06 November 2011

Habemus Papam


Svenska (English below):

Detta är en film vars namn kommer från det uttryck man använder då en ny påve har valts av kardinalkollegiet: "Vi har en påve!". I detta fall hade man en men tappade honom på vägen!

Historien kretsar kring valet av ny påve och de troende på Petersplatsen samlas för att se om det ur skorstenen under konklavens möte, kommer ut vit eller svart rök. Sistnämnda innebär att man inte lyckats enas kring en påve.

Svart rök emanerar vid ett par tillfällen men slutligen kommer den vita röken men ingen rök utan eld och det tar eld i den nyutnämnde kardinal Melville (Michel Piccoli), som drabbas av en psykisk kollaps och skriker ut sin frustration (och skräck?), flyendes till sitt rum.

Detta var inte vad man väntat sig och nu inleds en medlingsprocess för att utröna varför Melville reagerar som han gör.
För detta ändamål anlitar man en psykoanalytiker/psykiatriker (Nanni Moretti) som dock finner det svårt att utföra en analys eftersom hela kollegiet ideligen finns omkring den nyutnämnde. Inget får ju döljas.

Under en biltur med sin närmaste medarbetare och chaufförer, flyr Melville från dessa i ett obevakat ögonblick. Detta skapar självfallet ångest och oro samt skam hos den som hade ansvaret för den nyutnämnde påvens säkerhet.

Härefter följer en form av odyssé i staden bland Melvilles landsmän och -kvinnor. Han blir inte igenkänd eftersom man inte publicerat någon bild då det nu uppstått denna situation men likt forna tiders kungar (eller Fantomen?) vandrar han omkring på gator och torg "som en vanlig man".
Detta lär honom mycket om de troendes syn på kyrkan, påven, samhället och han får känna på hur det är att leva ett vanligt liv bortom alla de krav som skulle ha ställts eller skall ställas på honom som påve.

Det intressanta under valets gång initialt är att inte endast han vill att "kalken tas ifrån honom" utan mer eller mindre alla kardinaler känner likadant.

Det är en roande och till del tänkvärd film som tar upp frågor kring tro och traditioner samt den katolska kyrkans olika ritualer och hur det inte alltid kanske känns relevant för alla inblandade parter, kardinaler eller ej.

Man ser här en människa som reagerar som en människa, inte en maskin som automatiskt tar på sig ett uppdrag givet honom av människor, inte av Gud, även om man inom alla kyrkor försöker ge de troende den uppfattningen.
Det vi vet är att det är människor som väljer, människor som bedömer, människor som intrigerar, människor som har olika skäl för att rösta si eller så och om Gud har något med detta att göra, om detta kan vi ingenting veta.

I denna film visas hur de enskilda kardinalerna kan tänkas fundera och reagera på det som väntar dem. Det är ju trots allt inte vilket arbete - eller 'kall' om man vill - som helst, eftersom man blir chef för världens största 'företag', Katolska kyrkan med 1,5 miljarder troende!

Moretti tar dock också upp terapeuters tillkortakommanden, deras minst lika dogmatiska syn på människans kropp och själ. Detta gestaltas väl i Morettis egen psykiatriker som, i likhet med de flesta terapeuter, själv brottas med de största problemen av relationell natur i sitt eget liv.

Det visar också att en alltför dogmatisk tro på ett visst ideologiskt system, inte är fruktbart, om det inte innefattar ett starkt ifrågasättande av detsamma.

Att ha det man uppfattar som Gud's budskap som sin yttersta och enda ledstjärna och inte ifrågasätta vad som kommer från Gud och vad som kommer från människan är i stort sett lika illa som att ha Freud som samma ledstjärna utan att ifrågasätta vad som kommer från den förnuftige, intellektuellt tänkande Freud och vad som emanerar från hans besatthet av sex.

Vi lär oss av denna film att ifrågasättandet av traditioner inom vilken ideologisk kontext det månde vara är en förutsättning för människans yttersta val i livet.
Vi lär oss också att "se människan"/"Ecce Homo" bakom 'personan' på den som skall åtaga sig ett ämbete av denna karaktär, där inte alla är passade att leda utan har andra kvaliteter som gör sig bättre i det fördolda.


English:

This is a film where the name is derived from the expression used when a new Pope has been elected by the conclave of cardinals: "We have a Pope!"
In this very case one had a Pope but lost him on the way.

The story orbit around the election of a new Pope and its consequences.
The believers are gathered on St Peter's Square to see, if it from the chimney during the meeting in the conclave, emerges white or black smoke. The latter means - as we know - that one haven't reached a conclusion around the election of a new Pope.

Black smoke do emerge at a couple of occasions but finally the white smoke is seen and people rejoices.

However, 'no smoke without a fire' and the newly ordained Cardinal Melville (Michel Piccoli) is mentally 'on fire', afflicted by an acute nervous breakdown, leading him to flee to his room, crying out his frustration (and fear?).


This was of course not what one had expected and now a process of negotiation is initiated, in order to determine the causes for Melville's reaction.

For this purpose one engage a psychoanalyst/psychiatrist (Nanni Moretti) who finds it difficult to execute an analysis as the whole 'collegium' of Cardinals constantly surrounds the newly appointed colleague. Nothing must be hidden.

During a car ride with his closest man and his chauffeurs, Melville flees during a unattended moment. This creates anguish, worry and alarm among those having the responsibility for the newly appointed Pope and his security.

What now follows is an oddysey through the city among Melvilles fellow country men and -women.
He is not recognized by 'his people' as one haven't published any photo of him after this very special situation occured but as former kings (or Dragos?), he now wanders streets and squares like "an ordinary man".
This teaches him a lot concerning the believers and their views on the Church, the Pope, the society and he is able to feel how it is being able to live an 'ordinary' life without all the demands that would have been or will be raised on him as a Pope.

An interesting detail during the voting process initially, was that not only he wanted "this cup to be taken from me" (him) but more or less all the cardinals felt the same.

This is a diverting film, worth considering as it brings up to discussion questions about faith and traditions and the different rituals within the Catholic Church and how all this, not always, are felt being relevant to all parties involved, cardinals or not.

We get to meet a human, reacting like a human, not a machine who automatically takes on a mission given to him by men, not God.
Within all Christian churches and denominations one has always tried and still tries to evoke the impression among believers that it's God who decides and appoints.

What we know is that it's people who chooses, people judging, people intriguing, people having different kinds of motivations for voting this way or that but if God has anything to do with this, we can't know for sure.

In this film one displays how the individual cardinals might think and react concerning what might be expected of them.
In spite of everything, this is not any job - or 'vocation' if one wants - among other jobs, as one becomes the head of the biggest 'enterprise' on Earth, The Catholic Church with its 1,5 billion adherents.


Moretti also puts the light on the shortcomings of therapists, their at least as dogmatic view on Man's body and soul, as ever the Church.
This is well depicted within the framework of Moretti's own psychiatrist, who, as most therapists, himself to a great extent is struggeling with problems of relational character in his own life.


It also shows that a all too dogmatic belief in a certain ideological system, is not fructuous, if it doesn't imply a constant questioning of the very same system.
To have, what one perceive, Gods message to mankind as ones ultimate and only guiding star and not questioning what in all this actually comes from God and what emanates from Man, is in principle as bad as having Freud as the only guiding star without questioning what emanates from the sensible, intellectually thinking Freud and what is a result of his obsession with sex.

We learn, from this film, that a questioning of traditions within any given ideological context is a prerequisite for Man's ultimate decisions in life and his/her development as a human being.

We also learn to "see Man (or the man)"/"Ecce Homo" behind the persona of the person taking on an office like this, where not all are meant to lead but have other qualities, better used in the 'hidden'.










(Photo Michel Piccoli at Cannes with Nanni Moretti and other actors copied from: https://www.purepeople.com/article/cannes-2011-le-pape-michel-piccoli-et-nanni-moretti-sur-les-marches_a79795/1)

(Photo Nanni Moretti, Michel Piccoli and 'the cardinals' copied from: http://s.excessif.com/mmdia/i/46/8/habemus-papam-de-nanni-moretti-10454468idydt.jpg?v=1)

Un monstre à Paris !



Svenska (English below):

Detta är en charmig historia som kombinerar 'Skönheten och Odjuret'-temat med 'Fantomen på Operan' och 'Cabaret'.

Berättelsen utspelar sig under året 1910 i Paris, det år då staden upplevde sina värsta översvämningar någonsin.

Mitt i denna rotblöta utspelar sig både kärlekshistorier - i pluralis - och dramatik samt politiska intriger.

Émile (Sébastien Desjours) är en blyg biografmaskinist som är förälskad i sin medarbetare Maud (Ludivine Sagnier).

Han lyckas dock inte framföra detta till henne eftersom han aldrig lyckas avsluta sina försök till indirekta frierier.

Som sin vän har Émile, Raoul (Gad Elmaleh) som arbetar som bud - med en budbil som heter Catherine i vilken han också bor - men som också är uppfinnare.

Raoul har en barndomsvän och förälskelse som heter Lucille (Vanessa Paradis) och som är cabaret-artist på teatern 'L'Oiseau rare' ('Den ovanliga fågeln'). De har en något komplicerad relation eftersom de båda är förälskade i varandra men p.g.a. en rad missförstånd, häcklar den ene den andre, utan att man (som tittare) förstår varför. Det avslöjas senare under filmens gång.

Till följd av Lucille's popularitet, har hon påkallat polisprefekten Maynott's (François Cluzet) uppmärksamhet och han börjar nu uppvakta henne, utan något direkt intresse från hennes sida.

En kväll skall Raoul leverera ett paket till Le Jardin des Plantes och med sig har han Émile.

Professorn - som detta paket är adresserat till - är inte på plats men de tar sig in i hans växthus och 'laboratorium', där det endast finns en intelligent apa som heter Charles (som vi vet via 'Apornas Planet'-filmerna skall man dock inte underskatta apor).
Till följd av Raoul's nyfikenhet och hans vilja att prova allt, inklusive ett antal kemiska vätskor - som apan Charles försöker varna honom för - sker en kemisk reaktion eller snarare explosion som förstorar en växt och en loppa!
Émile tycker sig ha sett ett monster och det är den gigantiska loppan som nu flyr ut i den parisiska natten.

Han (loppan) träffar på Lucille som tar honom till sitt hjärta och klär honom i kläder samt låter honom sjunga med henne. Detta eftersom hon funnit att han har en underbar sångröst. Tänk vad lite man vet om loppor! Lucille ger honom också namnet Francoeur.

Polisprefekten tar dock upp jakten på detta 'monster' som så många rapporterat sig ha sett och detta i sin strävan att bli återvald i sitt ämbete samt att klättra högre på rangskalan.

Nu vidtar en jakt där alla blir involverade och där Émile, Raoul och Lucille försöker gömma undan Francoeur från polismyndigheterna.

Denna animerade film blandar - som noterat ovan - flera berättelser vi känner till om den vackra kvinnan och den som uppfattas som ett monster men där den sistnämnde oftast visar sig mer empatisk än de människor som jagar densamma.

Vi kan här tänka på 'Frankenstein', Quasimodo i 'Notre-Dame de Paris', 'King Kong' etc.
Filmen slutar dock gott för dem de bör sluta gott för, i sagans värld.

English:

This is a charming story (we often write 'charming' but is it charming, what else should one write?) combining 'The Beauty and the Beast' with 'The Phantom of the Opera' and 'Cabaret'.

The story is enacted in Paris in 1910, the year when the city experienced its worst floodings ever.
In the middle of this soak, we are presented love stories, drama and political intrigues.

Émile (Sébastien Desjours) is a shy cinema projectionist, who is in love with his collaborator Maud (Ludivine Sagnier).

He is however not capable of expressing this as he never succeeds in finishing his indirect 'proposals'.

Emile has, as his friend, Raoul (Gad Elmaleh) who is working as delivery man - with a delivery car called Catherine in which he also lives. Besides this Raoul is also an inventor.

Raoul, in turn, has a childhood friend and love by the name of Lucille (Vanessa Paradis), who works as a cabaret artiste at the theatre 'L'Oiseau rare' ('The Unusual Bird').

They have a somewhat complicated relationship as they are both in love with each other but because of a misunderstanding, they heckle one another, without us (the spectator) understanding why. It is later on revealed.

Due to Lucille's popularity, she has called on the attention of the 'police prefect' Maynott (François Cluzet) and he now starts to court her, without her being interested.

One evening Raoul is going to deliver a package to 'Le Jardin des Plantes' and he has brought Émile.

The professor - to whom this package is designated - is not present but they enter his greenhouse and laboratory, where they only find an intelligent ape, called Charles (as we know from 'The Planet of the Apes'-films one shall not underestimate apes).
As a result of Raoul's curiosity and wish to try everything, included some chemical fluids - something Charles the ape tries to warn him from - a chemical reaction or rather explosion takes place, enlarging a plant and a flea!
Émile believes he has seen a monster and it's the flea, now fleeing (ha ha!) out into the Parisian night.
He (the flea) meets Lucille who care for him and dresses him in ordinary clothes, letting him sing with her on stage. This as she has found that he has a wonderful singing voice. How little one know about fleas! Lucille also gives him the name Francoeur.

The Police Prefect does however initiate a hunt for this 'monster', having been spotted by so many people in town and this in his efforts to become re-elected and climb higher in the ranks.

Now a hunt starts that involves everyone and where Émile, Raoul and Lucille tries to hide Francoeur from the police authorities.

This animated film mixes - as mentioned above - a number of stories we know of, about the beautiful woman and the creature being regarded as a monster but where the latter often turns out being more emphatic than the humans hunting the very same.
We can of course recall the stories told in 'Frankenstein', and Quasimodo in 'Notre-Dame de Paris', 'King Kong' etc.
The film ends good for those persons (or flea's) it should end good, in the world of fairytales.










(Poster copied from: http://www.focusonanimation.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/UN-MONSTRE-A-PARIS.jpg)

05 November 2011

Choucroute à Montgivray avec les chasseurs





105 persons had gathered in Montgivray to eat a 'choucroute' and we were invited by my father-in-law, a passionate hunter (chasseurs).
My mother-in-law, her sister with 'boyfriend', my father-in-laws brother and wife and some other relatives, besides the different hunting teams and their families and friends.
Music and dance.

04 November 2011

Gränsen/Beyond the Border



When watching this film, one come to think of the song by Queen: "Save me", with the initial lyrics: "It started of so well...". Not that we thought: "Oh Save Us" but it didn't turn out as well as we had hoped.

The film is planted in the northern parts of Sweden (Värmland), on the border between Sweden and Norway. The year is 1942.

There, at check-point 83, two young soldiers, unauthorized, leave the camp in order to "take a better look" at the enemy.
This attitude should be understood against the background of what most of you know, namely that Sweden was kept out of the war thanks to - or because of - the fact that "they" (the government, military and companies/enterprises) more or less cooperated with the Nazis or at least did nothing to interfere with their expansionist plans.
For many Swedish soldiers this meant that they hardly saw Nazis, or at least only at a distance as they never were forced to fight them.

The two young - and naive - men, do encounter a group of German soldiers when the latter are chasing, what most likely is a Norwegian soldier, belonging to the resistant movement.
Now the situation gets tough as the Germans have spotted the two Swedes and for the Nazis it doesn't matter if they will create problems or not, their strategy was of course to shoot first and ask the questions later (as in 'the Wild West').
The two Swedes are now being chased by the nazis and at the check-point, noone has noticed anything as the soldier in charge - the night when they disappeared - had arranged a party where the liquor flowed.

One of the men being chased is the brother of Lieutenant Aron Stenström (André Sjöberg), having left his brother at this check-point, in the belief that the commanding soldier was a seriously working person, not jeopardizing his soldiers lives.

As for Stenström himself he is being treated rather harsly by his major - Adolfsson (Johan Hedenberg, the director having used a surname reminding us of Adolf H./'Adolfs son', as this major seem more inclined towards nazism than patriotism, in our opinion). The latter had promised him some leave, in order to get married but now he is assigned another mission. Stenström has to get behind enemy lines to find out if and when the Nazis have planned to invade Sweden.

When arriving at the check-point he finds out about his brother, thereby ordering a group of soldiers to follow him behind enemy lines to both find his brother and the documents displaying the German inavsion plans.

He take along a veteran, Wille Järvinen (Antti Reini), a Finnish soldier being the only one who has experienced war and battles. Järvinen is a tough and resolute man, soon being in charge of the operation as Stenström isn't up to the task.

On their mission they find one of the soldiers tortured to death and the others get more and more upset, loosing their spirit.

Bjørn Sundquist impersonate a Norwegian resistance fighter (Egil), saving Stenströms and Järvinens lives when they are ambushed, not by Germans, but by Swedes! Why is explained in the film. Egil also have some vital information leading them to where Stenströms brother is held prisoner.

On the whole this film has some good parts, not least when displaying the cowardness of the Swedish soldiers, their unwillingness to fight the Germans or to fight at all, their oblique cooperation with the Nazis and their inexplicable behaviour leading them to attack their own soldiers rather than the Germans.
All this could have developed into an interesting and revealing story about the Swedish approach towards the Nazis and the more or less defeatist way of treating their real enemies but unfortunately it doesn't.

Not that we don't understand the formal relations between the Swedes and Germans or that we don't see the fear, and anguish felt by the Swedish soldiers who more or less give the impressoin wanting to return to a cozy, warm home far from the fights. All this is quite obvious.
Concerning the latter (wanting to return to a "cozy" home), I guess most soldiers nourished the same dream, no matter where they came from but most soldiers belonging to the occupied countries, had also accepted the conditions of war, being well aware of the fact that either they fought or they would be lost, dead and burried both as nations and individuals. Rather die in the war against a diabolical, expansionist enemy than surrender to the very same.


The problem is that the director Richard Holm, for too long, visually contemplates on the different characters inner struggle, their fears and lack of decisiveness, something rather early one understood by the viewer.
If the ambition is to depict these personal agonies by using close ups, one should create something interesting and interpretable out of the facial expressons and Holm doesn't succeed in doing so.
Maybe the casting is the hinge - besides Antti Reini who is superb in his role as the tough, clear-sighted, wise and decisive soldier.

It's not at all a bad film but some long takes could have been shortened as they neither contributed to a deeper understanding, emotionally or intellectually nor added more suspense to the events.

This is Holms first feature film, having made TV movies and shorts, wherefore we look forward to see his next œuvre, in order to see if he will mature as a film maker.




(Poster copied from: http://filmengransen.se/wp-content/uploads/gransen_bio_2x110.jpg)
(Photo soldier with blood in his face copied from: http://www.bltsydostran.se/multimedia/dynamic/01220/361739_jpg_1220964u.jpg)
(Photo Järvinen/Antti Reini aiming with his gun copied from: http://filmblogg.pricerunner.se/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/gr%C3%A4nsen2.jpg)

02 November 2011

Faust (Murnau)


Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau's Faust is an aesthetically appealing film, creating suspense and horror through his frequent use of shadows and light in his very interesting and personal way.

The story is known: Faust (Gösta Ekman) sells his soul to the Devil/Mephisto (Emil Jannings) for youth.
In the amazing opening scene, we see God (Werner Fuetterer as a mighty Archangel) and Satan discussing who is 'the Master of the World' and who should rightfully continue to be so.
In their fight they wager on the soul of Faust, an alchemist who is very learned and on the same time very pious, in his work trying to find a remedy to the plague ravaging the country.

Mephisto firstly offers Faust the knowledge to cure the plague and secondly the possibility to return one day to his youth.
When being young again he meets and falls in love with a young, beautiful woman, the Dutchess of Parma (Hanna Ralph), and thanks to Mephisto he is able to abduct her but at the very moment when he is going to kiss her, he is called back to his old age.
Now Faust asks Mephisto to give him eternal youth in return for his soul.

After having been young for a while he is bored and wants to return to his home where he meets Gretchen (Camilla Horn), a woman whos relationship with Faust brings her dishonor and the question is:
Are there any redemption for Faust and Gretchen?

I had forgotten that the Swedish actor Gösta Ekman impersonated the role as Faust and there are many other fine actors and actresses.
A very interesting film that brings us deep into the psyche of mankind and on the same time asks important questions about the eternal struggle between the egoistic wishes and the more altruistic way of living. Is the latter possible or not?
What are we prepared to sacrifice or rather: Are we prepared to sacrifice anything at all?
If so: For what?

There are some magnificent scenes and it's truly one of the most interesting adaptations of this classic story by Goethe about the fight between 'good' and 'evil' between egoism and unselfishness.

We warmly recommend it!