A fresh take on Westerns, “Strange Way of Life,” is hitting theaters this week with just a 32-minute runtime. The film wrapped me up in a fast drama-romance, where interpersonal relationships are layered atop one another, and a shocking reveal lies within every scene.
“Strange Way of Life” was directed by filmmaker Pedro Almodóvar (who directed the acclaimed 1988 film “Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown”) and stars award-winning actors Ethan Hawke and Pedro Pascal. It follows two cowboys and the ways their lives have overlapped over the years.
Jake (Hawke) is a sheriff sent to arrest Silva’s (Pascal) son, played by George Steane, who was accused of murder. Thus, 25 years after Jack and Silva’s love affair, Silva returns to not only rekindle his flame but to ensure his son’s safety.
In the theater, I overheard my fellow audience members murmur with curiosity at a film this short sweeping theaters. As mainstream short films become trendy—look no further than Wes Anderson’s new productions on Netflix—I wondered how this might affect the theatergoing experience and what it could mean for independent filmmakers who may not have the most accessible means to churn out feature-length films.
With its shortened length, I immediately felt the film’s conciseness and lack of filler. I thought it to be a beautiful visual, ripe with emotion and depth that leaves the audience pensive.
One notable thematic element was the power of prevailing love, especially love that goes in tandem with loss. The audience sees it in many forms—the most central being an old flame—but it is also shown in the turbulent family dynamics.
The affair between two cowboys does have its source of inspiration. In an interview with IndieWire, Almodóvar described “Strange Way of Life” as his “answer to ‘Brokeback Mountain.’” This could stem from the fact that he was offered the role to direct the 2005 film “Brokeback Mountain” but declined it.
The film is poignant about internalized homophobia (perhaps brought on by the environment, though that was subtextual.) It serves as a central antagonism to Jake and Silva’s dynamic—one that exists both in the film and 25 years prior to when it takes place.
However, Jake is indignant, rude, and dismissive to Silva in the wake of seeing (and sleeping with) him again—even though he initiates their rekindling. Silva, though, pleads in hopes that it will work out. Their conversation the morning after their night together is where the film blossoms, and we learn what had led them to that point.
The juxtaposition of Jake and Silva’s respective attitudes towards each other is an apt, universal commentary on how societal pressure is placed on queer relationships.
Despite having severe themes, a sense of fun-to-watch drama ultimately shines through. The color grading is very bright, and there is a dramatic tone that comes off as refreshing and exciting.
The film was a delightful watch for me, though it does fall short—in length. As the credits rolled, I felt I could easily watch twice as much of this story and feel happy. I thought that just as the film was getting used to itself, it ended. The story had endless potential for more twists and turns that went underutilized.
I recommend the movie if you prefer short films, especially those that are fast and keep you on the edge of your seat. The turbulent relationships and layered drama make it a fun watch, though (as with many well-made shorts) there could have been so much more. I still felt there was potential for it to be fully fleshed out, but I left the theater happy in spite of that.
Though I wanted more, when one considers the typical overt romance-drama structure and Almodóvar connecting this movie to “Brokeback Mountain,” it’s easy to not leave dissatisfied.
