Notes

I was so excited to see <i>Widows</i>. I first saw its teaser trailer when it played before a screening of <i>Crazy Rich Asians</i> in August 2018. It had an intriguing premise, an accomplished director, and an all-star cast. It seemed like a good blend of action and drama. The trailer ended with a close-up on Davis; wearing a ski mask and pointing a cocked gun at someone just out of frame, she conveyed such intense and vivid emotion—fear, empowerment, vulnerability—just through her eyes and breathing. I was hooked.

I suppose not hooked enough that I was able to wait another two years before seeing the film, but nevertheless I had high expectations going in. Unfortunately, <i>Widows</i> fell far short of meeting them.

That being said, the movie's opening sequence is fantastic. We cut back and forth between the husbands' fatal, failed heist and their interactions at home with their wives—throwing us immediately into the action while also introducing the four widows. We get insight into the various dynamics and lifestyles of the four couples. It's a solid and smart foundation from which to flesh out these characters and their lives.

Only McQueen and Flynn's script then shifts to a whole new storyline—the political campaign of Jack Mulligan—which is given inordinate weight throughout the film. Jack hopes to succeed his father, Tom, as alderman of Chicago's 18th Ward. And then it introduces Jack's opponent, Jamal Manning, as well as his ruthless brother, Jatemme. In a film called <i>Widows</i>, these four male characters seem to be given almost as much screen time as the leading women.

Finally, after introducing all the central characters of this political (sub)plot, McQueen and Flynn return to Davis' character, Veronica. It is quiet as she sits in front of her makeup mirror, preparing for her husband's funeral. Suddenly, Davis breaks the silence with a piercing, pained sob. After staying with Veronica for a few more moments, the movie then cuts to each husband's funeral. Like the opening, it is effective in highlighting the shared and differing aspects of these women's situations. But, because Jack and Jamal's meandering expository scenes precede these powerful snapshots, the impetus that the film's thrilling opening provides is lost. (Imagine if we cut from the husbands' burning van directly to the stillness of Veronica seated alone, and then to the four funerals—much more powerful in my view.)

<i>Widows</i> tries to follow so many characters, weave so many plot threads, and tackle so many social/political topics that it finds little success anywhere. Jumping from storyline to storyline in the film's disjointed first act, McQueen and Flynn constantly build narrative momentum only to promptly lose it. As a result, I was not invested in the movie despite its compelling story.

I had not seen any of McQueen's before, but I have since read that he is known for his slow style—tending to let scenes breathe and moments linger. His approach does not serve this particular story well. This film needs an urgency and a driving beat that McQueen's direction lacks. Moreover, while this slow pace expectedly lulls the action, it doesn't even facilitate strong character development or narrative cohesion. In fact, McQueen's social realist themes are undermined by unnatural dialogue that frequently took me out of the film for how laughably stilted it was.

McQueen and Flynn take their time flopping around for most of the film, then rush through its most important and climactic scenes at the end. A horrifying flashback feels very much dropped in—a grab at topicality that is not explored with any kind of depth. The actual heist, actually a gripping scene, is a mere 5 minutes long. Now—at its most suspenseful—is when the film should be cutting to other subplots, in order to extend the tension and heighten the stakes. While there are payoffs to be found here, they are not nearly as satisfying as they could be.

<i>Widows</i> seems to have all the elements of a great film. Its story is instantly engaging with fun twists and powerful reveals. Its performances—led by the always stellar Davis—are good. But through its inconsistency and poor directorial, writing, and editing choices, its potential is squandered.