There are moments in the historical war picture “Free State of Jones” where everything feels right – from its impassioned story to its artful attention to period detail. But then there are times when the flow of the narrative falls apart and the filmmakers seem to be biting off more than it can chew. Such is the dilemma with this riveting yet frustrating Civil War era mini-epic.

Oscar nominated writer Gary Ross pens the screenplay and directs this fictional story based on the historical account of Newton Knight, a southerner who led a group of deserters and escaped slaves up against the confederacy. Ross focuses on Newton and his impact on Jones County, Mississippi from the height of the Civil War through to the Reconstruction Era. Ambitious and  thoughtful, but a bit more than his film can handle.

A perfectly cast Matthew McConaughey plays Newton. McConaughey almost naturally projects what you need from this character – scraggly unkept beard, tired and worn face, seamless southern drawl. We first see him performing his field medic duties for the Confederates at the Battle of Corinth. His war-weariness and disillusionment finally reach their boiling points and he leaves his unit. Wanted as a deserter, Newton is forced to hide in the swamps where he befriends a group of escaped slaves.

Their numbers begin to grow as more deserters break ranks and seek refuge in the swamps. Ross settles here a bit and builds some relationships particularly between Newton and a young house slave named Rachel (warmly played by Gugu Mbatha-Raw). We also see a growing unease as desperate Confederates begin ransacking local farms and stealing crops to supply the failing war effort. Newton’s newly founded militia fight back across southeastern Mississippi until the war ends in 1865.

From there Ross ventures into the Reconstruction Era which is where his story begins to lose its footing. The smoothly paced narrative gives way to a chopped up historical checklist of events that are interesting but terribly underserved. Post-war subjects such as local manipulation of slavery laws, freedman voter registration, KKK violence and democratic election fraud are addressed by title cards or brief segments. The story is constantly leaping forward in time never staying on a subject for more than a few minutes. It leaves the impression that Ross ran out of time, ran out of funds, or maybe both.

It’s really a shame because Ross doesn’t shy away from the issues be it southern slave persecution or northern indifference. But he skims over the latter stuff leaning on didacticism over drama. The final third ends up being the film equivalent of history CliffsNotes. And there are instances where time could have been used better. We get a series of flash-forwards to a court room sequence some 85 years into the future. It’s not that effective and it took time away from more interesting parts of the story.

Newton Knight has remained a controversial figure. While Ross portrays his legitimate heroic side, he strategically prunes a portion of Newton’s personal life that you could call objectionable. After the war Newton lived on a farm with his wife AND his common-law wife (the Rachel character). He had fourteen children between the two women. This other layer of Newton would have been fascinating to explore. Then again the film struggles to cover everything it does include. But when it is on point “Free State of Jones” is a well-made film that’s both gripping and informative.

VERDICT – 3 STARS

Director Alexander Sokurov’s love for art and culture was made evident in 2002’s “Russian Ark”. Using a single 95 minute take, this historical drama explored over 33 rooms in Saint Petersburg’s Winter Palace (now part of Russia’s State Heritage Museum). The film is impossible to categorize. It’s rich with dramatic elements while at the same time examining three centuries of Russian history.

Fast forward 14 years to “Francofonia”, a similarly difficult film to classify but equally stimulating in its exploration of art and history. This time Sokurov’s focus is on the Louvre museum in Paris, but it’s not just about the building or its history. There are several interconnected layers built around it that Sokurov comes back to again and again. The Louvre is the most important character in the film, yet it mainly serves as the anchor for Sokurov’s contemplation and reflection.

“Francofonia” hops back and forth between the past and present, between fact and fiction, between historical accounts and provocative metaphors. In an almost documentarian style Sokurov’s own narration carries us through his mélange of subjects offering an assortment of information and perspectives.

One of the film’s focal points is the relationship between the French director of the Louvre Jacques Jaujard and German officer Franz Wolff-Metternich, the Hitler-appointed overseer of French art and culture. The two met during the Nazi’s occupation of Paris during World War 2 and worked together to save and preserve the Louvre’s collection. The dramatization is presented in bites and surrounded by a medley of historical and artistic thought.

Sokurov takes time to examine the origins of the Louvre, Hitler’s march into Paris, and the mindsets of Parisians and the French government. He documents the hiding of the Louvre’s paintings in different châteauxs south of Paris – a desperate attempt to keep them out of Hitler’s clutches. All of this is visualized through some incredible old reel footage and photos.

But if that weren’t enough, Sokurov also takes time for deep, thoughtful meditations on art. Some of the focus is on the art itself such as the unique European intimacy with portraits or the timelessness of early civilization pieces. Other meditations ask some compelling questions. For example why was Paris spared when so many other cities were bombed? Could it be the city was saved by none other than the glorious art itself?

This captivating intersection between art and war is something Sokurov is eager to explore. He reveals how the art of the Louvre and war itself are historically inseparable. In addition to its relevance with the German occupation, the film shows the ghost of Napoleon roaming the museum halls reminding everyone that he was responsible for bringing much of the art to the Louvre – many pieces being spoils of his war victories.

Much more could be said about “Francofonia”. Categorizing it is nearly impossible, but breaking it down is a rewarding challenge. I think the film could best be called Sokurov’s canvass, and on it he presents a collage of thought, reason, and reflection. It is exquisitely shot from start to finish and intellectually honest in how it approaches each of its subjects. It’s certainly not a film for everyone, but I found myself absorbing every second.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

With marriage you never get over the hump. Whether you’ve been together 5 years or 45, marriage always requires work and bad choices can have devestating effects. That’s just one thing I took away from Andrew Haigh’s subtly devastating “45 Years”.

The British drama, based on a David Constantine short story, spans a period of six days. Kate (Charlotte Rampling) and her husband Geoff (Tom Courtenay) are days away from celebrating their 45th wedding anniversary. Everything points to them being a happy couple but that is brought into question after Geoff receives a letter linked to something very personal from his past. It would be a disservice to give away anything about the letter. I knew nothing of it going in and my experience was richer for it.

I will say the effects of the letter slowly fester and their relationship struggles under the burden of it. Haigh (serving both as writer and director) is smart in his handling of things. He meticulously allows things to play out and patiently feeds us bits of revelation. Most importantly he never feels the need to be manipulative or the slightest bit conventional. Instead the stress is on developing a truly authentic relationship free of any traditional Hollywood prodding or sentimental fluff.

A key reason he accomplishes this is because he shows a heavy dependence on his two leads. Rampling and Courtenay are a joy to watch. They are so perfectly in tune with the naturalistic flow of the script and there is never a question about their characters or their relationship. Like most couples they have their routines – walking the dog, listening to 60s music, book reading. But eventually the letter’s influence can be seen even in their daily rounds.

Rampling handles her character with a low-key steadiness. She conveys a hope and optimism that slowly becomes harder for her character to maintain. Every reaction and response she gives is rooted in unquestionable truth and the performance becomes more engrossing the further along we go. Rampling has so many potent moments where she reveals her character through her keen expressiveness.

Courtenay gives us a much different character. The 79 year-old actor is playful and open early on but his performance shifts as the week progresses. More and more Geoff shuts himself off. He constantly seems distant, distracted, and is easily agitated. But Courtenay doesn’t give us a villain. He shows a sincere complexity within his character. He is a sweet-hearted man who genuinely doesn’t know how to handle his emotions.

Lingering in the background is a weekend party their friends have put together to honor their 45 years of marriage. In light of the letter, we begin to wonder how the party will go? Will Kate and Geoff even make it there? Each day as the party gets closer those questions have more meaning. We the audience watch and hope, but we don’t know how things will play out. That is what makes this quietly devastating.

Andrew Haigh deserves a lot of credit. At first it may seem his film isn’t doing much other than allowing good performers room to act. But slowly he unveils his true vision and meaning. Ultimately he gives us a fresh, authentic portrait of marriage while revealing the importance of honesty and openness. He doesn’t make lofty statements or give us clear-eyed answers. He makes subtle points, asks questions, then allows us to wrestle with them. It is a very smart and effective approach.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS