"Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Always" Deep Focus Roundtable Talk
Planning│Deep Focus Editorial Department
Edit│XL
2miao:
Hello everyone, thank you to the three guests for participating in this "Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Always, 2020" roundtable. The film won the Silver Bear Award - Grand Jury Prize at this year's Berlin International Film Festival, and the beautiful young actress Talia Ryder who played the protagonist's cousin in the film also attracted a lot of attention to the film. I established my expectations for the film from both the subject matter and word of mouth, and I looked for it as soon as the resources were released. First of all, I would like to know the overall evaluation of the film. Teacher Tong and Tilda went to Berlin, and the two can also talk about the movie's big screen perception and whether this jury award is worthy of its name.
The tongue is enough:
I actually didn't watch it in Berlin at the time, because I thought I could go back to New York to watch it in theaters immediately. As a result, after the outbreak of the epidemic, I ended up watching it on TV at home. I haven't seen her previous work, but this one alone is a typical Sundance American independent film. As for the award, because I liked "First Cow" (2019) and "Days" (2020), I didn't get anything, so I still have a little dissatisfaction.
Watching this movie at home is amazing. Because I'm in New York and quarantined at home, and about half of this film was filmed on location in New York, the first impression is a sense of familiarity! Especially in the film dragging that big box around, getting on and off the subway, it reminded me a lot of my own experiences.
Tilda:
"Never" should be the best of the three feature films directed by Eliza Hittman in terms of completion, author style, and narrative fluency. Although the format of the film is not big, it is more delicate and real, which is quite unique among the works in the main competition in Berlin this year. At the time, I remembered that the score for the show was also very high, so the award seemed to be expected during the festival. Then, the difference between the look and feel of the small screen and the big screen, for me, the film is actually a relatively narrative-driven work, so it may not bring much difference to the audience in terms of visual spectacle. However, Hitman is also the kind of director who prefers to use shallow focus and close-up of human faces, so maybe the big screen looks more cramped and oppressive.
I reconsider this at Sundance. Her first work is a girl's repressed sexual exploration, the second is a boy's exploration of homosexuality, and then the area is also in New York and the suburbs of New York, and they are also premiered at Sundance, so, from the author's sexuality is continuous.
2miao:
So, do you feel that Hitman has established his personal authorship through the three existing works? Can you expand on that a bit more?
Tilda:
Although it may be too early to call it a film author, I think I can still see some clues about the authorship. For example, similarity in subject matter (adolescent sexual behavior and mental state, confusion at the level of sexuality, fluid identity, etc.), repeated use of some film language (shallow focus, close-up of body parts, less use of background music, etc.) , representations of specific urban landscapes, certain recurring imagery (beach, clothes and hair blown by the wind, dance venues, etc.).
2miao:
Moreover, her protagonists are all teenagers in the United States, from the suburbs of big cities or ordinary small towns, they are all marginal, and their personalities are relatively silent. It's not the same as the cheerful and noisy teenager image we often see.
"Never" frames the main space within the interior and enclosed means of transportation, without a landmark representation of New York outside. What characteristics do you think the film has in the choice of space where the story takes place? Teacher Tong knows New York very well. Last year and this year, there were also many movies that reflected the sense of New York's neighborhood. Do you think Hitman has made a different feeling?
The tongue is enough:
I think this is precisely one of the strengths of the film. Perhaps, when everyone mentions New York, they think of skyscrapers and metropolises. But in fact, on the streets of New York, this sense of oppression and crampedness is very strong. If I'm not mistaken, the New York portion of the film, except for the subway and Planned Parenthood, is pretty much around the bus station on 42nd Street. It's only a block away from Times Square, arguably the most crowded place in New York, but it's also an unusually indifferent place. I think she shows this very well.
Tilda:
I watched Hitman's Q&A at Lincoln Center and said that he created a treatment after watching the news of the death of an Indian girl, Savita Halappanavar, in Ireland in 2012 because the local law prohibited abortion. The original story was set in Ireland. However, because of funding and other shooting conditions, it was later changed to a New York version. The New York station in the film gave me an intuitive feeling like an airless maze, which well showed the lost and panic of a small town girl when she first came to a big city. Add to that a state of mind about abortion, and there's a sense of perilous tension that men can potentially bring to them.
Muzhi:
I haven't seen the director's previous works before. Putting aside the cultural background, it first feels like a European film with a naturalistic style. The first thing that comes to my mind is Romania's "Three Weeks and Two Days in April" (4 luni, 3 săptămâni și 2 zile, 2007), which is not so cold and a little more refreshing.
Regarding the space setting, I just watched an interview with the New Yorker this morning, and the director said that she was thinking about Robert Bresson's "Un condamné à mort s'est échappé ou Le vent souffle" when filming New York. où il veut, 1956). In order to highlight a very specific state of a person's release from prison, the protagonist who participated in the French resistance movement in the film was used as a physical and tactile analogy to the film. It can be said that the director deliberately gave Autumn the determination to "get rid of".
2miao:
Let's start with the details and talk about the film itself! I wanted to cut straight to the most important scene in the film, the one that reveals the purpose of the title. If I'm not mistaken, this is the only time the heroine Autumn has choked up and has red eyes. From beginning to end, she was quite forbearing and indifferent. Wondering how everyone reacted to this scene? Are you affected by emotions? My personal feeling is that from the beginning to the end, the film does not deliberately ask the audience to empathize with Autumn. It is quite anti-sensational on the whole, but here, it will still be hit.
The tongue is enough:
This scene was indeed the one that left the deepest impression on me in the film. Because in fact, the narrative of the film has been hidden: we don't know much about the background of the heroine and her cousin, and we don't know who the father of the fetus is. This game is very informative. It not only gives us a glimpse of the heroine's growth story, but also directly identifies the heroine as a victim of sexual assault.
Tilda:
It must have been infected, after all, it is the bridge of the question! And (as a female audience), I was also touched by details before, such as where she pierced her nose, and I could immediately understand that it was her symbolic move to regain the right to use her body. The doctor asked about this scene, but I think the doctor's voiceover is a very good supporting role. Calm and gentle, it is a professional performance. But this stoic, non-judgmental stance of professionalism may be what a girl needs most at this moment. What Teacher Tong said is quite right. There is a lot of information, but I didn't understand it until I read it for the second time. For example, she said she had two sexual partners within a year, and that long-term partner (probably her boyfriend) did not force her to have sex. So does this imply that she actually experienced sexual assault? Does her grumpy and misbehaving stepfather have anything to do with it? These spaces leave the audience guessing. But the more I guess, the more startling I think the facts may be, but it brings a strange energy to the film.
2miao:
I would also like to add some comments on this scene. I think Hitman is very proactive in building and strengthening Autumn's personal subjectivity. Although she is a victim, she firmly holds the right to tell her personal history. This taciturn cold-faced girl chose not to tell the doctor in front of her past experience. What she also rejects is the prying desire of the audience outside the screen. Before that, she was very determined not to have a child in her stomach, including the act of piercing her nose mentioned by Tilda, which was all emphasizing her own will and decision.
In addition, I have to mention that it was the big box that dragged down the two at that moment. The explanation I saw in a director interview was that Hitman read an article in a magazine about women traveling to New York for abortions, and it was mentioned that they were always overpacked. So, she added this design to the film: let two young girls carry large luggage. Hitman himself admits that this is a metaphor for the burden they carry. Do you accept this physical, or visual, "burden" approach? And, what kind of "heavy burden" do they bear? Does this suitcase contain more room for interpretation? Do you think this design is too deliberate?
Tilda:
Hitman's explanation is quite interesting. Indeed, in principle, this reloading is completely inexplicable. However, I have a little understanding. First, they are definitely not people who travel a lot. Overpacking shows that they are very anxious about the unknown journey. Second, even if they decide to make a sudden decision, they don’t have much time to think about it, so they just grab the bag.
The tongue is enough:
I think it's really intentional. Because, apart from this metaphorical explanation, the big box can be said to be completely unreasonable in the narrative of the film. From the first visit to the clinic, we can know that, in fact, they originally wanted to go back and forth on the same day. The film dragged on for three days and two nights, which was completely unexpected. Then, it really doesn't make sense to drag such a burden on a day's journey in such a plan. In addition to the role of metaphor, another role is to advance the development of the story. For example, one of the reasons Skylar had to go alone with Jasper to withdraw money was because Autumn was guarding the box.
2miao:
right! I also feel that this prop is still used with a lot of thought. And, when the two were together, it was always Skylar who dragged the suitcase, sharing the pressure for Autumn without complaint. This is also the expression of women's mutual help in the form of silent companionship without words.
Muzhi:
In addition to advancing the narrative and metaphor, that heavy box may also represent the two girls' determination to break away from the past and become independent. Both were working-class children of rural Pennsylvania, and one long trip included too many possibilities.
2miao:
What do you think of the title "Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Always"?
Tilda:
I remember that there was a short review that seemed to say that the title "Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Always" had an inexplicable sense of confrontation with "Three Weeks and Two Days in April". I don't know if the director did it on purpose. Of course, I have not verified the director's own statement.
2miao:
Indeed, many people commented that "Never" is the American version of "April Three Weeks and Two Days", or an American variation of "April Three Weeks and Two Days". Muzhi also mentioned it just now. I was going to ask this question at the end, but this Palme d'Or is really unavoidable! Before this film, we seem to have stricter standards for judging stories of unwanted early pregnancies and seeking abortions. Otherwise, now everyone thinks about other movies that involve teenage early pregnancy that they have seen in their movie viewing experience, and let's talk about whether "Never" has made a difference or failed to break through this somewhat outdated or even flooded theme. In addition, can Muzhi talk about it? Why does "Never" feel like a naturalistic European film, and where is the "small freshness" reflected?
Tilda:
A comparable work I can think of is Juno (Juno, 2007). However, the latter is more like a genre film with fairy tales, and may be the most perfect solution to the issue of teenage pregnancy.
The breakthrough of "Never" may be the narrative perspective. As 2miao said, hiding the process of Autumn's self-disclosure is a choice against voyeurism. The lack of an omniscient perspective to focus on individual emotional states is to some extent one of the characteristics of female narratives. However, with pearls like "Three Weeks and Two Days in April" ahead, the breadth, depth and directing skills of "Never" are definitely not as good as the former. However, the art of cinema is not a sports game. I think that tolerance for the creative characteristics and voices of female authors is the right attitude to watch this film.
The tongue is enough:
"Juno" is not only a more promising story, or more positive, but the style of the whole film is also a typical American youth film. Whether it's those typical high school campus characters, or the rock and pop songs that fill the entire film. In this respect, "Juno" is much smaller and fresher.
Muzhi:
The director uses maximum natural light and realism to describe a sinister, close-up New York. Compared with "Three Weeks and Two Days in April", it lacks the introduction of grand narratives. However, such a style is not realistic enough to carry weighty issues like gender politics and abortion. For example, the male characters in the film are very symbolic in my opinion. The opening scene of "He's Got the Power" sets the tone for the film's struggle. This approach is clever, but not clever enough.
Tilda:
I don't agree with the male character symbolization. I think the role of Jasper is quite interesting. Is he a "bad guy" representing patriarchy? It seems not quite; is he a helper to women? It seems to be conspiring again. I'm still curious what everyone thinks of this male character.
The tongue is enough:
For me, the biggest difference between "April Three Weeks and Two Days" and this film is that in the former, although women make greater sacrifices for abortion, they show more of the dynamism and resistance of female characters; And "Never", more emphasis is on the identity of the victim. Therefore, I prefer "Three Weeks and Two Days in April", and I think that "Never" does not have too many breakthroughs in the same theme.
I agree with the male symbolization. 2miao just mentioned that the movie was also shot in New York recently. I thought of Joker (Joker, 2019). In "Joker", in order to show the ugliness of the upper class, a clown was arranged to be bullied by a group of "elites" in suits and ties in the subway. In this film, it is also in the subway, and it is also a man in a suit who molests the heroine. But as a resident of New York, both scenes struck me as deliberate and dramatic.
Tilda:
I don't think "Never" is emphasizing the identity of female victims. I think this may be a preset position of the audience - "they are the victims". Surrounded by a relatively conservative social and family environment, a small town girl made the act of going to a distant big city to have an abortion. Isn't it an individual struggle? On the contrary, "Three Weeks and Two Days in April" finally fell on the two girls. Even if they made such a big sacrifice to complete the abortion, they were all real victims of the system. The Lord is at the dinner table of her boyfriend's house, and other people's dialogues suggest that she may be a victim of this system all her life and cannot escape. Excuse me, the tongue is enough, how to interpret the psychological motivation of the role of Jasper?
The tongue is enough:
These male figures described in the film all exist in reality. But to cast all the male characters in the film this way is what I said earlier about setting Autumn and Skylar as victims. Including the opening song mentioned by Muzhi above, the lyrics also place women under a male gaze and cannot extricate themselves; then, in Planned Parenthood, the doctor said "I want to make sure you're safe", which is also the same. It is implying the identity of the victim of the heroine.
2miao:
It's enough to want to respond. Every time I take the subway in New York by myself, I still feel uneasy because there are strange people. I absolutely don't watch midnight movies. Often in this mixed public place, I become more alert to my gender identity. The situation in Joker is, of course, more extreme. But I don't think it's impossible to meet the wretched late-night man in "Never". Deliberately, it may be that the man in the "suit and leather shoes" made this action, not the homeless living in the carriage. The former is more to break through the inherent impression of wretched men. Perhaps, the film's resistance is also here.
Tilda:
Suits and shoes are not necessarily elite. There are counter clerks on Wall Street too, don't they? Maybe just an urban wage earner.
Muzhi:
Jasper is also a confused teenager like the two female protagonists who lacks a sense of existence. When he tries to approach women, he cannot feel sincerity; at the same time, he is in turn a "tool man" used by women. In addition to emphasizing gender narrative, is it also diluting the sense of opposition and emphasizing female subjectivity?
2miao:
The wretched men encountered on the New York subway, as well as Autumn's stepfather and classmates, supermarket clerks and customers, most of the male characters in the film only appear briefly, very functionally, to varying degrees to Autumn and Skylar. Harassment and insults. Do you think this design is extreme? In particular, I wanted to ask if the two men involved in the discussion felt offended?
Tilda:
If we look at it this way, why don't we ask, is it an extreme approach to completely design female characters as objectified objects in previous films?
2miao:
I think it's certainly possible to ask that question. But the film we are discussing is "Never", where the functional character is male, and the intention is quite obvious.
Tilda:
To ask this question, I feel a little too considerate of the feelings of the male audience. It seems that the premise of getting justified for a female-themed film is to ask the male audience, do you think the male image in this film is realistic? Feel unreal? That must be a feminist stance bias. However, perhaps, the feelings of some women in reality are the "badness" from men of different classes; perhaps, they are not aware of their "aggression" behaviors to varying degrees.
The tongue is enough:
In fact, this phenomenon of marginalizing and facializing male characters is quite common in some films in recent years. Last year's Portrait of a Lady on Fire (Portrait de la jeune fille en feu, 2019) had few male characters.
Agree with Tilda, Jasper's character, I think it's to show that. In reality, there are many such men. They may not have the words and actions that directly and nakedly violate women (for example, the wretched man in the subway, the slut man, the supermarket manager), but they will approach strange women in a "stalker" style. And then, it's natural to have sex-related rewards for thinking that it provides women with some "benefits". The vast majority of them are unaware that they are making others uncomfortable and feel that they are fine.
Tilda:
With all due respect, in the history of film, it is possible to pick out a work that has almost no female characters, and there are many great directors. This shouldn't be considered a disadvantage. Perhaps, audiences of both genders can try to broaden their evaluation criteria?
Muzhi:
It is precisely because the images of women in the past films have been objectified so much that we do not want to focus all our attention on male peeping and put women in an isolated and oppressed position. Symbolic expressions are not universal. I personally expect to see men in the film more as reflective images, rather than as new alienated and isolated objects. Including the aforementioned "Portrait of a Burning Woman", too many opposing narratives will only reinforce ideological conflict, and female subjectivity will rise at the expense of creativity. Men will not feel biased when they see it, but they will feel monotonous. Still, it's always good to create with sincerity, and we need more movies like this.
2miao:
What does Tilda think of Skylar and Jasper's relationship?
Tilda:
I think Skylar definitely doesn't hate Jasper, maybe in other contexts, they'd even flirt. Skylar wasn't blindly hostile to him, otherwise, he didn't need to leave his phone number to him. As I said before, Jasper is not a "villain", he is a teenager who can lend a helping hand to others. However, he did look forward to Skylar's potential sexual return. Skylar approached him the next night, putting on make-up to suggest she was actively using her sexual resources. Therefore, I really have no way to clearly define how much true feelings and how much use between two people. Perhaps it was what Muzhi said, a state of confusion, blur, and chaos.
The tongue is enough:
Certainly not a disadvantage. What kind of characters are there in a film, what kind of characters are not, as long as they can justify themselves in the director's artistic expression. In "Portrait of a Woman on Fire," the absence of men is tied to the display of the power of women's direct sisterhood (again, abortion) in the film. But in this film, since I have already described the "badness" to women shown by an "ordinary boy" as I said before, and then created a bunch of male images in a masked way, it is somewhat of a Superfluous. Because the former represents a kind of daily malice, the impact is far greater than those deliberate malice.
Tilda:
Instead, I feel that this shows male "maliciousness" from different levels and levels. But I understand what the tongue is enough to mean.
2miao:
In the film, Autumn went to different institutions and went through various inquiries, which accounted for a large part of the film. What do you think of the detailed presentation of the various processes in the video? Could this be the most "American" point of the film?
The tongue is enough:
This also makes me think that the film has a bit of Ken Loach's tune in it. This kind of mechanism that seems to be caring and caring for the bureaucracy is actually cold, mechanical, and even causes secondary harm to people, which reminds me of some of his episodes.
Tilda:
I don't have any special feelings for this, but I think it may be part of its realism. Although this film can be seen as a response in the context of last year's anti-abortion bill in the United States, I think the director's intention may not be to criticize this system, but to show the difference between small-town institutions and New York City institutions. What is the real process the protagonist needs to go through to achieve his goal? For viewers like me who have no similar experience, it seems like a documentary, and it has the effect of conveying information. Criticism of this system may require the audience to associate and extend after watching the movie.
Muzhi:
From another point of view, perhaps it is the calm professionalism of the consultants that can let the heroine let go of her guard, perhaps it is a hint that the system reform is necessary! After all, since the 2016 election, the number of abortion clinics in US states has plummeted, and anti-abortion protests by religious and conservative forces have become more frequent. Abortion is about a woman's body control, but it faces the same acute ethical issues as euthanasia. Leaving aside all disputes, only a better system serving "people" can prevent the social division from becoming more severe.
The tongue is enough:
In the film, "letting the heroine off her guard" is obviously a failure. The clinic had said it could offer her accommodation in New York, but was turned down.
2miao:
My last question is that Hitman is always bringing in new actors. "Beach Rats" (Beach Rats, 2017) actor Harris Dickinson (Harris Dickinson) should be regarded as her favorite, and now both Hollywood productions and European art films are blooming. Sidney Flanigan, who plays the heroine Autumn, had no previous acting experience and was discovered by Hitman while helping others with projects. Because of her appearance, Talia Ryder also appeared on the big screen for the first time. How would you rate Hitman's ability to cast and train actors?
Tilda:
Hitman's protagonists are somewhat similar, taciturn and emotionally restrained; perhaps, they also rely on the characteristics of the actors themselves (for example, Sidney himself is also a singer-songwriter). I don't have any conclusions about the training of actors, I will wait to see her later works.
The tongue is enough:
In the scene of "pointing the question" mentioned earlier, in one shot, the heroine showed from calm, to uneasy, to collapse. Coupled with the background of her debut on the big screen, I think Hitman's ability to train actors can be seen. One spot.
Muzhi:
Using non-professional actors, perhaps in the tradition of neorealism? After all, in such a subject, non-professional or rookie actors are more likely to shine. The part where the two heroines eat bread at the end of the film seems to be an improvisation. The emotional transition and performance in that section are very natural and sublime the theme.
2miao:
Do you have anything to add? Or, are there any issues you want to raise for discussion?
Tilda:
I would like to respond to a Muzhi. The theme of staring and being stared at may not be fully explored and subverted for feminist filmmakers. The appearance of "Portrait of a Burning Woman" may be regarded as the culmination of this category of themes. Of course, I would also like to see more creative female expressions in both form and content. But at the same time, I also support all creations under this general trend.
Muzhi:
Totally agree with you, Tilda Li. The last thing I want to add is that the violence, bullying, and offense in society and in the family is sometimes actually gender-neutral. Replacing the violated object with men, or any vulnerable group, is actually true. Irony is the privilege of the weak and a weapon against the strong. Feminist films need to be constantly revised and shaped according to reality, expecting to see quantitative changes lead to qualitative changes, and looking forward to more sincere creations and expressions.
View more about Never Rarely Sometimes Always reviews
