Kolya wrote:Did Moodysson actually expect people to like this movie or Container? I guess not. Why did he make them then? For art? To prove a point? I really don't know. All I do know is that he didn't make these movies for the people who liked FA.
Why shouldn't the people who like FA be the same people who like
Hjärta?
The important thing is to make a distinction (which I tried to make before) between "liking" a film and appreciating it for its artistic value. Probably, when I like something, that means that I
enjoy it. I am having a good time experiencing it, it pleases me and makes me feel good (in certain ways). That's beautiful. But surely there are lots of books, films, etc., which no one in a sane state of mind would "like" in that way, but which equally no one in a sane state of mind would not regard as great works. Do you "like" the
Diary of Anne Frank or Primo Levis novels about the concentration camps? Do you
enjoy reading them, do they make
pleasant reads? Of course not. It is a nightmarish experience, it will make you cry and shiver and sob, and you will feel thoroughly bad afterwards. But you can appreciate these books nonetheless for the infinite human value they embody, because they touch you so much - in a way that hurts. And in that way they can be dear to your heart even if experiencing them will, every time, completely ruin your day. You appreciate them
because they have that power. Now, all I say is that the same goes for certain films. They should be appreciated in the same way, even if one cannot possibly like them.
Lilja 4-ever, to me, certainly is such a film. And
Hjärta, even though it is not an exceptionally good film, is, too. At least it deserves to be given a chance on that count.
That is why I do not see why Lukas should not have had the very same people in mind as his audience when he did FA and when he did
Hjärta. True, almost everyone will love (enjoy) FA, and almost no one will love (enjoy)
Hjärta. But that doesn't mean that one could not
appreciate them both because they both completely succeed what they are trying to do, which is making us see aspects of our world which are real. FA depicts something beautiful and wonderful, the triumph of love over hatred, fear, and prejudice, so seeing it is a wonderful experience. And these things really do happen! Hjärta depicts something terrible, the victory of stupidity, greed, and isolation over humanity, decency, and love, so seeing it is a terrible experience. Nevertheless, these things are also real. They also happen. Moodysson shows them, with the same kind of directness and naturalness as he depicts the beauty of love. (I still cannot understand why showing things like that is automatically considered to be "preachy".) You will love the one and dislike the other, yet both of them succeed in the same way. One can appreciate that, and in that way one can appreciate both types of Moodysson films. I do. So he probably had people like me in mind
.