"Come Early Morning" demonstrates that verisimilitude is not enough to make compelling art. Ashley Judd gives a convincing performance as the aptly named "Loose," or Lucy, a promiscuous, poor, white, Southern high-functioning drunk. She wanders from bar to bar, man to man, bed to bed. She drinks beer. She listens to country music from a juke box. She rides a pickemup truck through Southern fields, trailer parks, junk-filled yards, to storefront church services, and to a swamp for some bullfrog spearing, to be followed by a lunch of bullfrog legs. And that's about all that happens. Don't expect a conventional narrative.
Lucy's father is emotionally unavailable, and he cheated on her mother. That may be the cause of Lucy's emotional dysfunction, or maybe not. The movie never makes clear, and the script's author probably did not know. One does not know if Lucy is the way she is because of a birth defect, or because of a childhood trauma, or because booze has softened her brain and corrupted her soul. We don't know if personal guilt or brain synapses are the root cause of Lucy's unhappiness. We don't know if she should find a good shrink, or AA meeting, or man, or exorcist. This movie's lack of curiosity about what makes Lucy Lucy and where her life story will go after the final, inconclusive frame, alienated this viewer.
What would have made this movie a successful work of art? Oh, how about those timeworn conventions of plot, character development, complication, climax, denouement? Yeah, sure, plot conventions and artistic excellence are old fashioned, but humanity has been making use of them for thousands of years because they make for satisfying art.
Ashley Judd's portrayal of a self-sabotaging, emotionally abusive, unreachable woman is very convincing. Lucy is certainly unlikable. The viewer senses that if she invests in Lucy, Lucy will trash and abandon the viewer just as she trashes and abandons the men she has sex with and then insults and abandons. This movie left me stone cold, and in places it was hard to watch -- saying that makes it sound more interesting than it was. I come away from it feeling it gave me nothing for my investment not new insight, or memorable lines or well played scenes or shots that brought a landscape and culture home to me or anything memorable.
Lucy's father is emotionally unavailable, and he cheated on her mother. That may be the cause of Lucy's emotional dysfunction, or maybe not. The movie never makes clear, and the script's author probably did not know. One does not know if Lucy is the way she is because of a birth defect, or because of a childhood trauma, or because booze has softened her brain and corrupted her soul. We don't know if personal guilt or brain synapses are the root cause of Lucy's unhappiness. We don't know if she should find a good shrink, or AA meeting, or man, or exorcist. This movie's lack of curiosity about what makes Lucy Lucy and where her life story will go after the final, inconclusive frame, alienated this viewer.
What would have made this movie a successful work of art? Oh, how about those timeworn conventions of plot, character development, complication, climax, denouement? Yeah, sure, plot conventions and artistic excellence are old fashioned, but humanity has been making use of them for thousands of years because they make for satisfying art.
Ashley Judd's portrayal of a self-sabotaging, emotionally abusive, unreachable woman is very convincing. Lucy is certainly unlikable. The viewer senses that if she invests in Lucy, Lucy will trash and abandon the viewer just as she trashes and abandons the men she has sex with and then insults and abandons. This movie left me stone cold, and in places it was hard to watch -- saying that makes it sound more interesting than it was. I come away from it feeling it gave me nothing for my investment not new insight, or memorable lines or well played scenes or shots that brought a landscape and culture home to me or anything memorable.