User reviews

Yana (Ia Sukhitashvili) is the wife of the leader of a community of Jehovah's Witnesses in a town in Georgia (the country), where the majority of the population profess the Orthodox Christian faith and sees them with bad eyes. Her community task is to teach classes in preparation for baptism to the children of the congregation. A serious incident in the community meeting room (superbly filmed) determines the departure of her husband for a few days and she is left alone with her son. The unexpected aggressions that she suffers during that absence are added to the buried crisis that she had been going through.

Beginning is the debut feature by the young director Dea Kulumbegashvili that won no less than four major prizes at the 2020 San Sebastian Festival (film, direction, script and leading actress) from the president of the jury Luca Guadagnino and it was selected to represent its country for the Oscars.

How to approach the review of this original and radical film in so many ways?

From the formal point of view, the director virtuously resorts to extremely long fixed shots (that is, shots without cuts where the camera does not move), both for intimate scenes with a hypnotic stillness and for others that do not allow the viewer to escape from a painting of violence. Even more remarkable is the original use of sound out of the field (that is, keeping certain events or characters in a scene out of the picture), with literally disturbing effects. A beautiful photograph is added and an almost total absence of a soundtrack.

Yana is a woman who abandoned her vocation as an actress to follow and accompany her husband. In other words, she chooses to belong to a community where she dominates a subtle domestic and another more explicit social and religious male chovinism, with guilt and punishment as essential inputs for domination. A community in turn inserted into an absolutely hostile national and religious environment.

Yana is a dissatisfied woman who, on the one hand, does not finish assuming her role as a victim, despite the siege of aggressions that is rising around her, but who at the same time is incubating some way to overcome it in those long dead times that her we see transit.

Beginning supports more than one reading. It can be seen as a kind of biblical tragedy that refers in part to the cinema of Dumont and that of Lars Von Trier, where some character perhaps fulfills an allegorical role not because of the obviousness of the script but because of the codes that subdue the protagonist and determine the look her.

I was engage throughout the film.

LOVE the choice of camera angle and the use of sound -- really opens up audiences' imagination -- created a lot of tension.

Great first feature -- well done!

Well made, realistic movie that does at times feel a little bloated. Like did we really need to watch her sleep in the forest for like 10 minutes? But it did exhibit a high-level of craft, and when things actually DO happen it's genuinely shocking, even riveting. Kinda slow for comic book, CGI loving "American audiences". But I don't think the filmmaker minds that one bit.

First good things...about feminism,very interesting portrayal of a main female character. Beautifully shot with main actress really good. Some scenes are shot for sake of it( long still take). Finally as an atheist the religious part of the movie is frustrating so can't get warm to the movie

NB I saw this on MUBI, which currently tacks on a 30min Q&A between the director and Luca Guadagnino - who was chair of the jury that awarded this film so richly. Without going too much into spoiler territory, this Q&A is very interesting, and the director very thoughtful, lively and entertaining.

As for the film, I found it very engaging, if slow. The lead actor's performance is the main draw, and IMHO she does an excellent job of quietly demonstrating the inner turmoil that grows in reaction to her situation at the beginning of the film, and the shocking events during the narrative.

The use of the fable of Abraham and Isaac at the beginning is key, I think, although perhaps I'm reading too much into it?

Worth a look though.

Film is masterfully assembled. Exceptional visual style and cinematography. Very gentle and thundering applauses to IA SUKHITASHVILI, quintessential performance. I definitely need to admire lens choice, and the beautiful look of the whole film. Best wishes to Georgian director Dea Kulumbegashvili and her entire team.

I do not need to say anything additionally, just take your chance and watch the FILM.

Uncomfortable to watch almost throughout with an underlying tension, like a low sustain. It's shot in a fairly unique, beguiling and beautiful style. The lead actress especially acts with incredibly rawness, fitting with the inherent rawness of the film. A hard to watch artistic film and maybe not for everyone, but it has stuck with me.

It has a splendidly staged first sequence. As if the director wanted to state that she can do a good film if she wants to. So, if the rest appear as one of the most irritating things you ever saw in a movie house, is just because she wanted it so. And judging from the highest honors given in the prestigious San Sebastian Festival, maybe she was right. But my advice is to stay away from this film at all cost!

The male narrative turned Medusa into a monster, while in her Greek origin she was a muse. For Yana's husband, rape implies a certain acceptance. This masculine reading marks the path of an uncomfortable, claustrophobic film that seems to expel the viewer but in reality traps him in its static, rigid planes. And in his splendid use of the off-camera, where that which threatens the main image seems to be. Splendid example of a thoughtful cinema.

This film impressed me by its cinematic timing and the use of silence. It became more and more deep with time, I cannot stop thinking and rethinking some scenes. The director started with a powerful scene that gets more layers of reading along the film. The scene by the river, at night, with fairy enough light to see in the darkness made wonder about how light can be perceived and how it affect the action in frame. The sound coming from out of frame also makes us complete the scenes beyond the limits of the frame, however, it expands the perception of the space even if we dont see more things in frame.

At the beggining , I wondered if I was going to watch a masterpiece from a debut Director. After 20 minutes the extremely long and quiet shots and the poor plot is almost an outrage. I question myself what makes MUBI classify this film as a masterpiece.

This movie is not about Jehovah's Witness community. It looks like some weird sect. I believe that the writer/director was not even on one of those people meeting, not to mention their believes.

I guess every country audience has to watch these movies before they get to good movies. 4: 3 format, very long sequences, very experimental, why?

There is the basis of a story here but really the only interesting scene is the first one. After that it is neo-Kieslowskian scenes of domestic angst plus one very unpleasant one of, with no reference at all to the ostensible cultural basis of the hostility towards Jehovah's Witnesses. Ponderous film making and lazy storytelling.

Disturbing and unpleasant, without really making an original point. I hope those movies stop getting prizes. 2 stars because the acting and camerawork were actually good, otherwise I would rate one.

This film is an entire waste of time, thanks to a combination of bad camera work, lack of context, and a barely there storyline that is stretched to the extreme. First, the camera. Nearly the entire film has out of focus areas on the screen. Oftentimes one specific part of the screen is in focus and everything else is mildly blurry, and you have to look for the clear area. You think you're losing your vision and keep rubbing your eyes and blinking. Next, the music. Or more accurately, the complete lack of any background music/score/ambient soundtrack. The acting by the lady is fine, I guess, but everyone is so minimal. It tries to be every day realistic in performances, but it strips away nearly all in its minimalism so much that there is barely context anymore. Shots with minimalism drag on endlessly too. It looks like the director thought of cool framed shots, but didn't build anything around it. Scenes which are actually several minutes long of literally no change or movement, a still shot. The story barely lurches forwards, with a vague sense of even having a story that continues at all. Just scenes with nonsensical happenings that sometimes references the previous scenes. The final act is bordering on absurd, coupled with a lack of context. Just make up your own. I regret having watched this attempt at a movie.

I have never seen a movie with such poorly done subtitles. The dialog goes, then a full 9 or 10 seconds later you finally get the translation, often for the wrong person who is now speaking. The plot was thin The camera work was bizarre. Not worth the time.