Skip to main content

We Didn't Start the Fire


It’s rather fitting that the first professional movie I’ve seen seemingly set in Saskatchewan is about people trying to get out of Saskatchewan.
Firecrackers is the feature debut of writer-director Jasmin Mozaffari, based on her own short film from years before. And recently it won her the Best Director Award at this years’ Canadian Screen Awards (the film also took home Best Editing), and after watching it it’s pretty clear why. Mozaffari has both a sublime sense of cinema and a determination to use the form to say something important. It would be foolish not to expect greater things from this young filmmaker.
This story is centred around two girls in a rural small town, Lou (Michaela Kurimsky) and Chantal (Karena Evans), who are desperate to get out of its repressive, suffocating atmosphere, with big plans to travel as far as New York with the money they’ve earned working at a local motel. But their hopes are derailed by a series of unforeseen circumstances, not least of which is the fallout from Chantal’s boyfriend sexually assaulting her the night before their due departure. Their response to this and the further constricting influence of the town makes it even harder for the girls to escape.
This movie reminds me a lot of The Florida Project. Both films are set in crummy environments following heavily realistic people longing for a form of freedom from a mundane life, and shot with plenty of ambience, natural lighting, and frenzied editing. However the mood of Firecrackers is a lot more disorienting and foreboding, you really get the sense of the girls’ entrapment. There’s a feeling of claustrophobia throughout the movie, the camera often following the characters closely and in long takes in contrast to establishing shots or ruminating moments against a landscape or the open sky, representing their freedom within repeatedly unattainable reach. Mozaffari’s script goes out of its way not to specify the town’s name, only its smothering effect, but both its geography and its people resemble numerous small communities far from major centres across Canada, particularly on the prairies. Living in Saskatchewan I recognize plenty of its visual and social characteristics and immensely sympathize with the need to get away from them.
Lou and Chantal also happen to occupy that goldilocks zone of being both believably naive, rebellious, and irresponsible, while also relatable, sharp, and admirably strong-willed. The idea of driving all the way to New York without much a plan is extremely short-sighted, but you completely understand their determination to chase even an infeasible dream. While they may seem like ignorant teenagers sometimes, it’s easy to be on their side when just about everyone else in town is so unsympathetic. The girls are each going through rough times and make impulsive and unwise choices, but it’s completely understandable why. Kurimsky, whose point of view the story is told from, plays Lou with an ambivalent demeanour but a fiery passion; and Evans conveys Chantal’s confusion, fear, and impatience following her trauma with absolute conviction.
But this is all without touching much on the reason the girls want to escape; and it’s not merely to follow their dreams or experience the more exciting pace of a city, but because the backwards environment of the rural town they’ve been living in is demonstrably oppressive to them personally. Lou and Chantal are free spirits who are unfortunate to be surrounded by a suppressive and harmful patriarchy. Yes, Firecrackers is nothing less than a emphatic condemnation of the toxic masculinity and outright misogyny that easily festers in places as removed and isolated as country towns. Each of the girls’ attempts to get out are waylaid or made more difficult by the men in their lives. First by Chantal’s monstrous boyfriend (Dylan Mask) feeling entitled to her body before she leaves town, followed by a seemingly kind boy (Scott Cleland), whose vehicle they were reliant on, betraying them out of peer pressure, and eventually a couple drifters asserting a violently symbolic kind of dominance in the movie’s tensest and most uncomfortable scene. We see the men in this movie try to ignore Lou and Chantal or blame them for sexual inadequacy, but Mozaffari makes sure to also show how widespread and systemic this behaviour is, particularly in Lou’s abrasive evangelical mother (Tamara LeClair) and her relationship with the much younger and timid Johnny (David Kingston). Not only do they refuse to understand Lou and disrespect her, but they stifle her younger brother Jesse (Callum Thompson) who likes to wear make-up and dance to traditionally non-masculine music. Their attempts to indoctrinate him both into religion and extreme male heteronormative activities such as shooting is perhaps the films’ most tragic plot thread.
Firecrackers is a movie that asks us to consider cultural misogyny in a very pointed and brutal way. It’s not just about saying sexual assault is bad, it assumes we already understand that; it’s about breaking down the toxic behaviours and ideas that allow sexual assault, and are in and of themselves exceedingly harmful. Jasmin Mozaffari made a movie that’s lush and rich, neo-realist in design without being neo-realist in construct, vehemently impactful, and intellectually resonant with a firm and passionate message behind it. No wonder she won Best Director.

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

Comments

Post a Comment

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

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....
1 comment
Read more

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...
Post a Comment
Read more