Directed By Ciro Guerra

Starring – Mark Rylance, Johnny Depp, Robert Pattinson

The Plot – The Magistrate (Rylance) of an isolated frontier settlement on the border of an unnamed empire looks forward to an easy retirement until the arrival of Colonel Joll (Depp), whose task it is to report on the activities of the ‘barbarians’ and on the security situation on the border. Joll conducts a series of ruthless interrogations, which leads the Magistrate to question his loyalty to the empire. Adapted by Nobel Prize winning author J.M. Coetzee from his own book.

This movie is currently not rated

POSITIVES

– Breathtaking cinematography. Very few old school cinematographers who documented during the tinsel age of the epic western genre still exist today, but Chris Menges is here to prove that his best work is still very much to come. Capturing the vast differences in season decorated across the Morocco mountainside, Menges instills these screen-stretching wide shots that are almost tragically rendered because they demand to be seen on a big screen, but are appreciated for the way they articulate the isolation and immense size of the land this empire commands. In addition to this, the camera movements in still frame are smoothly triggered, never challenging or alienating audiences with what’s intentionally captured in frame, and the editing is every bit as patient as the epics of the 50’s and 60’s that I previously commended. It brings forth an overall transformative presentation that emphasizes the immersive qualities that this distinct setting produces, and proves no shortage of artistic merit seen through the timeless eyes of Menges’ expansive capabilities.

– Socially relevant. It’s a bit surprising that Guerra’s film conjured up many socially conscious themes and messages within our own contemporary world that one can take from watching the film. These can reside anywhere from the current wars that America wages in lands they have no business being in, to the bigotry that exists within those we indulge with endless power. The film proves that prejudice is produced almost entirely visual, with no understanding for how different cultures live and maintain everything from religion to survival. The majority always feel threatened by matters they don’t and can’t understand, and as depicted in the film, will resort to punishing force if their kind of peace and resolve can’t be met through the eyes of their captors. I didn’t expect “Waiting for the Barbarians” to reside so prominently in an age that feels centuries ahead of where this stage is set, but it proves that if we learn nothing from history, we are doomed to repeat it.

– Titular meaning. I’m a sucker for movie titles with a double meaning when seen through the eyes of different characters, and this one certainly hits the bar of conversation pieces the longer you think about it. The barbarians from a surface or plot level refers to the indigenous people that are enslaved by the empire in the film, but there’s nothing about them through audience experiences that justifies this label. In fact, the longer you spend with the empire, you come to understand that they themselves are the barbarians, for the way their unnecessarily grueling torture permanently divides two nations seeking peace. So in this case, the title can be seen from the indigenous perspective, in that those they are forced to trust and respect are the very same ones with an animalistic dependency on rage. The barbarians who are inevitable in their arrival.

– Seamless wardrobe designs. The distinct difference between those in power, and those enslaved is one thing that is brilliantly illustrated through the value in cloth that each side wears, but for my money it was the factual authenticity to the colors and designs that really impressed me, and better played into the timepiece drama that so much of the film depended on. The unnamed empire are decorated in a black and blue overcoat, complete with patches and shields signifying their ranks, and the pants complete a signature style with blue stripes matching the consistency of their northern counterpart. It’s important that the wardrobe itself never feels distracting or extraordinary in its stitching, instead opting for a subtle distinction that feels believable with the kind of seamstress possibilities of the Ottoman age.

– Triple threat performances. Rylance continues to magnify any stage he performs on, but his role here as the magistrate might be my single favorite to date. This is because of the heart and tenderness that Rylance deposits to the role, but more than that it’s his approach both to the character and the setting that simultaneously cements a stern approach as a leader while paying tribute to the epic blockbusters that much of the movie’s presentation absorbs itself in. Depp is also highly impactful as the movie’s soft-spoken antagonist with a seething animosity that motivates him through every movement. For Depp, it puts his acting at the forefront ahead of his visually transformative capabilities, and proves that Johnny can still captivate an audience with an on-screen presence that is every bit menacing as it is maniacal. Finally, Pattinson makes the most of limited screen time (40 minutes or so) with a sniveling right hand man to Depp that he makes his own, despite the fact that much of his material feels repetitive towards his predecessor in power. Like Depp, Pattinson has built a chameleon-like career on the variety of personalities he takes on in his films, and as a villain, Rob here feels more believably earned than he did as a cartoon in this year’s “The King”.

NEGATIVES

– Slowest of burns. I myself am a sucker for a good drama and overall slowburn cinema if there’s some kind of compelling drama hanging in the balance of its characters. Unfortunately, so very little actually happens in “Barbarians”, and what does is built throughout the movie with little to no payoff for the audience asked to endure some slow sequencing, very little action anywhere in the movie, and a barrage of visceral suffering for those we embrace. This is a 112 minute movie that felt like it carried the weight of an extra thirty minutes that we never actually saw, but lived to tell about through a screenplay that is every bit tedious as it is boring to the narrative that it is trying to convey.

– Noticeable gaps. It often feels like the script jumps forward with these leaps in logic, both in character movements and storytelling, that makes it feel like scenes were missing somewhere in between. There are a few instances that I could point to, but the obvious one is an ending that involves one side retreating after an action that only impacted one person. Beyond finding this difficult to believe from a numbers standpoint, I can’t get over that the editing during this time is so sharp that it makes it feel like the two sides, action and reaction, happen within minutes of each other, and prove that anyone could’ve won this war with twelve people and a knife at their disposal. It wouldn’t surprise me if someone said a two-and-a-half hour cut of this movie is out there somewhere, and even in a movie with strained pacing issues of its own in storytelling, it has to logically answer more questions than what we’re given here.

– Tell not show. One of my biggest problems in movies is when the script adopts an expositional approach that points towards explanation over visual coherence, and Guerra’s directing style certainly corresponds to scenes that require you to hang on to literally every word of dialogue or you will be lost. One thing that could’ve changed this were more action sequences, to which the movie is saddled with one, arguably maybe two throughout the entirety of its near two hour picture. The one in question involves a dust storm in the desert that is beautifully articulated, and feels like the only point in the film with any shred of dramatic anticipation to capture the attention of its audience again. It hurts that so much of the movie is told from one character’s perspective throughout, but I fail to believe a movie like this would succeed with multiple perspectives if it is afraid to get its hands dirty and earn some of the budget that it became saddled with.

– The other side. Speaking of lack of multi-character approach, the complete lack of attention paid towards the indigenous people mentioned so frequently throughout the movie is troubling for a completely different set of reasons. Yes, it’s great to keep them spontaneous to add to the mysticism of their tribe, but a movie that never comes to understand what they want or barely how they feel throughout feels like one that doesn’t care, and I find this troubling from a director who previously hasn’t been afraid to dabble in cultural waters in films like “Embrace of the Serpent” and “Birds of Passage”. The attempts are there with a possible love interest, or road trip exchange between the two sides, but it’s never further elaborated on in a way that adds contention with anything the propaganda machine of this unnamed empire has been spewing throughout, giving us a one-sided story where the silent majority remain muted.

– Anti-climatic ending. For a movie that took so long building towards an inevitable confrontation, the movie’s resolve is one that left me entirely disappointed, and omitting of its last ounce of momentum before the credits. Part of it deals with the lapse in logic that I previously mentioned, but even worse than that is how the film’s final ten minutes feel unlike anything else creatively in the entirety of the picture. It starts just as the movie feels like it is going to initially end, but then goes on to stretch a conflict that we never see amount to anything consequentially substantial towards the characters we’ve come to known. From there, the final moments offer us very little that eludes the feeling of tacked-on finality to the integrity of the film’s climax. So much and so little happens simultaneously, and preserves the exclamation on a movie that passed us up long before we ever even got started.

My Grade: 5/10 or D