Folkets ven

The film depicts the frailty, hopes and challenges of the democratic and revolutionary movements of the Post-World War I era. This is also the era following the popular revision of the Constitution of 1915 in Denmark (giving vote to the common man - and woman). Still the constitution is challenged, not only by the just demands of the workers movement, but also by the attempts of the privileged classes to hold on to power and reject democratic rule (epitomized in the failed Royal coup of 1920 - just two years after this film).

Folkets ven (The Friend of the people) is a social drama illustrating the demands and struggles of workers to make proper change to the injustices and exploitation (unemployment and poverty) of the newly industrialised and still basically feudal Danish society. The perspective here, however, is thoroughly middleclass and conservative, as it advises (rather didactively) the masses and their 'freinds' the proper ways to secure the young political organisation of 'common' public interest: Through the 'rule of law' (and of the privileged men), which has so often been used against the masses.

The alternative roads are presented through the perspectives of three brothers supposedly fighting the cause of the lower class in each their own way. First, the (brutal) blacksmith Waldo wants a world revolution by way of force and violence. Second, the (cribbled) watchmaker Kurt experiences society as an ailing clockwork that simply needs to be repaired by a simple but drastic , intervention. Finally, the (calm, thoughtful and 'noble') typographer Ernst, who considers knowledge and understanding, enlightenment and education as the only right way to create change - and keep the 'mob' calm.

Ernst is persuaded by very wealthy and noble conservative editors and poiticans to act as a speaker of 'the common man' to persuade the mob to bow down to the rule of law - upheld by the police, and the respect of well-dressed and well-mannered men. Woman are 'of course' distant from the political battle - and in stead attending to and caring for other sick women and men.

The perspective is obvious and the scheme works: The bait is an appeal to unity through (more) nationalism. Not unlike the perspectives of Griffith in 'The Birth of a Nation (1915). And just as problematic in it's own Danish context: Manufacturing consent!

As a social drama this film is quite unique in Denmark for its time, and as such it is quite interesting. If you can bare with its political propaganda and its trivial and simplistic morale, this film is worth a watch.

1910's was the golden age for Danish cinema: a decade that saw directors such as Benjamin Christensen and Carl Th. Dreyer begin their careers. Though not as internationally famous, Holger-Madsen was a towering figure in Danish cinema, one whose film output is larger than Christensen's and Dreyer's put together. Of course this also means that the works aren't as polished, and every once in awhile between important works you would get lesser ones, such as "Folkets ven" (Enemy of the People, 1918).

The film is very timely, and draws inspiration from current affairs, such as the October revolution of 1917 as well as the Finnish civil war in 1918. Almost in sheer panic, Madsen is encouraging people to stay calm, and not to give way for drastic measures. The film follows three men, none of whom is happy with the state of society. They pursue change in different ways. One through legislation and legal, conservative politics. The other through siding with revolutionaries. The third by planning an assassination that would fix it. Can you tell who is the reasonable brother?

The film is very simple. It's anti-violence and pro-democracy, and not much else. Though it presents itself as a societal, thinking man's picture, there's hardly any thought put into the narrative. The lack of depth in the political depiction makes the film hallow, and dull. You can't relate to any of the characters, because they are only presentations of different ideologies, and you can't get interested in the ideologies, because there aren't any details. The cinematography and the visual narration is very basic, as Madsen is hardly a revolutionary even in an artistic sense.

The film prays to God several times, it tries to reason with the audience, and it is so annoying that I wanted to become a revolutionary communist afterwards just to spite it. It's long, tedious, and lacking almost any merit.

Madsen did nearly a 100 films, start watching somewhere else.