Change Your Image
malay-677-445789
Reviews
Mies vailla menneisyyttä (2002)
The Movie Without a Future
"The Man without a Past" is a movie without a future. This trilogy film which depicts the negative side of life in Finland is not only depressing to watch, but also depressing in its emotional let down. Finnish culture is inherently unemotional in expression and tends to only say what needs to be said, but in a film depicting such difficult aspects as homelessness, poverty, and amnesia it is an endlessly annoying aspect. The extensive use of Finnish culture and societal aspects, rather than adding to a unique film, creates a film that seems lost in confusing cultural and societal norms while adding an increasingly difficult aspect of 1950s Americana. These aspects of culture, society, and Americana serve to undermine and destroy an otherwise good film.
The film "The Man without a Past" is an otherwise fascinating tale of a man who having suffered amnesia from a brutal robbery rebuilds a new identity and a new life until he is finally confronted by his past life. Depicting the hardships associated with Finnish males leaving home to find work in the city is seen through an interesting light by negating comparison to the past through amnesia. The main character, Jakko, whose name we do not learn until the end of the film (amnesia rendering him with no knowledge of himself or his past) is forced to rebuild his life through the charity of others and through this process he finds his true self and his true life. This unique aspect of hardship, despair, and incontinence seems a unique depiction from which to draw an ending of finding oneself, however, this is a very Finnish way of viewing life and is the only aspect of Finnish culture and society which adds to the film.
Throughout the dialog between characters seems strangely wrapped in Shakespearian soliloquy, as they are short, poignant, and have a somewhat musical rhythm. Yet, in a film setting which is not based in the past or which is attempting to draw a Shakespearian feel this simply renders the characters confusing in their speech and creates a sense that the actors in the film are either of an extremely low quality or simply cannot act. In that a sense of emotionality, something that Finns are not know for portraying, is utterly missing throughout the film. This lack of emotion draws the viewer away from the film itself and renders them utterly confused and frustrated at trying to decipher what could be described as an excessive Vulcan complex, where pure logic and no emotion tends to render all humor, sadness, despair, love, and friendship as a confusing ballet of inept tinkering. This innate cultural aspect could be understood if the director's films were sought after in Finland, this not being the case however it leaves one wondering why it was included.
Societal conceptions of basic ideals such as the welfare state, religion, and robbery are also compromised through the films very Finnish portrayal. In the film Jakko attempts to find work through the welfare state but is rejected for not having a name. Yet, rather than attempt to illustrate his problem to the official, he simply accepts the fact that without knowledge of his name he will not receive employment through the state and thus will be ineligible for assistance. After his rejection, Jakko returns to the Salvation Army which offers him work and creates an identity for him. This counter play between societal conceptions of the welfare state and religion seem to depict religion as being more open to assisting individuals regardless of their past, yet no one can move forward without the welfare state. This is seen in the final aspect of a robbery, which Jakko is a bystander to, which sees him attempting to open an account in order to receive funds from his employment with the Salvation Army. He is again denied on the basis of a lack of a name; even upon hinting that any name will do he simply says that he doesn't have a name. This heavy societal dependence on a sense of identity could be seen, if not for its Finnish nature, as depicting what is lost in the movement from one's home to an inter-land in order to find employment. Yet, giving its Finnish nature of conversation and unemotional basis one simply becomes confused and frustrated at Jakko's seemingly unwillingness to simply create a new identity. An unwillingness which would be understood to represent an individual's struggle with giving up themselves if not for the confusion of Finnish societal conceptions of rules and hiding one's true self from general perception by others.
The final aspect of the addition of 1950s Americana to the film renders an already confused and belittled meaning to the film simply incomprehensible. Now not only is one confused by interactions of individuals but the setting too becomes a hodgepodge of misused icons of 1950s Americana which destroy any early conception of time and place which would help a viewer to understand the film. Rather one is left to figure out the significance of 1950s Americana to the film if any. The decade being one of the so called good-life in America, but with underlying problems which lead to the turbulent 60s. Yet, the director did not seem intent on drawing a parallel between 1950s America and present day Finland. The moving gave no depiction of unrest and ended on a note of acceptance of hardship and despair being the path to finding one's true self. Thus this indulgence seems to detract from the film more than add any kind of significance or affection for 1950s nostalgia.
A film which would otherwise represent a decent film on the trials of the individual in finding himself or herself in the modern chaos which would have appealed to an unlimited audience is both detracted and lost in an overabundance of one culture, one society, and one's nostalgia.
Brúðguminn (2008)
If you don't like this film for more than ten minutes your an idiot!
"If your happy for more than ten minutes than you're an idiot." The character Jon Johnson described this philosophical advice to his class during the end of the movie and the quote fits perfectly. Throughout the movie we take up the aspect of love in marriage and like the quote the happiness, love, and commitment was fleeting. The best line in the movie lied in the notion that it is not love or happiness themselves which are most rewarding in life; rather it is the pursuit of these which is the most rewarding. The film, White Night Wedding explores this pursuit which in the process renders a variety of dismal outlooks on life and its potential for true love or happiness; yet for all these dismal outlooks the movie is quite interesting and somewhat hilarious taken as a whole.
The premise of the film revolves around the main character Jon Johnson and his relationship to his wife Anna. Both, living together in Reykjavik, are dismally set in a routine of perceptual avoidance of one another – Jon refusing to take phone calls from Anna while teaching and Anna experiencing a worsening of her mental condition. In order to both remedy their marriage and better themselves they decide to move to a small island off Iceland from which Anna was originally from. This is where things began to get a little dicey both morally and technically. Jon having uprooted from his teaching position finds himself at odds with Anna and portrays a feeling of being trapped by Anna's condition and her perpetual wants and needs of him while he portrays that he gets nothing in return. With no work to divide his time from Anna, Jon invests in a nine hole golf course; the point up till now reflecting how relationships can become strained by the needs and desires of both parties especially when the initial honeymoon stage is over. Jon then begins to court and later has a affair with his former student Thora – Anna witnesses the affair and presumable kills herself – leaving Jon to marry Thora and start the cycle over once again.
The plot though somewhat unique is an old story in divorce and cheating scenarios in which one member of the marriage (Jon) feels that he is sacrificing his life and work for Anna and her condition, while Anna feels that Jon has become increasingly distant and no longer loves her. This clash is culminated after Anna witnesses Jon having intercourse with Thora, Anna dumps her medication and proceeds to drag seaweed into the house and demands that Jon makes love to her; Jon, presumably more shocked by her actions and behavior declines and thus Anna appears to sail out to see to end her suffering. Though much quicker than a divorce, the act leaves Jon in the arms of Thora who vows that she will help him recover himself if it's the last thing she does, however, in the end the two – married – appear to be in the same place as Anna and Jon were at the beginning of the film. The implication of love and happiness being that it is found only in the chase and never lasts beyond that time.
The question of marriage as an institution of benefit is only half the question presented within this film, the broader question and concern questioning whether happiness and love can even be found in life in a permanent means. Whether looking at Thora's parents and their lost dreams – her father wanting to be a famous opera singer – or Anna and Jon's relationship marriage as an institution seems to be a compromise which leaves both parties disappointed with one another and at odds than promising any form of happiness or love. This is one of the most dismal aspects of the film, yet even worse is the notion that love and happiness in anyone's life is ultimately fleeting. The film ends with the professor explaining this philosophical notion to his class, yet it is up to debate whether he has learned his own lesson. The question of which brings us to the final thought on this film, is someone morally obligated to leave a relationship which they are unhappy within? With the perception from the film being that happiness and love are fleeting fancies of pursuit rather than obtainable goals it would appear that the answer to this question is no. However, the film in Thora's persistence that she would recapture Jon's life if it was the last thing she did and Thora's father's perpetual longing to be an opera singer the question remains. To better the life of another and to better one owns life seem to be the two sides of this coin. Whether for better or for worse we as a species and as portrayed in this film seemed destined to fall in love and be happy in the process, yet this love and happiness is ultimately our curse as they are fleeting with time.
Hawaii, Oslo (2004)
"Hawaii Sucks, but this movie doesn't"
Hawaii Sucks! This movie, however, does not. Great movies make you question your own understanding of the world and your place within it. Hawaii Oslo delivers with unique questions, themes, and relationships which demand the observer to watch, comprehend, and believe. The movie, set in Oslo revolves in a unique patchwork way around Hawaii, first as an alternative reality to Leon's brother being incarcerated and second as the bar in which Leon and Asa would finally meet. The use of Hawaii represents the main theme of the film which maintains throughout and entices the viewer; that all is not as it appears. The use of which can be seen in the characters, their relationships, their actions, and within the film itself.
The characters themselves represent a contradiction of realities; Vidar seems to be able to witness events which have not occurred. We witness this reality in the opening of the film in which Vidar dreams that Leon is struck by an ambulance while running, yet the ending of the film makes us question his ability. In addition Vidar and the paper girl share a unique moment when both describe the other as not who they appear. Additional character divisiveness exists in Frode the father of a baby who is born with a unique heart defect – this man who appears at the outset to be only concerned with his self, but by the end has given away all that he is and risks jail time for the life of his child. This is only compounded by the mother of two young men who have lost their father, who we meet attempting suicide (only successful with her cat), but by the end is working diligently to reclaim her boys and build a life for them. The distinct realities of the characters makes one question their own role in life; for these individuals self-sacrifice to another either saved them or brought out the best in them.
Relationships within the film also present a contradiction of reality, in both Leon's relationship to his brother and the mother to her two boys. We find Leon's brother in prison for armed robbery, yet Leon is told and believes to some extent that his brother is in Hawaii the whole time. Throughout the film Leon is used by his brother for his own ends and Leon's one true goal in life, to meet up with Asa, is almost lost to his brother's actions. Instead we find Vidar being more of a brother or guardian angel to Leon than his own flesh and blood; looking out for Leon's safety and goal at the expense of his own health. The same is true for the boys who found a family with one another and whose mother seemed to give little concern for them and focused instead upon her depression. Relationships within this film carry a two fold message: 1. that family does not necessarily equate to blood ties and 2. That a true friend or family member is willing to sacrifice themselves for those they care about.
The actions of the characters throughout the film define this concept of self-sacrifice for those who you care, but also demonstrate that focus upon one's self eventually leads to fruitless ends. Whether we take the example of Vidar and Leon, Frode, Leon's brother, or the mother and her children the outcome is the same. Those that in the end were willing to look beyond themselves for the benefit of another were rewarded or at least felt as though a burden had been lifted, while those whom stayed focused upon their self, namely Leon's brother, received only added burden. This idea is intriguing throughout the film for as one watches, one can not help but realize the extent to which each of the characters, with the exception of Vidar and the paper girl, are wrapped up in themselves, their careers, their goals, or their loss.
Finally, the film overall presented a reality of Vidar's dream at the beginning of the film and a series of events which lead to an alternate, but similar conclusion. The film's use of Hawaii flower breaks exacerbates the feeling that the entire film rather than simply the beginning is a dream or the replay of events in an individuals head before the end. This sense of mystery and illusion adds greatly to the viewers' enjoyment, as one tries to piece the stories together and realizes how all choices and actions affect not one character or two, but all individual characters. In a world today marked by self-centered individuals, companies, and government which seek only the best for the bottom line this film has a serious and beneficial message; that your individual actions affect more than just you and that only through self-sacrifice to others can we remove our own burdens.
Vidar's advice to Frode, at the birth of his son, is key to the entire movie, "Cherish it" – cherish the moments for they are all anyone truly has in life. Even if you don't like Norwegian films or believe that the message and purpose of this film would be lost upon your-self or does not apply, see it. Out of a number of foreign films I have seen this one by far had a simple message for all to take away, with a story and cinematic elements which create an excellent viewing experience, worth your time.