Jan 27, 2017

Die Welle – 2008 – Can history repeat itself?

I was trying to do a video review of this for my youtube channel but soon realized that I couldn’t. I couldn’t get my thoughts about it into words that wat without stuttering way too much. I’m that excited to express my opinions about this flick.

First of all I must say that it’s brave for a German movie to take on such subjects that the film revolves around. I’m not sure that Nazism or Hitler is actually mentioned but there are obvious parallels to such a fascist society. The question about if we are so enlightened today with knowledge of the past that we couldn’t fall in that trap again is the most central one. That is even spoken out in plain text in the movie.

But let’s start from the beginning. Rainer Wegner is a popular teacher in school. By the students that is. He’s quite unorthodox and that makes his colleagues suspicions about his methods. But he’s popular by the students and that is a quality more teachers should have in my opinion. Theme week is coming up and Reiner plans of taking on the subject anarchy. He’s really excited about it and equally disappointed when he realizes that this subject has already been taken by another teacher. Unwillingly he is forced to choose autocracy instead. At first he isn’t very interested but once the question about whether this kind of society could emerge again he takes a different approach.

From this point on he conducts an experiment. What would happen if he could fulfill all re requirements for it to work? He needs to prove to his students as to himself that people need to think about their actions and choices in life. Is it possible to manipulate the students into autocracy?

Together with his students he starts to map out what key elements that needs to be fulfilled in such a society. Among other things a strong leader is needed. Also some kind of unifying for the “people”; discontent is agreed on. And that is a strong base to build a group willing to do most anything for a change. To argue that the end justifies the means to such a group will not be hard. They also conclude that they need a common dress code, some kind of uniform. That this doesn’t have to be a military uniform is quickly debated and each and every one gets out getting a white shirt. This and a few other fundamental characteristics is enough for things to start escalating. When a salute and a name for the group – The Wave – is created we take another step further.

In my mind there is also another thing that needs to be fulfilled. That is weak individuals that in being part of a great whole in order to feel strong and even invincible; weak individuals that can blame the entire group for each and every decision that might be too close to home; each and every decision that might be too hard to make on their own. They find the strength in numbers.

The transgression of the experiment goes fast. Mind you, there’s only one theme week and by the end of this week a really strong willed organization has been created. Few of the initial students realize the potential danger of the situation but there are individuals that are very uncomfortable with the concept to say the least. They protest by not participating in the uniform dress code and starts to develop their own counter movement with flyers to inform the masses of the dangerous situation.

Even the conductor of the experiment gets drawn into it and starts to change his personality. Maybe not to the extent of his students but he is changing. No doubt about that. He is also approached by the opposition that things are about to go out of proportion and that he’s losing control of the situation. He needs to fix what has gone wrong.

In my opinion this is a pretty frightening movie. It is very realistic and there’s no doubt in my mind that such a society could be created if a strong leader was manipulative enough. In fact, I think it’s about to happen in several parts of the world already. We may not see Nazism as we once did, the swastika may not be present but if we start to lose our grip it doesn’t matter what symbol that is used. Totalitarian leaders seem to be found in the west and east alike. When people start to oppress other people we have failed.

I found this flick to be very watchable. It made me feel real fear which is an uncommon feeling coming from a movie these days. I think it’s nicely played and wonderfully written. I wish more movies would explore these themes of the darkest parts of human history.


This just in: I just realized that this is in fact a remake of an earlier short movie. Now I need to get my hands on that as well…

Jan 21, 2017

Megan is Missing - 2011 - the most revolting movie

An important movie to watch. I was really moved by it and is still kind of in chock.
See my review at the bottom!

Jan 10, 2017

Citizen Kane – 1941 – best classic flick ever?

I feel a bit ashamed, since I never saw this flick until yesterday. As an autodidact film expert I should have seen this many many years ago. But sometimes fate is something else compared to what you want. Let’s leave it at that. I didn’t see it. Live with it! J

But yesterday I unwrapped the blu ray that I have had for some time now. As few years actually. I wanted to see what all the fuss was about. Was this really the greatest film I history? Sure, I read about it. I read about it in books about the technical aspects of movie making. How Citizen Kane used shooting techniques almost unheard of before its release. Was it true? Did it still live up to today’s standards when it comes to storytelling? I feel that there are no easy answers to all these questions.

There’s no doubt in my mind that Orson Welles was a genius when it comes to moviemaking. I might not be as accomplished as a film viewer (or self-appointed expert) that I can describe all technical shooting techniques in words. But I’m certainly intrigued by the camerawork here. Some scenes are just spectacular. There’s even early traces of CGI in there. Of course it’s not really CGI, that would have been waaaay ahead of time. But there are a couple of birds that are in no way the real thing and are placed in the movie sequence in some other manner, hence early CGI comment.

The move spans over time and this means that the actors need to adapt their acting to the age there are in at the specific scene. This is of course done with makeup but also by acting skills. It’s totally convincing! And since it’s not one or two of the actors but about everybody in the movie it’s quite remarkable. Another remarkable thing that struck me is that Orson Welles himself (as the role of Kane) is actually credited last even though everything revolves around him. One could argue if he has the lead part or not but he’s certainly in the center of things.

The movie actually begins with Kane dying, and when doing so utters his last word “Rosebud”. After that we get to see a news reel about the life and achievements of Charles Foster Kane. We get to know what people officially thought about him, his official persona if you like. He is called both a communist and a fascist, he’s equally hated and love by the people. He’s considered eccentric by some, crazy by others. This is the first piece of the puzzle the movie is about to give us about Kane. Just as the reporters wonder what the meaning of his last word were, we get interested in who he really was. Could he really be that eclectic or did he have a hidden agenda?

What follow are stories about the people around Charles Foster Kane that outlives him. A reporter seeks them out to get to the bottom of the meaning of his last word. As he asks his questions we get to see fragments from his life as seen through the people around him. These truths are not necessarily the same as the public image of Kane suggests. He might not be such a philanthropist, not seeking the truth to print in his newspapers. Maybe he’s just a narcissist after all. Maybe he’s not even that. He might just be a boy who got unhappy the first time he encountered the influence of wealth. His rise and fall might just be an act for the public eye. Deep down inside he might still be the innocent child he once was.

There’s no way of actually knowing the true meaning of the film. It might be as simple as a statement about the corruption of money or the wrecking of youth. Charles Foster Kane is forced into a society he doesn’t want to belong to. He just wants to be a boy on his sledge. That is my interpretation anyway.

It’s surely a great film by any standards. I didn’t find it to be the ultimate masterpiece but it’s pretty darn good and the storytelling is top notch. If you haven’t seen it I suggest you do, it’s worth it. I promise!

Tommy Snöberg Söderberg