Joan Didion novel. A few things lined up and it’s very exciting to work and work quickly, tell different stories.
“Mudbound” opens in cinemas and hits Netflix on November 17th.