On Swift Horses

A familiar story told in a way that does not trust the viewer to understand it.

I can understand the appeal of a roller coaster. You get to travel at high speeds and fly through the open air. Better yet, one can do this activity with others and relish a shared experience that makes you hold your arms in an ecstatic terror with euphoric screams. You know what usually does not happen during a ride? It stops. Now imagine if the roller coaster, instead of stopping once, stops every 10 or so yards. Furthermore, not only does it stop, but someone over the intercom tells you what part of the ride you went through, what comes next, and how you should react to each part of the ride.

Does that sound like the roller coaster ride you want? I did not think so. Well, in a similar vein, “On Swift Horses” has that stop-start, blunt plot dynamic, which is riddled throughout its 119-minute runtime.

Daniel Minahan, known for his roles in television mini-series such as "Fellow Travelers" and "Halston," returns to the feature film industry by adapting Shannon Pufahl's book of the same name. At the center of the story, there are Muriel and Julius, played by Daisy Edgar-Jones (“Normal People,” “Twisters”) and Jacob Elordi (“Euphoria,” “Priscilla”), respectively.

Muriel graces our scenes like so many have before in this era. She has an understated beauty, sports a short bob, and appears at first as a dutiful, domesticated housewife. On the flip side of the coin, there is Julius, who is the younger brother of Muriel’s soon-to-be husband, Lee (Will Poulter), who is returning from duty in Korea. The movie starts with Julius walking down an unassuming Kansas field on Christmas Eve. Our time within this verisimilitude world will also end with Julius alone under far different circumstances.

The first notable character decision is when Muriel decides to gamble for the first time at the local horse track. Muriel had a free afternoon, overheard some other men talk about the horses, and simply wanted to feel what others feel when doing something exciting. Adhering to the guidance of Julius, she remains unassuming and follows the idea that the only responsibility a gambler has is to be “well-informed.” As one would suspect, she wins and wants to seek that feeling again. It quickly turns into another bet. Then another. Nothing cataclysmic comes from these bets for Muriel. At least, nothing directly related to the betting.

The encroachment into riskiness does not stop with gambling at the horse track. Muriel’s character, without any hesitancy, begins pursuing what truly excites her. Like Julius, she does not want to keep hiding under this illusion of how she is supposed to behave and live her life. The idea of being attached to the hip of her husband, Lee, and his ill-fated stubbornness to the “perfect life” and her fulfilling the role of the “perfect wife” does not fit with the type of woman she is deciding to become. She wants freedom, like many women of the era.

The idea of Muriel is inspiring and one we must continue to see shown on screen. This version of a woman fighting for personal liberation, though, is boring and frustrating. Her character is part of the film’s central problem in not allowing any subtext or subtlety to go unchecked. Every scene involving her, whether with other women or with Julius, comes with dialogue and actions that hit you over the head with how to feel. She wants control and freedom, so she immediately demands to drive her husband’s car. She then wants to pursue her sexual tension with Sandra (Sasha Calle), which prompts her and Lee to buy a house in the same neighborhood the next day. The story of Muriel is rote, which in turn allows an emotional disconnect in how one could find meaning through her character.

While Muriel’s character is shown in the film as someone stepping into the world of personal and financial risk, it is Julius who does not know any other way to live. He stole and gambled his way through adolescence and Korea, and now we see him doing the same in California. For Julius, it is Henry (Diego Calva) who somewhat inspires him to aspire for more in life. A change in his ways.

I think if there is any “winner” from the film, it is Calva. After a performance in Damien Chazelle’s “Babylon,” my anticipation for his career soared. He did not steal the show or anything in this case. Still, it was difficult to deny his innate chemistry with any character he shared time with on the screen.

For Julius’ character, and for the film to work, there needs to be this belief that Muriel and he are on the same page. Repeated throughout, Julius “knows” Muriel like he knows himself. She is in the same “situation” and pursues “different passions” like Julius. The problem I encountered is that through much of the film, they are not all that similar.

Yes, Muriel is enamored with Julius. However, it is the idea of Julius more so than the actual man. This lack of subtlety is, again, overtly portrayed when Muriel shares a kiss with Julius in a dream. It is continuously thrust on the viewer that there is this understood connection between them. One that I never saw on screen.

Removing myself from what is shown on the screen, I cannot help but think that Minahan and his creative team did not quite figure out how to pace this story. Without looking it up until after, I was not surprised to see that Minahan has had more success in his television work. There are significant character and plot moments that feel rushed. Essentially, there is far too much time spent with little being said.

For me, the initial appeal of the film centered around seeing young movie stars in an intimate and adventure-like story. There is plenty of sex, gambling, and deceit for those who want it. Though, it is a bit disappointing to see a group of movie stars in a film where nobody stands out as a star in the movie.