'Eddington': Ari Aster Revisits COVID-era America with Bleak, Satirical Western

PHOTO: A24

The year 2020 will forever be remembered as the year of COVID-19: a time of masks, lockdowns, and social distancing. It was also the year of great division, stoked by the politicizing of the novel coronavirus, cases of police brutality and senseless killings, and conspiracy theories. The chaos of this time shifted America immensely, and the effects of it are still being felt to this day. With something as seismic as the pandemic, there was no doubt that a filmmaker would come along and make a film that centered on it. It was never a question if one would be made, only when it would come out and who would make it. As it turns out, the answers to those questions would be 5 years later and Ari Aster.

One might think that 5 years is too soon to make a film that takes a critical look at the COVID-19 pandemic and that Ari Aster isn’t exactly the right filmmaker for the job. At first glance, I might be inclined to agree. However, I have been impressed with Aster’s films thus far and I had faith that his newest film, Eddington, would be interesting to say the least. After making the jump from horror to surrealistic dark comedy with Beau is Afraid, I began to see that Aster is capable of more than his first two features indicated. With the news that Eddington functions as somewhat of a neo-western, I was intrigued and curious to see how this would combine with its subject matter. As it turns out, it all works really well. There is enough distance between now and the pandemic that it is easy to gain some insight from what Aster is presenting in the film, and his framing of small town political drama through a western lens packs a punch. Add in some satire and Aster’s gift for suspense and you get a film that examines life during COVID by turning a mirror to the audience and showing the reality of that time, as well as how it has affected our current political climate. Eddington continues to prove that Aster is no one-trick pony, and acts as a thoughtful, bleak, and surprisingly comedic view of American life.

In May 2020, the town of Eddington, New Mexico is under lockdown and a mask mandate like many other towns across the United States. Sheriff Joe Cross (Joaquin Phoenix) is unhappy with these new policies, as well as the leadership of the town’s Mayor, Ted Garcia (Pedro Pascal). After a confrontation between the two, Joe decides to challenge him in the upcoming Mayoral election. This ends up being the spark that lights a fuse in Eddington, causing tensions to rise, relationships to sour, and violence to strike in the town. 

It is very easy to read Eddington as a centrist film, mainly because it critiques both sides of the political spectrum. Personally, I don’t think that this is the case, as it feels harsher towards those on the right than those on the left. Yes, the film does poke fun at the left, but it is more in the name of showing the dichotomy between Conservatives and Liberals than anything else. If anything, the film is more concerned with critiquing the performative nature of politics on both sides, as well as how the well of public information has become poisoned. The film has a lot going on within it and is rather unpleasant (in a good way), so I can see why some might not want to dig into it beyond the surface level. But Eddington is a rather rich text that forces viewers to confront the reality of where we are as a nation and how we got there. 

The crux of the film deals more with the intersection of masculinity and politics, mainly through the characters of Joe Cross and Brian. Joe is repeatedly emasculated throughout much of the film, which motivates a lot of his actions. His run for Mayor is influenced in part by his relationship with Ted Garcia, who he constantly butts heads with. This is due to Ted’s previous romantic relationship with Joe’s wife, Louise, and his status as a noble leader of the community. While Joe has a position of authority in Eddington, he isn’t treated with the same respect as Ted by the townspeople. Joe seemingly decides to run for Mayor in order to prove himself and take the position from Ted. With the character of Brian, we are first introduced to him as he sees a TikTok of a young socially conscious girl named Sarah. He is very attracted to her, and talks with his friend Eric (who happens to be Ted’s son) about what his first move should be. As the film goes on, we see him co-opting progressive ideas and speech in order to get closer to her. At the same time, Eric starts to talk to Sarah and finds more success with her, possibly due to his proximity to his father’s left-leaning ideals. 

These two characters have similar motivations, as they both seek some form of validation. Joe is wanting to have a higher level of power and respect, while Brian wants to be seen as desirable by Sarah. The key difference between the two gets into the idea of whether or not the characters believe the rhetoric they are spewing. With Joe, it is clear that he actually believes in most of what he says through his campaign. We see two instances of him fussing about the mask mandate early on in the film, and there are certain behaviors of his that suggest that he is a Conservative. There is the question of whether or not he believes everything he says, as it is possible that he is embellishing things to court voters. We know that he is not above twisting the truth to try and get people on his side, as evidenced in a scene where he holds a town hall event. I am inclined to think that he legitimately believes the majority of what he says, but there is clearly a line where he is exaggerating his views or just making things up entirely. 

With Brian, I don’t think he truly believes any of what he is saying. So much of the things he says comes off like he’s parroting them from other people. This is certainly the case during a scene where Sarah is explaining white privilege to Brian, which then cuts to him explaining it to his parents. Brian attempts to become an activist to catch Sarah’s attention, but he doesn’t seem to fully grasp the things that he is saying and overcompensates for it by being performative in espousing his so-called beliefs. This is something that we see a lot in younger men, but doesn’t always get discussed. There is a turn at the tail end of the story that caught me by surprise, but the inclusion of this offers a coda that sums up the character of Brian incredibly well, and mirrors a path that many young men end up taking in their quest for validation. 

Much like Ari Aster’s previous films, Eddington is rather disturbing. Unlike his previous films, this comes more from the reality of what we are seeing on screen rather than something supernatural or surreal. This is easily Aster’s most realistic film, and yet it still feels like it exists in a different plane of existence. This is mainly because of the heightened nature of the film and its satirical elements, but it also feels true to Aster’s general style. Personally, I was surprised that this film felt closer in tone to Beau is Afraid, as I was expecting it to be more serious. Instead, it has a pitch black sense of humor and a slight absurdity that makes the truth within the film a bit easier to swallow. That doesn’t make it any less bleak or unsettling, as the film still forces the viewer to look into the horrors of American life. It focuses on the political divide in the US, but also digs into the cycles of violence and hatred that exist in our society, among other highly relevant themes and ideas. Aster crams a lot into this film, so much that it can feel a bit overwhelming. But this is clearly by design, as it evokes the feeling of living during unprecedented times almost a little too well. I wouldn’t go as far to say this is Aster’s best work, but it is still pretty incredible and insightful nonetheless.

If there is anything that Eddington proves, it is that Joaquin Phoenix and Ari Aster are a match made in Heaven. Phoenix is one of those actors that when he is good, he’s great, and Aster seems to know exactly how to get him to that level. As Joe Cross, Phoenix gives one of his finest performances, taking a grounded approach that highlights the film’s truthfulness. He is able to get into the mind of the character so well, and feels so human in his portrayal. Joe is not a good person in the slightest, and it would have been easy to portray him solely as a monster. Phoenix finds the heart of the character to the point where the audience can understand his actions while still coming across as repugnant. It’s a difficult balance to strike, but Phoenix threads the needle beautifully, giving a multi-faceted performance that acts as the centerpiece of the entire film. It is an interesting idea to have the “hero” of your film be such a loser, but it is pulled off nicely by both Phoenix and Aster, and gets to the heart of what the film is trying to say.

The rest of the film’s characters are a bit smaller in comparison to Joe Cross, as the whole film largely rests on Phoenix’s shoulders. I was a bit surprised by this, but I can see why this is the case in the context of the film. That said, there’s some great performances in the mix here. Dierdre O’Connell is excellent as Joe’s mother-in-law, Dawn, a conspiracy theorist who has a reputation as the town’s resident wackadoo. O’Connell is throwing heat all throughout the film, and her scenes with Phoenix are especially electric. She wisely avoids going too big with the character, making her feel like an actual person as opposed to a caricature of QAnon devotees. Her character’s journey is compelling and disheartening, and O’Connell is great every step of the way.

The film also features a trio of A-list names with Pedro Pascal, Emma Stone, and Austin Butler, all of whom are good, yet aren’t featured in the film as much as you’d think. Pascal’s character, Ted Garcia is the foil to Joe Cross, as he is seen as an upstanding leader in the town of Eddington, and seems to have more of a heart towards those around him. There is a slight artifice to him, but he is perhaps the most honest of all the characters in the film. He isn’t fully the positive, caring person that his campaign ads make him out to be, which makes him a more interesting character. Pascal is pretty good here, and has an earnestness that helps him stick out from his co-stars. It isn’t too much of a stretch for him, but he still plays the role well. 

Stone and Butler are also good, but their thread of the film feels the most mishandled. With as much as Aster stuffs into the film, there was always bound to be a plotline that got the short end of the stick. It’s a shame that this one does, because it has some fertile ground, but I can see how it might get unwieldy if it was fleshed out more. Stone almost feels overqualified for the role of Louise, as it is a tad thankless, but she still brings some humanity to the character of Louise and makes her moments count. Butler, on the other hand, is fantastic as the quasi-cult leader Vernon Jefferson Peak. I am continuously impressed with Butler as an actor, and his work here is no exception. It is a small role, but Butler is fully committed and has a mix of charisma, mystique, and danger to him that makes you unsure of what to make of him. You can see his allure, but his radical side does make you wonder what his true intentions are. It is a performance that changes the vibe of the film for a bit, and even though I wish there was more of him, I really liked what we do get from him. The plotline involving Stone and Butler kind of acts as another avenue of being influenced by grifters and potential misinformation online, but it just isn’t as defined as some of the other threads that the film weaves.

One of the things I love so much about Eddington is that it’s a film where almost every character gets what they wanted in the end, just not exactly in the ways they hoped for. I can’t get much into this without spoiling the entire thing, but it is a shocking way to end the whole film. The ending of Eddington is quite upsetting, and yet you can’t help but laugh. The cruel irony of the final minutes of the film is amusing, but also deeply sad when everything sinks in. It plays into a similar idea posed by Aster’s previous film Midsommar, in which the film ends with some of the characters getting what they wanted in the end, but the circumstances around these completed goals are dark and disturbing. Eddington’s ending has a resonating effect, as its implications hit very close to home given our current sociopolitical landscape. It does evoke some laughs, but it also packs a wallop that puts everything that came before it into perspective and gives the viewer much to consider. 

Eddington is a film that I could go on and on about. It is a rich text that some will absolutely hate, and some will be deeply fascinated by. I’m obviously in the latter group, as this film has lived rent-free in my head ever since I saw it. I even had to go back and watch it again before I wrote this review so I could process it a little more. Maybe one day if/when I write a book on Ari Aster’s oeuvre, I can go more in depth on it. But for now, let me just say that this is a film that will probably not hit with most people, but it is one that I loved and cannot stop thinking about. It isn’t perfect, as there are a few issues I have with it, but it is still a highly impressive work from Ari Aster that shows he is an extremely versatile filmmaker. Eddington is a lot to take in, and some will probably be dismissive of it, but those willing to dig deeper will find that it is a great representation of COVID-era America, and shows how the seeds of the world we live in now were planted.

Rating:4.5/5