Winter’s Bone: A Criminological Review

by Gerard Dunne

Abstract

The 2010 film, Winter’s Bone, is a story about a girl who triumphs over her hopeless destitute life. She does this by defying the local criminal underworld and saving her family. This paper examines how criminological crime theories tie into the film. Theories such as rational choice, labeling, conflict, and social disorganization theory can be applied to the characters throughout. To do this we will establish the basic plotline of the film. Included will be theories defined as well. Since there are various characters throughout the film, we will focus on how these theories apply to Ree, Jessup, Teardrop, and Thump Milton. Beyond that, we examine the overall role of justice in the movie. Justice here has its traditional side but also shows value in social justice as well. We come to find perspective is key. By the end, this paper will state how criminological theories fit into the film and implications of justice overall.

           Keywords: Film Review, Winter’s Bone, Criminological Theory, Justice.

In all of film, there are multiple layers to consider in viewing. This is evident by the fact that there are various interpretations of even one single film. This holds true for all types of genre of cinema. Perhaps one of the most perplexing kinds of movies would involve some sort of crime and criminal justice. This is true in that they can be pure entertainment, to palpable reflections interrelating on actual society. “Crime films reflect our ideas about fundamental social, economic, and political issues while, at the same time, they shape the ways we think about these issues” (Rafter, 2006, p. 3). Whether it is a bank heist, a court drama, or a view on gang warfare, there is always something to see. There is something to take away from the film if one were to look hard enough. You may find one of your values on the screen, or someone else’s point of view. In our day of globalization, the dissemination of crime films is one to consider. Consider further the fact that in the 21st century we have multiple theories on crime.

           As an individual viewing crime films in modern-day cinema, you have to ask yourself, “what is the connection between criminology and crime films?” A key relationship that we can establish in view is criminological theory. While on paper we may understand the definition of something like social disorganization theory, but what does that truly look like? For many of us, we live lives that do not intersect with apparent situations that could relate to theory as they would in this film genre. So for some, crime films open the door to a new perspective to relate to. To explain, we will be analyzing the film Winter’s Bone (2010) in theory. To do this I will establish a basic plotline, key criminological theories, major characters, and correlations of it all. Altogether, this paper will demonstrate and examine how criminological theories maintain a crucial presence in this film. Crime theory affects these characters, the plot, and overall implications of justice as well.

           Winter’s Bone (2010) details the struggles of seventeen-year-old Ree Dolly. We come to learn her mother is mentally ill, her father not present, and Ree having to assume a maternal role; taking care of her younger brother and sister. They reside in the rural deep countryside of Missouri, out in the sticks that no out of towner would have a reason to be in. We come to learn that Ree’s father Jessup is in trouble with the law and put up the family house for bond. The conditions are he must attend his court date or risk forfeiting the bond to the courts. Ree makes an attempt to find her father without success. The court date passes, and suspecting Jessup dead, her only option is to prove he is deceased. Knocking door to door for information, this proves a difficult task with no one talking; not even her uncle Teardrop (Jessup’s brother) seems to know where he is. This further includes local crime boss Thump Milton who refuses to talk to Ree in regards to the subject. Ree is told by some to drop it altogether, with attempts made to persuade her that Jessup died while making meth in a lab. Pushing harder, Ree tries again for information from Thump resulting in Ree being beaten severely for her attempts. Her uncle Teardrop settles the situation down in order to aid Ree and puts up his in life in a sort of “bond” should she not comply. It is here we learn from Teardrop that Jessup is dead per crossing the local criminal underworld. Teardrop firmly states if Ree learns of Jessup’s killer, not tell him. Perhaps he is afraid he will be marked for what he knows, or maybe he knows he will in turn attempt to kill the assailant in revenge; open for interpretation. In basic, Ree is brought to a lake to collect the hands of her father’s corpse as proof of his death. Ree’s silence is key and she ultimately is able to save the family house. We end with Teardrop declaring that he knows who killed Jessup. The film eventually cuts to end.

           This film is one that I admittingly viewed about a year or so prior to re-watching it again. Winter’s Bone (2010) surely has a lot more layers to it than on the first view. I can say at first glance there is a basic face value to it all. What does the environment itself consist of on this initial viewing? Immediately the viewer will acknowledge the cold beginnings of winter in the rural countryside as a backdrop to the harsh reality these characters live in. The destitute coexist side by side in a pessimistic landscape of struggle. Some are on the brink of pure poverty, perhaps a paycheck or two away from being homeless. The people we see are conditioned to this as a way of life. It is a communal acceptance where folks know their place, and what may happen if they don’t. It is most likely a form of an oppositional subculture. This is because these people are considered a lower-class community with distinctive values and beliefs that certainly can promote potential aggression and consistent opposition to the law. The reason that this community continues to survive and exist is because local law knows who they are, and feels their methods ineffective to combat the problem. Part could be fear as well, but we see elements of formal social control (in this case civil law) failing against this environment. The lack of formal control and inability to pursue informal control methods allows this destitute community to exist without change (Kubrin & Weitzer, 2003).

Upon second viewing of this film, I made sure to establish key theories that I know would manifest within the film. In doing so it was seeing the film almost with a lens on. The lens here provided focus to go beyond face value. Beyond that is multiple layers of theory intermingling together with the plot/characters. On the first view, you don’t ask yourself too many “whys” in regards to the story. The need to analyze cause and effect is not apparent when you take it all in at first glance. Crime theory here exists where it helpful to attempt to explain the causes and effects of these characters actions. It also makes determinations on the question of justice in the movie.

In Regards to our text, Shots in the Mirror, I wanted to establish a more definitive type of film this story fits into. I would like to think that author Nicole Rafter would view Winter’s Bone (2010) as a justice violated/justice restored type of film. This is because we have a hero (Ree), who is being unjustly punished. It may seem fair legally, but not so much socially/morally. Through a plot device such as the house and MIA Jessup, we have the unjust situation for the maligned hero. We as viewers end up admiring her for her patience, endurance, and ability to persistently press onward against her obstacles (Rafter, 2006). A great example is when one character asks Ree what they should do to her. Ree responds “kill me I guess.” When told that idea has been pondered and if she has anything else she says, “Help me. Nobody’s said that idea yet, have they” (Winter’s Bone, 2010)? We see she is calm and collected in the face of adversity; something very admirable to the audience.

To understand her plight we will eventually establish criminological correlation. To establish said connections, we will ascertain the major criminological theories in the film. The key theories to go over are rational choice theory, social disorganization theory, strain theory, social learning theory, labeling theory, and conflict theory.

           According to authors Gennaro F. Vito and Ronald M. Holmes in their book Criminology: Theory, Research, and Policy (1994), rational choice theory “assumes that offenders seek benefits from criminal behavior, and that crime thus involves rational decisions and choices” (p. 72). In this theory, there is an overall emphasis on the thought process that individuals make that leads to a crime. It can involve conscious choices governed by factors such as availability, opportunity, time, information etc. Conclusively it is “the calculated choice of individuals who weigh crime’s benefits against its costs in the headlong pursuit of their own self-interests” (Rafter & Brown, 2011, p. 14). This cumulative lets us know that some individuals simply choose to commits crimes but that sometimes consequences may follow.

           Next up we have social disorganization theory. This particular theory on crime classically states that urban areas are plagued by more criminal activity due to problems with housing, high rates of poverty, ethnic heterogeneity, and individual mobility (Vito & Holmes, 1994). In this instance, we would substitute urban with rural ways of life that are germane to this particular story. In basic, the environment itself spawns criminal behavior in the ecological sense. In other words, “social disorganization researchers perceived criminals and delinquents to be normal individuals whose criminal acts were stimulated by their environment” (Rafter & Brown, 2011, p. 68). In the film, we can acknowledge that the characters collective retains an additional side to this theory. That would include social capital as we will come to find.

           Third, there is the ever-present strain theory. A keyword to consider here is anomie. In Winter’s Bone (2010) this serves its term best in the form of hopelessness. Strain theory essentially states crime is caused by a lack of legitimate channels for one to achieve their goals. Goals could be monetary, reputation, success etc. A lack of this leads to strain and frustration on a person who may lash out to society in anger. According to Rafter and Brown (2011), “individuals turn to crime when they cannot cope with the strains and stresses of life through legitimate means” (p. 83).

           In addition to the ones above is another critical concept termed social learning theory. This theory argues that individuals turn to crime by learning from their environment. The environment can even be a group of individuals or a single person. In definition, “crime is the result of the same learning processes that are involved in all types of behavior. In their view, criminal values are learned mainly through association with others” (Rafter & Brown, 2011, p. 101). In this film, we certainly come across a few different characters who would likely have had some influence in their lives that would qualify for this theory.

           Aside from those mentioned is an important model called labeling theory. “Labeling theory emphasizes the influence of powerful groups in society to both define and react to deviant behavior” (Vito & Holmes, 1994, p. 189). They argue that crime is a product of society who applies laws that make certain actions criminal/deviant. Another way to consider this theory is that it argues “instead that social responses to deviance, including defining individuals as “criminals” or “labeling” them, may worsen criminality (Rafter & Brown, 2011, p. 119). Labeling theorists, for example, would say that if a teenager is labeled a juvenile delinquent, they may come to embody it; accept and live by it.

           The last theory that will take place in this review is conflict theory. In reference to our text, conflict theory can “look to social imbalances in power to explain the disproportionate representation of poor and marginal people in the criminal justice system” (Rafter & Brown, 2011, p. 138). You have in some instances the poor and destitute against the law. They see the world as “it’s us against them” sort of mentality. You then have clashes between groups and authority. Those on the lower rungs of society may decide to simply adapt to their inability to reach their goals in a capitalistic society. “Conflict leads not only to ever-changing relations within the existing social structure, but the total social system undergoes transformation through conflict” (Coser, 1957, p. 200). In this film, we will see how one single event sparks conflict and suddenly changing relations between the characters in the film.

           In establishing theory, it is a relatively simple task in terms of definition. They have been there for decades. The more trying task is to relate them to real-world scenarios. In this instance, we have Winter’s Bone (2010). Though it is a work of fiction, the events in the book are something that does exist in our society. As an individual pursuing a master’s degree, the likelihood, statistically, of me encountering the lifestyle within the movie is extremely low. The ability to understand the theories in definition is a likelier scenario. As an outsider looking in, what does that look like attempting to bring both together? Going forward in the subsequent paragraphs we will see what correlations are found. Prior, let's establish some key characters in order to specify to whom we will refer to.

           The main character in Winter’s Bone (2010) is Ree Dolly, played by actress Jennifer Lawrence. “Of the many reasons for the popularity of crime films, the most potent lies with the nature of their heroes” (Rafter, 2006, p. 189). So who is Ree Dolly, and how can we describe the mission this heroine is on? She is a seventeen-year-old girl who must struggle to find her father in order to save her family's livelihood. Her father is Jessup Dolly who has gone missing where no one is divulging his fate to Ree. It all seems like a secret kept from her. When the bondsman comes to visit Ree it brings about a stronger sense of desperation. Even after her uncle Teardrop warns her to leave it all alone, she struggles on. When crime boss Thump Milton refuses to see her, she pursues him at a cattle auction to his irritation. As already mentioned in the plot outline, eventually things do work out for Ree in the end. The characters of Ree, Jessup, Teardrop, and Thump will be the individuals that we will focus on and apply criminological theories to. It will provide an insight into why they exhibit the behaviors that they do. In bringing back the idea of social capital, these characters live in their own communal world where they organize together for what they all view as positive purposes of survival (Rafter & Brown, 2011). Aside from them in collective, here is theory presented individually.

           When it comes to the character Ree, it is not as readily clear the theories to apply. This is because she is generally out for the good of herself and her family. With that said, she is not without her vices in terms of criminal justice. For the character of Ree Dolly, we will examine how rational choice, strain, labeling, and conflict theory fit into her role. Most of what makes up her application to theory are is decisions that surround the dissolution with the law. Here we find rational choice and conflict theory in the flawed hero. In almost an automated fashion, when any semblance of the law appears she shuts down and is not naturally forthcoming with them. Perhaps it stems from her family and cultural upbringing through social learning, but she makes the rational decision not to divulge the information she comes to find throughout the movie. Aside from this, she incurs strain theory. This is most clear in that it is a driving force to avoid living in further anomie and poverty. The lengths she is pushed through strain are great. It leads to frustrations where Ree accepts a “doobie” from her aunt in order to cope with life. Even though she is strongly against crank, as she refuses it when it is offered, she is not above smoking marijuana. So great is the strain of life, Ree finds herself cutting off the hands of her own father’s corpse in order to avoid further poverty and hopelessness. Her biggest emotional drive to respond to the strain is fear. Yes, she can be calm in the face of certain dangers, but a fear of a potential future/outcome drives her as a result of the strain. In exploring fear, Ree has a loss of control and her family’s survival is immediately threatened greatly. You could make the argument that fear allowed Ree to fine tune her cognitions to battle strain; such as focus, contemplation, and calculation (Ganem, 2010).

In terms of labeling theory, in Ree’s case, it takes a more guilty by association context. Society would see her as an outsider in terms of sub-rural towns and city. You can almost picture a middle-class person advising others to not let their teen daughters associate with her as “she’s one of them Dolly’s, you know what they are up to out there in the woods.” It doesn’t matter if Ree herself uses crank or makes it, she is labeled as one of those in poverty surrounded by drug life. Sociologist Howard Becker may attribute labeling theory here as secondary deviance since her worth is not essentially through the justice system but through the external agent of society (Rafter & Brown, 2011, p. 122).

There exists a different side of conflict theory that benefits mentioning. “Each social system contains elements of strain and of potential conflict” (Coser, 1957, p. 200). In this case, conflict presented itself and could not be ignored. Coser would recognize this rural community as a social system with basic patterns of behavior. When introduced with conflict, you can only expect potential changes in patterns of normal behavior. Ree responds to conflict and changes her pattern of behavior. This change causes changes in others in response to her actions.

           The next character to view in criminological theory is Teardrop. In contrast to Ree, Teardrop lives a life in more direct opposition of traditional values of the law. Regarding theory, I will touch upon social disorganization theory and social learning theory. There are perhaps obvious elements of strain, conflict, labeling theories etc., but the latter mentioned above provide the most food for thought. This is because we are not given too much information about Teardrop’s background or his dealings.

Mainly, a critical aspect of his upbringing to later life is a byproduct of rural social disorganization theory coupled with social learning theory; learning from being surrounded by a deviant subculture. These theories see Teardrop as a normal individual in his environment. The life of a destitute is probably something he’s known all his life. Money and work are scarce with likely lower education and opportunities. Surrounded by meth, it is hard to escape the realities life is offering you. Teardrop as a kid was certainly subjected to the lifestyle we come to see in the movie. When you have no money but know the trade to produce crank, it is easier to succumb to the environment in order to survive. He was stimulated environmentally to condition him to the man he is in the film. 

Authors Kubrin and Weitzer would state that this character certainly falls under social disorganization theory because we don’t even have to center on the kind of person Teardrop is, we can easily focus on the type of environment he exists in. (2003) We in part can see Teardrop as a simple functioning organism in his ecological environment basically learning to survive. Included, as a male, he was part of an inner working that Ree would not necessarily have as easy access to. It is worth acknowledging that the culture here is patriarchal in leadership and maternal in upbringing. This means he had access to learn pertinent illegal survival skills.

To expand on social learning theory, Teardrop likely learned by direct experience. He didn’t have to find this way of life, it was there. Author Albert Bandura would discuss that this character observed behaviors governed by this rural community. In this observance, Teardrop would see what actions were rewarded, and what may be punished. He essentially knows what punishments may come to be if he crosses Thump Milton. So, his behavior and actions have been governed by what he comes to learn. This reinforces the way he conducts himself and the skills he acquired (Bandura, 1971). His overall learned behavior taught Teardrop how to make a name for himself in his environment.

We know that even for Teardrop’s addiction to crank and his vices, he has reverence in the criminal world. This is evident when he is able to successfully make a deal for the benefit of Ree and her life/family. He is certainly one who’s made a name for himself to be respected and feared. “You always have scared me” states Ree. “That’s cause you’re smart” retorts Teardrop (Winter’s Bone, 2010). To add to this, there is the willingness of Teardrop to clash with the law in conflict theory. When the sheriff pulls over Teardrop and the threat of a firefight is in the air, he states to the sheriff “is this gonna be our time" (Winter’s Bone, 2010)? It is a pure example of a lower class individual clashing with authority in an established society.

           In a similar regard to Teardrop, we have his brother Jessup. Not much is known on his character at all. We do know he was known for being good at producing meth in labs. Even his own daughter Ree admits this. In addition, we see he has had relationships with different women who appear in the movie. Furthermore, he is the type of person willing to put up his family’s livelihood while entrapped in the snare of the law. He is a character that meets his fate per being willing to testify against local dealers, most likely Thump Milton and his associates. With information leaked, signed was his death warrant. Thus, we find him dead before long. You can apply a lot of the same theories, concepts, and ideas that you would Teardrop. My guess is that they wouldn’t be that dissimilar to each other as you can kind of look at aspects of Teardrop’s analysis with this one. Particularly since their lives seemed to be in part dictated by the values and beliefs of their rural subcultural environment.

I think a key theory of element to mention here is rational choice theory. I see Jessup as an end product of his environment and he met his end through making decisions. In whatever way he was apprehended by the law, he chose to continue his lifestyle and produce illegal drugs. He chose to put up the family house in order to post bail to gain some semblance of freedom. Jessup also made the decision to cooperate with the law in order to hopefully receive some kind of leniency. It must have been an enticing deal to make that choice. If not that, the punishment must have seemed unbearable enough to gamble his life and his family’s livelihood. Either way, Jessup weighed the costs on his decisions to make crank, to informing against a dangerous group of individuals. It is not impossible that he may have had a change in himself in a sense of seeking a more righteous kind of decision. Likely, it was an act of selfish self-preservation that was ultimately Jessup’s undoing.

With this character, you can input social learning theory. Jessup learned in his life how to produce, where and/or who to distribute to, and behavior that meets consequences. In Bandura’s article, he writes to function effectively in one’s environment, they must (through learned behavior) be able to anticipate the probable consequences of different courses of action. They must regulate their behavior accordingly. With Jessup’s run-ins with the law it’s easy to assume he knew how to approach past situations. He most likely kept quiet and did not cooperate and served some time in incarceration. Interestingly enough, a change in stimulus control caused him to decide against this learned behavior to actually cooperate with the law (Bandura, 1971). The new stimuli caused him to make a decision based on what he knows.

In addition, it is worth mentioning strain theory for his character. This is because Jessup was unable to achieve his goals in life through legitimate means, so he garnered the skills to be able to produce drugs efficiently. Whereas a character like Thump Milton is on the midlevel of drug distribution, Jessup is on the lowest. He simply made the drugs and provided them, partook in their use. Strain caused his life to be dictated and transformed by the drug trade being a player in it. This role probably started small but as Rafter and Brown may suggest. It eventually snowballed over time as Jessup’s goals shifted through constant anomie. In analysis, Jessup’s life strain lead to him learning the drug trade, to being a major producer in skill, to eventually being caught and having a goal to cooperate with the law. In basic, strain led to negative emotion and that emotion led to criminal behavior.

Author Natasha Ganem writes on potential emotional causes and response per elements of strain. I think that the impetus of individuals like Teardrop and Jessup were born of frustration due to circumstance. The inadequate effects of life such as survival and hunger would motivate them to make decisions to avoid them. This likely leads both characters to lead crimes to allow them to achieve blocked goals and desires (Ganem, 2010).

It might be of worth to mention that Jessup and Teardrop themselves can be considered part of a certain area of deviance through labeling. To be direct, they would likely fall under Becker’s idea of primary deviance. Since the gentlemen are in a specific rural environment, they possibly did not view their behavior as automatically criminal. Aside from survival, manufacturing and using drugs to them is a socially acceptable role in their setting. Basically, it was the norm (Rafter & Brown, 2011).

           The last character that is of great consideration for Winter’s Bone (2010) would be Thump Milton, crime boss. There is a mystique about Thump throughout the film. Though his time on the screen is small, you can almost feel a powerful presence throughout Ree’s travels. Like something is hidden in the in the background among the woods; figuratively. This driving force puts pressure upon local society and you get the feeling it is not something to trifle with. With Thump, you see elements of rational choice, labeling, and conflict theory.

For rational choice, the biggest costs analysis we acknowledge by end of the film is regarding Jessup. To protect his business, his family, and reputation, Thump had to think and decide what to do with Jessup. After consideration and calculation, the answer Mr. Milton had was that Jessup must die. How easy a decision this was, is unclear, yet the end result is the same.

In regard to labeling, it certainly has a presence in Thump Milton. If crime is a product of societies views on certain behavior, then Thump is labeled per his business. The local residents in better areas probably label him as a crime boss or drug lord. It is something that I don’t see Thump wanting to get attention for or truly embody. He simply has his enterprise and likely wishes to stay out of any light of thought from society. One thing that is for sure, no matter how much Thump wants to keep things quiet, he will never be able to shake the label. Given his older age in appearance, his label is probably as deep as the roots of the forest surrounding the area. In a sense of a self-fulfilling prophecy, Thump embodies the label that is put on him.

One could make a good argument for the essence of strain theory. In this, Thump seems like a strong individual in many ways. I don’t see him succumbing to strain but overcoming. In our text, Rafter and Brown cover Robert K. Merton’s analysis of social strain. One adaptation to strain is social rebellion, “in which individuals not only reject normative definitions of success but also try to replace them with something better” (Rafter & Brown, 2011, p. 91). I see Thump Milton as a strong individual who overcame strain by, in a sense of an entrepreneur, rebelled against society and created his own self-better version of it.

A different side of strain theory here is the strain that Ree creates by pursuing her mission. This new strain leads to emotions of anger from Thump that causes him to respond. From his point of view, Ree is interfering with his overall plans and goals and this places strong pressures for corrective action. Thus, Ree is the target for anger and Thump attempts to ignore her but eventually, Ree is beaten badly and considered for death (Ganem, 2010). This new strain causes Thump to shift to rational choice.

In reviewing Thump Milton’s action, there is the element of social learning theory. It is safe to say, per responses in the film, that people have been killed and silenced from Thump; and his gang. Through this learned behavior, you find that Thump exhibits reinforcement control. Bandura states that environmental cues through learned behavior can be reinforced depending on their produced results. To explain, through learning, Thump knows that to kill anyone who causes a threat to him and his way of life produces a rewarding outcome. So, when the cue shows its moment, Thump Milton has learned who to place control on. Thus, is one psychological explanation for Jessup’s death and Ree’s consideration of silencing (Bandura, 1971).

           Specific characters aside, a hidden or less regarded theory that you can catch is areas of feminist criminology. On this second viewing, I put more stock into supporting and background characters. This mainly includes Thump Milton’s wife and females surrounding her. Take for instance the two major events of them beating up Ree and then taking her to collect her father’s hands in the end. Both acts are deviant and criminal, so what do we make of it?

The immediate thought is that it is a result of rational choice. Ree made the choice to go down the path she chose weighing different potential pains/punishments against profit. This moment showcases her choices leading to pain. The less immediate thought comes to mind from the reading. In our text, Criminology Goes to the Movies: Crime Theory and Popular Culture, authors Nicole Rafter and Michelle Brown go over ideas surrounding feminist criminology. It is perhaps an area I am least knowledgeable as compared to other theories. Upon viewing Winter’s Bone (2010) with the lens of theory, it has allowed me to pick up on applications of said theory. By this, I can view the why’s of the women’s actions instead of just viewing crime take place. Earlier I speculated that the society of these people is patriarchal in leadership and maternal in upbringing/family care. The maternal role here plays a part in that these women will do anything, even crime, in order to protect their families. It is a powerful notion that is a driving force to make the rational decision to gang beat Ree. It is at the same time family instinct to want to find a solution for Ree as well with leading her to her father’s body.

On the patriarchal side of things, the women here accept and recognize the role of the men in their society as those in charge or leadership. Life is biased with swaying the men and women in different statuses. To tie into the text, “in a patriarchal society, gender relations and constructs of masculinity and femininity are not balanced but biased in favor of men, who maintain social, economic, and political dominance” (Brown et al, 2011, p. 154). Being placed into this status, and being conditioned by the lives they lived, it is not hard to try and understand where the women are coming from. In addition, we can comprehend somewhat a little better the “why’s” of their resulting deviance in order serve patriarchy.

           In establishing how criminological theories fit into the film. An overall question of justice and implication should be viewed. Questions arise such as what sense of justice exists or is found? What does this imply on different ends of the spectrum? It is certainly an aspect open to discussion and interpretation. To begin, we can establish the different elements of justice found in Winter’s Bone (2010).

           Aside from traditional legal justice, there is an element of social justice found within the film. The character Ree finds herself in between criminal subculture and legal law. Yet by end of the film, she triumphs and overcomes the odds. To balance this out, though reluctant, she makes the effort to understand the legal forces at will. Even though she shuts down from willingly cooperating with law enforcement, she is smart enough to know when to make an inquiry. She educates herself with the bondsman on what is at stake and why. She further learns what conditions must be met in order to triumph over this obstacle. She gets a sense of justice in the way of traditional society. On the other hand, you have her own personal social justice. In navigating through the criminal underworld, she meets various aspects of adversity. In order to seek at least an element of justice against her dad’s decision to jeopardize the family, she must defy law by the books. This is where rational choice came into play. In calculation, this is also how she incurs strain/conflict theory. She cannot meet her goals within the confines of legal justice and law, so she must navigate to her ideal ending via battling strain and the environment.

           Jessup himself is in a sense of battlement with justice. Whether his intentions are for good or selfish reasons, he will find himself against the law either way. Justice provides Jessup both opportunity and death. To explain, the justice system caught up with Jessup but offered him a potential way out or leniency. He chose to take up the path. In regard to the viewpoint of Thump Milton and his gang, this action brought on by Jessup is an act of injustice against them and their family. To seek gang-related social justice, Jessup is put down by Thump and his associates. You can see how justice can change depending on the point of view. It can either serve someone for the better or result in that someone’s demise.

           Teardrop’s role in the film incurs layers of justice as well. In a legal sense, traditional law is not zeroed in on him that we see in the film. Whether he’s had run-ins with the law the way Jessup did is largely unknown. There is the fleeting moment with the sheriff but that is it. We do see a big inner conflict within himself over family justice and his own brother. In regards to conversing with Ree, he states not to tell him who killed Jessup. By the end of the film, he admits to Ree he knows who did it. We have to ask ourselves why he doesn’t want to know, but now that he found out, what does that imply? Given small hidden contexts about the character throughout the film, Teardrop is a man who knows his place. In saying that, he does not scare easily and accepts fate. I take it he’s not as a man not to be trifled with. Knowing this, I think he has a sense of seeking justice for the death of his own brother. Ultimately, he knows this, so he does not want to know who killed Jessup. By knowing who committed the murder, would be knowledge one could not forget. Teardrop, I surmise, is going to carry out justice in the criminal underworld by avenging the death of Jessup. It is just something that he would feel he has to do. When he tells Ree to keep the banjo and departs, it is almost as if he may be going away and never coming back. Truly, we will never know.

           The concluding sense of justice in the film is great. By seeing it from different points of views of the characters certainly explains a lot. Essentially what is justice to one character can be injustice to another. Justice for one individual can be traditional legal and to another (or the same person) personal and out of the confines of the law. It can create conflicting ideals and scenarios. If Ree seeks justice for her family and goes asking around bringing attention to Jessup’s disappearance, it brings about the need for the Milton’s to stop her to protect their family. The key word to acknowledge is perspective. Justice appears and serves each individual depending on how it is being used and in what specific perspective.

           Winter’s Bone (2010) is certainly a great film on the surface. It has a good plot, cinematography, and great acting. This alone makes it a movie worth watching. What we have come to discover through theory, is that there is so much more. With obvious plot lines and events combined with subtle hints of context provide a lot of food for thought. It can invoke a sense of investigative study. It is a drama but also a crime film too. With this, we see a relationship between society and criminality that criticizes both ends of that spectrum. Both for the criminals that exist and for those that society creates. Criminological theory helps define and hone that focus to truly see past the film at face value. We have come to know so much more on many characters in the film that would be lost in the initial view. Theories such as strain, labeling, social disorganization, social learning, rational choice, and conflict have all had a presence in the movie. We see them woven together at different times and separate at others. The other side to this is the idea of justice and how it is used. We see that justice is represented a multitude of ways through various situations. To each character, they seek some form of justice in their own way. They each have a version of it that does not always coincide. In conclusion, Winter’s Bone (2010) has showcased how criminological theories can come together in film. “Theory through the lens of a film” allows one to “appreciate its complexity and its richness of meaning” (Rafter & Brown, 2011, p. 100). It also shows us that justice has different versions of itself both on the side of traditional law, and on the side of social justice.

References

Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory. Stanford University. Retrieved from https://www.cogs.indiana.edu/spackled/2012readings/bandura.pdf

Brown, M., Rafter, N. (2011). Criminology Goes to the Movies: Crime Theory and Popular Culture, NYY Press.

Coser, L. A. (1957). Social conflict and the theory of social change. The British Journal of  Sociology, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 197-207.

Ganem, N. M. (2010). The role of negative emotion in general strain theory. Journal of  Contemporary Criminal Justice, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 167-185.

Kubrin, C., Weitzer, R. (2003). New directions in social disorganization theory. Journal of  Research in Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 374-402.

Madigan-Yorkin, A. (Producer). Granik, D. (Director). (2010). Winter’s Bone [Motion Picture]. United States. Lionsgate.

Rafter, N. (2006). Shots in the Mirror: Crime Films and Society, 2nd Edition. Oxford University Press.

Vito, G. F., & Homes, R. M. (1994). Criminology Theory, Research, and Policy. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Inc.