I have to say the final scene, with the planes moving in over the town. I really liked that first you didn't see what was going on and then the clouds disappear and the other bombers appear. And then you start thinking about all the innocent people living in the city.
Such a good movie.
Indeed a great movie. My favorite scene is the moving building with the newlywed couple in it. Probably the best scene ever made.
Good evening, I am the Devil. But you can call me Toby, if you like.
The dream scene with the moving house and the ending with the bombers where the scenes that I liked best as well.
I was pretty fascinated by the scene where the band practises during a thunder storm as well, especially when there are a lot of seemingly non-diegetic instruments added as well (a second trumpet or what the instrument was, a tamburine and I think there was more).
"Gene Rodenberry was a mason, Star Trek was created to prepare us for the New World Order."
I'm studying to become a musician, and the scene where the band practices during a thunder storm hit very close to home for me. I thought as I was watching it, "Wow, finally someone understands!!"
Even though I didn't like the movie as a whole, I can't forget that scene. (oh, and the very first one was very good too)
___ __ _
My blog about Russian animation: http://niffiwan.livejournal.com/
The "tablecloth trick" scene wins hands down, if you ask me...
shareBut it was so obvious that it was going to happen...
___ __ _
My blog about Russian animation: http://niffiwan.livejournal.com/
if you knew there was going to be a swastika under the table my man, then you sir, are a genius.
my ymdb page: http://www.shompy.com/steppenwolf/l42849_ukuk.html
Indeed, of course you know what will happen.
And that makes the horror of the dream he is showing us.
No doubt. And the trial and execution, complete with beer and popcorn, of course!
"ParTICularly gross neglegence"
"Counselor Akerblom, I would like to inform you that no tears in the world can affect the verdict of this court." Heck of a lawyer LMAO.
I wasn't expecting the swastikas on the table, though. That was pretty brilliant.
shareAgreed, one of the best scenes ever. It's so... feel-good.
shareFor me it had to be the woman praying for everyone. At first she seemed so pious and forgiving, but then she morphed into sanctimonious and detached from all those weak ones who to her are unaware of their failings. Of course we all have failings, so she should pray for her own forgiveness as much as anyone else's!
shareYou know, I didn't actually understand that upon first seeing it.
Thanks.
___ __ _
My blog about Russian animation: http://niffiwan.livejournal.com/
what do you think that scene meant? I thought that scene was the most essential scene and concluded what the film explored. Selfishness of us humans which is the most fundamental reason for all these wars that never end.
[deleted]
best swedish sceen ever:
-Damn that smells good
-Thanks
-what a mother you have Uffe
-its a shame she´s a sadist
-Oh my, what are you saying Mia?
-a sadist
-easy now!
-thats someone who like to torture people!
-and that is what i do?
-yeah.. what can i say.. serving non-alcoholic beer with food that smells so good... its torture indeed.
and so on..
I loved the elevator scene, when people queue and one guy comes too late, so he has to walk upstairs, then it turns out he is a psychiatrist all the patients come to see;-) later he explains his attitude: " After 27 years, spending hours after hours in therapy, trying to make a mean person happy, i`ve drawn the conclusion: there is no point, these days i just prescribe pills, the stronger, the better"!!! so damn bitter, but how true!!
shareI really liked that scene too!
Both the total apathy from the people standing in the elevator, who just had to put out a hand to stop the elevator-doors from closing (or simply pushing the door-button on the panel) and letting the doctor in.
And how the doctor - when he had walked all the stairs up - gets stopped in the waitingroom by patients that don't even let him enter his office and take his civil coat off, craving that he helps them at once in that instant.
...followed by his bitter monologue about all the sad and evil people that come to see him, and that he doesn't like to make evil people happy. That they don't deserve it. And liky you wrote, muses over that he now onlu prescribes medication - the stronger the better.
I am also conviced that there is quite a lot of psychiatrists that feels like he do. One climbing of the stairs away from becoming Travis Bickle.
loved the scene when a man is standing on his balcony while smoking a cigarette and his wife asks him "what do you think of? do you think of me?".
excellent.
the motorcycle song was brilliant too.
loved the bombers at the end (although the shot was a tad too long for me).
We don't actually know that they're bombers. It's what we assume when we see a lot of aircraft approaching.
I liked the unexpected surrealism and gentleness of the scenes in the travelling house and the sex-scene with the tuba-player was wonderfully funny- inspired, I suspect by the teacher in The Meaning of Life,but still very good.
Liked the table-cloth scene, and the dream scene with the moving house.
=====================================================
Please say that you care or say that you think that im beautiful -Elizabeth Short, The Black Dahlia
I think many drummers (and musicians) find the funeral scene very funny. The drummer gets more and more into his own world and plays harder and more violent as the song moves on. Finally the priest has to walk over and wake him up.
share[deleted]
allenrogerj, reading your comments I actually wonder if you've seen the film. The guy at the start of the film tells us his dream about bombers coming to destroy the town, and then at the end of the film it happens. you must lead a very difficult life, what with your lack of being able to infer even the simplest things. plus the fact that you obviously can't even identify a bomber when you see one!
my ymdb page: http://www.shompy.com/steppenwolf/l42849_ukuk.html
At the beginning of the film we are told of a dream of bombers coming to destroy the town. At the end of the film we see aeroplanes flying over what may be the town concerned. The inference that they are bombers is entirely the viewer's as is the inference that they are flying over the same town. What is the evidence that these 'planes are bombers except your presupposition? What makes you think the town is destroyed?
shareI understand what you're saying Allen. Lets just hope you don't start applying this logic to real life, you might have a car crash deciding whether turning the steering wheel of your car to the right will move the car to the right.
my ymdb page: http://www.shompy.com/steppenwolf/l42849_ukuk.html
We are not talking about real life, whatever that is. We are talking about a film. Your analogy rests on your habit of making unwarranted assumptions: turning a car's steering wheel to the right will not make the car turn to the right most of the time.
sharereal life, whatever that is.Lol! You're lack of common sense is amazing, over to the philosophy board with you, I hope you have a housekeeper to look after you .
What lack of common sense? You assume that if something fits in with your preconceptions it's common sense. It isn't- it's merely egocentric arrogance. "Real life" is very different for- say- a Burmese monk and a Colombian narco-baron. To assume that what you think is "real life" is "real life" for everyone is not a very commonsensical thing to do.
sharenot really, I kind of think that common sense is a set of generally accepted ideas within a community. Of course those of a philosophical bent like to take discussions outside of the realm of common sense. And that's fine, generally accepted principals have often been shown to be wrong, for example the Aztecs used to think that cutting the throats of sacrificial victims would ensure a good rain, look how wrong they were! what I'm saying is that your epistemological comment on du levande has more to do with the nature of reality and what we can know itself rather than the film itself specifically, and so why aren't you on the philosophy board ?
my ymdb page: http://www.shompy.com/steppenwolf/l42849_ukuk.html
What is your evidence that the Aztecs- or other peoples who cut the throats of sacrificial victims to get more rain- were wrong, or always wrong? Even if they were, or were sometimes wrong, their errors were errors of theology or ritual, not philosophy or common sense.
My argument about Du Levande is concerned with the nature of film in general and that film in particular and the director. The assumption that the aircraft are bombers is an emotionally-triggered one- most of the film has depicted a society and peole in despair and disorder, we have been told of the dream of bombers, we have been shown another charcter's vividly depicted dream. Then we are gradually shown a lot of aircraft in formation flying over a town. We are not shown any signs that they actually carry bombs. It is entirely an inference on the audience's part that they are bombers. There is no intrinsic evidence in the scene to confirm it.
ok I see where you're coming, from, I think we're talking Kuleshov effect here. I don't think you're really looking at this film from the point of view of a filmgoer, more like an alien who has never seen a film before. I don't see what value this approach provides to you, but good luck with it!
my ymdb page: http://www.shompy.com/steppenwolf/l42849_ukuk.html
Does every film-goer look at every film in the same way? Do you look at every film in the same way?
A few points: Andersson makes films- if not like an alien who has never seen a film before- as if no-one has made films for many years- fixed, deep focus; very little camera movement (there is one tracking shot in Songs from the Second Floor, two in Du Levande and- possibly- a slow pan back in the final shot of aeroplanes). He's thrown out most of the innovations of the last eighty years. Now Andersson is an intelligent, knowledgeable film-maker, so these restrictions are a deliberate decision on his part. It's wiser, i think, to look at Andersson's films as if you've never seen a film before because he is making films like no-one else does. Furthermore, for most of his life Andersson has made a living making advertiaements, and if anyone knows even more about the Kuleshov effect than film-makers, it's advertisement makers.
As a result, I'd say that, yes, Andersson is well aware of what he is doing here and he is also deliberately notmaking the connexion for us. Andersson is giving clues that the 'planes may be bombers but equally deliberately he doesn't say or show that they are. It is entirely our assumption, but if someone throws out most of the conventions of film-making it's wiser to not assume he's using a convention conventionally when he appears to use one.
As a result, I'd say that, yes, Andersson is well aware of what he is doing here and he is also deliberately notmaking the connexion for usOk then, we'll have to agree to disagree.
I realise this is a pretty old comment, but I reckon it's pretty obvious we are supposed to infer that they're bombers. Clues include things like the planes looking very much like bombers, the planes flying in formation, the dream about bombers coming to destroy the city and the fact that every day, except for the final day the barman says "there's a new day tomorrow" - wonder why that line was omitted from that scene.
Yes, we do actually know they are bombers, why else would they use the image of B-52 stratofortress's? They are strategic bombers which where primarily designed to drop nuclear weapons in the cold war.
It's funny you bring up the sex scene as being inspired by monty python. I thought the same thing of the moving building with the newly wed couple. The Crimson Permanent Assurance bulding sketch of the meaning of life instantly comes to my mind. See it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX61PUZ3xkI (weighing anchor from 5:20)
I really really loved the scene, where the couple at the park are arguing, and she goes :
- no one understands me, even the dog is faking it, etc.
and after a while she says
"i'll be home in a while"
that was genius, IMO.
i also really enjoyed
* the scene with the house moving
* the guy with the trombone playing, and the old man downstairs pushing the ceiling with a stick
* the haircut scene
this is one of the greatest films i've seen in a while.
just perfect. beautiful.
The scene in the carpet store made me laugh hysterically. The comic timing was just brilliant...
(Paraphrased)
Assistant: I had an argument with my wife this morning
Woman: Oh! That's bad.
Assistant: That's not all. I called her a hag
Woman: That's not very nice.
Assistant: But she called me an old fart!
Man: ...A what?
Assistant: An old fart!
Man: Oh!
Woman: That's not as bad as calling someone a hag!
(Assistant starts crying)
Excellent film.
Probably the scene where a portly gentleman is smoking on his balcony and having a conversation with his wife/girlfriend/acquaintance. That scene in particular really spoke to me.
The illusion of effortlessness requires a great effort indeed.
The scene in the beginning where the woman sits on the bench singing! Here Roy Anderson sets the film's feeling of absurdity. In Swedish, her lyrics (to me, at least) are extremely funny and her conversation with her boy friend is just on the spot. Fat drunken woman singing to oompa boompa music - can you beat that?
"Och jag är jävligt sur och sne' för de'"
Love Jan