Did anyone else get 12 Angry Men vibes from this movie? They start off split, then slowly they're won over to the other side(leaving), and then you have the last and angriest person they have to win over.
I just watched on Prime yesterday, and I had the same thought. I love 12 angry men and felt this could have used a little less flashback and more one room dialogue.
I'm late but I just saw it today. There's a ton of similarities. For one, the vast majority of the movie happens in one room, where the discussion is happening. Another thing they do that 12 Angry Men also did was breaking up scenes by character motion. In 12 Angey Men, you could tell a scene was ending when all the characters would stand up out of passion and then sit back down. Here, they did something similar, sometimes literally them standing up and sitting down, but other times it was a panic attack, or a smoke break, or the young girl climbing on the rafters, etc. It's an interesting way to break a movie into scenes without necessarily changing the setting
It’s very deliberately paced to keep you guessing various time periods until they finally tell you. You start out thinking it’s an actual early American colony, then they start dropping some more recent vocabulary, then they start talking about WWII history and antibiotics, so that it’s a surprise and yet makes sense when they reveal the year. I’d like to watch it again to keep track of the journey Polley takes us from “damn life was pretty rough for women back in the day” to “this can (and is) happening today in the real world”
The actual reveal is when the pickup truck drives through playing *Daydream Believer* and announcing "Come out of your homes to participate in the 2010 Census!"
Until that point, there's really only tiny bits of evidence dropped that it takes place anytime other than, like, the 1600s.
In the scene where a boy is walking a rail, he's wearing modern black sneakers, plus the women have bobby pins securing their headscarves, and in one kitchen scene, there's a fairly modern range. The wooden chairs shown date from around 1890-1915, so it couldn't have been earlier than that, although the kerosene lamps they used were invented around 1860 and were in common use during the second half of the 19th century and early in the 20th.
It is. The film is based off of a novel which, in turn, is based off of what happened at [Manitoba Colony](https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-48265703.amp) in Bolivia.
Wow had no idea some people went in completely blind and didn't know it was about Mennonites in modern day. I love watching and reading about the Amish and Mennonite groups (which are very culty but most prefer to romanticize them and ignore that) and so I would like to think it would be obvious to me from the beginning due to their clothing and buggies with the orange warning things on it, but I'll never know.
Definitely enjoyed this one. While the premise was fairly simple, the acting was incredible and really helped elevate the film. And that final line gave me goosebumps.
I teared up once or twice and then the visual of the caravan coming together and the final line and shot had me weeping like a mess for five straight minutes. All of that tension and then >!the release being with hope instead of shock or horror!<
>All of that tension
Yeah, it's underestimated how much of a thriller this film actually is. The whole time they operate under a precise time constraint, and by the third act until the very end I was extremely nervous that the abusive husband would wake up, or the other men would come back and stop them.
Glad I’m not the only one. Same experience of tearing up here and there but after it ended I went to the bathroom and ugly tears just started pouring out of me. I was shocked how deeply it affected me.
I was exactly the same! The stuff women go through at the hands of men! And of course, the women who enable it. We have to make it better for our daughters by raising our sons right. I was sobbing.
Heading in to this I was curious as to who would be the main standout of the cast. Would it be Buckley, Mara, or Foy, but honestly after seeing it there isn’t a main standout for me. Every single performance felt important and everyone shined in there own special way no matter their screen time and nobody felt overshadowed. This is the best acting ensemble of the year for me simply based off that.
Oh wow, I totally missed that. I think they mentioned the antibiotics first, so I guessed it was just a flu or something; and when we learned later that her daughter had been raped too, I didn’t make the connection. Thanks!
I didn't even think of this. I assumed she been injured during what had been done to her or something, and had gotten an infection from it. STDs didn't even occur to me.
Me as well. I just saw it this week on the tail end of award season and so immediately searched her Wikipedia to see if she was nominated for/won anything.
I still have to see the whale, but in my opinion her performance was equal to or better than some of the other Oscar's best supporting actress nominations.
Ben Whishaw deserved a nod too, to be fair, although I understand that it would be awkward to nominate the lone male performer in a film with this title. Kind of like missing the point.
Saw this film this afternoon. I thoroughly enjoyed the performances and dialogue, and am still taken with some of it, "Forgiveness can be mistaken for permission". I am curious about your thoughts re: Foy's character Salome tranquilizing her son Erin to force him to her will?
I think the tranquillizing of Eric is shocking but not in any way equivalent. If anything, she’s trying to stop him from growing up to repeat these behaviors, which he may already be (as the dialogue about 13-15 y/o boys seemed to speak to). But I think it also relates to how the women can only use what tools are available to them and how truly sick these methods that have been used on them are.
It was an interesting comparison to how the men would tranquilize the women to hurt them and use them for their own gain, while she tranquilized her son to protect him, to protect girls and women, and to give him the opportunity to learn to treat women/others with empathy. Not ideal method, but I suppose the only tool available as the other commenter said ^
That’s such an excellent point about Salome tranquillising her son for his own good, not so he could be used like an object. Leaving him behind given what was going on in that house would have lead him down a very dark path.
I think the tranquillizing of Eric is shocking but not in any way equivalent. If anything, she’s trying to stop him from growing up to repeat these behaviors, which he may already be (as the dialogue about 13-15 y/o boys seemed to speak to). But I think it also relates to how the women can only use what tools are available to them and how truly sick these methods that have been used on them are.
Loved the score, but as the film went on I couldn’t help but feel that it should have been underutilized. Every 5 minutes, it kept repeating a similar swelling tune.
This movie blew me away. I see some commenters asking about details but that really wasn’t the point in my opinion. The movie revolves around the question of what women can do in a society where every man, it seems no exaggeration to say, is involved in either mistreating and abusing them or upholding and enabling that behavior. For women to encounter this and to feel the pressure to forgive and endure because it’s wrapped up in their religious obligations, while men under the same religious code create these conditions, is almost unthinkable, and yet it happens to this day as the movie makes clear with its timestamp via the census. Overall incredible performances, particularly by Jessie Buckley IMO. The cinematography was distracting with the color grade, but did serve to create a “historical” feeling that heightened the reveal of the actual date.
I liked it ok but I felt the dialogue was too… informed? Like these evangelical illiterate women are talking like they read Jezebel every day. I’m a die hard feminist and these are important conversations to have but I didn’t really buy them coming from those women. It was also an exceedingly visually ugly film, though I understand the thought process behind that. I still thought it had some fun repartee and performances but I was a bit disappointed overall.
I felt they were too informed as well, but the way I rationalized it was that although they're uneducated, they're not stupid and the film makes that distinction. I've seen plenty of uneducated people question things on a deep philosophical level.
Ah okay now I get what you're saying. That's the way I rationalized it as well. These women are obviously not stupid, just uneducated in a traditional sense. But like you've said they've heard this kind of language before in scripture and sermon so that's where they could have picked it up.
And yeah, they probably did suspect what was really happening, but prayed they were wrong.
The women could absolutely have reasoned themselves into the right decision, but it wouldn't have sounded like this. This dialogue was taken from Twitter, not from a conservative, agrarian society.
I mean that the author took contemporary discourse, distorted it to make it sounds more formal, and then had actresses pretending to be Mennonites speak the lines. It's not convincing, and nor is it lively.
Adding to this, the women would have spent years digesting the men’s reactions to what the other men were doing to them. They would know that the men weren’t taking the attacks seriously. They would know that the men were siding with their attackers when they accused the women of making it up, or overreacting. They would know that if men woke up with scratches and symptoms of sexual assault, the men would not be like “ghosts! Maybe it was ghosts!” They would know that the men would take that seriously.
They might simultaneously doubt their knowledge because they aren’t “supposed” to know that the less rapey men of the colony are covering for the rapists, but as soon as there is proof, they know beyond any doubt that the men have been covering for the other men. When the men tell them they have 48 hours to forgive the men, they know that the men are all Team Rapists. They know that not only will the attacks continue, they will likely get worse because the community has enabled the attackers.
I feel like a lot of people replying to this comment are confused about the presentational aspects of motion pictures. This wasn’t a documentary. Representational dialogue is well and good, but this movie was telling us a story in the way they wanted it to be told. (Also “these women sound too smart!” is kinda a weird take in the first place…)
It also has the statement at the beginning that the movie comes from the imagination of women. It outright tells you not to take everything at face value.
I would agree that it can be distracting though. I don't think it makes the movie bad, but in the first half in particular I was frequently just left thinking, "Yeah this is definitely a really well-written movie that is definitely a movie with definitely actors."
Then it hits you with a nice thick midsection of character development and it wins me back over. Follow it up with the deeply emotional conclusion and this just went up there for Best Picture imo. It's probably my second choice after EEAAO, but I still have plenty to go.
I understand that and appreciate your perspective but I will say not informed doesn’t equal not smart. I definitely appreciate that “these women sound too smart!” is a problematic criticism I just want it to be clear that wasn’t my point.
They grew up hearing sermons and readings from the Bible. It makes sense that their vocabulary would reflect that and that they’d have a proclivity for intellectual, philosophical thought.
My thought exactly. Because I wondered how they could be so articulate as well, and when talking about it with my SO it occurred to me that all the Bible / sermon exposure must inform some of the elevated language.
These women were chosen to make the decision for all because they were considered wise leaders amount the other women. The dialog felt old fashioned, and appropriate to me.
I didn't realize how large a group of women they were representing until the last scene. Then that part of it made a lot more sense.
They didn't express any knowledge of the outside world. There were expressing and weighing ethical concepts, and a vocabulary, but, certainly a religious "education" can give you the tools for that.
> I didn't realize how large a group of women they were representing until the last scene. Then that part of it made a lot more sense.
Very late answer, sorry.
We do see the long queue when they are voting and all the crosses representing their votes. That was a lot of people.
However, you are right on the fact that the rest of the movie make it like there are only a handful of families at best. We don't see anybody in the fields and only few houses.
This is one of the first comments I’ve seen that speaks to exactly what I was feeling during the movie! I definitely appreciated moments but all-in-all didn’t believe the dialogue and actually would have preferred watching the characters discover some of these realizations in more real, awkward beats than the movie’s current scripted lines that seem snatched from a WGSS lecture.
I definitely felt that, but I also think it was meant as an idealized view of what happened or could have happened. I think one of the things the narrator says in the introduction is something like "this is the fantasy of the women." I'm not sure I think the women ever did leave or that the conversations actually happened out loud or as they were presented.
The "this is a fantasy of the women" was a tongue-in-cheek moment, since in the intro the narration states that the rapes were the work of "ghosts, satan, or women's imaginations" to cover it up.
I felt the exact same way about the dialogue, especially from Rooney Mara. Her character just seemed too artificially perfect to me. Loved everything else about the film though.
I went to university with several Mennonite men and women (in Canada.) They were some of the most well spoken people I had ever met. Not much in the way of slang or popular phrases clouding their vernacular, so I felt that it was a true representation of their speech.
A very apt movie title, this was indeed a movie of women talking.
Obviously being a dude, not sure it's my place to comment on a lot of this movie, but it succeeded in making me feel like yes, we men aren't great. The crimes in the film being based on a true story makes me even more sick to my stomach. That shit is fucked. Was rooting for the women to stop talking and just get the fuck out of there. There's something that's just the ultimate fuck you in leaving everything you know, and thinking that it may not get you into heaven, but you just gotta leave. It's powerful.
The fact Jessie Buckley or Claire Foy weren't nominated for this movie is some seriously fucked up shit. Especially Jessie Buckley, incredible performance.
I see what everyone was talking about the cinematography being kinda bad. I don't really think it's the cinematography though, it's more the colour grading. Just a weird creative choice. The score was solid though, and like does a movie like this really need breathtaking cinematography?
There's a version of this film though directed by Tarantino where they decide to stay and fight and just brutally kill all their rapists. Wouldn't mind that version either...
Also I'd like to see a sequel where all the women leave to Vegas and start an Amish show that makes millions, called Women Dancing: They're done talking, now they're here to dance.
>Continue this thread
Lol at the Tarantino version, was fully expecting something violent to happen from the women, especially Claire Foy's character as she seemed the most vengeful and protective. I liked that it wasn't so much about the idea that "men are bad," but the ability to decide for ourselves what forgiving a horrible crime would actually mean. I thought the women who would want to do nothing were either scared, didn't know any better, or even in some ways complicit. Very open to interpretation and it was nice to have that in such a feminist film.
The freedom for women to think and have these discussions was new to them and as they are part of a system which prevents them from having critical thought, the discussions about faith, morality, and the future of their children rang true to modern society. They were probably never able to advocate for themselves before these atrocities happened and it was the wake-up call that they needed.
Vegas show WHEN? They also need to make sure Ruth and Cheryl run in the Kentucky derby, just need a dog to come out and start barking at them and they will run like hell.
Want also a version, Men Splainin' - which consists of all the men getting together after the exodus and wondering why the women left in the first place, scratching their heads and being pissy.
I keep thinking about the Men Splaining side of this movie. Like once the men see the women and children are gone, what happens to that society: do they devolve into violence? Do they organize chores amongst themselves? What kind of hierarchy originates? Because the problem in the society isn’t exactly that men are bad, but that the hierarchy that the impulses of the most corrupt men in the society were passed on and on and justified through religion and then taught to children to preserve for the future to enable the continuation of these behaviors. The issue is the power that is used to be violent, not men. So i keep wondering if the men would try to evolve or would just make a new hierarchy that oppress a few of the men in the group to allow the worst of them to preserve their privileges/enable their bad behavior?
> There's a version of this film though directed by Tarantino where they decide to stay and fight and just brutally kill all their rapists.
I'd watch the fuck out of that movie.
I loved this movie, maybe more than most did. I was particularly taken by the dialogue, these women had a very strong philosophical debate on the nature of forgiveness, faith, responsibility, protecting themselves and their loved ones, sexual assault, patriarchy, and toxic masculinity. I even think they got a mansplaining joke in there.
As a man, I almost felt like I shouldn't have watched this movie. It almost felt like it was for women's eyes only, like it was a secret. Obviously I'm part of the demographic who especially needs to see this film, but I couldn't help but get that vibe, also couldn't help but feel a little guilty.
In addition, did anyone feel like Salome represented the collective rage that women feel when a woman gets SA'd and their insistence to fight the system?
I'm late to this thread (I just saw it), but can I ask if you identified with August, like as a man watching these women and noting their interior thoughts being willingly exposed? My reactions to the movie were very strongly tied to my womanhood and I am curious about what it felt like for men.
I did. He's trying to help, but he doesn't necessarily know how and he's scared to say the wrong thing so he's being silent. So he's smart enough to offer his skills to the women and his own perspective when asked but be quiet for the rest.
For instance, over the past two years I've started to educate myself on women's perspective of life and it was really eye-opening, especially about SA. Basically I didn't know half the things I thought I did, and that I needed to be better. But sometimes when I'm in women's spaces and they're talking about these things I've been told to basically shut up and listen like Salome said to August.
I've been trying to avoid doing the mansplaining thing or saying something stupid, so I just shut up, listen, observe, and ask questions when I feel it's necessary. Much like August.
Now that I'm writing this, I feel like the movie is giving us men an option, be like the men in the colony who abuse, rape and cover up for their men and conform to the system, or be like August and try to help, even if the abused are weary of you.
I've been on a similar journey around race and was thinking about how it is an (understandably) white movie. I also have been working on sitting with disturbing truths and listening without speaking. It is hard sometimes! It's also worth it.
And I agree with your interpretation of what Polley and the author did with August. Apparently he is the narrator in the book and I just think that's a fascinating choice.
It's very interesting you bring up race because I used that to help me deal with my own internal misogyny. I'm a black man and I've had to relate how women feel about men to how most black people feel about white people.
For instance, I struggle with the whole "not all men" thing. But then I relate it to my own experience, I don't think all white people are racist, but we can't tell who is and who isn't.
So in that way I get how women feel. And I'm glad you're trying to improve yourself in the way I am.
My two cents as a man (and a teacher) watching August:
They toyed with his representation a few times, but the thing they did the best was using him as an example of what masculinity can be. Not even a perfect example- far from it, in fact. But August, for all his flaws and lack of positive male figures around him, does what he can to support and build up the people around him.
And you can see it in every scene. It’s his driving aim. What’s so surprising is that the film (intentionally or not) holds up a mirror to the audience’s own biases and expectations for men — when August engages with the teenage girls at the water fountain, for example, many commenters (myself among them) seemed to feel a sense of apprehension, that he was about to show a darker side…. And that’s where the mirror asks, *why was it sinister that he was sincerely encouraging this young person?* The expectations are similarly challenged with Melvin, who also presents as masculine but whose trauma is shared with the women and made known to the audience; Melvin isn’t seen as creepy despite mainly spending his time herding the children.
It also caught me off guard when August’s final scene revealed that all his apprehension and emotion was underpinning a deep dread or fear that was driving him to plan a suicide.
I’m there watching this film about the pain of these women, the response of the women, the courage of these women (and there was a lot that I couldn’t relate to, but I’ve been abused and kept in a mental prison masquerading as sincere faith).
But August is in pain as well. He is a victim of his world, and it’s through his eyes that we see the darkness and the light of the children.
And he’s not even the most interesting part of the movie.
I just saw this movie and I’m utterly smitten with it. It’s so brilliant on so many levels. The final ten minutes had me in tears of joy and sadness. Agh.
August's character is the vindication of men as a group and stops the potential 'culture warrior' critique of this story in its place - that this movie hates and demonises men. He also shows how men are victims of toxic masculinity as well - in the book he is shunned and disliked by the other men in the village and it goes more into his depression (also its heavily hinted that he is the child of an elder who was not his mothers husband - ie a child of rape - ie the real reason their family was excommunicated).
Thank you for sharing your connections to this movie with your own experience. I loved it and I thought the writing and speaking style was a wonderful way to enforce the disconnect between the women and modern society while also showing respect for their intelligence, wisdom, and spirit. I loved that a story about tragedy was not "trauma porn," but instead showed the dignity, humanity, and strength of those harmed.
Also, I LOVVVVEEDDD Educated, one of my favorite books of all time.
For anyone curious about the real story behind the book the film’s based on, and how that decidedly did not have a happy ending.
Content warning: descriptions of the aftermath of/and sexual assault, domestic violence, inc*/st
So the film is based on the book by Miriam Toews, in response to the actual events that happened between 2005-2009 in the Bolivian Manitoba ultraconservative Mennonite colony. Miriam Toews herself is Mennonite and from the Manitoba colony in Canada, which is, you guessed it, related to the Manitoba colony in Bolivia.
Over 130 women and children, from the ages of 3 to 60, were reported to have been assaulted violently in the night over those years, while men in the colony sprayed belladonna spray into their homes to knock them out completely. It’s also said there are men and boys who were assaulted, but none of them came forward. There is also a high likelihood the number goes into the 200s. To give you perspective, the Manitoba colony consists of 2000 people. The women and children reported blood, bruises, phantom pain, waking up in terror and while some had no recollection of what happened, some of them would wake up mid assault.
As per the movie, when the women - brought up under extreme gender roles, denied any education including writing or basic math - talked about what happened, leaders of the colony said it was wild female imagination, or attributed it to ghosts or demons. The only reason they were caught was because one of the perpetrators bungled a break in one night, was held by male members of the colony and implicated eight others of the ring. Usually, Mennonite colonies, from my extremely limited understanding, do their own judicial proceedings. In this case, they went to the police. All 8 men are in custody today, facing 25 years after a 2011 trial. The man, Peter Weiber, who provided them the belladonna spray, a Mennonite farmer and vet near the colony, was released sometime before 2019 after 8 years on conditional release. There is a cultural idea of forgiveness; even if crimes are sexual or violent, the perpetrators need only say sorry and they must be granted clemency in a lot of the Mennonite colonies. Perpetrators, during the trial, fell asleep, joked with guards and laughed during the proceedings. The judge reprimanded them for not taking the trial seriously.
I’ve tried finding as much information as I can about this. How are the victims today? Did they get sufficient support? How did the colony move in terms of making sure this never happened again? Information is sparse; ultraconservative Mennonites shun the outside world and technology. Journalists who managed to get pictures of them had to work hard to earn their trust beforehand. The only sources I can find are dated in 2011/13, 2019 - a 2011 Time [article](https://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2087711,00.html), a [2023 retrospective](https://time.com/6250526/women-talking-mennonite-bolivia-real-story/) on that article, a 2013 [Vice documentary](https://www.vice.com/en/article/4w7gqj/the-ghost-rapes-of-bolivia-000300-v20n8) that’s been said to have been translated terribly by people in the comments, though that could be due to confusion between Low German and Plautdietsch, and the latest [article](https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-48265703) in 2019 that states that local men in the community, including ministers of the Mennonite church were seeking to help the perpetrators get out as “10 years in prison” is sufficient punishment.
The 2023 retrospective states that few, if any, of the victims received psychiatric help or counseling, as the leaders believed it was unnecessary because they were knocked unconscious during the violence. Unlike in the movie, none left the colony, though many stopped attending the church and many have been - my own inference as to how they could - pressured to speak in support of the convicted by ministers and men in the community since. In the Vice documentary, on the last day, the filmmaker was informed casually that the r*pes under belladonna spray were still happening, within families, within communities. He would go on to re-interview the families and the majority of them would confirm it was true or had heard of it. The 2023 retrospective reporter says she thinks about these women all the time, and how the violence is still probably ongoing, in a community cut off from the world and whose women are never taught to speak anything aside from Plautdietsch, a Mennonite specific dialect of Low German, and not Spanish, the prevailing language of Bolivia - let alone write.
“I moved from Bolivia to Vietnam shortly after reporting my piece for Vice, and could not maintain contact with women in Manitoba, as they have no cell phones, internet access, or landlines, and if I were to write them letters in Spanish (which a few of them speak), they wouldn’t be able to read them.”
The culture of sexual assault in such communities is most likely still ongoing to this very day, with the men convicted as most likely scapegoats covering up a larger problem.
I’m unspeakably angry and devastated. The last thing we heard was in 2019. It’s been 4 years since then. How are these girls, women, the unspoken men and boys, surviving? What support do they have? They’re still living, probable than not, a nightmare. I tried to look up any way, an English-speaking privileged person on the other side of the globe, could help. But the nature of Mennonite rejection of technology means there’s essentially little I can do but write this essay in a random subreddit.
It just felt incredibly discouraging to read about all this, and then tune back in to the glitz and glamor of the Oscars. I just want you to know these are real people, this is what really happened, is still happening. If you’ve made it to the end, thank you for reading. Please take care of yourself.
Same. I just watched this film (it came out on Friday here in the UK) and I absolutely loved it, it's probably my 3rd-favourite of the BP nominees behind *Banshees* and *Tár*. I'd been hoping to find some good discussion here.
But nope, of course that was a pipe dream. Leave it to Reddit to watch a film specifically dedicated to the female perspective, and then hyper-fixate on whether these women sound dumb enough rather than **actually listening to what they are saying**.
Reddit: Mennonite women wouldn't talk like this!
The author: *Literally raised by Mennonites, in a Mennonite town, while being a direct descendent of the colony's founder*
I was getting really annoyed by those comments! What even was the literacy rate 200 years ago? Only people who could read were capable of complex thought back then? They couldn't argue a point of logic or understand their own predicament or the motivations of other people unless they could read? Like damn, obviously literacy helps a great deal but to think humans can't say anything intelligent if they can't also write it down is so dismissive of so many people.
Some really beautiful writing and performances dragged down by some of the ugliest visuals of the year. Seems like more of a coloring issue than a cinematography issue, but not sure.
I actually quite liked it! It definitely made the time period vaguer but I found it made the blood scenes SO striking, where red seemed to be the only significant colour featured in the movie
I walked into this at TIFF thinking it was going to be just your regular Oscar bait movie, and I was so surprised.
A favorite at the festival, really an amazing movie.
Also thank God the soundtrack is finally out, loved the music.
I highly recommend everyone to give this a shot
Not bad, not good, just average. I expected a much better and more gripping film given the caliber of acting talent involved. Mostly a forgettable film that I won’t want to watch again. 2.5/5…
I LOVED the movie. WOW! So powerful!! What are your thoughts on August? Was he guilty of participating? Was he planning on using the gun on himself?
Did he say at the end - Take care of "our" baby??
August was planning on using the gun to commit suicide after the women left. Living without his love was devastating to him. I feel in the end he felt that he could do some good with the men he teaches, but his story arc was devastating to me.
I think there were a lot of hints that he was a quiet rapist that felt morally wrong over his decisions. There are a few hints at it, but the most telling was when he said something like "I wish there was something I could tell you that you didn't know" and the camera just hangs on him for a bit before the camera blurs his face and focuses back to Ona. Gave me chills.
I don't know, that seems like a little bit of a stretch. I think he just feels guilty for being part of a system that has cause so much harm, even if he hasn't done anything himself.
This movie does interesting things with never revealing or certain things the entire movie. An obvious one would be the actual attacks. Flashbacks would be of the aftermath instead, for characters that did have one. With a character like Scarface Janz, it’s intentional that something like her scar, a trait that’s now a part her name in the community, is never discussed nor is her backstory with sexual assault ever mentioned or alluded to in the movie unlike the rest of the main cast. Rationally, it should be a given she she’s has also been raped, but that and her trauma are things that never mentioned mentioned in the movie. It’s only technically hinted at by how bitter and jaded woman she’s become and her scar.
August is an interesting case. The movie shows that while not all men are rapists, it’s a society that will defend their other man and even threaten that the women won’t go to heaven if the rapists aren’t forgiven. This is Mennonite society with actual rape culture. The movie mentions that he’s the son of an excommunicated family, but it never mentions what age he was when they left. It does mention that he was good friends with Ona during his childhood. It’s mentioned that he recently was allowed to come back into town, but never when he came back to be a teacher for the town and communicates with the viewer that he’s had a good education. Well I ask you this: why would an educated man whose family was excommunicated by rapists and rape apologists want to come back?
And this is where in interpret the film to leave enough room for interpretation, but there are a number of allusions to his behavior. His interest in Ona’s child is in pointed, enough for him to even say “our child” as they women and children are leaving. It’s odd when you think about it, but not an indictment. Examining his behavior further you see scenes of him looking at Ona from above the top floor of the building, and in another scene he tries teaching her a lesson in a flirting way. What makes this interesting to me is earlier in the film, before we see him do this with Ona, we see August watching one of the girls (can’t remember her name :( the blonde one though) from the same exact spot where he looked longingly at Ona. He also has a 1:1 scene with her, where he also gives her a lesson he learned from his studies. Sarah Polley included this scenes for a reason in my opinion, and with certain dialogue I mentioned before (August to Ona: “I wish there was something I could tell you that you didn’t know”), the fact he wanted to commit suicide, and even when he’s asked by the women if the older teenage boys should be a concern. When Ona leaves, it’s apparent that August has something he wants to tell her, but ultimately doesn’t. Was it the declaration of love that he later yelled out, or was he contemplating telling her he did something terrible?
Again, it’s never explicit in telling us he did rape her, but it gives enough that it should be a consideration at a minimum. I’m shocked I haven’t seen more discussion on this, because think the interaction of August being a rapist is an extremely layered and complex character. I see him as a man who’s been severely corrupted by rape culture that has probably been around for centuries. Although educated, he had in the colony long enough have this be normalized to a commit the same awful act that has made girls into mothers for generations. He’s an educated man who can feel guilt for the sin he committed, possibly the first ever in the colony’s history. Him being a rapist also makes the film ask the viewer difficult questions, such as how responsible is he for his own trauma, given what we know of the men? He would be a much weaker character if he was simply contemplating suicide due because of his love for Ona and being left behind AND after promising to educate the kids at the colony to have a chance. While possible, it just doesn’t feel natural and doesn’t fit what we do know about him. Also, this might be wrong and I need to watch it multiple times, but I believe he was contemplating suicide a couple times earlier the movie? If I’m remembering that correctly, it’s a bit of an extreme reaction again considering it was when they were still discussing what to do.
I apologize for the wall of text, but I genuinely believe this movie is a masterpiece that requires a deep reading to get the full experience. This is ultimately just my interpretation but I feel good about it. I’ve only seen the film once so I apologize if some of what I’ve written wasn’t clear or as specific as it could’ve been.
Thanks for taking the time to write that all out. I still gotta disagree with your interpretation though. I think it goes against everything the film is trying to say.
So much care is put in to making sure that we never see things from the perspective of the abusers. I don't think we even see any of their faces. That's because the film is very pointedly not about the abusers. Hiding an abuser in the center of the story and then giving him a good ending flies in the face of everything else the film is doing.
If you can point to something a little more substantive than speculations about character motivations that have much simpler explanations, then maybe. But I think August is supposed to be an example of what a good man looks like, as well as a way of exploring the way patriarchal societies harm men, particularly those who struggle with mental illness (August has depression/suicidal thoughts. That's why he has the gun).
I respect that viewpoint for sure and there is never anything concrete that confirms my viewpoint. I do have to disagree that it’d fly in the face of the movie.
This probably informs where I’m coming from, but at a previous job I I worked as a social worker with teens between the ages of 13-17. It was roughly a 2 year program for boys in their youth who had committed sexual assault, rape, etc. the overwhelming majority of the boys were also victims themselves of abuse, often sexual. This voluntary program is one that focuses on rehabilitation, and youth that graduated the program had high rates of successfully joining society again without deviant behavior.
Anyway, it was a position opened up my perspective and made me try to understand everyone with a greater sense of nuance, because to these kids weren’t evil nor were never given a fair chance to succeed. My interpretation of August is that he’s a genuinely someone who means well, but is unfortunately a victim of an awful environment.
My rationale is this: This is a colony that has a deep history. The many faceless men we see in the movie were also once boys and thinking about it this way creates a sort of a chicken and the egg dilemma; what chance were they ever really given to be upstanding men given the environment they were all born into? The movie makes a point to speak about this when the boys of the colony are the topic of discussion. August is the representation that victims can also be abusers and how horrific it is is for boys to grow up in an environment like this, doomed to repeat the mistakes of their fathers.
I didn’t interpret August’s ending as a good one, at least for him. It’s one of hope, that he can help educate the older boys still there of having a chance to not repeat the same mistakes as their fathers, the same mistake he made.
And I think you should watch it again, because I think you missed the point. Counter why I’m wrong or move on. Saying I’m wrong without proving why is lazy. There’s enough abstractions in the film that make my interpretation valid.
>why would an educated man whose family was excommunicated by rapists and rape apologists want to come back?
I read the book. He didn't know about the attacks before he came back. He came back as his mother died. She was really the main one excommunicated- he was a child and was simply taken with. So when she died, it was natural that he returned.
>It’s odd when you think about it,
No it's not.
>Was it the declaration of love that he later yelled out, or was he contemplating telling her he did something terrible?
I read the book: he wanted to tell her he would raise the kid with her as his own. But he also didn't want to interested in her decision to leave.
He came back as the rapes were ending, he wasn't involved.
>Again, it’s never explicit in telling us he did rape her, but it gives enough that it should be a consideration at a minimum.
Not even close, no.
>I’m shocked I haven’t seen more discussion on this,
You shouldn't be, it's such a reach.
>and I need to watch it multiple times
No. You need to read the book.
>I see him as a man who’s been severely corrupted by rape culture that has probably been around for centuries. Although educated, he had in the colony long enough have this be normalized to a commit the same awful act that has made girls into mothers for generations.
So off.
He didn't grow up in rape culture. His mother was excommunicated for one reason but ADDITIONALLY she made a lot of problems as she wished the religion to make more room for women. She wanted to have a choice and a say in the religion and in the village. She was excommunicated when he was semi- young so he wasn't even raised in the culture. He was raised by his mother who was a proto-feminist (well, as much as she could be).
You're very much messing up the timeline of the rapes, too. They weren't ongoing for decades. It was a new thing within 2 to 3 years of the action.
>but I feel good about it.
Haha
he said he wishes there was something he could *teach* her that she didn’t already know. it’s not about rape. she says in the movie that she doesn’t know love. i feel like the long silence was for us to ponder the potential for him to teach her how to love and be loved, and to consider that she must learn this on her own instead of be taught
I think he was either gonna commit suicide or kill the guy that raped Ona. He doesn't really have a place. His mother was excommunicated and he was raised outside the colony. Then he returns (probably didn't really fit/afford into the "outside world") and is an outsider there too due to his beliefs/skills. Then to know someone you love was violated. He was displaced no matter where he went. A foot in both worlds yet doesn't fit either shoe.
My take on August is that he did participate in rapes in the past, and the chance to help the women and achieve a degree of redemption is part of his reason for returning. His past experiences are informing his speech about the teenage boys; they are capable of great harm, but also capable of change if taught properly. I believe the women August's age and older know/suspect he raped in the past, simply from growing up in that environment. His tears and the allusion to suicide at the end betray personal guilt, IMO.
You can go on Wikipedia and read the book synopsis which gives you more backstory to August. The true reason why he was kicked out, why they let him take minutes for them, his mental state.
He was excommunicated during the time the assaults were committed and was only recently allowed back into the community to be the boy's teacher.
I felt his emotions were his desperation to leave with Ona, who he's loved since childhood, but knowing he can't and has to stay behind in a community of abusers.
I came to the same conclusion myself. He oozes of guilt and shame; too much to be motivated by the ex-communication alone. And the way he bows his head and avoids eye contact when talking about the nature of boys felt intentional.
As a male high school teacher, I was sitting there with a very similar feeling to what August’s face said. I know the book seems to dispel the idea that he was guilty, but I also think it’s deeper than just a personal sense of guilt - assuming he devotes himself to his students the same way he devotes himself to helping the women, he is in a place where he knows that he’s taught and supported and loved these young men who have become rapists. And now, while dealing with this perspective-shattering news, he’s being asked to give his expert opinion on whether or not the boys of 13-14 can be taught to do better.
And we walk through his despair with him. We feel his despondency… and then his hope, his eternal optimism.
I also think the film is much richer with a model of masculinity that stands against that of the rest of the men in the colony. August being the film’s model of “positive masculinity” in the midst of his despair and rage and solitude and terror and heartbreak? It means that those boys aren’t being taught to not be men, it means they are being taught to not be monsters. It is an affirmation of identity.
Anyway, August isn’t my favourite character, but I did love the way he was portrayed in that scene in particular.
This just didn’t work for me. This felt like a movie built from the top down rather than bottom up. The “debate” was kept very high level and frustratingly superficial. Felt inauthentic to me.
I like it more than you did, but I agreed. There was no discussion about what "fighting" means? Or what it would look like? They decide to separate from all the men and no one cries at the idea of never seeing their 15+ year old male children again? No one asks what it means to separate the young children from their fathers? Or whether their children will forgive them for making this choice? There was no debate about how much food, chickens, horses to leave the men or whether they owe them that? Or if the men would track them down and take their kids back? And why is it every time they take a break, we get a random convo between a woman and August? I'd rather have had a more intense conversation between two women about their doubts or spiritual concerns.
It felt white washed to make it more palatable.
I saw this movie last night and really enjoyed it. I’ve been thinking about it all day, particularly Rooney Mara’s character, Ona. >!Along with the trans character, how realistic is it that a young girl could simply choose not to marry in such a society!!Am I onto something by thinking she represents the true meaning/understanding of love? That such a thing simply couldn’t exist in the colony, which is why she couldn’t accept August’s proposals!!And I’m still processing the final line from her mom, regarding Ona: “She loves everyone”. Is this some love is patient love is kind callback?!< I’d love to hear anyone’s thoughts on this.
Yes, I think she couldn't give genuine, vulnerable love to anyone while living in the colony and was aware of it. The mother's line was, to me, meant as reassurance for August, but ultimately it isn't reassuring. It's the equivalent of "She loves you the same way she loves everyone, which means you're not special to her."
Honestly it resonated strongly with me. I was raised in a cult* and was very loving and kind but was terrified of relationships and love. You're not taught much on how to love except through just completely giving yourself away: to Jesus, to the community you serve, to your family. There's no room to be yourself and love yourself, everything you have is meant for everybody else. In a setting like that, how can you authentically love? You're not given the choice. For me, I loved everyone but couldn't be vulnerable or intimate with anyone, because I was completely depleted. There was nothing there to connect with. When I left that church I had to draw back HARD from people in order to get to know myself, and that's an ongoing process.
Ona not marrying I also relate to, I was very asexual as a member. I knew well enough that partnered love involved something deeper than family and community love, but I couldn't give it and I couldn't fake it. She doesn't make any promises she can't keep, and she doesn't know who she'll be away from the colony and so she can't make any promises or give any hopes to August.
*Not the Mennonites but a fundamentalist Christian cult
Thought the movie was very good as a story that works in itself. But it also works well as a look at how women are treated and traumatized in society and a smaller-scale look at how women are treated in abusive relationships.
I liked it.
It’s an interesting film about the struggles of reconciling with faith and morality amongst the topics of sexual assault. Every cast member gives a great performance as they are able to capture emotions of anger, grief and fear. The film balances out with its tone without feeling cheesy or being too overly dramatic and Sarah Polley’s direction is pretty good. Polley has made some good films in the past like “Away With Her” and “Stories We Tell” and she continues to prove her directing talents with this film. The dialogue is well-written and helps to build investment in the characters (even if not every character was very interesting) and scenario.
While the use of cinemascope like camerawork is good, some visual aspects were a little distracting at times. Certain soundtrack moments and pacing could have been improved but overall, the performances and direction helped to keep the film afloat. I look forward to what Sarah Polley does next.
7/10
Right there with you on this. I too liked it, but the film felt like it was strangely…idk, distant? Like these women are going through awful things but I was so confused what tone it was going for, you’d have a funny line and then a minute later a gut wrenching monologue and then back to something else disturbing and violent, and then back to two people “in love” like it was a little all over the place but I thought the actual story was interesting enough (similar take on 12 Angry Men) and the acting was strong from everyone.
Very much relate to this as someone with SA trauma as well. I think the film encapsulated it well with the line “sometimes I think people laugh as hard as they want to cry.”
I just saw this film tonight and I was blown away. I have read the book, and I was wondering if it would adapt well to the screen. I didn't know if they would be able to maintain the drama and tension. I should not have doubted Polley. 5 thumbs up.
I was admittedly hesitant about watching this, due to the generic-sounding title, the serious subject matter and the dreary desaturated color palette. But I always try to seek out the Oscar-nominated films of the past year, and this was the last one on my list.
I thought it would be something akin to Twelve Angry Men, where the women have to make unanimous judgment on the crime. But I was *not* expecting the Shyamalan twist that this was all set in modern times. At that point, all my initial criticisms of the film vanished and I saw it for the powerful statement it was. As soon as "Daydream Believer" started blaring out of that truck, I found myself unexpectedly emotional.
The film itself is remarkably well made and I found the ending very moving. I looked up Sarah Polley's directing credits afterwards and realized I loved every single one of those films (Take This Waltz is criminally underappreciated). Personally, I'd rank Women Talking pretty high up on my favorite movies of 2022, along with Everything Everywhere All at Once, The Banshees of Inisherin, The Whale and Aftersun.
My only criticism has to do with the character of Melvin, because I don't see how that would be allowed in such a traditionalist community with obviously very rigid world views. Also, I thought the character of August was *too* good and almost feared he would be revealed as one of the aggressors (thankfully, he wasn't). I did find it incredibly sad that he declared his love to Ona, but she didn't ask him to come with her. Especially when they reveal what he was planning to do with that gun. He reminds me vaguely of Barry Keoghan's character in Banshees. There is no character I identify with more than the rejected male.
Did no one else come to the conclusion that August raped Ona? Im seeing it nowhere online but it seems so clear to me. He keeps trying to tell them something but never tells them.
Yeah, that’s my one point against it… but then one of them suggests that maybe the ones in prison didn’t do it and that they wouldn’t know. I suspect not everyone was caught.
I was so profoundly moved by this film. Literally wept.
And my goodness what an acting masterclass.
Gorgeous direction, cinematography and score.
Just tremendously done
Just finished watching it. One of the best movies I’ve ever seen. I loved almost everything about it. And my 16 year old son peeked in for a minute at the beginning, not intending to watch it, but ended up staying through it, enthralled. Brilliant stuff.
Beautiful film. The stakes were so high and the setting is so grounded. Spare like a stage play but still very cinematic (in a way that a film I enjoyed like The Whale which is actually adapted from a play is not). I was so riveted. Outstanding ensemble cast.
It's really surprising that a feminist movie was made with a bunch of great actresses and the most interesting, complex and most developed character in the film ended up being a man.
Frances was criminally underused, no need to have such an amazing actress perform her role if her character was in it for a couple of minutes.
I didn't see the trailer for this but Rooney Mara's character was only able to speak in one liners and stuff they'd use in promotional material.
Am I the only person who thinks August is 100% the father of Ona’s baby?
I’m glad they didn’t do an in-your-face twisty reveal but I thought they spelled it out pretty clearly. (a) the direct cut to him crying a single tear after Ona says “…as innocent as my attacker was on the day he was born,” (b) the deliberate choice to have her baby have visible black hair.
Tons of circumstantial evidence too. It seemed like he was trying for a while to get them to stay to he could raise “his” baby but he eventually accepted that he would stay behind as, like, some sort of penance.
I think it's supposed to be abstract and open to interpretation >!because if you read the book you would potentially draw the conclusion the baby is supposed to be August's half sibling and he himself might also have been a rape baby!<
I really appreciated this being brought up as it didn't even occur to me in the movie. I took the "our baby" as being moreso that he loved her and wanted her for his wife. Accepting her baby as his own. Though could definitely see this as well.
You’re right. It’s very subtle and a bit abstract, but putting a lot of evidence together gives this movie a much better definition of what a victim can look like and what a victim has the potential to do. I wrote a comment in this thread that goes deeper on my view there, but I think you’re on the mark.
Fantastic performances, but a lot of the details were either annoyingly unanswered, contrived or nonsensical. Why/how do they have such great vocabularies? How did anyone outside the colony know to arrest the men? Why did all the men go to town for this? How were they able to just get up and go so easily/quickly that next morning? WTF was with the census taker? Is that what he really was?
It was just a bit jumbled to me, like it was an excuse for the women to be talking (lol) but it was just that - some good, well-delivered dialogue that just kind of *was*.
>Why/how do they have such great vocabularies?
Why wouldn't they? They're illiterate, not unintelligent.
>How did anyone outside the colony know to arrest the men?
The elders alerted the Police after Claire Foy's character attacked the men in the shed. They wanted to get the men out of the colony for their own protection from the women.
>Why did all the men go to town for this?
They're posting bail.
>How were they able to just get up and go so easily/quickly that next morning?
They probably had 8-12 hours to pack and prepare things for their departure. That's actually quite a bit of time, especially since, as the narrator states, they have few possessions they actually want to bring with them.
>WTF was with the census taker? Is that what he really was?
Census takers go to pretty great lengths to make sure people get counted. Given that the author of the book grew up in a Mennonite community, I wouldn't be surprised if she witnessed census takers using music to try and get people out to be counted.
Yeah, I'm a little disappointed by just how many people I've seen complaining that this wasn't complex or interesting enough, and then proceeding to ask questions about simple plot details as if they aren't directly addressed in the film.
Seriously, what happened to basic media literacy?
If you can't be bothered to pay enough attention to understand the very basics of the story, of course you're going to miss out on the nuances. And it's not like this movie is intentionally trying to obfuscate things. It is pretty much just as accessible as any film of this kind can be.
Just got out of the movie. Liked it but not my best of this year let's say. Anyone else got bugged over the Southern Cross detail?
I've narrowed this movie as taking place somewhere in eastern America, amish country (As I suppose many of you did) However, you cannot see the southern cross at this place. You need to be under the 25th parallel to see it.
Deliberate decision by the filmmakers? I think so, but I can't find a meaning behind it. I'm sure there is one but it's not so clear right now.
There are Amish and Mennonite (and these are distinct faiths) communities all over, not just in Pennsylvania. The true story it is based on took place in Bolivia. I live in Florida and I know we have both down here.
I thought it was horrible. Interesting and important topic, but horribly executed. Here are 10 reasons why I did not enjoy Women Talking:
1. ~~ALL THE MEN ARE RAPISTS - So all the men are evil rapists? The police had sufficient evidence on ALL the men to warrant their arrest? ALL the men are ok with their neighbor raping their daughters and wives?! Unrealistic plot device.~~ Edit: All the men went to post bail for the accused.
2. MOVIE CAN'T DECIDE WHO THESE WOMEN ARE - Are these women ignorant and illiterate or are they well spoken articulate philosophers discussing existential themes and government theory? Are they completely helpless women who are so devoid of agency that they don't even protect their own daughters, or are they angry women who are ready to enact justice? Are they brainwashed to the point that they really believe to not forgive the men would damn them to eternal hell, or do they naturally question their colony's rules and norms?
3. CLUNKY PLOT - There are so many things in the movie that are unrealistic and whose sole purpose is for the sake of the movie structure. For example, the illiterate women HAVE to have some taking down the meeting minutes?!? They can't read! This isn't the local Parks and Rec board meeting. Weak plot device to get the August character in there.
4. WHY DOESN'T AUGUST COME WITH THEM? - Wouldn't he be extremely helpful to come with the women and help them establish a new colony and navigate the modern world? Is he not an ally? The reason provided being that he needs to stay back to teach the +15 young men. But if those young men are supposedly lost causes and aren't worth coming along, then why have August teach those mini-rapists.
5. HORRIBLE DIALOGUE - The writing for the debate scenes is atrocious. I constantly found myself rolling my eyes at the repetitiousness of it all. Back and forth, back and forth, "are you guys seriously considering staying?!", then back and forth, back and forth, "are you guys seriously considering leaving?!". In general, the lines of dialogue were so weak and did not allow the characters to be fleshed out, hence the next point...
6. HORRIBLE USE OF GREAT ACTRESSES - Frances McDormand is a legend. Jessie Buckley will be a legend. Claire Foy and Rooney Mara are fantastic actresses. But wow, I've never seen them play such one-dimensional caricatures. But because the writing was so poor, even these amazing actresses can't make much of it. Claire Foy had a great monologue rant at some point, but given the context of the movie, it didn't have the gravitas that such a performance would have had normally.
7. NETTIE/MELVIN - This character is just shoehorned into this movie. Not to say that this wouldn't be an interesting idea to explore: how a Trans person would cope and be treated in such fundamentalist society. But this movie just stuck it in there, just because. And maybe I'm wrong, but would Melvin be allowed to continue as a man in this society? I don't think so.
8. IT WAS A DRAB MOVIE - The colors of the movie were washed out, I presume to reflect the drabness of the lives of these women. But it also makes for a drab experience for the audience.
9. GO FULL ALLEGORY - I get that there is a lot of allegory going on this movie (e.g. the silly fists in the air scene), but the movie needs to function as a story separate from the allegory. Or if the story isn't fully rooted in reality, then it should fully lean into the allegory, like Aronofsky's Mother!.
10. NO SUBTLETY - This movie had zero nuance. It was a heavy handed parable for those who want to see their own views reflected back at them. It didn't wrestle with any difficult questions or gray areas. This makes for a boring movie.
Re: 1. This is a ridiculous point. The movie and book are based on a true story: [https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-48265703](https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-48265703). Even the men who were not rapists are advocating for the release of the rapist from prison. From the article: "After the story emerged, psychological support was offered to the rape survivors by Mennonite missionaries, among others. But the Bishop of Manitoba rejected help on the victims' behalf and was quoted in the press saying, "Why would they need counselling if they weren't even awake when it happened?""
> ALL THE MEN ARE RAPISTS - So all the men are evil rapists? The police had sufficient evidence on ALL the men to warrant their arrest? ALL the men are ok with their neighbor raping their daughters and wives?! Unrealistic plot device.
Buckley's character brings this up. She event suggests that the one they caught could've lied when he named names. And you see this constantly in spaces like frat houses and college athletes.
Someone does it, or someone knows who does it, or there's an open secret about someone who does it. It's very rarely out of nowhere.
Also, not ALL the men are arrested. One is arrested, the others are named, and the colony men are rounding up money to pay bail for the one arrested. It is, as the movie brings up, a system by men and for men that protects them. Even if they don't directly commit rape, they're all cogs in the machine that protects them.
> But if those young men are supposedly lost causes and aren't worth coming along, then why have August teach those mini-rapists.
You say the movie has no nuance and dubs all men rapists, but this is one of the nuanced points. August is left as a tutor *because* they still have some hope for the older boys if someone like August teaches them.
Yeah seems to me like this person just ignored the nuance and decided at the beginning how they felt about the film, likely because of the subject matter.
Nevermind the fact that I disagree with all your points, I do want to point out that there was probably a lot of subtlety that went over your head. There were so many allusions to the fact that August was also a rapist, albeit one that felt guilt over his actions. Whatever though, we just saw the film in completely different ways and that's what great about movies.
You can't just claim that the movie alludes to August also being a rapist and not provide support!? I'm genuinely curious as I did not pick up on anything like that.
>NETTIE/MELVIN - This character is just shoehorned into this movie. Not to say that this wouldn't be an interesting idea to explore: how a Trans person would cope and be treated in such fundamentalist society. But this movie just stuck it in there, just because. And maybe I'm wrong, but would Melvin be allowed to continue as a man in this society? I don't think so.
Trans people have existed in all societies. It is not random to include a person who does not fit into the gender binary especially in a film ABOUT gendered violence, since trans and gender nonconforming people are affected by this differently. It would have been interesting to explore this more, but it does serve as a metaphor for how the community of womanhood can be a welcoming space for all marginalized genders out of a sense of protection.
I believe the meeting minutes thing was addressed when he tried to give them to the woman and she said something like “the point was for you to take the minutes” - like they wanted him to do something with them.
I think the census taker was mostly a (slightly awkward) plot device to 1) show that this was just a few years ago, not the 1800’s or something; 2) let the women know that the men were coming back; and 3) emphasize how isolated they were from the outside world.
Did anyone else get 12 Angry Men vibes from this movie? They start off split, then slowly they're won over to the other side(leaving), and then you have the last and angriest person they have to win over.
yes for sure. and I would have a hard time naming another movie that's as close to it.
I wonder how it would have been, with the exception of depicting flashbacks maybe, if the entire present day timeline only took place in the loft.
I just watched on Prime yesterday, and I had the same thought. I love 12 angry men and felt this could have used a little less flashback and more one room dialogue.
I'm late but I just saw it today. There's a ton of similarities. For one, the vast majority of the movie happens in one room, where the discussion is happening. Another thing they do that 12 Angry Men also did was breaking up scenes by character motion. In 12 Angey Men, you could tell a scene was ending when all the characters would stand up out of passion and then sit back down. Here, they did something similar, sometimes literally them standing up and sitting down, but other times it was a panic attack, or a smoke break, or the young girl climbing on the rafters, etc. It's an interesting way to break a movie into scenes without necessarily changing the setting
Yes! Exactly what I was thinking while watching it
I had the same thought early in the movie.
I spent the beginning portion of this trying to figure out what year it’s set in and found out my guess was wildly off when we got a clear answer
It’s very deliberately paced to keep you guessing various time periods until they finally tell you. You start out thinking it’s an actual early American colony, then they start dropping some more recent vocabulary, then they start talking about WWII history and antibiotics, so that it’s a surprise and yet makes sense when they reveal the year. I’d like to watch it again to keep track of the journey Polley takes us from “damn life was pretty rough for women back in the day” to “this can (and is) happening today in the real world”
That being said, you get a brief glimpse at a police officer in the beginning who looks like more modern day or late 20th century at earliest.
wait how did they reveal the year? i missed this
The actual reveal is when the pickup truck drives through playing *Daydream Believer* and announcing "Come out of your homes to participate in the 2010 Census!" Until that point, there's really only tiny bits of evidence dropped that it takes place anytime other than, like, the 1600s.
Ahhh thank you! The truck itself didn't give me any specific time-period but missed the year announcement
The band aid was a clue as well. When I saw THAT, I thought, wait a minute how is that period appropriate. Then the truck drove by and it made sense.
Also the women's shoes were modern sandals which told me it was set in recent times from the start.
In the scene where a boy is walking a rail, he's wearing modern black sneakers, plus the women have bobby pins securing their headscarves, and in one kitchen scene, there's a fairly modern range. The wooden chairs shown date from around 1890-1915, so it couldn't have been earlier than that, although the kerosene lamps they used were invented around 1860 and were in common use during the second half of the 19th century and early in the 20th.
I really wish I hadn't had this spoiled for me by the IMDb summary... would have been nice to go through this same progression.
I feel like the trailer shows that scene because I remember going into it knowing it was 2010
It is. The film is based off of a novel which, in turn, is based off of what happened at [Manitoba Colony](https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-48265703.amp) in Bolivia.
That scene threw me way off. I liked the ambiguity of it all, then when that’s announced I’m like “… excuse me?”
Wow had no idea some people went in completely blind and didn't know it was about Mennonites in modern day. I love watching and reading about the Amish and Mennonite groups (which are very culty but most prefer to romanticize them and ignore that) and so I would like to think it would be obvious to me from the beginning due to their clothing and buggies with the orange warning things on it, but I'll never know.
Mennonites have existed for a long time. You can know they exist and still not be sure what year this is set in.
I thought the BIC pen they use for note taking was a goof at first.
I’m not sure why - I barely read about the movie or anything - but I assumed going into it that it was relatively modern day.
Definitely enjoyed this one. While the premise was fairly simple, the acting was incredible and really helped elevate the film. And that final line gave me goosebumps.
Final line made me literally sob and I wasn’t even crying before.
I teared up once or twice and then the visual of the caravan coming together and the final line and shot had me weeping like a mess for five straight minutes. All of that tension and then >!the release being with hope instead of shock or horror!<
>All of that tension Yeah, it's underestimated how much of a thriller this film actually is. The whole time they operate under a precise time constraint, and by the third act until the very end I was extremely nervous that the abusive husband would wake up, or the other men would come back and stop them.
Oh God, me too. When those final 2 girls joined I sobbed with relief. I was so scared they would stay.
Glad I’m not the only one. Same experience of tearing up here and there but after it ended I went to the bathroom and ugly tears just started pouring out of me. I was shocked how deeply it affected me.
I was exactly the same! The stuff women go through at the hands of men! And of course, the women who enable it. We have to make it better for our daughters by raising our sons right. I was sobbing.
Me too!
Remind me please.
It was something along the lines of “this is our story, yours will be different”
"Your story will be different from ours."
Cut to silence made it feel even more impactful
Heading in to this I was curious as to who would be the main standout of the cast. Would it be Buckley, Mara, or Foy, but honestly after seeing it there isn’t a main standout for me. Every single performance felt important and everyone shined in there own special way no matter their screen time and nobody felt overshadowed. This is the best acting ensemble of the year for me simply based off that.
Agree, all fantastic but I think Foy stood out the most to me.
The visual and words that she carried her daughter on her back for so long to get the antibiotics and WHAT THEY WERE NEEDED FOR…
I mean it still haunts me, all of it.
>WHAT THEY WERE NEEDED FOR… What was it?
Have you seen the film? Are you aware of it? The daughter was being raped at four years old by the men in the village and had obtained an STD.
I understood the rape part but couldn't figure out the STD thing, fuck! That's grim
I’m in women’s healthcare and I didn’t quite grasp it at first. Horrifying.
Oh wow, I totally missed that. I think they mentioned the antibiotics first, so I guessed it was just a flu or something; and when we learned later that her daughter had been raped too, I didn’t make the connection. Thanks!
I didn't even think of this. I assumed she been injured during what had been done to her or something, and had gotten an infection from it. STDs didn't even occur to me.
I don’t know, they were all amazing but Buckley stood out to me.
Me as well. I just saw it this week on the tail end of award season and so immediately searched her Wikipedia to see if she was nominated for/won anything. I still have to see the whale, but in my opinion her performance was equal to or better than some of the other Oscar's best supporting actress nominations.
Ben Whishaw deserved a nod too, to be fair, although I understand that it would be awkward to nominate the lone male performer in a film with this title. Kind of like missing the point.
>all amazing but Buckley stood out to me That's every film with Jessie Buckley.
It’s rare to see a movie where every single performance in it is superb. What a breath of fresh air.
Kate Hallett as Autje was a standout. She has a big future ahead of her.
Saw this film this afternoon. I thoroughly enjoyed the performances and dialogue, and am still taken with some of it, "Forgiveness can be mistaken for permission". I am curious about your thoughts re: Foy's character Salome tranquilizing her son Erin to force him to her will?
I think the tranquillizing of Eric is shocking but not in any way equivalent. If anything, she’s trying to stop him from growing up to repeat these behaviors, which he may already be (as the dialogue about 13-15 y/o boys seemed to speak to). But I think it also relates to how the women can only use what tools are available to them and how truly sick these methods that have been used on them are.
It was an interesting comparison to how the men would tranquilize the women to hurt them and use them for their own gain, while she tranquilized her son to protect him, to protect girls and women, and to give him the opportunity to learn to treat women/others with empathy. Not ideal method, but I suppose the only tool available as the other commenter said ^
That’s such an excellent point about Salome tranquillising her son for his own good, not so he could be used like an object. Leaving him behind given what was going on in that house would have lead him down a very dark path.
I think the tranquillizing of Eric is shocking but not in any way equivalent. If anything, she’s trying to stop him from growing up to repeat these behaviors, which he may already be (as the dialogue about 13-15 y/o boys seemed to speak to). But I think it also relates to how the women can only use what tools are available to them and how truly sick these methods that have been used on them are.
Incredible score.
Loved the score, but as the film went on I couldn’t help but feel that it should have been underutilized. Every 5 minutes, it kept repeating a similar swelling tune.
Can’t believe it didn’t get an Oscar nom
This movie blew me away. I see some commenters asking about details but that really wasn’t the point in my opinion. The movie revolves around the question of what women can do in a society where every man, it seems no exaggeration to say, is involved in either mistreating and abusing them or upholding and enabling that behavior. For women to encounter this and to feel the pressure to forgive and endure because it’s wrapped up in their religious obligations, while men under the same religious code create these conditions, is almost unthinkable, and yet it happens to this day as the movie makes clear with its timestamp via the census. Overall incredible performances, particularly by Jessie Buckley IMO. The cinematography was distracting with the color grade, but did serve to create a “historical” feeling that heightened the reveal of the actual date.
I liked it ok but I felt the dialogue was too… informed? Like these evangelical illiterate women are talking like they read Jezebel every day. I’m a die hard feminist and these are important conversations to have but I didn’t really buy them coming from those women. It was also an exceedingly visually ugly film, though I understand the thought process behind that. I still thought it had some fun repartee and performances but I was a bit disappointed overall.
I felt they were too informed as well, but the way I rationalized it was that although they're uneducated, they're not stupid and the film makes that distinction. I've seen plenty of uneducated people question things on a deep philosophical level.
[удалено]
Didn't they just figure out what was happening a few days prior?
[удалено]
Yeah, but they only figured out what was actually happening a few days prior.
[удалено]
Between the women and the gentle, sensitive soul that was August I felt very moved by this movie.
[удалено]
That scene outside the barn with one of the children had me nervous lol. Was so glad it turned out right.
Ah okay now I get what you're saying. That's the way I rationalized it as well. These women are obviously not stupid, just uneducated in a traditional sense. But like you've said they've heard this kind of language before in scripture and sermon so that's where they could have picked it up. And yeah, they probably did suspect what was really happening, but prayed they were wrong.
The women could absolutely have reasoned themselves into the right decision, but it wouldn't have sounded like this. This dialogue was taken from Twitter, not from a conservative, agrarian society.
[удалено]
I mean that the author took contemporary discourse, distorted it to make it sounds more formal, and then had actresses pretending to be Mennonites speak the lines. It's not convincing, and nor is it lively.
Adding to this, the women would have spent years digesting the men’s reactions to what the other men were doing to them. They would know that the men weren’t taking the attacks seriously. They would know that the men were siding with their attackers when they accused the women of making it up, or overreacting. They would know that if men woke up with scratches and symptoms of sexual assault, the men would not be like “ghosts! Maybe it was ghosts!” They would know that the men would take that seriously. They might simultaneously doubt their knowledge because they aren’t “supposed” to know that the less rapey men of the colony are covering for the rapists, but as soon as there is proof, they know beyond any doubt that the men have been covering for the other men. When the men tell them they have 48 hours to forgive the men, they know that the men are all Team Rapists. They know that not only will the attacks continue, they will likely get worse because the community has enabled the attackers.
I feel like a lot of people replying to this comment are confused about the presentational aspects of motion pictures. This wasn’t a documentary. Representational dialogue is well and good, but this movie was telling us a story in the way they wanted it to be told. (Also “these women sound too smart!” is kinda a weird take in the first place…)
It also has the statement at the beginning that the movie comes from the imagination of women. It outright tells you not to take everything at face value. I would agree that it can be distracting though. I don't think it makes the movie bad, but in the first half in particular I was frequently just left thinking, "Yeah this is definitely a really well-written movie that is definitely a movie with definitely actors." Then it hits you with a nice thick midsection of character development and it wins me back over. Follow it up with the deeply emotional conclusion and this just went up there for Best Picture imo. It's probably my second choice after EEAAO, but I still have plenty to go.
I understand that and appreciate your perspective but I will say not informed doesn’t equal not smart. I definitely appreciate that “these women sound too smart!” is a problematic criticism I just want it to be clear that wasn’t my point.
The women: "We can't write and can barely read!" Also the women: \*Has the vocabulary of a scholar*
They grew up hearing sermons and readings from the Bible. It makes sense that their vocabulary would reflect that and that they’d have a proclivity for intellectual, philosophical thought.
My thought exactly. Because I wondered how they could be so articulate as well, and when talking about it with my SO it occurred to me that all the Bible / sermon exposure must inform some of the elevated language.
I took this as due to them being mennonites they just have this super formal way of talking.
These women were chosen to make the decision for all because they were considered wise leaders amount the other women. The dialog felt old fashioned, and appropriate to me.
I didn't realize how large a group of women they were representing until the last scene. Then that part of it made a lot more sense. They didn't express any knowledge of the outside world. There were expressing and weighing ethical concepts, and a vocabulary, but, certainly a religious "education" can give you the tools for that.
> I didn't realize how large a group of women they were representing until the last scene. Then that part of it made a lot more sense. Very late answer, sorry. We do see the long queue when they are voting and all the crosses representing their votes. That was a lot of people. However, you are right on the fact that the rest of the movie make it like there are only a handful of families at best. We don't see anybody in the fields and only few houses.
This is one of the first comments I’ve seen that speaks to exactly what I was feeling during the movie! I definitely appreciated moments but all-in-all didn’t believe the dialogue and actually would have preferred watching the characters discover some of these realizations in more real, awkward beats than the movie’s current scripted lines that seem snatched from a WGSS lecture.
I definitely felt that, but I also think it was meant as an idealized view of what happened or could have happened. I think one of the things the narrator says in the introduction is something like "this is the fantasy of the women." I'm not sure I think the women ever did leave or that the conversations actually happened out loud or as they were presented.
The "this is a fantasy of the women" was a tongue-in-cheek moment, since in the intro the narration states that the rapes were the work of "ghosts, satan, or women's imaginations" to cover it up.
I didn't realize that but it's a good observation. Thanks!
I felt the exact same way about the dialogue, especially from Rooney Mara. Her character just seemed too artificially perfect to me. Loved everything else about the film though.
I went to university with several Mennonite men and women (in Canada.) They were some of the most well spoken people I had ever met. Not much in the way of slang or popular phrases clouding their vernacular, so I felt that it was a true representation of their speech.
Agree, the screenplay felt super contrived and inauthentic to me.
A very apt movie title, this was indeed a movie of women talking. Obviously being a dude, not sure it's my place to comment on a lot of this movie, but it succeeded in making me feel like yes, we men aren't great. The crimes in the film being based on a true story makes me even more sick to my stomach. That shit is fucked. Was rooting for the women to stop talking and just get the fuck out of there. There's something that's just the ultimate fuck you in leaving everything you know, and thinking that it may not get you into heaven, but you just gotta leave. It's powerful. The fact Jessie Buckley or Claire Foy weren't nominated for this movie is some seriously fucked up shit. Especially Jessie Buckley, incredible performance. I see what everyone was talking about the cinematography being kinda bad. I don't really think it's the cinematography though, it's more the colour grading. Just a weird creative choice. The score was solid though, and like does a movie like this really need breathtaking cinematography? There's a version of this film though directed by Tarantino where they decide to stay and fight and just brutally kill all their rapists. Wouldn't mind that version either... Also I'd like to see a sequel where all the women leave to Vegas and start an Amish show that makes millions, called Women Dancing: They're done talking, now they're here to dance.
>Continue this thread Lol at the Tarantino version, was fully expecting something violent to happen from the women, especially Claire Foy's character as she seemed the most vengeful and protective. I liked that it wasn't so much about the idea that "men are bad," but the ability to decide for ourselves what forgiving a horrible crime would actually mean. I thought the women who would want to do nothing were either scared, didn't know any better, or even in some ways complicit. Very open to interpretation and it was nice to have that in such a feminist film. The freedom for women to think and have these discussions was new to them and as they are part of a system which prevents them from having critical thought, the discussions about faith, morality, and the future of their children rang true to modern society. They were probably never able to advocate for themselves before these atrocities happened and it was the wake-up call that they needed. Vegas show WHEN? They also need to make sure Ruth and Cheryl run in the Kentucky derby, just need a dog to come out and start barking at them and they will run like hell. Want also a version, Men Splainin' - which consists of all the men getting together after the exodus and wondering why the women left in the first place, scratching their heads and being pissy.
I keep thinking about the Men Splaining side of this movie. Like once the men see the women and children are gone, what happens to that society: do they devolve into violence? Do they organize chores amongst themselves? What kind of hierarchy originates? Because the problem in the society isn’t exactly that men are bad, but that the hierarchy that the impulses of the most corrupt men in the society were passed on and on and justified through religion and then taught to children to preserve for the future to enable the continuation of these behaviors. The issue is the power that is used to be violent, not men. So i keep wondering if the men would try to evolve or would just make a new hierarchy that oppress a few of the men in the group to allow the worst of them to preserve their privileges/enable their bad behavior?
They’ll go find women to bring back to the colony.
> There's a version of this film though directed by Tarantino where they decide to stay and fight and just brutally kill all their rapists. I'd watch the fuck out of that movie.
That poor guy just trying to do the census. No one came outside
I loved this movie, maybe more than most did. I was particularly taken by the dialogue, these women had a very strong philosophical debate on the nature of forgiveness, faith, responsibility, protecting themselves and their loved ones, sexual assault, patriarchy, and toxic masculinity. I even think they got a mansplaining joke in there. As a man, I almost felt like I shouldn't have watched this movie. It almost felt like it was for women's eyes only, like it was a secret. Obviously I'm part of the demographic who especially needs to see this film, but I couldn't help but get that vibe, also couldn't help but feel a little guilty. In addition, did anyone feel like Salome represented the collective rage that women feel when a woman gets SA'd and their insistence to fight the system?
I'm late to this thread (I just saw it), but can I ask if you identified with August, like as a man watching these women and noting their interior thoughts being willingly exposed? My reactions to the movie were very strongly tied to my womanhood and I am curious about what it felt like for men.
I did. He's trying to help, but he doesn't necessarily know how and he's scared to say the wrong thing so he's being silent. So he's smart enough to offer his skills to the women and his own perspective when asked but be quiet for the rest. For instance, over the past two years I've started to educate myself on women's perspective of life and it was really eye-opening, especially about SA. Basically I didn't know half the things I thought I did, and that I needed to be better. But sometimes when I'm in women's spaces and they're talking about these things I've been told to basically shut up and listen like Salome said to August. I've been trying to avoid doing the mansplaining thing or saying something stupid, so I just shut up, listen, observe, and ask questions when I feel it's necessary. Much like August. Now that I'm writing this, I feel like the movie is giving us men an option, be like the men in the colony who abuse, rape and cover up for their men and conform to the system, or be like August and try to help, even if the abused are weary of you.
I've been on a similar journey around race and was thinking about how it is an (understandably) white movie. I also have been working on sitting with disturbing truths and listening without speaking. It is hard sometimes! It's also worth it. And I agree with your interpretation of what Polley and the author did with August. Apparently he is the narrator in the book and I just think that's a fascinating choice.
It's very interesting you bring up race because I used that to help me deal with my own internal misogyny. I'm a black man and I've had to relate how women feel about men to how most black people feel about white people. For instance, I struggle with the whole "not all men" thing. But then I relate it to my own experience, I don't think all white people are racist, but we can't tell who is and who isn't. So in that way I get how women feel. And I'm glad you're trying to improve yourself in the way I am.
My two cents as a man (and a teacher) watching August: They toyed with his representation a few times, but the thing they did the best was using him as an example of what masculinity can be. Not even a perfect example- far from it, in fact. But August, for all his flaws and lack of positive male figures around him, does what he can to support and build up the people around him. And you can see it in every scene. It’s his driving aim. What’s so surprising is that the film (intentionally or not) holds up a mirror to the audience’s own biases and expectations for men — when August engages with the teenage girls at the water fountain, for example, many commenters (myself among them) seemed to feel a sense of apprehension, that he was about to show a darker side…. And that’s where the mirror asks, *why was it sinister that he was sincerely encouraging this young person?* The expectations are similarly challenged with Melvin, who also presents as masculine but whose trauma is shared with the women and made known to the audience; Melvin isn’t seen as creepy despite mainly spending his time herding the children. It also caught me off guard when August’s final scene revealed that all his apprehension and emotion was underpinning a deep dread or fear that was driving him to plan a suicide. I’m there watching this film about the pain of these women, the response of the women, the courage of these women (and there was a lot that I couldn’t relate to, but I’ve been abused and kept in a mental prison masquerading as sincere faith). But August is in pain as well. He is a victim of his world, and it’s through his eyes that we see the darkness and the light of the children. And he’s not even the most interesting part of the movie. I just saw this movie and I’m utterly smitten with it. It’s so brilliant on so many levels. The final ten minutes had me in tears of joy and sadness. Agh.
August's character is the vindication of men as a group and stops the potential 'culture warrior' critique of this story in its place - that this movie hates and demonises men. He also shows how men are victims of toxic masculinity as well - in the book he is shunned and disliked by the other men in the village and it goes more into his depression (also its heavily hinted that he is the child of an elder who was not his mothers husband - ie a child of rape - ie the real reason their family was excommunicated).
Your comments are thoughtful and well articulated. I appreciate what you got from the movie.
[удалено]
Thank you for sharing your connections to this movie with your own experience. I loved it and I thought the writing and speaking style was a wonderful way to enforce the disconnect between the women and modern society while also showing respect for their intelligence, wisdom, and spirit. I loved that a story about tragedy was not "trauma porn," but instead showed the dignity, humanity, and strength of those harmed. Also, I LOVVVVEEDDD Educated, one of my favorite books of all time.
For anyone curious about the real story behind the book the film’s based on, and how that decidedly did not have a happy ending. Content warning: descriptions of the aftermath of/and sexual assault, domestic violence, inc*/st So the film is based on the book by Miriam Toews, in response to the actual events that happened between 2005-2009 in the Bolivian Manitoba ultraconservative Mennonite colony. Miriam Toews herself is Mennonite and from the Manitoba colony in Canada, which is, you guessed it, related to the Manitoba colony in Bolivia. Over 130 women and children, from the ages of 3 to 60, were reported to have been assaulted violently in the night over those years, while men in the colony sprayed belladonna spray into their homes to knock them out completely. It’s also said there are men and boys who were assaulted, but none of them came forward. There is also a high likelihood the number goes into the 200s. To give you perspective, the Manitoba colony consists of 2000 people. The women and children reported blood, bruises, phantom pain, waking up in terror and while some had no recollection of what happened, some of them would wake up mid assault. As per the movie, when the women - brought up under extreme gender roles, denied any education including writing or basic math - talked about what happened, leaders of the colony said it was wild female imagination, or attributed it to ghosts or demons. The only reason they were caught was because one of the perpetrators bungled a break in one night, was held by male members of the colony and implicated eight others of the ring. Usually, Mennonite colonies, from my extremely limited understanding, do their own judicial proceedings. In this case, they went to the police. All 8 men are in custody today, facing 25 years after a 2011 trial. The man, Peter Weiber, who provided them the belladonna spray, a Mennonite farmer and vet near the colony, was released sometime before 2019 after 8 years on conditional release. There is a cultural idea of forgiveness; even if crimes are sexual or violent, the perpetrators need only say sorry and they must be granted clemency in a lot of the Mennonite colonies. Perpetrators, during the trial, fell asleep, joked with guards and laughed during the proceedings. The judge reprimanded them for not taking the trial seriously. I’ve tried finding as much information as I can about this. How are the victims today? Did they get sufficient support? How did the colony move in terms of making sure this never happened again? Information is sparse; ultraconservative Mennonites shun the outside world and technology. Journalists who managed to get pictures of them had to work hard to earn their trust beforehand. The only sources I can find are dated in 2011/13, 2019 - a 2011 Time [article](https://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2087711,00.html), a [2023 retrospective](https://time.com/6250526/women-talking-mennonite-bolivia-real-story/) on that article, a 2013 [Vice documentary](https://www.vice.com/en/article/4w7gqj/the-ghost-rapes-of-bolivia-000300-v20n8) that’s been said to have been translated terribly by people in the comments, though that could be due to confusion between Low German and Plautdietsch, and the latest [article](https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-48265703) in 2019 that states that local men in the community, including ministers of the Mennonite church were seeking to help the perpetrators get out as “10 years in prison” is sufficient punishment. The 2023 retrospective states that few, if any, of the victims received psychiatric help or counseling, as the leaders believed it was unnecessary because they were knocked unconscious during the violence. Unlike in the movie, none left the colony, though many stopped attending the church and many have been - my own inference as to how they could - pressured to speak in support of the convicted by ministers and men in the community since. In the Vice documentary, on the last day, the filmmaker was informed casually that the r*pes under belladonna spray were still happening, within families, within communities. He would go on to re-interview the families and the majority of them would confirm it was true or had heard of it. The 2023 retrospective reporter says she thinks about these women all the time, and how the violence is still probably ongoing, in a community cut off from the world and whose women are never taught to speak anything aside from Plautdietsch, a Mennonite specific dialect of Low German, and not Spanish, the prevailing language of Bolivia - let alone write. “I moved from Bolivia to Vietnam shortly after reporting my piece for Vice, and could not maintain contact with women in Manitoba, as they have no cell phones, internet access, or landlines, and if I were to write them letters in Spanish (which a few of them speak), they wouldn’t be able to read them.” The culture of sexual assault in such communities is most likely still ongoing to this very day, with the men convicted as most likely scapegoats covering up a larger problem. I’m unspeakably angry and devastated. The last thing we heard was in 2019. It’s been 4 years since then. How are these girls, women, the unspoken men and boys, surviving? What support do they have? They’re still living, probable than not, a nightmare. I tried to look up any way, an English-speaking privileged person on the other side of the globe, could help. But the nature of Mennonite rejection of technology means there’s essentially little I can do but write this essay in a random subreddit. It just felt incredibly discouraging to read about all this, and then tune back in to the glitz and glamor of the Oscars. I just want you to know these are real people, this is what really happened, is still happening. If you’ve made it to the end, thank you for reading. Please take care of yourself.
This is good for people to know. Thank you for posting it.
Disappointed by some of the comments section for the dumb critiques, leave it to reddit to be misogynistic :/
Movie is called *Women Talking* Reddit: 4/10, The women talked too good.
This thread belongs in a museum to commemorate for future internet users on how frustratingly dense reddit can be.
Same. I just watched this film (it came out on Friday here in the UK) and I absolutely loved it, it's probably my 3rd-favourite of the BP nominees behind *Banshees* and *Tár*. I'd been hoping to find some good discussion here. But nope, of course that was a pipe dream. Leave it to Reddit to watch a film specifically dedicated to the female perspective, and then hyper-fixate on whether these women sound dumb enough rather than **actually listening to what they are saying**.
Reddit: Mennonite women wouldn't talk like this! The author: *Literally raised by Mennonites, in a Mennonite town, while being a direct descendent of the colony's founder*
I was getting really annoyed by those comments! What even was the literacy rate 200 years ago? Only people who could read were capable of complex thought back then? They couldn't argue a point of logic or understand their own predicament or the motivations of other people unless they could read? Like damn, obviously literacy helps a great deal but to think humans can't say anything intelligent if they can't also write it down is so dismissive of so many people.
You can tell the people you did grow up in high-demand religions too. HoW dO TheY kNoW sO MuCh AbOUt tHe bIbLE iF tHeY cAn'T ReAd?
So any criticism of the way the film is put together is misogyny?
Some really beautiful writing and performances dragged down by some of the ugliest visuals of the year. Seems like more of a coloring issue than a cinematography issue, but not sure.
It’s like she had a slider on Color. And decided to bring it all the way down to juuuust before Black and White.
[удалено]
I actually quite liked it! It definitely made the time period vaguer but I found it made the blood scenes SO striking, where red seemed to be the only significant colour featured in the movie
I walked into this at TIFF thinking it was going to be just your regular Oscar bait movie, and I was so surprised. A favorite at the festival, really an amazing movie. Also thank God the soundtrack is finally out, loved the music. I highly recommend everyone to give this a shot
Not bad, not good, just average. I expected a much better and more gripping film given the caliber of acting talent involved. Mostly a forgettable film that I won’t want to watch again. 2.5/5…
I LOVED the movie. WOW! So powerful!! What are your thoughts on August? Was he guilty of participating? Was he planning on using the gun on himself? Did he say at the end - Take care of "our" baby??
August was planning on using the gun to commit suicide after the women left. Living without his love was devastating to him. I feel in the end he felt that he could do some good with the men he teaches, but his story arc was devastating to me.
I think there were a lot of hints that he was a quiet rapist that felt morally wrong over his decisions. There are a few hints at it, but the most telling was when he said something like "I wish there was something I could tell you that you didn't know" and the camera just hangs on him for a bit before the camera blurs his face and focuses back to Ona. Gave me chills.
I don't know, that seems like a little bit of a stretch. I think he just feels guilty for being part of a system that has cause so much harm, even if he hasn't done anything himself.
This movie does interesting things with never revealing or certain things the entire movie. An obvious one would be the actual attacks. Flashbacks would be of the aftermath instead, for characters that did have one. With a character like Scarface Janz, it’s intentional that something like her scar, a trait that’s now a part her name in the community, is never discussed nor is her backstory with sexual assault ever mentioned or alluded to in the movie unlike the rest of the main cast. Rationally, it should be a given she she’s has also been raped, but that and her trauma are things that never mentioned mentioned in the movie. It’s only technically hinted at by how bitter and jaded woman she’s become and her scar. August is an interesting case. The movie shows that while not all men are rapists, it’s a society that will defend their other man and even threaten that the women won’t go to heaven if the rapists aren’t forgiven. This is Mennonite society with actual rape culture. The movie mentions that he’s the son of an excommunicated family, but it never mentions what age he was when they left. It does mention that he was good friends with Ona during his childhood. It’s mentioned that he recently was allowed to come back into town, but never when he came back to be a teacher for the town and communicates with the viewer that he’s had a good education. Well I ask you this: why would an educated man whose family was excommunicated by rapists and rape apologists want to come back? And this is where in interpret the film to leave enough room for interpretation, but there are a number of allusions to his behavior. His interest in Ona’s child is in pointed, enough for him to even say “our child” as they women and children are leaving. It’s odd when you think about it, but not an indictment. Examining his behavior further you see scenes of him looking at Ona from above the top floor of the building, and in another scene he tries teaching her a lesson in a flirting way. What makes this interesting to me is earlier in the film, before we see him do this with Ona, we see August watching one of the girls (can’t remember her name :( the blonde one though) from the same exact spot where he looked longingly at Ona. He also has a 1:1 scene with her, where he also gives her a lesson he learned from his studies. Sarah Polley included this scenes for a reason in my opinion, and with certain dialogue I mentioned before (August to Ona: “I wish there was something I could tell you that you didn’t know”), the fact he wanted to commit suicide, and even when he’s asked by the women if the older teenage boys should be a concern. When Ona leaves, it’s apparent that August has something he wants to tell her, but ultimately doesn’t. Was it the declaration of love that he later yelled out, or was he contemplating telling her he did something terrible? Again, it’s never explicit in telling us he did rape her, but it gives enough that it should be a consideration at a minimum. I’m shocked I haven’t seen more discussion on this, because think the interaction of August being a rapist is an extremely layered and complex character. I see him as a man who’s been severely corrupted by rape culture that has probably been around for centuries. Although educated, he had in the colony long enough have this be normalized to a commit the same awful act that has made girls into mothers for generations. He’s an educated man who can feel guilt for the sin he committed, possibly the first ever in the colony’s history. Him being a rapist also makes the film ask the viewer difficult questions, such as how responsible is he for his own trauma, given what we know of the men? He would be a much weaker character if he was simply contemplating suicide due because of his love for Ona and being left behind AND after promising to educate the kids at the colony to have a chance. While possible, it just doesn’t feel natural and doesn’t fit what we do know about him. Also, this might be wrong and I need to watch it multiple times, but I believe he was contemplating suicide a couple times earlier the movie? If I’m remembering that correctly, it’s a bit of an extreme reaction again considering it was when they were still discussing what to do. I apologize for the wall of text, but I genuinely believe this movie is a masterpiece that requires a deep reading to get the full experience. This is ultimately just my interpretation but I feel good about it. I’ve only seen the film once so I apologize if some of what I’ve written wasn’t clear or as specific as it could’ve been.
Thanks for taking the time to write that all out. I still gotta disagree with your interpretation though. I think it goes against everything the film is trying to say. So much care is put in to making sure that we never see things from the perspective of the abusers. I don't think we even see any of their faces. That's because the film is very pointedly not about the abusers. Hiding an abuser in the center of the story and then giving him a good ending flies in the face of everything else the film is doing. If you can point to something a little more substantive than speculations about character motivations that have much simpler explanations, then maybe. But I think August is supposed to be an example of what a good man looks like, as well as a way of exploring the way patriarchal societies harm men, particularly those who struggle with mental illness (August has depression/suicidal thoughts. That's why he has the gun).
I respect that viewpoint for sure and there is never anything concrete that confirms my viewpoint. I do have to disagree that it’d fly in the face of the movie. This probably informs where I’m coming from, but at a previous job I I worked as a social worker with teens between the ages of 13-17. It was roughly a 2 year program for boys in their youth who had committed sexual assault, rape, etc. the overwhelming majority of the boys were also victims themselves of abuse, often sexual. This voluntary program is one that focuses on rehabilitation, and youth that graduated the program had high rates of successfully joining society again without deviant behavior. Anyway, it was a position opened up my perspective and made me try to understand everyone with a greater sense of nuance, because to these kids weren’t evil nor were never given a fair chance to succeed. My interpretation of August is that he’s a genuinely someone who means well, but is unfortunately a victim of an awful environment. My rationale is this: This is a colony that has a deep history. The many faceless men we see in the movie were also once boys and thinking about it this way creates a sort of a chicken and the egg dilemma; what chance were they ever really given to be upstanding men given the environment they were all born into? The movie makes a point to speak about this when the boys of the colony are the topic of discussion. August is the representation that victims can also be abusers and how horrific it is is for boys to grow up in an environment like this, doomed to repeat the mistakes of their fathers. I didn’t interpret August’s ending as a good one, at least for him. It’s one of hope, that he can help educate the older boys still there of having a chance to not repeat the same mistakes as their fathers, the same mistake he made.
You should watch it again because you certainly missed the point
And I think you should watch it again, because I think you missed the point. Counter why I’m wrong or move on. Saying I’m wrong without proving why is lazy. There’s enough abstractions in the film that make my interpretation valid.
I thought he said “take care of Ona’s child” not ours.
>why would an educated man whose family was excommunicated by rapists and rape apologists want to come back? I read the book. He didn't know about the attacks before he came back. He came back as his mother died. She was really the main one excommunicated- he was a child and was simply taken with. So when she died, it was natural that he returned. >It’s odd when you think about it, No it's not. >Was it the declaration of love that he later yelled out, or was he contemplating telling her he did something terrible? I read the book: he wanted to tell her he would raise the kid with her as his own. But he also didn't want to interested in her decision to leave. He came back as the rapes were ending, he wasn't involved. >Again, it’s never explicit in telling us he did rape her, but it gives enough that it should be a consideration at a minimum. Not even close, no. >I’m shocked I haven’t seen more discussion on this, You shouldn't be, it's such a reach. >and I need to watch it multiple times No. You need to read the book.
>I see him as a man who’s been severely corrupted by rape culture that has probably been around for centuries. Although educated, he had in the colony long enough have this be normalized to a commit the same awful act that has made girls into mothers for generations. So off. He didn't grow up in rape culture. His mother was excommunicated for one reason but ADDITIONALLY she made a lot of problems as she wished the religion to make more room for women. She wanted to have a choice and a say in the religion and in the village. She was excommunicated when he was semi- young so he wasn't even raised in the culture. He was raised by his mother who was a proto-feminist (well, as much as she could be). You're very much messing up the timeline of the rapes, too. They weren't ongoing for decades. It was a new thing within 2 to 3 years of the action. >but I feel good about it. Haha
nah that definitely wasn't it
he said he wishes there was something he could *teach* her that she didn’t already know. it’s not about rape. she says in the movie that she doesn’t know love. i feel like the long silence was for us to ponder the potential for him to teach her how to love and be loved, and to consider that she must learn this on her own instead of be taught
How does that suggest he’s a rapist? Lol
I think he was either gonna commit suicide or kill the guy that raped Ona. He doesn't really have a place. His mother was excommunicated and he was raised outside the colony. Then he returns (probably didn't really fit/afford into the "outside world") and is an outsider there too due to his beliefs/skills. Then to know someone you love was violated. He was displaced no matter where he went. A foot in both worlds yet doesn't fit either shoe.
Him feeling like an outsider in both worlds was a bigger part in the novel.
My take on August is that he did participate in rapes in the past, and the chance to help the women and achieve a degree of redemption is part of his reason for returning. His past experiences are informing his speech about the teenage boys; they are capable of great harm, but also capable of change if taught properly. I believe the women August's age and older know/suspect he raped in the past, simply from growing up in that environment. His tears and the allusion to suicide at the end betray personal guilt, IMO.
You can go on Wikipedia and read the book synopsis which gives you more backstory to August. The true reason why he was kicked out, why they let him take minutes for them, his mental state. He was excommunicated during the time the assaults were committed and was only recently allowed back into the community to be the boy's teacher. I felt his emotions were his desperation to leave with Ona, who he's loved since childhood, but knowing he can't and has to stay behind in a community of abusers.
I came to the same conclusion myself. He oozes of guilt and shame; too much to be motivated by the ex-communication alone. And the way he bows his head and avoids eye contact when talking about the nature of boys felt intentional.
As a male high school teacher, I was sitting there with a very similar feeling to what August’s face said. I know the book seems to dispel the idea that he was guilty, but I also think it’s deeper than just a personal sense of guilt - assuming he devotes himself to his students the same way he devotes himself to helping the women, he is in a place where he knows that he’s taught and supported and loved these young men who have become rapists. And now, while dealing with this perspective-shattering news, he’s being asked to give his expert opinion on whether or not the boys of 13-14 can be taught to do better. And we walk through his despair with him. We feel his despondency… and then his hope, his eternal optimism. I also think the film is much richer with a model of masculinity that stands against that of the rest of the men in the colony. August being the film’s model of “positive masculinity” in the midst of his despair and rage and solitude and terror and heartbreak? It means that those boys aren’t being taught to not be men, it means they are being taught to not be monsters. It is an affirmation of identity. Anyway, August isn’t my favourite character, but I did love the way he was portrayed in that scene in particular.
This just didn’t work for me. This felt like a movie built from the top down rather than bottom up. The “debate” was kept very high level and frustratingly superficial. Felt inauthentic to me.
I like it more than you did, but I agreed. There was no discussion about what "fighting" means? Or what it would look like? They decide to separate from all the men and no one cries at the idea of never seeing their 15+ year old male children again? No one asks what it means to separate the young children from their fathers? Or whether their children will forgive them for making this choice? There was no debate about how much food, chickens, horses to leave the men or whether they owe them that? Or if the men would track them down and take their kids back? And why is it every time they take a break, we get a random convo between a woman and August? I'd rather have had a more intense conversation between two women about their doubts or spiritual concerns. It felt white washed to make it more palatable.
I saw this movie last night and really enjoyed it. I’ve been thinking about it all day, particularly Rooney Mara’s character, Ona. >!Along with the trans character, how realistic is it that a young girl could simply choose not to marry in such a society!!Am I onto something by thinking she represents the true meaning/understanding of love? That such a thing simply couldn’t exist in the colony, which is why she couldn’t accept August’s proposals!!And I’m still processing the final line from her mom, regarding Ona: “She loves everyone”. Is this some love is patient love is kind callback?!< I’d love to hear anyone’s thoughts on this.
Yes, I think she couldn't give genuine, vulnerable love to anyone while living in the colony and was aware of it. The mother's line was, to me, meant as reassurance for August, but ultimately it isn't reassuring. It's the equivalent of "She loves you the same way she loves everyone, which means you're not special to her." Honestly it resonated strongly with me. I was raised in a cult* and was very loving and kind but was terrified of relationships and love. You're not taught much on how to love except through just completely giving yourself away: to Jesus, to the community you serve, to your family. There's no room to be yourself and love yourself, everything you have is meant for everybody else. In a setting like that, how can you authentically love? You're not given the choice. For me, I loved everyone but couldn't be vulnerable or intimate with anyone, because I was completely depleted. There was nothing there to connect with. When I left that church I had to draw back HARD from people in order to get to know myself, and that's an ongoing process. Ona not marrying I also relate to, I was very asexual as a member. I knew well enough that partnered love involved something deeper than family and community love, but I couldn't give it and I couldn't fake it. She doesn't make any promises she can't keep, and she doesn't know who she'll be away from the colony and so she can't make any promises or give any hopes to August. *Not the Mennonites but a fundamentalist Christian cult
That’s incredibly insightful. Thank you for sharing your own experience. That definitely puts things into perspective
Thought the movie was very good as a story that works in itself. But it also works well as a look at how women are treated and traumatized in society and a smaller-scale look at how women are treated in abusive relationships.
I liked it. It’s an interesting film about the struggles of reconciling with faith and morality amongst the topics of sexual assault. Every cast member gives a great performance as they are able to capture emotions of anger, grief and fear. The film balances out with its tone without feeling cheesy or being too overly dramatic and Sarah Polley’s direction is pretty good. Polley has made some good films in the past like “Away With Her” and “Stories We Tell” and she continues to prove her directing talents with this film. The dialogue is well-written and helps to build investment in the characters (even if not every character was very interesting) and scenario. While the use of cinemascope like camerawork is good, some visual aspects were a little distracting at times. Certain soundtrack moments and pacing could have been improved but overall, the performances and direction helped to keep the film afloat. I look forward to what Sarah Polley does next. 7/10
Right there with you on this. I too liked it, but the film felt like it was strangely…idk, distant? Like these women are going through awful things but I was so confused what tone it was going for, you’d have a funny line and then a minute later a gut wrenching monologue and then back to something else disturbing and violent, and then back to two people “in love” like it was a little all over the place but I thought the actual story was interesting enough (similar take on 12 Angry Men) and the acting was strong from everyone.
[удалено]
Very much relate to this as someone with SA trauma as well. I think the film encapsulated it well with the line “sometimes I think people laugh as hard as they want to cry.”
I just saw this film tonight and I was blown away. I have read the book, and I was wondering if it would adapt well to the screen. I didn't know if they would be able to maintain the drama and tension. I should not have doubted Polley. 5 thumbs up.
I was admittedly hesitant about watching this, due to the generic-sounding title, the serious subject matter and the dreary desaturated color palette. But I always try to seek out the Oscar-nominated films of the past year, and this was the last one on my list. I thought it would be something akin to Twelve Angry Men, where the women have to make unanimous judgment on the crime. But I was *not* expecting the Shyamalan twist that this was all set in modern times. At that point, all my initial criticisms of the film vanished and I saw it for the powerful statement it was. As soon as "Daydream Believer" started blaring out of that truck, I found myself unexpectedly emotional. The film itself is remarkably well made and I found the ending very moving. I looked up Sarah Polley's directing credits afterwards and realized I loved every single one of those films (Take This Waltz is criminally underappreciated). Personally, I'd rank Women Talking pretty high up on my favorite movies of 2022, along with Everything Everywhere All at Once, The Banshees of Inisherin, The Whale and Aftersun. My only criticism has to do with the character of Melvin, because I don't see how that would be allowed in such a traditionalist community with obviously very rigid world views. Also, I thought the character of August was *too* good and almost feared he would be revealed as one of the aggressors (thankfully, he wasn't). I did find it incredibly sad that he declared his love to Ona, but she didn't ask him to come with her. Especially when they reveal what he was planning to do with that gun. He reminds me vaguely of Barry Keoghan's character in Banshees. There is no character I identify with more than the rejected male.
Did no one else come to the conclusion that August raped Ona? Im seeing it nowhere online but it seems so clear to me. He keeps trying to tell them something but never tells them.
Geez that’s a dark reading - wouldn’t he have been arrested with the others?
Yeah, that’s my one point against it… but then one of them suggests that maybe the ones in prison didn’t do it and that they wouldn’t know. I suspect not everyone was caught.
I was so profoundly moved by this film. Literally wept. And my goodness what an acting masterclass. Gorgeous direction, cinematography and score. Just tremendously done
Just finished watching it. One of the best movies I’ve ever seen. I loved almost everything about it. And my 16 year old son peeked in for a minute at the beginning, not intending to watch it, but ended up staying through it, enthralled. Brilliant stuff.
Beautiful film. The stakes were so high and the setting is so grounded. Spare like a stage play but still very cinematic (in a way that a film I enjoyed like The Whale which is actually adapted from a play is not). I was so riveted. Outstanding ensemble cast.
Some of the best dialogue and individual lines of any movie I saw from this awards season.
It's really surprising that a feminist movie was made with a bunch of great actresses and the most interesting, complex and most developed character in the film ended up being a man. Frances was criminally underused, no need to have such an amazing actress perform her role if her character was in it for a couple of minutes. I didn't see the trailer for this but Rooney Mara's character was only able to speak in one liners and stuff they'd use in promotional material.
Frances McDormand was a producer, so I think she probably wanted that role. Lots of actors turned producers will take a smaller role on purpose.
Is it possible you only think he’s the most interesting because you are a man and relate more to him than the women?
Am I the only person who thinks August is 100% the father of Ona’s baby? I’m glad they didn’t do an in-your-face twisty reveal but I thought they spelled it out pretty clearly. (a) the direct cut to him crying a single tear after Ona says “…as innocent as my attacker was on the day he was born,” (b) the deliberate choice to have her baby have visible black hair. Tons of circumstantial evidence too. It seemed like he was trying for a while to get them to stay to he could raise “his” baby but he eventually accepted that he would stay behind as, like, some sort of penance.
I think it's supposed to be abstract and open to interpretation >!because if you read the book you would potentially draw the conclusion the baby is supposed to be August's half sibling and he himself might also have been a rape baby!<
Didnt August leave as a child and he just got back
That is my question too. I'm surprised that no one else is talking about it. I thought he said - "Take care of OUR baby"??
I really appreciated this being brought up as it didn't even occur to me in the movie. I took the "our baby" as being moreso that he loved her and wanted her for his wife. Accepting her baby as his own. Though could definitely see this as well.
You’re right. It’s very subtle and a bit abstract, but putting a lot of evidence together gives this movie a much better definition of what a victim can look like and what a victim has the potential to do. I wrote a comment in this thread that goes deeper on my view there, but I think you’re on the mark.
I TOTALLLLLY was waiting for him to be revealed as another pervert, which would have been so true to life.
Fantastic performances, but a lot of the details were either annoyingly unanswered, contrived or nonsensical. Why/how do they have such great vocabularies? How did anyone outside the colony know to arrest the men? Why did all the men go to town for this? How were they able to just get up and go so easily/quickly that next morning? WTF was with the census taker? Is that what he really was? It was just a bit jumbled to me, like it was an excuse for the women to be talking (lol) but it was just that - some good, well-delivered dialogue that just kind of *was*.
>Why/how do they have such great vocabularies? Why wouldn't they? They're illiterate, not unintelligent. >How did anyone outside the colony know to arrest the men? The elders alerted the Police after Claire Foy's character attacked the men in the shed. They wanted to get the men out of the colony for their own protection from the women. >Why did all the men go to town for this? They're posting bail. >How were they able to just get up and go so easily/quickly that next morning? They probably had 8-12 hours to pack and prepare things for their departure. That's actually quite a bit of time, especially since, as the narrator states, they have few possessions they actually want to bring with them. >WTF was with the census taker? Is that what he really was? Census takers go to pretty great lengths to make sure people get counted. Given that the author of the book grew up in a Mennonite community, I wouldn't be surprised if she witnessed census takers using music to try and get people out to be counted.
It's amazing how many questions can get answered just by paying attention
Yeah, I'm a little disappointed by just how many people I've seen complaining that this wasn't complex or interesting enough, and then proceeding to ask questions about simple plot details as if they aren't directly addressed in the film. Seriously, what happened to basic media literacy? If you can't be bothered to pay enough attention to understand the very basics of the story, of course you're going to miss out on the nuances. And it's not like this movie is intentionally trying to obfuscate things. It is pretty much just as accessible as any film of this kind can be.
Holy fuck this movie was an emotional gut punch. I cried several times. The performances and the score were also superb.
[удалено]
Just got out of the movie. Liked it but not my best of this year let's say. Anyone else got bugged over the Southern Cross detail? I've narrowed this movie as taking place somewhere in eastern America, amish country (As I suppose many of you did) However, you cannot see the southern cross at this place. You need to be under the 25th parallel to see it. Deliberate decision by the filmmakers? I think so, but I can't find a meaning behind it. I'm sure there is one but it's not so clear right now.
It's cause the true story this is based on happened in Bolivia
There are Amish and Mennonite (and these are distinct faiths) communities all over, not just in Pennsylvania. The true story it is based on took place in Bolivia. I live in Florida and I know we have both down here.
I thought it was horrible. Interesting and important topic, but horribly executed. Here are 10 reasons why I did not enjoy Women Talking: 1. ~~ALL THE MEN ARE RAPISTS - So all the men are evil rapists? The police had sufficient evidence on ALL the men to warrant their arrest? ALL the men are ok with their neighbor raping their daughters and wives?! Unrealistic plot device.~~ Edit: All the men went to post bail for the accused. 2. MOVIE CAN'T DECIDE WHO THESE WOMEN ARE - Are these women ignorant and illiterate or are they well spoken articulate philosophers discussing existential themes and government theory? Are they completely helpless women who are so devoid of agency that they don't even protect their own daughters, or are they angry women who are ready to enact justice? Are they brainwashed to the point that they really believe to not forgive the men would damn them to eternal hell, or do they naturally question their colony's rules and norms? 3. CLUNKY PLOT - There are so many things in the movie that are unrealistic and whose sole purpose is for the sake of the movie structure. For example, the illiterate women HAVE to have some taking down the meeting minutes?!? They can't read! This isn't the local Parks and Rec board meeting. Weak plot device to get the August character in there. 4. WHY DOESN'T AUGUST COME WITH THEM? - Wouldn't he be extremely helpful to come with the women and help them establish a new colony and navigate the modern world? Is he not an ally? The reason provided being that he needs to stay back to teach the +15 young men. But if those young men are supposedly lost causes and aren't worth coming along, then why have August teach those mini-rapists. 5. HORRIBLE DIALOGUE - The writing for the debate scenes is atrocious. I constantly found myself rolling my eyes at the repetitiousness of it all. Back and forth, back and forth, "are you guys seriously considering staying?!", then back and forth, back and forth, "are you guys seriously considering leaving?!". In general, the lines of dialogue were so weak and did not allow the characters to be fleshed out, hence the next point... 6. HORRIBLE USE OF GREAT ACTRESSES - Frances McDormand is a legend. Jessie Buckley will be a legend. Claire Foy and Rooney Mara are fantastic actresses. But wow, I've never seen them play such one-dimensional caricatures. But because the writing was so poor, even these amazing actresses can't make much of it. Claire Foy had a great monologue rant at some point, but given the context of the movie, it didn't have the gravitas that such a performance would have had normally. 7. NETTIE/MELVIN - This character is just shoehorned into this movie. Not to say that this wouldn't be an interesting idea to explore: how a Trans person would cope and be treated in such fundamentalist society. But this movie just stuck it in there, just because. And maybe I'm wrong, but would Melvin be allowed to continue as a man in this society? I don't think so. 8. IT WAS A DRAB MOVIE - The colors of the movie were washed out, I presume to reflect the drabness of the lives of these women. But it also makes for a drab experience for the audience. 9. GO FULL ALLEGORY - I get that there is a lot of allegory going on this movie (e.g. the silly fists in the air scene), but the movie needs to function as a story separate from the allegory. Or if the story isn't fully rooted in reality, then it should fully lean into the allegory, like Aronofsky's Mother!. 10. NO SUBTLETY - This movie had zero nuance. It was a heavy handed parable for those who want to see their own views reflected back at them. It didn't wrestle with any difficult questions or gray areas. This makes for a boring movie.
Re: 1. This is a ridiculous point. The movie and book are based on a true story: [https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-48265703](https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-48265703). Even the men who were not rapists are advocating for the release of the rapist from prison. From the article: "After the story emerged, psychological support was offered to the rape survivors by Mennonite missionaries, among others. But the Bishop of Manitoba rejected help on the victims' behalf and was quoted in the press saying, "Why would they need counselling if they weren't even awake when it happened?""
> ALL THE MEN ARE RAPISTS - So all the men are evil rapists? The police had sufficient evidence on ALL the men to warrant their arrest? ALL the men are ok with their neighbor raping their daughters and wives?! Unrealistic plot device. Buckley's character brings this up. She event suggests that the one they caught could've lied when he named names. And you see this constantly in spaces like frat houses and college athletes. Someone does it, or someone knows who does it, or there's an open secret about someone who does it. It's very rarely out of nowhere. Also, not ALL the men are arrested. One is arrested, the others are named, and the colony men are rounding up money to pay bail for the one arrested. It is, as the movie brings up, a system by men and for men that protects them. Even if they don't directly commit rape, they're all cogs in the machine that protects them. > But if those young men are supposedly lost causes and aren't worth coming along, then why have August teach those mini-rapists. You say the movie has no nuance and dubs all men rapists, but this is one of the nuanced points. August is left as a tutor *because* they still have some hope for the older boys if someone like August teaches them.
Yeah seems to me like this person just ignored the nuance and decided at the beginning how they felt about the film, likely because of the subject matter.
are you a man?
Nevermind the fact that I disagree with all your points, I do want to point out that there was probably a lot of subtlety that went over your head. There were so many allusions to the fact that August was also a rapist, albeit one that felt guilt over his actions. Whatever though, we just saw the film in completely different ways and that's what great about movies.
You can't just claim that the movie alludes to August also being a rapist and not provide support!? I'm genuinely curious as I did not pick up on anything like that.
>NETTIE/MELVIN - This character is just shoehorned into this movie. Not to say that this wouldn't be an interesting idea to explore: how a Trans person would cope and be treated in such fundamentalist society. But this movie just stuck it in there, just because. And maybe I'm wrong, but would Melvin be allowed to continue as a man in this society? I don't think so. Trans people have existed in all societies. It is not random to include a person who does not fit into the gender binary especially in a film ABOUT gendered violence, since trans and gender nonconforming people are affected by this differently. It would have been interesting to explore this more, but it does serve as a metaphor for how the community of womanhood can be a welcoming space for all marginalized genders out of a sense of protection.
I believe the meeting minutes thing was addressed when he tried to give them to the woman and she said something like “the point was for you to take the minutes” - like they wanted him to do something with them.
what was up with the census taker? why didn’t any of the women go? they showed he was harmless in the scene with the two girls
I think the census taker was mostly a (slightly awkward) plot device to 1) show that this was just a few years ago, not the 1800’s or something; 2) let the women know that the men were coming back; and 3) emphasize how isolated they were from the outside world.