In Juuso Laatio and Jukka Vidgren’s Heavy Trip is one of the most mainstream films that we have watched for our class. It was quite interesting to see a film about outsiders in the context of the country of Finland. This is an example of how similar European films can be with the mainstream Hollywood movies, but was able to be different by encapsulating it in their specific cultural context. The film was very effective because of the likability of the protagonists, who were portrayed in a way that does not usually appear in films, and the overall vibe of the film with the comedy used to enrich the storyline.
The film is generally very easy to watch, which is in contrast to our more artistic oriented film that we have watched. The film is the film that is most similar to the films that are normally seen in mainstream Hollywood films. This shows that European is not just about rebelling from the mainstream films that Hollywood has put out. Films, like Heavy Trip, can embrace the purpose of being made for the enjoyment of the audience. They do not need to have a deeper and more profound style of storytelling. They just need to have an uplifting story that can inspire the audience.
Another aspect that I felt was a successful in the film is the depiction of outsiders as the protagonists. It shows a band of outsiders, lead by Turo, that are not depicted often in film as seen in the use of a heavy metal rock band in the center. Rather than having common characters that are mainstays in films, these group of oddball were able to bring something new through the culture of the heavy metal genre. We get to see a faction of society, that is so little seen, so we get to understand their community more. I also liked that the film subverted from stereotypes of the characters and instead made them more round. This is seen through them wanting to be the typical heavy metal band, but they also have their own quirkiness to show.
The film’s storyline was easy to observe because it was linear. It had a normal structure and did not digress to using outside of the box techniques to tell the story. I did find it bizarre that at the middle of the film one of the main characters was killed, most likely for emotional purposes and to be a factor in the story arch of the main character. It was weird to see that an important character was killed of in the middle of the film and was kinda frustrating that it was just for the story arch of the other main characters to come in fruition. I found it to be a cheap way to develop the characters and to incite an emotion from the audience. But, I did like the second half of the film, wherein the storyline became more bizarre by the minute. It was no longer telling a typical underdog story because through their use of comedy they inputted various entertaining storylines that were quite engaging. It also require the audience to embrace the absurdity that is happening on screen. Through this we get to enjoy this aspect of the storytelling of the film more.
Enrico R. Barruela COM 115.5