They Who Surround Us

So, full disclosure here - I am the composer on this film, and in response to what appears to be an almost vengeful review below, which lacks both a nuanced understanding of the film and any sort of authority that would convey the writer knows what he is talking about - here is what the genius Canadian filmmaker Atom Egoyan had to say:

'A sensitive and complex study of grief, as it filters through a family and echoes in historic memory. Centred on a riveting performance by Troy Ruptash, who makes his directorial debut with this ambitious film.'

I think I'll trust Atom Egoyan's opinion on this, and the many many audience members across Canada who have written and expressed how deeply moved they have been by this film.

There is commendable material in this film: Ali Liebert is a strong screen presence and effectively grounds each scene she's in, and some sequences, such as the ghost farewell scenes near the end of the film, convey an unguarded and inspiring emotionalism that's executed with surprising conviction. On the whole, I find it admirable to try and craft something this strangely ambitious in its time-jumping structuring and (in its strongest portions) go-for-broke earnestness as a debut.

However, I think writer/director/star Troy Ruptash succumbs to insecurity in presenting this vision. This is best exemplified in his performance, which feels choreographed in his held glances, deflections, and outbursts as an emulation of depictions of grief he has seen in previous media rather than a personal sensitivity on his part. This feeling comes about due to his performance alternating between two extreme registers of closed off denial and mania, which both feel unrealistic and make his progression, which is the backbone of the film's structuring, come across as feeling arbitrary rather than cathartic. This insecurity in presentation is further reflected in the film's cinematography, which jumps from car commercial gloss in the flashback and nature sequences, to arthouse textural closeups, to conventional shot reverse shot in dialogue sequences on a dime. This contributes to the feeling that the look of the film was more dependent on thinking "what would a professional movie do" on each specific sequence rather than preserving a cohesive aesthetic perspective overall. The film's worst tendencies come to a head in the war flashbacks, which succumbs to the most basic "serious war film" cliches which I also fear try to "elevate" the central emotional arc by exploiting preconception rather than through the conviction the film's best sequences convey (and brings closer to reality the terrifying notion that Passchendaele is the most influential Canadian film ever made). For Ruptash to use his sensibility to the best of its potential going forward, I would recommend dialing back his ambitions a bit and honing in on something smaller that he has direct, compulsive insight into. This will allow him to ensure each piece of his work is in tune with that guiding sensitivity, and remove the feeling of insecure emulation and disjoint that this work can suffer from. I also think this film's worst parts come from a fear that a wider audience may lose the interest to take the film seriously. If Ruptash can abandon those notions and collaborate with people with like-minded sensibilities and compulsions, a much more effective work will result.

Overall though I'm happy to see something I can write at this length about coming out of my old hometown of Vegreville, and for a debut's worst flaw to be insecurity is definitely not the worst case scenario. I hope Ruptash can find a stronger individual sensitivity in his next work as well as the courage to embrace his best tendencies.

No swearing, no violence, no gory scenes...it can be done. I really liked this movie. I may be a little biased being that my ancestors are from Ukraine. I base whether a drama is good or bad, on how much I had an emotional attachment to the main character, and I did... very much. It is slow moving, but I really didn't mind.

A quite effecting study of a grief struck, but taciturn, man, and, we learn, loving father. The beauty of Alberta is stunningly portrayed, as are the horrors inflicted on Ukrainians during -- what I presume is, although it is interestingly kept somewhat ambiguous -- the recapture, by vengeful Soviet forces, of territory taken by the Nazis previously. I found, however, the apparitions, in present times, of lost love ones to be occasionally a bit jarring, breaking with what was otherwise the otherworldly, Malick-like, cinematography and excellent character development. That said, an impressive piece of work.

I watched this movie with some hope that it'd be worthwhile despite its rating only 6.1 on IMDb. I mean, it's from Canada right; home of Atom Egotan and Neve Campbell and Ryan Gosling and Bruce Greenwood. How bad could it be? The answer is: DEADLY.

Any comparison between Bergman and this boring load of tripe is simply laughable. Yes, Bergman's movies could be slow and depressing and, in some instances, one wondered where the movie was going, but they generally had something to sustain their running time and, most often rewarded those who were prepared to sit back and immerse themselves in what Ingmar desired to convey.

This movie was simply and terribly boring. It's NOT mesmerising. It's soporific. The ONLY aspect of its production which I found at all rewarding was the cinematography which was very lovely at times but which ultimately failed to satisfy when combined with the rest of the movie.

Acting - only fair. Direction - tedious and boring. Script - was there a script? Cinematograpy - nice at times. Enough said.

"They Who Surround Us" goes straight to my folder called "Watched but will never watch again".