MovieChat Forums > Simon (2004) Discussion > Look how tolerant we are! Let's preach i...

Look how tolerant we are! Let's preach it to the rest of the world!

posted 17 years ago by konijn1971
11 replies | jump to latest

There are a lot of good sides about the dutch liberal attitude, but in recent years we've seen how shallow it can be, with an amazingly large portion of the population easily subscribing to the views of some populist conservative politicians as soon as their lives are a bit less privileged then they're used to. I do rate our liberal views, but making a movie like this in the current timeframe is an annoying masturbation session. We do need some mirrors in our country, this movie unfortunately isn't one of them.

[–] LeeGer 17 years ago

Maybe we do need some mirrors, just don't look for them in a movie like this. Let people enjoy themselves watching a movie. There are other places and moments to evaluate the dutch politics and morals. I don't believe the movie was intended to preach anything to the rest of the world.

"We make a living by what we get, we make a life by what we give." - Sir Winston Churchill

[–] konijn1971 17 years ago

You might have a point, and I might have enjoyed the movie better if I had looked at it at a more superficial level, but I read several interviews with Eddy Terstall in which he himself made the connection with liberalism, or the Amsterdammer version of it, and how it compares with values from other cultures (American culture notably). So I don't think the movie was intended to be an entirely innocent document. Besides, when a Dutch director chooses to incorporate topics like euthanasia and homosexuality in a movie, it's not exactly a dramatic leap to think he does so because he wants to get a point across.

As for the viewers, I'm also inclined to see the high ratings for this movie by a predominantly Dutch audience as a way to applaud and reassure themselves and their morals in confusing times, but I admit that that link might very well be a little too far-fetched and a bit too cynical a conclusion on my behalf. It's possible that the audience was genuinely touched by the disease of the main character, but to me that storyline looked like an unoriginal and too easy way to get the euthanasia point across, whilst engaging the audience in his personal struggle. Doesn't say much good about dutch cinema either, that we have to resort to such an old cinematic/literary tool like that, although I understand we can't keep on referring to worldwar II to get the drama-part going.

This particular movie aside, I'd love to see a movie where Dutch liberal values are investigated in an honest and thorough way, but I don't think Holland is ready for that yet, after all this is the country where a conservative moral revival was born out of the ideas of an extremely liberal gay and pedophiliac politician, and somehow the sheer lunacy of that is hardly visible in our selfreflections as a nation. Too bad, it could be an ingredient for a great Borat-like comedy about our country, if only we had the guts for such a thing.

[–] Dinalfos 17 years ago

Huh? You're making it sound as if Simon was supposed to be a sensationalist, bastardized tear jerker, which it clearly isn't. Regardless of Eddie ter Stal's personal opinions, this movie steered pretty much clear of politics and morality issues. It was a simple, yet non-sentimental story of a man opting for euthanasia. What's so wrong with that? Dutch people generally don't like to be preached to, which is exactly what this movie so desperately tried to avoid.

Btw, we're not living in "confusing times". That's just a media-induced socio-political myth. And even if we were living in such times, it would bear no relation to our viewing experience of movies like simon and our moral system. The audience was touched because the story was recognizable, often humorous en reflective. That's really the only reason.

[–] yoramtap 17 years ago

There's a difference between reality-like pranks from Borat and a movie which tries to get you involved in the characters and tell a story of a man dying. Homosexuality really only plays a minor part in this film since the true story is of Simon and him trying not to submit to the cancer consuming him. It seems to me you only wish to shock the audience by interviewing people in every corner of the country and question their views on topics such as homosexuality or eunasthasia. And how is having the main character actually die in a film an old cenematic/literary tool? Perhaps it should have been his daughter so we could see how Simon and his circle of friends would respond to that? Your logic and way of reasoning is senseless.

Also, speaking of guts is totally misplaced here. This movie is not about being gutsy, or showing the world what being liberal is about. It's the telling of a tale, as there are so many different types of tales. It seems you would have rated this movie better if there hadn't been a gay fellow involved nor the main character dying to cancer. That would have made this movie a comedy. Perhaps that's what you look for in life, and perhaps that's what you need, since your reasoning and comments couldn't be more black and morbid.

I enjoyed this film. 7/10.

[–] konijn1971 17 years ago

I like to be swept away by a story as much as anybody else, but this movie didn't work for me, so I chose to slice it instead, to find out why I felt manipulated watching it. If that's cynical, so be it.

First of all, I'm not gonna react to the earlier remark that I read too much into this film, not when the maker himself says that this movie is part of a trilogy about dutch society. The problem is not that I read too much in it, the problem is that others read too little. Secondly, you're right, homosexuality was not a subject in itself, but ofcourse it did have an important function in this movie, and that function was to help show how nonjudgmental the main character was. Terstall doesn't make a statement about homosexuality, he makes a statement about tolerance, and in this movie he makes a link between dutch tolerance and the attitude of a typical 'amsterdams lefgozerdje'. I've seen people make that link more often. When you're a smalltown boy going to the big city, being confronted with either can be a liberating experience, and I guess that's where that sentiment is usually born and where people start to make that link (that doesn't go for Terstall himself, as I believe he is an 'autochtone amsterdammer,' I'm not sure though). But it is a somewhat romantic view, and I don't think it corresponds with reality very well (anymore). It certainly doesn't correspond with my own experience, but I'm quite a bit younger than Eddy Terstall and I was born with a different skincolor. The annoying and somewhat gutless part I mentioned is that this is how people in Amsterdam prefer to view themselves, and I think a good filmmaker, with the pretentions Terstall apparently has, should try to debunk that view rather than support it,or at least make an effort for it. It doesn't matter if said romantic view is right or wrong, or right or wrong to a certain extent, the thing that matters is that you start from a critical point of view, instead of from an affirming point of view.

As for the way of storytelling, I did not like that, because, when you have your main character die by some external cause, a disease in this case, you're leaving your audience very little room to form an opinion about him by themselves, you're pretty much forcing them to sympathize with him. That's all fine and dandy when you're making The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 5, but when you claim to make a movie that makes a statement about the society you live in, you should be very careful in narrowing your frame that much. So that added to me feeling too manipulated by this movie.

You mention the daughter, and I admit, somewhere in the movie I was hoping she would die, because it was such an awful role. It's not entirely Nadja Hupscher's fault, although she seems to have a patent on horrible acting jobs, it was more because of the character itself. If you grow up in a third world country as the product of a fling between some western petty drug criminal and a local woman, and inherit all the nasty cultural, racial and economical aspects that come with that background, chances of turning into such a carefree butterfly personality as the one portrayed by her are slim to none. There's a reason for that, and that reason is that some countries have a far less romantic view of petty drug criminals than Eddy Terstall has, and their inhabitants can be quite sensitive when they can link the use of drugs to western liberal thinking. Apparently Terstall's liberalism is a bit harder to export than he would like to. So the daughter's story could make an entire movie by itself, and a better one, but Terstall doesn't even remotely touch it, because it goes way beyond his narrow frame of view.

[–] jasperius 17 years ago

Well broer konijn it seems to me that your English is quite good, well at least sufficient but your Dutch still needs some attention:

It is a lefgozerTje...

[–] freakhoofd1 16 years ago

Zeg, broeder in films Jasperius, daar haak ik even op in.

Had een slechte dag dus excuses bij voorbaat voor het feit dat ik je comment als online-boksbal gebruik. Ik zit hele dagen klem tussen dit soort opmerkingen aangezien ik nog -met mijn zeventien volle jaren- op een middelbare school vertoef. Het wordt nog erger: ik woon aan de rand van het land en als ambitieus bestudeerder van o.a. multimedia, filosofie en religie en aspirant schrijver over deze onderwerpen (om er een paar van de horizon te plukken) druist dit tegen al mijn principes in. Dat je het even weet, niets persoonlijks dus maatje. Even terug op de Engelse taal, anders staat het zo lullig tegenover de rest hè.

Now ladies and gentlemen, for your general attention, I'd like to penetrate your public conscienceness for just a sec' here. To get right on point, I'll do just that.

Behold the immature humour youth today dares to spread across the net (with the latter comment as a shining example within my point), it's almost comparable to a cancerous infection. Not only is this, in a quite shameless manner, utterly and intensely annoying but it also tends to kill a thread. So, if I may request, would you mind keeping any of these counter-intellectual remarks to yourself. This wouldn't only mean my salvation of just another portion of daily frustration, on the contrary: I'm sure it'll mean something to others among you as well. No trying to create a riot or boycot, just something I'm pointing at (must be the age).

I thank you for your attention, I hereby release you back in your daily sheep-like behaviour, simply put, back in the wild.

Viel toch wel mee Jasperius, nogmaals zeg ik het meer als algemeen punt dan als persoonlijke aanval. Maar ik ga ervan uit dat ik dat al had belicht, tot posts.

If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make your signature.

[–] ram66 16 years ago

God... Let´s preach indeed!

You're the master of your own universe.

[–] lukaslukas 16 years ago

Calm down. There are many other countries in general and people in particular that need to calm down and take it easy.

My vote history
http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=21237198

[–] Gloede_The_Saint 14 years ago

So you are dutch and feel that this film does not represent your country? Is that the deal here or is it something else? Even if it isn't true it's a rather nice dream, isn't it? Amazing film with great values!

Somebody here has been drinking and I'm sad to say it ain't me - Allan Francis Doyle

[–] LuSiD 11 years ago

(Some fellow referred to his country as Holland. Way to go to cloud a discussion. Strictly speaking Holland is just 2 provinces therefore the south of Holland means something completely different than you intended. Such mistake polarizes the discussion further given the context.)

The movie addresses various dilemmas (ie. ethical liberties) which have been fought by the Babyboom generation. Cannabis has been decriminalized, gay marriage is legalized, and more recent euthanasia got legalized. Unfortunately the opponents of these values have been able to muddle the progress, and revert it. This battle never stops, and it is generally the conservative people who are against it. The movie tries to show some sides of these values but doesn't have the strength to make proponents rethink. Besides, just because something is legal doesn't mean it is morally accepted. Simon the movie does have the strength to make those who are open to watch and understand the outlined set of dilemmas laugh even though not sharing the values.

Now, these conservative people aren't necessarily from the south, or Christians although the stereotype is like that yes. Conservatism is everywhere and nowhere. The evangelists who vote SGP are spanning from Zeeland to the very north east of the country. Plus Muslims are generally conservative on these values as well. To be fair, religions are generally on their way out in the younger generation but the question I'd like readers to consider is: is the path the Generation X is going to lead us a progressive one?

The problem is akin to preaching your (so-called) tolerance to the rest of the world. You can't give people who don't root for democracy a democratic society; at least not within 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 1 year ,... such is deeply rooted within your cultural values. A movie like Manderlay portrays this with great detail and accuracy. Which brings me to another point: isn't this way too much ethical values put together in one movie? I'm curious if this movie would've been better if it were "merely" about euthanasia.

I'd also like to stress the Netherlands doesn't exist anymore. That is to say we're living in the European Union and the values and politics of the EU are regularly more important than our own because of the legal power (thank you, Balkie) resides there. When looking at these loaded ethical values you can't simply ignore the EU. Or our neighbor countries for that matter.

I've been loving too much, caring too little -- TormentoR.