Andrew Haigh’s Lean on Pete shares DNA with Kelly Reichardt’s westerns (e.g. Wendy and Lucy): both filmmakers are making modern westerns that deromanticize tired western tropes. This is an excerpt from our ebook on Lean on Pete. We will soon publish an ebook on the works of Kelly Reichardt.
[Read more…] about Modern westerns: Andrew Haigh and Kelly Reichardt are deromanticizing the westMust 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.
The month of Josh O’Connor: Emma and Hope Gap
Josh O’Connor is the primary reason to see both Emma. and Hope Gap. Alex Heeney looks at what makes his performances so memorable.

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.
Despite the fact that he’s only a supporting player, Josh O’Connor is the primary reason to see both Emma and Hope Gap, both released in the past month. In Emma, he plays a scene-stealing Mr. Elton, the overconfident vicar whom Emma intends for her poor friend Harriet, but who fancies himself a better match for the high-born Emma. Following in the footsteps of Alan Cumming’s Mr. Elton from 1996, O’Connor amps up the vicar’s pomposity, ridiculousness, and vulnerability to great comedic, and even heartbreaking, effect. In Hope Gap, O’Connor plays Jamie, the adult son of Edward (Bill Nighy) and Grace (Annette Bening), who suddenly finds himself caught between his divorcing parents. Though the film is effectively a three-hander, O’Connor is only onscreen for about a third of the runtime. Yet he is the only character to add serious emotional heft to an undercooked script, and so his scenes are surprisingly affecting.

Since his breakout role in 2017’s God’s Own Country, as the emotionally closed off farmer Johnny (I interviewed O’Connor about the role and his career for our God’s Own Country ebook.), O’Connor has consistently been making a name for himself as the essential actor to watch in everything he’s done. And that’s no easy feat when you’re playing against Olivia Colman, Tobias Menzies, Derek Jakobi, Bill Nighy, and Annette Bening. To be fair, O’Connor has been doing consistently A+-level work in B-quality projects, but he’s made every single one of them worth watching, including the painfully stupid indie Only You, for which he won his second consecutive BIFA for Best Actor.

The Crown’s third season, which dropped last November, had growing pains; the writers’ poor choice to remove the serialized nature of the series made it regularly dreary if not downright boring, giving its many great actors little to do. Enter O’Connor as young Prince Charles, ears and all, whose showcase episode was the season highlight: his slouchy, eager, and uncertain Charles actually made me feel unexpected sympathy for the prince.

The one exception to his disappointing recent run of projects has been the consistently amazing series The Durrells in which O’Connor gives a hilarious and heartfelt performance as Larry Durrell. Larry, along with his mother, Mrs Durrell (Keely Hawes), has always been the heart of the show. When O’Connor disappeared for a chunk of the show’s fourth and final season last year, I was positively peeved.
Josh O’Connor is ready to be vulnerable
In 2017, Alex Heeney wrote a career profile on Josh O’Connor, with an in-depth interview with the actor on all of his work to date, including on God’s Own Country.
Emma.

The first time we meet O’Connor’s Mr. Elton in Emma., he’s officiating a wedding with gleeful self-aggrandizement. Looking to the heavens, he announces in a high-pitched sing-songy voice, “We are gathered here today…” When he reaches the vows, he lowers his eyes in the direction of the groom with a decisive pause, reciting, “this man”, and then makes a show of shifting his eyes to the bride, pausing with comedic effect to spout, “and this woman.” It’s a series of subtle choices, but the perfectly timed movement of his eyes is enough for O’Connor to get the biggest laugh in the film thus far.
I have my reservations about the slapstick approach to Austen taken by Autumn de Wilde in this adaptation (listen to our recent podcast on the film). But since Mr. Elton is already a thoroughly ridiculous man, O’Connor’s low-key physical comedy here is welcome, an amusing take on Austen’s character, which still fits within de Wilde’s heightened world. Indeed, his Mr. Elton often feels like one of Austen’s other famously irritating and silly clergymen, Mr. Collins, of Pride & Prejudice — especially in his repeated failed attempts to make any comment at all at a large dinner party, finally interrupting on the topic of the weather.

In an adaptation where Emma herself is the least interesting part of the film, O’Connor’s Mr. Elton positively jumps off the screen, thanks to so many creative gestures that never feel too much in a film that often tries for just that. When Mr. Elton reveals the frame he had made especially for Emma’s portrait of Harriet, he does so with a grandiose hand flourish fitting a magician. When he introduces his new wife to Emma (who had previously rejected his proposal), he sits quietly while aggressively eating sweets — his mouth full enough to register every chew, and a death stare of smugness directed at Emma.

But what makes O’Connor’s Mr. Elton perhaps the best interpretation of Austen’s character to date is O’Connor’s trademark vulnerability. When his offer of marriage is unexpectedly rejected by Emma, O’Connor becomes physically unsettled, losing his bravado, before quickly becoming almost infantile in his anger. He bangs sharply and repeatedly at the top of the carriage like a child throwing a tantrum, unable to sit still and maintain his decorum until the conductor stops to let him out. At the dance where Emma and Mr. Knightley share their first major romantic moment, O’Connor can be seen in the background looking wistfully at Emma; he’s not moping, but there’s a sadness in his eyes. That melancholy is even more poignant when he officiates their marriage, this time without the excessive flourishes of pomp and circumstance — finally correctly pronouncing the word ‘innocence’ — because he’s too heartbroken to put on the excessive airs that defined him when the film began.
Listen to the podcast on Emma
Hope Gap

When we first meet Jamie in Hope Gap, he’s reluctantly returning to his parental home for the first time in many months: he lumbers to the door, takes a deep breath, and once inside, finds himself slouching into a teenage slump in his bedroom with his phone. Being home is stressful for him because he’s forced to play referee for his parents’ passive aggressive squabbles. So he retreats to his room whenever possible, and otherwise, retreats into himself, curling in to take up less space. He almost never looks them in the eye, and searches for any excuse to look away entirely: making tea, fidgeting, cleaning up. Whether he’s trying to hold his parents’ marriage together or hold them each together as individuals, O’Connor shows us how Jamie keeps trying to escape while doing everything he can to stay calm and be the adult, even while his voice breaks, tears brim, and his entire body tightens.
While Hope Gap is largely focussed on the breakdown of the relationship between Edward and Grace, O’Connor brings uncommon psychological depth to the part of the son who has been traumatized by his parents. The weight of his role in their marriage, the need for him to play the part of parent, is borne in his physicality. O’Connor becomes the heart of the film, bringing depth and complexity to a part that could have been one-note in the hands of another actor: as written, he’s more of a sounding board for his parents than an individual himself.
As much as Jamie tries to stay out of his parents’ relationship, he can’t help but be drawn in. When he overhears a fight between his parents downstairs, he runs to help his mother clean up. He speaks plainly to her, telling her not to be cruel to his father, asking her not to interfere in his life, and reminding her that she’s incapable of listening. He can’t help but smile at her humour, but he’s still evasive: staying focused on the task of cleaning up, looking away whenever he can, and shrugging off all of his mother’s prying into his personal life.

O’Connor manages the difficult balancing act of showing us how frustrated and exhausted Jamie is by his parents’ relationship, and yet how he still looks up to them. When Edward tells Jamie that he recognizes the sound of Grace breathing when she calls him and hangs up. Jamie repeats, in a cracked whisper, “You recognize—”, before looking away. It’s a kind of intimacy he can’t imagine having or letting go of, and he spends the rest of the scene sniffling away his tears, avoiding Edward’s eyes, and trying to walk away as soon as possible. O’Connor lets us see how much tenderness Jamie has for his parents, even if he sometimes sees them as children. He can’t help but smile privately when his father buys an ice cream on the beach, or smile at his mother’s declaration, when she goes to sign her divorce papers, that it would be preferable had her husband died. And when she finally gets back a desire to live, he beams at her with such admiration and love as he helps her with her poetry anthology project. Jamie is as enamoured with her, we see, as Edward tells us he once was.
The characters in Hope Gap are frustratingly underdeveloped, with Grace unable to understand her relationship or listen over decades and Edward’s quiet passivity. They pretend to be OK, but the film never really investigates why. Similarly, the effect their relationship has had on Jamie is underbaked: is he afraid of intimacy because of them? Is he unable to let them go? Just how much does he have to play peacemaker and how long has this been going on? O’Connor brings uncommon depth to this part just in the tension of his shoulders, the shifting in his eyes; his physicality adds complexities that the script glosses over. We feel his discomfort being with his parents, and how that tension ramps up when he enters a scene with them, just as he deflates when he gets to leave.

In a film largely about people with high emotions who don’t know how to express or communicate them, O’Connor’s is the only performance that actually hit me, emotionally. At the sea, Jamie breaks down more than he’s allowed himself so far, feeling broken and lost in front of his mother instead of putting up a strong front. When he asks her to give him warning should she commit suicide, while begging her to also give him hope, it’s heartbreaking. He’s caught between looking to his mother as a beacon of maturity and caring for her like something fragile, and it’s finally too much for him. And surprisingly, to both of them, the fact that he can actually articulate this difficulty is what allows the two of them to finally communicate rather than to talk around each other. When he hugs his mother this time, it’s not out of obligation but his own necessity, squeezing her tight for comfort and to ground her to him.
More about Josh O’Connor
Ebook preview: Céline Sciamma’s 10 best scenes
From Water Lilies to Portrait of a Lady on Fire, we analyse 10 of Céline Sciamma’s best scenes, revealing what makes her a master. This is an excerpt from our ebook, Portraits of resistance.

In order to give Seventh Row readers a glimpse into our latest ebook, Portraits of resistance: The cinema of Céline Sciamma, we’ve published this excerpt, which comprises Chapter Two of the book. You can buy your copy of the book here.
In this chapter, editors Alex Heeney and Orla Smith analyse ten of Sciamma’s best scenes, from Water Lilies (2007), Tomboy (2011), Girlhood (2015), and Portrait of a Lady on Fire (2019). Through these analyses, they get to the nitty gritty of what makes Sciamma a master, as well as providing a necessary refresher on Sciamma’s body of work before delving into these films in more detail later in the book.
We were inspired to publish these scene analyses by Lindsay Pugh’s review of Portraits of resistance, which she published on her excellent blog Woman in Revolt. Read an excerpt of her review here:
“One of the features that I most appreciated is an overview of Sciamma’s ten best scenes. Although it’s been years since I’ve watched a majority of her films, this breakdown helped me remember what I loved about each of them … Watching each scene and reading the analysis makes the experience similar to the New York Times “Anatomy of a Scene” feature. If you’re interested in exactly how Sciamma constructs her most memorable, magical moments, Smith and Heeney do a great job dissecting the craft.”
Marie watches the synchronised swimming, Water Lilies

The opening scene of Water Lilies is reminiscent of the opening of Brian De Palma’s Carrie (1976): the camera tracks through a girls changing room while a horror-esque synth score plays. Carrie is a horror film about a girl who doesn’t fit in with perceived standards of normalcy. While not a genre film, Water Lilies is also about the sometimes horrific business of being a girl expected to conform to the strict rules of femininity. Horror cinema is evoked in the ominous music that scores this opening, which highlights how what should be a space safe from the male gaze — a changing room where no boys are allowed — is actually sinister and full of judgement. This is the world of the synchronised swimming team headed by Floriane (Adèle Haenel). But we meet ur protagonist, Marie (Pauline Acquart), not in the changing room, but walking by the side of the pool and up into the stalls, where she watches the team perform; she is on the outside looking in..
The team’s performance dazzles us (and Marie) with a spectacle of perfect femininity; the teen girls involved spend the rest of the film getting hurt trying to live up to that ideal. Marie watches hungrily from her seat as the team of beautiful, athletic teen girls perform a synchronised swimming routine. We’re very much in Marie’s perspective: she’s shot in closeup while the girls in the pool are framed together and from afar. Marie falls for the performance, particularly the performance of the gorgeous Floriane.
Synchronised swimming is the perfect metaphor for the way the girls perform femininity throughout the film. Above water, they smile brightly, showing their sparkling white teeth off to the crowd. They’re not wearing goggles, because the sport favours the girls’ unencumbered beauty more than it does their wellbeing. They are expected to look perfect and their dance is supposed to seem effortless, but under the water, where the onlookers can’t see, their legs are working overtime to keep them afloat and balanced. – Orla Smith
Dancing at the club , Water Lilies

Although Marie spends most of Water Lilies infatuated with Floriane, Floriane is always caught between her own desire for and tenderness toward Marie and her conviction to become an object of desire for the male gaze. Repeatedly, Floriane flirts with Marie, only to pull back in favour of a male partner; sometimes, it feels like simply a cruel tease, but Haenel always shows us Floriane’s internal conflict about their relationship.
This tightrope of teasing flirtation and withdrawal is no better demonstrated than when Marie and Floriane visit a club in search of a man to deflower Floriane. When they first arrive, we watch Floriane in closeup, with Marie out of focus in the background. Floriane’s’s eyes dart back and forth in uncertainty and insecurity before she whips her head around to look at Marie, almost desperate with the desire to connect with her. Marie is sipping on a drink at the bar, her head supported by her hands in fatigue, frustration, and boredom. We clock their eyes meeting from the smile of encouragement Marie gives Floriane, who turns back to the camera with a slight grin, only to bite her lip in uncertainty. We then cut to Marie in wait, twirling on her bar stool, before Floriane looks back again and makes her move. The camera barely moves as Floriane crosses to Marie, holding out her hand in invitation.
As they head to the dance floor hand in hand, the music speeds up and gets more charged. Floriane is slyly smiling, but is it because she’s happy to be with Marie or because Marie is a good vessel for her own exhibitionism? As they dance, she flirts with Marie, touching her face and hair, and in closeup, pushing her face up to Marie’s, but it feels like Floriane is following a seduction playbook. Only for a few seconds do we see her show real tenderness toward Marie, looking at her with devotion, leaning in as if to kiss her, only to back up when Sciamma cuts to a wide shot of Floriane dancing with a random man, separated by several feet from Marie. It’s a dance Floriane will continue to do throughout the film: come in close, emotionally and physically, to tease Marie, only to withdraw toward what’s expected. – Alex Heeney
A family dinner, Tomboy

The heart and the humour in Tomboy comes from Laure’s (Zoé Héran) relationship with their little sister, Jeanne (Malonn Lévana). Laure finds true acceptance with Jeanne, who embraces their boy persona, Mickäel, without batting an eye. With Jeanne, Laure is free to mess about and be as masculine as they like without being judged, such as when Jeanne cuts Laure’s hair and the two fashion moustaches out of the clippings. Jeanne is the only family member Laure is willing to let in on the secret of their boy persona; she becomes a confidant when Laure brings her along to hang out with Laure’s friends.
The ultimate test of Jeanne’s trustworthiness is when the family sits down for dinner just after Laure has revealed their Mickäel persona to Jeanne. Jeanne may be accepting, but will she be able to keep her mouth shut to their parents? Laure begs her to keep the secret, promising that if she does, Jeanne can hang out with Laure’s friends more. But that’s no guarantee that the very young Jeanne won’t slip up. It starts off as a tense scene, with Jeanne staying silent at the table but smiling knowingly: it’s clear that she’s sitting on a secret, and the parents start to get suspicious.
But that tension is relieved in a moment of sweetness. After her parents probe Jeanne to tell them more about her day hanging out with Laure’s friends, her devious smile grows and grows until she can’t hold back words anymore. But she doesn’t out Laure. Instead, Jeanne delights in the secret that she and her older sister share: “My favourite one is Mickäel,” Jeanne grins, pretending that Mickäel is a friend of Laure’s that she met that day. She shoots Laure a mischievous look, and Laure’s relief melts into a look of love and gratitude for their sister. It’s the beaming smile of someone who feels totally accepted for who they are by a loved one. – OS
The rugby game, Girlhood

Girlhood begins with a rugby game: a flurry of bodies run amongst and collide with each other. Their practiced moves help them move as one, so they’re unmistakably a team. Even at the end of the game, when all is said and done, friendly pats on the back, smiles, and laughs indicate harmony. But there’s also no room for individual identities here. Each player wears a bulky helmet so you can’t see their faces, and the only differentiation between their outfits is the colour of their shirts that indicate which side they’re on, and the writing on the back of those shirts. Our protagonist, Marieme (Karidja Touré), is among them, and her place in this rowdy game, fighting for the ball in a scrum, establishes her as the resilient fighter we’ll come to know and love. But she’s virtually unidentifiable amongst her team; it’s several minutes into the film before we actually see her face.
The belonging that the team offers Marieme is synthetic and doesn’t last past the pitch. We later see the group walking home from the match, talking and moving in unison. We can see their faces now, but it’s still near impossible to extrapolate one voice from the overall loud thrum of conversation. Marieme is at the back of the crowd, walking out of step with the rest. We don’t see her until enough of the team has left to reveal her face behind them. Too wrapped up in their own conversations, her peers don’t seem to clock her loneliness, or they make the effort to help her fit in. From the outset, Sciamma has established Marieme as a loner — head down, hands in pockets, keeping to herself — who desperately wants to be part of a group, but hasn’t yet found one that embraces her. – OS
Dancing on the train, Girlhood

The first time Marieme comes out of her shell is on the subway in Paris with the ‘bande de filles’ of the film’s French title: it’s the first time she’s hung out with them, and as Fily (Mariétou Touré) observes, “She’s having a blast!” They’ve just bonded over heckling another girl gang in the metro station, and Marieme is sheepishly but uncontrollably smiling.
Lady starts playing music on her smartphone and dancing, telling Marieme to follow her lead and choreography. Sciamma’s camera moves back and forth between the girls, without letting both hold the frame together. Lady is dancing with abandon, and Marieme slowly gets more and more into it. Their friends cheer them on, chanting “L-A-D” and moving to the music and smiling. When we cut back to Marieme, she’s alone in the frame, close to the pole, moving slowly and tentatively, eyes down. But as her new friends observe, “She’s into it.” They encourage her: “Give it all of you’ve got, Marieme.”
Sciamma cuts between the three girls Marieme has just befriended, confidently dancing and moving to the music, and Marieme, gaining confidence by the second to move more decisively and raise her eyes. But the camera spends more time with the three girls than Marieme, who is not yet fully part of the group, although we sense she is being inducted into it with this impromptu dance on the subway. Marieme slowly opens up her body to take up more space, beaming at her new friends.
This is the first of three dance sequences in the film which chart Marieme’s relationship to the ‘bande de filles’ and her own burgeoning self-confidence. Her movements here are gaining confidence, but still tentative. The girls’ voices ever enter the frame with her; their bodies are always in separate frames. – AH
Shine bright like a diamond, Girlhood

When I interviewed Céline Sciamma about Girlhood in 2015, she told me that this scene, “The Rihanna scene, is the key scene, for me. It was written for the song. It was the scene I most wanted to shoot. I was obsessed with the scene. Not because it’s a clip, but because it’s really a narrative piece. It’s about the birth of a friendship — how a friendship actually rises.” All of Sciamma’s films include fantastic scenes which track a shift in a relationship through dance and movement; the scene set to Rihanna’s “Diamonds” in Girlhood, in which Marieme makes the transition from someone slightly on the outside of the ‘bande de filles’ to a fully integrated part of the group, is perhaps Sciamma’s best and most iconic. Set in a hotel room that the ‘bande de filles’ have rented for the night, the girls dress up in stolen, glamorous dresses, get high, and lip sync to Rihanna’s “Diamonds”.
The sequence opens on a closeup of Lady (Assa Sylia), looking direct into lens, bathed in blue light that makes her skin sparke, lip syncing “Shine bright like a diamond,” as the camera slowly pulls back. As she mouths, “You and I are like diamonds in the sky,” the camera pans right to invite Adiatou (Lindsay Karamoh) into the frame. They hold hands and dance together and twirl, giant smiles on their faces. Eventually, Fily (Mariétou Touré) joins in, and Sciamma cuts to a reverse shot of Marieme sitting on the bed, smiling with joy at the girls’ joy, dancing together as one. As the camera pushes in on Marieme, we watch her as she gains the confidence to stand up and join them. When she enters the frame with the other three girls, at the centre of it, she’s lip syncing and dancing with abandon, with a freedom and confidence we’ve never seen before. As Marieme lip syncs, “We’re beautiful like diamonds in the sky,” it feels like she believes this about herself for the first time in the film, and her joy is infectious. By the end of the scene, the girls are singing, not just lip syncing, eyes closed at times, and finally, hugging. – AH
“We’re in exactly the same place,” Portrait of a Lady on Fire

“I can’t make you smile,” Marianne (Noémie Merlant) worries, staring at her portrait of Héloïse (Adèle Haenel), then looking up as if in question to the woman herself. In a reverse shot, Héloïse poses and answers, “Anger always comes to the fore.” While they are in the position of painter and muse, they do not fit the traditional mould where the artist has full control over the image of their muse, shaping and bending them to fit the desired image. Here, Marianne finds her subject too powerful to bend: she cannot make Héloïse smile if it is not in her nature.
This scene, where Héloïse finally agrees to pose for her wedding portrait, is where the boundaries between artist and muse are fully broken down. Marianne tries to assert her authority as the observer when she relays the observations she’s made about Héloïse while painting her: “When you’re moved, you do this with your hand. When you’re embarrassed, you bite your lip. When you’re annoyed, you don’t blink.” With each observation, we watch Héloïse, sometimes unconsciously, making the very movements that Marianne describes. “Forgive me, I’d hate to be in your place,” Marianne asserts, speaking both of being the scrutinised subject, and being a woman sold into marriage against her will. But we also occasionally cut to her in a similar reverse shot from Héloïse’s perspective, hinting that Héloïse is watching Marianne just as Marianne is watching her.
Confronted by Marianne’s pity, Héloïse indignantly reveals, “We’re in the same place. Exactly the same place.” By firmly ordering Marianne to “Come here,” Héloïse transforms a traditional shot reverse shot into a two shot, where the two women share the frame. She disrupts the artist and muse dynamic by insisting that they are both equally on display. “When you don’t know what to say, you touch your forehead,” Héloïse tells Marianne, and again, Héloïse’s words are confirmed as we observe Marianne do just that. “When you lose control, you raise your eyebrows. And when you’re troubled, you breathe through your mouth.” Héloïse has been watching, too. While painter Marianne struggles with where to look, her eyes flitting about and only hesitantly resting on her subject, Héloïse looks intently at Marianne, her gaze confident and unfaltering. – OS
A fireside song, Portrait of a Lady on Fire

One night, Héloïse’s maid Sophie (Luàna Bajrami), Héloïse, and Marianne walk cloaked in silhouette at sunset, and arrive at a meeting of women in the dark of night, their faces illuminated only by a bonfire. It’s a gathering of women, and the first sense that there’s a larger community of women helping women outside of their little threesome. It is here that Sophie gets advice about how to abort her foetus, and the three central women of the film are surrounded by the voices of other women, first humming a crescendo, as they gather around the fire, before breaking into song. Like in “Diamonds,” Sciamma cuts between the gathered group of women and Marianne, the biggest outsider since she does not live in Brittany, who observes the magic that happens when women gather. Fire has figured throughout the film, giving warmth to a room in the manor, and also making us aware of the room’s emptiness and loneliness. But only outside, in nature, among other women, do we truly feel its power to reveal and to hide — the women glow, but almost in secret, away from the world of men.
The gathered women of all ages, young and old, start singing and clapping, and Sciamma pans right to reveal each woman joining in with song, each clapping a rhythm in syncopation with the others. In this group together, these women are confident and powerful, singing with strength, smiling at their community. The song, “Portrait de la jeune fille en feu,” was written for the film, and just like “Diamonds,” the scene was designed around and choreographed for this piece. Sciamma listened to the piece throughout the making of the film, and its rhythms — the way the women’s clapping complements each other — can be felt in the way Sciamma focuses on the sounds of footsteps and breathing throughout the film, all choreographed, creating a kind of musical collaboration between Héloïse and Marianne.
Marianne, in profile, is mesmerized, and catches Héloïse’s eye, whom we then see in reverse shot, also in profile, on the other side of the fire. She’s beaming back at Marianne, in response to the community they’ve temporarily gained access to and also Marianne’s gaze. Sciamma cuts back and forth between shot and reverse shot. Sparks start to fly in Héloïse’s frame and the edge of her dress catches fire. It’s a remarkable image, and one that Marianne will put to paint later. It shows Héloïse at the height of her power and agency, inviting Marianne’s gaze and returning it, surrounded by a community of supportive women, a temporary reprieve from patriarchal forces. That Héloïse catches fire suggests both that she has the power to attract the flame and is vulnerable to its damaging effects. Here, among women though, the flame on her dress is doused before it can become a real threat. – AH
The abortion, Portrait of a Lady on Fire

Though a work of fiction written in the 21st century, Sciamma’s Portrait of a Lady on Fire is committed to telling women’s stories that have gone untold in history: the story of female painters, of female desire, and of the sacrifices women had to make in a time governed by patriarchy. Within this framework, Sciamma includes a subplot about Sophie’s unwanted pregnancy, and the lengths she goes to in order to abort it. When her home methods taught by Marianne don’t work — running tirelessly back and forth on the beach, falling from a height — she seeks the help of an elder at the bonfire.
In addition to showing us the failed and laboured attempts at abortion, Sciamma also asks us to bear witness to the real thing; in turn, Héloïse forces Marianne to do likewise. We watch them wait nervously at the door of the abortionist in daylight, only to enter a dark room illuminated only by the fire. Here, many generations collide. A young girl helps Sophie undress. A woman old enough to be her mother prepares a tincture, and a woman old enough to be her grandmother performs the procedure. Marianne and Héloïse stand back in a two-shot, watching the preparations. On the bed where the procedure will take place, a baby is crying, and her young sister comforts her. Sciamma holds on the procedure and then the reverse shot of Marianne and Héloïse watching. Marianne tries to turn away, but Héloïse implores her to bear witness, thereby imploring us, the audience, to bear witness to the lengths women have gone to, throughout history, to fit into a patriarchal world. Sophie writhes in pain, as a baby at her side holds her hand and touches her nose, and finally, Sophie cries.
That evening, as Sophie rests, Héloïse decides that it’s not enough for only her and Marianne to have bared witness: she wants to memorialize the event as an artwork. Earlier in the film, Marianne has explained what constitutes suitable subject matter for art — the nude female, the nude male — and how they are depicted. Women aren’t allowed to have male models, and thus are kept out of the club of geniuses, for nude men are the subject of many masterpieces. Abortions are something that happen regularly but nobody discusses, so we understand that it is an act of defiance and resistance for Marianne to commit this event to paint. In Marianne’s makeshift bedroom, Sophie lies in position on the floor, her knees up and bent, and Héloïse sits in the place of the abortionist. Mariannes observes and paints, making this invisible female experience visible, even if it’s not art that can ever be shown in a gallery, and thus, committed to the history books. – AH
Héloïse listens to Vivaldi, Portrait of a Lady on Fire

Who could forget the exhilarating final shot of Portrait of a Lady on Fire? Years after their love affair, Marianne sees Héloïse for the last time, at a concert. Marianne watches as Héloïse sits in a box alone, her eyes fixed intently on the orchestra as they play Vivaldi’s The Four Seasons. It’s a melody that evokes strong memories of their time together: Marianne played this very piece to Héloïse as they were falling in love, using the piece to demonstrate the power of music to Héloïse, who had never heard an orchestra at the time. Over the course of several minutes, Sciamma’s camera slowly pushes in on Haenel’s face as she cries, mourns, and smiles over the memory of her lost love evoked by the music.
The obvious comparison is Timothée Chalamet’s final scene in Call Me by Your Name, where the memory of his past lover replays on his face just as it does here on Héloïse’s. But in Portrait of a Lady on Fire, the gaze itself is crucial — not just of Héloïse but of Marianne, who is watching her. In Call Me by Your Name, we aren’t looking at Chalamet through anybody’s eyes; but here, we’re looking at Héloïse through Marianne’s eyes. “She didn’t see me,” Marianne utters breathlessly in voiceover, speaking the film’s final lines.
The myth of Orpheus and Eurydice is threaded throughout the film in Sciamma’s screenplay, first introduced when Héloïse, Marianne, and housemaid Sophie discuss it around a candlelit dinner table. In the myth, Orpheus looks back at his lover one last time, even though he knows that looking at her means she will die rather than simply be separated from him forever. This tension of the gaze — its irresistible nature and its transience — is felt throughout Portrait. So often it is Héloïse commanding Marianne to look, whether that be daring to witness Sophie’s abortion, or telling Marianne to look back at her one last time before they part. The whole final shot of Haenel’s face is wrought with the tension of an onlooker hoping desperately that Héloïse will turn and look back. But now, years after the two were separated, they have already spent their final mutual looks, and will never be granted one again. Rather than looking back at Marianne, like Orpheus, Héloïse must live with the memory of her evoked by Vivaldi’s music. – OS
Review: Kelly Reichardt’s First Cow and dreamers thwarted by capitalism
Kelly Reichardt’s latest film about the myth of the American West, First Cow, follows two men searching for a better life elsewhere that’s always just slightly out of reach. Pre-order our book about First Cow and the films of Kelly Reichardt here.

Kelly Reichardt’s latest film about the myth of the American West, First Cow, follows two men searching for a better life elsewhere that’s always just slightly out of reach. Cookie (John Magaro) and King-Lu (Orion Lee) live in 19th-century Oregon, but the film begins in the modern day with a wordless prologue. A woman (Alia Shawkat) and her dog wander the Oregon woodland and uncover the skeletons of two men lying side by side in the dirt. These, we later presume, are Cookie and King-Lu; the film follows their sweet, burgeoning friendship and their quest to fulfill modest dreams, while the spectre of death hangs over their heads.
When I interviewed screenwriter Jon Raymond for our upcoming book about Kelly Reichardt’s work and First Cow, he said that Cookie is “antithetical to the normal cowboy western character. He is unconventional but also totally ubiquitous in the western film genre. He’s never the protagonist per se, but he appears in probably hundreds of movies — for a total of about ten minutes.” Working as a cook-for-hire for a traveling fur-trapping group, Cookie is withdrawn and quiet, treated as a social outcast. When two of the men get into an ultra-macho fight over something totally insignificant, it provokes Cookie to hightail it out of there into the busy wilderness. This solitude marks the first time Cookie feels calm, and William Tyler’s soothing score seeps into the soundscape.
A friendship between humans instead of human and animal is a rarity in Reichardt’s films, so this story of genuine friendship is particularly lovely. They’re an odd couple: Cookie, the quiet and homely one; and King-Lu, the charismatic entrepreneur. But they’re bonded by their outsider status: King-Lu is a Chinese immigrant being chased by Russians for theft; Cookie is Jewish and rejects conventional masculinity. Cookie first finds King-Lu hiding naked and hungry amongst shrubbery, and on the run. King-Lu flashes a smile and calmly asks for food and shelter. Cookie, a kind soul and an orphan, extends his hospitality, even helping King-Lu to stay hidden.
Cookie is only able to relax when he’s at peace with nature and away from aggressive men. Quite early on in the film, two of the men Cookie is travelling with get into an ultra-macho fight about something totally insignificant, provoking Cookie to briskly run away into the bushy wilderness. Only here, in quiet solitude does William Tyler’s soothing score seeps into the film’s soundscape. For a director whose films so often depict characters trying and failing to connect, it’s lovely to see Reichardt centre a narrative around a genuine friendship — which doesn’t involve an animal as in Wendy and Lucy — for perhaps the first time ever. Not to say that there isn’t plenty of sweet human-animal bonding in First Cow. (Magaro told me that Evie, who plays the eponymous cow, was a delight to work with and “better than most actors.”) But the heart of the film is Cookie’s and King-Lu’s bond. King-Lu is an ambitious dreamer who actually listens to Cookie’s own dreams and pushes him to fulfill them, something that’s all too rare in individualistic America.

First Cow depicts male domestic intimacy in a refreshingly casual way, a contrast to Reichardt’s last film about male friendship, Old Joy (2006), which was full of awkward homoeroticism. As Raymond writes in his novel, The Half-Life, upon which First Cow is based, “He [Cookie] realized America wasn’t a country, but a place in your mind, a place with your friends.” The film opens with a William Blake quote that shares a similar sentiment: “The bird a nest, the spider a web, man friendship.” In one of First Cow’s warmest, most serene sequences, Cookie visits King-Lu’s small home for the first time, and we observe the two men settling into a kind of domestic bliss. They chop wood, cook, clean, and share the same frame with the familiar ease of a married couple. Cookie doesn’t have a home so King-Lu invites him to stay in his ramshackle little hut. Does this sequence take place over hours, weeks, days, months? It’s unclear; their time together, before they involve themselves in criminal activity, is a calm, tranquil oasis of togetherness and co-operation, the likes of which Cookie has never experienced before.
When the first cow to arrive in the region floats to the town on a raft, Cookie and King-Lu steal her milk and get rich by selling milky baked goods back to the cow’s owner. The cow’s owner is the Chief Factor (Toby Jones), a rich ex-Londoner who presides over the film’s small-town Oregon setting. Cookie and King-Lu concoct a scheme to steal the cow’s milk and bake it into delicious and lucrative “oily cakes,” which even the Chief Factor himself loves: “I taste London in this cake!”, he proclaims. Their illicit biscuit-baking business grants them the Chief Factor’s respect and employment, as well as an invitation to his manor house. The cruel irony is that these two men can only get “in” with the rich (and become rich themselves) by stealing from them — a move that eventually comes back to haunt them.
While Cookie and King-Lu steal more and more milk, saving up so that they can journey to San Francisco, Reichardt introduces a rich cast of characters who also foolishly dream of better things. “Everyone’s here,” King-Lu proclaims. “They’re all looking for that soft gold.” A couple shots of the late René Auberjonois, staring into the distance with a crow perched on his shoulder, convey an old man who has long since learned that chasing The American Dream is a fool’s errand. A poor young soldier’s assistant looks on longingly and bitterly as the men of the town indulge in Cookie’s oily cakes; he will later take out his bitterness on Cookie in a damaging way, naively believing that harming another man will bring him closer to his own goals. Meanwhile, the two Native women, one married to the Chief Factor and the other to a Chinook Chief, watch the men around them barter with and build on the land that is rightfully theirs; we witness the two women excitedly sit together and start to chat as soon as the men leave the room, only able to relax and be themselves around each other.
Historically, Reichardt’s films have depicted restless characters living stagnant lives. See homeless Wendy in Wendy and Lucy (2008), whose problems worsen when her car breaks down and leaves her frustratingly stuck. Or Lily Gladstone’s Rancher in Certain Women, who tries and fails to make a romantic connection that might liven up her mundane routine. By contrast, First Cow‘s Cookie is a character in transit who desperately wants to settle down in one place. He doesn’t seem as interested in upward mobility as King-Lu, who always insists they steal milk for just a little bit longer, intent on increasing their profits but at increasing risk of capture. Cookie’s dreams are modest: he wants to open a hotel to house other people like him, travellers who haven’t got a place to call home. Yet in Reichardt’s world, even the most modest of dreams — to have an income, a home, a friend — are just out of reach for those without means or social power. At least it was sweet while it lasted.
Want to read the rest of the article?
Get the ebook.
Roads to nowhere: Kelly Reichardt’s broken American dreams will take you on a journey through Reichardt’s filmography.
It’s also the only place you can find interviews with her and all her collaborators, which together reveal Reichardt’s filmmaking process like never before.
Katharine Isabelle in American Mary (Great horror performances #5)
Rosie McCaffrey discusses why Katharine Isabelle’s performance in American Mary is one of her favourites by an actress in a horror film. Explore our coverage of Women in Horror Month here. Discover our book about feminist horror here.

The Soska sisters wrote American Mary, their 2012 body horror revenge movie, with Katharine Isabelle in mind. It’s perfect casting, subverting the expectations set up by her cult-favourite turn as the demented and bloodthirsty Ginger in Ginger Snaps (2000); in American Mary, Isabelle navigates her character’s struggles with cool, aloof restraint.
In American Mary, Isabelle tracks the thrilling revenge arc of a woman, Mary Mason, coming undone as she rises up against her assaulter. Mary Mason is a promising but financially insecure med student who reluctantly begins moonlighting as a back-alley surgeon. Seen as too soft by her instructors, she feigns emotional detachment and ruthlessness in order to impress them. Her ambitions are shattered, however, when her professor invites her to a party where he drugs and rapes her. Traumatised and humiliated, she drops out of school, adopts the impersonal ruthlessness so hallowed by the surgeons, and exacts revenge by using her professor as practice for her new career in body modification. Soon, her reputation precedes her, but her pursuit of vengeance erodes all vulnerability until she and her icy exterior are indivisible.
At the start of the film, Mary is eager to show her instructors she has what it takes to be an excellent surgeon In order to succeed in the sociopathic, male-dominated world of med school, she must appear to act without empathy. While appearing cold-hearted on the surface, Isabelle reveals flashes of the feelings that Mary is keeping in check. Small moments of hesitation and awkwardness reveal how Mary feels required to compromise herself. When she is instructed to break the news to a family that their father is dead, having just told them he was alive, Isabelle communicates Mary’s unease in a split-second startled expression before she composes herself and does as she’s told. When the surgeons make distasteful jokes about getting to cut up bodies for a living, Isabelle’s ingratiating, nervous laugh is a sign of Mary’s discomfort as she tries desperately to fit in.
We see the real, empathetic Mary when she performs a clandestine surgery away from the leering eyes and condescension of the surgeons at school: the patient’s pain touches Mary and breaks down her unemotional exterior, so Isabelle touches him gently and carefully. “Shhh, it’s going to be okay,” Mary murmurs softly so only he can hear. At home, she cries in the shower, deeply affected by the incident.

After Mary’s assault, she is merciless and vengeful, no longer willing to compromise for the men around her — but tragically, the trauma of the event brings her closer to the sociopathic monster they wanted her to be in the first place. In a wide shot reminiscent of a blood-soaked Carrie White exiting the burning gym hall, Mary enters her apartment and sidles over to her coffee table, upending it in anger. The walk Isabelle chooses is peculiar: in high heels, her hips swing alluringly, but her gait is also jolty and disjointed, like a marionette doll with tangled strings. It could be the walk of someone in shock, but it could also be the walk of a predator. The next day, when she abducts her rapist, Dr. Grant, to begin her bloody revenge, she’s remarkably calm. Her eyes are deadened and she never seems present in the moment. Her voice is soft and singsong, lilting between playful and deadpan. Her movements are slow and languid, even as she tells Dr. Grant, in gruesome detail, all the things she’s about to do to him.
Mary’s revenge is not frenzied but calculated; she calmly and methodically uses Dr. Grant for surgical practice, her impersonal treatment of his body an icy match for his savage violation of hers. Isabelle plays out the aftermath of Mary’s trauma as though she’s in shock, can’t engage directly with her turmoil, and wants to protect herself from further damage. It’s no longer a performance for anyone else, but one to keep herself safe and guarded.
Having struggled against the hindrance of her own natural empathy in the clinical setting of med school, Mary is now only able to connect with her emotions through feelings of anger and violence. When a cop discovers the mutilated body of Dr. Grant, she beats him to death. Here is yet another man invading her space, this time the space where she was privately coming to terms with her trauma. Her movements are powerful and propulsive as she repeatedly brings the weapon down on the cop long after he’s dead. Because Isabelle keeps Mary so sedate, considered, and detached through most of her post-assault scenes, when Mary gives into violence, it feels hugely cathartic, as if all the feelings that have been suppressed are now exploding in a bout of ferocious energy.
Mary achieves the clinical detachment the surgeons encouraged, but it cost her something soft and human. In the penultimate scene, she asks strip-club owner Billy (who has a misguided romantic interest in her), “Do you think I’m crazy?”. Her face barely shifts from its default composure and detachment, but the effect of this minute change is huge. Eyebrows slightly knit and eyes unfocused, for a moment, she seems connected to what is inside her, and she’s troubled by it. When Billy invites her on a getaway trip to LA, her eyes roll around the bar, looking anywhere but at him. Initially, she seems sassy and disinterested, but the wet gleam in Isabelle’s eyes suggests the painful realisation that she can’t change; she’s gone too far to accept the intimacy he’s offering. Getting up to leave, she looks at Billy fondly, but the ice is back when she sing-songs, “I’ll think about it”.
Explore our coverage of Women in Horror Month >>

Beyond empowertainment: Feminist horror and the struggle for female agency
Read our book about modern feminist horror, which contains 20+ chapters on films such as Thelma, Raw, and Perfect Blue.
Kristen Stewart in Personal Shopper (Great horror performances #4)
In this excerpt from her essay on Kristen Stewart in Personal Shopper, which features in our feminist horror ebook Beyond Empowertainment, Joseph Earp discusses the way Stewart’s artificial, artfully rendered oddness reveals something naturalism could not. Explore our coverage of Women in Horror Month here.

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.
Kristen Stewart is being watched. The 26-year-old is floating through an empty house: nothing else moves but her, and Stewart exudes a kind of frenzied, studied calm as she passes through the space. She knows she is being observed yet never acknowledges it directly. Her head dips, her gaze flinches. “Awkward” is the wrong word; she’s too deliberate for that, too controlled. “Agonised” is the wrong word, too: her studied, darting physicality sometimes seems pained but not painful. Instead, her movement bypasses language, speaking of nothing but itself.
That energy doesn’t let up when she rests, either. Leaning against a railing, cigarette poked between her lips, surveying an ever-so-slightly sad autumnal landscape, she is a cupped flame, flickering back and forth restlessly. The camera hangs back, still staring, keeping Stewart in a wide shot. And Stewart shifts away from it, throwing a literal cold shoulder. The cigarette moves back and forth from her lips. Her neck creaks and bucks. Her head bobs. Kristen Stewart is never still — even when she is still.
So it goes in the first scene of Olivier Assayas’ Personal Shopper, a ghost story that stands as Stewart’s most impressive performance yet. The film actively requires her: its plot implicitly invokes a supernatural sort of voyeurism, a kind of watched weirdness that Stewart has mastered over the course of a career as both an indie darling and a Hollywood heartthrob.
Personal Shopper focuses on Stewart’s Maureen, the eponymous shopper who begins to believe that her phone is being haunted by the spirit of her departed brother. In many ways then, the film is less about haunting as it is about those haunted. Much of the storytelling work is done by Stewart, as she shuffles around the edges of the screen, wandering through space like the very “ghost” she communicates with. As ever, Assayas plays his cards very close to his chest: is Maureen going mad? Is she merely grieving? Assayas seems unwilling to answer, and as a result, Stewart’s job as an actress requires a sort of queasy flitting between knowledge and ignorance.
Stewart never plays Maureen’s “breakdown” (if it could even be called that — Stewart and Assayas seem just as willing for it to be interpreted as a breakthrough) as hyperbolic, and she avoids the sweeping gestures that define the work of many celebrated Hollywood titans. Yet every one of Stewart’s actions seems to have a secret, subliminal meaning, from the studied, near-comical looks of boredom she shoots her employer and colleagues, to the beatific, wide-eyed gaze she directs at a phone seemingly being filled with text messages sent from the dead.
Want to read the rest of the book? Order a copy of our new ebook on feminist horror beyond empowertainment here.

Want to read the rest of the book?
This is an excerpt from the book Beyond Empowertainment: Feminist Horror and the Struggle for Female Agency.
The book contains 20+ chapters on films such as Thelma, Raw, and Perfect Blue.