If you think this was "crap," I'd be scared to find out what you consider "worthwhile." Something tells me you're very young.
"I don't use a pen: I write with a goose quill dipped in venom!"---W. Lydecker
Alright, I'm 17, and I just watched this film.
I loved it, although I thought the pacing was a little off.
It was incredibly slow.
That usually doesn't stop me from enjoying a film, and I liked this in spite of that.
Apathy...
It's a beautiful thing.
"Crap" is too strong a word, but, yes, I do find myself in what appears to be a pretty small minority here.
The movie was so slow and creaky that I found myself wondering when something was actually going to happen. It's never a good sign when I'm looking at my watch. By the time the "climax" happened, I didn't really care much.
Alright, I see the "point" of the movie, sort of. But the process of getting there wasn't worthwhile, and the ending didn't make the process worthwhile. Even the message seemed to be muddled (self-sacrifice by the sisters = bad, self-sacrifice by Babette = good).
Au revoir, les enfants should have gotten the Oscar.
Just one man's opinion.
How about 'not my genre'? :)
I saw for example 'No country for old men'. I did not like it, it was too silent, too disconnected for my taste, but lots of people loved the movie. I don't get that either, it was no Fargo!
"Even the message seemed to be muddled (self-sacrifice by the sisters = bad, self-sacrifice by Babette = good)."
I absolutely don't get this. People keep saying this, that the self-sacrifice of the sisters was bad. HOW? If the one had gone to Paris to sing, Babette wouldn't have had a safe haven. If the other had married the General, he'd have taken a different path in life--one that he questioned for a long time but evidently made his peace with.
So what, about the sisters' decision to remain with their parish, was bad?
TC Fenstermaker.
The sisters were into self-denial because they (wrongly) believed it would contribute to their eternal salvation.
Babette's self-sacrifcie was done out of love.
The story is often used as an analogy of God's unmerited Grace to the believer. It cost those who receive it nothing, but costs the giver everything.
Love is never having to say you're sober.
It's been a while since I saw it, but I don't recall the reason they stuck around being because the believed it would assure their salvation. While their father's spiritual message isn't really given prominence, it would appear at the end its focus was on giving to one another and serving each other, rather than one's self.
I really don't remember seeing anywhere where the sisters said they gave up their dreams because they thought if they didn't they'd go to hell. I really tend to think people just cannot see past the modern notion that everyone should do whatever they want, and see anything contrary to that as small-minded.
_____________________________________________________
My studio is for SMOOTH MUSIC!
I just watched this film for 10-15 mins & couldn't watch it anymore after that it was just so depressing. I mean two adult daughters self-sacrificing their own dreams for duty & their society although i can apprieciate that they strongly believed they were doing right by themselves, they sadly had a puritanical father, that's what turned me off this film the extremist religion theme. noone should have to sacrifice their dreams for f**ing duty or their f**ing society. Society is the biggest monster of all.
share"They sadly had a puritanical father." Really? I didn't see the father ever say anything to his daughters. They made their own decisions, presumably for their own reasons. I think what offends people is they made decisions that modern sensibilities cannot reconcile. If you had bothered to watch the entire movie, you'd have seen how important their decisions to "sacrifice their dreams for f**ing duty" were in saving the life of the title character.
_____________________________________________________
My studio is for SMOOTH MUSIC!
My lady and me just watched this film a couple of nights ago. I had seen it on video not long after it came out, and I liked it.
My lady asked if it was a good film. I said that I liked it, and then I remember someone back in the time saying that, "So and So made me watch Babette's feast". He hated it, and he was mad about it.
So I told my lady, "I liked it, one of my friends liked enough to make someone else watch it, so I guess you'll probably like it."
She did.
This is a great film for people who know how to appreciate good movies and need more from movies rather than simple entertainment.
So simple and so great at the same time,just great.
I hope no one has wasted time trying to teach you to appreciate art. I emphasize the word wasted.
-TY
I wasn't too impressed, to say the least.
Not my cup of tea and i love foreign films.
But if you liked/loved it than good for you. To each his own.
Even if you didn't like the film I hope you are not one of the 100 extremely ignorant people who gave this 1/10. There are films out there of such overwhelming mediocrity that they deserve such a rating but this is not one of them. I have voted on 1139 films on here to date and only 13 of these I felt warranted a score of 1. This demonstrates how rare a 1 should be dished out. It annoys me that whatever film you look up you will always see scores of 1.
share
What does "foreign" even mean in the context of IMDB?
It's supposed to be an international site, for crying out loud.
Let's not parochialise it, please.
And BTW, I don't think biological age has anything to do with the appreciation (or its lack) of this film.
I agree. (I'm Danish)
What's in this film but glorification of religion, some irrelevant feel-good moods and food porn? No way this should have had an Oscar. Same goes for "In a Better World" - mediocre at best. Hollywood have chosen cheesy, plain and unchallenging films from Denmark to be their Foreign language selection - and as they always have, ignored the films with the real substance and human value.
Besides religion being an outdated theme since public education, I could go on for a long time picking out the ocean of inconsistencies in the plot and historicity of this movie. Really, when you peel off the surface what remains is a very scary (but still boring) sight: A sort of radical religious Inner Mission (the Lutheran extremists of Denmark, founded in 1861) propaganda. Since when do thinking, concious and rational people give that sort of thing any kind of reward? But of course, having a brain is perhaps too much to ask of our dear Academy...
No, if you want something by the director, go watch Prince of Jutland instead. Completely authentic (yet fictional) historic (one of Denmark's most recognized historians supervised the project) late iron-age drama, ala Game of Thrones and with Christian Bale in it. A harsh and and unforgiving nature. This movie has nothing going for it, except the talent Babette seems to have and yet chooses to spend her days pouring tea up for crazed old cultists with feelings of their own.
To speak of all the great Danish films with artistic and humanistic value, with broader appeal, between this one and "In a Better World" that were ignored would be a futile endeavour. Let me just get anyone on track if you for some reason never had a glimpse of it:
Se Dagens Lys
Headhunter
R
A Royal Affair
Goodbye Bafana (not about Denmark, I know)
Bænken
Flammen & Citronen
En familie
Festen
Bleeder
Antichrist
De skrigende halse
Elsker dig for evigt (the only one she did right)
Mifunes sidste sang
Breaking the Waves (not about Denmark, I know)
Adam's Apples (I know it has religion, but without saying too much it uses it in a way that is relevant to normal people, making the dogma itself irrelevant to the story)
The Green Butchers
Flickering Lights
etc.
In recent years, I'll be the first to admit things have gone downhill in terms of artistic vision and daring to take one's own art serious. Not many have ventured there and we can't honestly say everything von Trier makes will always be great and place all our artistic future in him, all filmmakers should be brave enough to have something to say. These days, Danish film is at a much higher level when it comes to the critical/political/dark/rough documentary with elements of mockumentary, but not entirely the same.
Hollywood have chosen cheesy, plain and unchallenging films from Denmark to be their Foreign language selection - and as they always have, ignored the films with the real substance and human value. -RhoDaZZI believe it is the country that submits the film, not the Academy that picks the film they want from the country.
[deleted]
Sorry, an oversight on my part refering directly to the Academy. Let me explain what I mean.
Sure it's, strict, in the sense of:
Nepotism
Populism
Commercially-flavoured
and revenue generating based criteria.
That's very strict, I'd agree. I just don't agree those should be the criteria.
In Denmark the selection is made solely by a committee hand-picked by The Danish Film Institute. Why do we see, again and again, that they always pick the easy choice? I'll give you some time to digest this.
Because that is what is known to be selected by the Academy - and not the others.
So, my apologies for missing the semantics. Let's rephrase. The Academy does choose what films are nominated, but through a surrogate.
Because that is what is known to be selected by the Academy - and not the others.Yeah I agree with that. The Academy do seem to have a very distinctive voting system, in which they vote for popular rubbish over unpopular gems. So there'd be no point in the Danish Film Institute submitting something that wasn't easy to understand or something that was unpopular because it would just get overlooked.
So, my apologies for missing the semantics. Let's rephrase. The Academy does choose what films are nominated, but through a surrogate.