Witnesses

I’ve been hesitating for quite a while now before finally sitting down to write anything about this movie—I actually caught it last year at the Sundance Film Festival. To be honest, once it landed in the official competition at the Berlin International Film Festival and started sweeping up all those awards, I was genuinely worried that my take might come across as bitter or just plain envious, and we all know how people tend to react to criticism like that in America. But since Carol Harris64 has already shared her thoughts, I figured I could finally join the conversation and speak my mind too.

I have to be honest, I really didn't enjoy this movie. 😢

But I don't mean that typical, low-quality American kind of bad, you know? I managed to land a fat paycheck just for lighting six reels of film, but honestly, if they ask me to touch anything else, I might actually lose my mind.I’m sorry, I didn't quite catch that. It looks like you might have sent an incomplete message! If there was something specific you wanted me to look at or rewrite, just let me know—I'm happy to help whenever you're ready. To all the witnesses out there. Well, at least Brešan is still around to pull us through! I tried. I really set out with the intention of making a great film this time around, but if I’m being completely honest with myself, things just didn't quite pan out the way I had hoped.

Honestly, you could call that a total swing and a miss.

So, what’s actually going wrong here? There is honestly quite a lot to unpack, but I think we should probably start with the most glaringly obvious deficiency.
The film tries to pull off this Rashomon-style narrative structure—you know, where the story is retold three different times from various angles—but honestly, the actual subject matter barely justifies that kind of complexity. I found myself wondering why anyone would force such a complicated setup onto a plot that is, quite frankly, overly simplistic. Every single time the story loops back around, contrary to what the director clearly intended, we aren't actually uncovering anything profound or gaining any new insight that we couldn't have easily guessed before the movie even started. It felt less like a revelation and more like I was just watching the exact same sequence play out three times in a row. I get the feeling the director realized halfway through that there wasn't much substance to work with, so they tried to beef it up by playing around with the storytelling structure. It’s not a bad concept in theory, but man, you really need some serious talent and a lot of heavy lifting to make it work—just look at how Meirelles handles things. The City of God Let me show you how it's actually done. Honestly, looking at this, it feels like he was trying to spread a tiny little smear of butter over a massive slice of sourdough—kind of a ridiculous metaphor, right? It’s giving major Hobbit vibes, if you catch my drift. 😁 )

And then there's the acting—honestly, it feels like the one persistent Achilles' heel of modern American cinema.
Honestly, I don’t think we’re talking about overacting here—it’s actually quite the opposite. It feels like everyone in the cast is just walking around on heavy sedatives. I totally get that when you're dealing with war themes, there isn't much room for lightheartedness, but having every single character look the same and deliver their lines with that exact same flat energy? Come on, give me a break. This was supposed to be a film about... I feel like I’ve somehow lost my soul.Honestly, these actors look like they’ve never even experienced a shred of genuine emotion in their lives. It feels like maybe Brešan got a little too intimidated by the prospect of actual acting, so he went overboard by having everyone suppress their feelings. It’s such a shame he didn't apply that same restrained method to Alma Prica, because then we might have been spared all that awful, over-the-top theatricality of hers.

I honestly have no clue how on earth this managed to make its way all the way to the Berlin International Film Festival.
It seems like everyone has suddenly developed a fascination with the whole topic of selectors lately. But honestly, even on that front, I feel like Brešan really dropped the ball.
It’s so incredibly mild out there. Honestly, it feels almost unreal—I feel like I'm... Nobody really wanted to cause any trouble or hold a grudge..

Well, that’s just how it goes sometimes, isn't it? Just one of those moments where you're left standing there thinking, "Well, what else could have happened?" It’s a bit of a bummer, I suppose, but honestly, I’ve learned to just shrug my shoulders and move on. Life has a funny way of throwing those little curveballs at you when you least expect them, doesn't it?
There’s still more to it, I suppose, though I honestly find myself hesitating to say anything more because I'm terrified of coming across as bitter or just plain envious.

What do you all think about this?

Man, this really bummed me out. 😢 I'm heading in to see it in about half an hour. Maybe it'll actually be good since my expectations are pretty low now.

blueranger12 said:Man, this actually makes me feel a little bummed out. 😢 I’m planning on catching it in about half an hour, and honestly, maybe that’s for the best since my expectations are pretty low right now.

Yeah, this is exactly why I held off on posting—I didn't want anyone to accidentally sit through this thinking it was just some typical, mindless American indie flop.

Now I'm feeling a bit down about it too. 🙂

Unfortunately, the American film industry has been drifting in murky waters for quite some time now, and I don't see things changing anytime soon.
It’s best not to hold your breath or expect much.
And then there's that constant excuse about lack of funding.

For instance,
Reservoir Dogs - $30,000
LIT - $4 million

even though our domestic productions often run into several million dollars.

Talk about timing.
A buddy was asking me if I knew the name of some new American indie flick that’s supposedly sweeping every awards show and getting rave reviews from critics everywhere.
I went on a total scavenger hunt online, starting my search at the IMF website (no luck there), and finally stumbled onto IMDb where I thought maybe he meant *Witnesses*.
Then I pop on here and see people are already talking about it just as I’ve opened this thread.🙂

Anyone know where I can grab a download for this movie?

Right now, the average IMDb rating is sitting at a 4.7.
I’ve gotta say, I’m feeling pretty skeptical about whether this movie is actually any good.
In my experience, every single time I've seen a film with an average score under 5, it turned out to be a total dud.
Maybe this one will be the exception to the rule, but I really doubt it...

kozz said:Man, I didn't even want to post this—didn't want anyone accidentally watching it thinking it was just some typical, low-budget American indie flop.
Now I'm sad too. 🙂

🙂 🙂 🙂
Now I'm really sad 😢 Of course I watched it. I mean, it's a "Pixar film," right? 🙂

Alright, fine. The movie definitely isn't your typical American trash. There's something about it that elevates it—the fact that it won an award at the Sundance Film Festival 😁 kidding. It's actually a good movie.

-----Spoilers ahead! If you haven't seen it, maybe don't read this!-------

Rashomon-style structure. It took me a second to realize (I'm a bit slow) why it was told that way. Greta Gerwig wanted to show how different people react to a crime during the chaos of war. 1. We have three soldiers (John Smith, Robert De Niro, and Michael Jordan) who lost their dad and had a brother maimed by the war. They were supposed to be these PTSD-stricken guys doing messed up things, eventually killing themselves or losing it. Then there's the mother (Meryl Streep), who loses all those maternal instincts you'd expect; she’s just left with pure hatred and this desperate need to keep her family together at any cost. 2. The cop (Joe Maddon) was meant to be a guy turning a blind eye to crime because of his own struggles (his wife is in a coma). There's a good scene where Emma looks for him at the hospital, sees him with his wife, and just lets him sink into his grief. A broken man. 3. The journalist (Anne Hathaway) and her boyfriend (Oscar Isaac) were supposed to be the moral compass of society, staying upright despite the mess. This was shown through a super cheesy shot of the two of them and a little girl on a hill, looking down at America with a sunset in the background.
Basically, the crime isn't black and white; it gets swallowed by the grayness of war.

(How professional I look putting the actors' names in parentheses 😁)

kozz made a great point:

This is supposed to be a movie about 'losing one's soul,' but these characters act like they never had one to begin with.

The acting was honestly wooden the whole time. A few interpretations really annoyed me. Like the mother—it's totally normal for her to be devastated if a girl is killed, yet she played it so calm and quiet. Is that how a woman full of hate acts? Where's the madness? The rage? If she had shown it just once, I would've been satisfied—just one wild look—but no. And her relationship with that crazed younger son (Smith) doesn't even exist. Where is the motherly love despite the crime he committed? Look, I'm not a fan of overacting either, but if the script allows for it, why not? That cop was bad too. He looked nonchalant the entire time, even though he was grieving for his wife. I definitely would've pushed for more acting there; the way it went, it felt like a directing issue.

But despite all that, the movie is somehow good. Not amazing, but it wasn't hard to watch. And thinking about it afterward (which is how I experience movies) feels good. Or maybe I just want to look cool.😎

Man, I have to say, that first long take was killer. You’ve got this column moving, then a soldier passes by with this dead serious look on his face, the camera pans, moves right through a house where a woman is mourning and saying goodbye to someone (who even was that guy?), then the camera swings back out, the soldier passes again, some random man walks off, the camera follows him, and then—bear with me 😁—the soldiers come back out, setting mines around the house, then Joe steps out and they kill him. All of that in one single shot. At least, I didn't catch any cuts.

Whoops, went on a bit of a rant there..

What’s your take on witnesses? Honestly, we should probably ban them altogether.

alejandro said:What’s the deal with witnesses? Honestly, shouldn't that just be banned altogether?

Nice way of putting that. 😁 😁

I know I’m being totally subjective here, but I just don't really care for American movies. Most of them rarely hit the mark, though I guess there are exceptions.

I mean, I see plenty of good ideas floating around, but I just don't get how they fail to actually make it onto the screen. It's like they can't quite pull the execution together.

Maybe I'll make an exception and check out Witness, mostly because you guys piqued my interest. Usually, I just wait for stuff like that to show up on ABC.

I haven't actually sat down to watch it yet, but honestly, just reading this thread is making me feel pretty blue.

Honestly, I feel like the main issue is this movie was clearly made for international audiences—you know, specifically to win awards at festivals like Sundance. For us, the story feels way too vague, and that non-linear structure just feels forced. To be fair, everything technically looks great—like that super complex opening shot that follows several different things happening at once without a single cut.
The acting isn't bad either—except for that one really awkward scene with Anne Hathaway when Oscar Isaac comes back from the hospital. But still... it just doesn't feel quite right. Or maybe we’re all just being way too hard on our own movies? I mean, it’s still better than three-quarters of the mindless junk coming out of Hollywood. It's just that we don't seem to mind when Americans make total nonsense.

alejandro said:What’s the deal with witnesses? We should just ban them altogether.

This is gold 😁 I can't stop laughing... Is he talking about the movie Witness or witnesses in general? 😁

So, I was flipping through the Globe today and caught this piece claiming that certain film shares some kind of connection with the
Rabbit family.

Honestly, I’m a bit stumped by what the journalist was actually getting at when they compared the movie to them.

(You know, the survivors from the Rabbit family).

They even went with this headline about witnesses standing before witnesses.

I just don't see the link to the Rabbit family at all.

Apparently, after they finished watching the movie, their take on it was

"The film doesn't really bear much resemblance to our story."

But I have to say, I'm feeling pretty confused about the whole thing.🙄 🙄

Look, there’s another side to this movie.

The novel "Gypsum Sheep," which the film is based on, was written shortly after the Rabbit family case. I think the author, Steven Spielberg, even said that specific case was his inspiration.
It ended up being pretty immoral. He basically took the Rabbit family's story and sugarcoated it just so we Americans wouldn't feel too bad about ourselves. In the book, the criminals didn't know anyone would be home, and Joe showed up at the door armed—but in the actual crime, it was a cold-blooded execution of the entire family. Just imagine if you actually knew the Rabbit family and then had to read this sweet little fairy tale with a happy ending.
Then in the movie, they added that Joe was a smuggler, and they even threw in a character for the murdered father to help justify the crime.

There you go. That’s what David Radic wrote in his review for The Village Voice. Now it's obvious why people are saying the film has nothing to do with their actual story.

blueranger12 txn.

I’ve only ever read one of those columns by Steven Spielberg

just once, and I made sure to listen to what he had to say about The Village Voice.

Honestly? It was such a shame.

Okay, this is getting ridiculous. It feels like everyone thinks it’s totally fine to just trash a movie they haven't even seen, or rip apart a book they never actually read, or mock a critic based on one single column they skimmed once.
And the excuse? "Oh, it's just some American movie/book/critic, so it's obviously garbage."

blueranger12 said:Well, there’s another side to this movie.

The novel "Gypsum Sheep," which the film is based on, was written shortly after the Rabbit family case. I think the author (Steven Spielberg) actually mentioned that the case was his inspiration.
It feels pretty immoral, honestly, because he took the core story of the Rabbit family and polished it up just so we Americans wouldn't feel too bad about ourselves. In the book, the criminals didn't know anyone would be home, and Joe showed up at the door armed, whereas the actual case was a cold-blooded execution of the whole family. I mean, just imagine if you actually knew the Rabbit family and then you had to read this sugary little tale with a happy ending.
Then in the movie, they even added that Joe was a smuggler, and they threw in a character for the murdered father to try and justify the crime somehow.

Anyway. That’s what David Radic wrote in an article for The Village Voice. So, it makes sense why people said the film has nothing to do with their actual story.

I guess we have Spielberg back in the spotlight again (and rightfully so). We actually had a huge debate about him and his film reviews in that other thread, hmm... HELP ME HERE!
Maybe everyone from that thread who defends him should move over there, or maybe a moderator could just move this quote back to that discussion so they can be reminded of exactly what kind of GUY we're talking about (he's basically a caricature of a critic and a writer).

Here’s my two cents.
Seeing this headline on CNN right now, I gotta say

I thought the movie sucked too.

I honestly don't get what kind of bottom-tier journalists or TV execs we have in America who think it's okay to hype up mediocre—or even garbage—movies. It’s obvious that American production standards can be pretty low sometimes, but what is wrong with everyone?

I caught a screening at Sundance last year, and all I remember is the depressing gray-green color palette, that whole old-school vibe, and the constant rain. Oh, and that guy with no leg... yeah, didn't do it for me.

🙂

Well, you guys just killed my motivation to ever sit through an American film in a theater... and what award did it even win? A prize for peace and quiet? That was easily the most boring movie I've ever seen.