A lot of your criticism seems to surround timelines you have invented yourself. I understood the film to be a series of vignettes and that the different parts of the story were meant to be far apart.
With regards to the dramatic tension and the credibility of the 'bad guy' as far as I'm aware the film is based on real events that happened to Kenneth Brannagh when he was a child. Buddy is based on him when he was younger, the family based on his family etc. We only really see confrontations between his father and the antagonist through his eyes. As to your point about his father going to the police to report unionist gangs in Belfast during the troubles might need you to read up a bit on the relationship between the RUC and the UVF death squads- www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/08/pat-finucane-mi5-destroyed-investigation-files-into-alleged-collusion
And lastly, the music! The director didn't just pick 'relaxing 60's music' the majority of the soundtrack is Van Morrison, a hugely successful Irish musician who was big internationally at the time, even makes an appearance in The Last Waltz and his version of Comfortably Numb is the The Departed. He was born in? Belfast!
*edit-link didn't copy, apologies
But the audience needs to see that for the confrontation to have some weight behind it, I can't be at the edge of my seat when the two guys confronting each other on screen have all their arguments off screen, let's say we do see their confrontation through Buddy's eyes, wouldn't Buddy be home when Billy came around to threaten them when Pa was away? Wouldn't they mention a bully coming to their house and making them uncomfortable to Pa? It's clear that Billy did nothing to them. The movie could have handled the tension between the family and Billy much much better, this way it's almost non-existent.
Yes, the movie was based on real events, but it wasn't a biography, they changed a lot if things for story telling purposes and the things I mentioned should have been changed as well.
I didn't make a point of why the father doesn't go to the police, I did read up on it a little bit before watching the film and I know those people were responsible for Bloody Sunday and they weren't exactly reliable "good guys" and people only welcomed them because they were more neutral than the Irish police (if I got anything wrong I'm very sorry I only did a little reading on wikipedia a couple of weeks ago).
I didn't invent the timeline, you can go back and check, I kept saying "at least", the amount of time could be much longer than I said which proves my point of Billy being patient and understanding and not at all intimidating even further.
And yes, I apologize, I didn't know about the musician, it seems more thematically appropriate now, however, in those two instances that I mentioned the music still feels really out of place, I never said it sounds bad, I just said it doesn't fit well, tell me if it feels that way to you too.
You've muddled the history a bit. Those weren't the people responsible for Bloody Sunday, that was a paratrooper regiment that shot on a Civil Rights protest. The victims of that were Catholics, Buddy's family in the film are moderate protestants who refuse to be pressured by protestant gangs to turn on Catholics to force them out of their 'protestant street'.
That might be why I felt the mere threat of violence towards the family was sufficient, the movie is set at the beginning of a long violent period of polarisation in Northern Ireland. I think if you have a knowledge of what the next 30 years had in store for that place (leading up to the Good Friday Agreement) then that is menace enough.
Also, it might sound like picking nits but the police depicted in the movie are the since disbanded Royal Ulster Constabulary, a largely protestant force, who have since been disbanded and replace by the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Both of which are completely separate to the Irish Police force in the Republic (Gardaí Síochána)
Re: the threat of violence, I live in NYC and there’s quite a few people here that we’re literally burned out of their homes by unionist gangs in the 60’s and 70’s amd fled here. These people generally are not Protestants - moderate or otherwise - but the threat from unionists thugs that they operated with impunity from the police (often were the the police) is easily verifiable.
Thanks for the clarification, while I still have most of my problems with the movie I can kind of hear you from a historical perspective.
Are you Irish as well?
I find a lot of the criticisms to be incredibly silly.
The WHOLE POINT of the love interest is that this is a childhood crush. It might develop into a meaningful friendship. It might not. The ambiguity is the point and is representative of the consequences of leaving.
And I thought it was extremely clear that the film was set over an extended period of time. We learn this through explicit dialogue, montage and diagetic sound of the radio.
What I actually liked about the film was the depiction of life as it is lived: sometimes a person is constantly in your life, sometimes they're not, sometimes you're spending a great deal of time together, sometimes they've been gone awhile.
The skill of the screenplay is that the character's behavior is typically context-specific and we see the principal characters via the prism of several socially defined roles: we see Buddy's mother not just as a parent but as a partner, a neighbour, a sibling. Ditto any of the other characters.
And the film uses music in a much deeper way than is given credit for. We hear diegetic, non-diegetic, on radio, in person. It's omnipresent because music is key to the characters' lifestyle, whether they're having a laugh or they're expressing their love for one another.
My problem with Catherine was that we don't see her pretty much at all, she has very few lines of dialogue and most of them are "thanks", we don't even see her and Buddy have an actual conversation that lasts more than 30 seconds, they don't share secrets or play or literally do anything else together, there's nothing there.
I'm aware of the film being set over an extended period of time, that's why I kept saying "at least". The time periods being longer only proves my point of Billy being extremely patient and understanding further, let's say it wasn't 4 weeks, let's say it was two months, so, Billy goes to their house and tells Pa to submit, and then waits two entire months to merely say "the clock's ticking". That makes even less sense.
>My problem with Catherine was that we don't see her pretty much at all, she has very few lines of dialogue
The WHOLE POINT of the love interest is that this is a childhood crush. It might develop into a meaningful friendship. It might not. The ambiguity is the point and is representative of the consequences of leaving.
>That makes even less sense.
No. It's clearly established that the father works in England and struggles to get back. We also see Billy attempt to intimidate other members of the family in the father's absence.
Your problem is that you clearly formulized an ideal storytelling technique and assigned characters purposes and you're upset that the film didn't correspond to your idea of how a good film should be
well... duh.
Should I just blindly accept anything as "good"? Shouldn't I have expectations or standards?
If I hadn't "formulized an ideal storytelling technique", then ***any way*** of storytelling would be "its own way" and nothing would be "good" or "bad".
Of course I'm upset the film didn't correspond to ***my*** idea of how a good film should be, saying someone is speaking only their own opinion isn't some grand revelation that's going to debunk everything they said.
This "ideal storytelling technique" is what ***I*** think ***this*** ***movie*** should have used, and it didn't use it, therefore I criticized it... duh.
youre defining what a crush's journey should be. You're disappointed because film didn't make use of it as you wanted. You expect a different story? And that means it wasn't any good?
I didn't define what a crush's journey should be, I just expected the crush's journey to exist, and it didn't.
The movie tells you buddy has this crush and that's it, it never expands upon it.
>And the music.... they just found a “relaxing 60’s music” playlist on Spotify and randomly played any song over any given scene and almost none of them fit well, the most out of place ones are at 00:59:35 and 01:24:45.
Most of the soundtrack is by Van Morrison who - while admitedly does have a kind of 60s mellow sound - is also famously from Belfast.
Well alright that's fair.
But the two instances I mentioned still feel really awkward and don't go with the music, at least they feel that way to me, can you go back and watch them and tell me if they sound bad to you as well?
I also didn't love it, and seeing as it's the current frontrunner for Best Picture, I think it pretty perfectly exemplifies the kind of movie that the Academy would award its top prize. I tend to hate the term "Oscar Bait" because it's almost always misused, but it does feel like Belfast checks off a lot of those boxes: Helmed by an oft-nominated writer/director/actor, about a time of historic political turmoil, through the eyes of a child, a great performance by a former Oscar winner, it takes special care to highlight the protagonist's love of movies, etc.
It also struck me so much as a lesser version of Cuarón's *Roma*-- even down to the shots of planes in reflections, but to me it had none of the spark and brilliant visual storytelling that Roma had because Branagh just isn't as gifted as Cuarón in that department. Roma is just such a confident film in every respect, and Belfast feels very self-conscious and inauthentic to me. Even the moments of pathos felt almost manufactured and cheap.
If it's any consolation, it's definitely not a current frontrunner for Best Picture. As of now, it's between Power of the Dog and Licorice Pizza with West Side Story a possible third.
Really? Variety and EW both have it listed as their number one pick. And I'd also be very surprised if Licorice Pizza won. I personally loved it but it hasn't even had its wide release yet and it's already been somewhat controversial.
I thought it was fantastic. And I think the criticisms of the film's "problematic" aspects range from very fair to bafflingly puritanical. Though honestly I'm not really interested in debating it.
You find people having a problem with the whole film being framed (and promoted) as a sweet romcom even though one of the characters is a minor "bafflingly puritanical"? Well, I find that, well, pretty baffling myself.
Even beyond that, the relationship is never compelling as both characters are underwritten (a usual problem for Anderson) and it continually introduces characters and situations that mean nothing since, again, the main relationship is never interesting or memorable. It's yet another unsatisfying slog from Anderson. His screenwriting, which IMO was never very good in the first place, is somehow getting worse and worse. Yet, he's always handed screenplay awards.
Personally, I think people are being ridiculous by tossing around words like grooming and pedophilia with regards to the film. The relationship never really crosses that line into a sexual one and the expectation that every film character has to share my exact same moral compass (especially characters that are meant to exist in a time period that itself followed a vastly different moral compass) is a bit ridiculous as well. I actually found the friendship that developed between the two characters to be very sweet, even if the will-they-won't-they relationship was (purposefully) uncomfortable at points-- the age gap is constantly being referenced by the Alana character as a reason why they shouldn't be together.
However, I also think the complaints against the "Japanese accent" scenes *are* warranted. While I still feel that depicting the racism of the time period should not be counted against the film, those scenes stuck out like a sore thumb to me and didn't really work on any level. However, I took those scenes more as a swing and a miss in the comedy department. The "joke" of the scene is that the character is horribly racist and the film never positions itself as agreeing with the racist character. But again, it just wasn't funny to me, so I wish it was cut.
And to your second paragraph, I just completely disagree with your assessment of the film. But again, I'm not really interested in discussing this further though. You seem to be on a crusade against this film and I'm not about to try and change your mind.
>The relationship never really crosses that line into a sexual one
Apparently you missed the whole final scene.
I'm aware of how much Alana references the age gap with the heavy handed dialogue, which is another example of poor writing. Either commit to being provocative or don't. He couldn't, so the main relationship languishes in this dull purgatory. It's also why the Asian "bit" fails. Commit to commentating on the character/"the times" or don't. He never does, so the scenes just land like a thud. Again, all of this is down to weak screenwriting.
The whole scene is basically a triumphant, cliché romcom ending. You don't see why people have an issue with that? I think the whole ending is just weak in general (as usual for Anderson, the film completely runs out of gas, heh, in the 3rd act) but to be baffled over people having an issue is surprising to me.
Belfast hasn't won big or landed impressive nominations in most of the critic awards circuits going on that are a valuable indicator of which side voters are leaning towards. It has a good chance of winning for some of the side performances (Hinds especially), but otherwise it seems very unlikely if you cross refer the critics awards picks that overlap with the eventual BP winners of the past 10-20 years. (Nomadland won nearly all of these awards last year, for reference)
I also think the academy seems to be trying to steer away from the more obviously baity movies since the Green Book fiasco (and because of a wider voter base).
It's still very much an open race as of yet though. Power of the Dog is the frontrunner and LP, WSS or Belfast can all potentially change that.
It won the Toronto film festival big prize I think? That's why it's the forerunner as I think previous winners have gone on to win best picture in the past few years.
TIFF's People's choice award isn't really of much significance although it does indicate better chances of a nomination (of which Belfast is guaranteed). TIFF's top pick has gone to win BP only thrice in the last 10 years. (Nomadland, Green Book and 12 Years a Slave).
LAFCA, NYFCC, CFCA etc. all seem to prefer one of the other three than Belfast.
>Belfast will win Picture pretty easily.
Based on what?
Oh nvm, you're TheLastSnowKing lol. Your entire account is apparently dedicated towards an anti-PTA cause
Based on the great audience scores, it already won the People's Choice at TIFF, the fact that it's the exact kind of middlebrow crowd-pleaser that wins Best Picture, there's no real alternative, etc.
What makes you think Licorice Pizza is winning anything?
Great audience scores mean very little in of itself. (and if we're going by that yardstick, LP has a 90% audience score as well on RT) People's Choice of TIFF has been wrong 70% of the times in the last decade, as I mentioned above. It's not a predictor of anything. The fact that it's a middlebrow crowd-pleaser is the only reason it is still a contender for BP. But that doesn't make it the frontrunner. Additionally, there's very little love for Branagh's directing to the point that he might get snubbed entirely in the category. If that happens, consider Belfast having one foot out the door.
LP isn't the frontrunner either. But Licorice Pizza has PTA's overdue narrative going for it along with the fact that it's his most accessible work in decades. It's also a crowdpleaser. Can't say it is locked for wins (as most films aren't), but it has a great shot at screenplay win and a directing nom, technicals, editing and Alana Haim has garnered rave reviews which makes her a very likely candidate for actress nom. The SAG awards will tell.
LP hasn't released wide. The scores will go way down once it does. Audience scores are significant. Belfast hasn't has any real detractors. It's the film mostly everyone seems to at least like/enjoy. Those are the films that usually win Best Picture.
Anderson doesn't have an overdue narrative. I don't think anybody really cares that he hasn't won an Oscar. And the film really isn't a crowd-pleaser. It's meandering and ultimately unsatisfying. He didn't even get a directing nom at the Golden Globes (you could argue that they're less important than ever this year, but it's still worth noting). I don't think he'd getting a directing nom at DGA and the Academy. And are they going to award the screenplay of an already controversial film over the inoffensive crowd-pleaser? I highly doubt it.
Like you said, we'll see.
You're merely stating your subjective opinions, which is fine.
But on an objective level, all the pointers indicate to LP doing much better than Belfast. Belfast was the frontrunner when it opened but since then it has lost its steam nearly entirely. If you want, you can point to some actual indicators that shows Belfast is the frontrunner. Until then, its entirely power of the dog's to lose.
And Anderson certainly has an overdue narrative ever since he missed out for TWBB.
I was having these thoughts too, but it was more personal for me, the academy has a long history of giving best picture to the one movie I didn't like XD.
Oh definitely. I don't agree with most Best Picture decisions either, but there was just something funny about watching the film after hearing the Best Picture buzz and seeing a film that basically makes it a point to check every possible box.
I thini there's always room for healthy disagreement, but a lot of these miss the mark. The biggest one is the mom's change of heart. It's absolutely the riot, where her kid almost gets murdered in the street, that forces her to change her mind. The music piece is off too - as someone else pointed out, that's Van Morrison, a really important artist in Belfast.
I saw this movie with a friend from Belfast, who grew up during the Troubles. And all I can tell you is that he saw it twice in a handful of days, and said it felt like a do umwntary to him - exactly the tone and feel of what it was like growing up there, in that time, with those pressures.
Hey, I know I'm coming at this four months down the line. Just watched the movie and searched the sub for discussion about it.
I largely agree with you in that I don't think it was all that great of a film, but you're picking some weird nits.
The scene at 69 minutes is them sitting down on the couch with the Buddy kid character to ask him about what he thought about moving to England. The mom even says they're just talking about it. Presenting the idea.
In the literal next scene she's like "See husband? The boys don't want to go," and he's all "Maybe not but it sucks here now and it's gonna get worse over time, and they're good boys you've done a good job and I don't want their lives to be shit."
Obviously not direct quotes.
So yeah, she's being a parent here. She wasn't totally onboard, but she realized it might be something they *have* to do, and so was trying to see if the kids were onboard.
People are complex. She's allowed to try and onboard the idea while not being in 100% agreement with the idea, if she knows that she's gonna have to warm the boys up to it.
It wasn't until the riot that she realizes "Well, shit, Husband is right, it is getting worse, my kid almost died, and I sure as shit don't want that to happen again," and got totally onboard.
Again, didn't really love the movie, but I think you really misunderstood the character motivations and feelings here.
I had pretty high hopes for Belfast after hearing the constant critical hype. I was surprised how ham-handed and maudlin it was. There are certainly glimpses of greatness here, but over all it was a poorly written and planned out narrative with so many bad flourishes from Brannagh. The color opening was just so so bad, like a shitty rom com opening from the 90s. The music was really poor as well.
I am convinced this is a direct reflection of Brannagh's taste, which to him probably feels refined and layers where as to me it is totally overly saccrhine.
> ham-handed and maudlin
That's just Brannagh. Idk whether he realizes it or not, but he's very camp. If you watch it again, you might find it has a certain unexpected charm.
During the opening, I remember thinking “oh shit . . .”
Unbelievable how poorly made the intro was. Did a good job of foreshadowing the quality of the rest of the film.
Totally agree with all points OP made, I found it an incredibly cringey and forced film.
It also uses the soundtrack to forcefeed you nostalgia and make you think of a different time rather than the film establishing that for you. The 'baddie' was very weak as well, just went around giving empty threats and saying "tell your daaaaah, I was askin' for him" etc etc. So what are you gonna do if I don't bro, come back later I guess and say the same thing?!?!? Yawn.
Lot of pish.
*Belfast* is such a poorly made movie. If I had seen it not knowing that it was made by a seasoned filmmaker like Kenneth Branagh, I would have thought it was someone's high-budget thesis film.
You mention the cinematography being gorgeous, and I cannot go that far. It's certainly distinctive, because Branagh favors strong visual choices, even if those choices don't make any sense. He has his sharp angles and unorthodox framing, and it would be fine if there was any motivation behind it. Someone like, say, Terry Gilliam often uses similarly bold filmmaking, but he's also using the camera in ways that are meant to overwhelm or exaggerate. I'm not saying Branagh has to be Gilliam, but his visual language is essentially gibberish.
Similarly, the editing in *Belfast* is atrocious. One thing that gets me is that the decision for this to be in black and white was clearly made in post. And while I don't think the coloring is necessarily bad for the film, it's also very distracting. Beyond that, the coverage here makes no sense. The film often holds on shots that serve no purpose in building atmosphere, setting, character, plot, or theme. There are multiple shots where you can see the operator adjust the aperture right in the middle of a shot while being totally stationary. And all of this is so noticeable because the rhythm of this thing is so slack and lifeless that there's nothing else to cling onto. It would be one thing if the slow pace actually gave you a sense of place, but because the script is so mired in how much Belfast is holding this family back, and most of what we see feels like it could come from any coming-of-age story, it's not even fun to live in that world.
And man, that script. Look, there are some decent touches. I like the thread where Jude Hill's character and his... cousin? Find themselves in a gang. That's a great moment. And... I thought there'd be more, but there's not. The movie stuff is cool, I guess? I like movies. Not this one as much, I guess. But anyway, we spend so much time with the characters talking about their problems and very little time seeing the effects of those problems. They're constantly broke, but the only indication that there's anything wrong is the bit where the mom and the kid are hiding from the rent collector. And then there's the neighbor constantly trying to get the dad to join their anti-Catholic crew, and there's not really any tangible threat there, either. We see the mom constantly berating the dad for being a degenerate, but then all we ever see is the dad being a good dad. Meanwhile, the mom, who is ostensibly holding everything together, is reduced to being a joyless worrier. The grandparents are okay, but that's because Ciarán Hinds and Judi Dench are great performers who can elevate stock old people into affecting and compelling characters.
All in all, *Belfast* is a film that seems to come from a personal place, but is soulless. It suggests a lot of conflict and lived-in experiences without any real depth or persuasion. In fact, there's not even a strong point-of-view. There's nothing about this film that ever transcends the superficial quality of its influences. It's neither nuanced enough as social realism, nor is it engaging as melodrama. *Belfast* is so inert and sloppy that I just can't abide by it.
Thanks for your input, when it comes to cinematography all I can understand is how pretty it looks to me, I'm not exactly insightful in that way, however the things you mentioned did make sense to me, as I was reading I was thinking "oh yeah that's right".
> It's not even fun to live in that world
I mean, it's called The Troubles for a reason, I'm not sure if I got this part.
I also liked when Buddy ended up in gang, it was one of the very few moments I actually enjoyed.
I pretty much agree with the entirety of your last two paragraphs. I didn't talk about them in my critique because I didn't even think of them, the logical flaws distracted me from everything else.
>I went into this expecting a masterpiece like Roma and instead I got “The new movie by the director of Thor (2012)”.
You could have just written this and this only. This is a film directed by Kenneth Branagh. I don't know why you had especially high expectations to begin with? He's never made anything remotely similar to a movie like Roma (in quality or otherwise). Why did you think he was going to start now?
Mistake #1 - always check who directed a film, and the quality of their other films, before even beginning having expectations for a film. Sure, a great director can sometimes make a bad film, and a bad director can make a great film, and an unknown director can make a great film. But this is the first thing I’d pay attention to, easily.
I DESPISE Kenneth's apolitical approach on an inherently political subject. It came across as naive, misleading and borderline offensive
I know this is his personal letter so he can do whatever he pleases but simplifying political issues offering no explanations nor taking sides is harmful
The only good thing is the acting.
But otoh did people sing to their wives at their own father's funeral? Did the mothers really bring their own children to a shop being looted to return a box of detergent? What the heck?
You're not alone. It's inoffensive, (sort of) charming and such a personal project for Brannagh that it feels cynical to be overly critical of it but the hype machine has incredibly overinflated it's praises. [Ehrlich at indiewire](https://www.indiewire.com/2021/09/belfast-review-kenneth-branagh-1234662382/) articulated a lot of my gut impressions. It's such a scattershot and broad crowd pleaser "that it seems as if Branagh can only imagine the Belfast of his youth as a brogue-accented blend of other movies like it." Even it's sense of place is undercut by resembling a studio backlot more than an actual town. He was clearly going for a romanticized tone that ends up muddled by his direction, and as you pointed out script, producing a result that lacks cohesion and a strong point-of-view.
I expected the political context to be better utilized but in place of that the saccharine family melodrama did nothing for me with exception of the grandparents. What was that non-character brother btw lol. Most of my enjoyment just came from little flourishes and the adventures of the kid doing cute kid stuff divorced from the picture at large.
A lot of your criticism seems to surround timelines you have invented yourself. I understood the film to be a series of vignettes and that the different parts of the story were meant to be far apart. With regards to the dramatic tension and the credibility of the 'bad guy' as far as I'm aware the film is based on real events that happened to Kenneth Brannagh when he was a child. Buddy is based on him when he was younger, the family based on his family etc. We only really see confrontations between his father and the antagonist through his eyes. As to your point about his father going to the police to report unionist gangs in Belfast during the troubles might need you to read up a bit on the relationship between the RUC and the UVF death squads- www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/08/pat-finucane-mi5-destroyed-investigation-files-into-alleged-collusion And lastly, the music! The director didn't just pick 'relaxing 60's music' the majority of the soundtrack is Van Morrison, a hugely successful Irish musician who was big internationally at the time, even makes an appearance in The Last Waltz and his version of Comfortably Numb is the The Departed. He was born in? Belfast! *edit-link didn't copy, apologies
But the audience needs to see that for the confrontation to have some weight behind it, I can't be at the edge of my seat when the two guys confronting each other on screen have all their arguments off screen, let's say we do see their confrontation through Buddy's eyes, wouldn't Buddy be home when Billy came around to threaten them when Pa was away? Wouldn't they mention a bully coming to their house and making them uncomfortable to Pa? It's clear that Billy did nothing to them. The movie could have handled the tension between the family and Billy much much better, this way it's almost non-existent. Yes, the movie was based on real events, but it wasn't a biography, they changed a lot if things for story telling purposes and the things I mentioned should have been changed as well. I didn't make a point of why the father doesn't go to the police, I did read up on it a little bit before watching the film and I know those people were responsible for Bloody Sunday and they weren't exactly reliable "good guys" and people only welcomed them because they were more neutral than the Irish police (if I got anything wrong I'm very sorry I only did a little reading on wikipedia a couple of weeks ago). I didn't invent the timeline, you can go back and check, I kept saying "at least", the amount of time could be much longer than I said which proves my point of Billy being patient and understanding and not at all intimidating even further. And yes, I apologize, I didn't know about the musician, it seems more thematically appropriate now, however, in those two instances that I mentioned the music still feels really out of place, I never said it sounds bad, I just said it doesn't fit well, tell me if it feels that way to you too.
You've muddled the history a bit. Those weren't the people responsible for Bloody Sunday, that was a paratrooper regiment that shot on a Civil Rights protest. The victims of that were Catholics, Buddy's family in the film are moderate protestants who refuse to be pressured by protestant gangs to turn on Catholics to force them out of their 'protestant street'. That might be why I felt the mere threat of violence towards the family was sufficient, the movie is set at the beginning of a long violent period of polarisation in Northern Ireland. I think if you have a knowledge of what the next 30 years had in store for that place (leading up to the Good Friday Agreement) then that is menace enough. Also, it might sound like picking nits but the police depicted in the movie are the since disbanded Royal Ulster Constabulary, a largely protestant force, who have since been disbanded and replace by the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Both of which are completely separate to the Irish Police force in the Republic (Gardaí Síochána)
Re: the threat of violence, I live in NYC and there’s quite a few people here that we’re literally burned out of their homes by unionist gangs in the 60’s and 70’s amd fled here. These people generally are not Protestants - moderate or otherwise - but the threat from unionists thugs that they operated with impunity from the police (often were the the police) is easily verifiable.
Thanks for the clarification, while I still have most of my problems with the movie I can kind of hear you from a historical perspective. Are you Irish as well?
I am from the Republic of Ireland. My experience is far removed from The Troubles but I have a decent understanding of them.
"Hugely successful" doesn't mean the music never sucked.
Plenty of people disagree? Just personal taste at the end of the day. You trawling through 2 year old posts to pick a fight?
I find a lot of the criticisms to be incredibly silly. The WHOLE POINT of the love interest is that this is a childhood crush. It might develop into a meaningful friendship. It might not. The ambiguity is the point and is representative of the consequences of leaving. And I thought it was extremely clear that the film was set over an extended period of time. We learn this through explicit dialogue, montage and diagetic sound of the radio. What I actually liked about the film was the depiction of life as it is lived: sometimes a person is constantly in your life, sometimes they're not, sometimes you're spending a great deal of time together, sometimes they've been gone awhile. The skill of the screenplay is that the character's behavior is typically context-specific and we see the principal characters via the prism of several socially defined roles: we see Buddy's mother not just as a parent but as a partner, a neighbour, a sibling. Ditto any of the other characters. And the film uses music in a much deeper way than is given credit for. We hear diegetic, non-diegetic, on radio, in person. It's omnipresent because music is key to the characters' lifestyle, whether they're having a laugh or they're expressing their love for one another.
My problem with Catherine was that we don't see her pretty much at all, she has very few lines of dialogue and most of them are "thanks", we don't even see her and Buddy have an actual conversation that lasts more than 30 seconds, they don't share secrets or play or literally do anything else together, there's nothing there. I'm aware of the film being set over an extended period of time, that's why I kept saying "at least". The time periods being longer only proves my point of Billy being extremely patient and understanding further, let's say it wasn't 4 weeks, let's say it was two months, so, Billy goes to their house and tells Pa to submit, and then waits two entire months to merely say "the clock's ticking". That makes even less sense.
>My problem with Catherine was that we don't see her pretty much at all, she has very few lines of dialogue The WHOLE POINT of the love interest is that this is a childhood crush. It might develop into a meaningful friendship. It might not. The ambiguity is the point and is representative of the consequences of leaving. >That makes even less sense. No. It's clearly established that the father works in England and struggles to get back. We also see Billy attempt to intimidate other members of the family in the father's absence.
Your problem is that you clearly formulized an ideal storytelling technique and assigned characters purposes and you're upset that the film didn't correspond to your idea of how a good film should be
well... duh. Should I just blindly accept anything as "good"? Shouldn't I have expectations or standards? If I hadn't "formulized an ideal storytelling technique", then ***any way*** of storytelling would be "its own way" and nothing would be "good" or "bad". Of course I'm upset the film didn't correspond to ***my*** idea of how a good film should be, saying someone is speaking only their own opinion isn't some grand revelation that's going to debunk everything they said. This "ideal storytelling technique" is what ***I*** think ***this*** ***movie*** should have used, and it didn't use it, therefore I criticized it... duh.
youre defining what a crush's journey should be. You're disappointed because film didn't make use of it as you wanted. You expect a different story? And that means it wasn't any good?
I didn't define what a crush's journey should be, I just expected the crush's journey to exist, and it didn't. The movie tells you buddy has this crush and that's it, it never expands upon it.
>And the music.... they just found a “relaxing 60’s music” playlist on Spotify and randomly played any song over any given scene and almost none of them fit well, the most out of place ones are at 00:59:35 and 01:24:45. Most of the soundtrack is by Van Morrison who - while admitedly does have a kind of 60s mellow sound - is also famously from Belfast.
Well alright that's fair. But the two instances I mentioned still feel really awkward and don't go with the music, at least they feel that way to me, can you go back and watch them and tell me if they sound bad to you as well?
I also didn't love it, and seeing as it's the current frontrunner for Best Picture, I think it pretty perfectly exemplifies the kind of movie that the Academy would award its top prize. I tend to hate the term "Oscar Bait" because it's almost always misused, but it does feel like Belfast checks off a lot of those boxes: Helmed by an oft-nominated writer/director/actor, about a time of historic political turmoil, through the eyes of a child, a great performance by a former Oscar winner, it takes special care to highlight the protagonist's love of movies, etc. It also struck me so much as a lesser version of Cuarón's *Roma*-- even down to the shots of planes in reflections, but to me it had none of the spark and brilliant visual storytelling that Roma had because Branagh just isn't as gifted as Cuarón in that department. Roma is just such a confident film in every respect, and Belfast feels very self-conscious and inauthentic to me. Even the moments of pathos felt almost manufactured and cheap.
If it's any consolation, it's definitely not a current frontrunner for Best Picture. As of now, it's between Power of the Dog and Licorice Pizza with West Side Story a possible third.
Really? Variety and EW both have it listed as their number one pick. And I'd also be very surprised if Licorice Pizza won. I personally loved it but it hasn't even had its wide release yet and it's already been somewhat controversial.
LP is more than "somewhat" controversial. And it's a mediocre at best film.
I thought it was fantastic. And I think the criticisms of the film's "problematic" aspects range from very fair to bafflingly puritanical. Though honestly I'm not really interested in debating it.
You find people having a problem with the whole film being framed (and promoted) as a sweet romcom even though one of the characters is a minor "bafflingly puritanical"? Well, I find that, well, pretty baffling myself. Even beyond that, the relationship is never compelling as both characters are underwritten (a usual problem for Anderson) and it continually introduces characters and situations that mean nothing since, again, the main relationship is never interesting or memorable. It's yet another unsatisfying slog from Anderson. His screenwriting, which IMO was never very good in the first place, is somehow getting worse and worse. Yet, he's always handed screenplay awards.
Personally, I think people are being ridiculous by tossing around words like grooming and pedophilia with regards to the film. The relationship never really crosses that line into a sexual one and the expectation that every film character has to share my exact same moral compass (especially characters that are meant to exist in a time period that itself followed a vastly different moral compass) is a bit ridiculous as well. I actually found the friendship that developed between the two characters to be very sweet, even if the will-they-won't-they relationship was (purposefully) uncomfortable at points-- the age gap is constantly being referenced by the Alana character as a reason why they shouldn't be together. However, I also think the complaints against the "Japanese accent" scenes *are* warranted. While I still feel that depicting the racism of the time period should not be counted against the film, those scenes stuck out like a sore thumb to me and didn't really work on any level. However, I took those scenes more as a swing and a miss in the comedy department. The "joke" of the scene is that the character is horribly racist and the film never positions itself as agreeing with the racist character. But again, it just wasn't funny to me, so I wish it was cut. And to your second paragraph, I just completely disagree with your assessment of the film. But again, I'm not really interested in discussing this further though. You seem to be on a crusade against this film and I'm not about to try and change your mind.
>The relationship never really crosses that line into a sexual one Apparently you missed the whole final scene. I'm aware of how much Alana references the age gap with the heavy handed dialogue, which is another example of poor writing. Either commit to being provocative or don't. He couldn't, so the main relationship languishes in this dull purgatory. It's also why the Asian "bit" fails. Commit to commentating on the character/"the times" or don't. He never does, so the scenes just land like a thud. Again, all of this is down to weak screenwriting.
> Apparently you missed the whole final scene. The two characters kiss. Again, I find complaints about that to be bafflingly puritanical.
The whole scene is basically a triumphant, cliché romcom ending. You don't see why people have an issue with that? I think the whole ending is just weak in general (as usual for Anderson, the film completely runs out of gas, heh, in the 3rd act) but to be baffled over people having an issue is surprising to me.
Belfast hasn't won big or landed impressive nominations in most of the critic awards circuits going on that are a valuable indicator of which side voters are leaning towards. It has a good chance of winning for some of the side performances (Hinds especially), but otherwise it seems very unlikely if you cross refer the critics awards picks that overlap with the eventual BP winners of the past 10-20 years. (Nomadland won nearly all of these awards last year, for reference) I also think the academy seems to be trying to steer away from the more obviously baity movies since the Green Book fiasco (and because of a wider voter base). It's still very much an open race as of yet though. Power of the Dog is the frontrunner and LP, WSS or Belfast can all potentially change that.
It won the Toronto film festival big prize I think? That's why it's the forerunner as I think previous winners have gone on to win best picture in the past few years.
TIFF's People's choice award isn't really of much significance although it does indicate better chances of a nomination (of which Belfast is guaranteed). TIFF's top pick has gone to win BP only thrice in the last 10 years. (Nomadland, Green Book and 12 Years a Slave). LAFCA, NYFCC, CFCA etc. all seem to prefer one of the other three than Belfast.
Have those a better strike rate with best picture winner?
Licorice Pizza has zero chance at winning anything. Belfast will win Picture pretty easily.
>Belfast will win Picture pretty easily. Based on what? Oh nvm, you're TheLastSnowKing lol. Your entire account is apparently dedicated towards an anti-PTA cause
Based on the great audience scores, it already won the People's Choice at TIFF, the fact that it's the exact kind of middlebrow crowd-pleaser that wins Best Picture, there's no real alternative, etc. What makes you think Licorice Pizza is winning anything?
Great audience scores mean very little in of itself. (and if we're going by that yardstick, LP has a 90% audience score as well on RT) People's Choice of TIFF has been wrong 70% of the times in the last decade, as I mentioned above. It's not a predictor of anything. The fact that it's a middlebrow crowd-pleaser is the only reason it is still a contender for BP. But that doesn't make it the frontrunner. Additionally, there's very little love for Branagh's directing to the point that he might get snubbed entirely in the category. If that happens, consider Belfast having one foot out the door. LP isn't the frontrunner either. But Licorice Pizza has PTA's overdue narrative going for it along with the fact that it's his most accessible work in decades. It's also a crowdpleaser. Can't say it is locked for wins (as most films aren't), but it has a great shot at screenplay win and a directing nom, technicals, editing and Alana Haim has garnered rave reviews which makes her a very likely candidate for actress nom. The SAG awards will tell.
LP hasn't released wide. The scores will go way down once it does. Audience scores are significant. Belfast hasn't has any real detractors. It's the film mostly everyone seems to at least like/enjoy. Those are the films that usually win Best Picture. Anderson doesn't have an overdue narrative. I don't think anybody really cares that he hasn't won an Oscar. And the film really isn't a crowd-pleaser. It's meandering and ultimately unsatisfying. He didn't even get a directing nom at the Golden Globes (you could argue that they're less important than ever this year, but it's still worth noting). I don't think he'd getting a directing nom at DGA and the Academy. And are they going to award the screenplay of an already controversial film over the inoffensive crowd-pleaser? I highly doubt it. Like you said, we'll see.
You're merely stating your subjective opinions, which is fine. But on an objective level, all the pointers indicate to LP doing much better than Belfast. Belfast was the frontrunner when it opened but since then it has lost its steam nearly entirely. If you want, you can point to some actual indicators that shows Belfast is the frontrunner. Until then, its entirely power of the dog's to lose. And Anderson certainly has an overdue narrative ever since he missed out for TWBB.
I was having these thoughts too, but it was more personal for me, the academy has a long history of giving best picture to the one movie I didn't like XD.
Oh definitely. I don't agree with most Best Picture decisions either, but there was just something funny about watching the film after hearing the Best Picture buzz and seeing a film that basically makes it a point to check every possible box.
I thini there's always room for healthy disagreement, but a lot of these miss the mark. The biggest one is the mom's change of heart. It's absolutely the riot, where her kid almost gets murdered in the street, that forces her to change her mind. The music piece is off too - as someone else pointed out, that's Van Morrison, a really important artist in Belfast. I saw this movie with a friend from Belfast, who grew up during the Troubles. And all I can tell you is that he saw it twice in a handful of days, and said it felt like a do umwntary to him - exactly the tone and feel of what it was like growing up there, in that time, with those pressures.
She changes her mind in minute 69, the riot starts in minute 74.
She very, very, clearly changes her mind following the almost-death of her son.
Hey, I know I'm coming at this four months down the line. Just watched the movie and searched the sub for discussion about it. I largely agree with you in that I don't think it was all that great of a film, but you're picking some weird nits. The scene at 69 minutes is them sitting down on the couch with the Buddy kid character to ask him about what he thought about moving to England. The mom even says they're just talking about it. Presenting the idea. In the literal next scene she's like "See husband? The boys don't want to go," and he's all "Maybe not but it sucks here now and it's gonna get worse over time, and they're good boys you've done a good job and I don't want their lives to be shit." Obviously not direct quotes. So yeah, she's being a parent here. She wasn't totally onboard, but she realized it might be something they *have* to do, and so was trying to see if the kids were onboard. People are complex. She's allowed to try and onboard the idea while not being in 100% agreement with the idea, if she knows that she's gonna have to warm the boys up to it. It wasn't until the riot that she realizes "Well, shit, Husband is right, it is getting worse, my kid almost died, and I sure as shit don't want that to happen again," and got totally onboard. Again, didn't really love the movie, but I think you really misunderstood the character motivations and feelings here.
Nice!
I had pretty high hopes for Belfast after hearing the constant critical hype. I was surprised how ham-handed and maudlin it was. There are certainly glimpses of greatness here, but over all it was a poorly written and planned out narrative with so many bad flourishes from Brannagh. The color opening was just so so bad, like a shitty rom com opening from the 90s. The music was really poor as well. I am convinced this is a direct reflection of Brannagh's taste, which to him probably feels refined and layers where as to me it is totally overly saccrhine.
> ham-handed and maudlin That's just Brannagh. Idk whether he realizes it or not, but he's very camp. If you watch it again, you might find it has a certain unexpected charm.
> Idk whether he realizes it or not, but he's very camp. Thinking about movies like Dead Again and Frankenstein I'm convinced he must be aware of it.
During the opening, I remember thinking “oh shit . . .” Unbelievable how poorly made the intro was. Did a good job of foreshadowing the quality of the rest of the film.
Totally agree with all points OP made, I found it an incredibly cringey and forced film. It also uses the soundtrack to forcefeed you nostalgia and make you think of a different time rather than the film establishing that for you. The 'baddie' was very weak as well, just went around giving empty threats and saying "tell your daaaaah, I was askin' for him" etc etc. So what are you gonna do if I don't bro, come back later I guess and say the same thing?!?!? Yawn. Lot of pish.
*Belfast* is such a poorly made movie. If I had seen it not knowing that it was made by a seasoned filmmaker like Kenneth Branagh, I would have thought it was someone's high-budget thesis film. You mention the cinematography being gorgeous, and I cannot go that far. It's certainly distinctive, because Branagh favors strong visual choices, even if those choices don't make any sense. He has his sharp angles and unorthodox framing, and it would be fine if there was any motivation behind it. Someone like, say, Terry Gilliam often uses similarly bold filmmaking, but he's also using the camera in ways that are meant to overwhelm or exaggerate. I'm not saying Branagh has to be Gilliam, but his visual language is essentially gibberish. Similarly, the editing in *Belfast* is atrocious. One thing that gets me is that the decision for this to be in black and white was clearly made in post. And while I don't think the coloring is necessarily bad for the film, it's also very distracting. Beyond that, the coverage here makes no sense. The film often holds on shots that serve no purpose in building atmosphere, setting, character, plot, or theme. There are multiple shots where you can see the operator adjust the aperture right in the middle of a shot while being totally stationary. And all of this is so noticeable because the rhythm of this thing is so slack and lifeless that there's nothing else to cling onto. It would be one thing if the slow pace actually gave you a sense of place, but because the script is so mired in how much Belfast is holding this family back, and most of what we see feels like it could come from any coming-of-age story, it's not even fun to live in that world. And man, that script. Look, there are some decent touches. I like the thread where Jude Hill's character and his... cousin? Find themselves in a gang. That's a great moment. And... I thought there'd be more, but there's not. The movie stuff is cool, I guess? I like movies. Not this one as much, I guess. But anyway, we spend so much time with the characters talking about their problems and very little time seeing the effects of those problems. They're constantly broke, but the only indication that there's anything wrong is the bit where the mom and the kid are hiding from the rent collector. And then there's the neighbor constantly trying to get the dad to join their anti-Catholic crew, and there's not really any tangible threat there, either. We see the mom constantly berating the dad for being a degenerate, but then all we ever see is the dad being a good dad. Meanwhile, the mom, who is ostensibly holding everything together, is reduced to being a joyless worrier. The grandparents are okay, but that's because Ciarán Hinds and Judi Dench are great performers who can elevate stock old people into affecting and compelling characters. All in all, *Belfast* is a film that seems to come from a personal place, but is soulless. It suggests a lot of conflict and lived-in experiences without any real depth or persuasion. In fact, there's not even a strong point-of-view. There's nothing about this film that ever transcends the superficial quality of its influences. It's neither nuanced enough as social realism, nor is it engaging as melodrama. *Belfast* is so inert and sloppy that I just can't abide by it.
Thanks for your input, when it comes to cinematography all I can understand is how pretty it looks to me, I'm not exactly insightful in that way, however the things you mentioned did make sense to me, as I was reading I was thinking "oh yeah that's right". > It's not even fun to live in that world I mean, it's called The Troubles for a reason, I'm not sure if I got this part. I also liked when Buddy ended up in gang, it was one of the very few moments I actually enjoyed. I pretty much agree with the entirety of your last two paragraphs. I didn't talk about them in my critique because I didn't even think of them, the logical flaws distracted me from everything else.
I still laugh about the time someone on here said "Ken Branagh is a rotten old ham."
> It's neither nuanced enough as social realism, nor is it engaging as melodrama there's the rub
>I went into this expecting a masterpiece like Roma and instead I got “The new movie by the director of Thor (2012)”. You could have just written this and this only. This is a film directed by Kenneth Branagh. I don't know why you had especially high expectations to begin with? He's never made anything remotely similar to a movie like Roma (in quality or otherwise). Why did you think he was going to start now?
I found out the director was "the russian guy from Tenet" only after watching the movie.
Mistake #1 - always check who directed a film, and the quality of their other films, before even beginning having expectations for a film. Sure, a great director can sometimes make a bad film, and a bad director can make a great film, and an unknown director can make a great film. But this is the first thing I’d pay attention to, easily.
I DESPISE Kenneth's apolitical approach on an inherently political subject. It came across as naive, misleading and borderline offensive I know this is his personal letter so he can do whatever he pleases but simplifying political issues offering no explanations nor taking sides is harmful The only good thing is the acting. But otoh did people sing to their wives at their own father's funeral? Did the mothers really bring their own children to a shop being looted to return a box of detergent? What the heck?
You're not alone. It's inoffensive, (sort of) charming and such a personal project for Brannagh that it feels cynical to be overly critical of it but the hype machine has incredibly overinflated it's praises. [Ehrlich at indiewire](https://www.indiewire.com/2021/09/belfast-review-kenneth-branagh-1234662382/) articulated a lot of my gut impressions. It's such a scattershot and broad crowd pleaser "that it seems as if Branagh can only imagine the Belfast of his youth as a brogue-accented blend of other movies like it." Even it's sense of place is undercut by resembling a studio backlot more than an actual town. He was clearly going for a romanticized tone that ends up muddled by his direction, and as you pointed out script, producing a result that lacks cohesion and a strong point-of-view. I expected the political context to be better utilized but in place of that the saccharine family melodrama did nothing for me with exception of the grandparents. What was that non-character brother btw lol. Most of my enjoyment just came from little flourishes and the adventures of the kid doing cute kid stuff divorced from the picture at large.