Category Archives: New York Film Festival
‘The Dreamed Adventure,’ NYFF 2026
In its U.S. premiere in the Main Slate section of the 64th NYFF, Valeska Grisebach’s Cannes Jury Prize-winning film turns from an initial easy set up to a thriller with chilling moments of suspense. Full of twists and turns, Griebach defies narrative stereotypes and allows the authenticity of the local townspeople she uses to create tension, suspense and surprise.
Interestingly, The Dreamed Adventure begins like a Spaghetti Western (without Ennio Morricone’s music) in a setting lost to the modern age and peopled with gristled, thuggish looking types. There, a stranger drives into a scruffy town in a small car without air conditioning to do business. Initially, Grisebach features a middle-aged, craggy-looking, Said (Syuleyman Alilov Letifov) as the protagonist. The filmmaker follows this rugged mystery man’s actions in Svilengrad, a Bulgarian border town at the crossroads of Turkey and Greece. With a slow unraveling of action Griebach keeps us questioning the why and what of the set up with Said.
First, the filmmaker reverses the “hero” trope. When Said attempts to settle business with someone in the town, staying overnight to wait for him, an unknown thug steals his car. Though malevolent forces victimize him and make him helpless, he remains poker-faced and unemotional. Perhaps, the cronies of the man he waits for game him.
Then, the fates step in and he sees middle-aged Veska, an old flame (the sterling Yana Radva). An archeologist Veska currently works at a site in Matochina. After hearing about the theft, she suggests he help her on her dig. On the journey to the ancient site they reacquaint themselves. However, he reveals little information. With natural pauses and looks, we realize they had been together years before and may still have a bond. Said (a Muslim) references his life under Soviet era repression. In a peek beyond the veil, when he explains his parents changed his name to fit in and make it Bulgarian”acceptable” we note his ironic annoyance. Perhaps, this and later information we overhear about his possibly “disappearing” a bullying young man explain why he left the area.
As an omen of good luck, Said fixes Veska’s metal detector. This enables her to find a valuable artifact. Though we expect them to stay together, the filmmaker shifts the narrative’s direction.
In a surprising twerk, Said lopes off with another younger woman he meets in a bar after Veska drops him off. Swapping out Said, Grisebach turns the homespun, sharp-eyed, prescient Veska into the film’s protagonist. When Said disappears, we presume he carries on with the woman he met. However, we never find out what happens afterward. When he doesn’t show up for the dig the following morning, an upset Veska searches for him unobtrusively. Perhaps he faces danger.
Thus, in a relaxed way, she visits with the townspeople, in the cafe, the bar and in after-dinner get-togethers with women and men at their homes to find out what happened to Said. The groups connect with one another over smokes, drinks and conversation. In a fascinating contrast between the women’s and men’s groups, the cast (some locals with un-Hollywood-like faces) reveal the culture of this non-thriving border town.
The women discuss disappearances, and we understand how the town’s ripe position on the border promotes human trafficking. The men flirt with Veska and apologize for being “raunchy,” as she teases them and flirts back. Gradually, she discovers the criminal network’s theft of diesel, a payment needing to be made and the conflict between two criminal leaders vying for each other’s turf. Certainly, the patriarchy rules the town, but Veska rises above it cannily to search for Said, alive or dead.
As Veska continues on her journey, we realize she understands and manipulates the groups and can do this because fundamentally she participates in some way. As an observant anti-hero, she keeps a compromised morality and avoids sanctimonious self-righteousness to survive. Rather than to take the moral high ground, she blends in and gets along. If necessary, regarding the men in her past, apparently she used them sexually and allowed them to use her. In fact romantically she hooked up with one of the mafia locals. However, when another, younger group of men warn her to stop nosing around, she “plays it close to the vest” and leaves.
With each encounter, Grisebach ratchets up the tension. Hearing about about a package mentioned in conversation, Veska cleverly follows up and finds a gun and stashes it in her car. It comes in handy when a drunk young woman, followed by a group of young men after they leave a party, gets into a dicey situation. Veska safeguards her, a protector figure, challenging our impressions of her.
Toward the conclusion of Veska’s journey digging up the crime syndicate, our expectations twist once more toward surprise. Indeed, to help Said’s financial situation, she gives herself over to an unlikely, unappealing crony of the criminal network. Grisebach turns the idea of a romantic, sexual encounter Hollywood style on its head. Instead, she crafts the situation between Veska and the crony, both older adults, not typically visited by filmmakers, into a realistic encounter. The scenes are refreshing, unexpected. Somehow Veska seems all the more attractive in comparison to her sexual partner. Memorable irony.
By the conclusion we discover Veska literally and figuratively “comes out on top.” After an adventurous time, she finds her man, Said, and their exchange ends in the next encounter they have with each other, which we never get to see. Grisebach concludes in Svilengrad as if nothing really happened. Everything stays covered up with lives on the border who struggle to survive.
Grisebach gives an amazing portrait of a time place and characters which are more real than most films could ever achieve. For the write up at NYFF 2026 go to their website https://www.filmlinc.org/nyff2026/films/the-dreamed-adventure/ Look for it on streaming online platforms.
‘Behemoth!’ With Pedro Pascal at NYFF 2026
How long does it take to work through one’s upbringing and create one’s own identity? Can one ever get off the train of unreconciled emotions and take control instead of playing the passive voyeur? Writer/director Tony Gilroy (Michael Clayton) answers these questions by investigating Alex Serian’s (Pedro Pascal) life in Behemoth!. The comedic drama made its World Premiere as the Centerpiece film at the 64th NYFF.
With a superb performance that only Pascal can give, Behometh! draws in its audience with vignettes scored by nine of the industry’s stellar composers. Uniquely constructed like a symphony with movements, the film explores seminal moments in the cellist’s familial and romantic life. Each composer scores a different vignette/scene. Threaded together the scenes represent dramatic turning points key to Alex’s emotional upheaval in a flashback retrospective. Cleverly, Gilroy intercuts these events with Alex’s present. In a fascinating twist, the music, like a defining character, reveals Alex’s emotional and mental state during the various vignettes.
Initially, Gilroy shows Alex in Los Angeles where he joins the orchestra on a sound stage and meets old friends to record Hollywood film scores. There, we discover he also must resolve family business because his mother has dementia and can’t adequately care for herself. In the present while Alex plays film scores, Alex flashes back to the past in his mind, his loves, family arguments, his regrets. Indeed, he attempts to reconcile his emotional angst through his vigorous playing. Ironically, the film the Hollywood orchestra scores syncs with events in Alex’s remembrances. In parallel when he plays the film scores, he superimposes them on his memories. In effect he scores his own life in Behemoth! whose title symbolizes not only himself but a new family member.
With care Gilroy intercuts Alex playing the exciting, dramatic, calm, frightening music from the film scores in the present with Alex’s chaotic past. Thus, Behemoth!’s narrative can’t be linear. It follows the music he plays as the engineers record the film scores on the LA soundstage and the remembered events his mind reconstructs. In the flashback vignettes/scenes, we learn why Alex escaped to LA. Alex left his position with an orchestra in Chicago to escape a disastrous affair with the obsessed wife of the orchestra’s philanthropist.
A terrific and terrifying Olivia Wilde stalks and haunts Alex in a masterful portrayal of a privileged woman who never takes “no”for an answer. With humor and horror, Wilde’s Alex-possessed character runs amuck to keep Alex as hers. Instead of pressing charges for her stalking, or getting a court order against her, Alex runs away, an ineffectual response. Gilroy has her unexpectedly pop up, sometimes with shock and awe. The accompanying music to the frantic scenes of Alex running from her and from other situations expresses his panic and fear. Gilroy’s rapid editing and close-ups of Alex/Pascal’s face as he escapes draw in the audience to his personal inner struggle.
During various flashbacks, we learn about Alex’s identity as a former child prodigy from an old video clip friends watch when he performed on the Johnny Carson show as a kid. Apparently, music centers his life but he lives in the shadow of a storied musical family. His emotional chaos has him travel as an itinerant cellist, escaping to different cities and women. Thus, this state distracts him from his true potential. His abilities, characterized by love Nadia Hynes (Eva Victor) as a ” monster,” he should realize. However, he doesn’t. Thus, Nadia packs up and leaves their relationship after calling him out for his passivity and unreliability. However, theirs turns out to be a key relationship which Gilroy reveals at the conclusion as a surprise.
During the collection of original music compositions for Behemoth!, we understand that the music accompanies and comments upon Alex’s desire for balance and peace from his torments. Additionally, it resonates with beauty, for Alex receives healing and redemption from the music that builds to an epiphany. The nine composers include Michael Giacchino, James Newton Howard, Michael Abels, Emily Bear, Lukas Frank, Henry Jackman, Nami Melumad, Brandon Roberts and Alan Silvestri. Additionally, NYFF 2026 featured excerpts from the score during intervals in festival moments.
Gilroy’s Behemoth! celebrates the power of music in a love letter to those who make music and uplift our souls. Recognizing the nine composers of the film, their work highlights an incredible score which should be nominated for awards. Additionally, the ensemble work by Eva Victor, Alexa Swinton, Will Arnett and others helps to make this unique, elegant film by Gilroy a standout.
Behemoth! will screen in select theaters beginning on December 4, 2026. For the NYFF schedule see possible release of tickets on their site https://www.filmlinc.org/nyff2026/films/behemoth/
‘NAZA’ a Documentary Beyond Shocking at NYFF 2026
Directed by two of the co-directors of the 2024 Oscar-winning documentary No Other Land, Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor’s latest film NAZA places Israel’s responsibility for the mass murder of innocent Palestinians in Gaza front and center. NAZA which won the Special Jury Prize at the Venice Film Festival earlier this month made its North American premiere in the Main Slate section of the 64th New York Film Festival.
Though Israeli leaders like Benjamin Netanyahu have vilified the filmmakers and threatened to revoke their Israeli citizenship for treason, “the Guardian will make NAZA available for global audiences for free.” After its theatrical run, they will “release NAZA via theguardian.com in late November as part of its commitment to fearless, independent journalism.”
The International Federation of Journalists report that the war or genocide in Gaza (the term depends upon whom you speak to) is the deadliest conflict for media professionals ever. In fact reports state that around 247-260 journalists have been killed since October 7, 2023. Because much of what has been happening in Gaza has been censored, journalists face the pressure of jail or death for writing or photographing what goes on there. In other words, Israel has established a punishing media blackout while affirming its democracy.
Knowing theirs and their subjects lives’ would be in danger, Abraham and Szor decided to report on the knowledge that global journalists and the global flotillas that tried to bring aid to the starving Palestinians already possess. So they risked their lives to get the information past Israel’s fierce media blackout. They did this knowing Israel’s leaders banned the use of the word genocide and persuaded countries like the UK and US to label as antisemitism anyone calling out Israel for its Gaza genocide. Indeed, Israel’s stance has been if massacres of families, men, women and children in the thousands happened, war/combat justified their deaths.
Thus, the filmmakers counted the cost as they canvassed individuals who corroborated and testified to atrocities happening in Gaza numbering over 100. But these were used as leads and for triangulated testimony. In this process of investigative journalism filmmakers wanted an insiders’ perspective to ring out loudly and clearly. They wanted those who agreed to go on record.
Why? Because it would be much more difficult to dismiss and deny insider whistleblowers who would describe their AI bombing technology like “Where’s Daddy” or “Lavender.” It would be harder to propagandize elite military confessing their feelings about killing innocents referred to as NAZA, a Hebrew military acronym for Nezek Agavi. NAZA translates to “collateral damage” or the estimated number of civilian deaths accepted during a military strike. Rather than use the words “baby,” “mother,” “children,” “old people,” NAZA became the preferred word to desensitize those giving the go ahead to bomb a building with numbers of civilians not in active combat against the IDF.
But how does one secure elite Israeli intelligence officials and military personnel to report on the AI technological systems and AI programs used to systematically hunt down, then bomb NAZA at night when they are at home?
On a fact finding mission, the film builds “on revelations first published by the Israeli-Palestinian publication +972 Magazine, Hebrew-language outlet Local Call, and the Guardian between 2023 and 2025.” Promising to protect their sources typical of investigative journalists, Abraham and Szor elicited 24 elite Israeli military officers to become whistleblowers. Maintaining their subjects’ anonymity, the filmmakers disguised their voices and placed them in shadows and darkness with only their outlines showing. As a backdrop, Szor and Abraham filmed the perpetrators of war crimes as Abraham interviewed them on the rooftops of buildings in Tel Aviv.
Symbolically, they shoot the footage of these 24 confessors and their interviewer against the beautifully modern, city lighted at night. Tel Aviv’s name in Hebrew means “white city.” Filmmakers include archived clips of the city “built on the sand” founded in 1909 by the Rothschild family and others.
The elite intelligence agents testified for various reasons. Some confessed out of curiosity or to be in a film. Others answer Abraham’s questions to promote themselves. As you listen to their testimonies you hear their emotions and attitudes. Some boast about enjoying killing as part of an elite, specially selected group with a vital mission.
Initially, right after the Hamas attack, the officers relished bombing Palestinians. Increasingly, they used AI technology. All Palestinians surveilled 24/7 via their phones had listed addresses and could be targeted down to the floor their apartments occupied to the number of people in the apartments. According to the intel officers, those in Gaza knew and know Israeli intel surveils them. At times these elites stated that from their screens hunting down their “prey” felt like a video game. However, as time progressed and these elite officers became self-aware, their attitudes changed and some regretted what they did.
The self-aware military intel talk to expiate their guilt. Interestingly, after the repetition of deaths in the thousands as the killings continue to this day, the subjects admit to making mistakes and to the AI programs making mistakes. For example sometimes no one from Hamas occupied the building. Only NAZA occupied the building. Whether 10 or 5 or 13, whether children or grandparents, aunts or uncles, the elite intel agent gave the order to bomb the NAZA, quantifiable as acceptable collateral damage. Daily killings happened regardless of Palestinian culpability whether Hamas were present or not. At the end one of the elite military whistleblowers calls what they did and still do a genocide.
Having written articles for the Guardian, and Palestinian outfits +972 Magazine and Local Call Abraham felt that live testimony by those elite officials systematically bombing neighborhood by neighborhood, street by street would explicitly define what Israeli leaders refused to characterize as anything but self-defense.
At times Szor’s cinematography picks up interiors of Israelis who enjoy enjoy dinner in their apartments with family, or watch the TV news. Obviously, they took this footage before Donald Trump illegally declared war (bypassing Congress) on Iran because Tel Aviv has been bombed and hundreds of Israelis have left the country. These facts Israel censors. However, the filmmakers’ edits contrasting Israelis enjoying their evenings at home versus the bombed Palestinians surrounded by rubble, their homes annihilated, stuns. We see how The Israeli government affords peace and comfort to one group at night while these elite military officers explain that they go on night hunts to kill because that is maybe when Hamas can be found with family.
One elite official proud of his stature and mission says “We bomb at night. That’s when they’re at home.” But we learn from the elite remote bombing squad that often, they missed the Hamas individual. Identifying how many NAZA occupy the building, the elite squad kills anyway because they have achieved an acceptable limit of NAZA. Regardless, Palestinians die; that is the point.
Importantly, the dispassionate, unloaded term NAZA objectifies children, mothers, aunts, fathers, family. Conveniently, it depersonalizes the empathy of elite intel officers. To form an expert killing machine, the term NAZA works to dehumanize. It also works as a film title to expose a genocide from the perspectives of elite military officers willing to go on the record to explain the systematic annihilation.
For the write-up at the NYFF 2026 go to https://www.filmlinc.org/nyff2026/films/naza/
Sandra Hüller’s Astonishing Portrayal in ‘Rose’ at NYFF 2026
Starring Sandra Hüller, the film Rose, a haunting, historic drama with modern thematic overtones, made its New York Premiere in the Main Slate category at the 64th New York Film Festival. Unique, stark and boldly directed by Markus Schleinzer, he and co-writer Alexander Brom set the narrative in the 17th century. The story follows Rose, who fought as a soldier during the thirty years war in Europe.
Normally, women didn’t go into battle which was forbidden for them. However, Rose, disguised as a man, got away with her deception. We discover later she binds her breasts to flatten them. At times when she could be discovered, she wears a contraption which suggests male genitalia.
Throughout the stress to be careful to avoid discovery, Rose risked life and limb because of the autonomy and power she had as a soldier. As a result, she has the audacity and courage to continue masking her gender after leaving the battlefield. When she presents papers of inheritance and takes possession of a derelict, run-down property in a remote Protestant Village, she does so as a man. Clearly, the time and place dictate her choice and afford her the opportunity of a new independence. She will be beholden to no one, not to her commander, nor company nor comrades. Finally, “wearing the pants” places her beyond the oppression of a husband.
Told as a parable by a narrator (the effecting Marisa Growdalt) in voice over, Rose’s intriguing story gradually unfolds with very little dialogue by the characters in short, uncomplicated descriptions. Likewise, Rose says little, laconic, perceptive, present, careful. Without embellishment the narrator’s revelations and subsequent scenes in black, white and grey instruct its watchers without moralizing or preaching, Thus, unobtrusively, Schleinzer allows his camera to fall in love with the brave Rose as he follows her story through inspiration, hope and devastation.
Shepherding the talents and perceptions of the incredible, affecting Hüller, Schleinzer explores this character Rose whom we cheer on as she makes a new life for herself as a farmer starting from scratch. With her beauty deranged and disfigured from a bullet that tore through her face, her femininity disappeared. As a badge of honor Rose carries the bullet, flattened from impact, on a chain around her neck. From time to time she savors it in her mouth, a reminder she made it out alive and this might be a second chance for her. What she does, seems to be figuratively and literally biting the bullet on the razor’s edge to keep up the ruse.
Nevertheless, familiar with how to deceive numbers of men while she fought next to them, and saw them die, that experience in duplicity and bravery served her well. She knows how to keep her head down and take possession of land in a country she defended for years. Schleinzer never reveals her past other than her disfigurement and soldiering. One step ahead of the townspeople, we do know her gender, but must fill in the gaps of missing information making assumptions about her.
Thus, the mysterious stranger who hires townspeople to help with the farm, gradually makes her way through their suspicions and breaks them down so they accept her, when they once thought her a “misfit.” Ambitious and able, Rose restores the house and barn, managing her helpers who respect her. When her neighbors have trouble during a storm, she allows them to use her barn to protect their sheep. In another instance, Rose kills a bear and saves the life of a towns person. Her reputation becomes mythic. Hard working, dutiful to God, attending church and being a good neighbor, the townspeople trust her as one of them.
Two turning points occur which ratchet up the humor and the suspense and bring Rose’s secret defiance of an oppressive and judgmental patriarchal system to bear. In a negotiation with her neighbor to buy land and his stream, he tells Rose she can have access to his stream only if she marries his daughter Suzanna (Caro Braun). Interestingly, Rose takes the risk of marrying and being found out with a clever twist. After the marriage she tells the father that the most important quality is the sanctity of Suzanna’s virginity and she will preserve it.
However, the father insists the lineage be carried on along with the inheritance, so Rose does her duty. Schleinzer reveals this in the shadows. Somehow, Rose convinces Suzanna their marriage has been consummated. But one day Suzanna shows up pregnant to Rose’s great surprise. How did it happen? How much does Suzanna know or suspect? Suzanna keeps that secret and we, like Rose, can only surmise she committed incest with her father or was with someone else. Importantly, in a silent agreement between them, Rose has managed to convince Suzanna of the benefits of protecting their relationship. However, both women don’t discuss who the real father of the child is.
Life progresses with happiness after the child’s birth, then tragedy strikes their sweet family unit. In attempting to work on their beehive, the bees sting Rose and she collapses. In the process of ministering to her, the maid notes Rose’s gender. When Rose recovers she reveals the truth to Suzanna and their friendship deepens with understanding. Rose gives Braun’s Suzanna a choice to leave or stay. In Suzanna’s choice, we note she prefers freedom and safety, experiencing independence and the privileges of self identity she never would have as a husband’s chattel. Thus, she keeps Rose’s secret and they live in harmony, but the narrator warns of trouble ahead.
Schleinzer maintains a unity of dramatic elements throughout with quiet calm in keeping with the structure and grace of the parable. Thus, the most violent scene that occurs is the confrontation scene among the townspeople, Rose and Suzaanna. As both women attempt to dismiss the “rumors” and maid’s testimony, Hüller’s Rose explodes with justification. She questions the humanity of the people who once respected and grew close to her. It’s the first time she gives voice and power to her feelings. Ironically, it is as if she comes face to face with the inexorable fate of slavish womanhood in that century. This is the reason why she ran away to be a soldier rather than be the demeaned, objectified hausfrau. Can her words change their minds?
Braun and Hüller create an, unforgettable, breathtaking scene. We hope for the women whose sin was to want what the men and thereby women forbade them to have: their own created identity. However, it cannot be. They must be punished for their crimes. And though they attempt escape, they are captured, put on trial, found guilty and are punished.
Rather than to have a horrifyingly, brutal,visually numbing conclusion, Schleinzer allows the narrator with as few words as possible to tell Suzanna’s and Rose’s tragic fate. In her narration it feels like an understatement, but Schleeinzer’s choice to keep it simple and brief sharpens our empathy. By siphoning off the dramatic, the spare description of what happened is more heartbreaking. and powerful. Ahead of their time, they don’t belong. The townspeople enslaved to that time and place cannot allow them to leave or live in a peace they create for themselves, despite the fact that they hurt no one. Theirs is an offense worse than murder.
Rose will be at NYFF 2026 until October 7, 2026. https://www.filmlinc.org/nyff2026/films/rose/ Look for it in theaters on December 11, 2026, and later on streaming platforms.
Adam Driver, Miles Teller, Scarlett Johansson in ‘Paper Tiger’ at NYFF 2026
Written and directed by James Grey, Paper Tiger, the opening night film at the 64th New York Film Festival, investigates the boundaries of family love and responsibility. Factoring in autobiographical elements and powerful emotions from his own life Grey elevates an ordinary family to myth and tragedy.
With a classicism and nuanced style found in his Armageddon Time and other films, Grey places his characters in a crucible. He allows them to be caught up in the inexorable fates unraveling from their soul flaws. The resulting heroes journey tests their inner strength toward making hard decisions that may jeopardize their own lives. Either they they bow down like cowards, run away, or make a noble sacrifice for others.
Grey’s oeuvre leads with a title screen in black and white of a quote from Aeschylus’ Agamemnon. “Let there be wealth without tears; enough for the wise man who will ask no further.” Ah, but in the oligarchic driven economy of the United States, historically captivated by the American Dream of wealth “fit for a king,” is enough ever enough?
The quote infers one of the themes of Paper Tiger as an object lesson. In its exploration Grey proves the quote’s substance by examining the story of Pearl brothers Irwin (Miles Teller) and Gary (Adam Driver). Together, they embark on a project to make substantial money by cleaning up the Gowanus Canal. For Gary a former NYPD cop who works as a consultant, the money would get him though his financially draining divorce. For Irwin, the money would pay for their sons’ college, a lifestyle his sons and wife would respect, and a possible move to Great Neck where it’s safer. Also, the brothers would be working together, something they discussed for years, with Irwin, a civil engineer, providing the expertise and Gary providing the contacts.
Instead, of Gary’s contacts working seamlessly, the former cop, out of touch with the current NYC crime scene, naively hasn’t vetted the people they plan to work for. Unwittingly he entangles them in a scheme that involves a front man who covers for a global criminal network. The pursuit of more wealth, an evanescent dream, unearths the flaws in the Pearl brothers’ characters. Ironically, ego and a sub rosa competition with each other, stoked by Irwin’s sons, lead to their downfall. Thus, the comfortable family dynamic we note in the beginning of the film turns upside down. This occurs after a disastrous event that Irwin triggers. In fact he causes a devastating harm from which they will never recover.
Grey superbly lands this tragedy by making it intimate and personal. Beginning with the summer of 1986, Grey’s attention to various details and the film shot in 35 mm suggests the seediness and decay suffusing the neglected boroughs of Queens and Brooklyn. In the city’s dark underbelly, where most of the action takes place, the rot and corruption sloughs off from illustrious Manhattan, the embodiment of the illusory American Dream.
Meanwhile, the Reagan administration, servicing the millionaire corporate class, is in the process of giving amnesty to an influx of illegal immigrants, many of whom are Brighton Beach Russians that are part of the Russian mob. It is these individuals Gary and Irwin attempt to work with, though the immigrants have no intention of cleaning up environmental pollution.
Contrasting the homely scenes of the Pearl family around dinner and breakfast against the dark murderous criminals dumping toxic waste into the canal, Grey heightens the film’s suspense. The sinister evil spills onto the family like a toxic acid. When Irwin mistakenly ignores Gary’s guidance and with pride takes his sons to see his new job site, he opens them up to danger. Two menacing thugs threaten Irwin’s sons in a terrifying car scene.
The acting is so well done, we consider that no child or teenager should have to experience such threats of violence. How they won’t come out without PTSD would be a miracle. This disaster, the wussiness of Irwin’s response and the fury of wife Linda (Scarlett Johansson) metastasizes. As the suspense builds chilling the audience to the bone with a home invasion of the Pearl family’s safety and sanctity, nebbishy Irwin and his medically compromised Linda come undone.
Unless the once competent Gary comes to the rescue, his assurances that the owner of the clean-up company is just a “paper tiger” (whose growl hides empty threats) are useless. On a fact finding mission to end the brutal intimidation, Gary runs head on into a brick wall that leaves him and the family bloodied with no way out. To make matters worse his friends at the NYPD and FBI tell him times have changed and they are all over their heads with the Russian global crime syndicate that makes the Genoveses look like pussycats. If this is the result of Reagan’s glasnost and the promise of amnesty for immigrants, who needs it?
The pressure intensifies when Irwin rejects Gary as family, then excludes him from his son’s graduation party. Obviously, Irwin’s pride of ego ignores his own accountability, failures, and jealousy of his brother as he projects his own foibles onto Gary. At that juncture Irwin humiliates himself and becomes the equivalent of a fussy, human worm. But only the audience notes what goes down in the argument between the brothers in a superbly acted scene between Driver and Teller. Grey heightens that personal intimacy when Gary, alone in his car, responds emotionally to the disastrous events that he promised Irwin he would clean up to stop the Russian mob terrorizing their family.
The question then becomes what must be done? The inevitability of that answer is both heartbreaking and hopeful in a conclusion that masterfully identifies the silent heroes, and proves, perhaps in the Pearl family, there are no paper tigers.
On a broader scale Grey’s storytelling references the 1980s as a deflection point in New York, the city of the world. In Grey’s Paper Tiger, the Russian global criminal network will stop at nothing to insure immunity for the harmful consequences effected during their unlawful pursuit of money and power. From Grey’s 1980s Reaganesque microcosm, evolved shadows of what we see today in a MAGA macrocosm: a proliferation of global terrorist criminal corporate cabals which own the US congress, the Executive and Judicial Branches and prevent justice in what has become an American nightmare for all but 1000 in the multi-millionaire/billionaire class.
Paper Tiger will be in select theaters in the United States on November 13, 2026, before expanding to a wide release on November 20. It’s a terrific film not to be missed. For information about NYFF 2026: https://www.filmlinc.org/nyff/?gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=1050493904
Sebastian Stan in ‘Fjord’ at New York Film Festival 2026
Cristian Mungiu’s 2026 Palme d’Or winner Fjord opens in the Spotlight section of the 64th New York Film Festival in its New York Premiere. Mungiu in his typical cinematic fashion (4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days), reveals a disturbing dynamic for immigrant families. As they attempt to improve their lifestyles in another nation, they find themselves in conflict because of political and cultural disparities. Thus, either they accept the discrimination against them and assimilate or flee back to their home country.
For example in Fjord, a conservative, religious, immigrant family moves from Romania to liberal, socialist Norway. Ironically, in this open society, they run up against a rigid set of sociopolitical mores and expectations. These differ from their own values. Unexpectedly, the family faces a clash of cultural lifestyles that land them in court. There, the parents fight criminal child abuse allegations.
With this anomalous situation the director raises questions about conformity, identity, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, parenting, the individual vs. the state, and the supremacy of divergent cultural values. The confluence of controversial issues borne by the Romanian family congeals in a battle against a local justice system’s institutional policies. Finally, the director leaves the audience with no certain resolution in a disturbing conclusion.
The complex drama unfolds subtly as Mungiu shepherds the acting ensemble led by an unrecognizable Sebastian Stan and Renate Reinsve as the parents. After accusations fly, both walk precariously on the eggshells of the town’s political correctness. Importantly, the cast’s restrained portrayals convey an underworld of unexpressed emotions. Additionally, the director uses cinematic contrasts. He films the angular, clean-lines of the mountainous seaside town in a fjord where avalanches are matter-of-fact occurrences. Then, he pits these foreboding scenes against unremarkable, washed out interiors of human gatherings. Interestingly, the contrasts convey a chilling, portentous, metaphoric atmosphere that something dangerous can and will happen.
Mihai and Lisbet Gheorghiu (Stan and Reinsve) and their four school-aged children and one breast-feeding baby live in the remote village of Lisbet’s birth. Principally, they’ve moved because Mihai, a qualified software engineer, can get an IT job. Secondly, a strong church community flourishes near the village. That will reaffirm and strengthen the Gheorghiu’s devout faith as members of a conservative, strict, Christian sect.
Welcomed by the progressive, liberal (non-Christian) headmaster and his family (next-door neighbors), the Romanians ease their way into the town community. Additionally, the headmaster’s wild, disobedient daughter Noora (Henrikke Lund Olsen) happily connects with the two older Gheorghiu children. Trying to teach them her ways, she challenges them to take risks. For example, she encourages them to disobey their parents. Thus, the Gheorghiu children jump out the window, a one story drop, to explore with her, though they should be in bed sleeping.
The contrast between the headmaster’s wayward, disobedient daughter and the Gheorghiu children’s calm peacefulness clarifies early in the film. Also, we note the Gheorghiu children gently guide Noora toward goodness. Clearly, they have a positive, loving impact on her. Importantly, their kindness and love lead to her devastation at the film’s conclusion.
Initially, the town accepts the outsiders from Bucharest, Romania. However, noticing the children have marks and bruises, rather than question how they happened, the school staff makes assumptions. They follow up with more questions about the parents’ child-rearing behaviors. The Gheorghiu’s religious upbringing includes a demerit system, mandatory Bible-reading and prayer time. We also see restrictions as punishment (prevented from going to a birthday party), when they’ve been reckless (almost spilling boiling water on the baby).
When the staff discover the parents slap them on their behinds, they’ve hit the mother load. This violates the Scandinavian taboo against corporal punishment: hitting or touching a child with violence (a slap on the butt).
Because of the language disparities or the children’s fear, the staff decides to investigate further. They consider that the children, for whom Norwegian and English are second and third languages, may be hiding something. Considering the children’s answers, child protective services place the children in foster care. Furthermore, a hearing and criminal trial will follow. The foster care placement includes the breast-feeding baby, who undergoes a brain scan for evidence of (the fiercely disputed) shaken baby syndrome. At this juncture the audience questions the openness and liberalism of the state representatives. This feels like repression and bigotry.
The director takes up the topic of child abuse, a hot button issue given the headlines (child trafficking, pedophilia, child abuse), and turns it on its head. Additionally, he redirects our dislike of strict, religious upbringing by comparing the Gheorghiu’s children with the selfish, undisciplined Noora. Unlike many hypocritical conservative Christians (Southern politicians who cover up criminal disclosures in the Epstein files), this family appears to live their beliefs. Indeed, we note the disciplined family has set up well defined boundaries that benefit their children. These boundaries comfort Noora, whose parents let her do as she pleases to ill effect.
Clearly, the director manipulates the audience’s feelings. He creates empathy for the Romanian family against the Norwegian, cultural, sociopolitical mores. The three women who represent school staff and child protective services and the male prosecutor appear prejudiced against the family’s ethnicity, conservatism and religion. Asking questions with snide asides, the prosecutor demeans the family’s political incorrectness. We understand the Norwegian state views liberal, progressive parenting behaviors as healthful and correct. In contrast, it views how Mihai and Lisbet raise their children as wrong.
Indeed, the decision by the childless, unmarried females to put the children in foster care for little provocation creates more harm, emotional stress and pain. When they proclaim they do this for the good of the children, we recoil. Their justifications chill us to the bone.
Fjord’s edginess reminds us not to assume easily or categorize, but to consider all perspectives, if possible. The director’s emotional conclusion clarifies the collateral damage caused by the situation. Causalities can even be caused when an open, liberal state tries to make others conform to what it deems as correct.
Tickets to Fjord may be found at the NYFF 2026 site (some tickets for the venue at Alamo Drafthouse on Staten Island) or streaming on various platforms. It opens in theaters October 9, 2026.
‘Is This Thing On’ Bradley Cooper’s Third film @63rd NYFF
Comedy and tragedy masks couple side by side for a reason. Bradley Cooper’s third (A Star is Born, Maestro) directorial outing, Is This Thing On?, adds meaning to the notion that misery loves comedy. Will Arnett and Laura Dern play a couple whose separation leads to catharsis and regeneration when Alex turns to comedy to lighten his soul’s unhappiness. Is This Thing On? a World Premiere in the Main Slate section of the 63rd New York Film Festival, screened as the festival closing night film.
Cooper incisively shepherds the intimate and naturalistic performances of Will Arnett (Alex) and Laura Dern (Tessa). The actors portray a long-time married couple. In the opening film scene both agree without fireworks and fanfare (while Tessa brushes her teeth) to call “it” (their marriage thing) off.
Throwing the typical divorce sequences out the window, Cooper skips to the aftermath of the separation and Alex and Tessa’s amicability. First, they split custody of their two 10-year-old sons, played with sharp comedic timing by Blake Kane and Calvin Knegten. Secondly, after the opening shot of agreeing about “it,” we note by the next time they get together with their couple friends (Andra Day & Cooper, Sean Hayes & Scott Icenogle) Alex moved into an apartment in New York City. Meanwhile, Tessa remains in their house with their playful Labradoodles and sorrowful sons who comment that their parents argued a lot.
One evening instead of going home to his empty, lonely apartment after seeing Tessa and friends, Alex saves a few bucks cover charge by adding his name to the open mic list of a basement comedy club (The Comedy Cellar). As a possible joke on himself, Alex sheepishly takes the mic. However, when he spontaneously, unabashedly, surprisingly vomits out personal information about his marriage, a lot of it morose, some of it funny, the last thing the self-loathing Alex imagines, then happens. He gets a few laughs and lots of encouragement from the crowd of wannabe comedians.
In a fantastic twist, Cooper cast many of these real-life comics as audience members. Their authentic jumble of responses picked up by sound designers works to create the naturalistic environment where Alex slowly recharges his deadened mojo.
A guy can get used to this shot of adrenaline to stave off his soul’s sickness. Maybe if he returns a few times, he can reveal to himself what the hell happened emotionally and psychically that caused him to end up alone, without his wife and kids on the doomed path to divorce. If expiation indeed softens a crusty-edged, hardened, sad sack, perhaps more spilling of his guts will be the medicine he needs to ameliorate the hell within.
Thus, the initial few laughs and non judgmental camaraderie of fellow comic wannabes trigger Alex to return for another open mic night. And once more, Alex’s self-abasing confessions to himself and the crowd magically lift his spirits. Alex’s serendipitous impulse not to take his inner angst to heart blossoms. As he evolves his comedic timing and content, he resolves he can become a better person through confessional stand-up comedy. There’s nothing like getting in touch with one’s inner hell via artful performance, where self-reflection brings about self-correction.
Alternating scenes, Alex’s new revelatory jokes at the comedy club, with Tessa and friends meet-ups, we note the gradual change in Alex’ emotions and moods. Even his friend Balls (Cooper in a funny, facially hirsute turn), tells him that maybe he will divorce his wife (the beautiful Andra Day) following Alex’s route, because he seems happier unmarried.
This revolutionary way to deal with divorce among a community of comics really happened to British stand up comedian John Bishop. The true events inspired the script by Cooper, Arnett and Mark Chappell with some of the uneven dialogue prompted by extemporaneous ad libs by the cast.
Interestingly, Alex’s wayward jokes that don’t land had to be worked on by Will Arnett and Cooper. In a Q and A after the screening Cooper grinned when he said that Arnett’s humor out-shined Alex’s and had to be tamped down. Thus, the jokes never flow seamlessly like a professional’s patter since Alex must find his way through trial and error. Likewise, Alex and Tessa’s relationship which took a hairpin turn with their break up, takes another when Tessa goes on a friend/date (with Peyton Manning) in a cute set-up for the possibility of her first sexual encounter after the split.
Where do they show up? At the comedy club where Alex hits a new high/low discussing his first sexual encounter after his break-up. What did he learn from the sex? He tells the audience in a heartfelt moment he missed his wife. Pleasantly surprised and turned on to hear that Alex missed her, Tessa confronts Alex about his “letting it all hang out” riff at the club. Though Tessa’s appearance at the club with her date smacks of contrivance, the coincidence is delicious for the next plot twist. This hearkens back to the film’s title. Finding their attraction to each other rekindled, do they or don’t they get back together? When and where the answer arrives adds hilarity to their tenuous situation.
Importantly, their dead-ended relationship moved off its axis opening up new possibilities. Finally, they communicate their feelings beyond arguing. And just as Alex has found a new trajectory and hope with his comedy club appearances, Tessa returns to her love of volleyball as a former Olympic player, sharing her skills and expertise as a professional coach.
Meanwhile, Alex’s parents (Christine Ebersole and Ciarán Hinds) weigh in with their opinions, though they refuse to choose sides to keep the peace. In targeting the complexity of human relationships, Cooper shows the difficulties in letting go of an old, tired relationship stuck in destructive grooves. Also, he mines the ground of rebuilding a relationship and setting it in another positive direction. With that reconstruction also comes the rebuilding of identity and self-worth if they couple uses the opportunity of a break to begin a renewal.
Dern and Arnett are terrific surrounded by a great supporting cast. These include the actors mentioned above and additionally Amy Sedaris and New York stand up standbys for example Reggie Conquest, Jordan Jensen, Chlore Radcliffe. These comedians help to make the film a love letter to New York and its downtown scene.
For the description of Is This Thing On? at the 63rd NYFF go to their website. https://www.filmlinc.org/nyff/films/is-this-thing-on/ The film will be released December 19th.
‘Stiller & Meara: Nothing is Lost’ Ben Stiller Honors his Parents’ Legacy @NYFF
In the Q and A after the screening of his documentary about his parents, Ben Stiller quipped “…my parents who couldn’t be here, I hope they’re OK with it. There’s no way to really check on that. I hope the projector doesn’t break.” Well, the projector didn’t break and no rumbling of thunder, falling lights or crashing symbols happened. So, they must be “OK” with the film. Certainly, the audience showed their pleasure with long applause and cheers. In one section near me they gave a standing ovation for Stiller & Meara: Nothing is Lost.
Ben and Amy Stiller’s film collaboration about their parents, directed by Ben Stiller, screened in its World Premiere in the Spotlight section of the 63rd NYFF. Employing their experience in the entertainment industry, Ben Stiller (comedian, actor, writer, director, producer) and sister Amy Stiller (comedian, actress) explore their parents’ impact on each others’ lives and careers to then influence their children’s lives. In the latter part of the film we note this multigenerational family project also includes Stiller’s wife, Christine Taylor Stiller; and his children Ella and Quinlin Stiller.
However, in order to begin to tell the story of three generations of Stillers, the siblings reach back before their parents’ marriage and their births. From that vantage point they first examine how Jerry Stiller and Anne Meara met. Then they explore how Jerry and Anne shared their interests and talents. Recognizing that they could work together, they created the successful comedy duo that Ed Sullivan first invited on his show in April of 1963.
Enamored of them as performers and people because their ethnic and religious backgrounds mirrored Sullivan and his wife’s, Stiller and Meara returned to the show again and again. Because they were funny and made their comedy relationship/marriage sparkle, they were a hit. In reflecting on this, Stiller shows a number of clips from the archives and even meets with Steven Colbert at the theater named for Ed Sullivan (the Ed Sullivan Theater in New York City). The two of them discuss what it must have been like to audition live as unknowns and hit the ground running on a nationally aired program that millions watched every week.
Using clips from that show, and other TV shows, films, theater and more, Stiller cobbles together a delightful, honest, intimate and funny chronicle of his parent’s marriage on and off camera. The director delves into their unique styles and talents which gave them their comedy act. Stiller insists that his dad struggled to be funny and constantly had to work at it. On the other hand his mom found humor naturally and could “ad lib” humorous riffs effortlessly. His dad so admired this about her talent.
Importantly, Stiller captures the history of that time which contributes to our understanding of the nation’s social fabric. Their work historically reflected 60s humor that appealed then but still has an appeal today. Though they worked together and refined their act for years, eventually, they worked separately. Stiller discusses how and why this happened. Essentially because they wanted different things and were their own people, they tried their own TV shows. Then other opportunities came their way.
Humorously, his documentary reflects his parents’ relationship so it became difficult to know when the comedy act ended and where their real marriage began. Perhaps it was a combination of all and/or both. Since his Dad saved tons of memorabilia (photos, programs, reviews, clips, tapes, videos, home movies) from their lives, Ben makes good use of these artifacts.
Additionally, Stiller reveals the more personal and intimate aspects of himself and Amy growing up with his parents. Principally, he uses this perspective to show the parallels with his parents’ relationship as he briefly looks at his marriage with his wife and relationship with his children. One segment has interviews with Christine, Ella and Quin. Importantly, he relates their perceptions with his attitude toward his parents growing up.
This project that began after Jerry Stiller died in 2020 and took five years to complete saw Stiller and his wife Christine through a separation and getting back together again. Stiller looked at how his parents kept their marriage together through the pressures of performing together. That reflection influenced him in his relationship with Christine.
As Stiller worked on selecting how to approach the film with the material left to him and his sister, a concept came to him about legacy. Indeed, the documentary forms a portrait of a family whose legacy of humor, creativity and prodigious hard work has passed down from generation to generation.
In short the film reveals that Stiller and his sister Amy are humorous acorns that don’t fall far from their ironic and funny parental oaks. Amy and Ben’s sharp wit from his mom and dogged perfectionism from his Dad, come into play in the creation of this film. Mindful that all of his family’s lives are in his hands, with poetic consideration Stiller’s profile of those most dear to him is heartfelt, balanced and emblematic of a gentler, loving, kinder time. We need to see examples of this more than ever. To read up on the film description and to see additional photos, go to the NYFF website. https://www.filmlinc.org/nyff/films/stiller-meara/
An Apple Original Films release, look for Stiller & Meara: Nothing is Lost in select theaters on October 17, 2025. It receives wide release on October 24th.
Jodie Foster? C’est Magnifique in ‘A Private Life’ @NYFF
In its New York City premiere in the Spotlight section of the New York Film Festival, Jodie Foster speaks French in her starring role in A Private Life. Having spoken French as a child, Foster planned to act an entire role in French for years. She finally found the right vehicle in director Rebecca Zlotowski’s capricious, ironically funny murder mystery, which also is a character study.
Foster portrays Dr. Lilian Steiner, a neurotic American psychoanalyst in Paris, whose compartmentalized, controlled life takes a weird turn. This occurs after she discovers her patient Paula (Virginie Efira), who gives no signs of severe depression or psychosis, commits suicide. Indeed, Foster’s character believes she couldn’t have misdiagnosed her, so she questions what happened.
Events cascade into chaos when Foster’s Steiner refuses to accept the suicide determination of Paula’s death and believes someone, possibly Paula’s husband or daughter, killed her. When she attends Paula’s memorial service, invited by daughter Valerie (Luàna Bajrami), Paula’s husband Simon (Mathieu Amalric), angrily evicts her from Paula’s funeral. Simon blames her for over-medicating Paula and pushing her over the edge.
His furious response to her as a terrible therapist liable for his wife’s depression and suicide dovetails with another patient’s angry response to her. The other patient claims that her expensive treatment to help him stop smoking over the years didn’t work. Instead, he engages holistic therapy, a hypnotist, Jessica Grangé (Sophie Guillemin). She helps him stop smoking in record time. Not only does he fire Dr. Steiner, eventually, he files a lawsuit against her to recoup his thousands of dollars that he spent in useless therapy sessions.
To add insult to injury that her professional career has seen better days, we discover her personal life’s problems in a reversal: physician heal thyself before you practice therapy. Divorced (she couldn’t hold her marriage together with ex-husband Gabriel [Daniel Auteuil]), Lilian visits her grown son to bond with her recently born grandson. First, Julian (Vincent Lacoste), who doesn’t seem pleased to see her, warns her not to wake the baby. Then, when he does wake, she claims she has a cold. After all, she doesn’t want to hold him and make him sick. So a potentially warm visit turns “cold” and blows up in their faces, annoying Julian.
We note Lilian’s aloofness even spills out onto her ex husband Gabriel, an ophthalmologist she drops in on because her eyes tear uncontrollably. When he pronounces that the examination shows no issues with her eyesight, we understand his care and concern for her. They remain friends probably because of Julian. However, he can’t help her unmistakable tearing up and crying.
Thus, perhaps out of initial curiosity, she seeks out her former patient’s hypnotist to get relief for her “crying.” That she seeks out the unscientific approach of a regression therapist to stop her teary eyes makes little sense. Have upsetting events (Paula’s suicide, Simon’s rage and her other patient’s fury), triggered Lilian? Rather than to reconsider her own shortcomings as a therapist and human being and examine how she contributed to the stressful circumstances, she distracts herself.
The humor comes out in the scene with the hypnotist who regresses Lilian. A hallucinatory sequence unfolds in the past taking her back to WW II and the Nazi occupation. This rational, reserved doctor accepts the hypnotist’s suggestions, after they discuss what she “saw” that relates to Paula. Suggesting Lilian had a romance with Paula in their past lives, she says this causes the crying. Apparently, she mourns Paula whom she loved during WWII as musicians in the same orchestra whose conductor was Simon.
Because Foster’s consummate acting skills elevate the scene to the edge of credulity, we follow Lilian’s acceptance of the hypnotist’s analysis, despite its ridiculousness.
As one fantastic notion leads to another, Lilian believes either Valerie or Simon murdered Paula. Since Lilian refuses to look at the prescription she wrote for Paula’s medication which Valerie hands to her as proof of negligence, we understand why she may choose to cling to the hypnotist’s analysis. Lilian would rather believe in a fantasy than examine her own actions as Valerie suggests she do. As a result she becomes obsessed with investigating foul play which involves Paula’s murder by the usual suspects, those closest to her.
Additional events occur which prompt Lilian to believe her suspicions are correct. In her adventures, she elicits Gabriel’s help after she shares her ideas with the police. Gabriel hops onboard the investigation out of love and attraction to his former wife. Together, their search for the truth becomes a caper they enjoy. As they uncover clues, this rational physician continues with the irrational in search of Paula’s murderer. Happily excited, she discovers a motive for their prime suspect. During these segments, which involve skullduggery on a rainy night, witnessing a sexual act, and searching where they shouldn’t, the director employs Foster and Auteuil’s prodigious acting talents. The humor, suspense, thrilling adventure, and resurgent romance they create between the characters engage and delight us.
The director gives a nod to classic films in the murder mystery genre from Hitchcock to Woody Allen. However, the final clue to the true circumstances are suggested by Lilian’s psychiatrist Dr. Goldstein (Frederick Wiseman). Perhaps the events she construes redirect her from the truth of the circumstances about the medication she prescribed for Paula. So what events happened and what didn’t? And what of the hallucinations and during regression and flashback visions afterward when Paula speaks to her? Which ring true?
With three or four twists, humorously sidelined by the director, eventually Lilian finds her way back to rationality. There, she meets herself coming. Also, she reconciles with family and understands how to be a better psychoanalyst in a humorous conclusion.
Foster steers the film with grace, likability and frenetic energy as the character attempts to discover a truth she has made for herself without realizing it. Eventually, she does. Thanks to great supporting performances by Auteuil and others, A Private Life delivers. The film resonates, more of a gem to revisit and appreciate than an eye-catching knockout to forget. https://www.filmlinc.org/nyff/films/a-private-life/
‘Father Mother Sister Brother’ With Adam Driver, Cate Blanchett, Tom Waits @NYFF
Father Mother Sister Brother
Jim Jarmusch’s Golden Lion award winner at the Venice Film Festival is a quiet, seemingly unadventurous film that nevertheless packs a punch. Instead of car chases and bombs exploding, Jarmusch employs subtext, nuance and quietude to convey family alienation.. His dangerous IUDs include slight gestures, a raised eyebrow here, a smile there and stilted, abrupt silences throughout.
Jarmusch quipped in the Q and A during the 63rd NYFF screening about such captured details of human behavior. To focus on nuances and what they reveal becomes much more difficult to film and edit rather than “12 zombies coming out of the ground.” Certainly the laconic characters portrayed by superb award winning actors (Charlotte Rampling, Adam Driver, Cate Blanchette, Tom Waits, Vicky Krieps, the beautiful Indya Moore and Luka Sabbat), hold one’s attention as masters of understatement. Indeed, Jarmusch forces us to carefully observe them because of what they don’t say, as they ride the pauses between what they do express.
Jarmusch’s triptych of meet-ups among family members rings with authenticity. Principally because Jarmusch wrote the parts for the actors he selected, the dialogue and situations unfold seamlessly. Of course the stilted silences fill in the gaps between parents and children when both are fronting about what is true and real. To what extent do we cut off 80% of what we would like to say to “keep the peace,” “mask our true emotions” or “get over?”
The film divides familial separation into three scenarios in three locales. In the last sequence, the separation has no hope of reconciliation. In the first scenario a slick, quirky father (Tom Waits) hosts his children (Adam Driver, Mayim Bialik). In their ride to his house in a wooded area by a lake, the brother and sister discuss how their father has difficulty making ends meet and may have dementia. Ironically, when they share that he hits them up for money, they haltingly discuss that they give it to him. Sister Mayim Bialik humorously comments that the frequency and amount may have contributed to her brother’s divorce. Then she ruefully realizes her insulting remark and apologizes. Their conversation reveals, they too, display an awkwardness with each other.
Of course this ramps up when they sit down with their father who offers them only water to drink, instead of something more. However, his wife, their mother passed, so assumptions abound. For example, they assume his shabby, messy living room signifies he struggles with her loss. And perhaps his lack of funds and sloppiness reveal a purposelessness in his own life without her. However, when Jarmusch has the children leave, we note the reality behind the assumptions. Waits’ Dad transforms into someone else. Not only have the grown children underestimated their father, they’ve completely misread his personality, character and intentions.
The scene is heavy with humor. Indeed, it reminds us that the Italian proverb “You have to eat 100 pounds of salt with someone to understand them,” isn’t an exaggeration. And this thematic thrust Jarmusch has fun with in the next scenario as well.
The second interlude takes place in Ireland, where a wealthy novelist mother (Charlotte Rampling) hosts a formal tea for her grown daughters who live in Dublin (Vicky Krieps and Cate Blanchett). The lush setting and table filled with all the proper treats for an afternoon tea impress. However, the sophistication of the setting adds to the cold atmosphere among the daughters and mother who play act at niceties. The daughters appear at opposite ends of their lives. Kreps with pink hair contrasts with Blanchett outfitted with glasses, short cropped hair and regressed to dour blandness. Rampling’s remote, regal mom presides over all austerely.
Before the daughters arrive, the mother reveals her attitude about the tea. Krieps alludes to a relationship with another woman. However, none of the interesting frequencies in their real lives come to the table. Instead, they drink tea politely accomplishing a duty to their blood. Truly, folks may be related by DNA, but their likenesses, interests, values and personalities may have little alignment with their blood kinship. We do choose our friends and are stuck with family relations.
Interestingly, the third segment returns to the theme of children not understanding their parents, who grow up in a different time warp. In Paris, two lovely-looking fraternal twins (Indya Moore and Luka Sabbat) make a return visit to their late parents’ spacious apartment. Their parents, who died in a plane crash, have separated from them for the rest of their mortal lives. As they walk through the empty apartment then go to their parent’s storage unit, they confront the impact of their parent’s deaths. Additionally, they marvel at their parents’ things. These had little significance to them but had meaning to their parents who kept them and paid for the storage.
Of the three scenarios, in the last one Jarmusch reveals the love between the siblings. Additionally, he reveals a potential closeness to their parents. As they go through a few old photos, they show their admiration and they mourn. However, what remains but memories and the stuff in the storage unit whose meaning is lost to them? The heartfelt poignance of the last scenario contrasts with the other family scenarios and lightly holds a greater message that Jarmusch doesn’t shove down our throats.
Jarmusch’ Father Mother Sister Brother reveals profound concepts about family, human complication and mystery of every human being, who may not even be knowable to themselves.
Father Mother Sister Brother releases in US theaters at a perfect time for family gatherings, December 24, 2025 via MUBI, where it will stream at a later date. For the write up and information at the 63rd NYFF, go to this link. https://www.filmlinc.org/nyff/films/father-mother-sister-brother/
