ElMaruecan82 Before reviewing the Dardennes brothers "The Son", I needed to check the trailer. The reason was simple: did they reveal why the character of Olivier (Olivier Gourmet) was so intrigued and focused on the kid? They didn't. And the trailer only shows a scene with his ex-wife asking if the boy is the "one" then bursting out of anger and fainting. The mysterious kid wants to help, Olivier shouts at him to stay away. The only bits of dialogue heard are "it's him" and "why do you do that?".So the surprise must come from the film. And if I could encourage someone to watch the film without spoiling it, I would say this is a movie about an ordinary man, a carpentry teacher in rehab school, who seems obsessed by a kid who comes from a juvenile detention center. He peeps over him for the first ten minutes and then decides to take him for his courses, the man is divorced and his ex-wife announces her remarriage and pregnancy. He doesn't take it in all stride but his reaction shows a mix of anger and resignation that doesn't strike us as odd. The film deals with the interaction between Olivier and Francis, a teenager who looks lost and tacitly looking for help.That's the situation, now, what do you make of a title like "The Son"? We've seen enough movies to anticipate that Francis is Olivier's hidden son. The Dardennes brothers are straight shooters and never use symbolical titles... or it's got to be about a father-and-son relationship, with a wound from the past and some potential catharsis from this relationship. Or is there something darker or more poignant in that "secret"? Viewers aren't given much time to endure the suspense as the revelation comes early adding suspense to drama like in a Cassavetes' film. And it works.After the success of "The Promise" and "Rosetta" (Golden Palm winner), the Dardennes decided to dedicate their next feature film to their fetish actor Olivier Gourmet. Like Gérard Jugnot for French Cinema, this actor looks so exceptionally banal he can be believable in any movie exploiting the reality of Belgian society in general and humanity as a whole. I believed the man was a carpenter all his life, I believed every word from him and I couldn't believe he was capable to do anything harmful or bizarre if it wasn't uncalled for. And that impression is crucial to appreciate the film because we're put in a situation that will call for a confrontation, sooner or later, the mystery is all in the "when and how it will happen?".As Gourmet said, you can play many expressions or feelings but "I don't know?". He was constantly asked to be neutral, not to let any obvious emotions slip because his psychological journey was tough enough and his interaction with (Morgan Marinne) so awkward that it didn't need to be overplayed. The angle taken by Gourmet shows how much an acting genius he is and how he truly deserved the award at Cannes Festival. Gourmet didn't play "I don't know", but played a man driven by contradictory forces, one driven by instinct and one pushing him back, revealing how rational and truly human he was. At parts, avidly stares at Morgan when he's not looking and get neutral when they make eye contact.And you have the camera of the Dardennes brothers following the man through the school's narrow corridors, the kitchen, the offices, the car, and getting the two closer then further then closer again. We all know it will lead to a resolution, if not a solution, but again with the Dardennes, the journey matters more than the destination and the ending has every merit including the most important one: to be satisfactory, conclusive and believable. And it truly consecrates the talent of Gourmet as one of the greatest and most underrated actors of French-speaking Cinema and the perfect foil for the Dardennes, ever since their first collaboration in "The Premise" where he played a flawed father. Interestingly, that film was about a kid trying to get off his father's bad influence, while "The Son" leads to a reunion.And I remember my initial reactions with the Dardennes, I naively thought they were only taking the camera and followed the actors like in a documentary. But "The Son" is full of master-shots and close-ups, many were shot multiple times at different paces to play safe as the Dardennes clearly didn't want to miss their first film where Gourmet as the lead (notice that the character was named Olivier in that sense so they could think of his own body while making it). Reciprocally, Gourmet couldn't ignore the Dardennes' camera either. It might look like cinema-vérité but the actors know where the camera is placed, Gourmet can make a gesture that shows good acting but that goes unnoticed by the camera and then the effect is lost. A Dardennes brother was the last movie I expected someone to point out the necessity to remember there's a camera behind.I mentioned Cassavetes, his movies felt improvised but they were not, he let his own truth implode in front of the camera but never forgot it started with an eye watching you, even Bergman never forgot that pact with the camera. And that's the essence of the Dardennes' talent as well, they don't tell, they show, they use acting and interacting as the vehicle of their plot, everything is left to our attentive eyes, it's all in way we see them... and even the climactic resolution is all visual. You can be a Nolan, a Spielberg or a Chazelle, but the minimalist talent the Dardennes showcases might be even more difficult to reach, because without budget, special effects and marketing, you can't take any chances, you only have the truth to hang on and that has no price.

Daniel Casanova This film is an essay about man to man relationship.And this is a dual side relationship. Father-Son and Master-Apprentice ( or Boss/Employee). Like in real life.Jean-Pierre Dardenne and Luc Dardenne explore the deepness of male interaction. We follow the everyday life of a Carpenter named Olivier. He lost his son, some years in the past, in the result of a teenager trying to rob this car, thus killing his son. He (Olivier) sees his ex-wife, which happens to be engaged with someone and waiting for the marriage to come. Olivier, as a Master, receives a kid named Francis Thorion in his local carpentry.He realises that this Francis is the kid who killed his son. Strangely, he accepts the boy even though he feels very confused about the situation.The boy doesn't know who Olivier is. Olivier gets to know where he lives, and even breaks his house in a stroke of curiosity. We sometimes have a feeling he is filling the absence of his son and the hole of paternity (affected by the loss of his son). Other times, we have this strange feeling that he might be preparing to kill Francis, since he acts like a spy. The boy has a very bad background, which kind of makes Olivier slowly understand why he did what he did, even though the rage is visible in Oliviers' actions.The last minutes of the film are overwhelming; Francis is invited to go out and get more knowledge about the kinds of woods. We see Olivier putting a hang and plastic cover in the back of the car. This makes us suspect of a crime being prepared. In a station near the destination Olivier is asked to be Francis' mentor. Like in man's real relations, there isn't much talk. There is a certain degree of distance. Olivier doesn't mention he is able to be Francis mentor. The film ends with the true being told to Francis, resulting in a kind of a hide and seek which ends in equilibrium and harmony, despite the chaos of their backgrounds. There isn't a hug. Man usually try to hide their emotions.All i can say is that this movie is very human and consistent with other works from the Dardenne brothers. A must see.

MacAindrais Le Fils (2002)I recently stumbled across a debate over the best sibling directorial team. It was expectantly punctuated by names such as the Cohens, Wachowski's and Scotts(even though they don't direct together). Only one respondent out of the first 50 or so included the Dardenne brothers on that list. And even though that is understandable, given their films have lived and died almost entirely on the festival circuit, its nevertheless evokes a sense of sadness. The brothers are of a small group of filmmakers who continue to explore the human soul. They are not interested in entertaining, but enlightening and provoking. Of the three films they have made thus far in this decade, two are among the best I've seen (the third, Le Silence de Lorna, I have not seen yet). One in particular is an especially astonishing achievement - Le Fils (The Son).The problem with reviewing Le Fils is that the less said about it's content, the better. I advise you to please heed the following advice: DO NOT research the plot of the film; DO NOT read the extended synopsis on this site or any other one; DO NOT do anything but rent it, buy it, go see a showing, and simply watch. The more ignorant you are of Le Fils the better. Once you've seen it, go back and watch it again to appreciate the nuanced direction and performance by Olivier Gourmet.He plays a carpentry teacher at a rehabilitation centre for adolescents. He knows his craft, is strong and assured in his skills and can give measurements by eye. One day, a new boy, Francis, has an application placed for Olivier's class. He goes over the paper work, and informs the rehab representative that he already has too many students, and suggests they send the boy to a metal work class. But then something peculiar happens: Olivier starts following the boy, watching where he goes, watching what he does. Why? That is the question we ask ourselves. Is he a pedophile? Does he know this boy from somewhere? Soon he goes to Francis and asks if he is still interested in joining his class. He takes the boy under his wing and begins to develop a relationship with him. Only slowly do we find out the answers to our question: Why?That answer I would never dare reveal to anyone who does not already know the answer. It seems to be constructed as a minimalist thriller, although we only see it that way because of what we already conceive to be the case based on our predefined sensibilities. But what we think we know and what is the case are not one in the same. Le Fils tells us nothing we do not need to know and nothing less. It's a film so straightforward that it flies completely over the audiences head. When we find out the truth, the impact is devastating. For a film so steeped in day to day realism, the level of intensity it reaches is astonishing.The Dardenne's have made their career out of creating structurally simple but thematically brilliant films. They are not storytellers, but parable tellers. Each film is an investigation into the soul, seeking to explore what it is to be truly human in the realm of the divine, the sublime, and the real. Their names should be placed on a list with the likes of Kieszlowski or Ozu.When I first saw Le Fils, the experience left me shaken to the core. It is a film like none other. It somehow defies all expectations by laying the cards on the table plain to see. It is us, the viewers, who misconstrue and complicate things for once, and not the other way around.

Camoo I've seen "le Fils" close to ten times, each time watching it expecting to perhaps not be hit the same way but that seems to me a useless exercise and I end up just watching it rapt, until it hits me even stronger than the time before. I just can't get over the power of simplicity these filmmakers have brought to their past few films, "Rosetta", "le Fils" and "l'Enfant", which work like a trilogy of profound human sadness, suffering, hope, and finally redemption. On the surface, "le Fils" acts as a thriller about a man and his apprentice. But one of the greatest power in the story is the brother's unwillingness to give the audience obvious and expository dialog right off the bat. We learn, much like the protagonist, of his troubling connection to the boy in carefully planned but seemingly immediate shots designed only to allow the information the directors choose to allow the audience to see, one small segment at a time.