Reprise (2006)

Director: Joachim Trier
Writers:  Joachim Trier, Eskil Vogt
Cast:      Anders Danielsen Lie, Espen Klouman Hoiner, Viktoria Winge
Language: Norwegian

Two competitive friends- Philip & Erik, fueled by literary aspirations and youthful exuberance, endure the pangs of love, depression and burgeoning careers. Philip gets his novel published first but suffers from a psychosis which hinders his writing. Erik is still waiting for his first book to be published. They have a circle of friends, mostly from 'other' part of Oslo, whom doesn't share many of their interests particularly but all of them still hang out together signifying that they are still finding their feet in the world ahead of settling down.

It is unique film that deals with something that should be relatable to all. Event though it is told from the perspective of the two young writers and seem like a film about writing and success, it is actually about friendship. Most films, dealing with such a subject, have a tendency to show a higher degree of friendship between all members of the group. This one doesn't do so as the two central characters have the deepest friendship and with the rest, they have varying degrees of depth of relationship, as all of them don't have much in common. Most of us acquire different sets of friends/acquaintances in each stage of our life- one set from school/neighborhood, another one during college and another one from work. If you go by the personalities of people in each set, it will differ based on where you are at in terms of your own personality at that point of time in your life. The former most set, from school/neighborhood, will mostly have the most diverse set of personalities as they were acquired at a time when you have not figured yourself out yet and there is a sense of default aspect to it since you didn't have much choice regarding the geographic location of your home. The set of people in this film is also one like that as it conveys Oslo's small-town nature.

It does have a slightly complex and quirky narrative with multiple characters. You get seamless time-jumps and narration over imagined sequences, which reminded me very much of Spike Lee's '25th Hour'. There is a lengthy such sequence towards the end of the film which we are not sure whether it was just imaginary or whether all the characters in it did have a happy ending. The central characters are portrayed in such a way that we are not sure whether they are really happy when good things happen to the other. It is really a adult way of handling such friendships on screen, a rare thing to see in films as people have a tendency to take it to 11, unnecessarily. 

Overall it is a great watch and was Norway's official submission for the Academy Awards. It won't be up everyone's alley and one's level of enjoyment will very much depend on what it evokes in you. Jaochim Trier made his directorial debut with this film and am gonna check out his other films, if I can actually obtain them. I haven't seen many films from Norway as it looks like the least prolific when compared to the other two Scandinavian countries- Sweden and Denmark. That said, 'Kraftidioten' from last year was indeed a great one from Norway.

Rating: 4/5

                                                                       

The Bridge (2006)

Director: Eric Steel
Writer:   Tad Friend

This is a documentary exploration about the mythic beauty of the Golden Gate Bridge, the most popular suicide destination in the world, and those drawn by its call. Steel and his crew filmed the bridge from two separate locations during daylight hours for all of 2004 and thereby recording most of the two dozen deaths in that year (and preventing several others). They also taped interviews with friends, families and witnesses, who recounts stories of struggles with depression, substance abuse and mental illness. 

Before watching this, the thing that I remember foremost about Golden Gate Bridge in San Fransisco would be that scene from the film 'Vertigo'. The bridge was opened in 1937 and recorded approximately 1200 deaths by 2003. Apparently its death toll has since been surpassed by Nanjing Yangtze river bridge with more than 2000 deaths by 2006. For Golden Gate Bridge, the fall is around four seconds long and you will reach 120 miles per hour by the time you hit water after the 245 feet fall and is equivalent to the force of a speeding truck hitting a concrete wall. It holds a fatality rate of 98% which makes it attractive for those want to commit suicide. 

Some of the people, who were filmed jumping by the makers and died, were with mental problems and others were dealing with things like depression, alienation and just plain desire to die. There is one guy whose life is recounted by a family friend. His single-mother had contemplated abortion when she had him but decides against it since she thought that the kid will tide her over her own depression. When the mother died after suffering from cancer, this guy saw it pointless to continue with his life and communicates the same to their family friend who is recounting this. This is the only instance in the film where there is matter-of-factness about the whole thing and rest of the stories are the typical ones you hear. There is stigma attached to suicide in the society and a sense of bitterness by surviving acquaintances as if it is a crime against them. It is an extremely predictable reaction because all these feelings come up because you tend to empathize, sympathize, get angry, guilty etc from a selfish point of view. You feel pain when you see someone suffering because you put yourself in that position. Most things happen from a selfish point of view. 

Overall the documentary is a very good watch in the surreal sort of sense. I found the first half of it more interesting as I wasn't sure about the theme of the documentary. The second half features story of someone surviving the fall and also some garden variety suicidal stories which I didn't find that interesting. The last sequence of the film is the one they captured best on film and also the coolest jump out of the lot. This guy with long hair is featured through out the film with him walking on the bridge. Some have criticized the film for its snuff factor but I don't think it is a valid criticism. The crew had made their motivation for filming a secret from the officials and avoided any sort of publicity. You have the freedom to make art out of anything and the film is poetic and disturbing at the same time and makes for a very surreal watch. I have always felt that jumping out of heights is a good way to die as you do enjoy an exhilarating free-fall as a bonus feature.

“	Why he chose the bridge? I don't know… Maybe he just wanted to fly one time.	”
—Caroline Pressley, Gene's friend

Rating: 3.5/5 

                                                                              

แสงศตวรรษ (Syndromes and a Century) (2006)

Director: Apichatpong Weerasethakul
Writer:    Apichatpong Weerasethakul
Cast:       Nantarat Sawaddikul, Jaruchai Iamaram, Sophon Pukanok
Language: Thai

Story about director Apichatpong Weerasethakul's parents who were both doctors, and director's memories about growing up in the hospital environment. I didn't know anything about the film going into it and this semi-autobiographical aspect was lost on me. I had seen 'Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives' from this director and saw this film as part of catching up with other films in his repertoire. 

The film shows two doctors both of whom are serving in an army hospital 40 years apart. The dialog and events in first part of the film are repeated again 40 years later in contemporary settings but with slightly different outcomes. Concept of reincarnation is again a theme in this film but I don't care much for it. The film is technically sound and the interaction between the characters are interesting enough to make it a good watch. There isn't much of a narrative or any sort of continuity to follow and I didn't get much meaning out of it. You do have the change in human interactions with modernity as people become more and more impersonal. There is a scene towards the end where people are engaging in a public aerobics exercise and that scene is very funny. The first half of the film doesn't have any background music while there is some in the second half. 

To sum up, it is a good enough watch mainly due to the random dialog and its technical aspects but I didn't really understand the film. The sets are exquisite and I might have got more out of the film if I was in a different mood without any distractions but as it stands, it just went over my head. Maybe there is nothing to actually get and that's the point. Open to stand corrected on re-watch but I don't think I will ever get round to  it. Uncle Boonmee was fantastic in an Ozu meets David Lynch kind of way.

Rating: 3/5

                                                                         

Bamako (2006)

Director: Abderrahmane Sissako
Writer:    Abderrahmane Sissako
Cast:       Aissa Maiga, Tiecoura Traore, Maimouna Helene
Language: French, Bambara, English

The film depicts a trial taking place in Bamako,  the capital of Mali, amid the daily life that is going on in the city. The two sides argue whether the World Bank and IMF are guided by special interest of developed nations, or whether it is corruption and the individual nations' mismanagement, that is guilty of the current financial states of many poverty-stricken African countries as well as the rest of the poor underdeveloped world.

The central idea of the film, aid given to African countries which end up as debt in their balance sheet does more harm to these countries and their people than good, has been tackled in mainstream media prior to this and there have been books devoted to the same. The film conveys this idea in a play like fashion with the fake court procedure. It doesn't quite descend into the age old debate of Capitalism Vs Socialism and those who are making the case against the banks states the importance of public institutions like schools, hospitals, transportation etc for the prosperity of their people. Giving them loans and insisting on privatization of these things do more harm than good. 

The book 'Why Nations Fail' provides the best explanation for why many of the poor nations remain poor. It states that capitalism is indeed the best solution but for it to succeed, you need strong institutions and property reforms to ensure that there is enough at stake for the people to make democracy work. If that is not the case, then whatever the development banks try to push through as structural reforms will end up enriching the private contractors from developed world and the elite of the poor countries. It will do fuck all good for the people. I am not in the camp which states that IMF, World Bank etc are pursuing this as an agenda but this is how it ends up and you have decades of evidence for the same. What you see looking from outside is continuation of imperialism but this time in the financial form and you end up with issues like terrorism and immigration. It is a bit rich of developed countries to complain about these issues when they have a very big hand in the creation of the same. If you are so adamant about globalization with free movement of capital, then why balk at the prospect of immigration which is essentially free movement of labor.

Overall the film is a good watch but I didn't care much for the non-court scenes in the film and its symbolism which included a Western genre film within the film. There are better documentaries dealing with the same issue and one episode in Adam Curtis' 'Pandora's Box' which essentially deals with the same topic in a more informed manner. But a feature film will always attract more attention if done well and this managed to do so by getting released at Cannes film festival. 

Rating: 3/5