A slow, but good film of family secrets

Rating: 8/10 (4 November 2010)

Incendies (Babelfish tells me this means Fires) is good, but a bit formulaic. It aims very high, but I think it falls short of what it could have achieved. I think it spends too much effort on atmosphere and not enough on plot. Maybe tighter editing was needed. Still, I was impressed, and it's undoubtedly one of the better Canadian films, improving on Polytechnique.
Early on, there is the reading of a will, and twins are left with the tasks of locating their unknown father and brother.
This takes them to ... somewhere in Palestine, which I took to be within Israel. Other reviews have noted this is supposed to be Lebanon, but looks like Jordan. I have no idea. People familiar with the history of the area seem to think that certain facts of the film mean it could not have been in any particular country in the Mid-East, because the places and dates make it impossible. But because the film never claims to be a true story (or I never saw such a claim) I'll forgive it. Still, it would have been more satisfying if it could have been set in a real place and time.
From there, the film follows an almost mathematical formula, which itself is an enjoyable mini-theme of the film. One part of the math was ruined by the English subtitles. Euler's (ridiculous) quote actually was "... (a+b^n)/n=x, hence God exists ...", which I think was presented on screen as "... ©, hence God exists...". I can't tell which version is closer to what was spoken by the character, but I doubt the word "copyright" was used. The original quote strikes me as typical of the obfuscation and confusion used to con people into accepting various beliefs. It's nice to see that referenced in this film, particularly given what happens. It's a rare, believable, and complex representation of all-too-common religious violence.
I found the film painfully slow at times. While this did serve to accentuate certain scenes which were very effective as a result, halfway through the film I wasn't sure I wanted to watch the rest of it. If I had been at home, I may have turned it off, and I would have missed a good film.
I was impressed by the acting, which is to say that I didn't notice it at all. I believed the characters completely. Also, I found the use of sound helped to draw the audience into the story. The silence is silent. Noise is noisy, but in a real way, not Hollywood.
I will only half-spoil the ending. For those who don't guess it, they do tell you what's coming, just before it happens. I'll hint at it here, so consider yourself warned.
There is a particular question raised by one character, regarding what "1+1" equals. This can legitimately be interpreted (in electronics) as an inclusive disjunction rather than addition, giving a correct answer that is not 2. Some might see this as a trick, but I think the film is emphasizing that we should be careful about our assumptions and interpretations.