cna1_10

I watched the movie on the closing night of the AFI Festival and was once again thrilled by Eastwood's work. I greatly admire his humanitarian vision for his community, which this film captured beautifully. Though the story was somewhat predictable, the journey from start to finish was smooth and thoughtful, showcasing his unique touch throughout. Unlike many recent films, it ended at the perfect moment with a fitting gesture. Despite a modest budget, it was a richly crafted and impactful motion picture. The movie can be more sophisticated as the story had the potential, but I have a great respect for what I received.

From the aspect of technicality, I am really pleased to see that the movie met Eastwood's standards.

I watched this film at TIFF. Given its genre, I expected more from it. That said, I couldn't help but feel enthusiastic seeing it as the director's debut. The topic was genuinely compelling and held strong potential, but unfortunately, it wasn't fully realized in the final execution.

Among the characters, only the teenage lead stood out with depth and believability. The rest, particularly the father, felt underdeveloped or lost in the narrative. There were several inconsistencies in character behavior that disrupted immersion. At times, it felt as though characters were aware of future events-as if they had already watched the film themselves. While some scenes clarified time and place effectively, others lacked narrative coherence and failed to convince me logically.

Story-wise, although the concept was brilliant, it was not used to its full capacity. The plot progression often felt meandering and unsatisfying.

On the technical side, I appreciated Ava's performance, as well as those of her father and a few of the other children (excluding Nima). Ava's expressions were particularly impressive and displayed a strong emotional range, despite some minor technical issues. However, I couldn't connect with the portrayals of the mother, music teacher, aunt, or Nima. My impression of the school principal was mixed-she was sometimes exaggerated, but occasionally quite effective.

The cinematography was arguably the weakest aspect of the film. I'm unsure if the visuals were altered for TIFF screening, but the compositions were lacking. Some shots featured excessive headroom, poor framing during multi-actor scenes, and a noticeable failure to shift focus appropriately. While the focus itself was sharp, it often didn't adapt to what the scene demanded.

One of the most jarring choices was the frequent use of deep blur in key scenes. While I can understand the artistic rationale behind it, its execution was unpleasant and disruptive. These sequences were long, overused, and visually unappealing.

Camera movement was another limitation. It lacked the fluidity needed for the story, especially in scenes with multiple moving actors. The aunt's scene was a clear example of ineffective decoupage and weak blocking. The intended use of focus in mirrors also fell short.

The editing requires major improvement. Long static shots, a slow pacing in many scenes, and repetitive dull moments all contributed to a sense of narrative drag. It's unclear whether these issues stem from limited takes or post-production decisions, but the result was tedious in places.

Costume design was generally solid, though there were moments of cultural inconsistency-particularly the choice of clothing at home. For instance, two women fully dressed and veiled indoors, and a teenage girl (Melody) wearing loose-fitting pants at home, felt unnatural and disconnected from reality.

Despite all these issues, I admire the director's courage in taking on such a project with a small team and many young, relatively inexperienced actors. It's a respectable starting point for a first-time filmmaker, and a valuable learning experience. However, going forward, it's essential that she work closely with experienced consultants and remain open to critique-both of which could help elevate her undeniable potential.