This review must be started by a warning, this film is about Richard Stanley and his abuses (some proven in court, some pending). We do not normally review films by or about known abusers, but this is how to get an exception.
The documentary here was supposed to be about the peace and magic of a special village in the French Pyrenees and it soon becomes about Richard Stanley’s involvement in this community and then his abuses. This is not a film just about Stanley, but his involvement led to it being in large part about him and his downfall.
Written by Kalle Kinnunen and Otso Tiainen with the latter also directing, the film starts off as a curiosity of sort, all about the small village and its inhabitants, how most of them are fairly cut off from the outside world, giving them the chance or capacity to live their lives, with their own beliefs, in their own world. Once a new sort of spiritualism is introduced, most people will know this is about to turn into something else here, that the surface is not necessarily the reality. Then enters Richard Stanley, who is he’s part of the community at first, being his odd self, but seemingly just weird with no bad side. We get to see him (and way too much of him, nudity warning here). Then the first accusation drops, and it is very believable, and he keeps cooperating with the film until it’s no longer something he sees as serving him, a theme with his life it seems, and the documentary does allude to that. The film here goes into a different direction in terms of how they cover the frustrating court proceedings without having full access to them. Due to the situation with one of the main people of the village (Stanley), the film goes from an odd curio of a documentary to one that is much more serious and heavier. It’s no longer an easy watch and soon becomes a difficult watch that many will want to see out of curiosity, and many will want to skip out of self-preservation.
The folks being interviewed here are deeply involved in their own small community, people who seem inoffensive if misguided. The interviews have heart and really make it all about the person talking in the moment. Until the tides turn and everything becomes about Stanley and people are suddenly more hesitant to speak on camera or be involved. A few stick around and give their opinions and the filmmakers made the good decision to bring in the accuser, the one who was justified by a court who made a joke of her suffering with its sentence (but that is not the main thing here). She’s well-spoken and clearly has some stress about it, but she is there and that is what matters here. Honestly, had she not been there, some of it would not have hit as hard, but had she chosen to not be involved, it would have been justifiable.
In terms of the technical side of things, the film is well shot and edited, looks solid and gives the people being interviewed locations they are comfortable with for their interviews. The film here is technically solid.
Shadowland will not be for everyone and needs to come with a massive trigger warning for domestic abuse and abuse in general. It’s well-done and well-brought to the screen. The fact that it starts off one way and changes direction once new information is found shows professionalism from the filmmakers and a honest search for truth. It’s a hard watch for sure, but those who do not want to support Stanley due to his abuses will be happy to know that it does not paint him in a good light, but rather shines a light on him and his life while in the small village being looked into.