When critiquing a film as heavily thematic as this, it is important to put your personal convictions on the back burner and try to analyze the piece as objectively as possible. It is difficult to do, considering WOMEN TALKING's entire identity is dependent on those themes, so I will still be talking about it toward the end, if anyone prefers not to read on. But first, let's analyze the clinical.
This was a thoughtful, decorated cast from all different backgrounds. However, I couldn't say the acting was particularly good. Some members of the ensemble were clearly only cast for having unique, Mennonite style appearances, yet they did not have the acting chops to tackle a drama of this weight. The others who certainly did have the talent, as shown by their previous work, were not well directed. Ironically, the best performance of this cast happened to be the only biological male, a rather sad and counterproductive realization, considering the elements of female empowerment this movie was trying to invoke. I will give more details on him later.
The cinematography was rough. They opted to use very obvious color grading to darken every scene. It was immediately annoying that they didn't choose to experiment with practical mood lighting, but around the one-hour mark it simply became unbearably distracting.
The weakest element had to come from the writing. It wasn't that the writing was poor; quite the contrary. We knew from the beginning that these characters were uneducated. They say as much. They can't read, write, speak unless spoken to, and even free thinking is greatly discouraged. Despite all that, the written dialogue paints them as if they are all poets. Fluent, articulate vocabularies and vocal structure, all the exact same as one another, not to mention deep philosophical concepts and expressions. Good on Sarah Polley for being able to write so beautifully, but she didn't seem to understand the assignment.
Now for the themes. WOMEN TALKING is clearly trying to be an allegory for female rage in our wider society, with each character acting as a surrogate for the various faces of victimhood. That is all well and good, but the point is lost by setting it within an isolated Mennonite colony (mind you, based on real events). It essentially serves as an admission that this level of misogynistic, religious zealotry is not common in the wider world, and therefore it is actively working against its own message. If the producers were married to that metaphor, they should have used more universally relatable source material.
To be frank, the message can also be viewed as problematic. The talking points among the women include how all men should be held responsible for the few, as well as what age men could be considered "dangerous" or not. It is clear this movie is trying to make some outdated, generalized arguments against the wider demographic of men, with only two exceptions to the rule:
There is Melvin, a trans man who changed his identity after an assault and miscarriage. The situation also pushed him to go selectively mute, a somewhat absurd development that is not reflective of how transgenderism actually works. Not to mention, a transgender man would never be allowed to stay in a Mennonite colony, so Melvin's inclusion in the ensemble further compromises the realism of the piece.
The other "good" man is August. I mentioned him earlier. I know the actor well, particularly from his time doing Shakespeare. This is one of his first movies where he is given room to shine, and he certainly did. Even so, he is a rather small, soft spoken, and unintimidating actor. I think the inclusion of these two characters is trying to make the point that men don't have to be feared as long as they aren't masculine, another problematic idea about gender, but I digress.
Despite August being one of the "good guys," he is still treated horribly by the female characters. He is berated every time he speaks. Even when he actively refuses to share his opinion, they still use his refusal as a jumping off point about privilege. At the end, it is made clear that August was simply being used so he can "teach" the teen boys how to not be dangerous. They only ever treated August like a tool, not a person.
At his best, the character of August served as an innocent punching bag for frustrated women. At his worst, August may not have even been so innocent at all. One could develop a theory that August was actually one of the assaulters all along, even impregnating his love interest while she was unconscious. The movie doesn't explicitly say this, just ever so subtle hints that I could still be misinterpreting. However, if that is the direction they were trying to go, it effectively ruins one of their most compelling characters and demoralizes the only positive adult male figure the movie has to offer.
I think this movie was well intentioned, but it would have been better served as a thinking piece. Instead it was an exercise in anger, more screaming its ideas than discussing them. If it were better made, this could have been forgiven. Sadly, it was not.
This was a thoughtful, decorated cast from all different backgrounds. However, I couldn't say the acting was particularly good. Some members of the ensemble were clearly only cast for having unique, Mennonite style appearances, yet they did not have the acting chops to tackle a drama of this weight. The others who certainly did have the talent, as shown by their previous work, were not well directed. Ironically, the best performance of this cast happened to be the only biological male, a rather sad and counterproductive realization, considering the elements of female empowerment this movie was trying to invoke. I will give more details on him later.
The cinematography was rough. They opted to use very obvious color grading to darken every scene. It was immediately annoying that they didn't choose to experiment with practical mood lighting, but around the one-hour mark it simply became unbearably distracting.
The weakest element had to come from the writing. It wasn't that the writing was poor; quite the contrary. We knew from the beginning that these characters were uneducated. They say as much. They can't read, write, speak unless spoken to, and even free thinking is greatly discouraged. Despite all that, the written dialogue paints them as if they are all poets. Fluent, articulate vocabularies and vocal structure, all the exact same as one another, not to mention deep philosophical concepts and expressions. Good on Sarah Polley for being able to write so beautifully, but she didn't seem to understand the assignment.
Now for the themes. WOMEN TALKING is clearly trying to be an allegory for female rage in our wider society, with each character acting as a surrogate for the various faces of victimhood. That is all well and good, but the point is lost by setting it within an isolated Mennonite colony (mind you, based on real events). It essentially serves as an admission that this level of misogynistic, religious zealotry is not common in the wider world, and therefore it is actively working against its own message. If the producers were married to that metaphor, they should have used more universally relatable source material.
To be frank, the message can also be viewed as problematic. The talking points among the women include how all men should be held responsible for the few, as well as what age men could be considered "dangerous" or not. It is clear this movie is trying to make some outdated, generalized arguments against the wider demographic of men, with only two exceptions to the rule:
There is Melvin, a trans man who changed his identity after an assault and miscarriage. The situation also pushed him to go selectively mute, a somewhat absurd development that is not reflective of how transgenderism actually works. Not to mention, a transgender man would never be allowed to stay in a Mennonite colony, so Melvin's inclusion in the ensemble further compromises the realism of the piece.
The other "good" man is August. I mentioned him earlier. I know the actor well, particularly from his time doing Shakespeare. This is one of his first movies where he is given room to shine, and he certainly did. Even so, he is a rather small, soft spoken, and unintimidating actor. I think the inclusion of these two characters is trying to make the point that men don't have to be feared as long as they aren't masculine, another problematic idea about gender, but I digress.
Despite August being one of the "good guys," he is still treated horribly by the female characters. He is berated every time he speaks. Even when he actively refuses to share his opinion, they still use his refusal as a jumping off point about privilege. At the end, it is made clear that August was simply being used so he can "teach" the teen boys how to not be dangerous. They only ever treated August like a tool, not a person.
At his best, the character of August served as an innocent punching bag for frustrated women. At his worst, August may not have even been so innocent at all. One could develop a theory that August was actually one of the assaulters all along, even impregnating his love interest while she was unconscious. The movie doesn't explicitly say this, just ever so subtle hints that I could still be misinterpreting. However, if that is the direction they were trying to go, it effectively ruins one of their most compelling characters and demoralizes the only positive adult male figure the movie has to offer.
I think this movie was well intentioned, but it would have been better served as a thinking piece. Instead it was an exercise in anger, more screaming its ideas than discussing them. If it were better made, this could have been forgiven. Sadly, it was not.