Des hommes et des dieux

I seem to fall between the two camps of critical reaction. The majority who feel this is a classic, great film, or a sizable minority who call the film boring, historically inaccurate, and all surface.

I find myself agreeing with some points made by the critics, e.g., being bothered that the film never really examines how hated the French were for their earlier colonialism. That larger context is part of what makes these Brothers targets. One passing mention is hardly enough to deal with a huge element of the underpinnings of the story.

You could use it to make the Brothers seem even more brave and to more deeply understand that they took a risk to reach out and just be there even before things get 'bad', and/or to make the hatred they faced from the terrorists and the Army not just seem random.

To be clear, that hatred is unforgivable. But understanding how something happened, or why your enemy hates you doesn't equal forgiving terrorism. But is part of the path to peace. And it is something these wise, well read monks would have known about and must have been part of their thoughts and discussions, though its largely avoided here.

I also agree that the film is slow in parts, sometimes needed to establish the rhythm of the monks' lives, but other times getting repetitive with no seeming advantage.

In addition, besides the two main characters, the other monks are largely one-note sketches, and the sudden turn around of those who wanted to leave – maybe the most fascinating action in the film - is largely under explored, Some of the time spent used on repeated rituals or re-tread conversations could have been used to deepen the understanding of those men and their heartrending confusion.

It also bothered me that those who wanted to leave are never given the strong or convincing arguments they easily could have. They're almost made to seem cowardly, or 'wrong'. The film could have gone further in it's compassion towards these men, and understanding that this was a complex decision, even on a theological level. When does God want us to martyr ourselves and when would God rather we not sacrifice the gift of life to find a way to live to fight another day? I can think of a number of third choices between surrender and simply running away. These men must have examined those options, but there is little sign of it here. I have no problem with the film's conclusion, but I wish it had felt both sides presented with equal weight and seriousness, as I assume must have happened among the real monks.

But my biggest problem is that the film's style, while inviting thought, is somewhat emotionally distancing, so while my brain was deeply engaged, my heart was less than I wish it was. I wanted to weep for these men and for the world, but I found myself more caught in mind than in emotions. I believe the story was strong enough to carry both.

Now, all that said, I still think, unlike many of the professional critics that raised these points, that this is a very, very good film, made with intelligence and passion. It is visually simple but stunning to look at. Its slow pace adds to the meditative, un-Hollywood feel that eschews inflating drama for its own sake, and allows us a taste of the peace these men experience by living in their simple, giving way, even in the midst of war. And there are scenes of sheer brilliance, where whole stories are told on peoples' faces with little or no dialogue. Scenes where a combination of photography and acting capture a huge range of complex emotions. We watch fear, joy, transcendence, defeat, and loss run through the hearts of these men within seconds of each other without a word needing to be said, That is film-making of a high order.

Ultimately, this is a film that deserves and needs to be seen. A plea for peace and courage in the face of hatred. But that doesn't mean it isn't a flawed work, or that acknowledging those flaws dismisses those very good things the film does accomplish.

The other day I watched the film Compliance, which tells a true story in the form of a drama. I didn't find much in the film and wondered why it added nothing to the events other than showing them. I mention this because the opposite is true with Of Gods and Men. Here we have a true story told but done in a way that adds to the characters, engages the viewer and has room for thought. The priests of the story struggle with whether or not to leave their monastery in Algeria once it becomes very dangerous due to the actions of fundamentalists in the region. This is the majority of the film in a nutshell and as such it is perhaps not a film that could stand a mass audience.

I don't say this in a condescending way, but just that the film is probably too slow for the casual viewer – not that others "won't get it" or any such nonsense as that. I liked the film but even for me there were times where it lingered too long or spent too long showing us certain aspects of life in the monastery. It did feel longer than 2 hours and I think this is mostly down to the fact that the whole film has a very slow pace and very gentle delivery. The upside of this is that it does have more emotional impact as a result – because the characters are clearer, we understand their minds and I enjoyed that I was able to see their struggle and also understand the reasons for their decisions because I had seen the role they played.

The film matches the slow pace with some beautiful shots; visually it is a very still film and it does feel at times that it is like a great painting, with the use of light and atmosphere. The performances are where the film delivers best though. Everyone is strong and seems to have understood their characters very well because they are convincing and engaging. The ballet music meal towards the end of the film is the best example but there are plenty of equally strong and expressive moments throughout.

It is a slow film and even though I liked it, I did still struggle with the glacial pace at times. It rewards and satisfies at the same time, but a few times you do need to stick with it while it unfolds slowly.

This film appealed to me in several ways. I liked the direct, intimate approach in the way it was filmed. It was very refreshing to see hymns used as a big part of the soundtrack, very different as to what you usually hear :)

In the cinema where i was watching the film, the average age must have been a lot higher than usual, and a few seats away, someone was even quietly singing along with some of the hymns, very bizarre feeling in a cinema!!

I liked the fact that they treated the subject of faith and the possibility of coexistence of Christianity and Islam, as well as the differences, in a very simple, every-day-life-way.

What was new to me was the visualization of fraternity. This aspect was a big thing throughout the whole movie. It is one of the things i least understood about priests and monks until now. It was amazing to see this feeling i have never personally experienced come alive on the screen and sort of being able to feel it myself.

I also liked that they used 'real' people and not pretty Hollywood types, but i suppose that is normal in a production like this.

I liked that a lot was left unspoken, unexplained and open for various interpretations.

The scenes i liked best was the one where: *the abbot was at a lake to find inspiration for his tough decision. *the 'last supper' with the close-ups of the monks' faces and the ballet music *the terrorist and the abbot talk about the birth of Jesus *the ending (usually i don't like abrupt and vague endings like these, but in this film it was bearable and befitting, because in real life it is also still unknown what exactly has happened).

I saw this last month at the 2011 Palm Springs International Film Festival where it won the FIPRESCI Award for Best Foreign Language Film. It has also won in that same category by the National Board of Review and was France's official submission to the Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film although it didn't make the short list. Making its debut at the Cannes Film Festival it went on to win the Grand Prix Award there. This is set in 1996 and is based on the events of a true story that took place during the struggle for power by different Islamic guerrilla groups and the government in Algeria. Caught in the middle are a group of French Roman Catholic Trappist Order of Cistercians of the Strict Observance operating the self-sufficient monastery of Tibhiirine in the Algeian highlands and helping the people its nearby village. The monks have been largely left alone by the area guerrilla fighters but when their leader is killed he is replaced by an even more brutal leader and the threat to their existence is imminent. They must decide to stay or go. From writer/director Xavier Beauvois this is a dark film that moves slow in it's two hours. Great cinematography from veteran photographer Caroline Champetier with a beautiful production design by Barthélémy in converting an abandoned monastery in Morroco that hadn't been used in 40 years for the setting. Lambert Wilson leads the ensemble cast as the Christian the leader of the monks with veteran actor Michael Lonsdale as the monastery and village doctor. This film is about 30 minutes to long and too artistically clichéd for my liking. Lots of audiences and critics love it but I would only give it a 7.0 out 10

In 1996, in Algeria, eight French monks of The Monastery Notre-Dame de l'Atlas of Tibhirine have a simple life serving the poor community that was raised around the monastery. During the Algerian Civil War, they are threatened by terrorist but they decide to stay in the country and not return to France.

One night, the extremists break in the monastery and abduct seven monks. A couple of months later, they are found dead in controversial circumstances.

"Des hommes et des dieux" is a film based on a true story and supported by top-notch performances. The official and non-official versions of the death of the Tibhirine priests can be found in Internet. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Homens e Deuses" ("Men and Gods")