Idealism vs Reality

“At twenty, if you are not an idealist, then you don’t have a heart. And if you continue being an idealist at forty, then you don’t have a brain.”
Hardenberg (The Edukators)

Idealism vs Reality. This is perhaps how I would describe The Edukators. It was an interesting film, which made me question myself and the things I stand for, and whether I am also part of the problem the system of Capitalism has created. Although, it does not mean I will suddenly change my beliefs, it made me see how there is a problem with society and that we must help in our own way to improve it.

The film centers around three young activists: Peter, Jule (the girlfriend of Peter), and Jan (the best friend of Peter). Peter and Jan have been entering empty homes of rich families and rearranging their furniture while calling themselves as the edukators to send a message that not even the rich are safe in their own homes. Although the duo, break in and enter different homes they make sure to keep to their code in which they must never steal from their victims and never hurt someone. Although it seemed idealistic to believe they can change people by rearranging their furniture, it was still quite inspiring to see two optimistic teenagers trying to change society. Even though they have entered multiple homes already, the duo were never caught.

When Peter suddenly needs to leave for Barcelona, he entrusts Jan to take care of his girlfriend. In the time Peter was away, Jan and Jule began to become close which led to Jan telling Jule about his and Peter’s escapades as the edukaotrs. Learning this, Jule convinces Jan to sneak into the house of a wealthy CEO, Hardenberg, with whom she has problems with and to do his educator work. Jule accompanies Jan to Hardenberg’s house, however, since this was her first time to break inside a home, she made a mistake and forgets her cellphone after tripping an alarm. Realizing that Jule left her cellphone, Jule and Jan come back to the house the next day but then get seen by Hardenberg. They kidnap Hardenberg to avoid going to prison. They then inform Peter of what has happened, and the trio bring Hardenberg to a farm where they plan to decide on what to do with him. Although kept as a prisoner, the trio and Hardenberg begin to know each other, which leads to various discussions and reflections between the characters about society and life in general.

The talks between the teens and Hardenberg delve into topics such as whether the actions of the trio are actually a good form of activism, how a man can get caught up in the system despite being against it at the start, and how the life of an activist eventually turns out. You begin to see whether it is still practical to remain true to your beliefs when they cant put food on the table or pay rent, or is it better get absorbed in the system even if you may seem heartless. The long monologue and debates amongst the trio and Hardenberg allow the audience to reflect on these problems, problems which are still relevant in todays settings. The are made more relatable due to how they are fleshed out, made the characters even easier sympathize with and try to view society from their perspective. Although, I cannot credit the characters alone for affecting the hearts of the audience, the musical score chosen as and the setting of the movie helped make the characters and the story of the movie more appealing to make it easier to further sympathize with them.

Overall, The Edukators was a fun film which I would recommend to my friends and families even If they aren’t interested in European film. It was a film which was easy to follow but delved on deep topics which sparks conversation amongst the audience.

Things never change

Timecrimes is a film which starts with the main character, Hector, being chased by a killer to a lab somewhere in a forest. He meets a researcher in the lab who helps him escape the killer by letting him enter a pod. However, in reality, the pod Hector entered into was a time machine which sends him a few hours back into the past. As he tries to discover how to fix his predicament, he realizes that he was the killer chasing himself all along and that the events which led him to the lab was all his doing. Although he tries to change the past, he merely repeats the events. In the process, however, a girl is killed which makes Hector feel guilty. In order to prevent this tragedy, he travels in time once again, but he realizes everything is futile since the events will always repeat themselves. In fact, the actions of his first time travel happened because of his actions in his second time travel.

This paradox of something happening because he went back in time left me wondering throughout the film. Wondering what he could have done otherwise to fix his situation to a better one or whether the other Hector’s are also doomed to repeat the same cycle endlessly. This was perhaps one of the best parts of the movie, it kept the audience engaged. Rather than trying to explain the rules of time travel in the world of Hector, it left it to the viewers imagination. This kept me focused on the screen to try to discover what other thing I may have missed in order to try to consider what Oscar could have done to fix his situation. If I were in Oscar’s shoes, I would have probably tried everything to fix my mistakes to make sure that they don’t that my mistakes don’t haunt me in my timeline.

Considering that it was a budget film, Timecrimes was able to make do with the resources it had on hand and made a fantastic film. Although I wouldn’t consider it the best film we have seen in class so far, the plot of the movie was still intriguing and kept my attention. This was especially so for the beginning when I thought the film to be a horror movie due to how it started out. Also considering the cover of the film was Hector wrapped in bandages and looking like a serial killer. The sudden shift to that of time travel movie and trying to figure out the puzzle of what is actually happening helped keep my intrigue throughout the film. And although I wouldn’t say the acting was superb, the actors were still able to do their parts well enough which contributed to my immersion of the film.

Overall, Timecrimes was a fun film to watch. If I have friends or family interested in watching European film, I would recommend this movie to them since it was easy to watch (when compared to what we have seen in class so far), but still had a way which made it different from most Hollywood films.

A rollercoaster of events

What is happening? That was the constant question running throughout my mind as the film was playing. No matter how many times I thought I figured the film out, another scene would break all my theories of what is actually going on.

Holy Motors! begins with a man called Oscar entering a limousine for work. He then goes around the city playing various roles such as an old lady, a stunt performer, an assassin and even a creature living in the sewers. At the start of the film, I believed Oscar was just an improve actor or someone who accepts random acting jobs for money. However, as the film progressed, Oscar kept entering weirder situations which defied human logic. I began to even wonder if the events happening were even on Earth or if Oscar was actually human. For example, despite being stabbed and shot multiple times, he would get back up as soon as his limousine driver, Celine, tells him that they would be late for their next job. This made me constantly question what this job is and whether anything happening was actually real or just being acted out. In one of the scenes in the movie, Oscar seemed to show his true self after meeting a woman he knew with the same job as his. Although the movie implied that what was happening was real, I still wondered whether that was another act, or it was truly his genuine self being shown. This skepticism of my mine was due to how in one of the previous scenes where he picked-up his daughter, I truly believed that that was his true self which was unfortunately not true. This see-saw of what is real and what isn’t just left me confused throughout the film. I would even consider this the most confusing film I have ever seen.

However, despite being the most confusing film I might have seen, Holy Motors! was able to entrance me to the screen the entire time. There were so many things happening each moment that I felt I would miss something if I turned away. In addition, the quality of the cinematography was amazing. Each scene had its own different mood and the background made for each of Oscar’s characters seemed so unique that you could make a movie for each of them. At some points in the film, I just completely gave up on trying to discover what was going on and just appreciated the effort placed on the makeup, camerawork and props made for the movie. Also, the acting of Sir Dennis Lavant, as he portrayed multitude of different characters kept me in awe due to the range of his characters.

Although I wouldn’t consider Holy Motors! as a film for everyone, I would still recommend it to my family and friends due to how amazing the visuals and the camerawork of the film is. It was able to grab my attention, and although I was disturbed and confused by the end of it, I was left satisfied by the end of the movie, even if it just brought more questions. I would suggest to those who will watch to just enjoy the film for what it is so that they can appreciate what the film has to offer.

A Son’s Love

Good Bye, Lenin! Was the most straight forward movie we have seen in class so far. It had no plot twists or hidden meaning within it. It was just about a son doing what he thought was best for his mother. The straight forwardness of the film made it quite refreshing considering the usual movies we see in class.

The movie begins with Christiane, a member of the Socialist Unity Party in East Germany, entering a coma when she sees her son, Alex, being arrested for joining a protest. While, she was a sleep many things happened. Notably, the breaking of the Berlin wall and the unification of both East and West Germany. After eight months in a coma, Christiane wakes up, but the doctors tell Alex that any shock might cause her to have another stroke. However, with the breaking of the Berlin wall and capitalism entering East Germany, the country Christiane knew when she was awake had been completely changed. Scared that the changes that happened in the country might cause his mother to have a stroke, Alex brings his mother home and recreates everything about East Germany to stop her from discovering what has happened.

The filial love Alex showed for his mother was quite touching. As a son who greatly loves his mother, I could imagine myself going to great lengths to keep my own mother alive. Even if it meant making her believe that time had never changed. However, although we always believe that what we are doing is for the best for the person we love, sometimes what we do is actually wrong. We can see later on in the film that Alex’s mom wasn’t as loyal to East Germany as Alex though she was. In fact, she wanted to leave East Germany when Alex and his sister were younger but was just afraid to lose her children if she failed. It might have been healthier for his mother if Alex actually told her the truth. Although, we can never say for sure.

These basic emotions such as a mother’s love for her children and child’s love for his mother is what made the film quite enjoyable for me. I was able to identify with the characters and put myself in their positions. They were made relatable and made me think about what I would have done if I was placed in their shoes. As the film progressed and more information was given on the family, I found myself being even more engrossed in their story and putting myself in their position.

Overall, Good Bye, Lenin! was an enjoyable film that was able to play with my emotions. It made think of my responsibility as a son and to what extent I would go for my parents. In addition, it made see how the truths we have always known might actually be different.

A mess of characters

La’aventura was perhaps the most unsatisfying movie I have seen so far. The plot of the movie seemed quite simple at the start. It begins by showing Anna, a wealthy socialite, who has plans to go to an island with her friends. However, when she and her friends arrive on the island, Anna suddenly disappears after having an argument with her fiancé, Sandro. The group of friends begin to search for Anna, but she seems to have magically disappeared from the island. Although the characters still look for Anna throughout the film, her disappearance suddenly becomes a background plot midway in the movie. Rather, the plot shifs from a mystery to the unlikely love story between Sandro, and Anna’s best friend, Claudia.

The sudden change of protagonist and the relegation of Anna as a mere background character left me quite upset since Anna was built up to be the main character in the beginning of the film. In addition, she seemed to have many more stories to tell with the way the film had set her background as an unhappy rich girl, whose father was an ambassador. In comparison, the film never gave a proper background to Claudia except being Anna’s best friend. Although this was the case, Anna suddenly became forgotten in the film and became merely an afterthought. In fact, most of the characters seemed to have forgotten her midway through the film, aside from Claudia and Sandro. For Sandro, however, he seemed only interested in finding Anna to please Claudia. This was one of the reasons why I was quite unhappy with the film. Most of the characters seemed to be so selfish and never really cared for their missing friend. The way they even commented on her disappearance seemed so harsh that I doubted they were friends in the first place. In fact, the only person I considered decent in the movie was Claudia since she seemed to be the only one with a conscience in the film. Other characters seemed to act on impulse and not even think whether what they were doing was right or wrong.

Although I have to commend Director Antonioni for his amazing camera work. As seen by the beautiful long camera shots seen throughout the movie. The way the characters were written made the movie quite unappealing to me which negated even the stunning cinematography. In addition, he never gave a proper closure to the movie and just made more questions by the end. For example, “What happened to Anna?”, “Did Sandro and Claudia end up together?”, and many more. These questions were so relevant to the plot that they needed to be answered. In fact, the question “What happened to Anna?” was what kept me watching the film despite me hating most of the characters. Although La’aventura might be good movie if one were to watch it for its cinematography, if one were to watch it for the plot then I would be afraid they would be quite disappointed. The movie just seemed rather pretentious to me.

A coming of age ceremony

Raw was perhaps the most unique horror film I have watched to date. The premise of the film was quite simple. It was a about a teenage girl, Justine, who just entered college and was then forced to eat raw meat for their school’s initiation. However, due to her never tasting meat since she was raised as a vegan, she began to have an obsession towards raw meat as soon as she tasted it. This new obsession of hers eventually led her to try human flesh, which she started to crave. This craving of human meat led to a series of discoveries and problems for Justine as she goes through her freshman year.

However, rather than making me terrified, Raw left me more intrigued as the movie went on. It constantly revealed shocking truths about the characters which left my eyes glued to the screen. In the revealing of these truths, the characters became more fleshed out especially Justine and her sister Alexia. The movie was able show a good parallel between the sisters, which made me see two different sides of the problem in the movie. Should Justine try to restrain her cannibalistic urges and deny who she is, or should she be like her sister who fully accepts that she herself is a cannibal? Although the answer seems obvious when you consider the cannibalistic aspect of the problem, it made me ask myself whether it is better to stay true to myself and just not follow society’s expectations or should we just hide who we are in fear of being judged. This problem was not only reflected by the cannibalism of Justine. In fact, it was reflected when she first entered college. In the start of the film when we see she was forced to eat raw meat, she struggled as to whether she should eat the raw meat or stick to her principles as a vegan and just be seen as an outcast by the other students. In fact, in other scenes in the movie, Justine was constantly put in similar tough situations where she was forced to either go against what she believed in or to conform to what others expected her to do. This premise of the movie is what made me find myself relating to the characters and even sympathize with them. Although the problem of struggling with cannibalism is not a common thing for college students, Justine’s problem of facing difficult teachers, wanting to make her parents proud, and budging under peer pressure is something most college students can relate to. If we changed the main problem of the movie to something other than cannibalism, then the movie would have been an enjoyable family film.

The mix of Raw from between a horror and a coming of age ceremony made it a truly surprising movie. Rather than being terrified, I never expected to philosophize about my life and think about what I want to do with myself. It made me question whether I should remain as my raw self, free and true to myself, or should I hide who I am in order to be accepted? When we see the inner struggles of the characters, we can see how the title of Raw really is quite fitting for the film.

Persona:What is happening?

Persona was a very confusing film that left me unsettled and disturbed for some reason. The film carried an atmosphere that belonged to a horror/thriller movie and had moments where you would think “something will go wrong”. This feeling was carried out from the start of the film- from when a boy woke up from a hospital and started viewing scenes of a crucifixion and a lamb being killed – to the near end in where the two main characters, Elisabeth Volger and Alma, were holding each other. The movie was quite unique in this sense that it brought the impression of a horror/thriller even though it was a psychological drama.

Although I felt disturbed from watching the film, I appreciate the directing of Director Ingman Bergman and how he carried out the plot of the film. He was able to hold the atmosphere of suspense throughout the entire movie and made me question the events happening. This helped me have a deep impression of the film and made it stand out from the movies I am used to watching. In addition, he was able to portray the characters in a light which made you empathize with them (although this feeling only lasted at the start), but at the same time make them feel as though they were aliens. Alien in the sense that at times their actions seemed to go against reason and how their intentions seemed unclear, like how Elisabeth decided to remain silent for no apparent reason and how Alma had a sudden change of character in the middle of the film. The fact that their intentions and actions are never really explained didn’t help in my impression of the characters being alien and added to my confusion.

I found it quite ironic though that I became as confused as I was in the end. Before I even watched the film I believed I had the entire plot figured out due to the title almost explaining what the movie was about. In fact, in the near the end of the film it did try to imply that my belief that they were the same person was correct, however, the final scene in which it showed a camera crew filming from outside the house made question myself. Looking back at it, I question whether the movie was a film about a person having split personality, or it was a film about two actresses making a movie, or the events never really happened, and it was a film about a boy watching a film. This is actually one of the biggest criticisms I have with Persona, the fact that there is no proper closure. Rather than answering the questions of the viewer and giving them a clear explanation of what is happening, it leaves you with more questions. It makes wonder whether the intentions of the director was nothing more than to leave his viewers uncomfortable and wondering.

Overall though, Persona was a refreshing movie and allowed me to have a different perspective on how movies should be. It kept me questioning what was happening throughout the film, while at the same time holding me in suspense. It is a memorable film and has set the bar for European film quite high for me.

A woman is a woman

The movie “A Woman is a Woman” by Jean-Luc Godard focuses on the main character, Angela and her desire to have a baby. This desire leads to the conflict of the movie which involves her boyfriend Emil, and his best friend Alfred. Although the movie is a comedy, it takes on serious topics and stereotypes of each gender. It shows how society was back then, and the roles each gender played in it, albeit in a light tone.

When I first heard that the movie would be a romance comedy, I began to think about the stereotypical love stories that is shown in our movies today. However, the film goes beyond the conventional love stories that we see in Hollywood and makes fun of stereotypes that would be considered offensive in today’s standards. For starters, in terms of the background of the characters, Angela is quite different from most females we see in romance movies. Her job being a stripper makes her less desirable as compared to women who are portrayed to be princesses, heiresses of rich families, or being in positions which are desirable for men. In addition, Angela’s attitude seems so whimsical compared to most women in movies, she seems to have no driving force as to why she does what she does (in this case, wanting a baby), in fact when asked by her boyfriend as to why she wants a baby, she just responds “Because I want one”. Another difference the film does compared to today is how Emil, as the boyfriend, reacts to Angela’s request of wanting a baby. In most movies, the guy would try to please the girl or if not, they would try soothe her to make her have a better understanding as to why he is not willing to comply with her request. Emil, however, seem to avoid the question as much as possible, or if not, try to aggravate Angela whenever given the opportunity. He even goes as far as taunting her to have a baby with his best friend or even with a complete stranger.

Although their arguments are portrayed in a comedic way, such as them arguing using books to show their displeasure with one another, they touch on stereotypes that we have created for each gender and show the social expectations that we had set for each gender back then. For example, in one part of the movie Angela is singing that although she is crazy no man would leave her because she is beautiful, which play into the stereotypes that women only have value because of their face. Or in one part of the movie where Angela states that while women are allowed to avoid questions men are not. Although some of the these stereotypes or norms no longer exist as much today, there are still hints of them in our society. I found this part quite interesting since it shows how movements, such as feminism, have changed the set roles and our views of each gender in modern day society.

Overall, the movie was quite enjoyable. Although it seems light and comedic for the most parts, it touches on topics which make you reflect on the dialogue. It makes you think about some of the scenes which just seem random and have no context, and makes you wonder if these scenes actually have a deeper meaning, or if is just there to confuse the viewers (similar to how the song of The Beatles “Yellow Submarine” has no meaning and is just to make fun of people thinking too hard on the lyrics of a song). It is also quite a refreshing take on romance, which, however, left me wondering as to whether the movie truly was a comedy or a tragedy.