MovieChat Forums > Reprise (2006) Discussion > White. People. Problems.

White. People. Problems.

posted 15 years ago by gfarrell80
23 replies | jump to latest

So I saw this movie, and it was okay. I think narration is over-used a bit, but still, a nice, believable, well-scripted, well-shot movie. However, it was utterly frustrating.

I enjoyed the few bits that were humorous, but there weren't enough humorous bits to make it a full-out parody of the kind of tension the main characters (Phil and Erik) were facing.

And what, after all, is the problem these guys have? They both have gorgeous girlfriends and don't seem to work very hard, yet have all of the basic wants of life apparently covered. Yet they both seem to be enduring some kind of intense intellectual and emotional suffering. "Modern condition of man" or something like that. Inability to fully express the profound unease of unhinged modern existence. Phil basically goes crazy, and Erick can't realize how good he has it because of this self-imposed suffering of the 'artist.'

I love reading thick 'intellectual' novels, and part of the reason I suffered this movie to the end is because I would kind of like to write one myself, and I would kind of like to have a girlfriend as hot as Kari or Lillian, but these two idiotic guys... Phil and Erik... didn't get much sympathy from me on the whole modern angst angle.

Relax, chill, get some perspective on your suffering. It isn't all that bad Erik and Phil. You have been born into a society where you can actually suffer over these abstract and pretty much meaningless things, while less fortunate others in more violent parts of the world starve, get shot, blown up or hacked to peices, enduring real suffering.

When Lillian broke up with Erik that was probably the most satisfying part of the movie to me.

Also, the "don't try to be so poetic" advice from Sten Egil Dahl was brilliant. Prose should be prose. If you try to be poetic you end up with BS like Finnegan's Wake. So the movie scored a big one from me on that anyways.

[–] filmbuff87 15 years ago

i think i agree.

[–] gfarrell80 15 years ago

Thanks man.

[–] filmbuff87 15 years ago

im a girl.

:)

[–] gfarrell80 15 years ago

Whoops, heheh.

Also, that may further explain why you also may have found some of the stuff in this movie annoying.

[–] filmbuff87 15 years ago

yes, probably.

btw, if i ever have to reply to someone about this film and my opinion... i might just copy and paste your post. haha.

[–] blakartist2000 15 years ago

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have been born into a society where you can actually suffer over these abstract
and pretty much meaningless things, while less fortunate others in more violent parts
of the world starve, get shot, blown up or hacked to pieces, enduring real suffering.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gfarrell80 I enjoyed your perspective on the intellectual self-pity that shows up in some of these independent films. It’s good to see someone speak out about it how crazy these characters think they are suffering when there are greater ills in this world with people not having food on their table or family members losing their lives because of violence. Maybe in movies like this they just might write in for the characters that they learn to extend themselves to help others and maybe that will give them some kind of meaningful purpose in life.

I must confess I didn’t see this movie yet but I've had it on my radar to check out in the near future. I enjoy watching thought provoking films but I don’t know about this one if it’s going to perpetuate this co-depended vice for future writers or artists to wallow in their lack of fame.

Work it woman and write that novel.

[–] sonof_liberty 15 years ago

I really want to enjoy your logic.
But I disagree with the contingent that this suffering is not "real."

By that rationale, all films, whether they be child fantasies, introspective "white people problems" or action movies should not made. at all. That is because they do not discuss the "real" issues that millions of other people face each day in the world.

Even though the conflict is abstract like you say, I don't think it makes it more or less meaningless. The complexities and abstractions of these problems greatly differ from the comparatively simple and long-lasting problems that face millions of others. Poverty, genocide and "real problems" as you say are indeed the ills of humanity, but they have been seen recycled a thousand times over. I am not saying that it is meaningless by any means, but in a cinematic stand-point, how often can one endure the display of constant corruption and hate that so often make up the "real" problems?

the subject of "reality" in films is best reserved in the genre and archetype used by "city of god" and "slumdog millionaire"

ps. im not white.

[–] blakartist2000 15 years ago

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But I disagree with the contingent that this suffering is not "real."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sonof you make an interesting argument but I think you’ve taking what Gfarrell80 written, a little too far because we both say that these are real ills but in the larger scope of things are weight much smaller.

I didn’t see the movie but I’ve watch a lot of movies where there are these intellectual characters who has every basic monetary thing and are too busy crying about lack of notoriety but don’t see how good they already have it. I guess that is what Independent movies and good stories are all about “irony”.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gfarrell80 15 years ago

But I disagree with the contingent that this suffering is not "real."

sonof_liberty, I actually agree with you - from Erik and Phil's perspective, their suffering definitely is real. The movie is convincing enough to allow me to step in their shoes and feel their suffering for a little bit.

I'm one of these modern atheist skeptic non-believer types as well, I've read my share of Camus, Sartre, Dostoyevsky, Kafka, etc., I get the idea of the mind consumed with dissatisfaction about the arrangement of things.

But while their suffering is real (to them), I think a better movie might gradually show these characters finding out that this kind of angst, properly seen for what it is, is just an irrelevant phantom and there are much better things to destroy yourself over.

Yes, Erik and Philip's problems may look small on a big scale, but that does not make them less important or less worthy.

I actually do think the suffering of the intellect for vague reasons is actually a little bit less worthy than the suffering of a starving person or somebody living under brutal oppression. Both are equally fine to put on film, but in real life, I hope you find one more reprehensible than the other. The suffering of the mind is self-imposed and has no real cure other than for the individual to realize they are punishing themself for nothing, the suffering of innocents throughout the world is pretty grotesque.

And blakartist2000, I wouldn't not recommend this film. It is still a thinker, even if I did find it extremely frustrating.

By that rationale, all films, whether they be child fantasies, introspective "white people problems" or action movies should not made. at all. That is because they do not discuss the "real" issues that millions of other people face each day in the world.

Well, alot of films obviously have different purposes, therefore there's plenty of room for stuff like Reprise and stuff like Wall-E. Reprise is not trying to be entertaining as much as it is a thinker piece. I'm just saying, if a film is attempting to grab at lofty issues I would like to see some broader perspective.

Maybe just a 30 second scene or two where Phil, in the height of his madness, reads a newspaper headline about genocide in Africa or something (or maybe even just a local murder), gives a wry smile, but learns nothing and continues on with his self-destructive craziness. That would be enough to let the audience know that the filmakers at least acknowledge a world with problems, big problems, outside the problems of these guys. And it would even say something about people too, because most people really only do care about their own problems, however minute they may be. It'd be great - Phil would be aware people have greater problems than him, yet he is still unable to extricate himself, thereby allowing him to feel even more self doubt, loathing, what have you.

[–] bella_maria11 15 years ago

I don't think it's any less worthy. This is how young people live in Norway. I'm a Norwegian woman about Erik and Philips age so I should know.

In the history of Norway there has been alot of suffering, starvation, plauge, wars and so on.

After we found oil in 1970 we have become on of the richest countries in the world and we have an extreme high living standard. Yet we see that more and more people deside to kill themselves, take drugs, more and more people get clinical depression.

We are also one of the biggest charity countries the world. We give the most to charity in starving and war-toiled countries, per citizen than any other country in the world. Ww have not had money for along time, just a couple of decades ago Norway was one of the poorest countries in Europe. Now we have oil, freedom, tecnology, and a solid economic plan to fight the worldwide economic crisis. Norway is one of the most tolerant countries in the world, where women and men enjoy the same rights.

This is the country where Reprise takes place, Norway still has faults to work on, of course, but it is a very good country, should we just stop making movies?

We are not starving anymore, we are not in a union anymore, we are not at war anymore (besides those men and women we send to Afghanistan), we have money now, do you mean we should just stop making films?

[–] gfarrell80 15 years ago

I don't think it's any less worthy.

Maybe I'm not being quite clear. Take yourself outside the film for a moment. Consider a few different types of human suffering:

1. A woman who has had acid splashed on her face by a religious extremist, disfigured for life, living in a society where women are already treated only a little better than livestock.

2. A child who has had a limb hacked off with a machete by some gang of militia thugs in Africa.

3. A Chinese coal miner being paid penance living in crap conditions and worried about an accident rate that kills literally thousands of miners a year.

4. Being born into the slums of Mumbai.

5. Existential angst/does my life have purpose?/is my art good or appreciated?/does my girlfriend really love me?

I am saying that yes, in the context of real life, Erik and Phil's problems are idiotic. I did however enjoy the film despite finding it a little bit frustruating, and I hope I didn't give the impression that these kind of films are valueless or shouldn't be made. Of course they should be made.

My argument is that I would have like a very brief peek into the world at large rather than a complete focus on these two characters. I think it could have made it an even better and more interesting film - made it broader, given it some more perspective. The nature of human beings is such that we will always allow ourselves to be tortured to death over something or another, Erik and Phil have things pretty much well taken care of but they still inflict suffering on themselves. As far as I know their kind of malaise is only curable by relaxing, growing up a bit, looking around and seeing that your suffering is not really that bad in comparison.

It is like one of my favorite passages from Dostoyevsky:

"I, for example, would not be the least bit surprised, if suddenly, out of the blue, amid the universal future reasonableness, some gentlemen of ignoble, or, better, retrograde and jeering physiognomy should emerge, set his arms akimbo and say to us all: “Well, gentlemen, why don’t we reduce all this reasonableness to dust with one good kick, for the sole purpose of sending all these logarithms to the devil and living once more according to our own stupid will!” That would still be nothing, but what is offensive is that he’d be sure to find followers: that’s how man is arranged."

Even if we erect some Eden-like society with all our wants taken care of (kind of like Norway today!), some people will still be dissatisfied. I see some of that in Erik and Phil - they are not destroyers, but they have things pretty darn good yet they are still desperately self-doubting and unhappy.

Norway does indeed seem like a pretty awesome country, you guys seem to have your stuff together pretty well. My brother-in-law's mother is from Norway, I would like to go sometime.

And if we only did make movies based on suffering types #1 through #4 above, then yes, film would get pretty damn boring. So #5's are good too. Personally I enjoy stupid comedies and action movies as much or more than these more heavy types of films.

[–] Bro2 13 years ago

Happiness has little to do with being well fed, it's about finding meaning in your life. Most people in this world is not living in a war, and they are not starving, so it's only natural to make movies that deal with other issues that most people have to deal with. Saying you should always compare your problems to the "bigger" and "more important" problems is simply silly. Your personal (every day) problems should not have to be compared to every world disaster or tragedy.

[–] bella_maria11 15 years ago

I don't like this whole idea with "No, people are getting killed, countries are at war, people are starving. Therefore other people's problems don't deserve to make it to cinema." Where does that come from?

Yes, Erik and Philip's problems may look small on a big scale, but that does not make them less important or less worthy.

[–] blakartist2000 15 years ago

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
problems may look small on a big scale, but that does not make them less

important or less worthy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bella you're right but in some of these independent films its starting to become a cliche and a badge of honor for intellectuals and artists to wallow in their lack of notoriety. I just feel that when making one of these intellectual film maybe they can add a different spend to it like that these characters to grow into philanthropist in care for others. Life imitating art and art imitating life is the power of the philosophy of these kind of movies and if you take such a boring formula and change to something that can change people disposition in a powerful and positive direction, it will make such a refreshing outcome. It's OK to make the movie with the intellectual is suffering from not being heard but ending it with them growing and being content from helping others.

Here are a couple of movies that are very good movies and are examples of what I’m talking about with the cliche ending. For the record, I like these movies a lot but any new movies should take a different direction because its starting to get played out.

1. Sideways
2. The Squid and the Whale
3. Smart People

[–] lachrymologist 14 years ago

I think gfarrell has really hit this on the head. It reminds me of reading Catcher in the Rye, where you just want to slap this bitchy, unfunny boy in the face who thinks he is suffering so intensely. This was the birth of the inde, neuroses-laden character. It is painful and frustrating to read, not because it captures my true emotions so artfully and masterfully, but because it is annoying, mildly disturbing (anyone who has time to post on imdb has the ability to reflect and see how important we have made our silly, 1st-world problems at times), and ultimately frustrating. How many pages are committed to print that perpetuate this narcissism??? How many films??

We evolved in groups, as tribes, as hunter gatherers with a profound concern for our fellow members and we in the west have slowly eroded our communal instinct and turned into solipsistic whiners. Our ability to abstract thought freely has been taken to its most abstract and extreme ends and this is what passes for art these days. Truly sad.

Love the French New Wave-era aspects despite their ubiquity, but if you want to read Salinger, look for about a 10 page stretch in the middle of Franny and Zooey, or the early Godard films, and consider skipping the rest of the ouevre/genre. Godard goes on to do things like Histoire(s) and Week End, and I hope for the same out of Mr. Trier.

[–] youth_in_revolt 13 years ago

What I liked about this film was that they (particularly Erik) get called out on their intellectual self-pity and "white people problems". Sten Egil Dahl did it brilliantly, I agree. As did Lilian (calling him selfish, a cliche) and Johanne ("it must be hard to have problems in this crowd"). And what happens to Erik in the end? He ends up successful in his career, but alone. I do not see Erik as completely selfish as he is pretty much the rock of his group of friends and tries hard to help and protect Philip.

I should also like to point out that two characters who are the most pretentious and self-aggrandizing get theirs. The unbearable priggish windbag, Mathis, got one-upped by the sweet, unassuming Geir and brushed off by Sten Egil Dahl. And Lars is secretly mocked behind his back as 'Porno Lars'. Even Morten, who we see as a smarmy, sexist ad executive early in the movie, ends up growing up and falling in love by the end.

I saw Philip as having different problems than Erik. While Erik is arguably a selfish jerk in his relationship with Lilian, Philip's mental illness (schizoaffective disorder) was not caused by selfishness or intellectual suffering or existential angst, rather an organic mental disorder. And Philip hardly doesn't appreciate his girlfriend! He's obsessed with Kari. It became part of his psychosis. Philip also suggested to Erik that he didn't have to break up with his girlfriend just because his book was getting published. (It seems that Philip and Erik had discussed what they would do when they became successful when they were still teenagers.) It's clear that Philip has matured but Erik hasn't. Back to the issue of Philip's relationship with Kari, it's very difficult to maintain a relationship in that state. I used to work with people who had schizophrenia, schizoaffective, and bipolar disorder -- some times we would talk about their families and the illness really did destroy some of their relationships, really sad. Mental illness affects wealthy, middle class, and poor people -- it's hardly just a rich, white person problem. Anyway, I thought Philip's character was quite well done. While his illness is also a bit of a metaphor for identity crisis and fragmentation of the self, I believe, I still think it was a much more realistic, sympathetic portrait of the descent into psychosis that didn't romanticize it. Philip ends up hospitalized twice, stalking his girlfriend, and unable to write.

[–] zolazona 12 years ago

Great post. I pretty much agree with all of it. The only unsettling thing to me was Kari's choice to be his nurse and to be totally wrapped up in HIS life at the end. The final scene with her irritation? Anxiety? Boredom? All 3 seemed to be transported through her face and with gestures when he started counting (again).

[–] Clemencedane 11 years ago

I think that was part of the imaginary sequence at the end of the film that was parallel to the opening imaginary sequence. I don't think Kari really stayed and became Phillip's nurse. This was all Erik's fantasy of what would happen when he left Oslo (starting with his second book being published and a famous critic saying, "There are now two great writers in Norway, Sten Egil Dahl and Eric Høiaas.")

[–] livingfortoday 13 years ago

You are not supposed to sympathize with them, the movie makes fun of them. And it was spot on.

[–] zolazona 11 years ago

Well, I can't find the humor in a situation, unless there is a modicum of sympathy for any one person. Otherwise, it is like watching a cartoon.

[–] Marked_man 11 years ago

I found the movie to be about expectations. And how to deal with the pain of having those clash with reality. Erik dreamed he would be an author and write a great revolutionary book together with Phillip but the later's mental illness and Erik's perceived lack of talent bring it all crashing down.

The emotion one feels for having his fantasies and dreams, that have been long protected by his friends and his wealth, crushed by their confrontation with reality, cannot be undervalued. To live your whole life thinking it will be this perfect dream and then gradually come to the conclusion that you must wake up is not to be scoffed. It is especially more poignant when you've been protected all your life.

So in the end Erik gets on the plane out of Oslo as he always planned except he's alone. And then he draws up some new dreams and aspirations to loo foward too. Except as last time they won't like likely work out like he wants them to.

[–] slo_mo 11 years ago

Of course they are white people problems, they live in Norway!! lol