Change Your Image
boos-296-130897
Reviews
Hævnen (2010)
No one will dare hit my now
"Not if you hit hard enough
no one will dare hit me now." How should one deal with bullying? This quote from In a Better World, directed by Susanne Bier, gets to the heart of a major theme in the film: revenge. One of the real strengths of the film is its ability to illuminate the complexity of revenge by exploring different back-stories and situations as a means to justify and elicit revenge.
In a Better World is a Danish film that stars Mikael Persbrandt, Trine Dyrholm, and Ulrich Thomsen. One of the main characters, Anton, is a Danish physician working in Africa. While he is forced to make a decision regarding the ethicality of treating his patient, the local dangerous criminal, his son Elias and a friend Christian, are forced to confront bullying while at school. This film elicits thought on the subject of revenge, and challenges some beliefs about revenge by adding layers of complexity.
As a viewer I was intrigued by how much I was drawn into the film. It really challenged me to think about how I would react in these situations. I was also surprised how I was able to identify with the private thought processes of the characters myself, and yet still remain engaged in the film. I was very impressed by the film's ability to portray so many parallels between different scenarios regarding revenge, and then to force the viewer to either agree or disagree with the character decisions.
One example of the questions posed by the parallel stories deals with age. It is really interesting to compare the situation of the two boys with that of the adults. I found myself shocked at first by the children. Christian's attempt at defending his friend Elias, by viciously assaulting school bully with a bike pump sent chills through me. At first I found myself shocked by the extreme nature of his actions. It then made me think of all of the horrid things that are done by bullies each day. The inner rage that develops from the pain of being bullied was so real and raw. Bullying is such a prominent issue in the world, and this film effectively illuminates the intense consequences of it.
Another aspect that was compared in the film was the nature of the bully. In the scenes in Denmark, the child and man who were the bullies were very clear in what exactly they had done, and it was directly against the character. In contrast, the bully in Africa had a very different image. As a viewer, we are only shown the victims and there is only an abstract criminal at the beginning of the film. This contrast in direct involvement for the viewer was well done. I found each type of bullying to be very believable and interesting to compare.
Another interesting aspect of the film to compare was establishing the degree to which cultures differ in their concepts of revenge. This film clearly illustrates stories of two very different countries: Denmark and one country in Africa. Similar to the concepts of age, the scope of their problems was very different. In Denmark, the boy was mocked and had the tires of his bicycle let out. In contrast, those in Africa were being slaughtered. The scope of these problems seems so different when they are thought about separately. Interestingly though, this film chooses to portray both acts of bullying to be very traumatic. In this way, the film almost seems to suggest that it is not the characteristics of a culture itself, and more about what is established as a cultural norm for bullying, and using that as a scale to react to.
Lastly, a third question that was brought up was exploring to what degree the past can justify one's actions. The way that the film is organized highlights its abilities to manipulate emotions by the timing of revealing past experiences. At the beginning on the film, Christian seems to be a troubled child, but the true extent of his painful past isn't clear. During the scene where he is about commit suicide, the vast depth of his emotions is clear. One of the really interesting and painful aspects was that due to the foreshadowing, I almost expected a suicide off the top of the building, and yet found myself really not wanting to believe it. I really found myself empathizing with Christian, and wanting to see him experience healing. This character development really forced me to think about how I don't understand the pasts of so many people. It caused me to wonder how often we are unaware of such life altering events in another's life. It made me think that although Christian's actions did not seem justified, he at the same time cannot be held fully accountable for them in the traditional sense of justice, because of his mother's recent death. Christian's character was very effective in eliciting deeper thought, which was a goal that the film seemed to have.
One critique that I did have of the film was the lack of completeness. After the two boys were taken into the principles office, they essentially ended up shaking hands with the boy they had just assaulted, and there really weren't any further consequences. Similarly, after Anton let the natives attack Big Man, there is no exploration into the social or political consequences of the decision. Clearly the focus was more on the decision-making processes in revenge, but I would have liked more exploration into the effects as well.
Musta jää (2007)
How far would you go for revenge?
How far would you go for revenge? Black Ice does an excellent job at getting into the complexities of developing and the subsequent consequences of breaking relational commitments. One of the real strengths of the film is its ability to portray heightened responses to relational distress in order to better delve into the complexity of revenge, without pushing the interactions into the realm of absurdity.
Black Ice tells the story of a complicated love triangle. A middle-aged doctor, Saara (Outi Mäenpää), discovers that her husband Leo (Martii Suosalo) is having an affair with his student, Tuuli (Ria Kataja). After finding out about the affair, Saara befriends her husband's mistress under the guise of a fake identity. The plot follows the incredibly complex web of events that unfold as each relationship is developed.
As a viewer I was fascinated by the films ability to explore the nature of relational covenants. Specifically, this film looks at how covenants develop and what the consequences of breaking these connections are. Instead of staying within the typical Hollywood confines of stereotypical love triangles, this film breaks the mold by completing the triangle. Each side of the relationship triangle highlights a different form of relational covenants. What made this film relatable was that I could identify with the fears and complexity of the characters' that were working to define their relationships. I, like all people, have struggled with dealing with betrayal in a relationship.
One of the most fascinating relationships that the film included was between Tuuli and Saara. This relationship gets to the heart of what is involved in the initial process of developing a friendship, a form of a covenant. While pretending to be a divorced psychologist, Saara begins taking karate classes from the mistress, Tuuli. The two develop their relationship by spending time together as Saara builds her fake identity. An especially gripping point of the film comes when Saara appears to be developing a true empathetic friendship with Tuuli, and then she speaks of her intense hatred and desire to murder her husband's mistress. I found the depth of their relationship very well done in that it successfully integrated surface level relationships with deeper emotions in a thought provoking way. Although daily interactions in real life are nowhere near this extreme, I thought this film did an excellent job at highlighting the complexity of female friendships by looking at the effects of envy, loneliness, and competition that women are forced to contend with while developing all of their relationships.
Another covenant-based relationship, marriage, is also explored. Although the first exposure to the married couple involves a very intimate sex scene, the shots are interspersed with clips of another young woman. This editing technique effectively shows the interrelatedness of their stories. Although marriage is a partnership, a third character appears involved. I found it especially interesting that the concept of an ideal marriage was broken so early in the film. As a viewer I found myself approaching the film with preconceived notions of marriage as sacred, and yet found myself expecting brokenness very early in the film as a result of this technique. Though I was uncomfortable watching it occur, I found the scenes where Leo and Saara were discussing the missing condoms and Saara going to her husband's office and finding evidence of his correspondence with Tuuli to be fairly realistic. As humans we are wired to be envious of others' relationships with our partners. Additionally, having shots of the other woman at the beginning is very effective in guiding the audience to believe Saara in her accusations. This is necessary and effective for the films believability. Instead of making Saara seem like a crazy woman stalking a young college student, I identified her as being justified in her anger and her desire to do something about it.
Not only does this film explore officially recognized romantic relationships, it also explores open affairs. One of the most noteworthy aspects I saw was Tuuli's awareness of Leo's multiple affairs. This is an odd level of transparency. When working on Tuuli's architecture project, Leo suggests that she be bold and include glass bricks in her design. He seems to advocate a separateness that has a large degree of transparency involved. This is explicitly seen in that Tuuli has knowledge of his multiple affairs, and yet she does not actually know who is wife is. This interplay shows the complexity of Leo's views on relationships.
Another thought provoking aspect of the web of relationships is looking at the comparisons between Tuuli and Saara. The film includes many close shots of each blond woman. Their physical similarities evoke a blending of the two women. Not only is Leo clearly physically attracted to each woman, but also the women's identities are very clearly shaped by each other. Saara's alternative identity, Christa, is completely molded as a result of interacting with Tuuli. Additionally, both women are dressed similarly when they go ice-skating and when they are at the costume party. Both scenes involve interactions with Leo. This similarity highlights their shared individual covenants with the same man. This interplay is very effective at posing questions of identity and the nature of connections between those who have a commonality, such as Leo.
One critique I do have of the film is the lack of character development of Leo. I found his character oddly static throughout the film. He truly seemed to want to remain married to Saara. I would have liked to see more depth and range of emotion from Leo as he dealt with the drastic changes in behavior of Saara, such as her decision to move out and to supposedly date a new man so quickly.
Overall I was very disturbed by the reality of the complexity of the relationships involved. I would recommend this film to mature audiences who are emotionally ready to explore the multifaceted covenants explored in the film.
Festen (1998)
A disturbing film on the duality of humanity
"Here's to the man, (my father) who killed my sister...to a murderer." This film does an incredible job at getting into the depths and complexity of real relationships. Having to feel so uncomfortable at the realities of their relationships while watching the film was very powerful in that it elicited inspection into each main character. One of the real strengths of this film is its ability to push past characters with stock emotions to truly explore the duality present within relationships.
The Celebration tells of a family celebrating Helge's sixtieth birthday. His children, Christian, Helene, and Michael gather together along with many other distinguished guests. Despite the initial merriment, Christian's first toast threatens to shake up the entire family. His accusations of rape forces the family to deal with the past.
As a viewer I was fascinated by the emotions explored in the film. It successfully presented many emotions that were clearly distinct in and of themselves. What made the film engaging and realistic was that multiple personalities were present in each character. The interaction was done in such a way that it didn't slip into confusing characters, but rather ones that invited contemplation. One character that highlights the effects of a mixture of love and hate in this intriguing way is Michael (Thomas Bo Larsen). During the opening scene of the film, Michael kicks his wife and children out of his car on the side of the road in order to drive another adult man. They are left to walk the rest of the long walk on their own. Soon after, we witness a fight between Michel and his wife. During the fight he explodes, thoroughly destroying the room. His rage is also evident as scenes depict him beating his past mistress, Christian, and his father at three separate times within the night. This type of forceful reaction and lack of concern for his family is absurd.
Interestingly, although Michael is clearly portrayed as the most violent character of the film, he also is involved in the only consensual sex scene in the movie. Also, he spends almost the entirety of the movie fighting on the side of the revealed sexual abuser by abusing Christina. Finally at the very end of the film he fully understands the situation, and combats the abuser for the victim. Having so many examples of the negative qualities of Michael and then showing a switch successfully invites the audience to further contemplation of the real nature and duality of humanity, which is neither fully good nor fully evil.
Another expression of duality that prompts contemplation is Helge's (Henning Moritzen) relationship with Christian. The mixing of traditional perceptions of fathers and rapists leads to a very uncomfortable and disturbing situation for the viewer. At the beginning of the film he is presented as a successful and well-liked businessman with many friends coming for his party. The party starts out filled with hugs and joyful exclamations. Soon after Christian begins his first speech though, Helge's perfect image is shaken. It's especially fascinating that Christian's speech comes as at least some degree of surprise to the audience. There are hints before that something in Christian and Helge's relationship is not a good one, and yet I was not expecting Christian to reveal rape. I was quite surprised at how quickly my perception of each character changed so quickly. It was done in such a way that it was believable, and not just a random plot twist that seemed to come out of nowhere. It is especially interesting that this concept is not introduced immediately in the film. Instead, there is time to develop him as the well-liked man. Even Christian's speech doesn't begin as it is indicative of something so horrid as he is smiling and appears to be honoring his father. In reality, the story is about to take a very clear plot turn. Also, it is interesting that although Michael accuses his father of abuse, there is an element of questioning the reality by the other cast members and Christian's recanting initially. I found myself initially emotionally connecting with Christian, and yet being slightly drawn away by the other guest's interactions. The ability of the writers and actors to make me question reality without getting lost from the emotions was powerful. This interplay keeps the audience engaged, trying to delve deeper into their relationship to understand its complex nature. The juxtaposition of their relationship that illustrates a mixing of roles was well done. Other techniques that were used to accomplish illustrating the duality between illusion and reality were the filming and artistic techniques.
The film was filmed in the style known as Dogme 95, which began in 1995 in Copenhagen. In order to promote "cinema of the moment" the film was entirely shot on location, without makeup, and had no fixed cameras. The beginning of the film shows rolling hills and a beautiful countryside. As the film progresses to the scenes in the bathroom and at the dinner table though, freehand cameras shot the camera footage so it became shakier as the characters engaged in more physical movement. This style ends up inevitably shaky and comes off as very raw. This goes a long way to complimenting and cuing the mood of the film for the audience. The emotions of bitterness, anger, and chaos come though as so raw and exposed that as an audience member, we are forced to confront these challenging emotions.
Overall I wouldn't say that I emotionally liked the film. It was disturbing and challenging, and yet this is exactly the intent of the film. It does this quite well and I was fascinated by the contemplations I had as a result. I would recommend the film if you can handle its mature themes and also have the time to truly engage with the film. Although it isn't a feel-good film, the raw and explorative qualities into humanity is powerful and thought provoking.