Review: Nomadland

I recently watched this film, which was recommended because of all the accolades, but I have to say that I remain disappointed. All of the tropes are there–inappropriate scenes that do nothing to advance the plot, irresponsible behavior poised as “whimsical,” bad lighting on scenes that need exposure–and it is no wonder that independent films are having to work harder to gain audiences. Most importantly, there is very little character growth, which is frustrating for a drama and lends nothing to the experience of watching it. Observing people not learn anything for the most part is an everyday experience for the majority of the planet, and there is nothing special about watching it onscreen.

Right away, we see an individual with an unflattering hairstyle popping a squat on the side of the road. For anyone who grew up taking car trips with families, this is unnecessarily made vulgar because that was the response when there were no bathrooms anywhere and people needed to go. However, we are all supposed to think, “Wow, this individual has it really hard! They have to pee outside instead of inside a house with working plumbing.” As an avid outdoor lover and former triathlete, campers and park patrons regularly have to go to the bathroom outside, and we just view that as part of the experience. Making it vulgar means that someone believes that this individual should never have to manage life in a way that the majority of the middle class did in the past. I am intentionally making a big deal of this scene to demonstrate how ridiculous the effort was to make the audience believe that the individual’s life was HARD.

Next, there were multiple situations that the main character found themselves in that were primarily of their own making. Getting lost in the park because one is “curious” is usually a very expensive endeavor that costs people a lot of money to remedy. Swimming naked in questionable water because one needs to “feel” an experience tends to attract “curious” wildlife–something a true “nomad” would know. Speaking only to those who have power at work is a choice, not a command. Finally, choosing to go from a comfortable bed in a house back to a freezing van perpetuates the mythology that people are homeless by choice. Yes, it is a personal choice to watch such an experience, but there are several independent films that do not follow these tropes and tell better stories.

Finally, the main message of this movie seems to be that beneficiaries of the dominant narrative should never have to suffer because they are so programmed into inertia that they will never voluntarily give up their pain. The main character was alone not because there were no people, but because apparently, none of the people around were “worth engaging.” Circles of people sitting around, whining about the past, is the reason why the empire is currently collapsing. Maybe if the main character had bothered to talk to any coworkers other than the ones living almost the exact same experience, some growth might have happened. As it was, several community building opportunities were lost, and the main character was stuck wandering and not knowing how to manage life without whining about how awful it was.

Most people in uncomfortable situations understand that there were a series of choices that led them to their current predicament. For this main character, there was universal bitterness at the world and never recognition that going backwards was not an option. Instead, most of the characters lingered in the past, hoping to repeat the “glorious” era when they were not required to think about how to engage with the rest of society. Saying goodbye to the days of glory is not necessarily a sign of growth, but resignation that “ease” is not something that one gets, as is seen by present-day society. I feel like someone should have told the main character, “The only ones clinging to this old life are the very few people who benefitted. What about the stress this lifestyle caused for everyone else?”