I was disappointed that this film directed by a woman, so blatantly fell into a patriarchal and passe plot trap. Not to mention, all the machinations of a Romance Novel/Soap Opera.
You have your strong, silent hero with the ignoble past who is presently redeeming himself by living the life of a monk whilst working to save a bunch of cuddly and lovable orphans from starvation and squalor.
Then there's the rich old bloated, alchoholic (and dying!) patriarch who moves people around like chess pieces, "arranges" for the wandering sire to return to his homeland to take over for him when he departs the earth.
Why in the world can't Helene (the mother) and Anna (daughter) take care of themselves? It's not like Helene has to work, and Jorgen must have a clue that she was never madly in love with him. Plus, Anna isn't even his daughter. Anna is an adult. She's married (granted, to a little turd), and perfectly capable of sorting out her own problems-- hey, maybe even get a JOB. Helene will never have to work, but could/should find a fulfilling interest, but obviously Jorgen has no faith in her as a mature and motivated agent. Heck, she isn't even given the choice of selecting her own future mate.
The most insipid plot device is the insistance that Jacob choose between living his life as he wants to (working with the orphans in India), OR getting the money and having to remain in Denmark to become ad hoc head of the soon-to-be-(step)-fatherless family. Cripes! It's been TWENTY years. Jacob and Helene had to be, like, eighteen to twenty years old when they separated. Can you imagine being "forced" to take up with some guy you dated in college? Now that you're FORTY?? And "make a family" with him/her AND an adult child you've never met???
The assumption that there's any deep love between genetically-related people who don't even know each other is unrealistic. Pure contrivance.
Maybe the filmmaker was presenting this as satire or social commentary-- attempting to show us, sadly, how antiquated things still are in many repects, rather than romanticizing an untenable system. After all, Anna does stand up at the wedding and begins her speech with, "I know it's not customary for the bride to speak, BUT..."
And although she confidently states, "I'd better go home and take care of my husband" while attending a gabfest of girlfriends, she is punished for both THIS indiscretion (and her neglect of grown-up domestic duty), as well as her mother's (having married for money), as she finds her betrothed getting his all-important needs filled by an available chippy. We are all too clearly shown, Christian has married her for HER money. Ahh, the sins of the mother...
So like lots of rich old white men, the Big (step)Daddy will have his way. 65,000 starving orphans in a Third World otherworld? Why get your hands dirty? Eh-- throw money at the problem. The vulgar, feudal entrepreneur-turned-conglomerate head will leverage his buying power to make sure that his fiefdom continues long after he's gone.
Maybe the director did her best to put a interpret the original story-- written by a man. I wish she had dared to suggest a more modern cultural script. Maybe her next effort will give us more hope that things can change.
Hmmm. George Bush probably WOULD love this film.
reply
share
TotallyBlunt
17 years ago
Ditto, brother.
It's clear you have a better way with words than I do.
(Though, I haven't had the impression that Helene married for money. It IS possible to really fall for a guy who is rich or has potential to be rich, you know.)
reply
share
viscom_cgsh
17 years ago
The movie is a device which presents us with a dilema. The central dilema is "could you sacrifice your relationship with one child to save 65,000 others?" What would you do? How could you justify it? The wisdom of Solomon is needed here. There is no perfect answer. The story that is built to present this dilema is just a construct of a writer's imagination. We can only guess at what characters might do and at what really happened - the truth is they will only ever do what the writer has them do! And it will always support the goal of presenting the dilema. That is why Pamrod declines Jacob's invitation - even though we maybe cannot imagine a REAL child doing this. If he had accepted the dilema would not be so accute. When we start applying realism and logic to the conclusion of the movie it totally breaks down the poignancy of the issue. I mean really - he could have broken the deal and Anna still would have supported his orphanage.
As for the question of racism - I think we bring a cultural bias with us to any movie we see... If I start to look at this as realism rather than allegory then I am greatly troubled that a man could leave a child he has raised since infancy for ANY reason. To others this is less significant and I wonder if it could be because of race - just a thought and ponderance - not a judgement.
I was very moved by this film.
reply
share
andiam-1
16 years ago
I believe the writer wanted us to change our opinion of the millionaire. At first we see him as a bully throwing his money around, but as the film goes on we see him as a caring husband and father. How many men would spend their dying days trying to arrange a marriage for their soon-to-be widows? I don't think the wife married him only for his money. He's a decent guy.
As for the comment about love between birth parents and their long-lost children; this may seem illogical, but it happens.
reply
share