Le ciel rouge

Leon and Felix, two young men with work to do, head to a family cottage to complete their tasks. But a beautiful interloper upsets their plans.

It's a familiar set up, given a memorable outing in Lynn Shelton's 'Your Sister's Sister.' The remote setting, the unexpected third wheel, sexual tension, secrets and lies - all the familiar elements are here. There is lots to admire about Afire, most notably the performances from Paul Beer as Nadja, Langston Uibel as Felix, Enno Trebs as Devid and Matthias Brandt as Helmut, a character who arrives late but has a very interesting narrative arc. Ultimately, however, the film fails to deliver a satisfying emotional climax. The tension between Leon and Nadja seems forced, resulting from some unpolished plot manoeuvres. Why does Nadja not reveal her literary background? How can she just 'turn up' in the bedroom with Leon? The main misfire, however, is the casting of Thomas Schubert as Leon. He just never convinces as tortured writer, a character type exemplified by Paul Giamatti in Sideways. It is a puzzling error, given that the other characters are so well cast.

The sound design also slightly annoys by making the buzzing of insects prominent. It is presumably done to put us 'inside' of Leon's discomfort, but it is merely irritating.

The ending felt like it was missing a layer. The turnaround in Leon's fortunes is a nice touch, but I expected to hear that his story was pure fiction inspired by the events, and that the tragedy he relays in his prose had not, in fact, taken place. But the script did not take that step, and that feels like a missed opportunity. Leon is more interested in rekindling a romance than grieving for a friend, and that made me dislike him.

There are many good elements here. Nadja is intriguing and likable, and the romance that blossoms between two characters was unexpected and surprising. The approaching fire is a nice literal and figurative touch. Afire is worth checking out, but it feels like is could have been so much more than it is.

The plot is very disorienting. There is a huge deadly forest fire and yet mere minutes away these people are going about their recreational and artistic pursuits without issue. The fire keeps pendulating between being the driving force of the plot and being an ignored inconvenience.

The characters are all mildly uncanny. If there is an artistic message in their personae then it must have been too esoteric for me to pick up while watching.

The storyline felt like it may have been a symbol for the ideation of the film. Keep writing literary nonsense while being an unlikeable detached egotist until you finally chance upon something passable... Unfortunately, the protagonist is so egotistical that when he tries self reflection he actually somehow becomes more egotistical! So I have to confess bewilderment at what the message is supposed to be.

The actor Thomas Schubert deserves much of the credit for making "Afire" work as well as it does.

He plays a self-absorbed, petty, insecure writer who's so myopically obsessed with the book he's writing that he's oblivious to the world around him. In other hands, it would be a big ask of the audience to spend two hours with such a tiring character, especially since he's in virtually every scene of the movie. But Schubert is able to make this character not only tolerable, but relatable. We're all guilty of missing the bigger picture because of our individual preoccupations.

The ending of "Afire" feels a bit overly dramatic. It's like something that would feel right at home in one of those Southern gothic plays by Tennessee Williams or Eugene O'Neill. But I did enjoy the irony of its conclusion -- once our main character starts paying attention to the trauma around him, it's something he uses to write better books.

Grade: A.

This had potential, there is a good movie inside this movie, just not the one i watched.

It's like this movie has a beginning and an end but not anything in between. This want to be a "character study" but there is not a smooth transition in this leading character's development: He is always immature and suddenly he supposedly has an epiphany. There is no chemistry between him and Nadja, are we suppose to believe that she is attracted to him? Why? How? And the ending is just lazy writing. Symbolisms are naive. And it's "easy". Big events are easy. A more lowkey approach would be better.

Having said that, this is a somewhat good slowburn drama, not a "heavy" drama, neither a comedy as it labelled. I loved the song. Kinda interesting, some intense moments, subtle and well acted. As another reviewer mentioned, "That works up to a point, but there was too much missing from the puzzle for me to really find myself engaged with any of them".

This is an absolute gem of a film. I hadn't done my homework - just ticked it a as good option to see in the NZ International Film Festival, but I was hooked form the opening scenes. It's a subtle, beautifully played film, based around a young writer (Leon) who is struggling to put the finishing touches to a novel, while staying at what is turning out to be the holiday home from hell. Leon is his own worst enemy, always makes the wrong choice, and then beats himself up about it. There is a sinister backdrop to the story, and an unsettling tonal shift toward the end - but that's life, right? Despite the dark undercurrent that gradually emerges, the film is also very funny, and therefore works on more than one level - as a study of human behaviour but also as pure entertainment. I loved this film, and I highly recommend it.