Welp, I get overtly emotional over "just a film" - this one more than any other.
I felt some sort of sympathy for the father in the way that many of the characters, and perhaps even those who were wronged did. It's something that was aptly described by one writing, that I can strongly relate to: domestic stockholm syndrome. I don't think anyone here is delusional, but some things about this film reach beyond the ordinary boundaries of fiction.
Typically, I am not a punitive-minded person. I didn't enjoy watching Micheal physically lash out against Helge. I did not find it too easy to consider the prospects of suicide or pure suffering for the remainder of his life. I didn't wish to see his departure accompanied by police. Helge walking away alone wasn't about a condemnation of his entire soul or expectation of suicide, for me. It was enough that, for once, after all the pain he'd caused, for the first time in the film and perhaps in his (hypothetical) entire adult life, he was being excluded. For just once, the people present did not revolve around HIM or HIS desires. His life wasn't over, only his patriarchal power and control.
As for the complicit characters, namely the mother and Micheal - they were obviously very wounded people, and the resolution of the film brought them redemption. Of course it doesn't mean that Micheal is absolved of his antisocial and bigoted tendencies, but hey, self-awareness is a start. I'm not going to get into how this parallels a lot of my own experiences, but I can assure you that this film evokes some of my most intense feelings and I can understand others having a strong reaction.
EDIT: it just occured to me, after posting that some parallels of this sort of ambiguity might also be seen in The Color Purple. I know, some might consider it more lowbrow than Festen, and Helge only makes an ineffectual speech to try to redeem himself, but wretched abusive human beings remain human beings etc. I think it's worth considering.
reply
share
jdbishop_99
17 years ago
getting emotional in this sense is not what troubles me - quite to the contrary, i agree with a great deal of what you said. however, i do have a problem when people look at a comment on a fictional character to subsequently ask - in a highly suggestive fashion - whether the person making the comment would not also under all circumstances express sympathy with child molesters or something. there is clearly no necessary correlation between the two and to assume otherwise is either short-sighted and naive or plain ignorant and stupid.
reply
share
DHill21
17 years ago
Who is making judgments now? So anyone you don't agree with is short-sighted, naive, plain ignorant and stupid.
Well short-sighted, naive, plain ignorant and stupid is the pompous person (you notice I use the word person on purpose) who does not understand the comment in the first place.
And yes, it's only a film and yes, I do have an issue with child molesters and criminals being pardoned by all and having to deal only with their conscience. That's all.
Really, it's plain boring to exchange comments with people who don't want to see or make an effort to understand your point of view and think their way of thought is so cool and superior and the only right one. After all, all we are doing here is exchanging points of view. There is no need to be offensive or judgmental.
reply
share
jdbishop_99
17 years ago
implying that somebody is far too lenient on child molesters after having previously expressed that they ought to receive some kind of harsh punishment is in itself a judgement on others. explicit or implicit, it undeniably is.
i can see where you are coming from in terms of
a) wanting a strict legal policy on child molesters(i do too, but not for reasons of crime/punishment and all that other hypocritical "morality"-ridden nonsense people often - note: i do not mean to address you personally, but PEOPLE in general often do - love to spout. i simply propagate its pragmatic value, namely, to protect society, (even though no case is clear-cut and everbody ought to get the opportunity to be re-socialised IF POSSIBLE - but that's a different story)).
b) reproaching me for being aloof. however, for the reason i pointed above, it was you who passed judgement on others who disagreed with you initially. people were talking about the film constructively and in an emotionally as well as analytically balanced way but then you took it all to far more (unnecessarily) serious level, by giving fellow debaters the option to either agree with you, or look like heart-bleeding liberals who would rather sympathise with the perpetrator than the victim in a case of child molesting.
in my opinion that does not make for constructive debating and is neither strategically sound, nor very helpful. reminded me of one my history classes. student A said in the course of a discussion that he was a pacifist, to which student B heatedly replied that he (A that is) could only call himself a pacifist if he would refuse to shoot enemy soldiers about to shoot his contrymen, even if in possession of arms. about as shaky and "valid" as your attempt to correlate the two, sorry
reply
share
DHill21
17 years ago
I am not interested in constructive debating, I am not interested in strategy, I am not interested in legal policies. I am not giving anyone options to agree or disagree with me. I am not passing judgment on anyone. I am just making a remark. Really, this is all too tedious. I don't see anyone else taking issue. Maybe you should be the one to chill out. If you want to be able to say that you win every single argument, OK, you have my permission to say that you won this one, too, if it will make you feel better. Maybe we should now go on to another movie?
reply
share
jdbishop_99
17 years ago
now that you've admitted it, i am more than happy to move on to another film ;).
reply
share
maneatingbear
13 years ago
Back to the OP's question. Did the father seem pitiful to me in that moment? Yes. But I can't say I felt sorry for him at all. He ruined his childrens' lives with his vile actions, went on his sick impulses without seeking help for them and did everything he could to cover up the truth until his children made literally impossible. Even beyond the obvious effects on Christian and LInda, I got the sense Michael and Helene were aware to some extent of the abuse but had basically lied to themselves and buried it deep inside but were shaped as people by guilt and shame of the thing. I think prison would have been a much more fitting end for the father that the prospect of being ostracized by his family. I don't think with his kind of pathology he was capable of feeling love, guilt or empathy for another person. Just my opinion
reply
share