MovieChat Forums > Oslo, 31. august (2011) Discussion > Rich Kid, No Future?

Rich Kid, No Future?

posted 12 years ago by cornelia123
11 replies | jump to latest

I saw this film in London yesterday. Here's my two thoughts about the film:

I didn't really care about the main character because, sure it is his choice to destroy himself, but should he also destroy others who care about him along the way (his sister, his ex-girlfriend, etc).

I actually did have a friend from a very rich family who was hooked on heroin, but his parents had had a very messy divorce when he was a teenager and he was kind of 'swindled' by the mother to take her side, and not long after his father had an accident and suddenly died, which is the point he started taking drugs etc, but the main character here didn't have that 'breakdown' in the family, his parents are still loving with eachother, as inlove as day 1 (or so his sister's girlfriend says), etc, so what is his excuse? In the film we see his last day, and it is a given that all those characters you don't see but are talked about aren't around anymore because of the pain he has caused them, so I don't think this film is as effective as it could have been if we were shown some 'flashbacks' with these people...

Of course, I guess you have to ask yourself what the POINT of this film is, and the only answer that comes to me, considering the attack on the wealthy in society, is that it may be an anology of Capitalism overfeeding it's children, spoiling them and destroying them, making them feel a spiritual 'void' which gives them no choice but to press the auto-destruct button. It doesn't RING TRUE though. It is very much a political viewpoint....part of the status quo in Left-wing Norway, and therefore, not very BRAVE imo.

[–] DrMulholland 12 years ago

Hmm... this is a touchy subject, so I apologize beforehand to anyone whom I might offend with my views :)

But I respectfully disagree with almost everything you wrote. I know some terrible stories that ended in drug abuse as well, and to some extent I agree with you that Anders is "lucky".
Having said that, I don't think that one "excuse" is more valid than another. One can always compare factual circumstances and say that some are more likely to end in tragedy than other, but I don't think a person's emotional state can be measured by outer circumstances. If Anders perceives his life in a way in which he feels he lacks love - or even feels guilt for having been given such a favorable position (ie. with loving parents etc.) in life that he couldn't live up to - then this is just as serious.
My point is that people can be strong or weak and react with different intensity on outer pressure. After all, you can even find people with worse 'breakdowns' in the family that didn't end in drug abuse.

About the other moral issue, whether it's moral of him to destroy others by destroying himself... Well, basically can he commit suicide although it will hurt others. Being a cynic existentialist, I would say that bottom line is that it's his life and if he can't stand to live it then he shouldn't be forced to. This is, of course, taken to extremes and I know it's a terrible thing to say. Please don't make of it that I encourage suicide - it's just my moral/philosophical opinion.

Other than that I think flashbacks would have made the film too sentimental - there's a distance throughout this film that makes it very graceful and non-sensational. I like that I can imagine things instead.
I didn't read it as an allegory on capitalism's children. I saw it completely as a psychological-philosophical film, although not specifically about drug abuse but analogous to any similar depressive state or existentialist crisis.

Again, just for clearing, nothing personal meant, and I value your opinion, especially because we disagree :)

Join the internetfilmclub.info/

[–] cornelia123 12 years ago

DrMullholland - thanks for your post!

If Anders perceives his life in a way in which he feels he lacks love - or even feels guilt for having been given such a favorable position (ie. with loving parents etc.) in life that he couldn't live up to - then this is just as serious.

I do agree with this you know. It seemed to me that the parents had expected too much from him, had given him too much liberty, assumed too much that he would be the 'brilliant' one, and he kind of resented this and sabotaged their expectations, albeit subconsiously. It seems that he perhaps felt that by being much more strict on his sister, they maybe 'cared' for her more, or that's how he could have perceived it. I mean, why did he choose to die in his old childhood home, on his own, a home his parents are planning to sell, which implies that they are already moving on from him?

I guess what I want to say is that although I still do read the film as an allegory on capitalism's children (for the fact that the director chose that Anders is from a privileged academic family), I can totally understand where you are coming from by reading it in a psychological-philosophical context.

As for the flashbacks I suggested, well they could have been made to not be overly sentimental, just a couple of seconds here and there to his past would have been a bonus in my opinion. Oh, I would have hated it if it would have been too sentimental....that would have been too 'obvious', definetely, in that I agree with you.

[–] DrMulholland 12 years ago

I mean, why did he choose to die in his old childhood home, on his own, a home his parents are planning to sell, which implies that they are already moving on from him?

A very good point.

It could easily be interpreted as a capitalist allegory, no doubt, but I think I need to watch Reprise before answering this - probably doing that tonight or tomorrow. But to jump to something completely different, I read that many Norweigns watch the film as a nostalgic meditation on their decaying capital, especially seen in the light of the terrorist attacks up there this summer. Of course, the film was made before this tragedy, but I imagine that the film's atmosphere correspond very well with how they feel.

But it's been 5 days since I saw it, and it really made a deep impression. I think it's a film that is very important to discuss, and as I said I'm definitely watching Reprise soon and keep an eye on Mr. Trier. Have you seen Reprise, btw?

Join the internetfilmclub.info/

[–] DrMulholland 12 years ago

I've watched Reprise now and thought I'd offer my comments on it.

I think I'm sticking with my psychological-philosophical view. This film about two aspiring writers really works within this sphere and I see some of world literature's greatest authors in the background all the time (funny, not so many filmmakers - some French New Wave directors, like Rohmer or an early Godard maybe).
For example the middle of the film where Philip and Kari are revisiting Paris is a subplot almost similar to Kierkegaard's Repetition... judging by the title the two could easily be related.

But as for the flashback you suggested, I might be convinced now. Reprise has a very elegant style where it mixes past, present, future and day-dreaming in a misty arabesque. I was quite surprised at this because Oslo is such a "straight-forward" film (in chronological form, not in content) but both films work very well.

Would love to hear watch you think of Reprise if you've seen it. Otherwise... Go watch it

Join the internetfilmclub.info/

[–] cornelia123 12 years ago

I read that many Norweigns watch the film as a nostalgic meditation on their decaying capital, especially seen in the light of the terrorist attacks up there this summer. Of course, the film was made before this tragedy, but I imagine that the film's atmosphere correspond very well with how they feel.

Interesting, although the 'killer' has argued that he was forced to do what he did because the arty 'deluded' left brigade who have monopolised Norway since world war II (in order to compensate for the country's involvment/support of Nazi Germany) have left any kind of rejection to their politics and viewpoints impossible to be aired. That is why I saw the film in a political context, as another arty left-wing director trying to 'please' his peers in the media by subtly attacking the 'capitalist' life because it is a tendency I have noticed in Sweden and Norway. Crimewriter and ex-Norweigan pop star, Jo Nesbo does exactly the same thing, brown-nose the establishment, and hence I wasn't at all suprised to see him photographed cycling with a minister.

[–] DrMulholland 12 years ago

That's a valid point. I don't think Breivik was criticizing economical socialism as such (in opposition to a capitalist) but more the cultural Marxism and public support (or 'patronization' depending on the view) of minorities, namely with Islamic immigrants being the 'main problem'. But even so it's clear that Oslo is supporting this system as well, focusing on a (patronized?) minority - but interestingly juxtaposing this with the academic background.
There's possibly more to it than I first thought...

You also got me thinking about the original (Swedish) Girl With Dragon Tatoo. It's not as serious as Oslo but the two films are strangely linked in their critique of the system and the people in power positions - not as explicitly in Oslo but anyhow present.
Perhaps a Scandinavian tendency? I don't remember any Danish films with the same attitude, but it's probably out there.

Join the internetfilmclub.info/

[–] roell29 12 years ago

But even so it's clear that Oslo is supporting this system as well, focusing on a (patronized?) minority

What minority? I didn't notice any minorities in Oslo?

Welcome to Costco, I love you...

[–] Vitelius 12 years ago

Just whant to correct you on one point, "Interesting, although the 'killer' has argued that he was forced to do what he did because the arty 'deluded' left brigade who have monopolised Norway since world war II"

That is his BELIEF and a lot of crazy right wingers here in norway BELIVE this, but it is not a fact. Norway has actually had more right and center parties ruling than the workers party.

When it comes to Trier he usulay makes films about what he knows, he comes from a rich academic family.

[–] PoppyTransfusion 11 years ago

'rich kid, no future?' Where do you get this from? The film showed he had a future. One within his grasp if he would reach for it but he seemed unable to see and reach it. The point of the film would be, as DrMulholland has written already, the despair created in the gap between the reality of one's situation and how one feels in that situation. It's existential and is based on a French novel of the last century.

A person in Anders's situation cannot articulate well what has gone wrong with them where the problems lie in the complexity of parental relationships. He cannot name events that would resonate with others as 'reasons' for becoming an addict and wanting to commit suicide. Yet his inability to connect with others and bear his own painful feelings is the result of a much quieter devastation and one that is more universal - a failure of reciprocity and empathy in parenting. It is hinted at in the few words Anders speaks in the voice overs. Although it's a failure in parenting it doesn't mean the parents are to blame either. It's more complicated than that.

Fatima had a fetish for a wiggle in her scoot

[–] cornelia123 10 years ago

'rich kid, no future?' Where do you get this from? The film showed he had a future. One within his grasp if he would reach for it but he seemed unable to see and reach it.

Apologies for the late reply but....erm, you really need to learn about IRONY. My whole point was that HE HAD A FUTURE and therefore he was not a sympathetic character. He was born rich, everything given to him on a plate and he threw it all away....that's why I didn't pity HIM, and instead I pitied his ex-girlfriend and his family.

The fact he went to die in his old family home before they sold it implies the root of his problem was TOO MUCH LOVE & BELIEF from his parents.... they had put him on a pedestal and he couldn't cope with it.

[–] PoppyTransfusion 10 years ago

Why did you return so late to post a reply? If your OP is an example of irony, I don't think Jane Austen has any cause for concern. Irony is a bit more subtle than you seem to believe.

To suggest that Anders died from TOO MUCH LOVE & BELIEF is one of the most bizarre things I've read on IMDb and this place has ample whack jobs. Love and belief conflict with being on a pedestal. If his parents loved and believed in him then they would not have idealised him, which is what putting someone on pedestal means. The latter is a relationship with an object of the idealiser's making and not the real person. It's contrary to love.

I give my respect to those who have earned it; to everyone else, I'm civil.