ouren Reviews

You, the Living (2007)

An Odd Intellectual experience

[1 May 2014]

You the Living directed by Roy Andersson seems to be a quirky satire on the life of all human beings. The best words to describe this movie is humorous, quirky, odd, unique. I have never seen a film quite like this in my life. The combination of filming style and segmented story line make this an interesting film for a particular audience. This is definitely not a film for the average audience.

This film has a unique way of following various random stories to portray the events of life in a unique way, so much so the movie is almost hard to keep track of. Most of the scenes portray everyday normal events of real life including emotional distress, depression, relationships, shopping for rugs, the troubles of old age, young love, and traffic.

There are two particular examples that are particularly enlightening to ways society is a little screwed up. The first illuminates how many people in society can take things way too far and worry about things that don't matter. In this scene a man commits a "crime" that isn't really even a crime and is sentenced to death. The whole court room wants him to die, and for no particular reason. The beautiful part about many of these scenes is that people can interpret them in many different ways, taking similar or different things from them without really being wrong. Another way this seen could be interpreted is as a joke on the justice systems around the world. This man get's sentenced with swift and unanimous action, in the real world justice is never this quick, instead of minutes it can take months even years of slow deliberation. A quote from this trial is, " Gross negligence is the worst crime punishable by death". This quote itself could provide the viewer with many thoughts on its satirical value on society.

Scenes like this occur throughout the whole movie and are constantly keeping the viewer's minds on their toes, and active. With these insightful scenes comes a lot of humor. Each scene is intended to provide a laugh to accompany its intellectual purpose. An example of this awkward humor is a scene where a virtually anorexic man is having sex with a large woman. This scene lasts a few awkward minutes of complaining about life on the man's end and interestingly placed moans on the woman's end. This scene again gives the viewer an opportunity to interpret the meaning.

Another thing that really makes this film unique is how it is filmed. All but one of the scenes are filmed from a standing still tripod. This is a different way to film a movie but I think it works in this case, especially when you realize how important each detail of the scene is. The importance to the detail and the background is illuminated right from the beginning. There is a scene when a man is having an argument with his wife and in the background you can see characters from a previous scene, one playing a tuba, and another couple trying to make him stop from below. I feel like I could watch this movie ten times over and notice something new each time. The problem is I don't know if I would want to watch it ten times over. On a movie critic level, I'm sure it's loved, on a normal person level, it really isn't all that entertaining.

One of the finals theme could be particularly interesting for American's since we do love our celebrities so much. The theme plays on the nonexistence of privacy for people, especially celebrities, and our shear absurd adoration for celebrities. The nonexistence of privacy comes from the moving house that is surrounded by people as soon as it enters the city. The adoration for celebrities and celebrity couples is scene by the no basis love for a good guitar player and the general publics happiness for their love.

I think the theme above, as well as many other themes make this film appeal to a wide range of people all over the world not just the Nordic countries. The film addresses aspects of life that can be applied universally to all parts of the world.

Overall, this film is odd but intellectual, and can keep the viewer engaged throughout. Those people who like filming and cinematography well also have a lot to enjoy, appreciate, and analyze. Those who don't really like to think while watching a movie and enjoy a little odd humor, can also enjoy this film, but for those who don't like odd humor and don't want to think, just want to be entertained, I would not recommend this film.

In a Better World (2010)

Ethical, Intense, Dramatic, Fantastic

[9/10 · 17 April 2014]

In a Better World, Hævnen (Revenge) would not be necessary, or would happen cleanly. In this film, the director, Susan Bier portrays difficult ethical questions of life in an extreme, yet moving way, while also investigating uncomfortable and strained relationships as is typical of her style. After now seeing two films of hers, it seems to be that melodramatic and her filming technique are becoming her personal stamp on the film industry.

In a Better World is a movie with arguably three main characters who are all closely connected. The main characters are two children, Christian and Elias, and Elias' father, Anton. Each of these character's encounters ethical dilemma's throughout the film. Christian is struggling to deal with his pent up anger built up from his mother's death, while Elias learns what it is to be a friend and what he values as a person. Half way around the world Anton learns first hand just how far his ethical values can be pushed while working as a doctor in Africa.

The way each of these character's handles there specific events elucidates possible answers to different ethical questions. The most prevalent ethical concept that is investigated is the concept of revenge, the Danish name for the movie. To what extent is revenge acceptable? Is revenge acceptable at all? Is revenge OK sometimes and not others? I think this movie answers these questions on revenge in an intelligent, safe manner by not giving a clear answer. Revenge may or may not be acceptable. There are some cases where revenge is taken too far, some where it is a necessary evil. Susan Bier does a wonderful job of allowing the viewer to determine what they do or don't agree with, allowing them to see revenge in a variety of different situations. In the real world these types of events and questions are not so easily answered, there is no one straight answers to these ethical questions. The real world is complicated. In a Better World the world might not be so complicated. In a better world revenge wouldn't be needed because in a better world, there wouldn't be evil people, but we don't live in a better world, we live in the real world.

Susanna Bier is known for having somewhat melodramatic movies. In this case I think it works because the strength of the events and dilemma's helps the themes of ethical conflicts, and issues with relationships be more clearly represented. At some points it does seem to be a little too much though. I mean seriously, a couple of 12 year old making pipe bombs? That seems a little bit extreme to me. Elias's life also seems to be extreme on it's own. He has soon to be divorced parents, is bullied to extremes, his best friend and "savior" begins to treat him similarly to the bullies, and he gets blown up!? That seems a bit extreme to me, but it also has a powerful impact on the viewers. Elias seems to be the most innocent ethical example of a character in the film, yet he lies to the cops, carries a knife around, agrees to bomb a car, cementing the idea of how complicated situations are, and how our own values are pushed to limit, sometimes for the good and others for the bad.

Another thing that Susanna Bier does very well is using different techniques to enhance the movie. The first thing I noticed in the film is how the colors of the video popped out of the screen compared to the dirty, dust filled, muted scenery of an African refugee village. This little allows the viewer to think about and find their own significance. Another thing she does is use a hand-held camera for a large portion of the movie. For me, the hand-held camera helped me get lost in the movie. It helped me feel like this was a real story I was experiencing. The trembling of the camera when it is focused on Christian is almost nerve-racking at points. You can see and feel the anger is building up inside him and how he might explode at any point. It seems like the person filming even feels some fear.

Overall, Susanna Bier created another killer movie delving into the difficult problems encountered in a wide variety of relationships and ethical questions of life. She stuck to her guns; using a third world and Scandinavian setting, melodramatic events, a variety of relationships, and managed to create a movie that could keep the viewer thinking about revenge and it's ethical dilemmas long after they finish the movie.

Himlens hjärta (2008)

A Critique on Relationships in Swedish Society

[7/10 · 3 April 2014]

Heaven's Heart by Simon Staho debuted in 2008 and provides a refreshing outlook on marriage and divorce in Swedish society. The film uses two middle age couples to attack perceptions of adultery and stagnant relationships head on. This movie provides a more optimistic outlook on marriage and divorce than is typically seen in Swedish society.

The major theme of Heaven's Heart is undeniably relationships. Everything about the movie says the movie is about relationships. The movie is about two middle age couples, Lars and Susanna, Ann and Ulf, and the struggles they are going through in their marriage, whether it be about sex-life, distrust, or varying views on things such as adultery. Right from the opening scene the problems in each relationship become clear and are perpetuated during an argument at the dinner table. While the two couples are eating the begin to have a disagreement about the severity of adultery. Lars and Ann seem to think that it is a horrendous act while Susanna and Ulf defend the act on grounds of the importance of happiness. This is an especially interesting scene because of what happens next. Ironically, Lars and Ann begin to have a love affair. They find solace in the fact that each one feels the same way about there partner and is experiencing the same struggle. This intriguing twist enhances the film by bringing to light the topic of confronting issues vs. avoiding them.

Ulf and Susanna both seem to think happiness is important enough to make the act of adultery acceptable, while Ann and Lars reject this premise all together. Ulf and Susanna seem to be less afraid of and more liberally thinking towards the subject of adultery, while Lars and Ann just ignore it and seem to be afraid of it. They think life is good the way it is similar to how many Swedish people look at life. I stumbled across a word that describes this outlook, Lagom, which I interpreted to mean average, not too much not too little. As a result of this outlook many Swedish people like to avoid problems when they come up in life and a marriage. They would rather just keep things simple, low stress, and avoid confrontation rather than addressing them like Ulf and Susanna seem to be able to do. Because Lars and Ann like to avoid confrontation, perhaps like many swedes, they are more susceptible to adultery and divorce because they may find someone they agree with more on issues, someone more like themselves, like Lars and Ann.

In Sweden divorce is very common with around 55% of married couples getting divorced. There are a few possible reasons for this high divorce rate. One reason I have already spoken of, is the Swedish attitude to life, Lagom. The Swedish attitude on life has also drawn relations with some of Sweden's department stores Ikea and H&M. The products of these stores look nice but don't last long. An idea that is thought to parallel Swedish relationships. Another reason for high divorce rates is the welfare state's support for divorced women, and the shrinking gap in income between men and women. The shrinking gap in income and the welfare state's support give women the option for divorce, an option they may not have had before.

Heaven's Heart is an example of what might happen in Swedish relationships if they decide to change their outlook on life and begin to work through conflicts with their partners, deepening their relationship, rather than running from it. I see Lars and Ann as representative of the majority of Swedish society, running from problems and wanting that Lagom life. Eventually they realize what they really want is what they had, problems or not. The best example is when Ann and Ulf are blatantly honest about everything and make love for the first time in years. Lars seems to take a little more time, but he too comes to realize that he really did love Susanna and that he shouldn't have run from their problems. While the movie critiques society it does portray the feeling of a struggling relationship uniquely through a particular aspect.

One of the common feelings many people in a relationship may feel is a feeling of suffocation caused by there close proximity to there partner or struggles of life and a relationship bearing down on them. In this film Simon Staho made everything on screen close, there wasn't even a camera shot of outside, everything filmed was inside and close quarters. This type of filming helps a viewer feel the anxiety and suffocating feeling the characters are feeling throughout the film.

Overall as a film, it was not all that entertaining to me, but as a critique on relationships in Swedish society it is fabulous, and I did like how the filming style enhanced my anxiety. The film brings to light a problem many Swedes, and others, may have when enduring a struggling relationship. In the end, I like what it has to say, that couples should be honest with each other and work through problems they are having.

White Night Wedding (2008)

White Night Wedding = Depressing

[6/10 · 9 March 2014]

White Night Wedding directed by Baltasar Kormákur first and foremost should not be watched by someone who is depressed, as it portrays the dull meaningless life of Jón, who's selfishness kills his first wife, and stupidity leads him into a destined to fail marriage. There is little hope for the protagonist, and little hope for this movie brightening someones mood except for some beautiful shots of an Icelandic island.

In contrast with Kormákur's film 101 Reykjavik, this movie portrays the city as positive and intelligent. We are introduced to the films main character, Jón, as he is teaching his college class. Reykjavik seems like a pleasant city where Jón can stay occupied, productive and happy. While the country-side, and island, where is wife, Anna, is from is a static, boring place, seemingly reminiscent of his relationship with his wife whom is mentally ill.

The theme of the country vs. city is a common one among Icelandic film. This film seems to give a very negative and depressing portrayal of the countryside. The island can only be reached by boat and contains somewhere around ten houses and a church. There is a small community store, and it appears that viewers are introduced to at least half of the inhabitance of the island, of which ten percent might be crazy. This small island in the middle of nowhere makes Jón so bored, that he is convinced by one of his crazy/quirky friends that it's a good idea to invest, and try and build a golf course to bring tourists to the island. The only reasoning I can think for him to go along with this idea is at least it gave him something to do, just emphasizing how bored he is on this god forbidden island in the middle of nowhere. Once he realizes how ridiculous this idea is he acquires a large debt to the local store owners and in return starts doing their daughter, a former student, which brings me to the next topic of morality.

In one of the scenes Jón is teaching the class about how things can be relatively right or relatively wrong in situations. An example of this might be it is morally OK to kill someone if it was in defense of your own life, but not morally OK if you had no reason to kill that person. He runs into his own moral dilemma when he get's caught cheating on his wife, by his wife, with a former student. Not to mention a girl twenty years younger than him. This is morally wrong on many levels, as he has a sick wife whom can't help her situation. Not only that, he is the only one who can stick with her and help her out, but he is so selfish that he decides to abandon her and the promises he made to her in order to indulge in a younger girl. Because his wife sees she has been abandoned, she abandons life, committing suicide in the open ocean. Maybe some part of Jón thought having sex was relatively morally OK because his wife was nuts and he didn't love her anymore, but that doesn't make you like this dismal protagonist anymore. Whatever his reasoning he begins to feel some regret after she kills herself. In an effort to make killing his wife relatively morally OK, he decides to marry Thora, because only him marrying his "True Love" would make her death a little bit OK, at least in his mind. Jón teaches others about morality, but either needs to listen too his teachings or uses it's relativity to make him feel better about his awful decisions, either way the anti-moral decisions from the film add to the films depressive outlook on life.

Although the story itself is depressing it is very well filmed and edited. The most memorable piece of filmography for me is the beautiful shot of Jón as he is passed out on the table. The helicopter shot shows the beautiful landscape of Iceland and the quaint, BORING town. The town is as isolated as the main character himself capturing the emptiness of his life. A

Overall the movie is well made with good cinematography, but the story itself is very dull and depressing. The film is consistent with other movies from Iceland at the time with the of the countryside vs. city, but gives a more bleak outlook on the conservative way of life. I would not recommend this movie for someone who would like to stay in or be put in a good mood, but if you want to watch an Icelandic film, apart from the story, this is well made with good acting and could be worth your time.