Within the United States, the Dardenne brothers’ first directorial effort of the 21st century was initially shown in New York City theaters back in January of 2003 and to its credit stayed there for roughly a year. Granted it never played in more than 3 theaters at a time and its likely that no American screenings have occurred outside of NYC apart from film festivals and one-off film society screenings. According to the DVD rental operation Facets (which is based in Chicago), this is considered one of their rare titles. It’s a distinction that I suspect the film has garnered as a result of securing US distribution through New Yorker Films long before this distributor started to incur financial difficulties. New Yorker Films went bankrupt in 2009 and ceased all business operations, only to be revived from its coma a year later when Aladdin Distribution purchased the company and its assets. Currently New Yorker Films seems to exist in a semi-dormant state.
It’s website is just a short placeholder page that provides little information. I also couldn’t find much information on Aladdin Distribution, so currently I have no idea whether or not anybody is still distributing the film. As of right now, there’s no legitimate streaming options available for this title, and the best option to watch it would be to grab a previously distributed copy that’s still floating out in space. Unfortunately since Facets categorizes this title as being ‘rare’, it levies a surcharge for renting it out. To investigate how rare this title was, I searched for it at worldcat.org and found copies being held at 6 different public libraries within a 20 mile radius of where I live, suggesting that ‘rare’ and ‘out-of-print’ are not necessarily the same thing. I was able to submit an inter-library loan request and had my hands on a copy within two weeks, saving myself some money in the process.
As for the movie itself, it started with a tight, close up shot of a man working in a wood shop. As the movie progressed it maintained this ultra tight focus and was so disciplined in this approach that I found the film difficult to get accustomed to. At times I couldn’t help but think that the movie seemed oddly committed to showing the back of the main character’s neck. In addition to this the film utilized long fluid shots from what appeared to be a hand-held camera, and used no proper soundtrack creating a quiet, meek feel to the film in deference to an austere, cinéma-vérité aesthetic. The lack of a soundtrack was most notable in one scene where Olivier Gourmet’s heavy panting became almost deafening. As for the camerawork, while I’m not totally against hand-held shots, my one complaint about them is that it often leads to poorly staged and poorly framed scenes and Le Fils did suffer from this at times. Early in the film during a conversation between the main character, named Oliver, and his ex-wife Magali, the actress is actually well framed in her shots, while Oliver often is out of focus or poorly framed allowing him to take on a rather ghostly presence in this exchange. Some might suggest that this was intentional in order to define the shape of this soured relationship. I wouldn’t totally disagree with this and honestly there probably was some artistic significance in film’s tight framing which was extremely effective at drowning out the more mundane aspects of Olivier’s life. This is after all a character study of a distraught parent dealing with the lingering affects of a personal tragedy, so the cinematographic approach did have some merit in establishing an ambiance of worldly detachment. Still though arguments about artistic significance can only go so far, and I largely felt that the mise-en-scène was weak and didn’t offer much support for the acting performances, from which the film derived it’s true power.
Olivier Gourmet was brilliant in his portrayal of this character, with a performance that was so incredibly nuanced and emotionally complex that it was fascinating to watch. While often working against the camerawork, he found ways to work in small, yet revealing touches to his character. For instance I like the way he waffled in and out of the Centre coordinator’s office early in the film, which captured the apprehension, confusion and uncertainty that lies at the heart of everything that he does. With Gourmet, there was a subtle delicacy in every move that he made; a hesitancy in every step. You never felt as if the character knew what he wanted to do, and by extension the viewer may often feel unsure of his true intentions. Gourmet keeps you guessing here, and for a film that is rather light on action, this intrigue is essential to maintaining some viewer engagement with the story.
The film is also light on dialogue, which I felt was a good thing. At times I tend to think that tension and suspense in a film are more effectively created in silence. Morgan Marinne in a supporting role was great in this capacity. Both him and Gourmet were masterful at crafting an awkward, uneasy peace in the moments where they literally had nothing to say to each other. The subtle physical acting of the two were perfectly performed. The film’s most reliable source of passionate intensity though came from Isabella Soupart who was excellent in the final two scenes in which she appeared. In one of those scenes she was tasked with revealing the movie’s true conflict, which I thought was well timed and which I suspect may be surprising to those who don’t read a synopsis of the film before watching it. (Note: I was not one of those people. Sigh! When will I learn.)
As for the story, it was remarkably simple in its construction and yet so full of potential. If nothing else its premise supplied plenty of tension between the two primary characters on which to craft an interesting film. Generally I like the way the filmmakers handled the tension in the story. The film was analogous to watching a ticking time bomb. The focus wasn’t on the rather predictable and inevitable climax but rather the anticipation that the viewer had for the impending explosion. And it’s this aspect that made the film gripping. Whether or not the filmmakers relied too heavily on the notion of anticipation is debatable. The pace of the film was often slow and meticulous. In addition to this I often felt as if the film was toying with my expectations for dramatic intensity given the dynamics that defined the film’s central relationship. This is not a film for the impatient. Still the payoff in the end was satisfying enough to make the film worthwhile to watch. Although, I probably would have preferred a longer epilogue after the film’s most climatic scene. I felt as if the ending came too soon and was chosen seemingly arbitrarily.
Thematically, this film reminded me a lot of George Sluthier’s magnum opus The Vanishing1. In both films you had a character who held a certain morbid fascination with a personal demon in their lives. Here Gourmet was seen spying on the kid while at his workshop and on the streets of the town where he lived. I also think that in both films there was a quest for information that propelled the protagonist into their casual association. But what sets both films apart is how they treated the nature of revenge. In The Vanishing, the notion of justice and revenge was a strongly held desire. It was premeditated and something which required a great deal of applied thought and effort to achieve. Le Fils on the other hand offered an exploration of revenge as a more base human instinct, a notion that was enhanced by its discernible lack of any real plot. The notions of justice or of retribution are seen as tempting impulses, which in this case required a sufficiency of effort for Olivier to repress. And whether or not he should repel such impulses was a question that Gourmet’s character had to confront repeatedly throughout the film. The conflict at the heart of this film was an internal struggle between one’s natural inclination and one’s continual subjection to social mores, albeit Le Fils was ultimately a very intimate and personal story. Despite some rough edges, this was a very interesting and wonderfully constructed film.
1- I am of course referring to the original, and what should have been the only version of this film.