****
Don’t say what, Dixon. When she comes in calling you a “f*ckhead.”
In Bruges was one of those movies that seemingly no-one wanted to see, but that everyone who had seen it really appreciated. That was Martin McDonagh’s first film, and he wrote and directed it. He followed that up with Seven Psychopaths, which I would have seen in theaters had it come out 10 years earlier. I still have not seen it. In Bruges took a look at morality within the world of hitmen. The cast was phenomenal for a first movie: Colin Farrell, Brendan Gleason, Ciarian Hinds, and Jordan Prentice. In my mind Jordan Prentice was Peter Dinklage, which is a testament to how good his performance was in my memory, because Dinklage is a great actor. Colin Farrell returned in Seven Psychopaths which looks like it leaned more into the kitschy aspect of crime. It also starred two people who would return in 3 Billboards: Woody Harrelson and Sam Rockwell. 3 Billboards seemed to eschew the criminal focus of his first two movies to shift onto the results of crime on the family and the community. Harrelson plays the terminally ill sheriff who cannot find the rapist-murderers of Frances McDormand’s daughter. Rockwell plays the racist local police officer who has violence issues.
Like McDonagh’s prior films, there are no real heroes, or main characters who can even reach the level of being decent human beings. It is the morality of flawed, even bad, people that he wants to explore. It takes a lot to make the mother of a victim of terrible violence to be unsympathetic, but McDonagh pushes for that and McDormand delivers. The most likable character in the film is an alcoholic dwarf played by Peter Dinklage. I like how McDonagh includes little people actors in his movies without making their stature their defining characteristic. Instead it’s substance abuse, but at least it’s not superficial.
The one actor I noticed who appeared in all three of his films is Zeljko Ivanek. I have been a fan of his since “Homicide: Life on the Street.” I have finally convinced my wife to watch that show because it makes “Brooklyn 99” infinitely more meaningful. Ivanek played the assistant district attorney on Homicide and has been an excellent character actor ever since. He is my favorite Slovenian actor. His role as the department’s Desk Sergeant in this film allowed him to show more range than his character’s name suggests.
Lastly, I do not always tackle the controversy surrounding films, but because I was aware of it, and it impacted how I viewed this film, I want to address it. Sam Rockwell’s Dixon redemption is the source of that controversy. I had read how he went from a racist cop to a decent man. Accordingly, I kept waiting for his salvation or for him to become a hero. From a plot standpoint, you may root for something he does to pay off, but that does not make someone a hero. Just as a bully’s realization that they are a bully does not absolve them of their crimes, Dixon is not saved, nor does he become a hero. That the film is tone deaf enough for a sizable portion of viewers to walk away feeling that the film had treated him like he had is a fair criticism of the effectiveness of McDonagh’s otherwise well made film. Reading that he is Irish made sense to me.
Personally, I like pro-wrestling analysis on youtube. The youtube channel that gets a lot of credit for bringing a ton of wrestling fans back into the fold is Old School Wrestling Review, with Jay Hunter. Jay is Irish and so are his friends, who appear on his show in a rotating lineup. Them watching 1980s wrestling gives them ample opportunities to comment on racism, but more often than not their attitude is one unironic enjoyment and occasionally self-indulgence. That, and to a lesser extent the sexism, are why I don’t watch their almost universally beloved product. Recently a new channel, Wrestling Bios, has sprung up and the reviewer is also Irish. His approach is more earnest and he rarely tries to insert himself into the reviews, but when something is accused of being racist he tends to innocently disagree. What they have in common is that they believe the accused’s versions of events and look for 1950s overt racism as the standard of proof. McDonagh, as an Irishman, might come from a culture that is still in the 1980s when it comes to racial sensitivity. In 1988, I believe far fewer people would have noticed Dixon’s potentially problematic position in this movie. That is why an otherwise astute observer who created such three dimensional bad people, might step on a landmine labeled POLICE-RACE-MISSOURI in size 120 font.
In act 2 Clarke Peters’ state trooper captain appears and fires Dixon. 
Clark Peters is black. In 1980s logic, that might qualify as racial justice, but not in 2017. Either McDonagh saw it that way, or he simply did not view Dixon’s story as a redemptive one. I see Dixon as the anti-Loki, with Sheriff Willoughby (Harrelson) as Thor. Loki is handsome, articulate and cunning. Dixon is an idiot who talks like a putz. Only Thor sees Loki as a decent being, hidden beneath a false exterior. Only Willoughly writes to Dixon and claims, “deep down, you’re a decent man.”
Without the Dixon controversy, and with even one character to form an emotional connection, this movie could have been great. Even with those flaws it was still a very compelling story with some excellent performances. Hopefully for McDonagh’s next film he heads back to Europe and steers clear of racial politics.
Jabrody's Movielog 