Some viewers may regard the climax of 'Incendies' as the most effective part of the film, but I must wholeheartedly disagree . If one really wants to single out the most effective and compelling scene, that would be the massacre on the bus and subsequent shooting of the young child. It works because Director Denis Villenueve compounds the horror exponentially: the bus is stopped by terrorists, the passengers react confused and frightened, the bus driver is murdered, the terrorists strafe the bus with machine gun fire killing most of the passengers, Nawal (the protagonist) and a young mother and her young daughter move to the back as the terrorists pour gasoline on top of the roof of the bus, Nawal escapes and takes the young girl with her only to see the terrorists set the bus on fire killing the mother and finally the child running back to the bus to be with her mother, only to be shot in the back by the terrorists as Nawal watches in horror.
With such an unforgettable iconic scene, as listed above (along with a few others, such as the 'honor killing' at the beginning of the film), why must 'Incendies' ultimately be labeled as contrived and dishonest? For starters, Villenueve only vaguely alludes to the film's main setting. We know that Nawal's journey occurs in Lebanon during the Lebanese Civil War but the country, along with the right wing Arab Christian party, the "Phalangists", are never mentioned by name. When Nawal's family members murder her lover, they refer to him as a "refugee" not as a "Palestinian". Despite stripping the events depicted in the film of their political context, Villenueve clearly cannot hide his bias. Nawal decides to become an assassin for the Muslims after her Muslim lover is murdered by her own Christian family and she's a witness to the bus massacre by Arab Christian terrorists. Only a "kindly" Muslim warlord ("Chamseddine") happens to tell Narwan's son, Simon, the truth during the search for the "son" and the "father". And that truth is that the fighting is tit for tat—one reprisal begets another. Nonetheless, Villenueve still implies that it's the Muslim side who are clearly the wronged party here. By no means am I trying to defend the brutality of the right-wing nationalists during the Lebanese Civil War, but there were two sides to the story and certainly that's lost in Villenueve's narrative.
As to why the film should be considered contrived, it's not so much the wacko ending which is designed to point out the horrors of war (and hence its pointlessness) but the whole idea that the mother would send her children on a wild goose chase, making them face the truth about HER situation, instead of telling them what happened on her deathbed (she was able to blurt out the main points to family friend, the Notary Lebel) or allowing Lebel to explain it to the kids without having them experience the full impact of the horror by traveling to Lebanon, dredging up old wounds amongst people who they didn't know (and didn't even speak their language). I question whether any mother would have put her children in such a position—why was she so insistent on having them learn the truth about their parentage? After all, the revelation that her son was actually her other children's father, basically drove her insane and led to her death. This from a woman who always claimed she would do anything for her children. And here they would end up in a foreign country, asking sensitive questions which could place their lives in jeopardy.
While a series of chilling events, clearly molded Narwan's character, there's little character development when it comes to the son. He has that most disagreeable chip on his shoulder (until he finally bonds with his sister in the swimming pool), but for most of the film, he is an unwelcome, one-note presence. And what's with that lack of hesitation with taking a ride blind-folded with the Warlord's bodyguards? The guide's assurance that "everything is okay" is enough for him to take a ride with a duo of potential killers. How does he know that his guide can be so sure about the Warlord?
And what about Abou Tarek (the 'son' and the 'father')? The Warlord trains him to be a crackerjack sniper but becomes disaffected by war and switches sides, ending up in the Christian Arab prison, as Narwan's torturer. Even though we hear the explanation from Chamseddine, it seems a little too convenient that Tarek so easily switches from the Muslim to the Christian Arab side with so little explanation. Of course without him doing so, there's no 'twist ending', designed to shock.
I understood that the two letters which Narwan has her children deliver to Tarek reflects Narwan's ambivalence about how she feels toward him. But again, why involve the twins? How is Narwan so sure that her revelation to him that he's her son, will impact his conscience? It's already been established that he's a psychopath so I would hardly think that he would care who his mother is. For all we know, Tarek may have decided to go after the half-siblings, as they could reveal his dark secret publicly and cause him a good deal of trouble.
'Incendies' manages to keep one's interest despite the main character's motivations that don't add up and the director's clear political bias. It's worth seeing but hardly deserves the accolades that have been heaped upon it since its heralded release.
With such an unforgettable iconic scene, as listed above (along with a few others, such as the 'honor killing' at the beginning of the film), why must 'Incendies' ultimately be labeled as contrived and dishonest? For starters, Villenueve only vaguely alludes to the film's main setting. We know that Nawal's journey occurs in Lebanon during the Lebanese Civil War but the country, along with the right wing Arab Christian party, the "Phalangists", are never mentioned by name. When Nawal's family members murder her lover, they refer to him as a "refugee" not as a "Palestinian". Despite stripping the events depicted in the film of their political context, Villenueve clearly cannot hide his bias. Nawal decides to become an assassin for the Muslims after her Muslim lover is murdered by her own Christian family and she's a witness to the bus massacre by Arab Christian terrorists. Only a "kindly" Muslim warlord ("Chamseddine") happens to tell Narwan's son, Simon, the truth during the search for the "son" and the "father". And that truth is that the fighting is tit for tat—one reprisal begets another. Nonetheless, Villenueve still implies that it's the Muslim side who are clearly the wronged party here. By no means am I trying to defend the brutality of the right-wing nationalists during the Lebanese Civil War, but there were two sides to the story and certainly that's lost in Villenueve's narrative.
As to why the film should be considered contrived, it's not so much the wacko ending which is designed to point out the horrors of war (and hence its pointlessness) but the whole idea that the mother would send her children on a wild goose chase, making them face the truth about HER situation, instead of telling them what happened on her deathbed (she was able to blurt out the main points to family friend, the Notary Lebel) or allowing Lebel to explain it to the kids without having them experience the full impact of the horror by traveling to Lebanon, dredging up old wounds amongst people who they didn't know (and didn't even speak their language). I question whether any mother would have put her children in such a position—why was she so insistent on having them learn the truth about their parentage? After all, the revelation that her son was actually her other children's father, basically drove her insane and led to her death. This from a woman who always claimed she would do anything for her children. And here they would end up in a foreign country, asking sensitive questions which could place their lives in jeopardy.
While a series of chilling events, clearly molded Narwan's character, there's little character development when it comes to the son. He has that most disagreeable chip on his shoulder (until he finally bonds with his sister in the swimming pool), but for most of the film, he is an unwelcome, one-note presence. And what's with that lack of hesitation with taking a ride blind-folded with the Warlord's bodyguards? The guide's assurance that "everything is okay" is enough for him to take a ride with a duo of potential killers. How does he know that his guide can be so sure about the Warlord?
And what about Abou Tarek (the 'son' and the 'father')? The Warlord trains him to be a crackerjack sniper but becomes disaffected by war and switches sides, ending up in the Christian Arab prison, as Narwan's torturer. Even though we hear the explanation from Chamseddine, it seems a little too convenient that Tarek so easily switches from the Muslim to the Christian Arab side with so little explanation. Of course without him doing so, there's no 'twist ending', designed to shock.
I understood that the two letters which Narwan has her children deliver to Tarek reflects Narwan's ambivalence about how she feels toward him. But again, why involve the twins? How is Narwan so sure that her revelation to him that he's her son, will impact his conscience? It's already been established that he's a psychopath so I would hardly think that he would care who his mother is. For all we know, Tarek may have decided to go after the half-siblings, as they could reveal his dark secret publicly and cause him a good deal of trouble.
'Incendies' manages to keep one's interest despite the main character's motivations that don't add up and the director's clear political bias. It's worth seeing but hardly deserves the accolades that have been heaped upon it since its heralded release.