Guratza

I have been a big fan of Brian De Palma's films throughout my life and I sincerely believe that he (as he proclaims himself) has at times touched immaculate and undescribable cinematic perfection. To be specific, The Untouchables is one of the most magically perfect films of all time, on of those rare occasions where all parts of a puzzle fit together and the viewer indulges themselves into cinematic bliss.

However, I had never seen any interviews of his, and had little to zero interest in his personality. That being said, making someone who loves your films that much feel put off by your personality, would take a lot of effort - and he definitely puts it in. This whole film is just one huge "I", capital, bold, Omnipresent. It's no secret that every big auteur, even every artist to an extent has, or even needs to have, a narcissistic vein in their character, no problem with that. However, going out on such a blatant semi-rant on yourself for 2 hours doesn't do you any favours. Funilly enough, I find the most annoying thing to be his use of language. Apart from the casual "like" bombing (didn't expect a 70 year old film maker to speak like an influencer to be honest) his choice of words is extremely vain, and in particular his habit of "casual" name-dropping. Bobby, Marty etc. You were friends, we get it. Shut up already and make a film that is actually worth watching - it's been almost 30 years since your last one.

This film is set in a fantasy world Finland, where the year is 2024, but at the same time it is 1976 and 1945 simultaneously. A modern day world without social media, with juke boxes, where your average Finnish equivalent of "white trash" goes to art house cinemas to discuss Godad and watch fat city, and the local pub has posters of cinephile films on the wall.

The direction and cinematography reflect a similar aesthetic, incorporating shots shots and lighting from other cinematic eras. The film looks beautiful, but equally pretentious unfortunately. It is a fantasy, what you would call "a love letter to cinema".

I wonder why a love letter to cinema would have two empty shells for main characters. We hardly know their names, personalities or aspirations (if any). We are just bombarded with the constant misery of their day to day life in harsh working environments, and get some scarce glimpses on their equally miserable past. Also, they happen to be the last people in the world that still listen to the radio, which keeps talking on, and on, and on about the war in Ukraine.

Cinematic aesthetics are there to support the narrative and characters. Not the other way round.

We tend to take for granted, nowadays, the average production value of most films, which is, as a matter of fact very, very high (even for television series).

This film is a throwback to the yesteryear of b-movies, a reminder of the uncanny feeling that a quasi-professional can evoke. Even during the opening credits, it was pretty obvious. So much so, that when the name of the director of photography appeared on screen I wondered to myself : "there was a dop in this?".

All in all, there is an overall Tommy Wiseau-esque quality running every aspect of the film (apart from framed pictures of spoons maybe). The plot, timing, character arcs and most components that make a story coherent and conventionally structured leave a lot to be desired from the writing, and the poor artistic choices, such as slow motion shots without the proper equipment complement visually in an equally incompetent manner.

The only saving grace is the actors' genuine attempts to save this mess. There are countless better films both in the skinhead and courtroom drama subgenres. When you have seen all of them, and really have nothing to do with your time, then watch this. Otherwise, skip and don't look back.