The Return

I didn't jump in to respond to Reagan’s post earlier because I honestly wasn't quite following her line of reasoning.

First off, I don't really get this whole argument about the marginalization of women in the movie. Look, it’s a story centered on a father and his two sons—by definition, every other character is pushed to the periphery, regardless of whether they're men or women. I can't exactly fault the director for not making a film about an entirely different subject matter.

Then there's the point about the cinematography. It’s glaringly obvious that a massive amount of care went into every frame. I just don't see why that's being treated as a flaw. It feels like criticizing Bergman's Autumnal Sonata because the characters spend so much time talking and processing their emotions while almost nothing "happens" in terms of plot. Since when did we start demanding constant action from Bergman? Why does his style always lean so heavily into that internal dialogue? 😁 😉

It's the same deal with the sparse dialogue. Movies don't need to be paced like Gilmore Girls just to communicate a message. 😉
The heavy silences, those sudden outbursts of raw emotion—what's the problem there? 😕

If you ask me, sometimes silence and "minimalist" dialogue actually manage to say so much more than a script full of words ever could. 🙂

Reagan said:Honestly, the movie is just so incredibly elegant, you know? Like, from a technical standpoint, everything is executed so perfectly, and the acting is absolutely top-tier. But what really sticks with me, I guess, is how they handled the chemistry between the three leads—it’s this super subtle, beautifully layered interaction that just feels so real and well-developed.

😕 I mean, I totally agree with you there. Honestly, if you actually went back and changed your mind just because I was being critical, that really means a lot to me, I guess. 🙂

Look, you were critiquing that movie based on actual analytical stuff—you know, using logic and specific criteria—so I was just trying to break it down the exact same way. I really tried my best not to lean on how the movie made me feel, even though I noticed you kind of mix things up yourself, like sometimes you're sticking to the rules of film theory and other times you're just going off on pure vibes. My point wasn't some personal jab at you or anything, I was honestly just picking apart your arguments. There’s really no need to start bringing up "moderators" or those little cliques that constantly make a scene on this forum, and there's definitely no reason to act like you're being attacked or targeted. At the end of the day, you're just another user here like I am, and if you're up for it, you should just tear my arguments to shreds instead of making it about all that other stuff.

It feels like we’re just seeing all those tired old national clichés being played out through this whole regional lens, I guess. It's kind of wild how they keep recycling the same old tropes, maybe because it's easier than actually doing something fresh.

I mean, I honestly have zero clue about this stuff, like, really. I don't even know what qualifies as an American national stereotype, let alone how someone would even go about defining Russian ones. That whole level of deep, analytical interpretation is just totally beyond me, I guess.

Did I not share my actual take on the movie? I mean, I feel like you can pretty easily piece together what a critic thinks just by reading through their reviews anyway. Plus, I really didn't want to just sit here echoing everything everyone else was saying—there were plenty of people in the thread making points that I’d totally sign off on, so why bother repeating them? And honestly, there’s just no point in trying to win over someone who already decided they hated the film; I’d much rather spend my time geeking out and sharing the hype with the people who actually loved it instead of wasting my breath on all the haters. 🙂

Using a scalpel—you know, that razor-sharp edge in an argument—really requires you to be precise and super careful about how much you're cutting. If you aren't being measured, I guess you could easily end up leaving a massive mess behind, like accidentally leaving a clump of thread stuck inside a patient’s abdomen or something, kind of like in this next example.

Reagan said:Man, just by grouping women, Black people, and gay folks all together in a single sentence like that, Shipko, you basically just handed me the win on one of my main points.

Shipko said:I mean, I guess you could say this movie doesn't really go out of its way to talk about women, or Black people, or gay people, or even Americans or Catholics, if that makes sense?

I guess I'll just leave it up to you guys to decide what the poet was actually trying to get at here.

I feel a certain regret for not joining this conversation sooner; perhaps it is already too late, but what does it matter? My conscience simply will not allow me to remain silent when a topic of this nature is being discussed.

Truly, I find myself struggling to comprehend this intense, forced emphasis regarding female representation. This aggressive push for minority representation in festival cinema is precisely why we see such chronically pretentious and mediocre works emerging from Cannes, and especially so from Venice and Berlin. In modern cinema, a veneer of "multiculturalism" seems to be a guaranteed ticket to at least one of those prestigious venues.
As for the portrayal of women in American cinema, the archetype of the mother is such a profound concept that directors like Terrence Malick or even the masters of spiritual realism have dedicated entire cinematic explorations to the theme.

I find myself agreeing with certain points—to an extent—much like how certain directors find massive success in the West by selling a stylized, exoticized version of Eastern European grit. Similarly, festival juries seem to crave another glimpse of that supposed "mysticism of the soul," which does not imply that those filmmakers are untalented, but rather suggests that festival committees are evaluating film on an entirely misguided level.

I perceive this work on both a personal and a professional level. By "professional," I do not refer to technical craftsmanship—for I have little patience for debates concerning mere technique; incidentally, the film was captured on an antiquated Arri 35mm. Rather, I mean the conceptualization of the film and the deliberate, thoughtful layers of meaning that construct this narrative.
There is something about it that calls to mind the work of Anthony and his penchant for weaving five or six distinct layers of meaning into a single frame.
Regarding biblical motifs, much like the works of Malick, we see the presence of fish (an early symbol of Christianity, of course) and water—almost iconic symbols within the film, particularly during the diving sequence. There is also the image of the father lying in bed, which serves as an imitation of a very famous painting of Jesus—I cannot recall the artist, though I believe he was Spanish.
Even so, I suspect the entire sequence involving the diving board is somewhat formulaic. However, I was quite taken by the idea of creating icons within the film itself, using a setting so minimalist that the era becomes impossible to pinpoint—is this taking place twenty years ago, today, or five years into the future?

The way the characters are introduced is masterfully executed. Character introduction is often the first fatal error in ninety percent of films.

Granted, the cinematography is breathtaking, but I do not view it as mere craft; rather, I see it as the engine driving the atmosphere. It is much like in >; Monica Vitt and her contemporaries were not placed on that isolated island without purpose. Location and composition speak of the characters—not through direct exposition, but through the subtle language of montage and, heaven forbid, dialogue.

And as for the editing: the cuts from static frames or dolly shots to handheld footage are among the most masterful transitions I have witnessed in recent memory. Even the opening credits—the interplay of motion and stillness—are so simple, yet so profoundly effective. It has been a long time since I have seen opening credits performed with such grace.

Personally, I view The Return as a film centered on a single emotion: attachment, and the subsequent liberation from it—specifically, the burden of a father who has departed. Naturally, film is a subjective experience; it is a feeling, a memory that materializes in every scene. It evokes the same sensation as the dream sequence with the dog in Nostalgia, or certain atmospheric moments found in Ulysses Gaza.

The scene where Vanya (what a coincidence, we share a name!) is left by the bridge, staring into the distance as trucks pass along desolate roads, is for me a rare cinematic moment. It is a meditative state that we experience vicariously... I am not quite sure how to articulate it. Such moments have been exceedingly rare in cinema over the last ten to fifteen years.

I realize many would prefer to watch gritty, documentary-style gangster tropes coming out of overseas territories, focusing on themes of struggle, much like how certain filmmakers once churned out hundreds of films centered on similar grim realities.
That is why I will always champion films like The Return.

For those who enjoyed this, I suggest you attempt to watch the Mexican film Amores Perros.

My best to you all.

Liberatore said:When you look at the biblical motifs, it’s very much like a Tarkovsky film—you have the fish (that early Christian symbol, obviously) and water, which act as almost iconic symbols throughout the movie (think of the diving board scene). Then there's the father lying in bed, which feels like a direct nod to that famous painting of Jesus—I can't recall the artist offhand, maybe someone Spanish.

Hmm, yeah, we could also point to the scene where his sons carry his body to the beach and drag him toward the boat; the bird's-eye view of him lying there with his arms outstretched is a dead ringer for the crucifixion of Jesus.

That said, I have to admit that after sitting through the film and digging into some critiques and reviews, all these Biblical parallels started feeling a bit overblown to me. It’s probably because I wasn't approaching the viewing from a religious standpoint—aside from what I touched on in my other post here, but even that was just a personal comparison.

For those of you who actually caught these motifs, how are you interpreting them? Are they meant as direct links to the characters' fates, or something else entirely?
Take, for instance: the father acting as a parallel to Jesus, the savior. One son functions like a devoted apostle—John, right? The other is essentially Judas, given how he indirectly caused his father's death. And since the father is gone so soon, he returns to "save" them...

Ethan Howard45 said:That’s everything!

🙏 🙏 🙏

But man, that truck scene. That telephoto shot where the truck slowly emerges from the fog on the interstate and rolls toward the kid... I just can't contain my excitement. 😁 When that truck pulled up to him, I honestly expected the ground to split wide open and—well, you know.

And that angle of the sleeping father out in the elements... I keep trying to find that image of Jesus, but all I'm seeing are shots of Cuban lightweight boxers. 😁 To me, those Bible images felt more like raw, powerful visuals drawing strength from religious motifs rather than some deep thematic connection. I mean, how much stronger can it get?!

No, I seriously need to rewatch this movie.

blueranger12 said:🙏 🙏 🙏

But regarding that sequence with the truck—that specific telephoto shot where the vehicle slowly emerges from the fog on the interstate and begins approaching the boy—I simply cannot suppress my excitement at that moment. 😁 When that truck pulled up toward him, I truly expected the earth itself to split open and... well, you know.

Man, these are the exact moments in cinema that make me feel alive.

Potala said:Well, yes, we could certainly include that scene where the sons pull him from the water and bring him to the shore, dragging him toward the boat; there is that shot from a bird's-eye view where he lies there with his arms outstretched, looking much like the crucified Jesus.

However, I must admit that after watching the film and wading through some of the critiques—those various reviews—all those Biblical parallels felt somewhat overstated to me. It is perhaps because, during my viewing, I wasn't consciously filtering the experience through a religious lens (aside from what I mentioned in my previous post on this thread, though that was merely my own comparison).

I find myself wondering about those of you who did spot these motifs—in what context do you interpret them? Do you see them as direct links to the characters' fates, or something else entirely?
For instance, take the father—a parallel to Jesus, the savior. Then there is one son, acting as a devoted apostle, deeply tied to Jesus (what was his name, was it John?). The other is Judas (having indirectly caused his father's death). Since the father was gone for so little time, the sons came to "save" him...

Personally, I find those bird's-eye view shots absolutely fascinating when they are utilized at the perfect moment and aren't just used for the sake of being excessive...
It brings to mind the opening of "Undertow" (a truly excellent new film by David Gordon Green about the American South... easily the first decent film about the South we've seen in quite some time) or perhaps certain frames from "Titus" by Julie Taymor... but I don't want to dwell too much on my own preferences.

Regarding these religious motifs... they are so pervasive in Russian art, literature, and cinema. I was actually discussing this just yesterday with a friend of mine from Russia. It seems to be something that flows naturally from their culture and their people... perhaps even subconsciously. He mentioned to me that religion is so deeply ingrained that even seventy-five years of Communism failed to uproot it. Neither the destruction of churches nor the fact that, according to the 1995 census, eighty percent of Russians were considered atheists changed that. Regardless of whether they attend church or practice the faith, religion remains omnipresent within Russian culture.

Ultimately, the film is an exploration of the power of belief and, by extension, the power of the imagination... so perhaps these subconscious religious undertones are simply unavoidable.

Has anyone here seen Bertolucci's "Spider Strategy"?

Best regards...

"Have you ever sat down and watched Bertolucci’s \"Spider Strategy\"?"

The one where the son heads back to his small hometown just to dig up the truth behind his father's murder?

Exactly that.

And then, after all that, one goes and produces *Stealing Beauty* and *The Dreamers*, claiming that politics no longer holds any interest for them—that they are solely focused on love.