“Sound of Metal” Hits, but Not Hard Enough

By Josh Lancman ‘24

I often think about how to communicate the idea of color to a blind person. Comparison or examples are useless, seeing as how they don’t know anything about the examples I’m using. Descriptive language also fails; words simply aren’t good enough to describe visuals. 
Ruben (Riz Ahmed), the main character of “Sound of Metal”, understands this as it pertains to sound. A heavy metal drummer and recovering drug addict, his surprisingly harmonic world is thrown into chaos when he loses his hearing after a particularly loud show. The film makes clear that the anger Ruben expresses in his drumming is the only way he can live so peacefully; the stunning contrast between his concerts and morning routine is almost comedic.

Eventually realizing that he will never be able to enjoy the music which supplies him peace, he bursts out, seeks support, becomes depressed and eventually accepts his loss. The plot is straightforward, and the film revels in its own simplicity and cold maturity. Bright greens are muted as if foreboding clouds have passed overhead; the actors, while good, mumble; the camera shakes too realistically, as if the operator is trying to make it seem handheld rather than just holding it. 
But “Sound of Metal”' is almost too simple. The middle feels lackluster as Ruben simply exists and no interesting drama occurs. While his internal struggle of adapting to change, the film’s main theme, is incredibly interesting and involving, when he seems to have adapted halfway throughout after starting to learn sign language, the interest falls out. A better film would precisely demonstrate Ruben’s struggle to adapt to his change, instead of making it seem as though he is and then pulling a twist to reveal his conflict. 
Conflict is lacking slightly in “Sound of Metal” though Ruben’s internal quarrels over accepting his condition or rebelling against fate are at the film’s center. You never get a deep sense of the main character or his warring personas in “Sound of Metal”. All that I was able to presume about him I got from a basic interpretation of his actions.
The character and his internal conflict should not require deduction as a prerequisite for empathy, that should come first, even if it is only subconsciously. The character is only seen, not felt. Ahmed is good, but the script does not give him enough. Darius Marder, the writer-director of this film, stumbled upon a great idea but did not develop the character, themes or drama enough to make it as good as it could be. Much of what I see when I look at this film is missed chances; small mistakes or slightly wrong paths that make a good film, but not a great one. 
This is prime minimalist filmmaking: complex narrative devices like voice-over or flashback are forgone, along with editing tricks and ambiguity. Subtlety is ramped up to eleven. It is necessary for the viewer to deduce practically everything about the characters. In the minimalist style this film is going for, this is difficult, as it requires the filmmaker to balance giving away enough information but still leave a good deal to interpretation.
Marder attempts but does not fully succeed. He plants small clues to the characters’ true natures but does not emphasize these enough to make them feel real. As a result, the characters feel vague, undefined. I look forward to his next film, where he may have more experience to balance information and interpretation properly. 
What most surprises me about the reaction to “Sound of Metal” is a lack of comparisons to another oscar-nominated drumming film, “Whiplash.” This feels like the purposeful antithesis to that, preferring slow, methodical pacing to “Whiplash’s” breakneck speed and with a more mature, adult tone and subject matter to the other’s high-octane concert sequences. Both fall prey to nearly identical thematic problems; whereas “Whiplash” gets so caught up in putting on an adrenaline-fueled show that it forgets to express its themes in greater depth, “Sound of Metal” forgets it has any themes as it attempts to deliver a Malick-esque brooding character portrait in the surrounds of industrial cityscapes and kudzu filled forests.  
    So is this a good film? No, this is a very good film. Despite my criticisms of its attempts at character conflict, I was astounded by the level of realistic cinematographic beauty found in this film. I never knew a cracked parking lot could honestly look so nice. 
But one final thought: another surprise was how much my father enjoyed this film, so despite how much I have criticized it, I may not have explained it to you at all. You may have seen the same film I did but seen it completely differently. Just like color, I can do my best to explain it to someone else, even to someone who is sighted, but I can never put it perfectly. Enjoy it if you wish to enjoy it, or hate it if you wish to hate it, but don’t let mine or anyone else’s opinion influence what you think of it. Just see it before you talk about it. 
7/10