As is the case for many movies that have incorporated this style, actually replicating the structure and presentation of a documentary is quite difficult and one of the highlights of Savageland is how well the filmmakers pull this off. Initially, I didn’t know anything about the film and for a time I genuinely believed that it was a true crime documentary so, excellent work to the filmmakers for that.
Savageland brings to life the mythical murder mystery of Sangre De Cristo. Sangre De Cristo is an eerily quiet border town in Arizona that disappears overnight in what the movie refers to as the ”greatest mass murder in American history.” The only survivor, Francisco Salazar happens to be an illegal immigrant. Post the incident, he is taken into custody by the authorities and is later accused of murdering fifty-seven people inhabiting the town. The film provides various viewpoints through the radio hosts, skeptics, the police, as well as the victims’ families as drama unfolds. We get to listen from almost everyone regarding their assumptions on what transpired on the terrible night that all but one person of Sangre De Cristo was killed. It is only when the developed film from Francisco’s camera is reviewed do we understand what actually happened.
Savageland pulls from a very popular movie monster within a well-known story. Nevertheless, the movie manages to stand out. The approach of processing the event and recounting it in a true crime documentary is something I have never seen, and that premise alone is interesting (the closest I can think of is The Bay from 2012). When I say Savageland, I mean that the initial plot and time-lapse immediately grips the audience’s attention. What was shocking to me upon completing the film and looking through various critics’ opinions were the extremely positive reviews, as the few I managed to read had a central theme of great appreciation toward the film. While I have been harsh with a lot films in the past, I accept that the outlandish nature of Savageland aids in earning the movie some praise, however I much rather put my foot down and announce that it is coming without buts.
After the unveiling of the photographs, the movie takes us on a tour of Francisco’s journey, detailing the horror and carnage that took place from the town that he inhabited, starting from his home which debuted as the location of the first victim. With numerous characters and their perspectives being presented to us, it is pretty clear that everyone has their own version of the truth, though, what went down is pretty undeniable given we were shown the photographs and everyone else in the movie had seen them too. So, this begs the question, what the hell did Francisco do to deserve being charged for fifty-seven murders that he clearly did not commit?
Unfortunately, the explanation the movie provided us with is something I can not settle with. Anyone who has followed the story of the West Memphis Three or has watched the amazing Lost trilogy, Paradise has an understanding of the extent to which American savage power can go to fool people and how flimsy evidence can sway a jury. The issue here is that photos are considered “in evidence,” and the reasons are so absurd that we can’t help to laugh. Some argue that “they could be photoshopped,” or “they could be staged,” and everything else despite the fact that it clearly shows, with other witnesses being murdered and attacked by anything other than Francisco’s presence.
I understand now that the film was definitely dependent on the racial biases present around the Mexico and Arizona border, but the justice system doesn’t work that way.
However, all of this could have been forgiven had the movie not tried to set itself firmly in reality. If this had indeed been the greatest mass murder in US history, then the story would have surely have been widespread and would have had photographs and all kinds of evidence to support it just like the forensics and professional opinions from that one photographer who swears the photo is real and the shrink who diagnosed Francisco, and who argues he is certainly suffering from PTSD and above all, not crazy. I realize this is a highly questionable point, but when a film claims to be reality-based, it needs to stick to the facts.
The acting also did not help with the style, and while some performances were very good, in a film like this, everything comes down to its authenticity, and the weak links really broke the chain here. For example, we are played a voice mail left during the attack (It’s really hard not to get into spoilers here). The line delivery was, for want of a better phrase, over performed, and personally, I think having a character read the transcript would have served the scene better.
This is very low budget movie and, to be fair, the majority of the performances were very good. The cast and filmmakers should be commended because, after all, the majority of the characters felt like real people giving real interviews. Having watched a ton of true crime documentaries myself, I can attest to this whole heartedly.
I will name these photos as terrific, but there’s a catch. They are stunning aside from a photo or two that did not quite deliver at all. As his expedition in this doomed city unfolds, we are shown the corresponding images as he progresses from place to place, and those are bizarre, frightening, and deeply disturbing. Incredibly well staged is the most famous in particular, the first of only three taken during the day. This image portrays something unnervingly unnatural ripping across the hills in the background and heading toward the small town. It sent shivers down my spine. A little more than thirty images are presented and each one displays an ever increasing sense of showing the gradually intensifying violence that unfolds throughout the small town, culminating into a peak that it pains me to admit completely lost my interest.
Much as the previous pictures are well made, the last three seem to rest heavily on one character’s face. Your character speaks of horror and agony, and for some reason I did not buy it, although to be fair I am glad, because what these last three pictures show and who this character is, is something I never want to see. If it were to be presented with the kind of harsh realism that the filmmakers were clearly going for, I would never want to see it. I’m sorry for being this vague but I’m trying to be as spoiler free as possible.
This is perhaps the toughest review I have written, there is so much good about this movie that is commendable, and it is a brave attempt for first time directors to take such a gigantic chance with adapting an old school monster and wrapping it in a story that is fresh and realistic. And while that realism is its undoing, first time filmmakers should take Savageland as an example of how to step outside the box and give us something that is different from the standard.
Even though I focused on the negative scope of the film it does not mean I did not enjoy Savageland and while there are some story elements that I did not have the full buy in to, I admire the attempt by an up and coming group of filmmakers who have great talent and passion, at least in my perspective, they tend to overreach, but they are undoubtedly reaching the right areas.
To watch more movies like SAVAGELAND (2016) visit hurawatch.