- Release Date: 17/03/2022
- Platform: Amazon Prime Video
- Runtime: 93 Minutes
- Cast: Morten Burian, Sidsel Siem Koch, Fedja van Huêt, Karina Smulders
- Director: Christian Tafdrup
A Haunting Exploration of Weakness Through a Chilling Tale of Fear and Fragility
Speak No Evil is a Danish film that now has a Hollywood remake starring James McAvoy. In fact, I wouldn’t have known about this film had I not been intrigued by the trailer of the James McAvoy-led remake. I was about to go for a late-night screening of the Hollywood version, but when I learned that it was based on the Danish original, which was released only about two years ago and split its audience in half on whether they liked or hated the film, I decided to stay put and watch the original instead of going for the Hollywood remake, which I was confident would be underwhelming in comparison to the original (as is often the case), even though it starred one of my favourite Hollywood actors, James McAvoy.
I had no idea about the original or the remake and had only seen the trailer, which many told me had spoiled the fun of the remake. It was only when I finished watching the original that I realized how different it was from what I had expected and how much I enjoyed being wrong in this particular case.
The Story:
Bjørn (Morten Burian) and Louise (Sidsel Siem Koch) meet Patrick (Fedja van Huêt) and Karin (Karina Smulders) and somehow strike up an interesting friendship. By the presentation of their interactions, it never felt as if the two couples particularly liked each other apart from being marginally interested and intrigued. Bjørn apparently feels like a lost soul, brooding within himself for reasons unknown, despite having a beautiful and caring wife and a lovely daughter, Agnes (Liva Forsberg).
Months after this vacation, Bjørn and Louise are invited by the Dutch couple Patrick and Karin to spend the weekend in the Dutch countryside. Desperate to escape his mundane routine, Bjørn convinces Louise to join him for the weekend getaway, and they arrive in Holland. After some pleasant moments, things start getting unpleasant for the couple when Patrick and Karin begin to behave oddly. Bjørn and Louise make up their minds to leave, but they are unable to. What happens next is bound to leave audiences bewildered and divided.
A Unique and Intriguing Storyline:
This is one of those unique films that brings to light the tendency of many people to be so overly nice and accepting that it becomes dangerous for their own well-being. Bjørn is one such man, introduced from the very first scene as someone who would go to any lengths to avoid displeasing others and to avoid confrontation. He is also someone who, even when fully aware of what he dislikes about a person or situation, struggles to put his thoughts into words and be stern about his choices and decisions.
Bjørn and Louise are Complex, Flawed Protagonists:
Bjørn witnesses the brutality of the Dutch couple and learns their dark secrets, but he never tells his wife about it even when he has the chance leading to devastating results. He has an opportunity to save his family and treat Patrick as he truly deserves, but in that crucial moment when he could have saved his daughter and wife, he is paralyzed by fear, indecision and weakness. In one of the most poignant and heartbreaking moments of the film, he asks Patrick why he is doing this to them, and Patrick replies, “Because you are letting me”. This line sums up the entire plot of the film and also the failure of the character of Bjørn and countless others like him in this world. The look on Bjørn’s face reveals everything we need to know about how he feels and how people of similar temperament are likely to feel in such an ordeal.
Is it wrong to be like Bjørn? Are people like him destined to be subjugated? Is it a crime to be understanding or weak? Don’t people like this deserve to live their lives? These questions, along with many others, will flood your mind as you witness the tragedy of this helpless couple and the torment that they endure—largely due to their own weakness.
Louise, played by Sidsel Siem Koch, is not much different from Bjørn. She has had bad feelings about the place and the people from the very beginning, but she is too polite to be firm in her decision to stay away from Patrick and Karin. In a terrifying scene, we see Patrick walk into the bathroom while Louise is showering, asserting his dominance over her and the house without her reacting in any way. When she decides to leave with her family but is then forced to come back for a very strange reason— which I felt was the only questionable choice in the film—Bjorn involves Louise to help explain why they want to leave. Yet again, she doesn’t present a single solid reason, even though the Dutch couple has done numerous questionable things to them. This highlights her own weakness and inability to assert herself in key moments of her life, which not only affect her but also her husband and daughter. In a crucial moment that would make any mother fight fiercely to protect her child, Louise is portrayed as someone who essentially gives up without putting up much of a fight.
A Divisive and Heartbreaking Ending:
The climax of the film worked exceptionally well for me. A story so dark and unrelenting deserved an ending of this nature. However, I’m confident that most people will be divided by it. While some will absolutely love it, a sizable number may dislike the protagonists for doing so little and the writers for writing the character and the story in a certain way. These viewers might leave the theatre dissatisfied, having walked in expecting to see a timid couple turn strong and violent by the end, saving themselves and their daughter. Instead, they are confronted with a harrowing story and finale that demonstrate not the unshakable power and resilience of humans in the face of overwhelming odds, but how little people can do when overtaken by fear and weakness under similar circumstances.
This may not sit well with many, and I understand if it doesn’t. I’ve heard that the Hollywood version addresses this issue of the original by offering a more crowd-pleasing ending, where the protagonists manage to overcome the antagonists. This is why I’m glad I chose to watch the original. The point that the original was trying to convey through its story and characters could never have been delivered effectively if the protagonists had emerged as heroes in the end. Having them triumph would have diluted the core message of the film, which it so carefully and painstakingly builds through the course of the runtime.
Performances that Elevate the Film:
Morten Burian, Sidsel Siem Koch, Fedja van Huêt, and Karina Smulders deliver fantastic performances. The film would not have been the same had the performances not been this great. While Fedja van Huêt and Karina Smulders had the advantage of playing the more unhinged characters, which gave them ample moments to shine, my attention was fixated on Morten Burian and Sidsel Siem Koch, who had the much tougher task of portraying weakness, confusion, surrender, and the inability to be tough even when faced with death. This had to be done subtly and believably.
Morten Burian and Sidsel Siem Koch do a phenomenal job of embodying these traits, making their characters both intriguing and emotionally investing. Without knowing the ending, I kept cheering for them, hoping they would eventually break free from their own inadequacies and take action, but that wasn’t to be. This made their performances, and the characters themselves, even more harrowing and heartbreaking.
Fedja van Huêt and Karina Smulders are no less remarkable. At one point, I felt that their characters could have been better defined or given a more explicit reason for their actions. But then I thought, since when do we demand explanations from serial killers in films? As the film progresses, the performances of Fedja van Huêt and Karina Smulders become even more intriguing and unsettling in a way that is difficult to describe in words.
Beauty Amidst Dread:
The film ends with a climax that is almost as hard to watch as The Stoning of Soraya M. Ironically, the film is one of the most beautifully shot horror-thrillers that I’ve seen in recent times, where the beauty of the frames is constantly in conflict with a sense of dread, tension, and unease. This is created either by the performances, the framing of the shots, the background score, or what is unfolding in a particular scene. This contrast creates an interesting conflict that further adds to the intrigue and overall experience of the film.
Final Words:
If you’re intrigued by the trailer of the recent Hollywood adaptation of this story, I highly recommend this Danish thriller. It presents a strong case as one of the most unusual yet imaginative thrillers in recent times. With a few minor changes, it could have become an instant classic. However, it comes with an absolutely heartbreaking finale that may leave you with a bitter aftertaste. If you’re looking for something with a more positive, but perhaps less impactful, ending, you might enjoy the Hollywood version instead.
Rating; 3.5/5 (3.5 out of 5 Stars)
The views expressed in this article are that of the reviewer and do not reflect EastMojo’s position.
Also Read | Sector 36: Vikrant Massey, Deepak Dobriyal shine in a savage portrait of crime