Band of brothers

I honestly appreciated the fact that, for the graduating seniors, we ended our European Film class with the film Heavy Trip (2018). It was a really lighthearted and fun movie to watch (especially comparing it to all the other films we watched like Persona or Raw). At first, I was not as excited to watch it since it was going to be a movie about a heavy metal band, and one of the genres I did not really mesh well with most is, in fact, heavy metal. The music may not have jived well with me, but the story surrounding it and the jokes surely did.

I loved the subtle humor it brought out. My favorite scene was the part when the band jumped off the cliff and “resurrected” onto a land with people role playing a Dungeons and Dragons type of game. It was just so funny to me. I thought they were all going to die or something because the scene where they jumped off the cliff seemed so dramatic. They were kind of saying their goodbyes already. When they arose from the ocean, asked if they were in hell, saw people “crucified” on crosses, etc. I laughed so hard. It was so weird but so funny to me at the same time. At this point in the movie I just wanted to ask, “What is happening?” because I literally did not know what the writers were thinking about when they wrote this film.

All weird jokes and scenes aside, I felt a little “proud” towards the end when they were able to perform in front of a big crowd for the first time in 12 years. After all their hard work and perseverance of becoming a great metal band, they were able to achieve their dream despite all the obstacles that came their way. I think they also wanted to send the cliche “don’t give up on your dreams” message to the audiences who watched this movie. Their situation may have seemed exaggerated (they worked for 12 years… with one song… and never gave up) but it can actually be parallel to reality. Some people work so hard and only see the fruits of their labor after so long. Even though the journey of Impaled Rektum was very difficult, they still overcame those challenges and succeeded in the end.

The scene where Turo pukes in front of their audience before both of their performances reminded me of the same thing happening in Pitch Perfect. It was a parallel of how the band (Impaled Rektum) and the group (Bellas) both failed at the start but claimed victory in the end. The parallelism did not end there though — both groups were able to claim victory because of their sense of camaraderie and companionship with each other. Impaled Rektum’s brotherhood within the band was, I think, the main thing that glued them together and drove them towards success. It was a heartwarming sight to see their appreciation of each other and how they would not have been able to get to where they were if it were not for one another. The importance of friendship and brotherhood was very spot on and visible in the film, which I highly appreciated.

That’s not sushi, sis

When we were warned that the film we were going to watch may be scary for some of us, I suddenly got worried. I am personally not a fan of horror or gory movies. I get scared whenever my friends force me to watch a film of these genres. Which is why I got a little anxious when the film Raw (2016) started showing in class.

The film was not what I expected at all. I expected to be scared or really grossed out, but I was actually just entertained. What drew me in was the story of how Justine tries to adjust into veterinary school. The question of whether or not she should conform just to fit in was very realistic to me. Most adolescents and young adults often feel like they have to change who they are just to be liked and to gain friends, especially when they enter a new environment. I honestly believe Justine’s self-control was very good, even when Alexia was forcing her to eat the rabbit’s kidney. She was really holding her ground because she believed that she had to stick to her values (vegetarianism) even though she was put under the spotlight in front of everyone in the university and was being coerced into eating it just so she could pass the initiation. However, Alexia forcing the rabbit’s kidney down Justine’s throat just proved how strong peer pressure was for me. Even the strongest willed people can be torn down by peer pressure, which is a sad reality that Justine had to face in the movie.

Justine giving in to conforming to the ideals of the students caused her downfall. I honestly think Alexia got what she deserved, from seeing her sister feeding on her finger all the way to getting imprisoned for killing Adrien. She was the reason why Justine’s parents’ perseverance to keep Justine from giving into her cannibalistic ways failed. Justine was living a normal, good life before her sister ruined it for her by letting her have her first taste of meat. Alexia probably knew that Justine was going to discover their family’s “dysfunction”, but she still forced it to happen for her little sister. Isn’t that messed up? Alexia was honestly such a horrible sister. She even made things worse by exposing and humiliating Justine during the scene when she led Justine to the morgue. Throughout the movie, I was wondering to myself what Alexia gained from leading Justine astray. She wasn’t really getting anything out of it other than the fact that she could finally feel like she is not alone since her sister is also as crazy as she is.

The film made me feel uncomfortable in the sense that it made me realize how cannibalism is really scary, especially if it happens in real life. However, despite the cannibalism, there really was the underlying theme of every single one of us trying to strive for acceptance, no matter what the cost or consequences. I believe Justine did not have any fault whatsoever, she was just mixed up into the whole mess. She inherited the cannibalistic tendencies because it was hereditary, and she was forcefully introduced to it. I feel like her family could have handled the situation way better than they did in the film.

Get ‘schooled’

The Edukators‘ premise was actually very interesting to me. It was summarized as a narrative about three teenagers who break into the rich’s houses to “scare” them out of their privileged ways and mindsets. It attacks the issues of capitalism and how, even though it is advantageous to some, it is not beneficial to many. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer (and the edukators want to do away with this reality). Even though I found the plot interesting, the element of the film that caught my attention the most was actually the characters of the movie. The characters were very complex and different from one another. I believe the film had a character-driven story because of each of their traits and complexities. Peter, Jan, and Jules all had different strengths and weaknesses which contributed to driving the story forward. Out of the three of them, I liked Peter the most. I found him the most decent character because of his choices throughout the movie. As an edukator, he was more of the leader figure. He was who Jan turned to whenever he did not know what to do because Peter seemed more calm and collected then him. As a boyfriend, he was just trying his best to be good for Jules. He just acted like a typical boyfriend. As a friend, he always had Jan’s back, no matter what Jan did. He seemed like a well-rounded character despite his flaws. Jan, on the other hand, was more flawed than Peter. As an edukator, he often knew what he was doing, but he still depended on Peter to fall back on. As a friend to Peter, I felt like he was not as good a friend as Peter was since he kind of “stole” Peter’s girlfriend. He started falling for Jules (for some weird reason — I honestly do not know what they saw in her) behind Peter’s back even though Peter was dating Jules. What kind of a best friend would do that? It did not help that he tried to justify what he had done to Peter, which cause their big fight in the latter part of the film.

From the three edukators, Jules was the character I hated the most. I mean, the entirety of the plot of the film was her fault. None of the events would have transpired if she had not incurred the debt she owed to Hardi, or if she did not leave her phone stupidly in his house when they broke in, or if she did not cheat on her boyfriend with his best friend. She made so much mistakes and still got away with it in the end. She was able to escape paying her debt, got out of going to prison for everything she had done, and even managed to keep both Jan and Peter in her life.

I guess I understood what the edukators were fighting for but I got pissed that they got away with so much things even though they did not deserve it (especially Jules). I feel like they should have gotten what they deserved since they did cause a lot of problems for someone else even if he was merely living his life with the money and name he created for himself.

Here we go again (and again)

I honestly did not expect a thriller to be shown in class. I am very scared of horror films/thriller films/films with jump scares/films with gore/etc. so when I realized that Timecrimeshad a little bit of all of that, I kind of panicked. It started off upbeat and colorful, which made me think that it was going to be a fun film. However, as the film went on and the mystery and the ‘killer’ and the jump scares started to pop out one by one, I started to realize that it was going to be ‘exciting’ in the worst way possible.

The movie starts off in an interesting way. Compared to all the other movies we watched in class, this one caught my attention right off the bat. My curiosity peaked even higher when I realized that it was not just a normal thriller with an unknown killer on the loose. The film also had a sci-fi element to it with Hector travelling back through time to get away from the killer. At first, I thought it was your typical slasher film because of the first few scenes. However, when the story progressed and the scenes started to interlock and make everything make sense — especially the scene where Hector gets into an accident and wraps his head in a bandage — it started becoming less scary and way smarter than I thought it was going to be. I liked that scene because it revealed a plot twist which would hook the audience more when watching the film.

Aside from the ‘cool’ concept, the makers of the film were also able to allow the audience to experience empathy towards the characters. The character that caught my attention the most when it comes to ‘feeling for the character’ is the innocent girl who Hector makes undress. When she first appeared, I thought that she was a weird person for undressing in the forest randomly. I also got annoyed with Hector for checking her out (haha). Then as the movie passed, it was revealed that she was unwillingly undressing because Hector was threatening her in order for the past to happen once again. I felt bad for her because she was just an innocent passerby; it could have easily been another person. Yet she was unlucky enough to encounter Hector right after he crashed his car. I felt even worse for her because she was simply trying to help him — and look where that led her to. It was unfortunate for her to be used as a catalyst for the story to progress.

Hector, on the other hand, was a complex character. I did not really know what to feel about him. I think my feelings were more negative than positive. He made a lot of bad choices that could have been avoided if he had just stayed at home or something. I also did not like the fact that he rarely listened to the scientist who created the time machine. Hector was not knowledgeable of the dynamics of time travel at all, and yet he chose not to listen to the expert. He was kind of annoying, but at least he was flawed. Flawed characters are way better than perfect ones because it humanizes them.

Timecrimes was fun to watch as compared to all the other movies because it was easier to understand than the rest. I enjoyed it even though I am not a fan of thrillers. What I liked about it was the plot twists in the middle because it enticed me to pay attention to the film more.

Trolls: retold

Usually, I steer clear of documentaries. I find the pacing too slow for my liking, which is how documentaries are made. When I saw the title of the film — Trollhunter — I would have never thought that the movie was going to be in the form of a documentary (or a mockumentary, more specifically). I thought it was going to be a fictional adventure, so I was stunned (and slightly disappointed) when I realized that Trollhunter is a (fictional) documentary.

Despite my obvious dislike for documentary films, while post-processing the film inside my head, I realized that the film was not so peculiar at all. I thought about it this way: it was a different way of showing their audiences about Norwegian folklore. It is like how there are various retellings of Greek and Roman mythology (which are my two favorite types of mythology). If I do not find those modern retellings weird (I actually find them really interesting and cool), then why can’t I appreciate Trollhunter, a documentary-type retelling of Norwegian mythology?

As I thought about it in this way, I started to dig deeper into the “weird” beliefs found in the film. I found it strange that trolls could pinpoint Christian blood. Some say that people started believing less in trolls when they learned about Christianity. Trolls apparently got “offended” which led them to hating Christians. Therefore, whenever trolls smelled Christian blood, they would attack. Others say that it was merely based off of Norwegian folklore that the ancients created back in the day. It is interesting how these Norwegian beliefs were integrated into the movie.

My favorite thing about the movie is the fact that they humanized Hans. Hans seemed so cold and indifferent at the start, most especially when he refused to participate in the students’ documentary. As the film goes on and he agrees to participate, he still appears to have no concern and compassion whatsoever for anyone but himself. He was only keeping the students close to him because he had a motive of his own — to use their documentary to expose the trolls. However, as the film passed, I realized how human he was through the emotions he showed. The real reason why he keeps hunting trolls is because of the fact that he has seen what they had done to innocent people — pregnant women, children, etc. I am the type of person whose favorite characters are usually the mean ones on the exterior but have hearts of gold. Hans is one of those characters.

Besides Hans, the other main characters were also easy to empathize with. They were just students trying to give their all for their project — I can relate (hahaha). Even though the path ahead of them was dangerous, they still went through with it because they needed to do so for the grade. I also liked how each character had a different personality. Thomas was the leader; he was always the one who pushed the group to continue. He was confident to stay in front of the camera at all times. He was also the most eager in finding out the truth about the trolls. Johanna, the group’s sound engineer, seemed to be a bland character to me up until the part when Kalle dies and Finn confronts them about their tapes. I admire how she stood her ground when Finn threatened them to give them their camera. Kalle, the cameraman, was the quietest one of the group, but when he died, it was so difficult for me to watch. I felt so bad for him because he was just trying his best, going along with the group, but he ends up dying in the end just because he was Christian.

Trollhunter was peculiar, but it was interesting. It was an interesting play on Norwegian folklore. I am glad I came to appreciate it at the end.

Actors: deconstructed

Holy Motors was such a frustrating film to watch. Honestly, it took a while for me to form insights and gain comprehension on the movie because, as it was mentioned in class, perhaps it was not created to be understood. It was so strange — sometimes, I found myself cringing at the scenes. That appointment with Eva Longoria freaked me out because he looked and acted crazy. He bit off her finger! What made it weirder for me was the fact that the model did not react to it. I had questions like: “Was she even a real person?” “What is happening?”

However, the more that we watched the film, the more that I started to realize that he was an actor, and his “appointments” were his projects. Suddenly, I thought of an insight about the model scene. I thought that it was a symbolism of how actors and models — people who are always subjected to the spotlight — can find solace in each other because out of everyone else around them, only their fellow celebrities can understand what they really feel. Only their fellow celebrities can understand that yes, fame may seem fun because they earn so much and they get so much attention, but there are also downsides to being famous. With great fame, comes the stress, haters, and the like. I am not sure if that was what the scene meant, but that was what it meant to me.

Because of the realization that he was merely acting in every single scene, I started to doubt the realness of the scene with his “daughter”, especially when the group who reported on Holy Motors pointed it out. At first, I thought that it was a symbol of how actors are human too. They have their own lives, their own families. The feel of the scene was very different from the others. Oscar was driving his own car. He was also acting calmer and more like an actual father when he was berating his daughter. I want to believe that it was a scene that wanted to show the audience that actors are human too, but what if it was not even a real scene? What if it was another appointment. I would honestly be disappointed if I found out that it was just another appointment for Oscar, and that girl was a random stranger.

Indeed, Holy Motors was a strange film. The different appointments seemed so real every time. One would think that the film was about the old lady, or the weird alien sex, or the crazy-man-biting-off-a-finger. However, the film was about Oscar himself and how he lived his life as an actor. The film still left many questions in my head. I still do not understand why his home had chimpanzees. I still cannot comprehend why the limos started to talk to each other at the end of the movie. The film was truly bizarre, as is all the other films we have watched in class, but I am glad that I was able to get something out of it even though I am not really sure if that was the intention of the director or not.

Web of lies and love

Out of all the movies we watched in class, Good Bye, Lenin! was the film I enjoyed the most (so far). It was funny and entertaining, and it also showcased familial values at the same time. The dilemma of the story was a choice between two goods — a moral dilemma — which made it more difficult for Alex to decide. He had to choose between his mom’s life and his own integrity — I understand why he chose the former!

In the film, Alex went through great lengths just to save his mother. He and Denis had to create fake broadcasts just to back up the web of lies that he created just so his mother would not go into shock. I found it noble yet frustrating at the same time. I honestly think that he could have saved himself and his family a whole lot of trouble if he just told his mom the truth at the start, or at least gradually. If that had happened to me, I think I would automatically choose to just come clean to my own mother, little by little. I would think that my mom would deserve to know the truth about the outside world. But then again, if Alex did not create the huge lie that their country was still under a communist regime, then there would have been no conflict, no plot, and of course, no movie.

Although I did not approve of the means, I did understand his end goal/purpose. He felt like it was the only way to keep his mother safe. I understood the love he had for his mom — it was evident. This fact was what I appreciated most in the film. I thought the film was going to be a political one; I was pleasantly surprised when the central theme of the movie was actually family. I also admired the fact that the characters were well-developed — it helped me empathize with the love they had for each other a little bit more. From start to finish, Alex’ persona was consistent. He was known as the quiet boy with a huge heart — a heart for what he values (which was shown when he fought against the government at the start of the film) and a heart that is filled with love for the woman who raised him (which was shown throughout the entire film as he lied to save her life). Christiane, his mom, was the traditional and conservative citizen whose beliefs opposed her son’s, but she knew in her heart that before being this type of person, she is a mother who loves her children. It was beautiful to witness her knowing about the lies Alex told to save her life and pretending she did not actually know. It was a simple scene, yet it showed to me how much she loved and appreciated the efforts of her family.

Good Bye, Lenin! was a unique way of telling the story of a son’s love for his mother. It was historical, comedic, and touching all at the same time.

How to lose your mind in five remakes

When we were told that we were going to watch a “docu-film” kind of movie, The Five Obstructions was not what I had in mind. Truth be told, I was not excited to watch the film mainly because documentaries are one of my least favorite film genres. There is just a slowness to it that never sits well with me because my attention span is very short and I get distracted easily. However, I realized that it was going to be a little different from the documentaries I am used to right when the film began and showed the man dancing in a white space, or as they liked to call him, “The Perfect Human”.

On the surface level, the relationship between Leth and Von Trier is the typical mentor-mentee relationship. It seemed a little ironic because the in their case, the mentee was telling the mentor what he should do and not the other way around. In the movie, Von Trier, the mentee, was daring his mentor, Leth, to remake his past film, “The Perfect Human”, in five different ways with various “obstructions”.

The obstruction that struck me the most was the second one where he was tasked to remake the film in the most miserable place in the world without actually showing the misery of the location. It did not even strike me in the way that it should have if I were looking at it from the most objective point of view possible. I found the scene memorable because of the story of the scene itself — there is a man living lavishly with a full meal in front of him while there are poor people behind him watching him eat. This scene was honestly so heartbreaking for me (even though I know it was not the intention of the scene to make me feel sad) because it targeted a group of people very close to my heart — the poor. They made it look like the man (Leth) was flaunting his wealth and resources in front of all these people and isolating himself from them at the same time using the wall between them. Throughout the scene, the only thing I was thinking of was: if this is what it entails to be “the perfect human”, then I would rather live imperfectly.

Another thing that struck me in the same obstruction is the obstruction in itself. It was probably just a part of the creative process for them, but it showed me a different reality altogether. It reminded me of the fact that films often only show parts and not the whole. For example, films make use of the beautiful scenery in the Philippines which shows how pleasing to the eyes the country seems, but behind all that is poverty and marginalization. Yes, sure, it was simply a challenge for Leth, but it was also able to showcase a reality in films and the media today.

The Five Obstructions may have had different intentions and motives behind the film, but it was able to bring out a different insight from me, especially from the second obstruction. It was not difficult for me to relate it to the real world today which was why I was able to come up with these opinions. The remakes seemed surreal, oh-so fictional and maybe even borderline insane, but if it were watched closely, it would be possible to relate it to our reality.

Where is Anna / who is Anna

One of the most misleading films I have ever watched was L’Avventura. I originally thought that the movie had a searching-for-a-missing-person kind of plot because it began with Anna’s disappearance on the island the main characters went to for a vacation. However, I noticed how Anna being gone just paved the way for more drama to ensue. It seemed to me like it was merely used as a catalyst to drive the story forward.

Poor Anna – stuck as an afterthought 20 minutes into the film. They never even found her!

After looking for Anna for a solid 5 minutes, the rest of the crew seemed to focus on their own lives already. It suddenly became a story about “forbidden love” between Sandro and Claudia. It was a classic spin on the best-friend-and-boyfriend trope in romance movies. But was the “love” between them real? Was it sincere? Or was it just for fun? (How millennial could they have gotten?)

Sandro and Claudia establish some kind of sexual tension while figuring out where Anna (Sandro’s ACTUAL girlfriend) went. Normal, decent people would not have acted on this “tension” because 1) it was inappropriate — Sandro had a girlfriend and Claudia was the said girlfriend’s best friend and 2) they should have been focusing on looking for the girlfriend! I guess we can infer that they were, in fact, neither normal nor decent. Well, at least, Claudia had a little decency to reject Sandro for a few minutes, but I still think she made a mistake. At least she got what she deserved with Sandro cheating on her. Perhaps some people may believe that Claudia did not really deserve what she got, but I believe that she did. If my best friend gave up on looking for me when I go missing just because she wanted to be with my significant other, a part of me would not really want him/her to have the happiest of endings. Speaking of the significant other: Sandro, on the other hand, could not seem to keep it in his pants. He did not act like a taken man should act — it was as if his girlfriend did not exist! He was probably the worst character on the film — not that any of them were better in comparison, they were just less… unbearable than Sandro.

All of these thoughts bring me back to the question: where is Anna? More importantly: who even is Anna? Her character was not fleshed out in the film, making it difficult for me to empathize with her disappearance. In the first (and only) scenes where Anna was present, she was portrayed as a carefree, selfish, tantrum-throwing adult woman. What made me feel bad for her was how the other characters acted after she disappeared, not because I cared about her character specifically.

All I have to say is: if I suddenly go missing, I hope my friends care about me enough to look for me for more than a few minutes. I also hope none of my friends would ever betray me the way Sandro and Claudia did while I was gone.

Who’s who?

I did not know what to expect when Persona started. It had random, erratic scenes that had such weird, vivid imagery. Because of the emotions I felt while watching the beginning – confusion, anxiety, fear – I thought that Persona was actually a horror film. As the film went on, my fear lessened, but the anxiety and the confusion stayed. I was anxious because of the uncertainty the film gave me; confused because it was strange and difficult to understand from the get-go.

The turning point for me – the scene where I thought I kind of understood what was happening (I may be wrong though) – was the scene where Alma reads the unsealed letter Elisabet gave for her to send with her other mail. The letter contained Elisabet writing to her doctor about Alma – how she was studying Alma during their time of isolation. At first, it was ironic. I asked myself, “Shouldn’t it have been the other way around?” Alma was the nurse and Elisabet was the patient. Why was the patient studying the nurse? Then it hit me. Thinking of the title made it easier for me to interpret what the scene may have meant. Perhaps there is a persona between the two of them – I assumed it was Alma. Maybe Elisabet was “studying” her inner thoughts and emotions – Alma in “human” form.

Another scene which solidified my interpretation in my head was when the husband came. When the husband saw Alma, he referred to her as “Elisabet”. Alma was confused at first, but when Elisabet urged her to kiss her husband, she complied. I figured this meant that Elisabet did not have the best relationship with her husband because Elisabet kind of had to encourage (or force) Alma to spend time with her husband. But that’s just me.

Persona made me feel uneasy all throughout the film. The fact that it was black and white did not make it any better. We live in a world today where film is filled with color. Color and lighting are important tools in film – tools that must be used wisely because they set the mood of the entire film. I know that all films used to be black and white back in the day, but coming from the perspective of this generation, the color and the lighting perfectly captured the darkness of the movie. I feel like the effect would be lessened if the film were not in black and white. The colors and the lighting kept an aura of mystery surrounding the film.

This kind of film is not for passive audiences. It entails its viewers to think and interpret the movie themselves. I’m sure many have different interpretations. My own thoughts on the film may not be what the writers intended. If one does not try to understand it, he would not be able to get anything from the film because it is the type of film that does not spoon feed its audiences. Films that make people think should be more appreciated in our world today.