RIVER RUNS RED: A Captivating Thriller With Late Identity Issues

It’s interesting that River Runs Red is being released so close to The Hate U Give as both explore an ongoing social problem – police violence against BAME people in America. River Runs Red tells the story of upstanding judge Charles Coleman (Taye Diggs). When his son is gunned down by trigger-happy policemen, who subsequently cover up their wrongdoing, he’s forced to confront the justice system he spent his life working for.

This legal-centric focus makes River Runs Red a novel form of the revenge thriller, as the violent energy Coleman feels at the injustice is contrasted by the need for legal procedure and justice that he’s dedicated his life to. His aim isn’t to murder the men who murdered his son, but see them punished legally. The film does veer into action territory in its final act, and loses some of the impact of this commentary strain, but throughout it raises important questions about a system that makes it easy for policemen to go unpunished.

River Runs Red is a brutal exploration of systematic racism, and the powerlessness individuals have within large systems of power.

Examining Real Events

For a film depicting and exploring real and ongoing social issues, it’s interesting that River Runs Red never explicitly makes the link between police violence and race. The policemen aren’t some stereotypical small-town racists who shoot the son for being black; the mayor of the town who protects the policeman isn’t some pompous white elitist; at no point does Coleman even posit that the action was a race crime.

However the subtext tells another story. Coleman reaches out to other parents whose kids were killed and none are white; antagonistic forces find it too easy to forward a narrative that the son was a violent criminal; authorities are unwilling to consider prosecuting the policemen. There are no racial epithets or on-the-nose discussions about race or police brutality, but that doesn’t mean race has no place in the film.

While on the surface the film doesn’t mention race, its subtext and world-building speaks volumes about a wider problem, and its subtle inclusion effectively evokes the systematic and insidious nature of racism in America. In addition this understated delivery means a viewer is left pondering the questions and issues themselves, and so finds the film’s message by themselves, instead of being told what or how to feel.

As mentioned, the policemen aren’t some racist caricatures, and the film actually goes to some lengths to show their reactions to the event. One (Luke Hemsworth) is shocked and reviled by his actions, but the other (Gianni Capaldi) seems to have been through the same routine too many times to care. Although the film constantly teases that Hemsworth’s self-torture from the event will cause him to confess to the cover-up, or aid Coleman in some way, he never does – his ultimate fate attests to the fact that there’s not a large difference between not being an active racist, and perpetuating a racist system, which powerfully reinforces the subtext of the film.

Ending With a Bang

While the majority of the film is about systems of power and individual places in it, as Coleman tries to understand why the legal process is letting the two policemen go free, the ending veers sharply into action territory. This is a rather abrupt tonal change from the rest of the film, with several seemingly-unimportant action scenes unnecessarily extending the runtime and scuppering some of the characterisations and emotional weight of the film.

When Coleman and another parent in a similar situation (George Lopez) decide the system won’t provide the closure they want, they decide to take action into their own hands. The ensuing combat scenes are well-choreographed and directed, but seem rather out of place.

These characters have barely met before – their decision to become brothers in arms, and the wise-cracks they make on their ordeal, are rather confusing. In addition, several story arcs are dropped – Coleman’s wife’s loss of faith in him, the corrupt mayor, and Coleman’s attempts to defend his faith in the system, aren’t mentioned again.

However this violent ending does provide a different, more lurid message – that the only power individuals have in a system is when they take arms, and even then the ending isn’t exactly a happy one. It’s a bleak message, however important it is. Perhaps even the abandoned stories were done so for a reason – if BAME parents and kids frequently don’t get closure, then why should an audience?

River Runs Red: Conclusion

It’s worth mentioning that the marketing of River Runs Red is hugely misleading. The poster shows four men pointing guns – in reality, firefights and action are only a minor part of the film (even the action scenes prefer punching), and John Cusack is definitely not in the film enough to justify his prominence. In addition, the synopses found on IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes suggest the film is an action revenge film, instead of the slow-burn thriller that it actually is. Thankfully, the actual film is far better than these summaries imply.

Every aspect of the film works well, from its performances to direction and music. In particular both Taye Diggs and Jennifer Tao as Coleman’s wife give moving performances that straddle the fine line between sadness and rage, which helps underline (or contrast) the troubled system that griefs them.

While it’ll likely be overshadowed by The Hate U Give, River Runs Red is a hugely important film. The themes it explores, and the way it imparts them, make it a vital (albeit austere) piece of social commentary. Writer and director Wes Miller is clearly an upcoming film-making powerhouse, with his upcoming IMDb projects showing a dedication to exploring the ongoing social and cultural problems in America.

Do you think the quality of a film has any effect on the messages it tries to impart?

River Runs Red is to be released in the USA on 9 November 2018