I would have to pretty strongly disagree with you on that one.
First off, Roy Andersson brings more out through the production design on his films than any other filmmaker I've ever seen. The attention to detail is so insanely specific it's extraordinary. Look even at the opening scene - every piece in the museum visible is related somehow to birds - the stuffed birds themselves in cases in the main room, of course, but through the open door on the right, the bones of the T-Rex, scientifically considered an evolutionary ancestor of the modern day bird. And even through the very slight sliver of the door on the left of the frame, there lies, just enough to be distinguishable if you look for it, is the painting of a bird.
The film is equally a compositional masterpiece. Then why not make it a painting?
Because then you would lose the careful balance of searing comedy, unrelenting pathos, and existential despair. Often all three at once.
I would agree that it is all over the place. I would disagree that it doesn't have a center, or that being all over the place is detrimental rather than the point in and of itself. But most of all I would disagree that this was just something thrown together and made up on the fly. I would contend that this, and all of Roy Andersson's 21st century works, are among the most meticulously thought out works in contemporary cinema. He isn't trying to tell a specific narrative, or hammer you over the head with one very streamlined point. I take it instead to be an exploration of the myriad experiences that make up a life told through tableau vignettes heavily inspired by theater of the absurd to bring the concerns, conceptions, worries all to the fore. Not least of which is the sense of isolation of the contemporary, which I think is remarkably well presented - for one of the clearest examples, every time a character (Jonathan, basically) has an emotional or psychological breakdown, rather than try to help, he is by and large told to shut up because other people have to wake up in the morning. I personally found this intensely heartbreaking as he fell further and further into this spiral of despair begetting more despair as he grows increasingly hopeless, clinging to his suitcase of novelty items as a crutch. Something consistent. Or perhaps he is deluding himself and believing he could make himself happy with them as he so often tells others is his profession. Everything is open to myriad interpretations, but to say there isn't anything there is to do the film an incredible injustice.
And even if that doesn't interest you, there's still so much to always take in in the frame, even if you ignore rich thematic meanings just for the visual splendor of it, I'd say there's so much here that should command respect, even if you disagree with my outright adoration.
But to each their own. Can't all love the same things, life would lose its luster even faster than it already does.
reply
share
bethkillian
9 years ago
This, sir, is one of the best, more reasonable and beautifully put replies I´ve come to read in these parts.
reply
share