Summary:
After twenty-five years in captivity, Karl Childers, a mentally challenged man, is released from the hospital where he was put after he murdered his mother and her lover.
My Thoughts:
Every once in a while you see a movie that takes you completely by surprise, and for me, “Sling Blade” was one of those movies. Aside from his amazing performance as Lorne Malvo in FX’s Fargo Season One, I thought Billy Bob Thornton was nothing special, but he always turned in performances that could be considered decent. Nothing I’ve ever seen him do prepared me for this film.
I’m going out on a limb to say this is Thornton’s best movie; he adapted it from a play he wrote, he stars in it, and he directs it- it’s his show, and he freaking kills it in every aspect. Even when he’s just sitting around staring at the ground, awkwardly trying to avoid eye contact with other characters, Thornton is the center of this story, and this story, while perhaps a bit predictable and sometimes a little slow, is a story that deserves to be seen by many people.
“Some folks call it a sling blade, I call it a Kaiser blade. Mmm hmm.”
Kyle Childers (Thornton) is a man with a mental disability whom has been locked away in a state mental hospital since he was a boy for murdering his mother and her lover. At the start of the film, Karl is released and quickly befriends a small boy named Frank (Lucas Black, “Fast and Furious: Tokyo Drift”). Frank and his mother Linda (Natalie Canerday, “October Sky”) invite Kyle to come stay with them, much to the chagrin of Linda’s alcoholic and abusive boyfriend Doyle (Dwight Yoakam, “Wedding Crashers”).
So first and foremost I want to talk about the writing. This film is based on a play (also written by Thornton) and there are many scenes that feel like they are staged more to be seen on a stage vs a screen, like, for example one of the first scenes where Childers recounts his life story. In that scene, the lights are turned down and only a single bulb illuminates Childers’ face, the camera pretty much stays straight on Childers without moving- it feels very much like we are audience members sitting before Childers as he talks (like the reporter who comes to interview him). I actually think this style of writing works remarkably well for this movie, for many of the most important scenes are just long conversations between one or two people.
The thing that makes much of the dialogue scenes unique is Karl himself. As he is a mentally challenged man, he tends to take and leave everything at face value; if someone asks him a question, he doesn’t beat around the bush, he just answers them flat out, even if the answer isn’t one they don’t want to hear. This kind of remarkable honesty, even when confronted with his greatest sins, allows us to really see into Karl’s personality. His personality is very duplicitous: he is simultaneously a scary man with his violent and unpredictable past, yet he’s also so honest and gentle he seems to be a person you could trust to watch a child. Both the writing and Thornton’s acting help bring that duplicity of Karl’s character forward, and it makes him one of the most compelling mentally handicapped people I’ve seen depicted in recent memory.
(SOME SPOILERS)
Before Karl gets out, a reporter interviewing him wants to know if Karl will ever kill again, to which he responds, he doesn’t think he’ll have a reason to kill someone again, but that question becomes the question of the film. The whole of the story seems to revolve around who Karl is now that he’s been released and what his purpose is now that he’s free. After we meet the little boy Frank and Karl and he form a friendship, it quickly becomes apparent where the story is headed, especially since Doyle’s abuse mirrors much of the abuse that Karl faced when he was a child. I’m sure some people could look at this film and figure out, pretty much from the first twenty minutes, where this film is going to end, but in my opinion that doesn’t lesson the impact of the overall story, in fact, I think it strengthens it. While this story might be predictable, it never feels boring- it moves towards the ending with a sense of inevitability. Much like Karl himself, this story seems to move with slow but purposeful intent; everything we learn about Karl- through conversations or interactions- seems to shed more light on his personality and we get to slowly understand him and the violent actions of his past more. As we approach the end, that black inevitability seems to hover over the film like a storm cloud, almost waiting for Karl to do what must be done, and when the moment comes, it is not done with either joy or disgust, it’s done as if it were a chore- taking out the garbage- it was just a thing that needed doing. And Karl was the only one to do it.
Verdict:
Sometimes heroes aren’t a man in a cape, or some great philosopher- sometimes they’re just people who happen to be in the right place in the right time and those people just need to be willing to do the right thing, even if that means sacrificing part of themselves to makes sure what needs doing is done. This is a great movie; I wholeheartedly recommend it.
Review Written By: