ROSE - MIFF 2026

 

As per the MIFF guide: “From the battlefields of the Thirty Years’ War, a soldier arrives in a small German village carrying a document proving his inheritance of a local farm. Facially scarred by a bullet wound, this mysterious figure proves himself to be hardworking and brave, and slowly but surely insinuates himself into the community. But the soldier has a secret: he is, in fact, a woman named Rose masquerading as a man. When she is married off to a neighbour’s daughter – with children expected from the union – Rose’s deception is put to the test.”

Markus Schleinzer's “Rose” is an outstanding look at gender inequality and gender privilege that sees Sandra Huller's titular character pose as a man to further her life in Germany after returning from being a soldier in the Thirty Years' War. It is an incredibly simple but powerful tale, told exceptionally well, that particularly focuses on the hardships and lack of propriety women had back in the 1600's, which then makes us ask the question just how far have we come since then. Sadly, the answer is not very far at all.

The first thing you notice about “Rose” is its striking black and white widescreen photography and the attention to period detail in the production design. It immediately paints a picture of a hard world, a world where no one gets anywhere without rolling up their sleeves and committing to the hard work to come. You really feel the dirt, mud and grime of this world forever at the mercy of the elements of any given season, and I think fans of Robert Eggers' work would get a lot out of “Rose” as it has the same kind of feel to his films and is made with the same exacting detail. Once you become immersed in the world of the film, that is when you then began to take notice of Sandra Huller's performance and at just how great she is here. Make no mistake about it, “Rose” is Huller's film and its success is owed to her full commitment to the title role.

I must admit that when films have women playing or posing as men, I usually have a hard time believing the other characters within the film would truly see that person as “male”. However, for once I found it very believable here, thanks entirely to Huller's performance. A huge part of this has to do with the gate of her walk and posture when she stands, as it comes across as quite masculine and rigid. Huller is also aided by some smart make-up design, where her character took a bullet through the right side of her face, leaving a massive scar across her cheek, which helps in hiding her femininity.

The power in the story comes from the fact that Rose succeeds in everything she tries to do whilst posing as a man, which benefits the rest of her community greatly. She farms her land so crops can grow strong once more, she teaches the locals how to read and write, not to mention that during the war, she fought for her country and survived, being wounded in the process. Furthermore, she marries a local girl and even father's a child (!); there is no denying it, as a man Rose is not only a success, but a model citizen and an important member of the local community. Her only “sin” is that she was born a woman, so should not have any of these things to begin with. It is then beyond frustrating when the town turns on Rose, who the locals call “The Soldier”, when suspicions fall upon her gender, because it is so obvious how much good she does for the community, and yet they all look past this just because she is a girl. Having two daughters of my own, the plight of women and the way they are treated in the world is quite a big concern of mine, and for anyone who thinks this story doesn't relate to the present is kidding themselves. Sure, things are better today, but gender inequality still exists. There is a moment late in the film when Rose is asked why she did what she did and whether or not she actually wanted to be a man. She sternly but quietly replies “No, I did not want to be a man, but there is more freedom in pants”. As I have just stated, sadly this is still true today. Think about it though, this is a film set in the 17^th century and yet it is still so relevant today; that is just shameful, I think.

Besides the physical hardships women had to face back then and the total lack of propriety, it was also the constant sexual abuse they suffered that is explored within “Rose”, although in this facet, director Markus Schleinzer is very subtle in his approach. To help disguise herself as a man, Rose wears a number of, what we would call today, “strap-on” devices. Nicknamed “the horn” is the flaccid device that rest between her legs posing as her penis, while “the spike” is the erect version of the same disguise that Rose had to use on her fallen enemies to “show them who their master was”. This is quite a shocking moment when we learn that Rose, while pretending to be a man, had to rape enemy women because to refuse would have been more dangerous to her than to commit such a heinous crime. She has to see the horrors men are inflicting upon women to exert some power or control over them, but then commits these same crimes first hand, all in an attempt to survive. That is some seriously heavy material, but through Schleinzer's sensitive handling thankfully it is never sensationalised. It is also alluded in the film that Rose's wife, Suzanna, is a victim of rape at the hands of her father, as she now bears a child which obviously cannot be Rose's.

While writing this review, I have only just realised that the director of “Rose”, Markus Schleinzer, also directed the brilliant (but horribly disturbing) film, “Michael”, back in 2011. What made that film so hard to watch, despite how well made it was, was the fact that it was a serious look at a paedophile and how in normal life, they come across as everyday people, whilst turning into the monsters they truly are behind closed doors. What is so impressive about “Michael” is that Schleinzer never over-sensationalises any of the shocking or controversial moments within the film, which makes them and the film more powerful, and he stays true to this approach in “Rose” as well. Whenever a female posing as a male is unmasked in cinema, it usually comes in the form of crass, graphic nudity as if to signpost the fact that yes, she is a woman. Schleinzer eschews this impulse, shooting said scenes respectfully from angles that expose nothing (because after all, we the audience already know she is a girl and need no confirmation of this fact), and when it comes to the rape or sex scenes of the film, he usually deals with these moments off camera. One moment that he does capture on camera that highlights just how hard living on the land was back then, is a scene involving a bear attack during a torrential storm, that sees Rose also need to help save a flock of sheep. It is a fantastic scene, and one that looked enormously difficult to shoot. I briefly want to mention the ending of “Rose” as it descends into something of a courtroom drama where Rose is forced to defend her actions, but which also shares a curious pictorial connection to Carl Theodor Dreyer's classic 1928 silent film “The Passion of Joan of Arc”, which I am sure is more than just coincidental. Make of that what you will, but I think the connection between Jeanne and Rose is obvious.

Overall, Markus Schleinzer's third feature film, “Rose”, is another outstanding film from this very talented German director. Whilst visually it is very beautiful with its stunning black and white photography courtesy of cinematographer Gerald Kerkletz, conversely it is a dark and tragic tale highlighting the inequality women have felt since the beginning of time. “Rose” is not an easy film, but it is a bloody good one, with another outstanding performance from Sandra Huller in the title role.

4 Stars.

 

 

YELLOW LETTERS - MIFF 2026

 

As per the MIFF guide: “Playwright Aziz and actor Derya are a husband-and-wife pair known for their avant-garde theatre works. But when they receive menacing ‘yellow letters’ – official government edicts – labelling their work “too political”, they swiftly lose the platform and careers they’ve spent so long building, and their life begins to unravel. As the couple move from Ankara to Istanbul with their 14-year-old daughter, relationships begin to fray and ethics become compromised, the hostility of the Turkish regime infecting the family dynamic.”

“Yellow Letters” was not actually part of my original line up of films that I had chosen to see at MIFF this year. However after finalising my schedule and realising it was a little light, I decided to do a final deep dive through the guide in an attempt to find a few extra films worthwhile to see. I came across “Yellow Letters” and was almost embarrassed that I had initially missed it, as it is the brand new film from director Ilker Çatak. His previous film, 2023's “The Teachers' Lounge” impressed me greatly and after watching the trailer for “Yellow Letters”, it became a no-brainer to be added to my list. I just had to hope that I could find a session that would fit nicely within my schedule, which ended up working out perfectly.

Ilker Çatak's “Yellow Letters” is an absolutely cracking drama about the realities of living under a totalitarian government where artists and intellectuals are systematically silenced by the State for criticising the current regime. It has been superbly written, filled with complex drama throughout, powerfully acted by the entire cast, and beautifully directed by Ilker Çatak. I can safely say, even this early in the festival, that “Yellow Letters” will be one of the highlights. The thing that I loved so much about the film was the way that it begins as a story of resistance and fighting against the State, censorship and being silenced, before it slowly morphs into a family drama looking at the reality of life after the State has systematically denied every luxury they are used to, as a consequence of their resistance. How do you live when you are left with nothing and blacklisted from your work that you are so passionate about? How do you survive? How long does it take to bend your ideals and how does that change if you also have a child to look after? This is such a smart (and angry) film that asks many, many questions that really get you thinking about the techniques totalitarian regimes use to crush resistance and how far people are willing to go to stay true to their ideals and beliefs.

The performances in “Yellow Letters” are out-of-this-world good, particularly from Tansu Biçer and Özgü Namal who play the artistic married couple, Aziz and Derya, persecuted by the State, but who are also parents to 14 year old Ezgi (beautifully and sassily played by Leyla Smyrna Cabas). I have never seen Özgü Namal in anything prior to “Yellow Letters” but she is an absolute powerhouse in this film. A very headstrong woman who is willing to fight for what she believes in, even if that fighting means going against her husband at times. Yes, she is married to Aziz, but Derya refuses to give up her individuality, and refuses to let anyone speak for her. Namal also gives Derya an incredibly tender and maternal side when she is in the company of her daughter. The hard exterior softens when Ezgi needs a friendly shoulder to cry on, or someone to laugh with or to share boy secrets with, although she never loses her parental power also. As good as Virginie Efira and Tao Okamoto were in Ryusuke Hamaguchi's “All of a Sudden”, I found Özgü Namal's performance in “Yellow Letters” to be even better; she is just incredible! She also has fantastic chemistry with Biçer, and the two of them together share many scenes together showcasing a huge gamut of emotions from tender and supportive to combative, as well as moments from a work perspective when they relate to each other in a playwright to actress capacity. There is an absolutely fantastic scene late in the film, set in the family car, when Aziz and Derya go head to head and have a highly combative fight as the frustrations of their current reality all comes bubbling to the surface.

As I mentioned earlier, “Yellow Letters” is a beautifully directed film shot in a very classical style focusing on perfect camera placement, simple camera moves and exquisite editing. There is nothing flashy in Ilker Çatak's directing style as he knows his story is the star of the show and his actors are strong enough to do the heavy lifting of the film, without the need of any visual fireworks which would take away from the drama. One trick Çatak did have to resort to was shooting the film in Germany rather than in Turkiye where the story is set. The reason for this is so that he could shoot the film with as much freedom as possible without the fear of suffering the same fate as that of his characters in “Yellow Letters”, which would likely have been the case if he shot it in Turkiye, due to the political nature of the film. Here, Berlin plays Ankara, with Hamburg filling in for Istanbul, and Çatak is not shy about the fact, crediting both cities as if they were actors in big bold letters during the opening titles for “Yellow Letters”, showcasing just how dangerous the situation can be, which his characters will soon be facing for themselves.

Sadly, “Yellow Letters” feels like a film perfect for our times, although until recently I must admit that I had been relatively naïve in the ways a totalitarian regime would censor artists and intellectuals, who have the knowledge and platform to react against them. However seeing this played out now on a daily basis, thanks to Donald Trump and his Republican government running the US, it has really opened my eyes to the reality of the situation and how dangerous it really is and how easily a person's human rights can be quashed by people in power. This is why I think “Yellow Letters” is an incredibly important film that hit me hard, and I was not surprised to learn that it took away the Golden Bear (top prize) at the recent Berlin Film Festival.

Going into “Yellow Letters” I was expecting much more of a thriller, with the family fighting and resisting until the end as the regime's grip on their lives got tighter and tighter. Therefore, I was quite surprised when instead it morphed into the family drama it becomes, but I say this with no disappointment attached. Instead of a thrilling portrayal of heroism and rebellion, we get a study of the true cost of standing up and fighting against the State. Sometimes there is no reward and your ideals become murky when you have to worry about more than just yourself, but the lives of your children and family too. This, of course, is exactly what the State wants, to break a person down until they are forced to conform, and through this family, director Ilker Çatak is able to look at both sides of the coin, in highlighting the cost of continued rebellion versus conformity, as well as the tensions involved within a family facing both. It is incredibly powerful and at times poignant, and one remarkable aspect of “Yellow Letters” is that even with the high stakes nature the family and film deals with, it never falls into melodrama.

“Yellow Letters” is an outstanding film that sadly reflects a chilling story of today's times. It is an incredibly powerful piece of work with an absolute standout performance from Özgü Namal; she's dynamite! It has been beautifully directed by Ilker Çatak, and I think it will end up being one of the stand out films of MIFF this year. Days after seeing “Yellow Letters”, I cannot stop thinking about it, and I am continually realising just how intricate and complex the story and emotions within it really are. Highly Recommended!

4 Stars.

 

 

HEN - MIFF 2026

 

As per the MIFF guide: “A poultry transport driver steals a factory-farmed hen, planning to put her in a tasty soup. When he stops his truck at a servo, she escapes, evading a hungry fox and braving a busy highway before getting cooped up in a run-down seaside restaurant. All she wants is to find a safe nest to brood her own chicks – but as she repeatedly strives to find out what becomes of her eggs, she encounters a world in which hens aren’t the only creatures to be exploited.”

So it is early Monday morning, and I am seated on a train heading into the city to see my only MIFF film of the day, and I am more than a little grumpy. I found myself questioning my life choices, but particularly why I decided to see an early morning session of a film that is about a stupid chicken. Whilst I thought the trailer was cute and amusing when they played it at the MIFF launch back in July, but since than I had convinced myself that surely the filmmakers couldn't sustain the fun for a whole feature length movie, as it is essentially a one joke story. The reason I did end up booking a ticket for “Hen” was only due to the fact that it was Hungarian director, György Pálfi's brand new film and he has a habit of making films that a more than a little unusual, and different from the norm. Still, when I sat down in my seat, I was sure that my time could have been better spent elsewhere.

As I'm sure you all expected from such an intro, yes, I ended up absolutely loving “Hen”; it is such a clever film that has been put together so well that you find yourself actually caring about the plight of a mischievous chicken. “Hen” turned out to be unexpectedly brilliant, and so unique, as we see the world from the eyes of a very curious hen. The film begins with our little black hen's birth and ends with her becoming a mother of her own, (complete with her own odd black chick too) so I guess you could say that it is kind of a coming of age tale. But it is not only that; it is also an adventure film, a comedy, a romance, as well as a dramatic thriller; “Hen” has everything for everyone. After the black hen escapes from the battery farm where she was born and breed, suddenly her eyes and world are expanded that much more, as she finds herself mixed up in a whole number of ridiculous and dangerous situations. She has to escape a fox (which finally answers the question “why did the chicken cross the road?”), dodges a terrifying bird of prey, survives a playful dog and a burning car (that may have been deliberately lit), finds herself caught up in a protest against the police, gets mixed up with human traffickers, falls in love (lust?) with a very sexy rooster, and eventually settles down and becomes a mother.........amongst other things. Along with the hen's story, we get the parallel story of a group of traffickers, led by the old man who has taken the hen in (she lives in his pen) and who will do anything to get out of the criminal activity he has found himself in so late in his life.

I would love to know how long it took to shoot this film because it is so complex, even though the tale being told is very simple. “Hen” is filled with many intricate camera moves, that include so many moving parts within the frame, from the animal actors to the humans, to the shot itself, that I could only imagine that it took forever to get each shot where everything finally worked in unison. The widescreen cinematography from Giorgos Karvelas is outstanding in highlighting the beautiful Greek Island landscapes and particularly in capturing our hen at the perfect angle so that it looks like she is actively doing what the story needs her to do. Again, how long would have this taken to shoot, because each shot comes across as totally spot on. I think the biggest strength of “Hen” though has got to be Réka Lemhényi's editing. This is not because it is flashy or draws attention to itself, because it doesn't, but through her edits you fully believe that this hen(s) is giving a real performance. You can actually feel emotions from it, just from a little twitch of the head, or the way it scratches its claw on the ground. Lemhényi has clearly had to find all of these little moments and put them all together to create a magnificent whole, and she does so brilliantly. The use of music in “Hen” is also another massive tick, as it is regularly used to help amplify the atmosphere of the scene, but the love songs are absolutely hilarious! I can't forget to praise the ringleader of this show also, as György Pálfi has directed this film with so much life and energy, giving it a playfulness that makes it so easy to watch, while at the same time tackling some tough material in the process. I am in awe of what he has been able to do here, because he makes it look so simple, but believe me, this would have been a very complex film to make.

One of the key marketing claims about “Hen” is that there was no CGI or animatronics used in the making of the film. While for the most part I truly believe this, I do question the scene involving the fox, as to my eyes something felt a little off about him to me, which you find your mind doing when it registers something unreal on the screen. I admit that I could be totally wrong on my assumption with the fox and whether or not it was real, but my gut feel was that in some of the shots it was not. As to the star of the film herself, it took eight “Hungarian” chickens to portray the titular hen and I am not going to lie, if I didn't already know that multiple hens were used, I would have assumed it was the one, because it is so seamless. The hens have so much to do in this film, as Pálfi has a number of set-pieces sprinkled throughout the film. One of my favourites is when our hen has to break back into her pen, after becoming so proficient of escaping from it, when “Big Sexy” (the hot rooster) enters the scene. There are also a number of funny moments when, after she has escaped her pen, she sees just what happens to her eggs once they are taken from her, when she sees the old man making an omelette. To compliment the images of the hen's performance, Pálfi will, from time to time also, switch to the hen's point of view shot, which works wonderfully well in making everything so believable.

The one area where the film does fall down though is in the human performances sadly. With the exception of the old man, who is played by Yannis Kokiasmenos and is utterly wonderful, the rest of the cast (which is limited) give very broad performances that lack any range of emotion. I was seriously disappointed in this, particularly because the characters that these people are playing are so ugly (not their physical features, but what they do in life to make money), so they come across as caricatures.

Overall though, “Hen” turned out to be a wonderful surprise. I actually thought that following a hen around for ninety plus minutes, that the film would drag, but it absolutely flew by which is a sign of a great movie. Never did I think that I would be able to care about the plight of a little black hen as much as I did here, and that is all thanks to director György Pálfi and his wonderful team, who have put “Hen” together in such a perfect way that it is not only believable, but also immensely moving and more than a little funny. “Hen” is a one-of-a-kind gem!

4 Stars.