TEENAGE SEX AND DEATH AT CAMP MIASMA

 

When Jane Schoenbrun's latest film, “Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma” premiered at Cannes earlier this year, I assumed its inclusion on the MIFF programme was a full gone conclusion. However I soon noticed that it's Australian release date coincided with the opening night of MIFF, meaning there was no chance of it playing at the festival since it would already be out for general release. It also meant that I was going to have to find a gap within my MIFF schedule to be able to see “Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma”, which would be no easy task.

Being tasked with resurrecting the long dormant “Camp Miasma” slasher franchise, queer director Kris comes up with the idea to cast Billy Presley, the final girl of the original film in a key role in this new iteration. In an attempt to convince Billy, Kris sets up a meeting with her at the comfort of Billy's own home, which just happens to be the disused camp used as the setting for the original film. Upon meeting Billy, Kris finds the eccentric recluse to be more than a little out there and while trying to convince her to return for the newest installment of Little Death's massacre, Billy argues that rather than being just a movie character, Little Death was very real and was dying to come back, which sends both women down a rabbit hole of psychosexual thrills and kills.

One thing director Jane Schoenbrun is very good at is creating believable worlds around a certain product that she makes up. In her first film, “We're All Going to the World's Fair” it is a video game, in “I Saw the TV Glow” it is a long running Buffy-esque fantasy television show and here with “Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma” she has created a slasher film franchise. All of the incredible memorabilia and merchandise they have created for the franchise makes the “Camp Miasma” series so believable as a real franchise. Things like movie posters, videos, action figures, computer games, bubble-head toys, lunchboxes and arcade/pin ball machine have been put together so lovingly to create a believable world around these (made up) films, but all feel of the period and sufficiently banged up to look real and time ravaged. The amazing thing about this is this memorabilia is barely even glimpsed, only showing up in the film's opening credits, but again, they bring so much truth to the “Camp Miasma” franchise and just add to the atmosphere of “Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma” itself.

“Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma” sees director Jane Schoenbrun create a loving homage to the slasher films they grew up with whilst at the same time taking a pot shot at Hollywood executives who only want to revive dead IP franchises for the easy money (while never having any love for the franchises themselves), and then never wanting filmmakers to stray from the original formula by attempting something new or fresh. Schoenbrun also gets a kick out of mocking the “elevated” horror genre, by stating that they are only an academic exercise and usually miss the point of what horror films are really about: sex and death. Probably the most interesting thing about “Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma” is that despite all the blood and guts found within the film (and believe me, there is a lot), it is not really a horror film itself. Ultimately the film is about identity, transformation/rebirth (a key theme in all of Jane Schoenbrun's films), and whether or not you need to kill a part of yourself to be reborn again, as well as looking at why these types of films effect us the way that they do. Personally, I am not sure Schoenbrun is as successful at exploring these things as they were with the brilliant “I Saw the TV Glow”, as their latest film comes across at times as bloated and self indulgent and more than a little vague.

A large chunk of “Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma” revolves around Kris and Billy watching a 35mm print of the original “Camp Miasma” film, and the footage Schoenbrun has shot for the film-within-the-film is totally spot on. It was shot on real 35mm film itself and just looks exactly of the period, particularly the terrible eighties sportswear fashions. The lore of Little Death (the killer of the “Camp Miasma” franchise) is a mash-up of “Friday the 13th” (1980) and “Sleepaway Camp” (1983) but done with a loving respect to both franchises. Probably the most hilarious thing is the mask Little Death wears which is a square air-conditioning vent. It is probably the most absurd choice possible, but somehow it still works. While Schoenbrun has worked wonders in recreating the look of an 80's slasher film, sadly when it comes to the death scenes, they fail miserably by using CGI trickery instead of practical effects which was a huge part of horror films made in the 1980's. The much lauded one-shot Little Death massacre scene is also a major disappointment because from the design of the extended shot, it is all from Little Death's point of view, so we actually miss a lot of the graphic carnage being performed, as Little Death's “face” is regularly sprayed with copious amounts of blood, so we cannot see anything, with the victim then falling out of frame.

“Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma” is anchored by a wonderful lead performance from Hannah Einbinder who is both vulnerable and awkward as Kris, although I was less impressed by Gillian Anderson (as Billy) who appears to be doing her best Norma Desmond impression throughout but comes across far too goofy and aloof, giving her character no true gravitas. Like all of Jane Schoenbrun's films “Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma” eventually becomes a wild, hallucinatory experience as the real world and reel world begin to morph into one another and it is during this part where I feel the film loses it's way and becomes more than a little confusing. Schoenbrun is a director who wears their heart and influences on their sleeve and throughout their new film there are direct visual references (or homages) to the two Davids, Lynch and Cronenberg, and of course the “Friday the 13th” series, with the “Camp Miasma” series mirroring those of the Jason Voorhees franchise. One aspect of the film that I did love was the highlighting of the artificiality of movies with Schoenbrun really leaning into this by using obvious matte paintings for backgrounds and set extensions, and very clear sets filling in for “real”places.

One element of “Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma” that I didn't think worked that well was the sexual disappointment or repression of both Kris and Billy, and how being killed by Little Death or watching them murder someone, unlocks this mental block, resulting in a pure unadulterated orgasm. For me, I do not understand exactly what Schoenbrun is getting at here (at least after my first viewing) but believe there is some word play involved here. The French call an orgasm “la petite morte” which directly translates to The Little Death......which is the name of the franchise's killer. Maybe I am just naïve or slow, but I still do not understand the significance of DEATH=SEX in this context. In slasher films, one of the “rules” are that if you are promiscuous or have sex, you will be killed by the killer, which is sex=death, but here it is the opposite where if you die or watch someone die, it can unlock your sexuality. Hmmmm, I am still not convinced by this and think, while interesting, this part of the film needed more fleshing out to make more sense.

When I originally watched Schoenbrun's previous film, “I Saw The TV Glow”, I thought the film was good but nothing special, but it lived rent-free in my head for weeks after I saw it. I felt compelled to give it a re-watch and on my second viewing, it was like the film opened up to me and exposed all of it's secrets. Suddenly I was able to read all of the trans subtext which I was blind to originally and I saw the film in a completely different light. It became such a sad and tragic film and I ended up absolutely loving it! I say all of this because I am hoping a similar thing will occur with “Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma”; that deeper themes and meanings will reveal themselves, causing me to re-evaluate the film in a more positive light. However after my initial viewing, despite there being a lot of good within it, I will admit that I found “Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma” to be overlong, over indulgent and more than a little confusing. That said, I am a big fan of films that deal with the theme of identity which this one does, so I look forward to watching it again in the near future.

3 Stars.

 

MY WIFE CRIES - MIFF 2026

As per the MIFF guide: “At work one day, crane operator Thomas receives a call from his wife, Carla. She’s been in a car accident and needs him to pick her up. Arriving at the hospital, he finds her on a park bench outside, physically unharmed but crying inconsolably. Eventually, Carla confesses something about the specific circumstances of the accident, leaving Thomas shattered. This revelation leads both Thomas and Carla to share intimate conversations with friends and loved ones about the fragility of romantic relationships and the impossibility of ever truly knowing someone – even those with whom we share a life.”

After coming off of the high that was “Coyote vs. ACME”, a film that was filled with so much fun and entertainment, the very next session (and my penultimate for the film festival) turned out to be the nadir of my MIFF for 2026. I absolutely hated Angela Schanelec's “My Wife Cries” with a passion, and just could not see the point of it for the majority of it's running time. While I do own Schanelec's “I Was At Home, But” (2019) on blu ray (due to my absolute trust in Second Run's film curation), I have still yet to watch it, nor any other of her features prior to this new one, and only saw “My Wife Cries” because the MIFF guide suggested that the film should appeal to fans of Aki Kaurismaki, which I am one in a big way, but I was done dirty by the guide, as this film is nothing like the genius of that Finnish director.

Despite “My Wife Cries” being shot on 35mm film, I was immediately turned off by the film's ugly visual style and Schanelec's baffling decisions on some of her shot selections which looked very amateurish. We meet Thomas, a crane operator and one of our main characters, as his crane needs to fixed and he waits inside the company's office while this happens. Schanelec places Thomas against an off white wall, sitting on a basic chair as he drinks a cup of coffee, while office workers talk to him off camera about his life. It is one of the most ugly shots in cinema history, as there is no beauty anywhere to be found in it, and Schanelec stays on this shot for what seems like an eternity before she finally cuts to one of the people Thomas is talking to, but this is another equally awkwardly framed shot. I knew I was in trouble with “My Wife Cries” right then, or maybe it clouded my judgement on the film because this opening scene made me so angry. Throughout the film, it was like it was a deliberate choice to find the most inappropriate spot for the camera to go, or to make sure that each shot looked ugly. This is how I felt while watching “My Wife Cries”, but in preparation of writing this review, I re-watched the film's trailer and was surprised by how visually beautiful it looked, this is why I have added the caveat that this initial scene may have clouded how I saw the film.

The reason why I think the MIFF guide stated that fans of Aki Kaurismaki might get something out of “My Wife Cries” is because of the stylised acting style within the film. It lacks emotion, and dialogue is very stilted; this is not a realistic depiction of human behaviour at all. And that is fine, because as you can obviously guess, I find this stylisation works wonderfully well in Kaurismaki's films, but then his whole film is stylised, not just the dialogue. His version of Helsinki is not a true representation of that city, it is almost like Kaurismaki's own cinematic world. Schanelec on the other hand sets her story in a very real Germany, so the odd way people talk in her film just comes off feeling weird, because normal people do not talk like that. Also the conversations the friends all have between each other border on the boring to the nonsensical, as they attempt to be some kind of pseudo-philosophical crap about human relationships and what makes them work, but it just feels so fake and made up, not to mention, forced.

I just found “My Wife Cries” to be a very strange film, and not in a good way, because I am a fan of the unusual in cinema, but here it just felt like nothing worked, or even complimented each other. Because of the acting style in the film, and the performances from Vladimir Vulevic and Agathe Bonitzer (who play Thomas and Carla), I just found no emotion or care between this supposed married couple. Carla has gone through something horrific, which has exposed something bigger for the future of the couple, and yet you would not know it because of the way everyone acts. You would expect Thomas to show both care and anger, if not confusion, towards Carla but the stilted dialogue takes this all away, so we the audience also feel nothing about the drama unfolding onscreen in front of us. So much so, that my session did have a few walk-outs too; after awhile people had just had enough and left.

The other thing that really bothered me about “My Wife Cries” is that weird things just happened out of the blue sometimes. Carla, exhausted from her trauma ends up at a friend's place with Thomas and a group of friends. They are all engaging in conversations about the married couple's ordeal, when suddenly out of nowhere the friends all start doing a choreographed dance, each entering the dance one after the another until they are all dancing, except Carla who has fallen asleep on the couch. It is so strange, but paradoxically it was also my favourite scene in the film because I like a bit of dance in my movies, but where the hell did it come from?!? Also, for the whole entire scene, both before the dance and during, one of the characters is only wearing a towel. Okay, so he may have just gotten out of the shower, but the scene goes on forever.......PUT SOME CLOTHES ON!!!!! So weird.

The final straw though was the ending of “My Wife Cries” because it just stops, out of the blue. Thomas is walking his bike home, Carla is waiting for him on a bench outside, Thomas says some pointless dialogue, the film cuts to Carla who says nothing, and the film ends. Um, excuse me? I just sat through ninety plus minutes for nothing to be resolved and for the film to just end. And this was after Carla fondled some man's flaccid penis, it was hard to tell who but I think it was the guy in the towel, for no apparent reason too. I give up on this movie! It was absolutely terrible.

Overall, if you cannot tell already, I hated “My Wife Cries” and it was my least favourite film I saw at MIFF this year, and it was also the penultimate film I saw. The stylised acting removed all emotion from the film, so I found myself not being able to care one iota for the characters onscreen, not to mention I also thought that the film was extremely ugly from a visual sense. My final question though about “My Wife Cries” is, how does such a crap movie end up with such a beautiful movie poster?!? Baffling.

1.5 Stars.

THE SUN NEVER SETS - MIFF 2026

As per the MIFF guide: “Wendy is 31 years old and happily in love with Jack, a divorcee in his 40s. The only snag in their age-gap relationship: she wants to have children, but he doesn’t want more than the two he already has; he’s also leery of getting married again. Hoping to inspire her to outgrow those particular urges, Jack proposes a six-month break in which she might dive into the Anchorage dating pool. What he hasn’t accounted for is the reappearance of Wendy’s handsome ex, a pilot who may prove less flighty than he once was.”

Writer / director Joe Swanberg is a key figure of US independent cinema, particularly when it comes to the mumblecore genre, which are essentially no budget films, where scenerios were written about what a certain scene wanted to explore, and the actors filled that space with their own dialogue. They are highly improvisational, usually dialogue heavy, and not always the most cinematic of films due to their lack of budget. The positive of the mumblecore films is that they usually exhibit some form of human truth within them, and they feel very real. They are not for everyone, and I would say that I have a limited tolerance for them, although there are some quite good ones out there. Back in 2013, MIFF showed what was then Joe Swanberg's latest feature “Drinking Buddies”, but with this film he had something of a budget to work with, so it was a lot more polished than his previous films. I took a chance on seeing it, and absolutely fell in love with it, and the film even made my top ten of that year (it came in at #9). Strangely though, after being so impressed by “Drinking Buddies”, I haven't bothered to follow up on whatever Swanberg made after. “The Sun Never Sets” is Swanberg's brand new film, and his first in almost a decade, and is about the complexities of romantic relationships, and after I saw the trailer for it, I decided it was time for me to dip my toe in the Swanberg pool once more, and I am glad that I did because I had a really great time with “The Sun Never Sets”, even if it does have a few problems.

One of Swanberg's secret weapons in his films is actor Jake Johnson, who is something of a muse for the director, as he is often the star of his later films in particular. I have always loved Johnson's screen persona, as he always comes across as a real genuine guy, a lovable loser of sorts. His performances often have a lighter edge to them because he seems like a funny guy, he likes to laugh and enjoy himself, but he is always able to find the real human elements of any character he plays when the situation calls for him to be more serious. Johnson plays Jack in “The Sun Never Sets” and again, he is fantastic in the role. He is a divorced father of two, in a committed relationship with Wendy, who is ten years his junior, and the two get along great. Jack is very set in his ways though, and has no intention to either marry again or have any more children, something Wendy wants in her life. Johnson plays Jack as a guy who thinks he knows what he wants, and is happy with where his life is right now. What makes the film work so well though is the stunning chemistry Johnson and Dakota Fanning, who plays Wendy, have together. They work so well off of each other, and their timing together is exquisite. In happy times or during scenes of conflict, these two actors just click perfectly together and it is very easy to see why Wendy is willing to settle down with Jack, even though she wouldn't be getting everything she wants out of life if she does. Now as good as Jake Johnson is in “The Sun Never Sets”, Dakota Fanning is even better. I thought she was absolutely incredible in this, and this is her best performance since she has been doing adult roles. Wendy is in a constant state of confusion during the film, torn between two men she loves, and Fanning does an exemplary job of showing all this. You can see that she loves being with both men, but when she is alone, the weight of it all starts to show and she crumbles. I also loved the relationship that she has with Jack's kids, who adore her; it is so cute to see them all together.

“The Sun Never Sets” is Joe Swanberg's biggest budget film to date, and it looks it with cinematographer Eon Mora taking full advantage of the Alaskan landscapes where the film is set, while shooting on 35mm film. It is such a wise move from Swanberg to use Anchorage, Alaska for the location of his film, because it appears that no matter where you point the camera, the imagery is stunning, which adds huge production value too. The fact that the sun barely sets in Alaska, during the time when the film takes place (and part of the reason for the film's title), it adds an otherworldly quality to the place, and it is just gorgeous to look at. There is a scene late in the film when our characters head out to a bar one night for the weekly trivia competition, with their new partners, unaware that their exes will be there too. It culminates in probably the film's best scene when Wendy follows Jack into the men's room to yell at him for bringing another woman to the bar, just to make her jealous. The two of them start the scene screaming at one another, before they burst out laughing at the absurdity of what they are doing and where they are, and suggest they should get back together. When Jack leaves the bar with his new woman to have a serious talk, they are greeted with the blazing sun, even though it is night time, which shocks you initially and then you remember where the film is set.

I mentioned that “The Sun Never Sets” had a couple of problems, so lets talk about what small issues I had with the film now. My biggest problem with the film is actually the main premise of Jack encouraging Wendy to take six months out of their relationship to find herself again, and if she is still happy after that time, he will be waiting for her. I do understand why he wants Wendy to do this, because she has always wanted to get married and have kids, things he has already done, and doesn't want to do again and he doesn't want her to miss out and in the future end up hating him because she settled with him. I do get it. However, Wendy is so happy with the life she has with Jack that she has no interest in doing what he wants her to do, and yet he forces her to do it. That is the bit I do not understand, she is happy and content with her life, why destroy something good over a what if in the future. Now you would think that having a problem with the main crux of a film would be a problem, but I like the journey Wendy goes on after the fact, but it is such a boneheaded move from Jack in the first place.

The other problem I had with the film, which is a bigger issue for me than the first, was the repetitive nature of the tug-of-war within the love triangle, and the constant push and pull. When one member is finally ready to commit, the other is not, so they get more cosy with the next person, and then they are ready to commit, and the other is not, for what ever reason. It happens more than a couple of times in the film, which is a shame, because despite this constant repetition, “The Sun Never Sets” does a fantastic job of examining the complexities of relationships and how messy they can be, especially when you have history with these people. The only other “negative” I had was that I knew early on exactly how the film would end, and who she would end up with. I mean it is not always the destination that is important to a film, it is the journey getting there, so I do not really consider this a negative because I liked Wendy's journey which felt very real, it was just a bit predictable.

Two brief things I do want to mention though was I loved the relationship between Jack and his ex-wife, which wasn't hostile at all, but showed they still cared about each other even though they were no longer together. You can tell they meant something to each other once in the past, and they still respect one another while they are apart. It is not something you see done in movies very often and as well as it is done here. The other thing I wanted to mention was the oh so awkward date that Wendy goes on with poor Brad, a friend of hers who has always had a fixation on her. It is cringey, but I felt so bad for Brad, but I loved that you could feel absolutely no chemistry between them at all (despite how much Brad wants there to be), and the complete opposite when Wendy bumps into Chuck and you can immediately feel her going weak at the knees. These are just moments that I find so true and real, that make the film special to me.

Overall, I had a wonderful time with “The Sun Never Sets” thanks largely to it's two lead actors Jake Johnson and Dakota Fanning, who have wonderful chemistry together and make every moment they have together feel very real, and lived in, be it happy or painful times. I actually thought Dakota Fanning was absolutely incredible as Wendy and it was her best adult performance yet. While, the film is a little predictable, and becomes repetitive at times, it is a perfect film to sit back on a lazy day and watch and be entertained by it, as it explores relationships and how messy they can become when there is history attached to it.

3.5 Stars.

 

COYOTE VS. ACME - MIFF 2026

 

As per the MIFF guide: “For decades, pure-hearted predator Wile E. Coyote has suffered the slings and anvils of outrageous fortune: every gimmicky mail-order product he bought from the ACME Corporation has failed grievously instead of helping him catch the infuriatingly swift Road Runner. He’s been battered by boulders, dudded by detonators, rattled by rocket-skates, tricked by tunnels and walked into thin air off every cliff in the American Southwest. Now he’s suing the profit-obsessed ‘everything store’. But can his small-time lawyer Kevin Avery and Kevin’s plucky niece Paige win against Buddy Crane, ACME’s slick corporate counsel – and Kevin’s old boss?”

If possible, on the final day of MIFF I like to try and book films that are a little lighter and more fun than the usual tough, depressing dramas that are more the norm, as a way to sort of wind down from the festival and to just enjoy myself. This year I got the chance to book a ticket for Dave Green's animation / live action hybrid “Coyote vs. ACME”; a film that very nearly never saw the light of day. Back in 2023, the CEO of Warner Bros. Discovery David Zaslav decided to shelve the finished film and use it as a tax write-off instead. Fans were irate and started a campaign to have the film released. Initially, it didn't look like they were going to be successful but out of nowhere Ketchup Entertainment saved the day and acquired the film and the rest is history; the world will now be able to see “Coyote vs. ACME” for themselves and see if it was a deserved tax write-off or a new comedy classic.

Growing up in the early eighties, the classic Looney Tunes cartoons played on our television sets every weekday, late afternoon, as we were getting home from school, so I have always had a love for Bugs, Daffy, Tweety and the rest of the gang. As I have reached adulthood, I haven't followed these characters later adventures, but I will admit that I was shocked at the dumping of this film for tax purposes which I thought was disgraceful. If it ever was to come out, I had planned to see it, just as a giant “F--- YOU!” to Warner Bros., and I hoped that it would turn out to be a very successful film in the process. However when the initial trailer came out, my opinion of it was more than a little luke warm, and I thought that maybe Zaslav knew he had a dud on his hands and did end up doing the right thing by pretending it never existed. Anyway, it showed up at MIFF and I decided that I would see it, but I wasn't getting my hopes up about it. Turns out “Coyote vs. ACME” was a bloody entertaining film, packed full of laughs and surprisingly filled with a lot of heart too. I had so much fun with this film, and so did the entire audience, I am happy to say.

What makes “Coyote vs. ACME” so successful, is director Dave Green's obvious love for these classic cartoon characters. He does not change them in any way by trying to update them for today, or anything like that, these are the characters you know and love from the old Looney Tunes days. Making a film where the main character, Wile E. Coyote, does not speak, you would assume that there might have been some thought to change that and get the old boy talking here, but no, just like way back then, the only way Coyote and Road Runner ever speak (outside of “Beep Beep”) is via (a limited number of) signs. Green also keeps the pace up and the gags coming, and the majority of them are very funny and of a slapstick nature (keep an eye in the background for a multitude of sight gags). Even when the humans get mixed up in the animated gags, it is done with so much fun and silliness that it works perfectly with the tone of the film. Green just knows what type of film he is making and delivers time after time, which is essentially a live-action Looney Tunes film, filled with animated characters.

Speaking of animated characters, all of your favourites make an appearance here from Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Porky Pig, Foghorn Leghorn, Tasmanian Devil, Tweety Bird, Sylvester, Road Runner, and there is a very, very funny joke involving the now cancelled character of Pepé Le Pew, which had my cinema roaring with laughter. But this is legitimately Wile E. Coyote's movie; he is so funny in this, and it reminds you just how great all his classic cartoons were, with his failed ACME products, some which get replayed briefly in this film. One thing that I was very happy about was Dave Green's choice to stick with 2D hand drawn animation for the Looney Tunes characters, instead of trying to jazz them up with 3D computer animation, which he does do for some of the ACME products that Coyote uses, but never the characters themselves.

In regards to the human performances, everyone understands that they are essentially making a live-action cartoon and thus adjust their performances accordingly, with John Cena (who plays ACME lawyer Buddy Crane) coming out best with his over-the-top bad guy shtick. Will Forte is great as a no-hoper lawyer, Kevin Avery, who cannot be bothered doing the legwork to become a good lawyer, only to be inspired by the never-give-up attitude of a certain Coyote that sees him change his ways for the better, and while it may be strange to say, Forte also has amazing chemistry with Wile E. Coyote, with the scenes those two are in together being the highlights of the film. And this is also where the heart of “Coyote vs. ACME” comes in too, as the two end up building a real friendship between them that they even start caring for one another. There is a really sad scene, when Kevin is fed up with all of the Coyote's nonsense and constant plans to try to catch the Road Runner, when he turns around and screams “YOU WILL NEVER CATCH HIM!!”. The look of utter despair on Coyote's face when he hears this leaves a lump in your throat; his ears go down, his eyes droop, he is so upset, it's devastating.

Did I dislike anything about “Coyote vs. ACME” ? Well I wasn't a fan of the arrogance of Foghorn Leghorn, and the explanation of why ACME products keep (deliberately) failing was a little stupid, but hey, when a film is this fun and full of life and laughs, why worry about the little negatives. If I was being critical, I do not think it quite gets to the level of “Who Framed Roger Rabbit” (1988), which is still the high bar set for animated / live-action hybrid films, but it comes closer than anything else before it.

One thing I want to mention before I sign off was that at our screening of “Coyote vs. ACME” we were lucky enough to have Eric Bauza introduce the film and do a Q&A after the screening. Bauza was the voice actor for most of the Looney Tunes characters within the film and he was just outstanding with his time and his answers. He was so full of energy answering questions while changing character voices mid-sentence; he was incredible. He was also genuinely thankful for everyone turning out to watch the film and fight to see it released. I normally do not hang around for Q&A's because I have to get to the next film, but since my next film was in the very same cinema, I stayed and was very glad I did because I was so impressed by Bauza who seems like a really genuine person; he also stayed in the MIFF Festival Hub after the screening to sign anything people might have had or just to shake their hands. Well Done.

Overall, I thought “Coyote vs. ACME” was a loving tribute to all things Looney Tunes (notice how all of the human characters are named after the key Looney Tunes creators), was incredibly funny, surprisingly full of heart, and that it definitely lived up to the hype. It would have been a travesty if this film had never seen the light of day, because it is so much more than just a tax write-off. Every one involved in this film knows exactly the type of film they are making, and it is great to just go to the movies and having a grand time, laughing your arse off at the absurdity of these fantastic classic characters as they interact in the real world and humans as well. Take your kids, take your family; I guarantee that you will have a fantastic time with “Coyote vs. ACME” (which I also saw at ACMI cinemas); it was worth the wait.

3.5 Stars.

 

JOSEPHINE - MIFF 2026

As per the MIFF guide: “Eight-year-old Josephine is out running with her father in San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park when she witnesses a brutal sexual assault. Her parents, Damien and Claire, are unsure of how to help their daughter process this experience, working through their own feelings of futility, helplessness and horror. As a court case prosecuting the attacker draws closer, Josephine is haunted not only by the memory of what she saw but also by the presence of the perpetrator, who lingers in her mind – and, she imagines, in her bedroom – like a ghost.”

Were it not for Marie Kreutzer's “Gentle Monster”, Beth de Araújo's “Josephine” would have been the most devastating film I saw at MIFF this year, as it is about the loss of innocence for an eight year old girl who is an unwitting witness to a vicious rape while out for an early morning jog with her father. It is such a heavy film dealing with both the after effects on Josephine after witnessing such a crime, as well as the balancing act of her parents who try to navigate around explaining what she saw so she may understand it and come to terms with it, while trying to protect her from it at the same time. I am not sure I have seen a film like this before examining the trauma of a child while also exploring how difficult it is to help her make sense of something she does not understand. One thing de Araújo does well in her film is highlight just how many people can be affected by such a violent crime, as it is not just the rape victim who suffers.

Director Beth de Araújo starts her film right out of the gate with the rape scene taking place within the first ten minutes of “Josephine”. Before it, we get a number of small scenes which show the great rapport father and daughter have together, their love of sports, and the fact that Josephine is a normal eight-year-old girl. Jo and her father, Damien, become separated at the park due to the competitive nature between the two with Jo attempting to prove she is faster than her Dad at running. When she reaches a fork on the path, she bolts down the left side, while Damien mistakenly assumes she went to the right, separating them for a couple of minutes. While alone, Jo witnesses the sexual assault taking place right in front of her, but doesn't understand what is actually going on, except that the woman doesn't like it. Horrified, she watches as the man chokes the woman before making a noise that stops the crime in progress and turns the man's attention to Jo herself, just as her father returns to chase the rapist away. This furthers the trauma for poor Jo who is now left alone with the victim as she attempts to put her clothes back on, while in tears herself. De Araújo does not sugarcoat any of this, as the rape is very graphic and shocking to behold. Thankfully it is all shown from Jo's point of view so there is some distance to it and Mason Reeves, the little girl who plays Josephine, is never in the same shot as any of the violent or sexual material that is taking place. This is interesting too, because de Araújo would have had the same dilemma as Damien and Claire, the characters in her film, in working out just how much she needed to share with her young star about these scenes without traumatising her in the process.

After the assault, Jo has trouble processing everything she has just seen and starts to suffer from behavioural issues that leads her to lashing out and doing some horrible things to both her classmates at school and her parents at home. While overhearing her parents talking about the incident, she hears a word she doesn't understand and then googles it for a definition. The word? Rape. Something no eight-year-old girl or boy should ever need to know about, and this discovery of a new word leads to some painful questions and awkward encounters. In sports class she is running against the boys, beating them all and Jo turns around and says “None of you can rape me!” which shocks the teacher into calling Jo's parents to school, while a moment in the car ride home has Jo asking her mother if she had ever been raped, which is just heartbreaking to hear from your child.

The dilemma for Damien and Claire is just how much do they explain to Jo, and by withholding information from her, under the guise of her own protection, does it do more harm than good? One thing is for certain, it clearly shows just how hard this situation is for parents and that parents do not always have the right answer for everything. The way Damien and Claire deal with the situation differs greatly too, as Damien is all about the physical, the here and now. Let's take action, so we can control the situation, so he makes sure Jo enrols in self defence classes so she can protect herself if ever the moment did arise where she may be in danger. He is also trying to be positive about the future, but is this giving Jo a false sense of security? Claire on the other hand is much more worried about the mental side of things, and how this will affect Jo in the future from a mental health perspective, because it is impossible to be able to tell how much this incident has affected her. It is never mentioned outright in the film, but it is hinted at that Claire herself may have gone through something similar when she was a child and is still suffering the effects from, and that she doesn't want Jo to go through what she went through by making sure she talks about what happened, and then seek professional help to deal with the trauma that comes with it. Both parents want what is best for Jo at all times, there is never a question about that, but often they do or say (especially poor Damien) the wrong things at the wrong time which clouds Jo's understanding of the world.

During the film, Damien and Claire find a moment together to engage in some relaxing sex which Jo walks in on and is horrified that her father is hurting her mother, screaming “get off her, daddy! Don't hurt Mummy!!”. It is such a sad scene because how is this young girl meant to know the difference between sex and rape when to her eyes they look so similar. This in turn means the parents have to engage Jo in another awkward conversation, and it is easy to see how this poor child loses her innocence at such an early age. There are other heartbreaking moments in the film like when Jo essentially shuns her father because he is a man and she doesn't trust men anymore, and there is a shocking moment involving a very pregnant Claire that I do not want to reveal but will make your mouth drop.

Channing Tatum is excellent as Damien, in what is his most mature and serious role to date. He comes across as a great father who loves spending time with his daughter, but constantly frustrated at not knowing the right things to do or say to her to make her life easier. Tatum always appears to be moving, like action while solve everything, whereas Gemma Chan is quiet and calm as Claire, but just as concerned. Like I said above, the fact that it appears that she may have gone through a sexual assault herself when she was young or witnessed one, there is different nuances in her performance as it looks like she is recounting what happened in her childhood, and then trying to do the opposite so Jo wouldn't have so many regrets later in life. Mason Reeves, as Josephine, just steals this movie though and your heart cannot help but go out to her, as she is so confused about everything going on in her life, as a world she had no knowledge of is suddenly exposed to her. She has big, expressive eyes that give away what she is feeling from confusion, terror, anger, and even fun. She is fantastic in this and is definitely the beating heart of “Josephine”.

There was not much I didn't like about “Josephine”, as I think director Beth de Araújo has handled the difficult material very maturely and head on, which was the best way possible, but there was one directorial decision I was not a huge fan of. After the assault, poor Jo is traumatised by the attacker and can not get him out of her mind. De Araújo has decided to handle this by having the actor who plays the rapist constantly showing up in Jo's room, laying next to the bed, opening the door for her, reflected in her mirror etc. Personally, I think the visualisation of Jo's trauma was a little too on the nose, and just her dialogue of her saying “I see him everywhere!!” would have sufficed and got the same point across. Every time I saw him, I just rolled my eyes because it seemed so obvious and it wasn't needed. The film is powerful enough without this visualisation of trauma. The only other minor issue I had is that in the final third of the film, “Josephine” becomes a courtroom drama and it does drag a tiny bit, although I admit there are some great moments within it like the devastation of her parents as they watch her being cross examined, and the mic drop moment Jo herself has directed at the defence council when they are attacking her for not helping the woman being raped. This is also another thing that poor Jo has to come to terms with which is firstly, how was the man allowed out on bail after doing what she saw him do and how he still might not go to jail despite her evidence. These are grown up issues forced onto this poor little girl, which through her eyes would make little sense at all. Seriously, explain how bail makes sense to a young girl who saw this man do what he did.

Overall, I found “Josephine” to be another harrowing and heartbreaking film, but one that has been so very well made and acted, fully respecting the difficult subject matter on display. It has the most beautiful and heart wrenching final scene, situated on a beach, that if you are not choking back tears by it's end, then you are a cold-hearted bastard. Yes, I will admit that “Josephine” is not an easy watch at times, especially if you are a parent, but it is an important film that I highly recommend to those of you who like tough cinema.

4 Stars.

 

THE FRIEND'S HOUSE IS HERE - MIFF 2026

As per the MIFF guide: “Hanna is a contemporary dancer who posts videos of her work online, while playwright Pari stages experimental theatre productions. In Iran, both of these acts are illegal. Thick-as-thieves besties and housemates who participate in Tehran’s underground art communities, they live their lives – as artists, feminists and unwed women – in defiance of an authoritarian government that is openly hostile to everything they do. Armed with their friendship, their ideologies and a serious streak of rebellion, Hanna and Pari try to make art and make it through another day.”

Sadly, but totally understandable with the current war taking place, I only saw two new Iranian films at MIFF this year, Mahnaz Mohammadi's “Roya”, and “The Friend's House Is Here”, a delightful little film from directors Hossein Keshavarz and Maryam Ataei. Most films coming out of Iran deal with the crushing reality of living life under the current regime, and the dangers that exist on a day to day basis. “The Friend's House Is Here” deals with this exact same material, although here it plays more in the background, with the key focus on the film being about friendship and solidarity, and making the most out of your life even during these difficult times. As such it is a much lighter affair than is the norm coming out of Iranian cinema, but it is what also makes it stand out in the crowd. First and foremost, it is a celebration of life and particularly friendships, something the directors really wanted to highlight, as they feel this is what the world needs right now.

“The Friend's House Is Here” is a film with incredible energy which is due to not only the type of film that it is, but the way it was shot. Directors Keshavarz and Ataei shot the film in secret, guerilla style so they were grabbing shots and scenes quickly when on the busy streets of Iran, but like I said this gives the film so much energy and an immediacy to it all. The film also feels up to the moment too, as there are references to the current war and recent seize fire, and the regime's full shut down of the internet and communications during the recent massacre of protesters in an effort to not let the truth become known worldwide. Again, these points are not laboured on as that is not the aim of this movie, but characters mention how much they missed each other when they couldn't get in contact with them for such a long period, and how they worried about one another. It is about the friendships of the group, not the bigger picture of Iran today.

When “The Friend's House Is Here” begins, we are actually witness to one of Pari's underground plays depicting a scene of a panicked Pari as she searches for her best friend Hanna, worried she has been taken by authorities over her dance videos she posts on the internet. The set of the play is like a pared back version of Lars Von Trier's “Dogville” (2003); there are no walls or doors defining each set, with sound effects used to show knocks on doors or doors opening. Initially I was worried that the whole film was going to be like this, especially as I knew it had been shot in secret, and thought this was how the directors got around it, and I wasn't that thrilled to sit through a film so much like a play. However soon the carpet is pulled out from under the viewers feet to reveal that, yes, this is just an underground play directed by and starring Pari. From here, we go to the after party where friends unwind and talk about the performance, and the film starts in earnest, as we meet all the various characters important in the film. It becomes a lot more cinematic too, beautifully shot by cinematographer Ali Ehsani who is able to capture little moments of fun and warmth between friends. The film has a real casual visual sense, but very professional looking, which belies its shot in secrecy status. Also early on in “The Friend's House Is Here” we are treated less to full scenes, but more snippets of the two girls, Hanna and Pari, as they enjoy their daily lives, either together, by themselves or with other friends. The editing by Hossein Keshavarz is exemplary here, as it gives a kaleidoscopic vision of all the fun the girls find in their lives, while also giving the film the energy I keep talking about.

The film changes around the halfway mark as Pari falls foul of the regime who arrest her for performing underground theatre without any permits. This is actually a chilling scene by the way it progresses. The government agent first comes across like he is a fan of Pari's performance before he starts asking if she thought about asking for a permit so her plays could reach bigger audiences and didn't have to be shown underground. She replies in the negative stating that she was not willing to censor her project so more people could see it. The agent keeps the conversation going down that path, talking about all the other plays she had done, what would need to have been censored in them, and where she performed them. Pari suddenly realises that she is in big trouble, and the man is not who she originally thought, and worse they clearly have a whole file on her already. This scene is shot via one single take, and one shot that starts very wide but slowly zooms in closer and closer to Pari and the man, as the enormity of her situation is realised. In other Iranian films, the focus of the film would switch to Pari's time incarcerated and the hell she would be going through while being interrogated, but “The Friend's House Is Here” does the opposite focusing on Hanna and her attempts to find the money to bail Pari out. I should mention that Hanna has just got a visa and plane tickets to leave the country, but is willing to give all this up for her friends safety despite knowing the unlikeliness of her getting another exit visa to leave the country for good. Friendship and solidarity. Once Pari is out, the rest of the film is about the community coming together to get the money to pay back Hanna so she can still leave like she had originally planned. It may put a financial burden on all of them, but everyone is willing to help as much as they can.

Directors Hossein Keshavarz and Maryam Ataei really wanted to show the Iran of today, which has changed dramatically thanks to the women's movement in the past couple of years, highlighting a much more colourful and fun looking Tehran than is usually seen in Iranian cinema. It is also quite a shock to see a film with almost no hijabs in it, characters dancing enthusiastically to pop music, and women wearing clothes that show off the shape of their bodies. When it comes to Hanna, not only is her hair out, but you should see the volume of it too! Some of the most fun scenes in the film are Hanna choreographing her dances that she plans to film for the internet, because again they are full of so much energy, and it is just not something you usually see in an Iranian film. My favourite moment in “The Friend's House Is Here” though is a tiny moment of conversation between Hanna and Pari where, after getting so much advice about leaving from friends and family, Pari finally asks Hanna “what would you do if I asked you to stay?”. Hanna replies “I would stay”, which Pari replies to with silence. She does not ask Hanna to stay because she knows life would be better for her away from Iran; it is such a beautiful and real moment but one that happens so quickly and naturally.

All of the female and male actors involved in “The Friend's House Is Here” are wonderful and have a real friend dynamic to them, and this is because most of them are friends in real life and most of them are non-professional actors coming together to help the directors make their film. Hana Mana and Mahshad Bahram, who play Hanna and Pari respectively, are both fantastic and have a lightness in their performance, and come across as two people that really enjoy each other's company and life as a whole. During the second half when life gets more serious for the pair, the camaraderie between the girls stays as strong even as the stakes get higher; they always want what's best for their friend. While I have highlighted the two girl's performances, everyone is really great though, even those who have the smallest role, as there is a sense of community between them all.

Before I wrap this up, I want to mention a little anecdote that took place at my final MIFF screening of 2026 which was for, ironically, the opening night film “Wicker”. The directors, Alex Huston Fischer and Eleanor Wilson, introduced their film, while explaining that they too had seen ten or so films at MIFF while showing off their own film and that they had fell in love with a beautiful film, which was none other than “The Friend's House Is Here”. They then pointed out that the directors of the film, Hossein Keshavarz and Maryam Ataei, were in the audience that night, and the crowd erupted in cheers. It was such a sweet moment of filmmakers supporting other filmmakers.

Overall, “The Friend's House Is Here” is a delightful film, and considerably different than the norm coming out of Iran. Rather than focusing on the more heavy topics of what life is like living under the current regime, directors Hossein Keshavarz and Maryam Ataei keep this element in the background of their film, while highlighting the friendship and solidarity of a group of friends determined to make the most of their lives, despite their difficult living situation. I also have to say that I absolutely love the clever title as it cheekily answers the question of Abbas Kiarostami's “Where Is The Friend's House?” (1987). While “The Friend's House Is Here” may not be as devastatingly powerful as some other Iranian films, it is well worth searching out.

3.5 Stars.

 

ROSEBUSH PRUNING - MIFF 2026

As per the MIFF guide: “In a vast mansion in Catalonia, Ed feels stuck – not just between his older and younger brothers Jack and Robert, but also in the company of his sister Anna and their blind father. The family moved from New York at their late matriarch’s behest; now, their days are defined by sordid indulgence and isolation. One day, Jack brings his future bride Martha into the fold, disrupting established dynamics. In tight quarters and with everyone used to getting their way, things are bound to go off the rails.”

Brazilian director Karim Aïnouz’s latest film “Rosebush Pruning” is a remake of Marco Bellocchio’s classic Italian film “Fists in the Pocket” (1965), a film that I am aware of but unfortunately have never seen, so am unable to really compare the two. Aïnouz really scored a coup when he was able to lure the co-writer of “Dogtooth” (2009), Efthimis Filippou to script this new film, as the two films actually have a lot in common, dealing with family issues that are, lets say, not of the norm or more extreme than you would expect. Aïnouz followed this up by stacking his cast with an insane amount of talent with Callum Turner, Jamie Bell, Riley Keough, Tracy Letts, Lukas Gage, Elle Fanning, Pamela Anderson and Elena Anaya rounding out what is truly an amazing cast. Finally, Aïnouz has re-teamed with his regular cinematographer Hélène Louvart who lenses “Rosebush Pruning” in lurid, and garish colours that burst onto the screen. All the ingredients are here to make a brilliant film, and yet, “Rosebush Pruning” turns out to be something of a wild misstep for director Karim Aïnouz. It is loud, aggressive, disgusting, vulgar, and horrible. Or at least this is what I thought for most of the film, however I strangely found myself more on it's demented wavelength the longer it went along, and even found myself laughing in a couple of spots too.

Let me state upfront, as something of a warning of sorts, “Rosebush Pruning” is an extreme film filled with outrageous situations that I think most “normal” cinema goers would find revolting and in bad taste. Believe me, I am no prude when it comes to cinema and can handle most things, but even I was shocked by the depravity regularly shown onscreen here. The worst part about it all was that these moments seemed to be there just to shock the audience, or worse, in an attempt of some kind of misplaced humour. It was no surprise to me that there were a number of walk outs during my session of “Rosebush Pruning” because quite frankly, for the majority of the film, I too was disgusted with it. Here are just some of the questionable material that appears in “Rosebush Pruning”; one brother has a fetish for menstrual blood, one brother wants to sleep with his brother, the sister also wants to sleep with the same brother, the blind father needs nightly help from a family member to brush his teeth which ultimately goes a lot further than dental care, and this is before all of the killing begins. I am sure the film is meant to be satirical about how wealth and privilege ultimately causes emotional decay and a lack of moral compass, but I feel the message is lost via the bombastic way the story has been told.

It does not take long to realise that all of the characters in “Rosebush Pruning” are absolutely horrible; they are out to get whatever they can for themselves, and they do not care who they hurt while trying to get it. The ironic thing is that being as rich as they are, they have everything that they could possibly need, to the point that they are all so bored in their lives, that they are willing to go to the extremes just to spice it up a bit. Another interesting element of this family dynamic is that they all clearly hate one another, and yet, they also could not live without each other because they live in their own created little world of depravity which no one else would go along with outside of the family. I mentioned above the excellent cast of “Rosebush Pruning” and unfortunately I feel almost everyone gives a terrible performance here, with the exception of Jamie Bell, who is really quite good as Jack, the most normal of the family members. That brings me to a quandary; is it possible that all of these very talented actors are giving poor performances or is it because the characters that they are playing are so disgusting, that I have discounted their acting ability in playing them? I honestly do not know the answer to this, but I liked none of their performances and thought they were far too heightened and smarmy, except Bell who, again, makes a real character out of Jack, but he is also the most likeable of the family too. I also do not think the actors have been given a lot to work with either, and despite his reputation (and I have absolutely loved a lot of the films he has written), I think the script Efthimis Filippou has written is rather poor. The dialogue in particular is crude and trashy, but again, I think it is meant to be funny, which does not work (at least for me). Due to the similarities between “Dogtooth” and “Rosebush Pruning” it is as if Filippou is trying to up the ante, in regards to the extreme material, of that earlier Yorgos Lanthimos film, but he does not get close to equalling the brilliance of that film.

While I am usually a big fan of Hélène Louvart's cinematography, particularly her past collaborations with Karim Aïnouz, this is another area of “Rosebush Pruning” that I wasn't a fan of, as I actually thought it was quite a ugly film to look at. This had to do with the lurid colours on display, and the constant close ups of facial imperfections on the characters such as moles, freckles or acne scars. I will admit that there are some impressive shots in the film, particularly the slow motion shots involving the wolves bounding down the mountain, and two characters enjoying their pool during the final credits, but for the most part I was disappointed with the visual aspect of the film, which is usually the strongest element in a film directed by Karim Aïnouz.

Now, here comes the weird part. After absolutely hating the film for the majority of it's running time, something happened to me towards the end where I found myself liking it and was even on it's wavelength in regards to it's dark comedy. I am not sure if it was just because these unlikable characters were finally getting their comeuppance that my opinion towards the film started to change or if I genuinely got onboard with the strange atmosphere and tone of “Rosebush Pruning”. One moment I found myself laughing at was the reaction between Jack and his mother, when he tells her that Dad is dead; it really is quite silly, but it was like a circuit breaker for me and I relaxed into the film more from this point. There is a very good scene about a third of the way into the film though when Jack brings his girlfriend, Martha, over for lunch to meet the family. It is such an awkward scene, as the blind father asks his children to describe Martha to him including her “bosom”, as the family members bicker about her breast size with poor Martha sitting right there. It is very funny, and also the best acting within the film as the actors work really well as an ensemble during this moment. Anyway, as the (very impressive) end credits rolled on “Rosebush Pruning”, I couldn't work out if I hated the film, or ended up liking the film, which made me feel very confused indeed. (Thankfully the film hit MUBI's streaming site, ironically, on the same night as my MIFF screening, so I can have a second viewing soon).

Overall, after my initial viewing of “Rosebush Pruning” I found it to be something of a misstep from Karim Aïnouz; a failed satire that all it is essentially saying is that money can not buy you class. It is an extreme film, filled with extreme situations that I do not recommend to anyone who may be prudish, filled with horrible characters doing horrible things to one another, while sprouting crude and trashy dialogue. Unfortunately, I also do not think Aïnouz has done a great job with the pacing of the film either, as it stops dead in a couple of places before picking up once more for the finale. Despite all of this, I still want to watch it again, as I found myself more in sync with the strange tone of the film towards it's end, however after this first viewing I think it is safe to say I found “Rosebush Pruning” to be quite the disappointment.

2.5 Stars.

 

FATHERLAND - MIFF 2026

 

As per the MIFF guide: “In 1949, ageing German Nobel laureate Thomas Mann breaks his long exile from his homeland to honour Johann Wolfgang von Goethe’s 200th anniversary in the latter’s birthplace of Frankfurt, West Germany. Next, he plans to visit the city where the literary giant died: Weimar, now in the communist East. Chauffeured by his resentful actor/writer daughter Erika, Thomas crosses a country he barely recognises, even as he waxes poetic about its heritage. Meanwhile, Erika notices in person – as her beloved, tormented brother Klaus does in his fiction – how two divergent but equally compromised regimes are being installed atop the still-festering wounds of Nazism. The country they grew up in is a fading memory; but can this intellectual family even feel at home with one another?”

Pawel Pawlikowski’s latest film “Fatherland” requires you to know both the historical backdrop of 1949's Germany, as well as the famous people that populated it, as all of it's characters are based on real people from that time. You also need to be familiar with the world of literature, music and art of Germany in the 1930's, and to get the most out of “Fatherland” you further need to know whom among those people collaborated with the Nazi's during their time in power, and those who fled the country of their home to survive. Going into the film, I had no idea about any of this, I just thought it was a film set in post-war Germany, rather than being about real people from this time as well as actual events that took place then. I was just excited to see the new film from Pawel Pawlikowski, who seemed to be mining similar themes and visual motifs from his previous films “Ida” (2013) and “Cold War” (2018), both films that enthralled me greatly.

What impressed me the most about “Fatherland” was that even though I had no prior knowledge about any of these people, what they were famous for, and how they were all linked, Pawlikowski still made me care about the journey Thomas Mann was taking alongside his daughter Erika, as he returns to Germany for the first time in over fifteen years. You can tell this is a country he no longer recognises, and he finds sadness in this, while also enjoying the fuss and carry on both sides of Germany are giving him in regards to the ceremonies he is attending. So many names are dropped during the film that I knew that there was a huge chunk of historical resonance that I was missing in “Fatherland”, but I was still enjoying the film on its surface level. Then came a party scene where Erika meets up with a man she obviously knew previous, but was not on great terms with. The two talk about Erika's brother Klaus, as this mystery man states he always liked Klaus, to which Erika replied “so much so that you had his book banned”. The two talk about the contents of the book which is about a stage actor who sells his soul to the Nazi's so he can continue to work while they are in power, and the book is called “Mephisto”, and suddenly my ears pricked up and I saw my entrance into the historical aspect of “Fatherland”. I am a big fan of Istvan Szabo's film “Mephisto” (1981), which is based on the book of the same name, written by Klaus Mann. Whoa! This excited me no end, and once the film was over and I was at home, I started researching the names dropped in “Fatherland” and saw all the connections coming together beautifully, as I suddenly understood the film on a deeper level. Some people may think that you shouldn't need to do homework to enjoy a film, and to a certain point I agree with this, but for some reason I just loved going through the people mentioned in this film, and seeing all the connections between them all. For instance, I had no idea that Klaus Mann based his book “Mephisto” on his former brother-in-law, who was once married to his sister, Erika. Yes, the Erika of this film. Another connection I researched, had to do with Thomas meeting up with the grand children of composer Richard Wagner, who wanted his music to be played once more as it is not the music's fault it was associated so closely with Hitler and the Nazi's. Thomas says something along the lines “I think the Opera House should be razed and your mother tried”. I looked up the daughter of Richard Wagner, of which he had none, whereas his daughter-in-law, Winifred Wagner, turned out to br deeply entangled with the family of Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich. Very interesting stuff.

The other thing that I was in awe of with “Fatherland” was in its recreation of Germany of 1949. It actually feels like you are there, or that the footage was shot when the film was set. Production designers, Marcel Slawinski and Katarzyna Sobanska, deserve all the praise they can get because the world they have created is hugely believable on what I am sure must have been a limited budget. Pawel Pawlikowski has re-teamed with cinematographer Lukasz Zal, and the two of them continue to work with the same visual motifs they began on “Ida” and continued with on “Cold War”. Like the previous two films, “Fatherland” is shot in black and white and in the square 1:37 aspect ratio, and something that I mentioned in my review for “Ida” is the verticality of the shots composed by Zal and Pawlikowski. What I mean by that, is that they are very aware of the up and down space of their frame, not just left to right, and often use this space to highlight tall trees or large columns on buildings. It may not seem like much, but it is very noticeable and I think they use this space better than most directors / cinematographers who use this aspect ratio. One aspect of film making I talk little about is musical scores, because I know little about the art; I only know what I like without being able to talk deeper about it, but I have to say that I loved the organ score from Marcin Masecki which suited “Fatherland” perfectly. Another small detail that I have to mention, which added to the authenticity of the time period, was the sound design, and particularly the sound of the old phone lines which were spot on.

Hanns Zischler is quite wonderful as Thomas Mann, presenting the author as someone chuffed with the attention he is getting while at the same time saddened with what Germany has become since he left, and the fact that so many elite people involved in its destruction are still living life like normal, unpunished. There is also a hint of sadness in Zischler's performance too, as he tries to pretend its business as usual, even after the suicide of his son Klaus. Sandra Huller, likewise, is excellent as his fed up daughter Erika. While it is quite an understated performance, and extremely different from the turn she gave in “Rose”, Huller is great at showing the pure emotion her brother's suicide has caused her, as well as the rage that exists beneath the surface towards collaborators of the Nazi party that saw her family have to leave Germany in the first place. She also gives out the best onscreen slap I have seen in a very long time; damn, that hand connects hard, and the actor on the other end receiving it looks genuinely surprised.

So what is “Fatherland” actually about? It is about an old man, exiled from his birth country for fifteen plus years, finally returning to find the place he once called home no longer exists and in its place are two different ideologies that are forming where Germany once stood. Klaus briefly mentions the division of Germany in a tone of disgust when talking to Erika on the phone at the start of the film: “Mr Mann, which side are you on? Stalin or Mickey Mouse?”. But the film then asks where is home though? Is it where your house is? Where your heart is? Where your family is? Where you were born? Or is it none of these? While looking at a country divided, Pawlikowski also looks at a family divided, and the barriers between them all that stops them from healing or even coming to terms with such a division in the first place. “Fatherland” is an incredible film with so much depth, and a lot on it mind, that it baffles me how Pawel Pawlikowski’s film only runs a brisk 82 minutes long.

Overall, I found Pawel Pawlikowski’s “Fatherland” is be an utterly delightful film, and this is without me knowing the historical backdrop of the times and the people that populated it. Those that are familiar with that information are in for a treat, as this is an amazing film filled with so much depth, as it looks both at a country divided and a family divided. The black and white cinematography is stunning to look at, as is the attention to detail used in the production design that brings Germany of 1949 to life once more. The film also has a really lovely ending too. I really loved “Fatherland” a lot and am stunned at how much Pawel Pawlikowski has been able to cover in a mere eight two minutes.

4 Stars.

 

GENTLE MONSTER - MIFF 2026

 

As per the MIFF guide: “When avant-garde concert pianist Lucy agrees to move her family from the city to the countryside, the goal is to provide her husband Philip with respite following a burnout-induced panic attack. Instead, the move leaves her isolated and emotionally unprepared when the police arrive to execute a search warrant on Philip’s computers. As she struggles to process her shattered new reality and to protect herself and her young son, Lucy must untangle truth from love.”

Back in the early 2020's director Marie Kreutzer was hard at work on research for what she thought would be her next film after “Corsage” (2022). Kreutzer was initially horrified by a news story that she read about the realities of paedophiles Shaken to her core, she felt the topic needed to be seriously examined in a film, but she did not want to commit to making such an important film until she had researched it forensically, despite how hard it would be delving into such dark material for an extended time. After talking to police about how they conduct a warranted search of people under suspicion, the unthinkable happened two days later. Florian Teichtmeister, one of Kreutzer's leads of her film “Corsage”, had his house raided over suspicion he possessed and/or produced child abuse material. Without going into any more detail about this case and the media furore that surrounded it, Teichtmeister ended up pleading guilty, and Kreutzer was rightly horrified and disgusted by her former collaborator's actions, while expressing how shocked she was that he was involved in such a thing. The ramifications for her future film about child abuse and paedophilia were almost drastic as she nearly abandoned the project entirely because she knew it would forever be associated with Teichtmeister. In the end she decided that the film was too important and needed to be told, but she rewrote it with another angle included about how you never truly know someone. After this incredibly long introduction, let me say that I am so grateful that Marie Kreutzer made sure “Gentle Monster” would see the light of day, as I found it to be a truly outstanding film. It is an incredibly hard watch, and to be honest, I found the viewing of it absolutely harrowing to sit through, and I was quite emotional and taken aback by the time it finished, but I was in no doubt that what I just witnessed was an excellent and important film.

Director Marie Kreutzer tells her heartbreaking tale from the wife, Lucy's point of view, as she is shocked and angry that her husband, Philip, has been accused of such a serious crime. Lucy's initial reaction to the situation is to make a joke, asking Philip if he had hacked into a bank, as police officers take away computers, laptops and his phone. Lucy follows to the police station to support the man she loves and asks the person at the front desk whereabouts he is. They tell her he is on level two, and she heads to the elevator, and as she is about to press the button she sees what type of crime is investigated on that level: “child sex crimes”, and in that moment, Lucy's entire world collapses, and her focus turns from her husband to her young son. As I mentioned right at the top, “Gentle Monster” is a harrowing watch, as Kreutzer has done an amazing job of putting you in Lucy's shoes along with her. That moment in the elevator is absolutely devastating, because you know nothing will ever be the same again for Lucy. However what haunts Lucy the most, as I am sure would haunt all mothers, is knowing whether or not her son is a victim of her husband's accused crimes. All the emotions and feelings pouring through Lucy in this one moment from love, anger, hate, betrayal, fear, embarrassment and disgust, are too much to handle and process in a short time frame, and it does not help that the police cannot answer as to whether or not her son is a victim too, because investigating all of the digital material could take months. Through the length of Kreutzer's film we are with Lucy as she has to navigate all of her complex feelings about her husband, fearing what could have happened to her son, while at the same time trying to keep life as normal as possible for her son too. We also get a side plot relating to the female cop who is in charge of Philip's case, as she navigates her own lonely life, trying to deal with her father and his declining condition from Alzheimer.

Right from the opening frame of “Gentle Monster” Kreutzer makes the viewer immediately invested in her film, and you cannot take your eyes away from the screen despite how painful a watch it is. What makes it such a hard watch is because you really feel for Lucy and everything that she is going through and trying to process. This is the man that she loves and is the father of her son, and until the police knock on their front door, she does not think anything is wrong with her little family, with perhaps the move out to the country being a slight cause for friction. You understand why she keeps believing Philip's lies because she wants him to be innocent and for her life to go back to normal. It is easier to believe that he has been falsely accused than to picture him being involved in something so heinous. Philip, being a filmmaker, tells his lawyer that he had access to the child abuse material because he was doing research for a documentary on the subject, and didn't realise this was a crime. However, when Lucy confronts Philip about the documentary, asking him how he could be so stupid, he comes clean to her telling her that there is no documentary, and that he was distributing the material for the money, so they could move from the city to the countryside like they agreed on. This is incredibly manipulative as Philip uses the old “I did it all for you” argument, which Lucy believes despite being disgusted by her husband's actions. A fortuitous meeting with Elsa (the police detective in charge of the case) occurs at IKEA of all places, and Lucy explains that while she doesn't agree with what her husband did, and believes he should pay for his crimes, at least he only downloaded the material to re-sell it at a profit, he only did it for the money. When Elsa gets back to the police station and recounts the meeting with a fellow officer, his response of “what money?”, just makes our stomach drop as we know that Lucy has fallen for another one of Philip's lies, as we wonder how she will react when she finds out the truth.

I absolutely felt so sorry for Lea Seydoux, who plays Lucy in “Gentle Monster”, because to be in the emotional register she would have had to have been in for the entire shooting of the film must have been so exhausting and disturbing for her. She is so damn good in the role though, as you feel everything she does, and this poor woman goes through it all. Shock, denial, anger, embarrassment, disgust, fear and love are just some of the emotions Seydoux has to navigate through, but she commits 100% to it all, that you fully believe in everything Lucy is feeling in any given moment. It is so unfair that Philip is the cause of everything, but it is up to Lucy to hold it all together and to continue to power through life for the sake of her son. In lesser hands, the character of Lucy could have been in tears throughout the whole film, but Seydoux gives a more nuanced portrayal than that, although of course there are scenes when it all becomes too much for the poor woman and she breaks down in tears, with the brief scene after one of her music performances being a great example. Seydoux must also navigate three different languages in her performance too as she needs to speak French, German and English depending on her she is talking to. Laurence Rapp is also very good in his role of Philip, in what also had to be a very difficult role too, but unlike with Seydoux, you do not give this a thought because of the horrible and disgusting things his character is accused of. In other words, this is a role that will see no glory for Rapp himself, despite how good he is in it, but he must give himself over to the film wholeheartedly for “Gentle Monster” to work as well as it does.

There are two very graphic sex scenes between Lucy and Philip within “Gentle Monster” that some may find a little gratuitous in a movie about child pornography, however these are actually very important in regards to the truth of paedophiles Most people assume that paedophiles only want to sleep with children, when in actuality the majority of them have normal, healthy adult sex lives too, which is explained to us via one of the doctor characters in “Gentle Monster”. The point is just because Lucy has regular passionate sex with Philip, it does not discount him as being the paedophile which he is accused of being. For some paedophiles it is less about sex, and more about power, and a child is easier to placate than an adult.

Despite the horrific story in “Gentle Monster”, the film contains a number of complex shots and really impressive cinematography highlighting the countryside beauty. Judith Kaufmann has crafted a slick and classy looking film showcasing the magnificence of the German and Austrian locations (the scenes set in Austria are stunning!), hiding the darkness that exists just below it's pristine surfaces. The fact of the matter is that I doubt most viewers would really notice any of the camera work or cinematography, due to how wrapped up in the film's story they would be. When it comes to Marie Kreutzer's direction, I am happy to say that it is very sensitively handled, and she never over-sensationalised any moments to create false emotion or to highlight any scene. I think she is well aware of how powerful the story within “Gentle Monster” is so she does not need to get in it's way with any unneeded directorial touches. She does use the gimmick of flashback a couple of times, where we go back a couple of years prior, to moments where Lucy missed pivotal clues as to what could really be going on with her husband. Importantly, there is no child pornography recreated within the film, nor any scenes involving children in danger. That said the film is so hard to watch at times, with some scenes almost sickening by “what could be” rather than anything you actually see, and I am primarily thinking of a scene when Lucy plugs in a USB she finds in Philip's hoodie. There is so much suspense in this moment because, like Lucy, we have no idea what is on the device, and thanks to Seydoux's performance in this moment, we understand how painful a moment this is, but also that it is something she has to know for herself.

I briefly want to mention the ending of “Gentle Monster”, or rather what happened when the credits began at my screening. Normally at a film festival, we are rushing from film to film, so when the credits begin we bolt out of our chairs to head to the next cinema, or we need to catch public transport home so need to leave quickly for that too. Also someone will begin clapping which sees the whole cinema clap the film too. When “Gentle Monster” finally finished there was complete silence and no one moved a muscle. The film was such a harrowing experience for us all, it was like we all needed a moment to stop and breathe before we could move on. This is my 31^st year coming to MIFF and this is the first time I can remember a reaction like this after a film. Myself, I had a train to catch home, but I just could not move. I had to sit there in the darkness for a while longer. Eventually someone started to clap which broke the trance, but it was an incredible collective moment I wont ever forget.

Overall, I feel like I have barely scratched the surface of “Gentle Monster” and what makes it such a great movie. It is an incredibly difficult topic, so I can understand some people being hesitant at watching such a film and while director Marie Kreutzer has attacked the topic head-on and truthfully, she has also done so in a sensitive fashion so nothing of a sordid nature is part of her film. The lead performance from Lea Seydoux is heartbreaking, but so impressive, and you have to applaud her for having the courage in taking the difficult role of Lucy. Again, I stress, that I found watching “Gentle Monster” to be a harrowing experience, which left me very emotional when the film ended, and because of this it is hard to say that it was a film that I loved, but “Gentle Monster” was definitely the best and most important film I saw at MIFF this year, that has only gotten stronger in my mind days after seeing it.

4.5 Stars.