Thanks for this review - I also found it to be a refreshing and poignant, if imperfect, film. I am curious what the author (or other readers), as Catholics, thought of the decision to have the mother be killed (and incinerated!) by the doctor after we learn she has advanced cancer. Perhaps I'm unduly projecting my political concerns, but in light of the advances assisted suicide and euthanasia legislation has been making in Western nations as of late (including in Britain), this choice seemed sadly apropos of our cultural moment. I think this is especially the case given that the doctor and his "memento mori" philosophy in the film are pointedly depicted as providing a kind of humane freedom and compassion in a world otherwise closed to those possibilities. This, of course, aligns well with the real world arguments put forward in support of physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia.
Beyond this narrative choice itself, I was also struck by the abruptness with which it was presented, with no time to deliberate, prepare, or even properly say goodbye, as if it was *obviously* the best way to approach the problem of the mother's suffering and any resistance the boy may have mounted needed to be preemptively nipped in the bud (for his own good, no doubt).
Anyways, I don't mean this to take too much away from the film's virtues, but it did strike me as odd and unfortunately took me out of the narrative flow. Although I do agree the ending was also strange.
Thank you for pointing this out. I did think about this, but unfortunately forgot to include it in the review. The film reminded me a lot of "A Quiet Place: Day One", which had a very similar ending. I really enjoyed that movie (probably even more than this one), but the ending really hurt it overall.
One of the problems with this movie, which you struck on, is that the emotional narrative can be a little rushed. I felt like I barely got a grip on who the characters were (which was essentially Macho Dad, Sick Mom, and Coming-of-Age Son) before the climax. I do wonder if the emotional beats would play better on a rewatch where the whiplash of the second act turn is expected.
Morally speaking, the resolution does seem wrong but it is also placed in a much harsher world, which made it seem less egregious than "Day One" for me. I am not sure if that can be a defense for it, though. Garland seems to be trying to tackle a lot of topics here to varying degrees of subtlety and condemnation. He does nevertheless seem to portray the euthanasia as the morally correct and admirable choice.
With all that nudity this does NOT sound like a film catholics should watch.
Do you think the Vatican Film List should remove Schindler’s List then for its nudity?
Thanks for this review - I also found it to be a refreshing and poignant, if imperfect, film. I am curious what the author (or other readers), as Catholics, thought of the decision to have the mother be killed (and incinerated!) by the doctor after we learn she has advanced cancer. Perhaps I'm unduly projecting my political concerns, but in light of the advances assisted suicide and euthanasia legislation has been making in Western nations as of late (including in Britain), this choice seemed sadly apropos of our cultural moment. I think this is especially the case given that the doctor and his "memento mori" philosophy in the film are pointedly depicted as providing a kind of humane freedom and compassion in a world otherwise closed to those possibilities. This, of course, aligns well with the real world arguments put forward in support of physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia.
Beyond this narrative choice itself, I was also struck by the abruptness with which it was presented, with no time to deliberate, prepare, or even properly say goodbye, as if it was *obviously* the best way to approach the problem of the mother's suffering and any resistance the boy may have mounted needed to be preemptively nipped in the bud (for his own good, no doubt).
Anyways, I don't mean this to take too much away from the film's virtues, but it did strike me as odd and unfortunately took me out of the narrative flow. Although I do agree the ending was also strange.
Thank you for pointing this out. I did think about this, but unfortunately forgot to include it in the review. The film reminded me a lot of "A Quiet Place: Day One", which had a very similar ending. I really enjoyed that movie (probably even more than this one), but the ending really hurt it overall.
One of the problems with this movie, which you struck on, is that the emotional narrative can be a little rushed. I felt like I barely got a grip on who the characters were (which was essentially Macho Dad, Sick Mom, and Coming-of-Age Son) before the climax. I do wonder if the emotional beats would play better on a rewatch where the whiplash of the second act turn is expected.
Morally speaking, the resolution does seem wrong but it is also placed in a much harsher world, which made it seem less egregious than "Day One" for me. I am not sure if that can be a defense for it, though. Garland seems to be trying to tackle a lot of topics here to varying degrees of subtlety and condemnation. He does nevertheless seem to portray the euthanasia as the morally correct and admirable choice.