Antigone

Antigone is a naive teen, a good high school student, who idealizes and loves her two older brothers. Their family is a refugee from some violent middle-east area, arriving to Canada as small kids with their grandmother for sole support. Unbeknown to Antigone, her brothers are now small time criminals instrumental in the death of some other youth. During a police operation, one brother dies and the other can expect expulsion to his former country.

And that is intolerable to Antigone. No matter what her brothers could have done, one is dead and the other is to be repatriated. So she takes it onto herself to defy the justice and prison systems, to organise her remaining brother's escape and to take whatever rap happens. Her mind is now set, no matter what, to pursue its dramatic logic.

She could be defended in court like any other misguided juvenile delinquent. However her clever lawyer devises a crusader defence to shore up popular support. And the issue becomes should she follow the law of loyalty to her family members and those of society. Antigone makes her choice irrevocably, not acknowledging that it is the laws of her host society that have protected, fed, schooled and medically cared for her family from the moment they set foot in Canada. But the film doesn't make that acknowledgement either; it rather makes it look like cold white society set against poor migrants. And so, Sophocles' masterpiece is recuperated to advance the victimisation rhetoric of the time.

Sophocles' Antigone was a discussion of the dilemma between the necessity of applying laws to protect society versus the duty that one senses to accomplish another duty (family, religious, moral, etc.). This film is less interested in Sophocles' issues and more in showing how someone can lose all senses, and everything else, to pursue a noble if misguided aim. No service is paid to the idea that individuals make decisions that can destroy their families, not to mention their lives, and therefore they should act carefully and responsibly. And so, the film is mostly (good) show and little substance.

The pretention of this film is to make us believe that it is a tragedy because it takes its title from a famous Greek tragedy and because the protagonists it shows bear Greek names picked from the tragedy. In 2020 it sounds absurd to have North African emigrants called Antigone, Ménécée, Ismène, or Étéocle!. More over the story ignores totally the original content of the tragedy. The result is an amateurish film badly acted and badly directed. The only positive aspect is the beauty of Nahema Ricci's facial expression. Unfortunately because of the inexperienced director her expression remains the same all along the movie.

Firstly I applaud any adaption of ancient archetypes. Changing the times is interesting, and the ancients authors fundamentally changed even the morals of the archetype stories. There are very different lessons/conclusions in the Daedalus, Prometheus, Iphigenia & Electra, etc. of course Antigone, part of the Oedipus cycle, was dealt with very differently by Sophocles, Aeschylus and Euripides. . That said this telling is a total failure. It is shallow and pedantic and absurdly puts Antigone'S fate on everyone, making the story nonsense from any perspective.

This is a very powerful movie, but I'm not sure weather or not it is a good movie. It definitely is very thought provoking and leaves you (or prehaps just me) in shock at the end. This interpretation of a greek tragedy places itself in a very heavy political context, which, depending on the people, might make it seems like a very political film (which I also believe). Nevertheless, it asks very important political questions regarding individual duties, submission to law and the state, and even philosophical conceptions of what should be a good life and the integrity of conformism. Though, to me, the movie lacks nuance and finess to the profit of a radical approach that does a good job highlighting the main themes and questions of its plot, but which also makes it a bit too extreme and often clunky.

On a technical level, the movie is well shot, with a very eye pleasing cinematography by Sophie Dersape herself. I'm not as much of a fan of the editing and directing (both also from Deraspe), which can be quite ostentatious and even seem a bit forced from time to time, like she's trying a bit too hard. The music is adequate although not revolutionary.

Ricci's performance is outstanding most of the time. The other actors are also doing a very good job, although it often felt a bit unnatural to me.

It's definitely a good film to see but I would recommend reading a bit about the greek story of Antigone and the Freddy Villanueva affaire to understand the political context in which the movie situates itself, but also in order not to misjudge its reach and overestimate the political subtext.

I saw it as inspired adaptation of the plays, from Sophocle to Anouilh. Precise, moving, provocative, using the fair cinematography and beautiful portrait of the clash between family and law. But, sure, the basic virtue remaind Nehame Ricci performance, reminding, so much,Maria Falconetti in the masterpiece of Carl Theodor Dreyer . A film about immigrants condition.Short, just a beautiful film.