The Son: The director of The Father returns with a family drama worn by Hugh Jackman

A first attempt that looks like a masterstroke. For his first production, Florian Zeller had brilliantly adapted his own play, The Father, and won an Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay while Anthony Hopkins offered himself the second golden statuette of his career.

Two years later, he spent the second with The Son. Another of his plays, also centered on a story of family and illness, whose title echoes that of The Father. Did Florian Zeller want to play the card of change in continuity with this drama in which the characters played by Hugh Jackman and Laura Dern have to face the depression of their son (Zen McGrath)? Exciting answers with the main interested party.

AlloCiné: What led you to make this play your second film as a director?

Florian Zeller : Even before making The Father, I already knew that if I had the opportunity to make another film afterwards – which is never guaranteed – it would be The Son. I carried it like a very deep desire, because it’s a story that was close to my heart and still close to my heart, and that maybe I needed to tell. But also because I felt it needed to be told. That it had to be, because it’s a story that we don’t talk about.

It is that of a father who tries to accompany, help and even save his 17-year-old son who is going through a depression. It seems to me that this is a subject that we try not to look in the eye. And that’s why I wanted to make this film so much. It was first a play and, when it was performed in Paris with Yvan Attal and Rod Paradot, I was struck by what had happened: when it ended, something else began , of the order of the conversation.

People came to see me a lot to tell me that they knew what I was talking about, because they had a brother, a son or an aunt in the same situation. I felt almost physically how many people experience these situations. Nobody is spared by the fact of having someone we love, around us, who is going through a crisis of psychic fragility. I also felt how much shame, guilt and, at times, a lot of ignorance there was around these subjects. And it is for all these reasons that I wanted to do The Son.

The singularity of illness or mental fragility is that there is not always an explanation

The fact that little is said about it, as you say, goes well with one of the most interesting aspects of the film: these scenes which highlight the inexplicable side of the evil which eats away at the son. It’s something difficult to do in the cinema, where the public wants explanations, but it may be one of the reasons why this subject is taboo.

I think it’s a taboo subject, because it sends us back to a dizzying mystery. Mental illness is almost a black hole. And even these words, “mental illness”, it is an expression that one feels problematic or stigmatizing in French when there is no judgment in it. Because we would always like there to be a reason – a trauma or a psychological reason – which justifies the fact of being in pain. Otherwise, it’s too unfair.

And yet, we all know people who, on paper, have everything to be happy and who, however, are in difficulty. The singularity of illness or mental fragility is that there is not always an explanation. Or there is a multiple explanation. Sometimes it’s biochemical, sometimes purely chemical, transgenerational… There are so many shots that add up that you can’t look at it by explaining it in a simple way.

This is the reason why, in this film, I tried not to explain it. Even if it means creating frustration among the characters and also the spectators, because I wanted them to be in this position. To never solve it. In the cinema, we are supposed to solve everything in the script. But here, there is something deliberately unresolved, which we cannot define, because that seems to me to be the most honest way to look at this subject. Because that’s how it comes to us in life. Like a mystery capable of devouring or damaging a family.

This is a story that I wanted to tell from the parents’ point of view. Of those who want to help, who are loving and attentive parents but who, however, do not have the keys to open the right doors. And do not know how to help this child in difficulty.

Is this also the reason that encouraged you to link “The Father” with “The Son”: to continue to explore themes such as family or illness by broadening the frame and changing your point of view, rather than doing something diametrically opposed?

There are familiar territories between The Son and The Father. However, I approached this one in a completely different way. Each story requires a different trajectory: in The Father, it was about being almost inside the main character’s brain and I hoped to put the viewer in that unique position, where you felt what it could mean to lose all its bearings. As if it were a subjective and immersive experience. As if we ourselves had the experience of senile dementia.

Conversely, in The Son – and even if that’s the title of the film – it wasn’t a question of trying to get into this suffering brain. But, on the contrary, to stand outside, on the threshold. And failing to penetrate that soul. Failing to understand it. To be in a position which is that of the parents, which has an implication on the form of the film, which is very linear, very direct.

Most of the stuff I’ve written is built like mazes, and I guess that’s how I think. Here I tried to be as linear as possible. As simple as possible. And even, in terms of staging, to be as sober as possible. Because it seemed to me to be the most honest way to look at this subject, not to make something aesthetic out of it, not to look away from the real subject I wanted to address: this black hole that does not give an answer. Not just to say that there is no answer, but to accentuate this feeling of tragedy.

Most of the stuff I’ve written is built like mazes, and I guess that’s how I think

Tragedy is something that has a linear form: it goes from one point to another in a direct way. We sense where it’s going to go, and we can’t do anything to stop it. This is how all tragedies, even ancient ones, are constructed: from the start, the characters are informed of their destiny. And no matter how hard they fight to try to change it, they only more certainly accomplish it in reality.

I wanted to create this feeling, including in the spectators. From the outset, something informs us of the place towards which we are going. But despite our efforts, and those of the characters, nothing thwarts this presentiment. And the reason I chose this form is because I think tragedy is avoidable, and that’s what this film means to me.

It could have ended differently, if the right words had been used, the right conversations had been had, and the necessary help sought at the right time.

It is very difficult for parents to accept that they are not equipped to handle a crisis of suffering, especially when it comes to their own children. It’s so hard to accept that you’re not the person who can help, or to understand that sometimes love isn’t enough. It takes time, but sometimes we don’t have that time, and that’s when tragedy can happen.

Interview by Maximilien Pierrette in Paris on February 21, 2023