Skip to main content

Most Unorthodox


It didn’t take long for Sebastián Lelio, the Chilean director of the Academy Award winning A Fantastic Woman, to begin to branch out internationally -by which I mean to English-language cinema with prominent English-language actors and crew. But he continues to be drawn to the subject matter of marginalized or suppressed sexual freedom with Disobedience, an adaptation of the novel by Naomi Alderman. Written by Lelio and Rebecca Lenkiewicz, it’s a film that does justice to, if not the novel, the themes and message it clearly wanted to relate.
Ronit Krushka (Rachel Weisz) returns home to London from New York after learning of the death of her father, an esteemed Orthodox Jewish rav (Anton Lesser). Having been ousted by the community for leaving the faith, her return is awkward for everyone except her childhood friends Dovid (Alessandro Nivola), her fathers’ successor, and his wife Esti (Rachel McAdams) who’d once been Ronits’ lover. But with her return, the womens’ feelings are reignited, causing trouble and drama within this strict conservative patriarchy.
Lelio and Lenkiewicz do an excellent job building the story through suggestion and nuance. Not a lot is explained at the outset, rather personal details and histories come up gradually as the film goes along in natural dialogue. Though the exact nature of Ronit and Esti’s prior relationship isn’t directly discussed until the second act, the striking sexual tension between them clues us in enough. Same for the reason Ronit initially left London. The characters are all written very realistically too, with none of the Orthodox figures coming off as exaggerations. They adhere to strict tradition and ideology but not at the expense of personality. In addition to the script, this movie is also shot very well and often in a way that emphasizes the mood. There’s a bleakness to a lot of the movie, which could just be an effect of being set in late winter in London, but it also reflects the dullness and repression of this Orthodoxy. Disorienting cinematography in select moments allows the audience to feel the disorientation and anxiety going through a characters’ mind, whether it be Ronit, Esti, or Dovid. And of course the intimate scenes between Ronit and Esti are shot very closely and passionately, while similar scenes between Esti and Dovid are restrained and detached.
The driving force of this movie though are the performances, particularly from Weisz and McAdams. Their chemistry is wonderful. Obviously it’s not as liberated or innate as other romances, but it makes perfect sense given these characters’ upbringing, and how long they’ve been apart. Their commitment is developed well and makes them a really endearing couple. Weisz’s performance is the best I’ve seen from her in a while, handling a lot of complex emotions she can’t quite vocally express. In addition to Esti being back in Ronit’s life, she’s also dealing with grief and the regret of not having made up with her father before his death. Her attempts to reconcile these conflicting feelings illustrate a fuller character. McAdams isn’t short-changed by this focus though and performs impeccably Esti’s own conflict. Though quieter about it, she holds Ronit’s modern feminist views on marriage and feminine agency, but feels a responsibility in the life she has and her vocation as a teacher. Her arc is more important, there are more stakes attached and its incredibly investing. Nivola is very good too, unlikeable and ignorant at times, but understandable when his history, both as the rav’s pupil and as a long-time close friend of the women, is taken into account.
If it has one, this movie’s weakness might just be that the plot itself is a little conventional. The forbidden lust story, usually between homosexuals, within the confines of a deeply traditional or religious environment is a popular type of drama fiction. Disobedience isn’t bad as far as these movies go, in fact it’s probably one of the best (though it’s title does recall the fake Robert Downey Jr. trailer from Tropic Thunder). And it’s worth noting that rather than being about sexual discovery in a prohibitive environment, it’s much more about freedom.
Yet any time a movie addresses homosexuality in a religious context like this it’s imparting an honourable message and call for change. Disobedience does that aptly by taking its audience into a world many of us may find alien, highlighting its traditions and attitudes, and commenting on where some of them may be out of touch and should evolve. But it’s not anti-religious by any means. And it’s made exceptional by its direction and writing, its cinematography and characterizations, and its performances, with Weisz and McAdams alike delivering among their finest. Disobedience further establishes Sebastián Lelio as a director to watch and is a quality film to see this Pride Month.

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Jordan_D_Bosch 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...