Belfast is written and directed by Kenneth Branagh, and he's called it his "most personal" film. Set in 1969, it focuses on a young boy growing up at the start of the Northern Ireland conflict. To me, it's the kind of movie that tries to plow its way to an Oscar by pedigree: look at all the big names involved, it must be good! I found it dry, milquetoast, so seemingly concerned with being uncontroversial that it hardly says anything at all.
The movie is definitely made for a target audience who isn't me. It assumes a level of familiarity with The Troubles of Northern Ireland that requires you to be at least 10 years older than I am, or from British Isles, or a U.K. history buff. Possibly all three. The film itself doesn't provide sufficient context for the historical backdrop here.
One could argue that the lack of clarity was a deliberate narrative decision, given that the focus of the movie is a young boy who wouldn't understand the political and religious tensions at play either. But the audience (and the young protagonist) is made privy to plenty of adult themes and conversations over the course of the film. I think more was needed to make the themes this movie presents as "universal" were truly more accessible.
Belfast is also very artistic in its presentation, in ways that feel like Oscar bait, but left me baffled as to any other motivation. The bulk of the action takes place on a street (and in one particular house on that street) that's clearly a set. Little more effort is made to conceal this than was done for The Tragedy of Macbeth, which was trying to conjure an environment that was part film and part theater. To me, this effect serves to put Belfast at an emotional remove; it feels like it's fiction, which combined with its lack of actual historical details, strips this of true emotional heft.
Also like The Tragedy of Macbeth, Belfast is filmed in black-and-white, and with an unusual array of camera lenses that keep things in hyper-focus that normally would not be. This makes the falseness of the sets even more pronounced. And then, in another artistic move, a few brief moments in the film are presented in full color -- clips from movies or other performances. Perhaps the intent was to show the deeply formative effect that a movie can have on a young mind. To me, it felt like an unfortunate inversion: fiction appeared more real, while real events felt false.
I can praise only one thing about Belfast. It does manage to stumble onto two or three moments of actual poignancy. I would have said it does this completely by accident, except that each of these moments features actor Ciarán Hinds in the role of the main character's grandfather. I don't understand any other Oscar nomination this movie received (including Judi Dench, who in my eyes got nominated here because she's Judi Dench), but I can understand the Best Supporting Actor nod for Ciarán Hinds. I thought he was the one good thing about this movie.
Mind you, that puts it nowhere near being a "good movie" in my book. I give Belfast a D-. It's vaguely infuriating to me if the odds makers are right -- that this or The Power of the Dog will win Best Picture. They are two of the worst three 2021 movies that I've seen. (Eternals just managing to squeeze between them.)
No comments:
Post a Comment