MovieChat Forums > Hævnen (2010) Discussion > A pompous, contrived, schematic high sch...

A pompous, contrived, schematic high school special


Allow me, if you will, to wonder at a bit of length how this movie got both the Globe and Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film. It is quite terrible. The movie is a Danish version of Crash but with violence instead of racism. What I mean is that the characters and the story are so far removed from real life that the film becomees a long thesis statement on the history of violence. The characters are not real human beings but sociological arguments. What happens when your mother dies from cancer? You become a psychopath. What if your parents are divorced? You get bullied. Then, by coincidence (there are quite a bit of those) you meet another lost soul. And then your father just happens to get into the world's most implausible street fight, but good thing, because you just happened to do some violence yourself and now it's on everybody's mind. It's like fate which in this case was the director assigned you, your friend and your parents the topic of violence as a term paper. And luckily, your father is also dealing with his own violence in his job.

In science, you go where the evidence leads you. You don't make the evidence fit a predetermined conclusion. This is what the film did. It is overly determined, schematic, programmed. It wanted to make a grand statement about violence and forgiveness and manipulated it's characters like so many chess pieces. Nothing was organic, borne of character instead of heavy handed theme. It told, in a rather didactic way rather than showed. And the symbolism was about as subtle as a bag of bricks. Look a man struggling with what to do sees a spiderweb. Birds fly free in contrast to the frustrated mortals who have to deal with themselves. Forgiveness and rejuvination are illustrated by a windmill. This is not a movie; it's a badly written parable.

The African scenes bothered me. I know the filmmakers are not bigots, but here we have violence as a part of daily life in Africa, while the European characters step on the precipice of acting that way. It read as Europeans, better be careful in what you do or else you'll devolve into Africans and their violent states. Because a shorthand for barbarity is Africa.

I did like Bier's visual sense. There are some shots here like the doctor sitting in the yard that were painterly. The acting by all was pretty good, especially by the boy who played Christian. But the movie told you what to think and feel in so bald, and unnatural fashion that it just failed.

reply

These are hilarious objections. "In science, you go where the evidence leads you." Yes, and storytelling is not science. In storytelling, you contrive, scheme and programme a story. What you are objecting to is that this movie has the gall to be an artwork and not a scientific study.


"I'll book you. I'll book you on something. I'll find something in the book to book you on."

reply

My bad. I should have developed the analogy further. The evidence here is the characters who produce the story and thus the theme. The characters should take the story where it goes based on themselves, their characteristics. They shouldn't be thematic constructs, which I thought they were here, manipulated to reach a desired goal. In other words, character and story determine theme, not the other way around. The people have to be believable and complex so that the theme emerges naturally. This felt like the filmmakers saying, "what do we want to make a film about? Oh, violence. Okay, we need this character who is a certain way to do this, and this one to be this, and then they meet and more meditations on violence go over here" instead of coming up with real people first and then finding the story that way. It felt like a homework assingnment rather than an organic piece of art. And the contrivances hammered home on the theme in expense of plausibility and character. For example, (spoiler) the kid telling his dad via computer what he plans to do, but wow, it's a bad connection, so he doesn't here it, allowing the story to reach it's predetermined end. It felt like they worked backwards from an already known and desired ending and had the characters position themselves to reach that heavy theme.

reply

I agree. It was watchable, but everything seemed unnatural and about using the characters and situations to get from point A to point B and so on. It felt amateurish in its writing. Shame, because the production value and acting were good.

reply

I'll give you a big example of what I mean. I've never lost a parent as a child, but I know people who have. They did not turn into knife weilding, bomb making kids. The character had no agency based on himself. He had to be violent because the movie's about that, irregardless of what the character would actually do. The doctor dad had to encounter a big bully in his job while his kid has the same problem. This isn't reality; it's orchestrated coincidene to hammer home whatever the director wants to say about violence. The same thing with the dad encountering the bully on the street (this would never happen). The whole plot is triggered by it. It was false. And what does the director want to say about violence. Why the title of the movie? In any world, this would happen, because people are naturally violent and whatever insight the director thinks she's making about violence doesn't come across because she's made her characters reductive (bullying victims are that way because they have broken homes) chess pieces instead of real people.

reply

That's exactly what i thought when I saw the movie. why is this freakin kid so damn violent? I didn't really buy his mother's death as a cause... I mean, people don't turn into terrorists because their parents died. So on that point I do agree that the film seemed a bit manipulative and schematic. For example, the part where the other Elias suddenly decides to join Christian in the bomb plan. how did he come up with that conclusion?

However, I did feel it was effective.
Susanne Bier is probably one of the most relevant female directors working today, and this film pretty much shows it. She shows us a world where there seems to be no choice but to resort to violence, and makes arguments for both sides, those who believe violence is the only choice and those who have hope and believe that "violent people always loose."

But at the end she obviously chooses the latter, and begs the question, what world do we live in today? Is it possible to choose to be non-violent? Is there more good than bad in the world? Is it possible for violent people to change? Bier believes so, and the film makes you think likewise.

Yes it was a bit like a parable, but I don't really see too much wrong with that. Bier has made better films in the past, this one I felt was a bit too Hollywood, but while I was watching it, particularly toward the end, I did get the message. I guess I'm easier, but whatever.

I don't know if it actually deserved the awards, but then again Oscar voters touch themselves over anti-violent themed films, so yeah.

Of the three films I saw from the five that were nominated, I would choose Dogtooth (the other being Biutiful).

reply

"why is this freakin kid so damn violent? I didn't really buy his mother's death as a cause..."

You couldn't be more wrong. I knew someone growing up that lost their mother to cancer when he was about that age, a good kid, and this is pretty close to how he dealt with it.

reply

why is this freakin kid so damn violent? I didn't really buy his mother's death as a cause... I mean, people don't turn into terrorists because their parents died. So on that point I do agree that the film seemed a bit manipulative and schematic. For example, the part where the other Elias suddenly decides to join Christian in the bomb plan. how did he come up with that conclusion?

It would be overly simplistic to say he became violent strictly because of his mother's death. But that is what started it. He's dealing with his mother's death, can't relate to his father, is picked on at a new school, and when he beats up the bully he gets a lot of satisfaction from that, and the knowledge that "nobody will dare touch me now." He starts to see revenge as a valid way to deal with people who transgress against you.

And Elias: he called his father to tell him that Christian was planning to make a bomb and blow up a van. But the connection was bad, and the father had had a bad day and told him, let's talk tomorrow. Sometimes that's what happens: you want to be talked out of (or into) something, but if you don't get to talk it over at a critical time, you say the hell with it and go with your own decision. Plus, missing his father, he chose the course of action that would bond him with Christian.


You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi

reply

"why is this freakin kid so damn violent? I didn't really buy his mother's death as a cause... I mean, people don't turn into terrorists because their parents died."

To flesh out the response others have already given you here, first of all, does a pipe bomb make someone a terrorist? Not in my vocabulary. A terrorist seeks to make virtually everyone in a targeted group FEEL targeted and terrorized.

Yes, he was grieving his mother's loss, and – beyond loss of a parent – cancer death is traumatic, so much of what we witness in him can be seen to be a kind of PTSD. But it was much more his reaction to his father's response to his mother that has troubled him into a will to violence and revenge. He was convinced his father was a liar - about his mother's survival chances - and he was bitter due to being also convinced his father had given up on his mother and had legitimated her death. This made his father a symbol of (cold) rationality and of playing god in his eyes to whom he had to rebel and it meant rebelling against rules and authority in general.

reply

There is no such word as irregardless. Toss it out with the rest of your pretentious screed.

Come and get one in the yarbles, if ya have any yarbles - Alex DeLarge

reply

"Irregardless" is a term worthy of inclusion in any lexicon that adheres to a descriptive notion of entry selection. This horrid non-word has been written and uttered so many times that it has come to represent the very essence of poor diction. The part of speech might be "nonexistent," or "adverb," depending on the desired level of inclusion in the proposed dictionary. For instance, the first case would justify use of the word as a catch-all term for moronic utterances, e.g., "His entire response to that valid tirade was "irregardless." The second case would allow use of the term in the adverbial sense by imbeciles, so they might be readily identified as language assassins.

reply

So that makes you an expert! You know someone that is in the "same situation" and they are not like this! Are you serious? In real life some people are full of anger without any obvious reason. A rape victim doesn´t necesary understand another rape victim. You are an ignorant fool who probably think all people are stereotypes.

reply

I didn't get the sense that Christian was violent simply because his mother had passed away. I thought he resented his father for what he perceived as the father's indifference toward or joy at the mum's demise and that he was taking out this resentment on the mechanic and the bully.

reply

[deleted]

In answer to the question of why this movie won so many awards: Probably because it's excellent, moving and thought-provoking.

reply

Or rather the opposite, huh? MAny movies are awarded because they are shallow, easy and silly. Specially when it comes to Oscars and Golde Globes.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

While I agree that the film is perhaps overly dependent on its coincidences and also a tad predictable (also owing a heavy debt to "Let the RIght One In") I feel that it has several saving graces:

1) The acting is marvelous. All of it, especially the African cast. There are no weak performances.

2) The movie looks fantastic. The city (and desert) are utilized not just to provide aesthetic beauty, but also to invest the story with real character. I don't find the visuals overwrought or obvious, I find them sublime and great. We haven't had a movie that was that well shot in America since Malick's Badlands.

3) I don't think you can dismiss a movie that deals with such a serious topic as school violence (and does so with real candor and honesty) as simply a "high school special." The characters are too finely drawn for that and they are given time and space to develop. They change and grow over the course of the movie.

In sum, this movie deserves accolades and it should be shown all over the world-- it's one of the most important and beautiful movies I have seen in the past few years.

Come around and tell me your life story sometime...

reply

This.^^^ To me, Christian was in very deep pain, and he probably wanted to make something hurt as much as he was. Misery likes company and all that. And who more deserving of pain than douchebags like Lars and Sofus (atleast at the beginning). As for the perfectly adorable Elias, I got the impression the teachers were implying Anton was away too much to spend proper time with him and he withdrew into himself. I might need to watch it again but I think the point was Elias's home situation made him isolate himself not get bullied. Kids always pick on the awkward, "different" kids; that doesnt make it ok but thats how it is.





I remember two things very clearly: I am a great sinner and Christ is a great Savior.

reply

I have watched a lot of Danish/Swedish films and usually thoroughly warm to them. However, I did not with this movie, this time. Perhaps it was that the continuity was broken my end with a couple of interruptions from my own children, which I have found in the past can tilt the balance of the movie for me. That said, I didn't find myself totally connecting to the characters like I do normally.

I did feel for Christian and Elias. I don't feel Christian was a bad child, I felt he was a lost soul, not knowing where he belonged in the world anymore. Whereas Elias seemed to know where he belonged and that was being bullied, which of course, was wrong on so many levels. As a person with a terminal illness myself, I know there is a fine balance when it comes to the feelings that we show as adults to a sick loved one and to the children themselves, if that makes sense. Understandably his mother was very angry and bitter towards the end and perhaps vented anger from time present and past, things that may or may not have been true. Either way, Christian took them all to heart and the truth was taken with her so he only had his father to believe. He then wanted to defend any 'broken' person he could and in his eyes, that became Elias AND his father.

In the end it showed we must be open, honest, not fight over everything, be as open as we can with ourselves and our children, never forgetting they are vulnerable and not yet 'hardened' to their life as we have through age and experience.

Hope that made sense, am quite tired!
I did enjoy the movie but thought it was a bit long and drawn out and as I said, didn't end up feeling as much for the characters as I normally do. I shall definitely watch again and see if that changes.


~ My Voting History ~ http://tiny.cc/2fefq

reply

Agree 100%. This is nothing but preachy, trite, schematic manipulation. Here's what I wrote when it came out http://dasfilmblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/in-better-world-haevnen.html

reply

Completely agree. The manipulativeness was rife here, character actions cringeworthy.

1/10

- don't worry that's just my signature.

reply

I disagree entirely. Classical drama going back to the greeks has relied on coincidence and thematic unity to create resonance. Some art is gardening, some is architecture. Just because one type doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean others don't connect to it in an entirely different way.

I agree about the spiderweb being a little heavyhanded, but that was one frame in a two hour movie filled with beautiful imagery. It still wasn't as bad as the rat in the Departed.

As for Africa, I think you are seeing what you want to see. This wasn't a simple history of violence, it was also a question asking how we face evil and chaos in the world.

reply

i think that Crash is schematic and programmed *beep* about the racism
and In a Better world is much much better

reply

so interesting you mention Crash...when I read the OP's complaint that In a Better World is "not organic", I recalled that's exactly how I complained about Crash. BTW I loved IABW, just spell-binding performances/moments.

reply

I can't say Christian's reactions were wholly alien. If he had not been so angry or violent, there'd be no movie and really no story to tell. The core of the film is Christian and how he is dealing with the death of his mother. I lost my dad when I was 16 and I didn't become a violent person but I spent years with unanswered questions and a lot of internal pain which definitely affected my relationships. I think Christian was portrayed very well and I didn't feel anything was contrived apart from perhaps the Skype call near the end which conveniently (but realistically if you've ever used Skype, LOL) is messed up and they can't hear each other. Then again, the dad had just been through the death of the little girl and throwing the kingpin out, so he looked very weary.


I am in a thousand winds that blow,
I am the softly falling snow.

reply

There have been so many words written about Elias and his skype talk to Anton. I can see no problem in events that happen later. The OP says that this happened to be "convenient" for authors to use it to develop the movie in the direction that they wanted from the beginning.

Hey, this is a fiction and art, so it is normal that somebody wants to tell a message, not just an entertaining story, this is (still, thank God) not Hollywood! And authors didn't have to make this bad skype connection, they didn't have to include this talk into the movie at all, they were free to do whatever they want. So, Elias could have decided to join Christian with or without this unsuccessful trying to discuss it with his father. But it is a good thing that they did it this way, showing Elias as a kid with conscience, a lost one, lost in family situation, in school, in life, seeking a kind of help. From the beginning of the movie we can see that he doesn't have a good relation with his mother who is probably too often away from home because of her career - yes, his father is also too rarely with him, but he can be apologized by a boy this age (father is in Africa, and this sounds adventurous, mystic, dramatic...) - sp he can only ask for an advice by Anton.

And there are by far smaller coincidences that can turn one's life upside-down than an unsuccessful talk. When a train is late, there are hundreds of people affected by this fact. It is a strong possibility that these maybe just few minutes delay of coming to the destination causes by at least one among these hundreds some important differences in life. They may be late on a date or an appointment, losing love or job, may be late on the plane (that might even be life-saving if the plane crashes...) and all these real situations would bother OP because they don't happen every minute to every person on Earth?

As for Anton, Polexia: he wasn't upset because of the death of his patient, because this is unfortunately something that also happens in real life, and every doctor must cope with it, especially working in a place like refugee campus - it is always a trauma, but Anton is old and experienced enough that it wouldn't distract him from talk to his far away son (after all, the patient was not a young girl but a woman, pregnant till recently when Big Man took the baby from her womb). No, Anton was upset because of what he has done. As a doctor he made a vow to help people, recently he has promised Big Man to treat and save him, but he broke the vow and promise, what would be upsetting for many people, but even more, he directly enabled lynch of his patient confronting all his attitudes, all his moral standards, all he was interceding for. This is the moment that a man can't face himself in a mirror, and has to reexamine his own beliefs and faith, opinions and attitudes, all his life postulates.

And this is a moment when he can't see a hidden prayer for a moment of his time, for an advice, a guiding hand. By not getting it, Elias makes his own choice, because (as somebody else wrote here) beside his father Christian was the only person that Elias could rely on.

reply