Click Here For Our Interview with Edward Norton

Down in the Valley

It's heartening to see a big name actor take a pay cut and help a very ambitious independent film secure the sort of attention and distribution it deserves"¦especially if that actor is Edward Norton, whose most memorable supporting role (for me) is still the oh-so-slimy card shark Worm, in the low-budget actors' playground that was 1998's Rounders. In Down in the Valley, Norton slips right into his role as urban cowboy Harlan. He delivers an impressive performance without letting his star power dominate the screen or overshadow his co-stars, who are also quite good. Evan Rachel Wood, who wowed audiences in 2003's Thirteen, is once again competent here, especially given the fact that she was only 16 when this latest film was shot. Though she is given a bit less space to really explore her character in this film, it is clear her star is still rising and she will be a presence in Hollywood for years to come. Throw in a Culkin and David Morse, one of the most underappreciated actors out there, and you've got yourself a decent film, albeit one that falls a bit short of its lofty goals. And that's not always such a bad thing "“ the fact that it is such an ambitious film means it worth a view whether or not it fully works. Down in the Valley is definitely a film worth seeing and most certainly a film worth thinking hard about.

Too often theatergoers that view independent films expect and are treated to good or great acting but inferior production values. Down in the Valley is an exception to the rule. The contrast between the beautiful vistas of the San Fernando valley and the stifling concrete jungle of L.A. is a constant motif throughout the film. In nature and in city center, from the streets to the hills to the motels to the beach to the Mexican dance hall, the film feels intimate and authentic, which alternately contrasts with and complements Norton's character's loose conception of reality. Despite a cost of only $8 million, Down in the Valley is in no way lightweight filmmaking. The film may be overlong and the plot sometimes a bit contrived, but it remains thought-provoking and eye-catching throughout and offers a healthy variety of symbols, iconography, and existential questions that inspire a far more complex audience response than the typical 'liked it' or 'didn't like it.'

Norton plays Harlan, a twenty-something gas station attendant who looks and sounds like a full-fledged cowboy, clearly a fish out of water in L.A. We meet Harlan by way of Tobe (Wood), an attractive, free-spirited teenager who invites him to go to the beach with her and her friends. Tobe and

her younger brother Lonnie (Rory Culkin) live in a fairly comfortable though usually empty home with their guardian, the brusque but well-intentioned Wade (Morse). Harlan and Tobe begin a relationship soon after they meet. Their conversations are filled with youthful spirit and solemn longing for freedom and romance in their lives. Time and time again, we might not necessarily agree with the young lovers' ideas (Harlan's in particular) or find them at all realistic, but we certainly understand where they are coming from.

Harlan is a cowboy through and through "“ chivalrous, free, and straight-talking "“ but we can't help but be suspicious of him, as Wade is. In this age of extreme cynicism and suspicion of strangers, we sympathize with Wade's dismissal of Harlan and recognize it as something more than a father figure disliking his teenage daughter's boyfriend. As the film progresses, we find ever more reasons to distrust Harlan. We soon recognize that his condition is not simply ignorant or defiant, but severely pathological. We learn of his phony connections to ranchers in California and elsewhere and we watch him act out cowboy scenes in his motel room.

Flawed as he may be, Harlan is not easily condemnable, even in the most shocking and violent moments of the film. What makes him so compelling to Tobe and Lonnie, and perhaps to younger viewers, is that he does have legitimate (though impossibly idealistic) desires for freedom and happiness and seems to want to help Tobe and Lonnie realize their own passions and freedom. This sets Harlan at direct odds with Wade, who quickly forbids Tobe from seeing him. Lonnie, on the other hand, continues to spend time with Harlan. Lonnie is both shy and intelligent, but he is also impressionable. Harlan is genuinely concerned with his well-being and becomes a sort of big brother to him, while Wade is incapable of reaching Lonnie, chiefly because he's usually either at work or coming home from work throughout the film.

Who are we to side with here? Wade doesn't understand the kids that live in his home, and his temper sometimes flares up, but in the end he does right by them and wants to make sure they are safe. Harlan is not with Tobe out of self-interest, but his presence is increasingly threatening to both Wade and the audience as he attempts to undermine Wade's standing with Tobe and Lonnie. This is the moment I think I turned on Harlan "“ for all his good intentions, he is actually quite manipulative, a cunning interloper who has to be gotten rid of in one way or another. When Wade finally pulls a gun (one of many that he owns) on Harlan after an uninvited visit to

the house, Harlan retreats. However, it is in this moment that we become convinced that this crisis will only end in violence.

The film transforms into an extended Western chase scene in its final third, which begins as a lone shot rings out in the family's home. It drags and drags, but there are bright spots even in this too-long finale. Pay particular attention to the last shootout scene, particularly where it takes place and the can't-miss parallel symbol of the caged horse that complements the final showdown. In the entire last third of the film, the lines between fiction and reality become blurred, but even here my unease and lack of satisfaction were accompanied by an understanding of what the director was trying to do, and just how seriously he took his material. David Jacobson has only directed three films in the past twelve years, and I hope after this one he starts making more, because weeks after seeing this movie, I'm still thinking about certain shots, and certain lines (Jacobson also wrote the script for the film), and clearly wrestling with his muddying of the good/evil paradigm in this film. Again I can't help but mention that it's so refreshing to see such an ambitious independent film. Have I said it clearly enough in 1100 words? Go see this movie!

Movie Grade: B+

Synopsis:

Siblings Lonnie and Tobe live at the edge of the bleeding sprawl of the San Fernando Valley. One day, a mysterious horseman strolls into their lives. With his folksy-naïve manner and cowboy garb, Harlan Fairfax Carruthers initially evokes a bemused “Are you for real?” from one of their friends. But to Lonnie and Tobe, Harlan’s alien behavior seems to be exactly what they need.

Director David Jacobson brings a fresh perspective to the city and the ways it functions as a locus of both hopeful reinvention and dark violence. Enrique Chediak’s’ anamorphic widescreen cinematography uses the striking juxtapositions of the San Fernando Valley, where the Interstate brushes up against what little is left of the Wild West, to both comic and poignant effect. Remarkable central performances from Edward Norton and a revelatory Evan Rachel Wood cement Down in the Valley as both a classic American movie and a thoroughly independent vision.