Directors are always looking for a way to revolutionize filmmaking by using radically different methods. Andy Warhol made a career of filming inanimate objects and/or tedious situations; famed horror producer William Castle would market every movie he made with a silly gimmick. In the mid 90’s, a bunch of European directors (including Lars von Trier, of Dancer in the Dark fame) formed a collective called Dogme 95. Dogme 95 stresses pure cinema : there is nothing to be added. The actors have no makeup; the film uses only natural light; all props must be found on location, and so on. Well, I certainly appreciate the thought, but if all Dogme 95 movies end up being like this one, then no thanks.

The film takes place at a relatively large estate in Denmark. People are coming from all over to celebrate Helge Klingenfeldt’s 60th birthday. We are introduced to his children: Christian (Ulrich Thomsen), a seemingly nice young man; Michael (Thomas Bo Larsen), a hateful little man who berates his wife constantly, and Helene, the sister and moral conscience of the family. Christian is asked to give the opening speech for his father’s birthday; he reveals some horrifying secrets about his father in the process. The guests ignore this (in the first of many inexplicable events of the story) until Christian threatens to reveal more. The entire thing then goes off the diving board.

First off, where is the humor in this? Every review I’ve read mentions the darkly comic script. It was dark, yes; I could see where there could be humor, yes. But where was this humor on-screen? It’s obvious that we’re not going to see pratfalls and fart jokes here. I was looking for some humor in the vein of Bunuel or Neil LaBute, but I couldn’t find it. I might’ve laughed once during the entire movie.

And another thing: the characters aren’t very interesting. They’re not outrageous enough to be funny and not real enough to make us care for them. I’m not one to automatically shoot down a movie because its characters aren’t likeable (it’s quite the opposite, actually) but they have to at least be interesting. No such luck here. The way it was shot reminds you of a home video; while this could certainly make for compelling cinema, think about watching the home videos of someone you don’t know. The excitement wears off once you realise that you don’t know who these people are… and don’t really care.

If there’s one thing the movie has going for it, it’s the acting. On the most part, the actors are able to give great performances despite the fact that their characters are extremely boring. Ulrich Thomsen (who’s had a small career in English language films; he was in The Weight of Water and Max, amongst others) gives a measured, layered performance, but it’s really Bo Larsen who walks off with the film. The worst performance comes from the guy (I’m not even going to try to spell his name) who plays Helene’s boyfriend. He’s the only one who speaks English in the film, but it appears that he learned to speak English solely for the purpose of this movie. This is not a critique of his English skills as much as a critique of the logic behind this: why does this guy speak English, exactly? So he can call this other guy a ‘biitch’? Besides, he’s very wooden.

I’m sure Vinterberg is a talented guy; you’ve got to be talented to make a Dogme film. However, he just doesn’t have a lot to say with this movie. Sometimes the movie gives you food for thought, but those moments are few and far between. The Dogme movement is interesting, but it remains an experiment, and nothing but. Chalk this up as yet another of these films that I simply don’t understand the hype for.



Recommended:
No

Viewing Format: VHS
Video Occasion: Better than Watching TV
Suitability For Children: Not suitable for Children of any age