Review: In Bruges (2008).

In Bruges (2008). Written and Directed by Martin McDonagh.

[Brendan Gleeson, Colin Farrell, Ralph Fiennes.]

Can you believe this was Martin McDonagh’s first feature film? With a history in playwriting, McDonagh is an artist at setting up a good story.

Each detail has been meticulously thought out, characters, locations, and conversations set us up for the upcoming scenes and eventual climax, tying the plot together with grace and subtlety.

Set in the quaint and beautiful town of Bruges, Belgium, McDonagh uses his signature technique of using wide shots, sharp and stark cinematography and colour grading to emphasise the awestriking spaces and scenery of Bruges.

Similarly to McDonagh's successor films, Three Billboards Outside of Ebbing Missouri (2017) and The Banshees of Inisherin (2022), the characters exist within an extremely spacious location, but because of the bright, fully encompassing camera angles, we get a sense that there is actually a lot of isolation challenging the characters and creating a feeling of claustrophobia or entrapment within the town or city, no matter the size or population.

McDonagh draws off of experiences in his own life. Each of his stories are inspired by a small moment he witnessed in the past. In Bruges was born from a visit to Bruges in which McDonagh felt a sense of both fantasia and boredom. He turned these contradicting emotions into Ray and Ken, the films protagonists.

McDonagh is exploring his personal understanding of what it means to exist as he creates this story, surprising himself and letting the story unfold naturally.

Because he openly questioning what he does and does not know, we as an audience are welcome to interpret these topics or circumstances by applying our own perception of living.

In Bruges is the poster child for good dialogue. Dialogue that furthers the plot and adds depth, context, and backstory in a way that simple flashbacks could not. Still following the cinematic rules of showing and not telling, McDonagh lets the characters give away only what is necessary at that moment, never straying into the realm of the obvious.

We are challenged to put the pieces of the past together and assume the relationships and dynamics between characters with very little to go off of. This allows the viewer to base their opinions on the characters as they are during their trip to Bruges instead of relying on pre-established relationships.

Creating this type of ambiguity ensures that the characters have the freedom to prove themselves to us and can surprise us with their choice of actions. We have no idea how the characters will react or interact with one another and are kept on the edge of our seats.

Chemistry! It is no secret that Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson have undeniably strong chemistry. They ebb and flow, allowing each other the space to react, never overwhelming or stealing the show. There is a Burt and Ernie dynamic, and their varying levels of energy help emphasise the differences in their character's temperaments.

Brendan Gleeson plays Ken, a hit-man with a calm and thoughtful energy, we know that he takes time to think about his words, and we see him as the voice of reason in stark contrast to the obnoxious and impulsive behaviour of his counterpart, Ray, played by Colin Farrell.

When the duo finds themselves in Bruges, the first quarter of the film gives us an insight into the dynamics. Ken is a maturer, more experienced and father-like figure, patient and understanding towards Ray's youthful, inexperienced and adventurous attitude.

Ken doesn’t mind putting Ray in his place but is just as quick to reassure and comfort him when need be.

Their friendship dynamic is put to the test, and Ken is challenged to reconsider his core ethics when his boss, Harry- a certified, cut-throat criminal- played by Ralph Fiennes, tasks him with killing Ray.

Harry is branded as the antagonist before he even graces the screen. We are forced to accept that he is a dangerous man and is capable of bad things without having seen any evidence to prove otherwise. We are relying one hundred per cent on the dialogue and physical or facial expressions of Ray and Ken to instil the idea of Harry being a deadly threat.

And, I mean, you've gotta be some type of genius to speak like Harry and still manage to be a frightening villain. So I have to praise Ralph for bringing such dimension to a character we were given almost nothing to go off of. Harry is moralistic- you can be a murderer and have a moral compass… somehow- he believes in sticking to his principles, not only saying it a few times throughout the film but matching his actions when need be.

Harry is a complex individual, capable of feeling sympathy for his peers, family, and children whilst cruelly carrying out crimes that align with his philosophy of principles.

There is no leeway for Harry, it either is or it isn’t. This allows him to consider each situation individually, sometimes agreeing and understanding where the protagonists are coming from. Harry acts not on impulse but on the base of ethics, enforcing what a true threat he is, unwilling to waver and certain of his actions. We feel like we know him, but the look in his eyes has us questioning what Harry will do next. His unpredictability is frightening.

Ultimately, Harry's demise is due to his adamance on sticking to his moralistic principles, serving as an example that he feels the need to punish himself the same way he would punish others. He shows the severity of having unwavering beliefs and the ineffectivity of leaving no leeway.

In Bruges explores the complexities of guilt and regret. The characters are suffering from dark pasts, a string of murders following them across the continent, and there has never been a space for them to reflect on their grievances.

In the quiet and self-proclaimed boring scenery of Bruges, the lack of things to do opens a door for the characters to think. And as we know, thinking will do you no good, a can of worms spilling out with no resources to safely repent. Ray does his best to keep busy, but each time he stops, it results in emotional turmoil. He is incapable of verbally expressing how deeply sick and disturbed he is about his actions.

On the other hand, the peacefulness and fairytale-esque atmosphere of Bruges provides Ken with a safe place to recollect and reflect. He embraces the quietness and looks back at his life so far, finding a way to make peace with his past. Ray runs, and Ken sits.

To Ken, Ray is a version of the man he once was- or could have been. He is hopeful that Ray can turn things around and has the emotional empathy to do so.

When it is clear that Ray doesn’t feel the same way about himself, Ken doubles down and follows his own moral compass, turning on Harry in favour of helping Ray right his wrongs.

This movie is dark and coldly violent, sprinkled with soft moments of tenderness and witty, speedy dialogue. McDonagh really takes advantage of the scenery, finding a way to turn Bruges into a character of its own, a playground. He optimises the beautiful and powerful architecture, leaning into the gothic religious building and artworks to create a looming undertone of the overarching theme of good versus evil.

The line between both is blurred into a grey ground for the characters to battle their own beliefs and the consequences of the past, present and future.

I find In Bruges particularly poetic. The dialogue is hindsight, cleverly guiding and deepening each interaction, paired with the solemn score and sharp wide shots there is such beauty and peacefulness that breaks up and blends with intense sorrow and violence. One of my favourite screenplays of all time. Top three writers and directors of all time.

"I've got to quite like Bruges, now. It's like a fucking fairytale or something."

IMDb

Letterboxd