Jeff Nichols’ “Loving” is that rare mainstream film that
provokes frustration and rage without resorting to monologues or melodrama. The
two people at the center of this period drama aren’t prone to long speeches.
They’re quiet, conservative, almost shy folk who ended up at the center of one
of the most important Supreme Court cases of the ‘60s by virtue of falling in
love, getting married and having children. Nichols’ approach is careful,
reserved and deeply considerate of the human story he’s trying to tell. There’s
no sense of exploitation here—if anything, he’s almost too reverential in his unwillingness
to show any flaws. One can sense a director’s understandable trepidation in
telling the story of two private people whose life was made very public. What’s
most important to Nichols’ vision is how much trust he has in his two leads,
and what they give back to him in exchange for that trust.
In 1958 Virginia, a reserved mechanic and construction
worker named Richard Loving (Joel Edgerton) married his pregnant girlfriend
Mildred (Ruth Negga). The two drove to Washington, D.C. to make their union
official, and Richard bought an acre of land near Mildred’s family home on
which he planned to build a house. They hoped that Richard’s mother would
deliver their first child, and that they would live in peace in a beautiful, country
setting.
In the middle of the night, all of that changed. Officers
broke into their home, arresting both Richard and Mildred, stating that their
marriage license was no good in Virginia and that they had violated
anti-miscegenation laws that stated that mixed-race couples were a violation
punishable by jail time. With the assistance of a local attorney (Bill Camp),
the Lovings were released under one condition: they had to leave the state of
Virginia and not return for 25 years. They had to leave their families, their land,
the home that they wanted to build, and the future they had seen for
themselves. As the world changed with the rise of the civil rights movement, an
opportunity arose to use the Lovings’ case to finally eliminate the racist laws
still destroying lives in part of the country.
From the opening scenes, there’s a tactile, lived-in quality
to Nichols’ filmmaking. People are always doing something with their hands—cleaning
a kitchen, laying brick for a house, working on a car, etc. And there’s always
something in the air, from the sound of crickets to the palpable heat of the
Virginia summer. Nothing here feels like a backlot. The production design and
direction is so beautifully detailed that people will take it for granted. The
Loving home, the cars he works on, the jail cells in which they spend the
night, etc.—every element has been carefully considered but not overly
highlighted. It is a masterful example of how to use time and place in a film
without drawing attention to it as so
many award season movies tend to do. There’s nothing flashy here.
And that filmmaking aesthetic applies to the performances as
well, two of the best acting turns you’ll see this year. Edgerton, long a
fascinating actor, has never been better than he is here, especially as the
weight of his situation almost looks like it’s physically pushing him down. His
eyes are squinty, his posture bent from hard labor and the concern over the
well-being of his wife and family. As the Loving case became more high-profile,
Richard Loving had to live with constant fear and the realization that his
family was arguably safer if he would just leave them. Rarely has the
oppressive, every-minute-of-every-day atmosphere of the impact of racism been
captured as it is here. It is like the dust in the air or the crickets at night—always
there.
As phenomenal as Edgerton is here, it’s arguably Negga’s
movie. It’s her eyes that I will remember, conveying so much inner monologue
with just a downward glance or adoring look at her husband. There’s a scene in
which Mildred gets some surprising and good news via a phone call and Nichols
knows two things. One, he knows that he shouldn’t give Mildred an exclamation
or a monologue. Two, he knows not to leave Negga’s face. Her eyes say so much
more than dialogue possibly could in this situation. And that speaks to Nichols’
gifts as a filmmaker: one who understands how to use the tools at his disposal
more than just writing expository dialogue. We see films every day in which
people openly convey how they feel and what they want in ways that don’t
reflect the human experience. And yet there’s more reflected about what it
means to be a human being in Negga’s eyes than anything I’ve seen on film in a
long time. It’s a complex, subtle, quiet performance that gains its power
through its believability more than the showiness we’ve come to expect in films
like this one.
“Loving” has few twists and turns. It is a rather
straightforward drama, and therefore probably won’t be flashy enough for some
viewers. And yet it feels urgent and current to today’s drama. Why do some
films set a half-century ago feel like history lessons while others feel essential
to not just the ‘60s but the ‘10s? Because there’s truth in the story of
Richard and Mildred Loving. There’s something about people who just want to be allowed
to start a family that is timeless and always will be. And it takes an
incredibly talented trio of people in Nichols, Negga and Edgerton to convey
that timelessness in a way that feels genuine. When “Loving” ends, one doesn’t
feel like they spent time being manipulated by awards bait or melodrama. One
appreciates a story well-told and having been allowed a brief, believable window
into the lives of Richard and Mildred Loving, two people who changed the
country just by falling in love.