B.J. Novak’s “Vengeance” Is A Mystery That Leaves More Questions Than Answers…In A Good Way
In his directorial debut Vengeance, B.J. Novak spins a unique yarn that often feels like the question’s it asks are bigger and more fundamental than the answer’s it provides. And while that may sound like a bad thing, in this case it feels as though that is a deliberate choice that underpins this film. The film’s commitment to pontifications are what make it engaging. It’s plots and characters are strong, their dialogue is good, but it’s the cohesion of these things into rich and complex (but also convoluted) ideas that give the film it’s charm.
The premise is pretty wild- Ben Manolowitz, a New York based writer dreams of starting a podcast. In the middle of the night, after a random hookup, he gets a call from an unknown number. The caller is the brother of a former fling, Abilene Shaw. The brother, Ty (played expertly by Boyd Holbrook), informs Ben that Abilene has died of an apparent overdose but the family believes she was murdered. The family, who was under the impression Abilene and Ben were dating, felt that he should know. Ben, who now has the story for his podcast, flies out to Texas, where he attends the funeral for Abilene. Afterwards, he stays on to investigate the death, believing the idea of a murder to simply be a conspiracy the family believes to protect them from accepting the truth. But his investigation reveals more than just the facts.
A dead girl, a fake relationship, a New York Jew in West Texas and a push-pull boyfriend/family dynamic. There’s of great plot elements in this film and they fit together surprisingly seamlessly. A lot of this comes from the script and the direction, which meshes these elements at a distance and occasionally focuses on specific scenarios for comedic effect. This technique really allows the film to keep an even and engaging tone. It has a really unique vibe that a few years ago would be considered post modernism. but in a modern film context is perhaps more neo-modern in it’s stylistic choices and subject matter. Either way I though it was a very well directed and put together film…for the most part. But we’ll get to that later.
This is a very funny movie, and the humor is very precisely layered. At face value the jokes will draw a laugh but underneath the “haha” moments there’s a very real level of social and cultural analysis. The difference between jaded, modern, liberal New York and conservative, post-Trump West Texas seems very vast at first but as we dig deeper we can see a stark primality that inhabits both settings, simply expressed in different forms. The opening discussion about hookup culture and its impersonal nature in many ways parallels an ending sequence that I will not spoil that is also defined by it’s theme of impersonal “meat is meat” human interaction. There is darkness in both places but New York buries it in apathy while West Texas obfuscates it under shearing levels of belief and disbelief.
The film’s tension is comedic, tragic and dramatic at various points- Ben doesn’t fit in with the Shaw family who is hosting him, and he is hiding some things (as are they), there is someone who knows what happened to Abilene and the “fish out of water” elements. The tension never stops, it simply morphs by utilizing another element of the excellent script. Ben’s attempts to mask his unfamiliarity with this new world he has been thrust into lead to hilarious and often well earned moments of comedy. At a rodeo, he proudly stands up when the announcer asks who supports the University of Texas…only to promptly learn he is in Texas Tech country. At one point, during dinner with Abilene’s family, in an attempt to speed through a conversation with Granny, he makes a quick assumption that Texas won the Alamo, which makes him look like an idiot. He doesn’t take West Texas seriously and it repeatedly makes a fool out of him.
Which brings me to another key element of the film- Ben is not a very good person. He gets better but in many ways he remains the same. He is a tad arrogant, a tad dismissive, somewhat stuck up and overall a great example of stereotypical “city folk.” He looks down on Texas, on the Shaws and sees the whole situation as a path to personal gain. But this is not entirely that cut and dry. Despite these things, Ben is relatively respectful and does make an honest attempt not to offend or do the wrong thing. He simply doesn’t know any better. It’s brilliant writing by B.J. Novak and even better acting to pull this nuance off, preventing Ben from being too on the nose while also letting shades of the archetype shine through.
Thematically, the film spends a surprising amount of time dealing with the idea of art and human interaction, dedicating large chunks of dialogue to ruminations on the creative process and how art relates to human interaction. Abilene Shaw, the movie’s victim, dreamed of being a famous musician, and moved to New York to pursue that dream. She had sent Ben some music of hers to listen to, which he never did. When he finally tries to, the music has been taken down.
Which leads us to the film’s most intriguing character, Ashton Kutcher’s Quentin Sellers, a local record producer and Southern hippie whose ideas about art and creation are rooted in the idea of the world being a creation of individual perception and vice versa. He has some very interesting insights that seem to exist more as meta commentary than actually contributing to the plot. For example read this nifty bit of diatribe from Kutcher’s character:
I'd probably say that nobody writes anything. All we do is translate. So if you ever get stuck and you don't know what to say... just listen. Even to the silences. Listen as hard as you can to the world around you and... repeat back what you hear. That translation, that's your voice.
Thematically this does connect a little bit with the idea of arts and creation, since Ben is a writer who is making a podcast, but the intensity and focus of this scene and the delivery of this line seems as much directed at the audience as Ben. Though Sellers shows up in many other scenes in the film, in this particular scene he is given his spotlight and the entire dialogue between him and Ben is a fascinating, mind bending mess. His unique perspective on the world paints an alternate, idyllic picture of Texas, one Sellers himself later paints over.
The line between myth, truth and their intersection is a subtle but very important theme in Vengeance. When Ben first arrives at the Shaw house after the funeral, Sharon Shaw (played by the always excellent J. Smith Cameron), says that everyone in their family is going to be famous. Paris Shaw, the middle daughter says she will be a famous writer. Kansas City Shaw, when pressed, says she will be “a famous celebrity.” Abilene wanted to be a famous singer. The Shaws, with their big dreams and their city names are an eccentric family, one with a toe very much dipped in unreality. This only gives more credence to the idea that Abilene being murdered is nonsense. But it also hints at the deeper themes of delusion and fantasy being a choice of perception, a very important choice in the post-Trump America. The Shaw’s believe what they believe because it makes their lives better, more fulfilling, and more bearable.
Overall, I would say Vengeance is a very strong film. It’s certainly fascinating and while I don’t know if it necessarily demands multiple viewings, it does demand some thought after the fact. It does however, have an issue with the back half, notably that the story and the need to explore themes began to run parallel. There were scenes that existed to solely advance the plot that felt increasingly rushed. The film’s climax (and maybe it’s strongest second half scene) is a discussion involving the greatness of Whataburger. I love Whataburger. I liked the scene. It was a weird centerpiece for ACT 3 of a murder mystery comedy though. After that there is a handful of other rushed scenes and the movie just ends. The resolution felt very “let’s wrap this up.” Kind of like this rambling review. It provided an ending but it did so in a way that actually felt unnecessary and in some ways took away from the rest of the film. The structurally imperfect ending may have been the stronger choice here but there was a sense Novak wanted a traditional-ish ending, even if it worked against what he had done so far.
Overall though, if you like movies and it’s a way you enjoy killing time, I would recommend this film. It’s very interesting and makes you think a lot. Even with it’s imperfections it’s never boring. It’s extremely entertaining and very approachable. It’s quirky, in fact it probably could’ve been a little bit quirkier. From an execution standpoint it’s very well done and if B.J. Novak ever reads this he should know that I thought he did a good job.
Vengeance is currently streaming on Peacock.
P.S- It’s stance on Whataburger is absolutely correct. You should go. Because it’s right there.
