That plants have consciousness is not a new concept – it goes all the way back to when Charles Darwin even wrote about it. While it remains a view that hasn’t caught on in the mainstream at the moment, Silent Friend is a movie that embodies this viewpoint as part of its overarching narrative. It doesn’t just promote this idea to us, but it wants us to consider it as truth; that plants are intelligent and possibly sentient like us. Much of the film’s cinematography and editing with its extreme close-ups of life in all its glorious, rich details – all animals, insects and plants – may feel reminiscent of a BBC nature documentary, if only missing David Attenborough’s smooth narration as the accompaniment. Even the recorded Q&A that came after the film ended at my screening brought in a plant biologist and professor working at the University of Toronto to discuss the film, almost as if to give credence to the film’s entire premise. The real question: is it convincing enough?

We have three different stories taking place during separate times in the history of a university. All three stories involve protagonists who come upon the same ginkgo tree within the university courtyard, which connects all three of the film’s narratives and their respective protagonists together. Sometime in the early 1900s, a young woman applies to become the first female university student at the school. She is met with ridicule and mockery even by the professors themselves interviewing her. The second segment takes place in 1972 and involves another young student named Hannes who finds himself catching feelings for his roommate Gundula, a botany student at the same university. He reads up on and studies plants in an attempt to get closer to her, but Gundula catches on – his use of a quote from Goethe does not impress Gundula, and Gundula later asks Hannes if he is a virgin and if he wants to have sex with her (which Hannes, by a clear state of nervousness denies both). Lastly is the 2020 segment during the COVID pandemic, where we follow professor and neurologist Dr. Tony Wong. He begins to study the very same ginkgo tree at the center of the film, mapping out the tree’s own activity as if it were alive and breathing in a manner similar to our own neurobiology. He seeks guidance from Alice, a fellow botanist and academic colleague, but the university janitor has his own suspicions and attempts to sabotage the research project much to Dr. Wong’s dismay.

I personally found the style a little overbearing and overwhelming – it’s got a very loud soundtrack to punctuate so many of the dramatic moments when I think I would have preferred a slower, meditative approach to soak in some of the philosophical ideas and appreciation of the cinematography. There were definitely good visuals here, but the camera never lingers long enough on them as it constantly cuts back and forth during scenes, and across the many subplots happening in different times. It was a lot to the senses, and I think I found myself getting exhausted over time as the film’s nearly 150 minute runtime got to me. I will admit there was at least some nice attention to detail in filming the different time periods in different styles that were reflective of the historical context – black-and-white 35mm for the 1900s, 16mm for the 1970s segment, and shooting on digital in the modern day. It’s a nice touch.

But perhaps my exhaustion may also be a matter of wanting the film to do more with the material it has. The film’s two biggest stars are Tony Leung Chiu-Wai and Léa Seydoux, and both of them seem like they were not given a whole lot to do – especially when Tony Leung Chiu-Wai is given the task of looking either contemplative in thought or mopey and sad whenever his character (Dr. Wong) is doing nothing. The film incorporates many moments of Dr. Wong being very engaged in his scientific research in an attempt to convince us that science can reveal the connection between our own human intelligence and that of plants. But for me none of those scenes felt compelling to me on a cinematic level, not even the undergraduate lecture Dr. Wong gives at the beginning of the film that never felt like it got any point across concerning neurobiology – and I say this as someone who studied psychology and has some clue as to how a neuroscience lecture should sound like, there was pretty much zero neurobiology being discussed. The 1970s segment to me felt the least compelling of the three, with the subplot culminating in Gundula friend-zoning Hannes which feels awkwardly unresolved and adds nothing in the grand scheme of things. Sure, he should have asked her out, and at least Hannes is mature enough not to trash Gundula’s research out of frustration, but what exactly were we supposed to take away from that?

This also reminded me a bit of Sound of Falling, and might make an interesting, if very long double feature with that film. Both are German language movies that came out earlier this year theatrically (and also premiered at TIFF), both take place within one location, and said location is what unites all these different peoples’ lives and stories across time. There’s also a kind of mystical element surrounding the location in both films – in this case, plants are just as alive as we are. I don’t totally buy it, but I’m sure there are some environmentalists and naturalists out there who might appreciate the effort.