But, finally, Marston's concentration on Maria's perspective, while scrupulously done, falls short of the vision that would connect it to something larger. For instance, as the movie presents her situation, there's no decent work for Maria outside the flower plantations, but we're not told what the range of less desirable possibilities includes. Suggesting that Maria doesn't have much choice is to say that her character doesn't matter as much in determining her fate as it would for a more fortunate girl. But the movie nevertheless sticks to Maria so closely that we don't get a scan of Colombian society, which we need if Maria's social position is such that her character doesn't have the full range of action, dramatically speaking.
This is a central paradox in the movie, but Marston doesn't seem to realize it. Which is not to say I'm bemoaning the lack of a Marxist vision, i.e., melodrama that insists it's a higher historical truth. (The lack of Marxist melodrama is especially surprising given Marston's spell in academia as a political science grad student at the University of Chicago.) The model I'm thinking of would be, rather, the panoramic realism of Tolstoy and George Eliot, which acknowledges the countervailing influences of social forces and historical trends on the one hand and individual character on the other.
Perhaps it's too much to demand godlike artistic omnipotence on his first go, but in his first book Theodore Dreiser shows how Sister Carrie both betters and loses herself according to her limited opportunities, which he depicts on a broad scale. (He can do it within the compass of two sentences: "When Carrie renewed her search, as she did the next day, going to the Casino, she found that in the opera chorus, as in other fields, employment is difficult to secure. Girls who can stand in a line and look pretty are as numerous as labourers who can swing a pick" (ch.38).) By temperament Marston might have more in common with the Abraham Cahan of The Rise of David Levinsky, which shows us with unvarnished naturalism a society on a broader scale than Maria Full of Grace. (The only plus side to the lack of vision in Maria is that, despite the title, Marston makes almost nothing of the sacramental symbolism of swallowing the pellets.)
Marston's movie doesn't get beyond the kind of journalism that opens with a "human interest" paragraph because he recreates Maria's subjective experience so respectfully it's as if he'd consider it a violation of the girl to move from an external vantage to an internal one. He's too fastidious to use Maria for muckraking purposes (cf. Michael Moore's exploitation of the bereaved war mother in Fahrenheit 9/11), which is fine, because the muckraker's fervor often distorts his reportage, anyway, but Marston's case-file-approach still lacks dimensions. He can't be said to identify with Maria, to imagine what it would be like for him to be her.
Article comments
1 - Chris Knipp
Admirable review, the most thorough I've seen, and your supportive material and footnoting are most welcome (this is a topic we need background on before we can really evaluate the film properly). Thanks a lot for this. I too noted the lack of humor; the lack of quirky detail -- features of a certain over-earnestness. I think the film is being rather overrated at present, but I'm nonetheless glad Marston was able to make it and did such a good job and got such a great start on what could well be a fine career as a director.
Did you note -- did anybody say -- why they shot in Ecuador rather than Columbia for most or all of the Colombian sequences? I thought Marston said somewhere but can't find it.
2 - Alan Dale
Thanks for the comment. Always welcome to hear someone out there is responding to my work.
As for shooting in Ecuador: "'The original intention of the project was that we would go to Colombia â€" just me, Paul, and the d.p., Jim Denault â€" and [work with] an entirely Colombian cast and crew,' remembers Marston. 'Unfortunately we couldn't shoot in Colombia because of the political situation. We shot in Ecuador instead, but we’re doing everything possible to safeguard all that which is Colombian about the project â€" and part of that is to make sure that everyone who is on screen is actually Colombian.'" [http://www.spanix.com/html/ShowNews.asp?ID=811&PG=8]
3 - Fernando Rivas
I found your review of Maria Full of Grace somewhate insensitive, though not entirely off the mark. I don't think there's too much playable humor in the airplane bathroom scene and the defecated pellets. I do think Catalina, the actress in the role, should have given more terror to the moment but I don't think a bit of slapstick would have been the way to go.
Your comparison to her performance with legendary Hollywood actresses is kind of laughable. You are mixing apples and oranges. This woman comes from a background as different from Hollywood as Earth from Venus. To hold her to that yardstick is blatantly ridiculous.
As to Marston's choice to include bits of the actual life of the actors in the script your comment about them not being real people shows a remarkably sterile disconnect. While they are not involved in the drug trade their connection with their homeland is a crucial part of this story and the
authenticity which results from their
particular brand of language and custom is as rare in films these days as truth.
You also question Maria's choice to get involved in the drug trade as unreal insofar as there is other work available. If you listen to the director's commentary on the DVD he addresses this issue. Maria is not perfect as a character and is not meant to be. She has made a bad choice - not just because of necessity - but partly because of her rebellious nature.
Another point of contention for you is the fact that the customs police release her. Again, Marston addresses this in the commentary. Fear of lawsuits and investigations as well as procedural change that might result from taking action keeps the agents from holding Maria. I agree, however, that the
resolution of this issue in the film is a bit too pat. They might have been able to keep her at least a day or two to check for the 'return' of the pellets.
In general I think you're looking for something in this flick that is not there and not meant to be. What is there, Marston's view of the drug trade and Colombian culture, is, from my own experiences in NYC, right on the money - or at least as a film is going to get these days.
4 - Alan Dale
Well, we disagree about slapstick. But I don't consider a lack of humor in itself to constitute sensitivity, or any other virtue.
Actually, I think you're the one mixing apples and oranges when you write "this woman comes from a background as different from Hollywood as Earth from Venus," if by "this woman" you mean Maria rather than the actress playing her. My point: by using a nonprofessional actress Marston doesn't get the advantage of all that a professional actress, because of her drive and experience, can bring to a working-class role. Barbara Stanwyck was working class but Constance Bennett wasn't--neither was "from Hollywood." But it doesn't matter b/c they worked as ACTRESSES not demographic representatives.
"Remarkably sterile disconnect" paragraph: You haven't made yourself clear. I'm not talking about the actors, I'm talking about the characters, and I repeat: Characters are not real people, not even when Colombians are cast as Colombians. As for the contributions of the actors to the script, you hardly need remind me of that since I singled it out for praise earlier in the review you're ostensibly responding to. My point in that later paragraph is that the movie would offer a greater aesthetic experience if the writer-director had shaped the material more. He's too respectful of his characters, as if they were real people, towards whom one does want to act respectfully. But with realistic fictional characters it's part of the author's JOB to second-guess them, to show their mixed motives, to satirize them, to see them not only as they'd like to be seen. The more varied a response he evokes, the more fully human they seem. By contrast, Maria has two dimensions: she gets into trouble b/c she's stubborn but we have to sympathize with her b/c she's had limited opportunities.
I didn't say Maria's choice to get involved in the drug trade was "unreal" insofar as there is other work available. (What does "unreal" mean when we're talking about a fiction film, all of which by definition is "unreal"? Did you mean "unrealistic"?) I said that without telling us what her other choices were, Marston could not give us a panoramic view of Colombian society that would enable us to understand her choice in a broader social context.
While it's interesting to know what Marston said on the DVD, that commentary isn't part of the movie, which I saw and reviewed before the DVD was released. None of what you paraphrased from his commentary, however, contradicts what I said in the review.
Did you mean for your tone to be so p.c.-authoritarian? It's only a movie, it's only a movie review.