Un silence

I never leave reviews, but I have to spare you the pain of watching this. The characters are meh (you neither like nor dislike them, you just don't care), the direction given to the actors must have been "always have your poker face on", the plot is slow and meandering, and the cinematography the worst I can remember: half the scenes are too dark to see anything!

Most of the movie you are just watching someone walk or drive a car. And usually not for any good reason.

For such a potentially interesting story line and delicate emotion-evoking subject matter, the only emotion you are left with is.... relief that's it's over.

A strange start which failed to set up the plot. It took really to 70% into the film to get the real story and even then it was confusing to say the least. Sure the subject matter is delicate but why confuse the audience ? .. It was always hard to get into each character and work out where they were placed within the plot. The past indiscretion of the father was never explained properly, which may have let the film flow better. The exact relations between the father and the son only let you guess ! The same with the mother, who seemed herself confessing as all the rest of the cast. I expected much better.

I guess I was a little tired from a late night but this did not help to keep awake. I do agree with the review that gives only 2 stars. And I'm sorry I press the wrong rating by accident as it was exactly how I felt.

I'm agreat fan of D Autheuill and also Emanuelle Devos. But this was not a movie I enjoyed.

The screen opens wider after the preamble, but you get a very small writing on its center, quite hard to read... Then many of the shots are similar too! Then you get a simple but sad story told in a rather confusing maner and in an obscure and somber out of focus ambiance... there is little or nothing to spoil about it.

It takes lots of time to get a clear view on the underlying plot. It may be that the filmmakers counted on our familiarity with the overarching court case, but for us living outside Belgium it particularly did not work. During the overly long pre-amble, I was pondering what the plot would lead to: (a) the child porn is planted to pressure Francois to do something in the context of the court case he is involved in. This course case is mentioned several times, but what it entails remained a mystery; OR (b) Francois studied the child porn on grounds of "need to know" in the context of said court case. By chance, Raphael discovered it many years ago, watched it out of curiosity, got hooked and kept looking for similar stuff on Internet, explaining the 7,700 views; OR (c) others in the family were sexually abused when they were young, but kept silent about it for many years, now suddenly coming forward for some reason; OR (d).... I can go on like this, randomly combining other plot elements that can be constructed out of the building blocks presented.

The background court case is a high profile one, given journalists who are waiting 24/7 before their house, overwhelming them with questions at the gate. It gives rise to suspicions from my side that political elements were trying to steer in a certain direction, but that Francois did not give in as a matter of principle, while TPTB heightened the pressure until their (hidden) goal is reached, no matter what it does to the personal lives of the family involved.

It takes lots of time to unconfuse us and make clear which direction the plot is going to take, and suddenly it hits us that the case is less convoluted than I thought at first. In other words, an anticlimax. Before that, I felt a light but continuous tension throughout, letting us wonder which development or turn of event would be next. Tantalizing when one of my assumed plots (see above) was to come out. It did not, in my opinion, a missed chance to get the story to a higher level.

All in all, I had the feeling when leaving the venue that we should be disappointed that the court case as well as the other family members were less involved, in other words that it was not exploited farther than done here. In the defense of the filmmakers, I can assume that they tried to remain true to the events of the background court case, which was well-known in Belgium, and did not want to paraphrase on it to arrive at a more interesting scenario. The latter could have given us novel insights into how such a court case works out on those involved. They could have elaborated freely, adding a footnote "Based on true events."

Because of missed chances of upgrading the plot, digressing from the original court case as it was known in Belgium, my score comes down to 3/5. We don't get a chance to delve deeper in the motives of the protagonists, what they did and why they did it. We only touch their surface. It's a pity, as it could have been much better. They could have turned it into a "based on true events" story, cutting loose from the original events. My final conclusion is that the protagonists remain bleak and non-interesting, leaving us indifferent what happens to them.

I thought seeing a french film would always be very different to a hollywood blockbuster, but I was more challenged than I thought. At least half of the film was in dark, gloomy, fuzzy filmed cars and homes. We could not relate to any character or feel empathy for any; which is ok if that's what you were aiming for. The plot moved excessively slowly. Once the facts started to emerge, the scenes began to brighten and dialogue made more sense. Was that a plot device? Either way, this film both in its content and filming techniques is not for everyone. Would I recommend, yes, but dont pay for it at the cinema. Stream it.