Writer and director Christian Petzold is the rare filmmaker who can make a weak entry in his body of work, and it still may be one of the best movies coming out on its opening day in theaters. “Miroirs No. 3” (2025) translates from German to English as “Mirrors No. 3” and is a reference to Ravel’s third movement, a self-contained part, in his five-movement solo piano suite written around 1904 to 1905. A movement is a self-contained part in a larger music composition. A suite is tied together through themes and tonalities. Similarly, Petzold’s latest film has five acts that relate to Laura (Paula Beer). After a car accident, Betty (Barbara Auer) helps her and agrees to Laura’s request to recover at Betty’s home instead of a hospital. Laura’s presence has an immediate, auspicious effect so Laura decides to invite her husband, Richard (Matthias Brandt), and son, Max (Enno Rebs), to dinner. Their reaction to the invitation is off putting, but there is a reason behind it.
There are two to three unofficial supporting actors in “Miroirs No. 3” that can be summed up in two words: diegetic sound. In the opening scene, the cacophony of the highway and urban area is overwhelming the indications that a river is flowing nearby. Laura gets closer, and while she cannot get a pure sound of the river, she is at least able to mostly blot out the ugliness of the underpass above her, graffiti behind her and concrete pillars around her if she focuses on the river. It is a war between city gray and bucolic blues and greens. Similarly at home, a pane of glass separate her from the verdant foliage outside of her window with a pleasant curtain flapping with the breeze, but it is not long before Jakob (Philip Froissant), her boyfriend, adds an additional barrier completely oblivious to Laura’s needs and eager to join their friends, Roger (Marcel Heuperman) and Debbi (Victoire Laly), on a road trip. The contrast between the couples is obvious. Without prose dumping, Petzold says everything about these characters, their dynamics and their world. During the ride, despite the car’s speed, Laura and Betty catch each other’s eyes and make a connection.
The second act is equally powerful but is as much a balm to the moviegoer’s soul as Laura and Betty. The urban sounds are completely gone, and the only synthetic, discordant audible intrusions are broken objects. There is a reason that objects are broken, and it is intimately related to how Betty and her family are broken even if a full explanation is never given. Beer and Auer are transcendent in these roles and their characters’ chemistry. It almost ruins “Miroirs No. 3” to provide an explanation for their sudden connection. Petzold almost pulls off magical realism as these women are immediately comfortable and intimate in a familial way. Sure, it is a tad, reductive Rousseau-esque, but human nature at its best can be built on inexplicable kindness and camaraderie.
Unfortunately, the third act is when it becomes more like an American movie, and the reason for Betty’s behavior can no longer be ignored though it does not explain Laura’s role in this dynamic. No explanation is needed, but once provided, the blind could see it. There is never an explanation why Richard and Max need to be invited to come home, and if there is room at work for them to live, but it is strongly implied since the opening shows them eating a real meal as customers come and go. They are mechanics with a libertarian streak, but do not mistake their jobs for a detour into criminality. I kept thinking of a viral sound that people use with unrelated video footage, “Why would a man be there?”
In the fourth act, Brandt does not get as much time as Trebs who ends up succeeding Auer as his screen partner, and it is deliberately not as powerful because his character is resisting how everyone is fitting Laura into their life as if she was always there. It does not quite work because it is also possible that Max could be a potential love interest for Laura, but thankfully Petzold never goes there. Instead, there is supposed to be an explosive revelation, and it frankly does not work. For someone like Petzold, it is actually quite hackey. It is also poorly choreographed. Max pushes away Laura when she tries to comfort him, and she lands with a thud and a nosebleed. He does not hit her, but he is aggressive so the nosebleed is for reasons. For such an overall understated, show do not tell movie, it feels like a betrayal of the overall tonal promise of“Miroirs No. 3.”
The fifth act handles the fallout of this revelation, and “Miroirs No. 3” never truly recovers from the outburst, which is likely an intentional creative choice, but it does get back on a kind of weak track showing how the family and Laura separately adjust to life after her convalescence period ends. Petzold is more interested in this family for this act, but without the cheesy explanation, it could have been a more emotionally complex and universally and mysteriously relatable work. Who has not had the experience of becoming close to someone because of circumstances then when it was over, it technically makes no sense to stay in touch, but it also feels wrong not to after such a momentous shared moment in strangers’ lives?
Petzold gives into convention, and it may make his work more approachable so don’t hate the player, hate the game, but I prefer full strength Petzold that kicks me in the gut and leaves me thinking forever. I forget that Petzold exists, so I’m thrilled that his name was used in promoting “Miroirs No. 3.” If you love “Miroirs No. 3,” then definitely check out “Jerichow” (2008), “Barbara” (2012), and “Phoenix” (2014). (Side note: no more Nina Hoss? Sniff.) It may be the first Petzold film that does not explicitly address German history and their greatest sin or other related sociological issues. Instead, he grapples with mental health issues, which affects everyone in the movie. Sound, nature, music and human company are all natural remedies in part for maintaining mental health, but they also have their limitations. So the movie may be brilliant for depicting the effectiveness gap in a visceral way even if that shortfall in emotional satisfaction results in disappointment and ends up mistakenly being attributed to Petzold’s artistry. I’m on the fence. (Dad pun.)
Even weak Petzold is better than some of the best American films out there. “Miroirs No. 3” is a triumph of acting, directing and storytelling at a time when a lot of people do not have a grasp of the latter. Also for music connoisseurs, you may have deeper insights about this film than even the most discerning cinephile so if you hate subtitles, it is worth giving it a shot and feel free to let me know your insights about the movie’s themes and Ravel’s composition. I may post it underneath this review so indicate that in your email if you consent.
