Wise Blood
Directed by: John Huston
Written by: Benedict and Michael Fitzgerald, based on the novel by Flannery O’Connor
Produced by: Kathy and Michael Fitzgerald
Rated: PG
Runtime: 106 min.

“My church is the Church without Christ. I am a member and a preacher to that church where the blind don’t see, and the lame don’t walk, and what’s dead stays that way.”

On the surface, there doesn’t seem to be a more mismatched pair than director John Huston and author Flannery O’Connor. Although he was a genre chameleon, Huston very rarely worked in the realm of comedy and O’Connor’s unique brand of satire seems more suited to the work of directors like The Coen Brothers. However unlikely it may seem, though, Huston is at the helm of this 1979 adaptation O’Connor’s debut novel Wise Blood, a film that resides at the intersection of the war between man vs god and that of man vs man.

Hazel Motes (Brad Dourif) has just been discharged from the Army and returns home to find his rural Georgia childhood home in ruin. With a healthy severance from the Army, he buys himself a suit, a wide brimmed hat, and heads for the big city where he hopes some sort of opportunity to succeed in life will present itself. Finding himself initially drawn to a sidewalk gadget salesman, he soon discovers his calling in street preaching after encountering a blind preacher by the name of Asa Hawks (Harry Dean Stanton) and his daughter Sabbath Lily (Amy Wright).

However, unlike the typical street corner preacher offering salvation, Hazel preaches a gospel of self reliance. His so-called Church without Christ is an attempt to get people to see that there’s no greater salvation awaiting them and they should seek fulfillment in whatever it is that makes them happy. The fatal flaw in Hazel’s church and his plan is that he doesn’t seem to be seeking any kind of personal gain or glory. He has no hope of making it in an industry that traffics in charlatanism and personal profit. In a world where there’s always a bigger con man just around the corner, Hazel’s far too much of an optimist to ever make any headway in the world of religion.

The only person who seems interested in what Hazel is saying is the dim witted Enoch (Dan Shor, aka Billy the Kid from Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure), who claims to have a divine gift of his own, though he never elaborates any further. Hazel seems to reject Enoch because he sees his own childlike naiveté laid bare in Enoch, just as he is terrified of the certainty peddled by such bald face swindlers like Asa Hawks and, eventually, another smooth talking con man named Hoover Shoates (Ned Beatty).

Hazel spends the first two thirds of the film running confidently toward what he thinks is the truth before finding himself running from the truth he’s discovered almost by accident. The harder he rejects the empty promises of these various hucksters, the more he seems to realize that he is the only person whose destiny he can control. For a film—and by extension a protagonist—that begins with open contempt for religion and religious con men, it never denigrates the notion of faith. In fact, the film’s thesis statement seems to be that religion is the single biggest hindrance to faith.

Brad Dourif gives a spectacular performance in the film, despite presenting a wholly one-dimensional character. This seems to be his and Huston’s purpose, however, which is sure to turn off a great many viewers who might desire a more nuanced protagonist. Dourif is far too savvy an actor to fall prey to this pitfall and recognizes that Hazel simply isn’t smart enough to demonstrate much depth of character. The entire supporting cast is great as well, with Beatty adding some of that old time religion and both Shor & Wright earning the audience’s sympathies with their pitiable characterizations.

Although I began this review by suggesting it would’ve made for a great film by the Coen Brothers, it is ultimately not cynical enough to rest comfortably in their filmography. Wise Blood is, above and beyond anything else, a film that reserves its greatest sympathies for the characters who can see the swindlers for who they are, rather than those taken in by them. This isn’t a film out to condemn the faithful, but rather to embolden them. The folks who think a couple of bucks handed to a man claiming to know the will of god are the ones for whom the film has the most contempt. That alone makes it nearly as essential today as it was over 40 years ago.

Header image courtesy of Criterion