MovieChat Forums > Sånger från andra våningen (2000) Discussion > anyone else find the commentary disappoi...

anyone else find the commentary disappointing?


thought this film was one of the finest ever envisioned...perfect - well, beyond perfect and important ...
then i watched the commentary and was horrified when andersson began to demystify and deconstruct everything!! aaah. .. while he is still a genius and a bright and interesting talker, it felt kind of... wrong to hear him explain the symbols and metaphors he used in the film, most of which is attributed to the bankrupt swedish political system / social democratic corruption! in fifty years when those problems are no longer, this film will still be here and interpreted hopefully in the many ways it should be..

reply

Nooo, as a matter of fact, I found it invaluable! Although I loved the feel, the poetry and the visually stimulating look of the film, I was totally lost as to what was going on. I had a difficult time recognizing the different characters, didn't know that was the Airport, when they are "moving" the luggage, visually a very cool scene! I had no idea that this was even Sweden!
Whether future or current time frame. I had no idea Kalle's friend, Sven was dead. The commentary cleared up many issues that with THIS information I would like to re-watch the film.
The self-flagellation reminded me of Bergman's, The Seventh Seal (where I first became aware of this phenomenon).
I was lost during my first viewing...but do believe it to be an incredible film and grateful for the commentary.
Andersson's quite a deep and reflective fellow, I was fascinated and in agreement with many issues he was speaking about. For example, how he spoke about how very dangerous superstition is in a modern, highly technical society, referring to the civil servants who are beating themselves to turn the recession around. He says that fundamentalist people who are dogmatic and fundamental and have access to means of annihilation and destruction is VERY dangerous...I AGREE.
Also when he talks about "Hollywood, feel good" movies and how these movies gloss over the fact and help turn people into sleepwalkers. He also talks about how a film shouldn't be reconciled. He mentions there is really no such thing and it would soften the impact of the film. It is suppose to be harsh, so that the viewer reflects on those issues.
Thanks for letting me share... ; )

reply

I found the commentary track fascinating, and though I partly agree about the negative effects of demystifying and deconstructing, I think there are many levels of symbolism he did not delve into. It's a dense film and I think the commentary was simply a starting point for a deeper understanding rather than the final word.

reply