In this interview, Andrew Haigh discusses 45 Years, shooting long takes, keeping us in Kate’s head space, and editing the film before the editing room. You can read our review of 45 Years here. We have also published a book on Andrew Haigh’s Lean on Pete, which you can find out more about here, which features interviews with Haigh and his key collaborators, plus a look at how his films explore characters’ relationships with their homes. Get your copy of the ebook Lean on Pete: A Special Issue here.
[Read more…] about Director Andrew Haigh talks 45 YearsMust Reads
Must reads are the best of the best articles at The Seventh Row. These include reviews, interviews, and essays. If you're new to the site, this is a good place to start to get a sense of what kinds of stories we write. Here is the best of our multidisciplinary approach to reviewing films, our most illuminating and original interviews, and our best essays.
Kurzel’s Macbeth emphasizes tone over text
Kurzel takes his cues from the text, but he expresses his ideas about the text through images and sounds — the whistling wind, the clashing swords, and the ghostly hooded figures — rather than through the dialogue. The verse, in Kurzel’s hands, is barely even identifiable as poetry. But what is Shakespeare without the unforgettable language?
[Read more…] about Kurzel’s Macbeth emphasizes tone over textPhotograph 51: In praise of difficult women
Photograph 51 suggests that sexism kept Franklin conservative, reluctant to be right because as a woman, she could never, ever be wrong. Ziegler’s text depicts a woman who had all the evidence but didn’t put the pieces together because she was afraid to prematurely commit herself.
[Read more…] about Photograph 51: In praise of difficult women
The Martian engineers the shit out of surviving on Mars
The Martian would be a great engineering recruitment film — if it ever mentioned the word “engineering.” When Mark Watney (Matt Damon) is faced with the challenges of surviving alone on Mars for four years, including growing his own own food and figuring out a way to communicate with Earth, he concludes he’ll have to “science the shit out of this.”
But what he’s really doing is engineering: breaking down the big problem of surviving into smaller pieces and applying scientific knowledge and concepts to create technology and solve problems. Yet there is no explanation for how this botanist manages to jerry-rig new technology from scraps on an otherwise barren planet — without ever troubleshooting anything.
[clickToTweet tweet=”‘Before The Martian, I wasn’t aware that engineers also had to fly under the radar.'” quote=”Before The Martian, I wasn’t aware that engineers also had to fly under the radar.”]
For years, Hollywood has been making movies about Jews while pretending that’s not what they’re about. (See Dirty Dancing.) And the industry has been making queer narratives while pretending that they have nothing to do with the gay community — look no further than Golden Girls. But before The Martian, I wasn’t aware that engineers also had to fly under the radar. Not once does Mark mention that he’s got a degree in mechanical engineering — something that was explicit in the book. The film still assumes that knowledge with no evidence that he has it, which had me scratching my head more than once.
How did Mark manage to create a machine to make water, hack assembly code, devise an ASCII-based communication system, and fix a dormant robot? These are difficult feats for someone who specializes in chemical engineering (for building a machine to make water), electrical engineering (for figuring out how to fix the pathfinder circuits), and mechanical engineering (for knowing how to modify his vehicle), especially given that he doesn’t have access to the all-important Wikipedia. With nothing but a botany degree and some NASA training? Fat chance.
Mark’s first attempt to make water ends in disaster. He has to regroup, find the error, and fix the problem. Yet every other challenge he faces seems to be surmounted effortlessly. I get that it would be boring to watch Mark fail, fail, and fail some more, before he finally succeeds. But denying us the chance to see Mark fail and regroup undermines the sheer amount of effort it would take for Mark to survive.
[clickToTweet tweet=”THE MARTIAN is packed full of Eureka moments, giving you a dopamine hit every few minutes. ” quote=”THE MARTIAN is packed full of Eureka moments, giving you a dopamine hit every few minutes. “]
Much like last year’s The Imitation Game, and its superior space age cousins October Sky and Apollo 13, the greatest thrill of The Martian comes from watching Mark solve problems — even (or especially) when that means blowing himself up. Whereas The Imitation Game offered but one great Eureka! moment, The Martian is packed full of them, giving you a dopamine hit every few minutes. But when there’s little work required to reach each milestone, the accomplishments lose their full dramatic weight. We cheered with the Rocket Boys in October Sky when their rocket finally succeeded, because we’d watched dozens of them crash and burn. But we never even expect Mark fail, because major problems get solved as soon as he identifies them.
As long as you’re willing to buy Mark’s limitless knowledge, the film has few major scientific issues. Most egregiously, Mars’ gravity is depicted as equivalent to Earth’s rather than about one third of Earth’s — Mark should be hopping around even when he’s at his weakest. The storm at the beginning of the film, which caused Mark’s crew to abandon him on Mars and leave in a hurry, wouldn’t even be possible given the thinness of Mars’ atmosphere, a problem even the book’s author admits. The fateful, major decision made by the Head of NASA is so ludicrous on so many levels that it’s hard to credit as anything more than a plot contrivance. And having apparently learned nothing from 2001: A Space Odyssey, Mark’s fellow crew member Chris (Sebastian Stan) does numerous space walks without tethering himself to his ship.
Drew Goddard’s script doles out enough information to let us in on the problem solving ourselves, so that we get to feel the same sense of discovery that Mark does onscreen. It’s structured to keep us curious and on the same page as Mark, rather than just passively watching him build and problem solve. Having seen Mark look through his teammates’ belongings that were left behind, we can make the logical leap at about the same time he does: he’s been left with their rations, too.
Yes, Mark sometimes outlines his plan by talking into a camera 127 Hours-style, but the device is used sparingly. Goddard frequently has Mark cracking wise, as much for his own sanity and amusement as ours: he’s alone out there and he needs to stay stable somehow. In one great moment, he describes the plan that a team of very smart NASA scientists came up with that amounts to drilling holes in the ceiling and banging on it.
Although Mark is still largely a conventional hero — white, male, cocky, super-smart — the film places him in a world full of unconventional players. A woman from the military (Jessica Chastain) is the strong and capable leader of the team that went to Mars. Similarly, the satellite specialist in Houston who first spots signs of life on Mars once the team has departed is also a woman (the radiant Mackenzie Davis). And it’s a young black academic (Donald Glover) who figures out the Hail Mary to save Mark. Not to mention that the team leader is the ever cool, intelligent, and charismatic Chiwetel Ejiofor.
Leaving aside Ridley Scott’s recent embarrassing misstep with the all-white cast of Exodus: Gods and Kings, he’s been a pioneer of putting marginalized groups in front of the camera. People still regularly cite Ellen Ripley from Scott’s Alien as the exemplar of a well-rounded strong female character. Goddard got his start writing for Buffy the Vampire Slayer, so writing smart, capable, interesting women — without the personal hysteria that a Sorkin script would require — comes naturally.
But if I may be allowed a quibble, it’s troubling that the women are all white, while the male characters are more racially diverse. And in the odd scene when Goddard needs to explain some key facts to us, it falls to a woman, Kristin Wiig’s NASA public relations guru, to be the ignorant audience surrogate in need of an explanation.
The Martian is shot in 3D, but the effectiveness of this technology for the storytelling is uneven. The shots of Mark wandering Mars are when the 3D is at its most dramatic, driving home the fact that this is a man alone on a large, hostile, and empty planet. Similarly, Scott’s use of 3D back home sometimes brings home just how full of people and resources Earth is. NASA holds its first press conference of the film on the top floor of its headquarters with the speaker standing in front of a glass wall, the building’s vast atrium visible behind him. In contrast, I practically forgot that the film was in 3D during much of what happens in Mark’s Mars habitat or on the Earth. The Martian is not a bold, groundbreaking visual work of art in the vein of Gravity or 2001: A Space Odyssey. But it is a good story, and that’s enough.
Read more: Review: Ex Machina is yet another film about boys and their toys >>
What do we mean when we talk about Canadian cinema?
Where is Canadian cinema going? What is its purpose? And what can we say about how the country is being reflected back at us through this year’s TIFF15 crop of Canadian films?
[Read more…] about What do we mean when we talk about Canadian cinema?
Deafening silence: Phoenix and The Look of Silence
Christian Petzold’s film Phoenix and Joshua Oppenheimer’s The Look of Silence are both about the need to face and make peace with the painful past that would seemingly be easier to ignore.

Never miss a great film again. Get exclusive content and hidden-gem recommendations you won’t find on the website.
Click here to sign up for the Seventh Row Newsletter.
Earlier this year, the Art Gallery of Ontario held an exhibit of Henryk Ross’s photos from the Lodz Ghetto. It was hidden in the corner of the museum, and most of us who saw it were Jews. I had enormous trouble trying to persuade my gentile friends to see it with me. They heard the words “holocaust photographs” and decided they’d rather spend their Sunday afternoon with less depressing thoughts. Yet this was no ordinary exhibit. It’s the first outside of Israel to display the only photographic evidence we have of ghettos during the holocaust that’s not only not Nazi propaganda but taken by a Jew in the ghetto.
Some images are particularly hard to look at: the deportations, starving bodies, and family photos of children that would be exterminated the next day. Everything about Ross’s photographs was heroic. He used his Statistics Department camera to surreptitiously snap forbidden photos. He documented the hardships and the good. When the Nazis destroyed the synagogue, he captured the rubble and the man who rescued the Torah from destruction. Taking and then hiding the photos was an act of bravery. But what is the point if we don’t bear witness, no matter how much we don’t want to? And if we don’t bear witness, how can we live with what’s happened and prevent it from happening again?
[clickToTweet tweet=”In PHOENIX and THE LOOK OF SILENCE, the traumas of the past are still part of the present.” quote=”In both films, the traumas of the past are still very much part of the present.”]
Facing the past when ignoring it is easier
It’s this very conundrum that the characters in Christian Petzold’s post-World War II film Phoenix struggle with. How do you face and make peace with the painful past that would seemingly be easier to ignore? It’s also the subject of Joshua Oppenheimer’s documentary about the Indonesian genocide in 1965, The Look of a Silence. In both films, we see people intent on, if not forgiving (or apologizing), then forgetting. Excavating past wounds would be too painful. But no matter how much they’d like to pretend otherwise, the traumas of the past are still very much part of the present.
Listen to our podcast about Transit
When Petzold’s film Phoenix opens with the tune “Speak Low,” it’s pitch black outside. Nelly (Nina Hoss), a former nightclub singer, is en route to a hospital for facial reconstruction surgery. Recently liberated from the concentration camps, her face is bandaged from the gunshot wound she was lucky enough to survive. Everything about her demeanour is small and feeble, meek and embarrassed. Hoss hunches over, taking up as little space as possible while her hands quiver slightly at the smallest provocation.
[clickToTweet tweet=”In both films, people are intent on forgetting because excavating old wounds would be too painful.” quote=”We see people intent on forgetting because excavating past wounds would be too painful.”]
In Christian Petzold’s film Phoenix, Nelly also begins in denial
All Nelly wants is to return to her old life, to how things were before. That begins with repairing her face, though the surgeon warns her that it will never be quite the same. Her denial runs deep. She still insists she’s not a Jew. Nelly’s close friend Lene (Nina Kunzendorf) informs her that her husband Johnny (Ronald Zehrfeld) sold her out to the Nazis. But Nina remains unfazed by his alleged betrayal, convinced Lene must be mistaken. She can’t wait to reunite with him. His memory, she claims, is what kept her alive through her struggles in the camps.
Nelly spends most of this atmospheric and stunningly gorgeous film as a ghost in limbo. When she leaves the hospital, she emerges amid the rubble of Berlin, tentative in every movement. She takes temporary rooms in the city while Lene prepares the paperwork for their passage to Israel. Nelly seems less than thrilled with the plan. The apartment is nice, clean, and well-maintained with good furniture but sparse. As the camera keeps its distance from Nelly, we feel emptiness. A house is not a home. Aside from the landlady, they never cross paths with anyone else. The place has the appearance of a boarding house. It’s another kind of limbo like the sterile, seemingly empty hospital.
Nelly’s husband doesn’t seem to recognize her in Christian Petzold’s film Phoenix
When she finally crosses paths with her husband, he’s changed his name and doesn’t recognize her (she never identifies herself). But he does think she looks just enough like his wife, Nelly, to help him scheme to collect her inheritance. Holed up with him in his dank, basement apartment, he gruffly teaches her how to be her former self. But there’s a warmth and tenderness behind it all. He becomes obsessed with making her resemble the old Nelly in appearance. In so doing, she finds herself again from the outside in.
But his cluelessness about the camps and disinterest in learning more is troubling. To him, they’re merely a fact, a part of history. To her, they’re vivid memories, haunting every movement. Johnny’s plan is full of fantasy. He wants her to appear to return by train, dressed to the nines and full of joy. In other words, he wants her to pretend that she hasn’t experienced the same horrors as the other returnees. He wants her to be glamorous and attract attention. It’s immaterial to him that most survivors look so run down that gentiles avert their gazes and avoid asking questions. The inauthentic plan bothers her, but Johnny knows what she doesn’t: how other German gentiles think. Nobody will notice, and nobody will ask about the camps.
[clickToTweet tweet=”There comes a point when not being able to tell her story is worse than telling her story.” quote=”There comes a point when not being able to tell her story is worse than telling her story.”]
Is Johnny also in denial?
Does Johnny know it’s her? There’s a certain kind of complicity here. So long as he thinks she’s not his wife, he can boss her around, teach her facts, and be in control. If he were to realize (or admit to himself) that she is who she is, the power dynamic would shift immediately. He’d be ashamed, beneath her. In one scene, Petzold builds the blocking around how Nelly tries to hide her forearm in a not-quite-long-sleeved dress. We know what this means and why, and she’s squirming in awkward and evasive ways.
Yet Johnny never bats an eye — nor did I, the first two times I saw the film. On re-watch, her intentions seems so obvious that I could hardly believe how subtle it seemed before. In fact, it’s easier to just think she’s squeamish as no doubt Johnny does. On some level, he must know, but it’s too hard to admit. It’s part of why he can’t hear stories of the camps.
Nina Hoss is remarkable in Christian Petzold’s film Transit
Hoss’s step-by-step transformation from trembling and small to straight-backed and ready to perform is a marvel, a fascinating performance to behold. The more Nelly gets her sense of self back from Johnny’s lessons, the more unsettling she finds his ability to sweep the war and all its horrors under the rug. Showing her a photo of their friends, he casually notes the ones that were Nazis. But to her, it’s jarring new data to process.
[clickToTweet tweet=”Hoss’s step-by-step transformation from trembling and small to straight-backed is a marvel.” quote=”Hoss’s step-by-step transformation from trembling and small to straight-backed and ready to perform is a marvel”]
She’s ready to believe the hard evidence of his betrayal at a certain point, because it fits, even if she’s still not ready to let go. There comes a point when not being able to tell her story is worse than telling her story. The more willing her friends are to treat the war as though it were in the distant past, the more alienated she becomes. Even if they weren’t directly responsible for the atrocities she experienced, they stood idly by. In the end, it’s only through a song that she can reveal herself, in a cathartic release of all that pain and emotion. It’s a heart-wrenching, beautiful ending; the final images are perfect. Surrounded by her friends’ denial, she no longer belongs. Until they can face facts, she never will again.

Acceptance doesn’t happen in Phoenix until the film’s climax
Though Nelly’s ultimate acceptance of this fact is the final, climactic moment in Phoenix, it’s a deep truth that informs and inspires the investigation of the past in The Look of Silence. Director Joshua Oppenheimer follows Adi as he confronts the men behind his brother’s slaughter with empathy and composure. Adi is a forty-year-old Indonesian optometrist whose brother was murdered in the 1965 genocide.
Perhaps “confronts” is the wrong word, for his goal is to generate a dialogue, make peace, get at the truth, and forgive, if given the opportunity. Adi was born two years after his brother, Ramli, was killed. He may not have been alive at the time, but the trauma of the coup is still fresh and present to Adi: the perpetrators are still in power. Almost everyone around him, including his neighbours, took part in the killings. They were richly rewarded for their service, too.
After The Act of Killing
In 2012, Oppenheimer released The Act of Killing, in which he interviewed war criminals, including the leaders of the death squads, who were responsible for the deaths of 1 million people when the Indonesian military overthrew the government. The historical record, a pile of lies still earnestly taught in schools, maintains that the victims were all “communists,” people without religion who deserved to be slaughtered, and chopped to pieces. In that film, the perpetrators boasted about their killings, re-enacting them in gory detail with glee, pride, and excitement.
When Oppenheimer showed the footage he’d recorded to his friend Adi, whom we see watching it on television in The Look of Silence, dumbstruck with horror, Adi concluded he needed to face these men himself. He felt that if they apologized, he could forgive them, and perhaps it would give him some closure. Oppenheimer shot The Look of Silence after he finished The Act of Killing but before it screened publicly anywhere.
Confronting perpetrators in The Look of Silence
The perpetrators they visit are all elderly men now, and Oppenheimer is very careful about how he introduces them. The first footage we see of each is of a seemingly normal, maybe even infirm old man, before a chyron flashes with an indictment. With calm, compassion, and genuine curiosity, Adi matter-of-factly asks them about their roles in the anti-communist purge. He tells them, “When I meet older people, I like to learn about the past.” Because Oppenheimer was doubtful that the men would be able to take the moral responsibility for what they had done, he doesn’t shoot these scenes as interviews. Rather, it’s an encounter between two people, where what’s most important is what goes unsaid.
Adi slowly probes the perpetrators. He asks where they were during the killings, whether they were a part of them, and if people still fear them. Surprisingly, most are anything but tight-lipped, though what they spout is a mix of party propaganda and lies, excuses for their actions. They may be able to own that they had murdered people, but not that they are culpable. As Adi refuses to accept what is so often lies, he probes them further, revealing inconsistencies with their story, and trying to have a real conversation with them.
Silence is a coping mechanism in both films: Oppenheimer’s The Look of Silence and Petzold’s Phoenix
Adi’s sense is that the men’s unwillingness to speak openly with the whole truth is indicative of just how deep their guilt runs: it’s a coping mechanism. In one scene, Adi meets with a family whom Oppenheimer knew well — he had spent months documenting the patriarch’s accounts of his slaughters. Yet they flat-out deny all accusations of his culpability or participation in the genocide. They get frustrated and angry. It’s one of the most powerful scenes in the film because it reveals what they’re incapable of saying, coping with, or facing. Ultimately, most will end up declaring, “past is past,” in an effort to end the conversation. Oppenheimer follows one instance with a gorgeous, literal image of water flowing under a bridge at night, a haunting reminder that these events are anything but.
The substance of the film is, unsurprisingly, in the silence. There’s the past that Adi’s parents won’t talk about, a deafening silence. There’s the past that the murderers are only too happy to recall — until they’re pressed about their lies. Adi gives them space, a silence to fill. Although Adi asks difficult questions, his silence is crucial, too, never issuing angry indictments, for his mission is to understand, to move forward, not to crucify. Oppenheimer tells so much in the closeups of Adi, stoically listening as the horrid words wash over him. So much is there in the faces of the men who refuse to own up to having done something wrong.
Breaking the silence in The Look of Silence
Oppenheimer’s film itself is an act of breaking that silence, bringing the past into focus where we can reckon with it. We can watch Phoenix, steeped in 1940s hairdos, jazz music, and the destroyed streets of Berlin, and convince ourselves that it was long ago, that we know better now. But The Look of Silence is proof that mass murder didn’t stop there and neither did the silence, among those involved or even indirectly culpable — essentially, anyone who wasn’t directly a victim.
The graphic descriptions of mass exterminations are horrifying to hear. When we see the pain in the faces of the victims’ families, we feel their pain, too. The streets are haunted, and Oppenheimer makes sure his imagery shows us this. The first bits of text on screen with background on the genocide overlays a nighttime video of military trucks approaching the camera, eerie and foreboding, yet the only sounds are of the crickets, not of the vehicles. Oppenheimer likens this subjective soundscape to a magical realism approach to documentary.
The Lodz Ghetto photos and The Look of Silence
Like looking through Ross’s photos of the Lodz Ghetto, there’s nothing ‘fun’ about watching The Look of Silence. But it’s important and moving and heroic. It’s a film that demands to be seen. If we don’t, we allow the record to remain unchanged, for the government’s propaganda and the poor Western reporting on the events to become the only record. Only by listening, by consenting to a broken silence, can we do anything to help the victims’ families grieve.
More films by Phoenix director Christian Petzold: Read our interview with Petzold on Transit and listen to the podcast on Transit.
Read more: Joshua Oppenheimer on the magic realist sound design of The Look of Silence >>