This is Jennifer Kent's second film and if I'm being completely honest, I disliked nearly everything about this picture. To begin I will say I have seen two films that are remarkably similar to this film in plot and function. Hostiles & Sweet Country.
Unfortunately, both films outdo this one, and to make matters worse, each story development was extremely predictable as it followed those literally beat by beat. Regardless of those two, I believe the story is insanely predictable, to the point that It becomes disgusting.
It all becomes disgusting for me, because it dissolves into depth-less suffering and forced anguish. It all felt pornographic in how it dealt with physical and sexual abuse. Not in the visual department, but in structure, plot, and execution.
It's not even overtly flashy or in your face, it simply lacks purpose and sentiment. If I'm watching characters suffer repeatedly and you have done nearly nothing for me to care or sympathize with them what is the point?
Her defense in interviews seem to be "it's based in reality" which no one is arguing, but your film is not a documentary, it's fiction and if your fiction feels empty & senseless. Maybe having a story to tell before latching onto a tragedy is important.
It's as if she made this film to elicit a response vs having a true narrative of suffering to tell. The main component of this film is and should be the revenge story and the parts of the film that are good are the few moments where the character struggles with this dilemma. Which all (good) revenge stories deal with. What will revenge bring you? Solace? Peace? Despair?
This film only has one short section that brings this up and then it's over and switches gears back to it's predictable 'kill everyone' story. This is especially frustrating because it also tackles the horrid racial injustice towards the natives of this land. This aspect of the story is much more interesting and compelling then hers (and even the revenge). It's even more developed with less screen time. It manages to layer in depth by having "blackbird" actually be a force of momentum and purpose (for a short while at least). Where her plotline becomes tragically aimless, generic, and worse uninteresting.
I said frustrating up above, because this film plays on your typical Hurt person has to 'deal' with a 'disenfranchised' person of another race trope. Which in general, rubs me the wrong way, it's cheap. It's as if some filmmakers believe that for an audience to resonate and understand a person's suffering, a 'filter' character is needed to process it. (Note: she is also suffering from subjugation and hate, but the film pits their pain against each other in the same format as the trope I mentioned)
So, story stuff aside. The visuals and editing are another thing I disliked. I didn't enjoy the visual language she was going for here. The constant shots of looking up at the trees and the sky did nothing for me, I get the context and metaphor, but it doesn't feel additive in any way, especially when it's used multiple times and in a spliced manner. She also has this confused visual language during the sequences of violence where she plants you in the scene as an observer but then halfway through decides to filter it through the suffering person's perspective.
She does by the noted sky shots but also with a fireplace, it feels quite indecisive and amateur in my opinion. I think the majority of these sequences would've played stronger if we were seeing the entire conflict through one person's POV. Or to play it all as an observer. Having it both ways feels oddly detracting to the sequences and it gives it this manipulative air of discomfort.
The visuals to me read as "Do you see this suffering?! This is suffering! Witness it! THIS IS WHAT SHE SAW"
As it stands it felt like I'm watching what she wants me to see and then, what the character feels which is diminishing in my eyes. I want to be with the character, not the filmmaker, and most of the visuals here play in that manner.
Also, an odd note, the 4:3 (1.37:1) ratio seems like a horrible choice for this film since to my eyes it felt like she shot on 16:9 and chopped off the edges. It doesn't help to have such a digital image either. Most films that pick a 4:3 ratio use it as a benefit by using the limited space to focus, direct and even add depth by layering the composition. Remarkably, nearly every shot in this film felt like a horribly missed opportunity for that ratio.
The editing and pacing of the film felt sludgy and ended up making the film feel much longer than it was. The use of hard cuts (which I typically enjoy) from music to dead silence never felt earned either.
I don't have much to say about the performances from Baykali Ganambarr (billy) and Aisling Franciosi (claire). With Ganambarr being the life of the film and Franciosi also hitting her marks well even though the film doesn't come through with her.
So, in ending.
4/10 - Bad
The Nightingale is a film that feels as if the message came before the story and characters. It tackles too much with too little, and it's all wrapped in a revenge tale that is too predictable, too long, and too empty. For a film with so much portrayed anguish I felt remarkably little, besides that stale sense of exploitation.