After the Hunt Review

A Captivating Yet Frustrating Morality Play That Revels in Uncomfortable Ambiguity

By: Marc Kozak

After the Hunt

A Captivating Yet Frustrating Morality Play That Revels in Uncomfortable Ambiguity

By: Marc Kozak

"Not everything is supposed to make you comfortable," a character shouts within Luca Guadagnino's "After the Hunt." It's a sentiment that is clearly meant for the audience, serving almost as a warning that the filmmakers are going to be deliberately poking you to get a reaction. Even the opening credits are a provocation, utilizing a typeface and a jazzy musical number that's directly inspired by the works of Woody Allen, a controversial figure to say the least. Guadagnino and screenwriter Nora Garrett have set out to make a movie that starts arguments in parking lots and generates more think pieces than can be read in a lifetime, smashing together a greatest hits of modern hot button issues into a talk-heavy morality play.

Designed without an obvious moral center, it's a cold and nasty piece of work that will understandably frustrate many who are unwilling or are simply too tired to engage with terms like "cancel culture" and "#MeToo." It's yet another story of scandal in a world of unlikable, privileged people, similar to Todd Field's "Tár" (albeit less elegant), aiming to make the viewer wrestle with questions about their own morality and how it would guide them to act in a similarly complex and delicate situation.

For most of us, there is an initial obstacle to imagining ourselves in this particular story, due to the fact that most of the characters are esteemed members of the philosophy department at Yale University. Every character is overly verbose, extremely self-involved, and all too aware of their own elevated status within society, making it a real challenge to completely sympathize with them, even before they start behaving badly. The movie is constantly alienating the viewer from these characters, almost daring us to stop caring at multiple points along the way. And yet, they are still recognizable human beings. It's a real litmus test for empathy, a challenge to relate to the unrelatable, and remain objective in analyzing a complete mess of a situation. I may have lost some of you already, but believe me, it's more fun than it sounds.

" Guadagnino and screenwriter Nora Garrett have set out to make a movie that starts arguments in parking lots and generates more think pieces than can be read in a lifetime. "

Julia Roberts plays Alma Imhoff, a respected professor of philosophy whose celebrated career has brought her to the brink of being tenured at Yale. She lives a comfortable life among the elite of the intelligentsia, surrounded by many leather-bound books in an ultra-stylish home shared with her psychiatrist husband, Frederik (Michael Stuhlbarg). The couple is hosting a dinner party as the movie opens, replete with intellectual chit-chat between attendees that seek to outcharm each other by name dropping philosophers. Alma's colleague and friend Hank (Andrew Garfield) is also up for tenure, but the two brush off any talk of competition or jealousy, even as their quick glances and facial expressions betray years of unresolved feelings. Also in the crowd is Alma's protégé, a PhD candidate named Maggie Price (Ayo Edebiri), who hangs on every word Alma says and seems a little too comfortable amongst the elder professors.

Hank (played with spectacular levels of smarm and slimy self-confidence by Garfield) is a boozer and a ladies' man, so we are already primed to not be all that surprised when Maggie shows up at Alma's door in tears, claiming to have been sexually assaulted by Hank on the way home from the dinner party. Hank meets Alma at a diner and denies the assault, claiming that he confronted Maggie about plagiarizing her dissertation, leading her to make a move against him. Alma is caught in the middle of a rapidly approaching storm and faced with some difficult questions: Is her best friend a monster? Can she speak out against him without seeming like she's trying to get a leg up in the race for tenure? Does their hidden romantic past have any bearing in all of this? Does she not have a responsibility to stand up for her protégé and other victimized women?

Alma is initially cold to Maggie when she confides in her, which opens up a series of conflicts between the two women. We also start to learn that maybe Maggie isn't as great of a student as she appeared to be, and that there may be merit to the plagiarizing claims. Guadagnino never lets you be totally certain who has the moral high ground, which is precisely the point: the situation is designed to not have a high ground. The filmmakers attempt to remain impartial by instituting a consistent level of "both sides-ism" throughout the entire drama, which keeps things interesting but sometimes stretches credulity a bit far in order to maintain this equilibrium of moral grey. For example, Alma claims she had to work hard and constantly grind in order to succeed in a male-dominated profession, whereas the youth of Maggie's generation expect to waltz into instant respect without putting in the time or work. It's the kind of antagonistic mud-flinging you'd see on Twitter or Facebook, presented with just about as little depth. The movie isn't really interested in investigating topics like this, it's just throwing them out there.

That's just one of many modern hot button issues that are inserted into the drama with minimal exploration. Maggie is a gay woman who has a non-binary partner, and she clearly has sexual feelings for Alma that may or may not be reciprocated. Then there's the fact that Maggie's parents are super wealthy donors to the university, making the power dynamics between the two even less clear. There's so much going on here that the story often threatens to collapse under the weight of each new twist and additional wrench thrown into the mix. And again, none of these issues are objects of any particular focus; it can feel a bit like they are SEO keywords that are included for maximum relevance. If you have particularly strong feelings about one or more of the topics addressed, you might find yourself getting angry about the lack of care and attention given to each of these serious things. For better or for worse, it's not the movie's goal to be interrogative.

Julia Roberts is effectively frosty throughout, maintaining a stubborn sense of superiority that works well for a character who likes to think they are in complete control but is never making the right decisions. She can't see anything beyond her own self-interests, only processing events through the lens of how they affect her, her tenure and her reputation. She is often ignoring her doting husband, played with scene-stealing insecurity by the delightful Stuhlbarg, who provides a welcome respite from the overall vibe of self-seriousness. It's Edebiri who can't quite hang with the rest of the cast, never seeming like she's convinced by any of her lines and failing to match the intensity or confidence of the other actors.

Guadagnino does his best to keep things moving, filming a movie with no action like it's a frenetic psychological thriller, able to generate a decent sense of momentum in a story that is mostly people talking in rooms. His usual musical collaborators, Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, aren't doing their best work here but try to add further drama with a series of mysterious, atonal sounds, often resulting in more of a distraction than anything. It's a bit curious that Guadagnino was even interested in this project in the first place (especially after the propulsive "Challengers"), but he remains committed to being a genre chameleon, shifting from horror to period piece to romance whenever the mood strikes.

Ultimately, it's a movie that is enjoyable because of its ambiguity, holding rewards for those who are willing to chew on any of the many meals laid out in an overstuffed script. None of the themes at play are unfamiliar to anyone with an internet connection, but the way in which each one presents itself and intersects with others makes for decent intrigue. Each character's level of culpability will vary depending on who you ask, which at the very least makes it a perfect springboard into interesting conversations with your friends.