Women Talking reviews

[Big Magilla]

Interesting observations. Although the novel and subsequently the film are based on real incidents in the ultra-conservative Manitoba Mennonite colony in Boliva, the women talking as well as their ultimate decision to leave are made-up me-too fiction. It you want to know what really happened, click on the links I gave you.

[Sabin]

danfrank wrote
I interpreted the “women” talking as representative of the type of internal dialogue that individual women have when deciding to stay in or leave an abusive relationship. The decision to leave, especially for the many women who become isolated as a result of the abuse (represented in the film as a very isolated Mennonite community), represents a great leap of faith into the unknown. Of course faith was a central topic among the women in the film.

I think that's what they meant to do, to abstract the women and make their struggles more universal. IMO that's why it didn't work for me because nothing that they talk about or anything in the film is that compelling or believable from this universal standpoint. I think something needed to be added to the film to replace that which had been abstracted. But just judging the film on what it is, I don't think Sarah Polley pulled it off.

dws1982 wrote
(I think it's significant that the novel is apparently from the point-of-view of the Ben Whishaw character, who is the only person in the novel who speaks English, and who in the film is as gutted and subservient as the women in this world would be.)

I had no idea. I definitely had the thought at some point during the film that it might have worked better from the Ben Whishaw character's POV. Which wouldn't have been as politically fashionable but wow, it might have fixed some of the problems dramatically.

BTW, terrific review, Daniel. Great points.

[danfrank]

I just couldn't buy the premise

This film definitely doesn’t work if it’s taken too literally. There’s plenty here that’s unrealistic, e.g., that women who are denied literacy could speak so eloquently. Miriam Toews, who wrote the novel upon which the film is based, called it “an imagined response to real events” and “an act of female imagination.” By depicting abuse on a large scale—an entire community of women—and in a particularly oppressive environment, the film amplifies the experiences of so many individual women. I interpreted the “women” talking as representative of the type of internal dialogue that individual women have when deciding to stay in or leave an abusive relationship. The decision to leave, especially for the many women who become isolated as a result of the abuse (represented in the film as a very isolated Mennonite community), represents a great leap of faith into the unknown. Of course faith was a central topic among the women in the film.

There were a few things in Women Talking that didn’t work for me, including, as others have mentioned, the character played by Ben Wishaw. I’m not sure what he’s supposed to represent, except maybe a sort of wish fulfillment in the form of the opposite of an overly empowered man. Overall, I thought this film worked very well: it was creative, well-written, nicely filmed, well acted, and emotionally powerful. I look forward to Sarah Polley’s next projects.

[dws1982]

I just couldn't buy the premise, that these women, who have spent their lives in this community, would all so easily and willingly have a sense of autonomy and independence. They have spent their lives in a world where they are constantly told you do what men say because God has ordained the universe this way, but no one (except for Frances McDormand, who is gone almost as soon as she appears) rings true as people who are from that world and as people who have been told that their entire lives. Too many of them seem to be fully okay with abandoning this world--the only one they have known--from the start. Which, they are right to abandon it, but it's not going to come anywhere near as easily in reality as it does in this fantasized version. "We are leaving because our faith is stronger than the rules" is a line of dialogue that only comes from a screenwriter who has no idea how fully a repressive, legalistic religious cult gets its hooks into someone. (I think it's significant that the novel is apparently from the point-of-view of the Ben Whishaw character, who is the only person in the novel who speaks English, and who in the film is as gutted and subservient as the women in this world would be.) Even Jessie Buckley's character, who becomes the doubter in the midsection of the film, is--especially early on--way more independent and outspoken than a woman in this environment probably would be. I'm not saying this had to be directed by a practicing Christian or anything like that, but maybe it needed a writer/director for whom Christianity isn't as foreign as the moon. Also it's ugly as hell. Performances aren't bad, but not to much end.

[Sabin]

Not much of this film worked for me besides "It's an important story that deserves to be told." I didn't need 12 Angry Men but I wouldn't have minded some thought for dramatic advancement of ideas. This is a compelling situation and I think an un-compelling route was taken, or at least one that paid little regard to drama and more regard to intentions. As Okri touches on, I'm astonished that faith plays so little a role in this film, that there's no woman in that room who says "But isn't this our role?" I can intellectualize the decision to abstract this scenario to remove the specificities of their faith to make it more a film about the conversations had been all women but I think that's an overly abstract choice. Additionally, if they are to go that route, then these conversations and this situation had better be pretty compelling and I don't think either is. Additionally additionally, I could see Polley's approach to the material working if the characters at the start of the film had less personality and conviction and throughout the film and the conversations they're literally filled in as individuals, but they present as very confident and contemporary from the get-go. Either way, I knew nothing about the Mennonite community and by the time I left I knew just as little.

There are plenty of things that bothered me like the look or the fact that Hidur Guonadottir's score is basically one riff repeated constantly throughout the film, but I can rationalize those choices. I think it's a film of good intentions, scattered moments, but I never quite bought into or was compelled by a potentially very compelling situation.

[Big Magilla]

Here's what I wrote in late January, which already seems like a long time ago. The story and the documentary are worth checking out. The actual events were actually more disturbing than those portrayed in the film.

Article on the real story behind Women Talking.

The victims were Mennonites in Bolivia. Much of what is covered in the film was reported by Jean Friedman-Rudovsky and filmed by her brother for the documentary, Ghost Rapes of Bolivia. Sarah Polley and Miriam Toews have never publicly acknowledged the source material, but Jessie Buckley did on Stephen Colbert's show.

The story:
https://news.yahoo.com/covered-story-in ... 50968.html

The documentary:
https://video.vice.com/en_us/video/ghos ... 667d828cad

[Okri]

Full disclosure: while I didn't grow up in a colony, the majority of my religious upbringing was Mennonite. That said, my mom took me out of the church for being a dick and my dad wasn't religious so I don't think I can come from this with any expertise.

Having said that, one of my biggest issues with the film was from a theo/logical perspective. The Frances McDormand character is removed fairly quickly, but I think a more honest version of the film would give more weight to her words. It's as if Polley couldn't imagine her fairly so removed her perspective as quickly as possible. I also questioned what the "stay and fight" option actually meant - it's not actually discussed deeply in any meaningful way. I'm fine with the choice made, but it seemed to be made far earlier in the discussion then was reasonable. And I'll echo that Wishaw's characterization is not a strong one (I totally understand how on paper he would be singled out for plaudits, only for no one to vote for him after seeing the movie).

Those flaws exist, but it's still a surprisingly powerful work. The filmmaking is very strong - the shot that's used on the poster was a moment where I gasped; it doesn't ever feel stagy at all (I thought the use of flashbacks/interstitials was very adroit) and the score is terrific. The performances across the board were superb (again, I understand how odd singling one out seems). Even if I think it's unfairly weighted towards a single point of view, the dialogue absolutely stings with pain.

So I'm glad it hung on, even if I wasn't 100% on board.

[Mister Tee]

This film seems impossible to discuss without dealing with the outsized negative response it's evoked from some (dominantly male) pundits. My scattered thoughts:

Sarah Polley is a clear filmmaker. Though about 70% of the action is limited to a small enclosed space, there's no sense of staginess, and real visual panache. The color palette bothers some, but 1) it was obviously a choice, and one adhered to with artistic consistency and 2) I thought it worked to convey the drab, limited lives of the characters.

Her script covers a great deal of doctrinaire ground, but the dialogue seemed to proceed from character, not simply from pamphleteering. One Judith Ivey speech, about 'the things we ask a man for", goes on a bit too long and feels writerly rather than humanly felt...but that was the only time I winced.

She gets mostly excellent work from her actresses. I can see, in retrospect, why this got SAG Ensemble but no individual nominations -- the entire cast excels, but it's hard to pick out one favorite from the women: for a while, it seems like Claire Foy, then switches to Jessie Buckley...and Judith Ivey is there the whole time. Rooney Mara, the lead if there is one, also stands out -- for the first time in a while, for me.

I will acknowledge one disappointment: I think Ben Whishaw's character is just too much a wuss. He seems to blubber at the drop of a hat, and is apologetic to the point of being almost servile. I think he serves as, unfortunately, support for those who (wrongfully) attack the film as man-hating: when the only redeemable post-adolescent male in the film comes off virtually emasculated, you're bound to provoke ignorant response. (For the record, I've very much liked Whishaw in previous roles, but I thought his work here was just wrong-headed.)

For the most part, though, I think those (again, mostly male) loud attacks on the film aren't made on artistic grounds -- as a work of art, this is estimable. The objections seem entirely ideological: outrage that the filmmakers are dealing with a world where women have been repeatedly victimized, and that the men are held accountable. Protesting that is like complaining that a movie about plantation life was unfair to the white overseers. My own preference in life is for made shades-of-gray drama, but some stories don't lend themselves to such treatment, and this seems emphatically one of them.

All tolled, I think it's an impressive piece of work -- obviously a niche project, but one I'm glad was made, and one I'm happy to see acknowledged with nominations.

[Big Magilla]

This is rather intriguing as far as Oscar goes.

It could go the way of last year's talkfest, Mass, and end up as an also-ran. On the other hand, it could be seen as a female answer to 12 Angry Men and earn Oscar nods for Best Picture, Director, and Adapted Screenplay but nothing for its ensemble cast.

Ironically, Ben Whishaw seems the safest bet for a nomination in the so-far lacking Best Supporting Actor competition by virtue of having no competition in the category from other actors.

Of the women, Rooney Mara, Claire Foy, and Jessie Buckley seem the likeliest candidates but in which category? They could seemingly compete in either lead or support or both. Then, too, there are veterans Judith Ivey and Sheila Mccarthy who could possibly shake up the Supporting Actress race. Two-time Tony winner Ivey has no competition in the over-70 bracket this year and could easily nab senior support.

[Sabin]

Mister Tee wrote
Certainly strong reviews, though the (from the sound of it) limited active drama/storytelling may make it more a niche item -- more likely, as you say, to yield acting/writing nominations than a full-blown best picture run.

When I read the reviews, I thought to myself "Oh, it really is just women talking."

[Mister Tee]

Certainly strong reviews, though the (from the sound of it) limited active drama/storytelling may make it more a niche item -- more likely, as you say, to yield acting/writing nominations than a full-blown best picture run.

By the way: I'll be on the road and unable to link to reviews for the next 2-3 days, so I'm glad you took the lead in posting this.

[Sabin]

I don’t see a Best Picture winner but strong reviews, maybe acting and writing nominations.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movie ... 235206807/

https://variety.com/2022/film/reviews/w ... 57980/amp/

https://www.indiewire.com/2022/09/women ... 58137/amp/