Where the Crawdads Sing
Year: 2022
Director: Olivia Newman
Starring: Harris Dickinson, Daisy Edgar-Jones, Taylor John Smith & David Strathairn
Runtime: 125 mins
BBFC: 15
Published: 09/10/23
Director: Olivia Newman
Starring: Harris Dickinson, Daisy Edgar-Jones, Taylor John Smith & David Strathairn
Runtime: 125 mins
BBFC: 15
Published: 09/10/23
It’s a little-known fact that I’m a bit of a Taylor Swift fan, and by a bit, I mean I can recite a fair amount of the woman’s extensive music catalogue entirely from memory. The point is that first and foremost I’m a film fanatic, and yet the first I heard about the film adaptation of Where the Crawdads Sing was that Swift was doing the theme song for it, and that was basically all I heard or saw of the film until it released which for a film based on such a massive bestselling novel is kind of weird. I saw so much marketing for ‘Carolina’ by Taylor Swift, as featured in Where the Crawdads Sing and yet I’m not sure I ever saw a trailer for the film itself, and if I did then it was just as forgettable, and the final film is. But why is Where the Crawdads Sing so underwhelming?
When the body of Chase Andrews (Harris Dickinson) is found in the North Carolina marshland the police suspect foul play because of the astounding lack of evidence at the scene. Unable to find any leads beyond him having a romantic entanglement with the reclusive ‘Marsh Girl’, Kya (Daisy Edgar-Jones), the police pin the murder on her and hope for a swift closure to the case due to the community’s negative perceptions of Kya.
Unable to see someone persecuted for being different, former town lawyer Tom (David Strathairn) does all he can to convince the jury that the accusations are baseless and founded upon fear of the unknown.
When the body of Chase Andrews (Harris Dickinson) is found in the North Carolina marshland the police suspect foul play because of the astounding lack of evidence at the scene. Unable to find any leads beyond him having a romantic entanglement with the reclusive ‘Marsh Girl’, Kya (Daisy Edgar-Jones), the police pin the murder on her and hope for a swift closure to the case due to the community’s negative perceptions of Kya.
Unable to see someone persecuted for being different, former town lawyer Tom (David Strathairn) does all he can to convince the jury that the accusations are baseless and founded upon fear of the unknown.
My immediate takeaway from Crawdads was that it felt like an imitation of Harper Lee’s classic novel, To Kill a Mockingbird. A story set in the deep south of the United States where an outsider is persecuted by the community, and the friendly old lawyer takes it upon themselves to defend that person; all whilst a story of a difficult childhood plays in the background, giving meat to the bones of the main plot. I think this is the biggest problem that Crawdads has, that when compared to stories of a similar ilk it just can’t hold its own. Why would you bother with Crawdads when Mockingbird exists?
If I were to take Crawdads on its own merits though, it still falls flat in a number of areas. It never gets it hands dirty with its subject matter. Whilst the film got hit with a 15 rating by the BBFC, in the U.S it’s clear that the more violent and sinister elements of the story were toned down to ensure that golden PG-13 rating. This is a story that you could tell has some real teeth to it if it just got as murky as the swamps in which Kya calls home, but instead many of the story’s more gruesome aspects are glossed over or only alluded to because of the need to appeal to a wider audience in the states.
It very much feels like an adaptation of a young adult novel, which is strange because I’m sure that the novel wouldn’t be considered young adult with the kind of themes it concerns itself with. Whilst Kya is a young woman in her late teens for most of the story, I get the feeling that this isn’t the kind of book you’d be expecting to see on the shelf next to books like The Hunger Games and Harry Potter. So why has Hollywood felt the need to sanitise it for younger audiences? Perhaps it was the affiliation with Taylor Swift that saw Sony try and target a younger demographic, but the result is ultimately a film that feels as though it has no voice because it’s too scared to show or say anything that’s a bit too much for teenagers.
If I were to take Crawdads on its own merits though, it still falls flat in a number of areas. It never gets it hands dirty with its subject matter. Whilst the film got hit with a 15 rating by the BBFC, in the U.S it’s clear that the more violent and sinister elements of the story were toned down to ensure that golden PG-13 rating. This is a story that you could tell has some real teeth to it if it just got as murky as the swamps in which Kya calls home, but instead many of the story’s more gruesome aspects are glossed over or only alluded to because of the need to appeal to a wider audience in the states.
It very much feels like an adaptation of a young adult novel, which is strange because I’m sure that the novel wouldn’t be considered young adult with the kind of themes it concerns itself with. Whilst Kya is a young woman in her late teens for most of the story, I get the feeling that this isn’t the kind of book you’d be expecting to see on the shelf next to books like The Hunger Games and Harry Potter. So why has Hollywood felt the need to sanitise it for younger audiences? Perhaps it was the affiliation with Taylor Swift that saw Sony try and target a younger demographic, but the result is ultimately a film that feels as though it has no voice because it’s too scared to show or say anything that’s a bit too much for teenagers.
Where the Crawdads Sing also has a bad habit of taking some wild detours from the main story to focus on seemingly insignificant things and then just never resolves those threads, or if it does then it’s wildly unsatisfactory. For example, the most obvious one is the storyline concerning property developers and Kya’s claim over the ownership of the house and land. This is something that for the purposes of the film didn’t really need to be there, because if you took it out in its current form then the film is no different. But it becomes a whole thing of Kya needing to make enough money to pay some back taxes to ensure she is the legal landowner or these big bad property developers are going to drive her out of the house. We never see the property developers again, and within a few minutes Kya has the money to pay off the taxes. She doesn’t grow as a character here, we don’t learn anything new about anyone, and the property developers are never seen beyond that initial first interaction where they are just stood taking pictures of the swamp.
There are numerous side-stories like this that Crawdads becomes entangled with, and it not only draws out the runtime to just over two hours, but it slows the pace right down to a crawl whenever it seems like things start to get going.
But it’s not all bad. I loved the ending. The final montage was genuinely heart-warming and the way the story is resolved was genuinely surprising to me. I just wish the rest of the film could have been crafted this way.
Edgar-Jones also delivered a very strong performance as Kya. Whilst I feel the character itself wasn’t all that well written, I felt that her performance was strong enough to make me not really care too much.
I did want to like Where the Crawdads Sing, it seemed like a story that was right up my street. The problem is that it feels half-hearted. The decision to go for a PG-13 rating has adversely affected how well the themes of the story can be explored, this is not a story designed for younger audiences so why were the darker elements of it shaved off to attain that rating? Why were so many of the side-plots left unresolved, or just closed off with no need for them being there in the first place?
I return to my earlier sentiment, why would you watch Crawdads when you have Mockingbird? They are both extremely similar stories, but the latter has far more complex characters, a respect for the more adult themes of the book and is just adapted to the screen much better by only bringing across what was actually necessary for the story and characters.
I think you could have a good time with Crawdads, it’s not a trainwreck by any means. But it’s just dull, and maybe that’s worse?
There are numerous side-stories like this that Crawdads becomes entangled with, and it not only draws out the runtime to just over two hours, but it slows the pace right down to a crawl whenever it seems like things start to get going.
But it’s not all bad. I loved the ending. The final montage was genuinely heart-warming and the way the story is resolved was genuinely surprising to me. I just wish the rest of the film could have been crafted this way.
Edgar-Jones also delivered a very strong performance as Kya. Whilst I feel the character itself wasn’t all that well written, I felt that her performance was strong enough to make me not really care too much.
I did want to like Where the Crawdads Sing, it seemed like a story that was right up my street. The problem is that it feels half-hearted. The decision to go for a PG-13 rating has adversely affected how well the themes of the story can be explored, this is not a story designed for younger audiences so why were the darker elements of it shaved off to attain that rating? Why were so many of the side-plots left unresolved, or just closed off with no need for them being there in the first place?
I return to my earlier sentiment, why would you watch Crawdads when you have Mockingbird? They are both extremely similar stories, but the latter has far more complex characters, a respect for the more adult themes of the book and is just adapted to the screen much better by only bringing across what was actually necessary for the story and characters.
I think you could have a good time with Crawdads, it’s not a trainwreck by any means. But it’s just dull, and maybe that’s worse?