Rant

Discuss Lukas Moodysson's first feature film Fucking Åmål (Show me Love).

Moderator: Ian

Rant

Postby Owen » Sun Mar 01, 2015 9:59 pm

Disclaimer:
Since I've joined this fan forum without having watched FA, I wanted to catch on it. So, I have done now, but I ended up very disappointed by the difference between what is advertised and what I have seen. What follows is an angry rant, it was written immediately after my viewing, but actually I don't want to spread hostility, and am open to discussion. Besides, I didn't see another topic for criticism, so it may be used for it. But so far, I think I will be the only one with this point of view.
(I also used the subject for the sake of an exercise in writing in english.)
I repeat, I don't mean to insult your taste in movies, nor you. This is all IMHO.



I think that Fucking Amal, independently of its qualities, simply does not compare with Water Lilies. Besides some of the story, there is nothing in common, and even the story that matches works in opposite directions. See: in WL Marie does everything that she can to approach Floriane, while in FA Agnes does nothing, it's all contingent, Elin comes to her only because she is BORED and wants to get high. The first kiss is something that comes up in both movies too, but the build up is entirely different, and, I must say, definitely superior in WL, because it comes as the bitter conclusion to the one-sided story. I know that in FA the kiss is only the beginning, but it can't be really brought up to compare these films, because their functions differ, and the story is only similar. I will not give all the examples, because it would be too long.

Next, the stakes. In FA there are close to none. I mean, inside the story there are things that the protagonists do to get to some other things, but I see nothing to transcend this to another level, one that would be common to all audience. This is what I really expect from lesbian movies, to try to reach to all people who would watch, by putting a reading beyond "love lesbian story". FA fails in this, I think, because it is too grounded in 1998 Sweden, and, the biggest of all sins, that its characters are all SO STUPID.

First, I can't enjoy a movie where I just yell at what is happening on the screen. I didn't find anyone likable in this film, except maybe Elin's mother and Agnes' father (but they are secondary). Elin is inconsistent and impulsive (I think everyone will agree), and does stupid things one after another (in brief: when she lockes herself in Agnes' room to drink wine then LEAVE (instead of die of shame like I would do), when she kisses her for fun, when she kisses her again and promises to call back, only to change her mind and hook up with this moron Johan, then her projects about becoming whatever is in her mood). Her sister does not make any effort to understand Elin or to put her life in order (why of all things she is with Markus, when the boy she likes is Johan?). Johan is a retard, he can't decide jack, doesn't have any opinion, and puts Elin's photo in his wallet (yeah, so it can be really easily found... gg); I am sure he will blindly bend under the love pressure of Jessica. Markus isn't better, just as hollow. Viktoria isn't given much time to develop, I think there could be done something to make her more interesting, but we are left only with her as a friendless and unsympathetic girl; what are her motives? The rest represent for me the crowd in its worst: they can only mock, and provoke, but never question themselves. I was never like that in their age, and my entourage certainly did have more respect. It leaves Agnes, the main character, who could be also interesting (like Marie in WL) but instead draws such a caricature. At 14 she already knows that she is a lesbian (well, I can put this one out, as I don't know enough to generalise just like that), and so she is so lonely and mocked (mostly by that girl, whom you'd want to punch in the face several times) and so depressed; she complains all the time, and tries to kill herself (good luck with that razor...), and listens to Tokyo-Hotel like (or whatever this crap is) and writes a shitty girly insignificant journal (not even poems or something to precisely transcend her feelings). And, above all, she does nothing. She is only a side of the story, when she could be the much more interesting center. Instead of that, the film focuses on the lives of other girls, ones I don't care about, mostly because there weren't enough interesting treatment.
Second (yeah, I know, my first was long before): conceptually, I find it wrong. I mean I can't relate to a story where everything is so cliché and first degree (I lie, I can, but in action movies, not in dramas). It promotes homosexuality naively and that's about it. No connection to higher level. The characters never question themselves about their attitude (Elin bitching about getting high: this is NORMAL; or Elin going out with lots of boys just like that: this is automatic filling of her life with things everyone finds normal; or again Elin sleeping with Johan (well, I think that virginity, in every case, is worth more than that)). Most importantly, the movie never tries to make us feel that this story contains more than meets the eye. I mean, formally it feels like a TV movie. You can watch it, you can like it or not, but it does not stick in mind.

I will develop on this feeling: after watching WL, I was almost shaking, it transperced me with its emotional force, but at the same time I felt I was Marie when younger. I think many of the viewers who liked it thought the same, the story embodies something universal (or very common), and it doesn't matter that it is a lesbian film. It is secondary. Conceptually, I think that all lesbian films should try to achieve that, namely to detach themselves from the lesbian love to tell about something common to straight or homosexuals. Another film that does that is Room in Rome. It is about how sex does not necessarily make people closer, and how poetic are the transitory moments (among others things that I forgot).
I do not say that the homosexuality should always be removable, but the film must play on both grounds, and intertwine them to make them unseparable in the film, but separable to the viewer so he could relate to the universality of the story.

In FA, I don't see this, mainly because of the stupid decisions of the characters and the technical aspect of the film.

I will compare once again to WL. It seems that FA is all the things WL was before it was purified to leave only essence and the concentrate of emotions. In WL, there are no that much characters, no annoying pointless dialogue, WL is timeless and situated in an abstracted (almost fantastic, certainly dreamlike) world. FA is shapeless, while WL is perfected as much as it could have been. Look at the cinematography. What are these horrible close-ups? What are these zooms? No (or so little) space treatment. No good, clean shots. No atmosphere (none, this was one of the biggest dissapointments, as I knew of this movie only in comparison with WL (they said Swedish WL, but did they really understand what WL was about and what were its merits?)). Create an atmosphere alone could have saved this film in my opinion, because however insignificant the story is, if aesthetically and emotionally it moves the viewer, then it can achieve all it wants (see Drive). In WL the atmosphere is in every shot, and is magnified by the music too (a masterpiece, I think). I don't remember music in FA, except those rock intermedes, each dissonant with the scene that came before.

That's all that I wanted to say for the moment.

The theory about the ground of the story and the universality that it must convey is of course not the only way meant for all movies. It is only what I expect to see in a film about lesbian love.
Even not only in a film, because I remember being struck when, even in their first album, t.A.T.u was already not only singing about revolt against a society that don't accept difference, but also about the end of love, rupture and its consequences. In the second album they went even further. (Yeah, I love t.A.T.u.)
User avatar
Owen
Gold Member
 
Posts: 192
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2015 11:04 pm
Location: France

Re: Rant

Postby DMt. » Mon Mar 02, 2015 3:41 am

***

I think it's your misfortune that you saw NdP before FA, Owen.

La Sciamma referenced FA as one of the films that made NdP possible, that was a precursor; perhaps because it was one of, or maybe even the first, films about lesbian love that didn't require anyone to die or turn straight, it treated their love as love, rather than some frightful aberration, gave the kids the dignity of their feelings.

Yes, I suppose it is kind of 'lightweight' or insubstantial by comparison with NdP's crushing force, it's almost a romantic comedy next to it; but it's a product of a different place, era and consciousness, and from within that context it was [and apparently still is] a cultural and emotional explosion for many people, just like NdP was for you or I.

I liked what you wrote a lot, and a contrarian view is often fruitful matter for debate; but after this,

...after watching WL, I was almost shaking, it transpierced me with its emotional force, but at the same time I felt I was Marie when younger. I think many of the viewers who liked it thought the same, the story embodies something universal (or very common)...


and this,

... It seems that FA is all the things WL was before it was purified to leave only essence and the concentrate of emotions. In WL, there are not that many characters, no annoying pointless dialogue, WL is timeless and situated in an abstracted (almost fantastic, certainly dreamlike) world. FA is shapeless, while WL is perfected as much as it could have been...


and this,

...In WL the atmosphere is in every shot, and is magnified by the music too (a masterpiece, I think)...


- I can't wait for your fuller essay [in the Water Lilies, or Acquart thread? Hmmm...you choose] on Sciamma's film, and on what that 15-year old Acquart girl did in it.
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize" - Voltaire
User avatar
DMt.
Crew Member
 
Posts: 3063
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:24 pm

Re: Rant

Postby Santi » Mon Mar 02, 2015 4:00 am

I know more people who think like you about FA,
but you must recognize that FA is one of the few movies in the world that have been the subject of worship for years.

WL is very tender and beautiful, but is not one of them.
FA has something, that hasn't other movies, like WL.

The movie is not so bad... :shock:
or perhaps we enjoy things badly done. :lol:
User avatar
Santi
Crew Member
 
Posts: 2980
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2014 3:31 am
Location: Catalonia

Re: Rant

Postby fish » Mon Mar 02, 2015 7:26 am

Pretty much what they said.
Pretty much.

NdP is an exceptional film, beautifully told and filmed.
Wonderful performances by such a young cast.
Very much one of my favourite films ever.

FÅ in many respects is like Moodyssons other films.
It's a slice of life over a given period of time.
It doesn't matter that it may not tell the full story, the audience is left to imagine the rest.
The filming was deliberately done in a "Dogma" style because that's what seemed right at the time.
No apologies, it just seemed best that way.
The cast were very much all playing their roles as if it was real life, warts and all.
No one's perfect in real life.

In my view FÅ is a masterpiece.
The best film I've ever seen.
Fish
User avatar
fish
Crew Member
 
Posts: 16659
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 9:34 am
Location: Adelaide, Oz

Re: Rant

Postby Santi » Mon Mar 02, 2015 8:35 pm

fish wrote:…The cast were very much all playing their roles as if it was real life, warts and all.
No one's perfect in real life.…

:Y Yeeeesssssss. ^O^
User avatar
Santi
Crew Member
 
Posts: 2980
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2014 3:31 am
Location: Catalonia

Re: Rant

Postby kant1781 » Tue Mar 03, 2015 1:41 am

DMt. wrote:I think it's your misfortune that you saw NdP before FA, Owen.


Well, I certainly do not want to promote any hostiliy either (not here O-) ), but I must say that I do not find it unfortunate, but rather downright silly to watch a film with the only intention (as it seems) of comparing it to another, and then to go on a rampage because one finds that it is, well, totally different. More than half of Owen's clamour is about the fact that "Fucking Amal" is unlike "Naissance de pieuvres". Well, obviously it is. Who in their right frame of mind would have thought otherwise, and why? Because some dork referred to FA as "the Swedish NdP"? (Which is a bit like referring to the Beatles as "the English ABBA", by the way.) What's the point? FA, believe it or not, has been and still is advertised in Germany as "the Swedish American Pie" (oh yes - it says so right on the cover of the DVD). I praise and thank the Lord for making it that the doubtlessly many Germans who watched FA because of that slogan and surely found themselves heavily disappointed 87 minutes later never turned up here to complain!

Seriously: It seems obvious to me that, by letting his expectations be slavishly controlled by what he takes himself to have discovered in NdP, Owen has more or less completely blinded himself to anything that is there to be discovered in FA. There is no other explanation for the gross misjudgements that make up his rant, almost all of which are, from my perspective, simply - and utterly - wrong. I can't help the impression that he didn't even try to understand and feel what is the magic of FA once it had gotten to him that it was not going to be Naissance des pieuvres with smörebröd, which seems to be what he had in mind. Note that I am not going in for a tit-for-tat, which I could, as I happen to be one who values FA infinitely higher than NdP, a film which I never found necessary to watch a second time. The difference is that I am quite prepared to blame myself for not being able to appreciate NdP more than I do, e. g. by simply not spending enough time and thought on it. So I am not trying to win a competition for FA that Owen thinks NdP wins by a country mile. Rather, I am speaking out against staging that type of competition, doing which is, to my mind, ludicrous. What I am asking for is nothing but a certain degree of open-mindedness of the kind that is nothing short of indispensable for appreciating and judging just any piece of art. This essentially includes a firm willingness to let it, the piece of art, stand and speak for itself - and not to discard it just because it fails to conform to one's personal preferences and preoccupations. I am happy to discuss any of FA's merits - and shortcomings, if there should be any :wink: - on that basis, but not on the basis of anything less.
User avatar
kant1781
Crew Member
 
Posts: 502
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 6:01 pm
Location: Berlin

Re: Rant

Postby DMt. » Tue Mar 03, 2015 3:57 am

...and why? Because some dork referred to FA as "the Swedish NdP"?


letting his expectations be slavishly controlled by what he takes himself to have discovered in NdP


I can't help the impression that he didn't even try to understand and feel what is the magic of FA once it had gotten to him that it was not going to be Naissance des pieuvres with smörebröd


I am speaking out against staging that type of competition, doing which is, to my mind, ludicrous.


let it, the piece of art, stand and speak for itself - and not...discard it just because it fails to conform to one's personal preferences and preoccupations.


*

Remind me never to get in an argument with you, Kant... :mrgreen:

TBH I did think there was a certain amount of 'This is a much better orange than that apple' going on with Owen's rant, myself; but since I am [at least] equally as smitten with Pauline Acquart and NdP's high-art production values as he is, I let it go...

:oops:

...apart from ahem suggesting that all that passion might be better invested in appreciation of what he actually does like.

Although, as I said, FA is a landmark by any standard, for all sorts of reasons, and an altogether sweeter and lighter work than NdP, I can quite well see how Owen might have been disappointed in FA - after being blown away by Pauline/NdP and being led to expect even MORE of FA by the reverent way we treat it here.

David I wrote:I praise and thank the Lord for making it that the doubtlessly many Germans who watched FA because of that slogan and surely found themselves heavily disappointed 87 minutes later never turned up here to complain!


Whew! Dodged a hail of bullets there, eh? :lol:

I was spared the torment of seeing American Pie myself, but oh dear yes, I can imagine it.
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize" - Voltaire
User avatar
DMt.
Crew Member
 
Posts: 3063
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:24 pm

Re: Rant

Postby Ian » Tue Mar 03, 2015 9:58 am

FA>Water Lilies. :mrgreen:
User avatar
Ian
Webmaster
 
Posts: 16102
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 3:39 am
Location: Round the Bend

Re: Rant

Postby kant1781 » Tue Mar 03, 2015 11:32 am

DMt. wrote:Remind me never to get in an argument with you, Kant... :mrgreen:


That wasn't an argument. It was just contradiction. :lol:

No, I'm sorry. I have allowed myself to let my response become no less rantish than Owen's contribution. If his idea was to provoke a response from the FA lovers, he certainly reached his goal with me.

DMt. wrote:I can quite well see how Owen might have been disappointed in FA - after being blown away by Pauline/NdP and being led to expect even MORE of FA by the reverent way we treat it here.


So can I. But that's something altogether different. Falling in love with films is a lot like falling in love with people, in this respect. If you're seriously in love with a person you will simply not notice - and you will not even want to notice - that there are others out there you might fall in love with, too. The very thought will appear distasteful and repugnant to you. There can be only one. And there is nothing wrong with that. But you should be aware that this is no objective feature of the world, but a consequence of your condition. Love is blindness, right? So there's no point in running around telling people that their lovers aren't really worth their time, just because your current condition makes you temporarily unable to appreciate what makes them wonderful, too.

Ian wrote:FA>Water Lilies. :mrgreen:


[gives Ian an austere but benign little smack] :mrgreen:
User avatar
kant1781
Crew Member
 
Posts: 502
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 6:01 pm
Location: Berlin

Re: Rant

Postby DMt. » Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 pm

I *think* Nossydoom wrote FA because he wanted to underline that Love is Love, whether it's 'gay' or whatever [I'm open to correction on this from his recorded comments etc, but it's definitely the impression I get].

IIRC Sciamma said that she wrote NdP so that everyone who watched it would temporarily have to become a 15-year-old girl; and if this is too much of a stretch for you, as a bloke, say, or as a straight woman, I suspect the film won't touch you.

Probably because of Pauline Acquart, it worked on me - I mean it got to me Big Time.

I love both films [and Rebecka is a Goddess] but for me NdP>FA, just like Owen, because it affected me more. I *was* that 15-year-old girl.

It was quite a shock, for an old homophobe and male chauvinist... :shock: :lol:
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize" - Voltaire
User avatar
DMt.
Crew Member
 
Posts: 3063
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:24 pm

Re: Rant

Postby kant1781 » Tue Mar 03, 2015 11:42 pm

DMt. wrote:I *think* Nossydoom wrote FA because he wanted to underline that Love is Love, whether it's 'gay' or whatever [I'm open to correction on this from his recorded comments etc, but it's definitely the impression I get].


I think it was Bex and Alex who made some remarks on that score, yeah. But actually, I do not think there is such a great difference. :) Exactly what you describe happened to me - with Agnes. I immediately recognized myself in her - or, more precisely, I immediately recognized her self-conception as a perfect epitomisation of the way I saw myself when I was her age. I live through her pain, her desperation, her defiance, her eventual bliss as if they were mine, every single time. And I don't think that's too surprising, for I am convinced that Lukas wrote an awful lot of himself into her.

Why it's Agnes for me and Marie for you? Who knows? Who needs to know? *:)*
User avatar
kant1781
Crew Member
 
Posts: 502
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 6:01 pm
Location: Berlin

Re: Rant

Postby Santi » Wed Mar 04, 2015 7:33 am

kant1781 wrote:Why it's Agnes for me and Marie for you? Who knows? Who needs to know? *:)*

Yes, is true
User avatar
Santi
Crew Member
 
Posts: 2980
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2014 3:31 am
Location: Catalonia

Re: Rant

Postby Dahls » Wed Mar 04, 2015 10:07 pm

After months on this boards without seeing FÅ, I can see how you got your hopes up, Owen. :P
Too bad the film failed to meet your expectations, but hey, films are a subjective matter anyway.

I've heard people call FÅ both the worst and the best film they seen, so there's no news there. :wink:

For me it was the latter, and it was the sort of film which grew on me for every viewing (although it's been a couple years since last time.)


One thing I think you missed though, which was one of the most important things to make FÅ so great, is the superb authenticity of the film.
Like Fish said, a slice of life over a period of time, almost documentary.

You say it lacks timelessness as opposed to NdP, but the 90's wasn't really timeless was it?
And you say the characters was flawed and made stupid decisions, but, I can promise you, in high school in a rural scandinavian town (pretty much in the rest of the world too I presume), most kids where exactly that. Immature, insecure, often just plain mean.

It all comes down to the authenticity, you see. :wink:



Well, anyway, theres no reasons not to stay around these boards anyway, all opinions are respected here. :W
User avatar
Dahls
Crew Member
 
Posts: 1404
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 11:53 am
Location: Trøndelag, Norway

Re: Rant

Postby DMt. » Thu Mar 05, 2015 12:12 am

I seem to recall Owen saying he only gets to post at weekends.
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize" - Voltaire
User avatar
DMt.
Crew Member
 
Posts: 3063
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:24 pm

Re: Rant

Postby Santi » Thu Mar 05, 2015 12:37 am

I think Owen was not very objective, but has made something that had not yet seen.
Your answers.

Happened to me it was the same when I talked about Lukas. Do you remember? :lol:
User avatar
Santi
Crew Member
 
Posts: 2980
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2014 3:31 am
Location: Catalonia

Next

Return to Fucking Åmål (Show Me Love)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bjorn and 9 guests