Search This Blog

Sunday, September 29, 2019

The Nightingale (4/5 Stars)




The Nightingale takes place in 1825 in the Australian state of Tasmania. I had to look up the Wikipedia article for movies located and filmed in Tasmania to make sure whether this was the first movie I had ever seen that took place there. To my surprise, I had seen a 2016 movie called Lion starring Dev Patel and Nicole Kidman. I thought that movie had taken place in Sydney or whatever. Anyway, The Nightingale is the second Tasmanian movie I have seen.

The Nightingale was written and directed by Jennifer Kent. This is her second movie following up on her exceptional debut, The Babadook. That movie, though rightly classified as a horror film, was also an exceptional piece of drama, its main villain symbolically interwoven with actual medical diagnoses of depression and sleep psychosis.  The Nightingale does something similar. It too can be classified as a horror movie, however there is no supernatural killer on the loose. Instead Jennifer Kent has simply chosen as her setting a terrible place and time: the penal colony of Tasmania. There is little to this that I know of, but given that Australia was but a large British penal colony at the time, it is fair to say that the British colony on Tasmania was probably worst. There was hardly any civilization to speak of: just men and women with guns in a strange forest populated by hostile aboriginals. I have seen several great gritty movies set in the Australian outback (The Proposition, Wake in Fright). The Nightingale can take its place amongst the best of them.

The plot of The Nightingale would be entirely cliché if you modernized the setting and switched the genders. A person whose family is murdered seeks revenge. Usually its an old white guy this happens too (Rambo just did this again for the nth time last week). But here the surviving member is a woman and the setting of 1820’s Tasmania actually makes her vigilantism necessary. There really is no one else that can see that justice be done here. The law, if you can call them that, were the perpetrators, and they have already left, probably never to return. The absent presence of cliché lends the movie considerable dramatic weight, which Jennifer Kent presents in an unflinching straightforward manner. I cried at a specific point in this movie. That’s all. I won’t say more.

To hunt down the men who murdered her family, Clare (played by Aisling Franciosi) enlists the help of a local aboriginal named Billy (played by Baykali Ganambarr). One night by the fire they trade conversation on who is the most oppressed: the aboriginal whose culture was broken and land was stolen or the Irish woman who was sent to Tasmania for a petty crime, who has been the constant victim of sexual abuse, and whose family was murdered before her eyes. It is interesting to note that their initial reluctance to sympathize with the other’s experience has less to do with an ignorance of the hardships the other has suffered  but more to a belief that they have suffered more. That is, why should I sympathize with you when it is I that deserves your sympathy. In the end, they form a unique respect for each other and their shared travails.

Jennifer Kent is an exceptional filmmaker. I try to make a point of saying that after seeing two very good first films. She is the type of talent that you hope makes a movie every two to three years. Unfortunately, it took four years for her to make this movie after The Babadook. That is too long of a time to wait for her next movie. Female directors have a way of making very good movies and falling off the face of the earth. I hope if the industry should change in any way that it changes in this regard and we get a new Jennifer Kent movie sooner rather than later.



No comments:

Post a Comment