Skip to main content

The Critical Overreach of Foe


The opening text of Foe informs us that much of the world has been rendered uninhabitable by the 2060s, with water and basic resources becoming commodities and rural populations migrating by mass to cities, or else space -seen as an endgame for humanity. Shortly after this we’re faced with a contradiction of a couple living on an isolated farm, as far removed as possible from civilization. The stillness and quietude of this abode stands in sharp relief to the sense of urgency expressed elsewhere as to the sustainability of a liveable world -and these two people don’t much bear it in mind in their boring contentment. As far as living through an apocalypse goes, the slowness and dismay here is one of the more harrowingly realistic interpretations.
That does not mean it is particularly appealing though. Foe is based on a book by Iain Reid, author of I’m Thinking of Ending Things -itself turned into a thrilling and fascinating film by Charlie Kaufman in 2020. There is a sliver of the same unknown dread and tension here, that enigmatic rural atmosphere that gave the aforementioned movie a unique sense of claustrophobia. But this time Reid adapts the text himself, with Garth Davis as director and co-writer. And while it may be an issue of translation, or else an attempt to skate by too easily on mood, there’s a muted dimness to the end result and an illusion of stakes that don’t ever manifest authentically.
Saoirse Ronan and Paul Mescal, two of the most compelling Irish actors of their generation, star as Hen and Junior, the couple abiding on this farm, when a man called Terrance (Aaron Pierre) arrives to inform Junior he will be sent to a space station as part of the preparations for an apparent mass exodus within the decade; and that while he’s away for a few years, Hen will be given an A.I. companion designed in his image. Their resistance to this plan falls on deaf ears, and as they await Junior’s departure and the arrival of his replica, they muse on alternatives like running away and entertaining the suspect nature of this whole circumstance.
The movie endeavours to build tension out of a lot of emptiness. The looming threat of Junior’s mission, the figure of Terrance himself, and the sense of some dishonesty on Hen’s part as to her satisfaction in this life they’ve built for themselves on their distant farm. It’s something in the air and it is effective for a bit, but the film moves rather slowly, revealing more the shallowness in these evocations. And it doesn’t help that it’s not particularly sold very well by either the script (which Davis and Reid imbue with far more ostentatious gravity than the film ever earns) and Ronan’s performance, which is emotionally unfocused and curiously staid, to the point I suspected falsely from early on that her character may already be an android. She delivers as best she can though and makes do with the odder regions of the script’s requirements, including for dialogue, which can range from painfully simplistic and unimaginative observations to barely coherent quasi-existentialism. In any case she fares much better than her partner.
Mescal too tries his best with the material, and tries very hard; but it really does not work. And either it’s his direction or his personal acting choices that are misapplied, but in any case it turns out a pretty awkward performance. Mescal is genuinely a stupendous actor, and his work thus far (at least that I have seen) bears him out as one of the great emerging talents in modern cinema. Foe is the first demonstration though of the limits of his range -starting with his not particularly good American accent and ending in the kind of overwrought emotionality that threatens the “ham” label. In Aftersun or Normal People he’s shown a flair for subtlety (although he’s also won an Olivier for the least subtle character in twentieth-century theatre: Stanley Kowalski -proving this movie might just have been bad luck). He’s playing against his strengths on this film, stretching the performance in compensation -and his character’s agitated psychological state is pretty key to the story’s overall progression, so the movie dwells in Mescal’s extremities a lot. There are moments where you can see the shadow of a more genuine performance in there (one moment of curious ambivalence certainly brought to mind God’s Creatures), but it’s not consistent.
Meanwhile the mood retains its severity and ominous foreboding as to the time when Junior will leave and be replaced -undercut certainly by the degree to which an upcoming twist is forecast. But also, everything is shot dryly, in parallel to the hopelessness all around and more literally the lack of rain in this geographic area. The heat is felt intensely through this film, and it was a good choice to emphasize that visually, but because so much takes place within that farmhouse and Davis can’t capture depth authentically through this muted outlook, much of the film is dark and dreary to look at, which doesn’t compliment the already dour pace and intonation. Never does Davis make a strong shot choice within that space or utilizes its darkness, its dull parameters in an interesting way. There is arguably intent in this, the film makes no secret how unsatisfied Hen is in this place, but translating so effectively that boredom was perhaps not an ideal tactic. And it especially doesn’t feel so in light of those poor attempts at tension.
This movie’s commentary on artificial intelligence is entirely uninspired, even as the plot conceit to get to that point might be clever in more capable hands. There’s an element at work reminiscent of the doppelgänger curio of Possession, and maybe it’s just recency for me that makes the connection, but Foe doesn’t have any of that same power behind it; and certainly nothing new on those usual A.I. fronts of sentience, feeling, and memory. There is clearly some kind of pathos Davis and Reid are aiming for in its resolution, but like so much else in the movie it rings hollow.
The proper ending of Foe is around the hour and a half mark, with a near half-hour epilogue to shift the point-of-view back to Hen after about an hour in the perception of Junior. Much of this last stretch struggles to justify itself, as it reorients the narrative and tries to re-frame its themes. And indeed there are some vaguely notable ideas here for another story, but any investment is by this point dwindled. The film is incoherent, and not in the entrancing, provocative way of I’m Thinking of Ending Things –here it’s accidental. There may be something real to Foe, some insight buried under the doldrums. But it is a tedious, fairly vacuous movie that doesn’t do right by its actors. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Disney's Mulan, Cultural Appropriation, and Exploitation

I’m late on this one I know. I wasn’t willing to spend thirty bucks back in September for a movie experience I knew was going to be far poorer than if I had paid half that at a theatre. So I waited for it to hit streaming for free to give it a shot. In the meantime I heard that it wasn’t very good, but I remained determined not to skip it entirely, partly out of sympathy for director Niki Caro and partly out of morbid curiosity. Disney’s live-action Mulan  I was actually mildly looking forward to early in the year in spite of my well-documented distaste for this series of creative dead zones by the most powerful media conglomerate on earth. Mulan  was never one of Disney’s classics, a movie extremely of its time in its “girl power” gender politics and with a decidedly American take on ancient Chinese mythology. It got by on a couple good songs and a strong lead, but it was a movie that could be improved upon, and this new version looked like it had the potential to do that, em...

The Subtle Sensitivity of the Cinema of Wong Kar-wai

When I think of Wong Kar-wai, I think of nighttime and neon lights, I think of the image of lonely people sitting in cafes or bars as the world passes behind them, mere flashes of movement; I think of love and quiet, sombre heartbreak, the sensuality that exists between people but is rarely fully or openly expressed. Mostly I think of the mood of melancholy, yet how this can be beautiful, colourful, inspiring even. A feeling of gloominess at the complexity of messy human relationships, though tinged with an unmitigated joy in the sensation of that feeling. And a warmth, generated by light and colour, that cuts through to the solitude of our very soul. This isn’t a broadly definitive quality of Wong’s body of work -certainly it isn’t so much true of his martial arts films Ashes of Time  and The Grandmaster. But those most affectionate movies on my memory: Chungking Express , Fallen Angels , Happy Together , 2046 , of course  In the Mood for Love , and even My Blueberry Nig...

The Prince of Egypt: The Humanized Exodus

Moses and the story of the Exodus is one of the most influential mythologies of world history. It’s a centrepoint of the Abrahamic religions, and has directly influenced the society, culture, values, and laws of many civilizations. Not to mention, it’s a very powerful story, and one that unsurprisingly continues to resonate incredibly across the globe. In western culture, the story of Moses has been retold dozens of times in various mediums, most recognizably in the last century through film. And these adaptations have ranged from the iconic: Cecil B. DeMille’s The Ten Commandments;  to the infamous: Ridley Scott’s Exodus: Gods and Kings . But everyone seems to forget the one movie between those two that I’d argue has them both beat. As perhaps the best telling of one of the most influential stories of all time, I feel people don’t talk about The Prince of Egypt  nearly enough. The 1998 animated epic from DreamWorks is a breathtakingly stunning, concise but compelling, ...