Could I like this film even though I wasn’t all that enamored with The Child (the only Dardenne film I’ve seen)?
I haven’t seen The Child so I can’t really comment. I’d say that if you liked Ballast, there’s a decent chance that you could like this.
" I should explain that I have some experience with troubled youth"
Your own, or someone else’s?
I’d say both.
Ok, maybe I’ll give the film a peekaboo.
Jonathan Rosenbaum recently wrote that this was “quite possibly the best thing by the Dardennes since Rosetta.”
In my opinion the best Dardennes film since Rosetta is Le fils (The Son) I’ve seen Le Gamin au vélo. It’s good, but not as powerful as Le fils.
Santino, I agree with you about The Child.
My favourites by the Dardennes are La promesse, Rosetta and Le fils.
@Peter
I’ve been wanting to see The Son again, as well The Infant, which I haven’t seen. Have you seen Ballast? If so, how would you compare it to this film? (Personally, I prefer Ballast.)
@Matt
I read the review. I don’t feel as strongly as he does about this film. I wouldn’t call the film sentimental (so I agree with Rosenbaum there), but I’m not sure about the believability of the relationship between Samantha, the foster mother and Cyril, the boy. You haven’t seen the film, so I wont’ say much more. Rosenbaum also says the film is free of rhetoric, but I’d say it does have a message—and I’m a just a little underwhelmed by it (but that could just be me).
Jazzaloha, I have not seen Ballast.
I agree with you about the implausibility of the Cécile De France character, Samantha. She is a bit too good to be true. All of the films made by Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne turn on epiphanies, but I prefer the quieter and more measured epiphany that takes place in The Son. I use the word measured in a literal and metaphorical sense because Olivier, the main character in The Son, is a joinery instructor. Hence it is the precise nature of the ethical and emotional transformation that appeals to me in The Son.
@Peter
I think the film sort of depends on the casting and the “vibe” of the actor playing Samantha—because the film seems to rely on the viewer instantly believing that Samantha would just be this kind of person. Once the viewer sees Samantha on screen, he/she must almost believe that she would be the type of person that would be really caring, patient and giving—because the film does almost nothing to establish these aspects of the character, prior to showing these behaviors. I’m not sure De France did this. For one thing, I think she’s too pretty and glamorous—where a more plain, ordinary looking actor might have been effective. (On a side note, she kept reminding me of Sean Young.) Despite my feeling this way, I don’t think this ruined the film for me, but it weakened it just a bit.
As for The Son, I agree that the film’s takes its time developing and drawing out the transformation of the character—although, if I recall correctly, the transformation occurs in Gorrmet’s performance. By this I mean, there aren’t a lot of scenes or dialogue the reveal the transformation. The change is internal and comes through the “actor’s pores,” if you know what I mean.
“In my opinion the best Dardennes film since Rosetta is Le fils (The Son) I’ve seen Le Gamin au vélo. It’s good, but not as powerful as Le fils.”
I haven’t seen the new one yet, but at this point I would agree that The Son is their best since Rosetta.
For me Le fils or the son is even more powerful than Rosetta. I missed this one at the Toronto film fest. I also like their film making techniques.
Jazzaloha, I didn’t have any problems with de France’s character in this film. I, for one, am glad that the filmmakers eschewed providing any emotional or psychological reasons for her kindness. There was no sob backstory about her losing a child or having grown up in an environment similar to the kid’s. While I wouldn’t consider it to be any sort of a message, by doing so the Belgian duo might just be turning the question back to the audience, “Why should someone like her be too good to be true?” But they do so without any irony or cynicism. And I don’t think de France is glamorized here whatsoever. Contrary to popular belief, she’s Belgian, and reportedly grew up not far from where the film takes place. The Dardennes don’t need a name to sell their films.
As for the ending, to me what makes it particularly moving is the implication that the kid now recognizes Samantha’s importance in his life, he keeps the promise he made to her, thus returning the favor as she didn’t let him down and continued to believe in him. There’s a striking moment early on in the film when Samantha drives off after promising him that she’d return but the look on his face suggests that him and his fellow residents hear something like that far too often only to be disappointed in the end.
@Arsaib
While I wouldn’t consider it to be any sort of a message, by doing so the Belgian duo might just be turning the question back to the audience, “Why should someone like her be too good to be true?”
To which my response would be: because it is incredibly difficult to do. Raising relatively normal children is not easy—trying to raise a child like Cyril is even more challenging—especially given his age and the fact that Samantha had no hand in raising him or establishing a relationship prior to their meeting. My guess is that it takes a very unique person to do what Samantha did—especially given the amount of patience and unconditional love she shows. I have no doubt that there real-life Samanthas in the world, but, imo, the film either had to a) show some scenes to establish and convince viewers of her character, or; b) the actor has to have the right “aura” and “vibe” to make the viewers instantly believe she’s this way. I didn’t think either was the case—but, again, this didn’t completely ruin the film for me.
And I don’t think de France is glamorized here whatsoever.
She’s not “glamourized,” so much as she’s glamorous—as in movie actor beautiful. I found this distracting and made the character more difficult to buy. A plain, more ordinary actor might have helped.
As for the ending, to me what makes it particularly moving is the implication that the kid now recognizes Samantha’s importance in his life,…
One of the problems with a film like this (and I would also include films about teachers “saving” at risk students) is the films smooth over the difficulties and over-romanticize working and developing relationships with these kids. Part of the problem is the length of the film. There’s a sense of compression with the relationship. In real life, trust and a good bond take a long time. The relationship—and Cyril’s transformation—happens really fast. If dealing with kids like Cyril were that easy in real life, I think there would be more “Samanthas.”
Apropos Cécile de France, she is indeed a lovely actress. My favourite de France film is Xavier Gianolli’s “Quand j’étais chanteur” (The Singer), where she stars alongside Gérard Depardieu, also excellent. I would recommend this charming film. It’s one of my all-time faves.
Jazzaloha, I don’t think Cyril was particularly abnormal in any respect. The situation he found himself in was, which led him to make a few rash decisions. There’s a difference. And the Dardennes didn’t shy away from depicting the problematic moments; there were at least a couple of instances when Samantha considered returning him. As for de France, to me she had the right “aura” and "vibe"—she looked fairly ordinary here and I didn’t find her to be at all distracting. But this is obviously a matter of opinion.
@Arsaib,
I don’t think Cyril was particularly abnormal in any respect.
“In any respect?” I think that’s going too far. Perhaps Cyril is not “abnormal,” but I don’t think he’s quite normal, either—certainly not some of his behavior—specifically attacking the father and son with the bat. What’s troubling is the ease to which Cyril attacks them and the lack of guilt and emotion towards this attack. Imo, that is not a normal behavior. Indeed, if I knew a kid who did that, I’d suspect he had some serious problems—mostly involving his home life. This is not the typical rash decisions made by impetuous boys. (The boy’s retaliation against Cyril is more of the normal, rash decisions that I think you’re referring to.)
There’s another thing. Clearly, Cyril really values his father—either because he really believes in his father’s love or he’s incredibly desperate for it. In any event, it’s clear the relationship is very important to Cyril. What happens in the film? The father utterly rejects Cyril. I’m not a professional psychologist, but this has got to be incredibly devastating to Cyril. He’s going to be really message up after this, and I suspect that he will need a lot of time to recover from it. The events and circumstance don’t make Cyril “abnormal,” but he’s not going to be your average kid, either.
Furthermore, tne relationship -especially in the span of time that Samantha knows him-(how long do you think it was? I’d say no more than a month or two, probably a lot less)—is not going to make everything OK—not to the extent that we see on the screen, imo.
there were at least a couple of instances when Samantha considered returning him.
I think the only time this happens is after Cyril stabs her and runs away—and even then, she seems to only suggest returning him because he says he wants to return. She doesn’t seem to come close to returning him, prior to that scene—most strikingly when her boyfriend issues an ultimatum. The decision didn’t seem very difficult, or at least seemed a little too easy.
As for de France, to me she had the right “aura” and "vibe"—she looked fairly ordinary here and I didn’t find her to be at all distracting. But this is obviously a matter of opinion.
Agreed. (If she’s ordinary where you live, I want to see what the hot women look like.)
I saw this last night and was pleasantly surprised. It’s a small film and in the same stripped down, shoot-in-the-streets style of the Dardenne’s other films. And while it’s not a story heavy or plot driven film, I felt the depictions of real people to be quite astute. I think the Dardenne brothers captured in a very real way what it is to be a child and used very specific behavior to develop the character into something beyond just a stock caricature of an abandoned boy.
This is not my favorite film of the year and I wouldn’t even say it was deserving of the jury prize at Cannes (I haven’t seen all the films that were in competition but I’ve seen enough to know that some were better) however for the small scale microcosm that it inhabits, it’s quite an effective piece of drama.
What’d you think about my comparison to Ballast?
Hmm..well, they’re both centered on kids with a screwed up childhood. But I don’t see much else to the comparison beyond the superficial plot similarities. When I was watching the film and when I left the theater, Ballast didn’t pop into my mind. But maybe this is due to the strong sense of place both films have and these settings are so different from each other. Ballast is such a haunting, evocative film set in a very specific place in the American south. I loved the feel and cinematography of the film, reminiscent of early David Gordon Green. The Kid with a Bike on the other hand is much more straightforward in the way it’s shot – gritty, French streets, natural lighting, etc.
I also felt much more emotionally involved in Ballast. Maybe because I felt so sad for all three of the main characters and they were all pretty sympathetic while in The Kid with a Bike is centered around just the one main character, who is sympathetic because of his circumstances, not because of his behavior (which is decidedly unsympathetic).
Both are great films though. I really love how the Dardenne brothers showed this kid, warts and all. They really didn’t try to artificially make him likable and instead lets the story play itself out and let us draw our own conclusions about him.
Well, the settings and characters are different, but both films seem to be about what a young at-risk male really needs—namely loving, responsible parents. Both films have a stripped down plot and spare, realistic style. I think Kid also has a haunting, evocative quality to it, too.
Now having gone back over this thread and reread the comments, here are some additional thoughts:
I think this film is a comment (or maybe a better word would be “observation” since “comment” signifies to me that a message is being pushed) on neglected children and the importance of parents. Cyril’s situation is not an uncommon one and this is really sad, really tragic. Why are these people have children if they can’t take care of them? Cyril’s father seemed as immature as Cyril did – what the hell was he doing have a child so young?
I don’t agree though that the film is trying to have an impact on laws or the way society functions with these kids. I could be wrong but I just never got that sense that the filmmakers had a specific goal other than to hold the mirror up to see ourselves.
What I really responded to was the love that surrounded Cyril. In spite of being abandoned, in spite of his father rejecting him, he seemed to have a good support system at the camp he was staying at. He wasn’t alone, starving on the street. And of course the woman who helps him and allows him to stay with her – what a remarkable person. These are the types of people that we need in the world – patient, compassionate people who are willing to help a child like Cyril. The scene where her boyfriend gives her an ultimatum was extremely moving to me. You totally understand the boyfriend’s feelings and I thought he represented what most of us would do. We’d give up on Cyril and pawn him off on someone else. But this woman refused. She was determined to help him and was patient with him when it was the most difficult. I thought that she represented the hope that these kids have – if children like Cyril will succeed, it is because there are people like her out there helping them.
“I think the ending could says several important things about young males: a) their implusive, agressive behavior often gets them in trouble; b) however, they are often resilient—both in terms bouncing back from injuries and hardship and in terms of taking a more positive direction for their lives. In other words, there’s always hope for a second chance”
I was ambivalent about the ending when I saw it but having read your interpretation, I like it a lot more. I think this makes perfect sense and I agree that him getting back up after the fall is symbolic of his life in general – no matter what knocks him down, he will get back up. What a powerful statement to make, especially about a young boy who seemingly has nothing.
Regarding the character of Samantha, as I said before, I think she represents the hope for these kids. While her forgiveness is tough to swallow (and maybe a bit too saintly), I don’t think she is a character that isn’t unrealistic. I’ve known people like this and while they are rare, they do exist.
@Santino
I don’t agree though that the film is trying to have an impact on laws or the way society functions with these kids
Yeah, I don’t think the film’s objective was to change laws, but Rosetta, from what I understand, had that effect. It wouldn’t surprise me that something similar would happen or at least the start of a national conversation about the issue.
And of course the woman who helps him and allows him to stay with her – what a remarkable person. These are the types of people that we need in the world – patient, compassionate people who are willing to help a child like Cyril.
I think two things would have helped:
1. That the film establish that the woman would be this type of person or cast an actor that almost instantly convinced the viewer that she would be that type of person;
2. Show a little more weakness, frustration—i.e., portray her in a less saintly fashion.
I do agree that people like Cyril need people like the woman and people like the woman exist—but these people human, too. They don’t always respond with patience and love; they don’t always perservere. In a way, portraying her this way is a bit misleading, because for many who attempt to do what the woman did may find that they respond differently. At the same time, that doesn’t mean they should give up and not try to help these kids. But they should realize the difficulty going in, I guess.
I think this makes perfect sense and I agree that him getting back up after the fall is symbolic of his life in general – no matter what knocks him down, he will get back up.
Not just the specific characters, but boys and girls in similar situations. Basically children are pretty resilient. Moreover, there’s almost always a chance for someone to turn their lives around. That’s a comforting (and not phony) thought.
“1. That the film establish that the woman would be this type of person or cast an actor that almost instantly convinced the viewer that she would be that type of person;
2. Show a little more weakness, frustration—i.e., portray her in a less saintly fashion."
I didn’t have a problem with her casting or the lack of backstory with Samantha. I can see what you are saying though and if you didn’t buy into her character, it would be difficult to buy into her actions. However she did seem human to me and I never felt I needed more to show her motivations. I mean, the movie is about the kid, not about Samantha so it didn’t seem misleading that we don’t see her openly struggle with her loyalty to him. We do see how difficult it is, from the fact that she gives up her boyfriend to Cyril stabbing her, so my impression was that she struggled and had a hard time but she refused to give up on him. I imagine she felt he never had a chance, never had someone to love him, and she wanted to give him that, at any cost to her own life.
I think the film is up to the usual good level of the Dardennes. I have generally one objection here – there is some obvious banality in the themes.
But apart from that, I was pleased. For me, the film is better than Lorna’s Silence, but not so good as the Child. At least, this is all I have seen from them so far.
On the surface, some attitudes seem quite illogical – the father’s total neglect or as pointed out here – Samantha’s unexplained fondness towards Cyril. But I interpreted the characters more like archetypes – the Father, the Mother, the Child, the Devil. Even the colors of the dresses are very straightforward and simple, no nuances – the red of the boy, the black of the drug dealer etc.
On a second level, it all seems to be a small biblical tale and the ending bears obvious references – the stone, the garden, the death and the resurrection.
To me, the most interesting part is the movement in the film. The boy is constantly running and the reason he wants the bike so much is to move faster and we have the mother with the car, as if only through movement he can survive and of course – when he has his tyre flat we have the drug dealer interfere and they push the bike, if I remember right.
First, I want to object to the blanket use of the term ‘at risk youths’. I see The Kid On The Bike as a story about an individual, not meant to represent a bureaucratic designation of human being. Giving somebody a label like that has automatic connotations and it casts a person a category rather than an individual.
Also, I think Samantha in addition to wanting to help him, also had the motivation of just motherly instinct toward him, and the motivation of overcoming loneliness.
Cyril attacked the father and son with the bat because the older kid told him to. That, unfortunately, is very realistic. Persons are good, people are evil. We readily violate our own personal morality and emotional instincts to fit in with an authority figure. Hence, Naziism.
I do think Dardenne intended to have the message that kids like Cyril need a stable authority figure. He was certainly not ‘fixed’ at the end of the film but I felt a lot better about the state of his future. I think the reason he just got up and walked away from the father and son was that he wanted the whole episode of his assault to be ‘over’.
I think the boy is amoral throughout the film, he is driven by instincts – the easy with which he accepts the dealer or with which he hits Samantha although he says a couple of times that she is good to him. It obviously is due to him being a child. It could be that the end is his turning into morality or at least a hope for it.
I watched this recently. Yeah, the Dardennes don’t exactly change things up so often, but I found this film to be just fine, real good. Ending could’ve perhaps been a bit stronger, but it didn’t piss me off.
“On a second level, it all seems to be a small biblical tale and the ending bears obvious references – the stone, the garden, the death and the resurrection.”
Yeah, I don’t know if that is so much necessary.
@Chavdar
I have generally one objection here – there is some obvious banality in the themes.
What are you thinking of specifically?
On the surface, some attitudes seem quite illogical – the father’s total neglect…
Well, his behavior isn’t “logical” or “illogical.” He just doesn’t care about his son. That some parents are like this isn’t so hard to believe, right?
But I interpreted the characters more like archetypes – the Father, the Mother, the Child, the Devil. Even the colors of the dresses are very straightforward and simple, no nuances – the red of the boy, the black of the drug dealer etc.
These are interesting readings—ones that hadn’t occurred to me. I’ll have to think about this more.
On a second level, it all seems to be a small biblical tale and the ending bears obvious references – the stone, the garden, the death and the resurrection.
Nice point. I don’t know if the biblical tale so much as draw on biblical symbolism. (How is the stone biblical, though?)
@Jirin
First, I want to object to the blanket use of the term ‘at risk youths’. I see The Kid On The Bike as a story about an individual, not meant to represent a bureaucratic designation of human being. Giving somebody a label like that has automatic connotations and it casts a person a category rather than an individual.
But you don’t think the boy represents other boys in similar situations? The movie really does seem to have an agenda and message about boys in this situation—similar to the Dardennes’ early film, Rosetta. For example, you said, “I do think Dardenne intended to have the message that kids like Cyril need a stable authority figure.” (I would add that the film suggests the boy needs stability and love.)
Also, I think Samantha in addition to wanting to help him, also had the motivation of just motherly instinct toward him, and the motivation of overcoming loneliness.
She doesn’t seem lonely, though. She does have a boyfriend, and the film doesn’t indicate that the relationship isn’t satisfying. Perhaps, she longs for a child, but the film doesn’t really establish this well, imo.
Now, if Chavdar’s reading is correct (and it’s one I hadn’t thought of)—namely, that the Samantha represents “mothers,” then her actions might make sense.
I’m not sure the film functions in the allegorical way suggested by Chavdar, though. (I’ll have to think about this more.)
Jazzaloha
I just saw this and I’m a bit underwhelmed—although I should explain that I have some experience with troubled youth, so that could have lessened the impact of the film. My sense is that the film signifies a return to the same territory as Rosetta—except, here, the Dardenne brothers examine at-risk males. I’m also referring to Rosetta because I understand that film actually lead to change in laws. I get the sense that the film seeks to have an impact on society in a similar way (not necessarily through laws, though)—that is to say the film has a social message: the importance of a male figure in the lives of at-risk youths—but also the value of having any loving and responsible adult in their lives. In this way, the film also reminded me of Ballast, except the latter deals more with young African-American boys. While I liked the latter a lot more, I think if you liked Ballast you might be interested in this film.
I’m interested in discussing two things specifically about the film:
1. Do people agree with the reading of the film? If not, what are some alternate interpretations of the film?
2. What do people make of the ending—specifically, the boy making Cyril fall from a tree by hitting him with a rock and the fact that Cyril eventually gets up and walks away?
At first, the ending just felt like a way to thwart audience expectations—as I would guess many dreaded that Cyril would be dead or that the boy and his father would have killed Cyril. (The fact that Cyril walks away could eventually get the boy and his father in trouble. Then again, the boy and his father could just deny any accusations.) This reading would be disappointing, if true.
However, on further reflection, I think the ending could says several important things about young males: a) their implusive, agressive behavior often gets them in trouble; b) however, they are often resilient—both in terms bouncing back from injuries and hardship and in terms of taking a more positive direction for their lives. In other words, there’s always hope for a second chance. (I think this reading fits, and it makes me think more highly of the film.) What do others think?