What Kevin said:
The Banshees of Inisherin wasn’t explicitly recommended – Kevin didn’t actually try to convince me that I should watch it. But I think it’s fair to assume there is an implied recommendation when someone invites you to see a movie and pays for your ticket.
And I really needed to get my thoughts outs.
Mike’s verdict:
My viewing of The Banshees of Inisherin came in the guise of a relaxed family outing for the day after Boxing Day. My father-in-law asked if we would like to see a movie, suggested Banshees, and then bought the tickets. I absent-mindedly asked what the movie was about and was told it was a black comedy, but I didn’t give it any more thought. A movie seemed like a nice way to spend the afternoon. So six of us drove into town for the matinee at the local independent cinema and found our seats in a theater that could not have had space for more than about 30 guests. Up to that point, I was just expecting some dry humour paired with unsavoury characters.
I did not realize that the film we were about to see was written by Martin McDonagh nor that it would star Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson. The last time these three worked together on a film (In Bruges), I was completely unprepared for how dark it turned out to be – mainly because Sarah‘s recommendation was, to say the least, misleading. I may have been entertained that Sunday afternoon, but In Bruges was not “fun”.
To be clear, The Banshees of Inisherin is also not “fun”. It is very heavy.
For nearly two days after viewing The Banshees of Inisherin, I had no words to describe how I felt about the film. There was some discussion about it during the car ride home and a few other instances, but I wasn’t really able to participate. I couldn’t even decide for myself whether or not I had enjoyed the experience. I knew I was glad to have seen the film, but I struggled for the words to express why I was glad.
Eventually I realized the only word that adequately conveyed how I felt was:
unsettled.
I was unsettled by the characters, and the way they treated each other. I was unsettled by the circumstances that the characters presented to each other. And I was unsettled by the level of participation that the cinematography imparted on the audience. The film draws you in, making it feel as if you are witnessing the terrible interactions first-hand. The entire film is tense. The people are tense, the situations are tense, the setting is tense – and that tension never lets you go because you feel as if you are a first-hand witness.
But there are properly funny lines in this film – a lot of them – lines that definitely made me laugh. And that was unsettling too. Whenever something seemed humorous, I was immediately gripped by the shame of knowing that my laughter was inappropriate. None of the circumstances presented by the plot were funny and I absolutely would not have been laughing if I had been standing there with the characters in person. Packing dryly funny dialog into distressing circumstances is quite a trick. The words pull you in when everything else about the scene is pushing you away.
Even so, the trick doesn’t work forever. As the plot began to wrap up I found less and less comedy in the dialog, and one development in particular lost me outright. After that point I was too distracted to notice any attempts at humour. Much like with In Bruge, I began to question whether or not I really wanted to be entertained this way.
In any case, spending so much time trying to work out how I felt about the film gave me ample opportunity to also consider the underlying message. The discussions that I listened to while feeling unable to participate, obviously focused on the interactions between Pádraic (Farrell) and Colm (Gleeson). The general consensus seemed to be leaning toward a belief that Pádraic’s behaviour was the main problem – the argument being that if he had just stopped, everything would have been fine.
While Pádraic’s decisions were ultimately counter-productive (and quite obviously so, from the audience’s point of view), it isn’t really fair to say that Pádraic should have expected the outcomes that eventually materialized. In fact, both Pádraic and Colm were independently trying to do what society had instilled in them – it was the incongruence of two societal ideas that brought the situation to a stalemate. In reality, both men had good reasons to behave the way they did at the start.
Abstracted away from the hyperbole of the cinematic universe, I think this film is an observation that western society often upholds contradictory ideals. In this case, there are two simultaneously irreconcilable notions concerning how relationships are maintained, and when they must end.
On one hand, society engenders a consciousness of the importance of understanding consent. Individuals are encouraged to give thoughtful consideration into how and when consent manifests, specifically to ensure that its absence is acknowledged and respected. The absence of consent is understood to be incontestable, irrefutable, unquestionable.
Of course, our most potent discussions of consent tend to focus on sex, but that is an artificial constraint. Consent as a perception is present in all types of human relationships – even the relationship between two blokes who drink together at the pub. Returning to the film, at a fundamental level Colm no longer consented to spending time with Pádraic, and he understood that absence of consent to be absolute – it did not need to be justified, it only needed to be respected.
On the other hand, western society has an equally deep rooted understanding that building and maintaining relationships takes effort, and that one must strive with enthusiasm to make relationships work. The common wisdom, particularly for men, is that denial should be met with a concerted effort to improve, to be and do what is necessary to reach the goal. If at first you don’t succeed… Pádraic only had one friend, and he wanted desperately to understand what he had done wrong so that he could fix it.
More succinctly, when one wants consent, society says to put in the effort to earn it. Yet when one is refusing consent, society says that refusal is absolute and must be immediately respected. An unstoppable force, meets an unmovable object.
In the beginning, The Banshees of Inisherin was about a very normal human relationship with a difficult, but not uncommon conflict. One man believing he should push; the other man believing he should not be pushed. Unfortunately, the situation left both men feeling that they needed to regain control, and led to a series of drastic responses. From that point on, both were in a tailspin; the shock of what was happening pulled the men beyond the point of rational thought.
Is it Pádraic fault? Could he really have just stopped? Is it Colm’s fault? Could he have chosen a different way to express his resolve? Or are they both just fools acting on the conflicting instincts that society has instilled?
I have no idea, but either way The Banshees of Inisherin is not a relaxing matinee movie.
8/10
mike reviews movies suggested by friends 