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

In Julia Ducournau’s Raw, we are able to see a complex depiction of a female character in the horror genre. We are used to the idea of the “scream queen” and “final girl” trope in horror films, that seeing the full perspective of the female character as told by a female director  is such an interesting watch. It was also interesting to watch that this kind of horror film is not the typical type that relies on the jump scares. It was more skin-crawling because it relied on the more physical aspect of the horror, as seen on the canibal storyline. This film is clear example of the French extremity movement, wherein it truly tests the audience by depicting harsh scenarios that are rare in mainstream films.

The vibe of the film is a departure from most mainstream horror films because it does not rely on cheap jump scares to produce a reaction from the audience. We saw in the experiences of Justine in the veterinary school, that the environment of the film makes it creepy and makes sure it is connected to the cannibalistic aspect of the film. By having this more creepy vibe, the film is successful in not falling in the pitfalls most Hollywood horror films usually get trapped in. Instead they bring something very rare in the genre by making sure gut-wrenching scenes is what made it a horror. The most noteworthy scene for me was when Justine was in bed being tormented by her body that resulted to hear severely scratching herself.  This scene was very hard to watch because the film made the audience feel every scratch she made as if it was happening to them. This scene was successful, due to to committed performance of the actress and the sound of the film that highlights scratching sounds. This aspect of the film ensured that it belonged in the French extremity movement, because it was a horror film of bizzare and skin-crawling scenarios rather than simple jump scares.

Another aspect that I liked about the film that is not typical in most horror films was that it was very much character driven. The relationships of Justine with her sister, Alexia, and her roomate, Adrien, made the film more engaging because it humanizes Justine. By focusing in the character’s coming of age, we get to see a horror film that focuses on the character’s descent into madness. The actress, Garance Marillier, was very committed to her performance and made sure the audience followed her story because even though they might not relate in the cannibalistic aspect, they can relate in the coming of age and growing up aspect.

Lastly, the most noteworthy thing about the film for me is that it did not pursue the typical storylines that female characters in horror film usually have. We usually see them as the victims of the antagonists in the horror film. In this case it is purely in Justine’s perspective and tackling her own agency. It also important to see that this film is under the female gaze since it is done by a female director. With that she was able to tackle her film’s issues in the female perspective without exploiting her female characters, which is abundant in mainstream horror films. Also she does not make her heroine perfect by making sure the characterization of Justine is complex, which she gravitate being the heroin and the monster of the film . The film was not afraid to tackle these themes it because of that the film was very successful in the execution.

Enrico R. Barruela COM 115.5

In Hans Weingartner’s The Edukators, the audience is opened to the political and ideological discussions happening in their country. The film centers on three characters, Jan, Jule and Peter, who are young people opposing the capitalistic nature of Germany. The film was really opening the discussion on relevant political matters, even to this day, concerning the effects of capitalism on the lowers class, especially the youths. The film really fleshed out the youth experience in Germany and how their economic status affects them and how they react. The characters, specifically Jule, epitomizes the youth population struggling in society and with the help of Jan, she is able to externalize her emotions. The film was successful in opening the discussion, but through its use of comedy was able to make it entertaining.

One aspect of the film that was very successful was the chemistry of the four main characters. They were able to embody the specific characteristics of their respective roles that made them interesting to watch. They also played on one another to showcase each other’s personality better to the audience. They were also able to create the  dramatic tension between differing political beliefs and complicated relationship status and combine it with the deadpan humour that really captures German comedy.

The discussions concerning their ideological difference was also a highlight for me in the film because it truly captures the important ideas and arguments. It was really interesting, especially in the case of Jule, on how she was affected by economic inequality rooted from capitalism. This makes her and her friends become radicals in the form of becoming edukators, or people who invade houses to disrupt their environment and make apparent that their bourgeoise living was not only bad but also not permanent. This radicalism is interesting to see unflod due to the u just structures in our society. The film tries its best to give a human face to this radicalism, wherein they are rooted from personal experience of inequality and injustice. This drives these people to commit these bizarre acts to showcase their grievance to this capitalist society. It was also interesting to see the character Hardenberg, a former radical himself but turned to capitalism when he was able to reap benefits from this kind of living. His character embodies what these young people hate the most in their society. Although they become open to him and even treat him as somewhat as a friend, at the end of the film he proves himself as a capitalist sell out who will never change.

The only negative part of the film is that compared to other European films that we have watched, this film is one of the least visually appealing. They use the handheld camera format for the film and I feel it was done to showcase visually the chaos of the lives of these young people. But, even with this interpretation, it was still very dizzying to watch the film and that it didn’t really focus on making the visuals appealing to look at. The film was still successful in other ways, especially through its script that really delves in the characters and the topic at hand.

Enrico R. Barruela COM 115.5

In  Nacho Vigalondo’s Timecrimes, we get to see a European take on the science fiction and the thriller genre. It is interesting that the film tackled the genre in such a small scale, which resulted to a more focused and endearing film. The film was successful in molding the two genres together so that it can produce an interesting character study on the main character, Hector. The film really showed such a complex concept, but done in a simple setting, which makes it easy to scrutinize. Vigalondo really succeeds in producing not only an accessible and entertaining film, but he made a complex film that makes the audience think. In a sense it’s the combination of the more mainstream side and more artistic side of European cinema.

One of my favorite aspects of the film is that Vigalondo decided to encase the film in a small setting. Rather than creating an epic sprawling cinematic experience, he decided to keep it small scale. This is effective in the study of Hector’s character, because he is in almost in every scene and thus we get to realize his own being as we watch the film. The small scale of the film also helped in not making the story to complicated, as seen in a couple other science fiction films. With the more focus setting, we get to observe the occurrences in the film and the little details that will make us understand the film further. The easter eggs were more evident because of the time travelling aspect of the film, which makes the film even more enjoyable to watch.

The film also successfully merged two different genres, science fiction and thriller. The film let the two genres compliment each other so that they can seamlessly tell the plot. These two genres also made the film very entertaining and put the audience at the edge of their seats. The thriller aspect was used well because it really made the tension between the Hectors spine-chilling. The thriller aspect was most successful at the first half of the film, where Hector is being chased by the man with bandage on his face. The scenes in the house really made it feel like a pin drop can be heard through the eerie quietness. The science fiction aspect was also successful, most especially because it was used in a small scale. By minimizing the sci fi aspect of the film, it was able to encapsulate a more creative way to handle a time travel plot. The audience were able to be immersed to the time travelling storyline, especially when we get to be revealed concerning the different Hectors in one single timeline.

Lastly, I found the twist and turns of the film to be successful and not just to elicit a reaction from the audience. The storyline was clearly structured to have the audience on the edge of their seats on what the actions of Hector will be. The revelations were also not coming out of nowhere and instead the film really put easter eggs, which foreshadowed the impeding twists in the film. The film was a successful use of genre in  the European film canon. It molded the accessible entertainment we are accustomed to in mainstream cinema with the more artistically weird characteristic European cinema is known for.

Enrico R. Barruela COM 115.5

In André Øvredal’s Trollhunter, we can a glimpse of how European films can also tackle mainstream and genre themes to be applied to to the culture of the country the film is made in, in this case Norway. It was an interesting pivot, especially after Holy Motors, to watch a film that was made to entertain. There was really less hidden meanings or symbolism that was made in the film that was in contrast to the more arthouse film that we have tackled. This shows a different side to European films, which is less about artistic sensibility, but more wanting to be accessible and be entertain the audience. It also shows that it is a film that uses genre tropes like fantasy to not only showcase the culture of Norway, but also used as the device to make the film an amusing watch. The most interesting part of the film for me is the melding of two kinds of film genre, found footage and fantasy, to create a film that attracts the audience’s attention.

The film was beautifully shot and showcases the gorgeous landscapes around Norway. Using these beautiful setting, the film veers away from what most other found footage films look like. Other found footage films tend to have an ugly cinematography, to make it appear realistic, and confusing camera movement. But, this film was able to escape this genre stereotype by using the environment around them as an attractive looking setting.

The characters are also an interesting bunch, although they did lack depth or any character development. They were all likeable and were easy to engage with, which makes the audience interested in the story they are trying to tell and keep their attention to the characters. It was also interesting to see the use of comedic themes to keep to humanize the characters, especially the trollhunter named Hans. This was an interesting use of comedy, especially noting that the characters experience fantastic and horrific instances. This combination of moods was really molded together well so that there were different levels of entertainment in the film.

The best part of the film was really the world building like nature, where we are introduced to the reality that trolls are living in our world. The trolls were very interesting that the filmmaker adapted them to how they would fit in our world right now. This was successfully done by the filmmakers to creatively create a world, where the magical creatures are government kept secret. The use of TSS, was also a creative way how our world could handle these magical creature around us.

Lastly, what I appreciated most of the film is that it did not take itself seriously. By doing this, the filmmakers were able to have fun and create an enjoyable film. The addition of the conspiracy theory  aspect, seen most at the end with the Norwegian politician in real life, showcases the entertaining ways the filmmakers did to create an alternate world with trolls. In the end, the film was an enjoyable ride that doesn’t make it difficult to understand. The filmmakers gave us everything we need to understand, so that we just need to watch and enjoy the show instead.

Enrico R. Barruela COM 115.5 A

In Leos Carax’s Holy Motors, we get introduced to a filmmaker that has no intent in making the film watching experience easy for the audience. The film does not spoon feed the audience on what it is trying to say. I interpreted it in a way that the film is trying to evoke a reaction with the audience through its use of provocations. It can also be appreciated as a film that tackles the unwavering commitment of actors to inhabit their roles. Lastly, the film just captures a directorial vision that cannot be explained, but just showcase the film making talent of the filmmaker and the actors.

The first reaction that I experienced when watching the beginning of the film is that it confused me. There was no introduction to what we will experience, so it was really puzzling to find out what we are watching and what the images that is being shown to us mean. Throughout the whole film it depicts a man through provocative situations like kidnapping and murder. These scenes were not entirely  narratively linear, but they did evoke a reaction from the audience. This process of provocation showcases that a film does not have to be entirely understood to catch the audience attention. This film effectively uses its powerful images without needing to tell a coherent story.

Another interesting thing I noticed is how the actors, both the real and fictional, totally committed to every role they were ask to depict. Both Denis Lavant and his character, Oscar, gives intense and diverse performances that really takes a lot out of an actor. What I appreciated most about this aspect of the film is the total commitment of the actor to do bizarre things like act crazy in a paris cemetery or participate in an erotic motion capture scene. My interpretation of this aspect of the film is that the filmmaker is trying to showcase the unnerving capacity of actors, especially method actors, to fully convey the roles they are assigned to and be directed without any question. It’s an interesting take on the unglamorous side of acting, wherein the actors face total transformation when they take up a role.

An interesting thing that I also like in the film is that it is most akin with the 60’s European films that we have watched, wherein it tries to redefine how films show be done. It appears to be the filmmaker’s uncompromised vision of what he is trying to say. I really appreciated that he is not giving us all the answers to understand his film. It really appears  to be his vision and we the audience should just accept it as it is. The more I stopped trying to understand or interpret the film, the more I enjoyed watching the film. Accepting the absurdities as it is and no longer asking questions made the film such an exciting watch because of its unpredictable nature. It’s such a great experience to watch uncompromising piece of work that challenges the audience, but it also rewards the audience by giving them a visionary cinematic experience.

Enrico R. Barruela COM 115.5

In Wolfgang Becker’s Goodbye Lenin we get to be immersed to the culture of East Berlin back then. It’s an interesting film to watch, especially in opening our eyes for how the east Germans lived back then through the facade that Alex was making for his mother. It is also an noteworthy point that this was the most accessible film that we watch so far in class. It was very easy watch and very akin to the movies that we watch in the current day and age. But, even if it was accessible it still had an out there plot that can still be compared to other Europeans filmmakers. It was an interesting to watch a film that basically showcases the culture of a country back the, but adding cinematic qualities to keep it both educational and entertaining.

The first thing that really struck me in the film was the style, which was more similar to the movies we watched that come from Hollywood. Unlike the previous films we watched, which can be considered difficult films to watch, this film was able to convey the story without alienating the audience. It just shows how diverse the cinema is in Europe because there is not distinct style in their filmmaking.

One of the strong points in the film was the story itself. Even though we can deem the film as accessible, the plot is still very out there but successfully executed through the storytelling decisions of the filmmakers. The film was able to translate, what could have been a gimmicky plot, into a film with so much heart, specifically centered on family. The occurrences in the film showed how to depict a quirky family dynamics, with still inserting some historical context of the country they live in. Although the film was able to explain everything, even the context of what was happening in the country during that time, I felt that the inside jokes, pertaining to the culture back then, would have had a greater impact to me if I fully new the lives of the people in East Berlin back then.

Another strength of the film was the charismatic cast of characters that really brought the film to light. The actors were able to convey the quirky sensibilities of their respective characters without making them caricatures. The film had may comedic moments that needed very game actors to fully realize the humor in the scenes. The family dynamic also showed the chemistry of the actors with one another  because they were able to successfully embody being a family, both the fun and the more serious parts.

Lastly, what I like most of the film is that it is very educational without being in your face about the things they want to convey. The film really showed so many things that captured how the people in East Germany lived back then. I also appreciated that I learned so many thing about their culture but I didn’t feel like it was a lecture. They were really able to do it by making the film entertaining, through comedy and its plot structure.

Enrico R. Barruela COM 155.5

In Lars von Trier’s The Five Obstructions, he creates a documentary about the creation of art, specifically in the medium of film. My instant reaction to this film was that it was unlike the documentaries that I have watched before. This film continues the continuous theme in the films that I have watched in COM 115.5, wherein the European directors really digress from the standards that Hollywood in general has put in movies. The main difference that I noticed in this film, in contrast to more accustomed documentaries, is that it does not tackle a big social issue. The movie itself feels very small and contained to the goals that von Trier wanted to get out of Jorgen, the director of the original film he wants to be remade. My initial reaction was that the film felt minuscule because I was accustomed to documentary films having something to say in a social context. This film felt like a film fan, von Trier, being able to interact in the real world with his film idol, Jorgen.

It was interesting to see the different interpretations of Jorgen’s original film that von Trier gets out of Jorgen. It showcases different perspectives of how the film could have been made, under the stipulations von Trier made. This was a highlight for me because it showcases the quality of art that does not limit it to a particular style. It makes you appreciate the art mor and in this case, the original film because the different variations changed it but still had the essence of what Jorgen made.

I did feel that the film was quite dragging because I am not well aware of Jorgen’s original film so remaking it in different styles did not really encourage me to enjoy the movie. One factor is that it had a lot of conversations between Lars and Jorgen and then it goes to the finished product. I would have been more interested in Jorgen’s new process in remaking his film in the different styles. Although the film showed a few glimpses of behind the scenes filmmaking that Jorgen did, it was more focused on the dialogue between LArs and Jorgen and the finished film.

I also felt that the films that they were producing was to avant garde for me that I end up not getting what the point of the “The Perfect Human” is and it detaches me from the film. It also didn’t help that they were easily bouncing off to a new obstruction so I don’t have enough time to process the previous variations of the film. Although they were beautiful to look at I was not able to connect with the end goal of Lars and Jorgen.

I did like the back and forth between Lars and Jorgen because  it was the comic relief in the film that was full of artistic pretentious acts. I wished that the film either focused more on the relationship of student and teacher, between the two filmmakers, or the filmmaking process of the remake. This would have kept me engaged in the film, but the the film that I saw was interesting but just really hard to connect with.

Enrico R. Barruela COM 115.5

In Michelangelo Antonioni’s L’Avventura, I was really immersed in what most would say represents the stereotypical European art film. My first impression is that it really tests the audience patience in being fully engaged in the movie. The film is very long and not much really happens the whole time. So for a regular movie watcher, this film would be a difficult watch because it is opposite from the typical Hollywood tropes that happen in mainstream films. It sometimes feels like a chore to watch because of the lack of intense action that happen in the long duration of the movie. But, with all the more subdued instances in the film, you can appreciate the little details that further make this an art film.

It really shows how diverse the European art films from each country, especially compared to the Godard and Bergman movies. This movie really savours in its slow burn mystery turned romance movie. Like many of the art films that has been made throughout the years, the film also showed peculiarity in its depiction of the characters. One noteworthy aspect of the film was how only Claudia seemed to be worried about Anna in the duration of the film. The weird scene with Claudia, Guilia and the painter, further highlights the indifference of almost all the characters in what would normally be a major issue. The characters feel like they were in another world and that they don’t act normally like how people outside of the film act. There is also a bourgeois attitude among the characters and they are normally either in lavish parties or in vacation. This really makes the typical audience to feel disconnected with the people they are watching on screen. None of them really feel relatable and I felt that this was intentional so that it is emphasized even further the alienation of Claudia from the world she is in after the sudden disappearance of Anna.

Monica Vitti is also very engaging in her role as Claudia as she oozes a very chic vibe from the moment she steps on screen. She also embodies this alienation very well because her evolution throughout the film is quite evident. From being this laid back person to the hysterical attitude she became by the end of the film. The film really relies on her because she is the heart of the movie and she really demonstrates her acting range in the movie.

But, the strongest part of the film is evidently the visual aspect. The film, like most art films, really looks beautiful in every frame. The images are all striking and fully enhanced by having attractive looking actors to be in them. The cinematography of the movie is its greatest asset because rather than telling you what’s happening it shows you with the beautifully shot images.  But, for me the most striking aspect were the costumes worn by the actors, specifically Monica Vitti’s Claudia. Here clothes are very cool and chic and was able to represent high fashion that could have easily walked the runways of Paris and Milan.

Enrico R. Barruela COM 115.5 A

In Ingmar Bergman’s Persona, I fully experienced for the first time what an uncompromising art film looks like. The beginning of the film was such a culture shock because I just did not get what it was trying to say. It was a barrage of somewhat random images that I felt was used to provoke a reaction from the audience. But, even though the first flash of images was confusing, it was still very interesting and really grabbed my attention. I was really enamored by the images because I wanted to know what they meant and do they have a purpose for the film later. I really didn’t get any answer after watching the film but it was an effective hook for me to really get interested in the movie.

The film itself was somewhat of a new experience because it was purely a conversation between one woman who speaks and another who just listens. This is quite different from the mainstream movies that we are accustomed to because it feels like there was no real exciting moments that was happening in the movie. But, when you actually listen to every word that Alma says it is quite an interesting conversation. She bare all her deepest darkest thoughts to Elisabet and it is quite refreshing to have such a bare conversation that is not afraid to tackle the dark topics that was presented.

The two actresses were so interesting to watch, but in very different ways. Majority of the film, we only hear the voice of Alma and her delivery of her dialogue is so striking because she has to embody the vulnerability in most of the movie. She keeps us locked in the screen because she was able to capture  our attention and want to listen to her like Elisabet.

For Elisabet, it was different because she barely had any lines in the movie. With that the actress, Liv Ullmann, had to carry out the character through her facial expressions. I found that her expressive eyes were so enamoring and that they were able to capture your attention immediately.

I personally still have so many questions about the movie, but visually it was one of the most beautiful movies I watched in the most minimalistic way. One of the most noteworthy scenes were the blockings between the two actresses that that really highlighted their faces. The use of the close up in the movie was really done well because the facial expressions of the two actresses could really just tell the story of the movie.

I really found this film to be a great way to introduce oneself to art films because even though it might be a difficult watch, there is so much to appreciate in the movie. It is also such a refreshing way to make movies that is so opposite from the mainstream. It feels like you are not watching the movie to be entertained, but I suddenly began watching it more of appreciating the new or different thing being done in the film. It may not be easy to understand, but it cannot be denied that there is something amazing in the movie.

Enrico Barruela COM 115.5 A