Styx

Susanne Wolff gives a fine performance here as Rake, an emergency room doctor who sets off alone onto the sea, on her sailing yacht, to head towards the isolated Ascension Island, in the South Atlantic. Ascension contains a natural jungle planned and fostered by Charles Darwin. I thought the cinematography here was truly superb from the startling opening scenes and throughout the film.

When Rake comes across a trawler in emergency distress and containing numerous African migrants, she will be faced with the dilemma of her humanitarian desire to help vs. the policies and procedures of governments and their politics. It's a worldwide crisis with no easy answers, and viewers will most likely come down on both sides of the equation.

Overall, I thought the movie maintained a good air of suspense throughout but I was definitely not thrilled with the most ambiguous ending. To note, English subtitles were only available when German was spoken, which was rarely, but I was able to obtain them from my closed caption option on my remote.

This film shows the distance between 2 worlds separated by the river Styx, the hate river. The "civilised" world where you are rescued no matter the costs (the navy will come for only one person) and the world where the people are considered that does not worth to be saved, where the people, even that they are like you and me, are treated with disrespect and where lives are not important. None will come to save hundreds.

In 3 words: I liked it!

Pros: 1) it's wonderfully played. Susanne Wolff is touching and moving, like Gedion Oduor Wekesa. 2) Wolfgang Fischer uses a humble way for addressing the notions of altruism and benevolence. He is neither pedantic nor didactic nor preachy. 3) it is filmed without any special effect and with a breathtaking mastery of the frame; nowadays, it is unusual and then pleasant. 4) The French movie title, i.e. Styx, sounds smart and implies, at least for me, a Google search to explain and connect it with the whole movie.

Cons (a tiny one): although the introduction is quick, it's useless and confusing. We may imagine that Rike's husband died in that car accident and Rike needs then a phase of introspection in order to mourn. Pure deduction... And what about these monkeys? A metaphor?

The principal actress of this movie has obviously done a course in "how to act in arthouse movies": show a face of stone for two hours straight. There is nothing to laugh about in this horrible world full of sexists and bad people. There is not much happening in this movie. Long tedious shots of her loading the boat (man, why show this for 10 minutes? she loads groceries, okay we get it !) and getting ready for sailing. Then the sailing. The the storm. Then the refugee boat. Of course, a refugee boat. What else. If you wanna gain entry to some prestiguous filme festivals and win prizes nowadays, you need a refugee boat. And a strong woman of course, who never smiles. The follows the moral drama, should I take refugues on board or not? Rescue some lives or not? We all now the answer.

This is also as boring as it is calculated. Directors who jump on the themes of the present day and pack it into a moral tale.

Appropriated indignation, I would call it. Works every time. The way to go for medium talented directors. Even if you make a mediocre film , the subject (in this case: refugee crisis!) is gonna carry you to the high art house festivals and secure some prizes. Milk it, baby !

I always say: why not make a documentary of the real thing? Of what is actually happening in the middle sea? Better than this exploitation crap. This film won't change one persons mind or opinion about refugees. A documentary could.

Nobody, absolutely nobody wanted to see this movie in german theaters. I think it sold something like 6.000 tickets. Still, it it was nominated for a striking 6 Lolas, the german Academy Awards, half a year after it's release. That says it all.

I give 4 stars for good camerawork and great sound.

One small point before touching the question in the title, that is the title of the movie. For those who didn't put too much effort into their Greek mythology studies. Styx is the name of the river leading from the land of the living into the land of the dead in the Greek mythology. Even more important is the fact that passangers on that river must have money with them or they won't be allowed into the land of the dead and will remain on the river for a century, in a greek version of Limbo.

Now that the movie's title makes sense, I'll discuss my own title. When a director chooses a lean approach to movie making, it means not using camera tricks not using any CGI, but rather making his own presence and the cinematographer's almost unnoticeable. And that's exactly what Wolfgang Fischer does, that is apart from two early scenes in the movie involving monkies. And in my humble opinion the movie would've been better without these scenes.

One last point: when one chooses a lean approach to directing it usually calls for a lot more from the actors. We get only two in this film, and the two of them are superb. Susanne Wolff and Gedion Odour Weseka, don't act their roles, they are the characters they portrey.