SPOILER The film has rarely any dialogue and totally NO background music. But the moments of silence speak so much more volumes than the moments of dialogue. The style of the film is also very distinct -- it's shot in jerky hand-held camera (inducing motion-sickness in a lot of people), and every scene is only shot in one take...a bit like Sokurov's Russian Ark. It's about this person who initially rejects a boy to be his carpentry apprentice but then starts maniacally stalking him and we find out later that the boy is actually the person who killed his son. It sounds really melodramatic, yes, but it's so not. It seems that the camera is stalking the main character throughout the whole movie, with an intensity intensified by it's minimal-editing style. Throughout the whole movie, there are so many hints of violence, so many points where it seemed that the main character will just snap and kill the boy any moment but this are all played down. It is not about violence.
I didnt quite like it as much as I do now when I left the theater. But as I went home and reflected upon it, the more emotions it evoked in me. It's quite difficult to pin-point exactly what makes the film so brilliant in my opinion. I think a lot hinges on the fact that the lead actor is just amazing. He emotes so well with his eyes, and every change in emotion is hinted subtly by a change in his eyes. I mean, throughout the entire film the camera is focused on him, of course he had to be able to sustain the whole film. Another reason is the silence. Sometimes silence can be so much louder than words, which is totally true in this film. The silence here is not only suffocating, it's menacing and intense, as if like the prelude to a thunderstorm. This is one film which brilliance hinges more on its silence than its script.
The most brilliant thing I think is the style of the movie. While the style of many movies complement the story and illuminates it, the style is movie IS the movie itself. It's a narrative technique. Much like Zhang Yimou's Hero. And I think that's part of the reason why the comments about this film are so extreme. The maniacal style of the camera stalks the main character, just as the main character stalks the boy. It never bothers to show the main character's feelings, it never bothers to explore the depths of the character (although the actor explores it fully). It never bothers to explain why the main character has such a fascination with the boy even though he killed his son. It never bothers to explain why the main character doesnt in fact, want to hurt the boy at all. The entire film just shows the reactions of the character to the situation. At the same time, I think, the stalker-camera style detaches the audience from the character. The audience is always observing the characters from far and the director makes no effort to let the plunge the audience into the character's feelings. I think the reason in this is more to evoke the audience's feelings towards this, and not by pulling in the main character's feelings to consideration. The film is a reaction piece, and it aims to draw the audience reaction to the film also, and in that sense allows the audience to participate in this way instead of, the usual way in which the audience participate by being part of the film. The audience is never part of this film, if you get what I mean....I dont even think I'm making much sense here...
Oh, and I have my thoughts on the end of the film too. Some think the ending was too abrupt to be understandable but I think it's more like you know, the rain...The silence throughout the whole film was the prelude to the storm and it all erupted in the character uncontrollably telling the boy that the person he murdered was his son. Instead of the violence and gore we were expecting, we got calm instead. Instead of the devastating lightning that seemed imminent, we got heavy rain. It was tender, that both of them decided to silently make up and be master-apprentice. And that's what makes the film so tender and delicate.
To quote Roger Ebert's review of The Son, though I dont quite agree with a lot of things he said about the movie...I do agree, however, that it's an awesome movie ;) '"The Son" is complete, self-contained and final. All the critic can bring to it is his admiration. It needs no insight or explanation. It sees everything and explains all. It is as assured and flawless a telling of sadness and joy as I have ever seen. '
I didnt quite like it as much as I do now when I left the theater. But as I went home and reflected upon it, the more emotions it evoked in me. It's quite difficult to pin-point exactly what makes the film so brilliant in my opinion. I think a lot hinges on the fact that the lead actor is just amazing. He emotes so well with his eyes, and every change in emotion is hinted subtly by a change in his eyes. I mean, throughout the entire film the camera is focused on him, of course he had to be able to sustain the whole film. Another reason is the silence. Sometimes silence can be so much louder than words, which is totally true in this film. The silence here is not only suffocating, it's menacing and intense, as if like the prelude to a thunderstorm. This is one film which brilliance hinges more on its silence than its script.
The most brilliant thing I think is the style of the movie. While the style of many movies complement the story and illuminates it, the style is movie IS the movie itself. It's a narrative technique. Much like Zhang Yimou's Hero. And I think that's part of the reason why the comments about this film are so extreme. The maniacal style of the camera stalks the main character, just as the main character stalks the boy. It never bothers to show the main character's feelings, it never bothers to explore the depths of the character (although the actor explores it fully). It never bothers to explain why the main character has such a fascination with the boy even though he killed his son. It never bothers to explain why the main character doesnt in fact, want to hurt the boy at all. The entire film just shows the reactions of the character to the situation. At the same time, I think, the stalker-camera style detaches the audience from the character. The audience is always observing the characters from far and the director makes no effort to let the plunge the audience into the character's feelings. I think the reason in this is more to evoke the audience's feelings towards this, and not by pulling in the main character's feelings to consideration. The film is a reaction piece, and it aims to draw the audience reaction to the film also, and in that sense allows the audience to participate in this way instead of, the usual way in which the audience participate by being part of the film. The audience is never part of this film, if you get what I mean....I dont even think I'm making much sense here...
Oh, and I have my thoughts on the end of the film too. Some think the ending was too abrupt to be understandable but I think it's more like you know, the rain...The silence throughout the whole film was the prelude to the storm and it all erupted in the character uncontrollably telling the boy that the person he murdered was his son. Instead of the violence and gore we were expecting, we got calm instead. Instead of the devastating lightning that seemed imminent, we got heavy rain. It was tender, that both of them decided to silently make up and be master-apprentice. And that's what makes the film so tender and delicate.
To quote Roger Ebert's review of The Son, though I dont quite agree with a lot of things he said about the movie...I do agree, however, that it's an awesome movie ;) '"The Son" is complete, self-contained and final. All the critic can bring to it is his admiration. It needs no insight or explanation. It sees everything and explains all. It is as assured and flawless a telling of sadness and joy as I have ever seen. '