Running Time: 105 minutes
Directed By: Thomas Vinterberg
Written By: Thomas Vinterberg, Mogens Rukov
Main Cast: Ulrich Thomsen, Henning Moritzen, Thomas Bo Larsen, Paprika Steen, Trine Dyrholm
THE FIRST DOGME FILM
Well for the third consecutive viewing, I've relied on my DVD shelf to keep the blog steaming ahead and this time I opted for a foreign title in "Festen". It is a film that I had only seen once, prior to tonight's viewing, but one that upon my initial and only viewing, deemed it a must own and eventually purchased it. My decision to buy it was the correct decision!
The film was the first created under the Dogme rules, which were drawn up by Thomas Vinterberg (the director of this feature) and Lars von Trier. There are ten rules in the Dogme code, the most notable being that a film must be shot with a handheld camera and that the sound in the film must never be produced apart from the images and vice versa. This particular story focuses in on a wealthy family and we join them on the day of the patriarch's sixtieth birthday. A big party is being thrown for the father of the family, Helge (Moritzen), where many guests will come from all over to pay tribute to the man. The notable guests include Helge's three living children; Christian (Thomsen), Helene (Steen) and Michael (Bo Larsen). The fourth child, Linda, has recently committed suicide. The children and all of the other guests converge on Helge's mansion, taking residence for the day and night and suiting up for a big birthday celebration, which includes a big, extravagant dinner. Maids, servants, cooks and errand boys are in full force. When the time comes to sit down for dinner, Christian clangs his glass with his butter knife and begins to make a speech in honor of his father. In the midst of his speech and without changing his demeanor, Christian accuses his father of viciously raping and molesting him and his twin sister, Linda, when they were children. The commences from there...
SPOILER ALERT!
Wow, so many things to say about this one and I can feel a long review coming on, so buckle up. The first thing that I want to address is the mixture of emotions that this film FORCED ME to feel. For those of you who've seen it and have decided to join me past the "spoiler alert", allow me to refresh your memory. As the film goes on, Christian continues to make his way back to the dinner table and does so on two more occasions. The second time he returns, he blames his father for the death of his twin sister and flat out calls him a "murderer". The third time he returns to the table, he has handed a note to his sister Helene and requests that she read it aloud. It's a suicide note from Linda, and confirms all of Christian's accusations. Helge, after hearing the letter, comes clean and admits to the unforgivable acts, storming out of the room. So, at this point, it has become very evident that we're dealing with a monster here, in Helge. I mean, you have this man, who for years sexually abused his own, small children and when he storms off from the dinner table, he leaves us with the despicable line of "that's all you (children) were good for". Ouch! I mean, clearly we're not dealing with a very moral or good human being.
SO..........
Why did I feel sorry for him in the end? I mean, before I start to sort out my emotions, let me just give an imaginary round of applause to Thomas Vinterberg for twisting up my emotions like that. It takes a true genius of a man to make you feel one way and then make you feel bad for making you feel that way. When this film concluded, I just could NOT help but feel sorry for Helge, almost to the point of tears. But then I felt guilty, almost to the point, that I wasn't even going to admit here that I did feel sorry for the character. It took a visit to IMDB and a few users who confirmed that I wasn't alone in feeling this way, for me to be comfortable with even admitting to it. I have no idea why I felt sympathy for Helge, but I did and it was truly heartbreaking when his son, Michael, asks him to leave the table so that the others can enjoy their breakfast. I think, though, that this wasn't a completely inconceivable feeling, that I had. If you notice, Christian looks on at his father, as if he too feels sorry for the old man. I think I may be reading WAY too much into the picture when I say that we're dealing with a man who has clearly realized that he's made a mistake. You've got this old man, who knows he's driven all of his children away and now they're back, it's his sixtieth birthday and he wants to make things right again. However, with the severity of the atrocities that he's committed, there's no way he's going to be able to atone. You just get that vibe, or at least that's the vibe that I'm interpreting.
And speaking of being comfortable, that is one feeling that this film just doesn't allow. The whole thing for me was very uncomfortable and I credit that to the style in which it was filmed. The handheld camera made it feel as if we were peeking in on this family, but when the shit starts to hit the fan, it becomes a peeping tom experience that makes us want to let the curtain fall back down and close our eyes. It feels as if this is something that we just shouldn't be seeing and I think that the inclusion of Helene's American boyfriend kind of helped to ease that tension for me, as a viewer, because here you had someone just like us - an outsider, invited to this party to have a bite to eat and a good time and he walks smack dab into the middle of this family's shit storm. "Festen" is really a film that just requires you to watch and whatever emotions come to you, then that's it. In my opinion, there are no intended emotions. When the Vinterberg made this film, I highly doubt that he intended us to feel one way or another. I think, however, he did know that we would FEEL and that the feelings were going to be profound.
RATING: 9/10 Was that even a review? Or was it me just rambling, ranting and interpreting. Oh well, it's a fantastic movie and one that I'd recommend only to serious movie goers.
MOVIES WATCHED: 331
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 670
October 13, 2011 1:14am
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Sins of Omission - Entry #94: ZODIAC (2007)
Running Time: 157 minutes Directed By: David Fincher Written By: James Vanderbilt, based on the book by Robert Graysmith Main Cast : Jake...
-
Running Time: 118 minutes Directed By: Louis Malle Written By: Louis Malle Main Cast: Benoit Ferreux, Lea Massari, Daniel Gelin, Fa...
-
Running Time: 157 minutes Directed By: David Fincher Written By: James Vanderbilt, based on the book by Robert Graysmith Main Cast : Jake...
-
Running Time: 142 minutes Directed By: Volker Schlondorff Written By: Jean-Claude Carriere, Gunter Grass, Franz Seitz, Volker Schlondor...
Don't worry.. that was not a rambling rant. A good ponder perhaps, but on a film that deserves to be pondered upon.
ReplyDeleteI have to say it has been some time since I saw this film, and memory can at times play tricks, so please bear with me if I miss something.
Yes, I too was concerned that I ended up with more concern for the bad guy than the victims. To be honest, I didn't like the children all that much, and even at time wondered if the abuse was real. But their behaviour and attitude can well be but down to the abuse, further proof of the damage done to them.
But it takes a brave film to 'side' with a monster. Can I compare this to Kevin Bacon in 'The Woodsman'.. where he is a convicted Child mollester, recently released from prison desperatly trying to come to terms with and rise above his demons. In Festen we also find someone who knows they have done wrong and desperatly wishes to atone.
So, a remarkable film, that I should see again
Ray
I had totally forgotten about "The Woodsman", but YES - another really good movie and another one where I really felt sorry for Kevin Bacon's character. Good point Ray!
ReplyDeleteI just watched this film and didn't feel sorry for the father at all. Am I soulless or did I miss something?
ReplyDeleteNot soulless at all. I still don't know why I felt sorry for the father, but I did and it was an unexplainable reaction. I definitely didn't want to feel sorry for him. No Amanda, I think everyone will react differently to it - some may feel sorry, some may not.
DeleteGood morning Andrew
ReplyDelete(and boy, am I pleased you fixed the 'recent comments' feature.. glad to catch up on two of Amanda's comments.. I wonder if I have missed others?)
I will back you up in re-assuring Amanda she is not at all 'soulless' in not feeling sorry for the father. She is (sorry to refer to you in the third person Amanda) right to be horrified at his past actions.
I guess what we mean by our sympathy is that we see his own horror and regret in his actions.
Everyone has their own Daemons.. things in themselves they hate. The father here has huge ones that set him apart from not only himself, his family, but the vast majority of the world. That is a horror story.
I believe we see in this film a person trapped in something beyond his control. I guess you Andrew, as a person of faith, may see it as almost daemonic possession - he has the devil in him. The thing being that this guy wishes that devil wasn't in him. Desperately wishes that.
That aspect is what we are having sympathy for.
Sorry Amanda, please accept and believe this is not a 'gang up with Andrew to get at you' (anymore than (I trust) you and I don't 'gang up on' Andrew on Atheism/Christian faith. Have you seen 'The woodsman? May I recommend it.. and I suspect Andrew may second that?).. and if you do see it, I'd love to hear your reaction...
Ray
First off, yes The Woodsman is really great and I think I need to rewatch it and consider it for a SINS OF OMISSION post.
DeleteSecond, no I don't really see it as a demonic possession. Really, I can't say why I sympathize with the guy. I'm baffled by my feelings. I guess, maybe I see that the father has maybe changed and in that moment when he's asked to leave the table, I see regret in the character's face, Like maybe he's finally, just that moment, realized that what he did was wrong and now he has to pay for it. It's probably a testament to the actor as well.