Gutland

Frederick Lau plays the neanderthal-like drifter and Vicky Krieps is the wild-feminine in Govinda Van Maele's movie that metaphorically explores the moment at which a pure being becomes simultaneously spoiled-to-his-soul, yet capable of succeeding in "society." Much in Europe lately has been made of neanderthals being a common genetic precursor in Europeans, and that they are considered to have been kinder, simpler, and more egalitarian than the human beings that overtook them. Lau's drifter has a built up brow and heavy features of a being not at ease with the modern world, and as he becomes domesticated, his wide nose, heavy brow, and thick hair diminish. Even though he seems to feel the scenery viscerally, and has an innate sense of decency (as when he stops the farmers from brutally punishing the children), he's also possessive of his lover, and incapable of clear communication. As he (who ends up being a robber--someone unable to succeed with integrity at urban life) becomes more affected by and accepted by the villagers around him, he simultaneously becomes less himself: less perceptive, more brutal, less sensitive to his surroundings, which is expressed in a sexually violent scene with Krieps. The treasure of this movie is that it is a metaphor for all that human beings trade in terms of authenticity for becoming part of society, especially one that has a brutal history. To become included, Lau's character not only gives up all that made him an instinctive, holosapient being, but ultimately, completely loses himself.

A bit weird, actually. It kind of works and then develops in a surreal direction. There are narrative promises and possibilities set up, but never paid off. All in all, a bit frustrating to watch, especially as some really important bits are never explained.

I get it! If you like things to be more coherent, this may not really be your thing. And I don't even mean that you may like things spoon fed to you (although I am not judging either), but that this is as surreal as they come. I am even going to pretend to say I understood or can break the movie down entirely. There is so much that can be interpreted and are ripe for another viewing ... and even then, it would be up to the viewer.

The movie is quite sexual and quite violent. Sometimes both at the same time ... and weird too. Well the situations it creates around abuse and/or intercourse/sexuality ... they fit right into the whole surreal enviroment. They add to the mood and they also tell a story - a genre piece from Germany that works. Something I like to say rather than dislike an effort made here, because there aren't many of these types of movies made - comedies and dramas pay off better, especially when it comes to making money for the producers.

So if you can relish in a very good but also very strange (for all the right reasons) movie from Germany

A German drifter arrives in a village in Luxembourg looking for work on a farm. He finds work. He works hard. He meets a girl. They have sex. Several times. He meets a dog too. Thankfully, he doesn't have sex with the dog. For half of the run time of this movie - that's the story. That's it. For a movie that bills itself as a "thriller" - there are no thrills in that first half of the movie. Literally none. I'll concede that there's some mystery. Who is this drifter? Why is he there? Really? There's more to this than him looking for work. That mystery gets cleared up at about the halfway point when we learn who Jens is and why he's in the village. And the village itself it a strange one with strange people who apparently shoot amateur porn on the side when they're not harvesting corn.

At that halfway point the movie does begin to take a bit of a darker turn, and as it progresses you begin to wonder what the mix is between fantasy and reality - and I confess I was left wondering whether the whole thing was a fantasy played out in Jens' head. The last scenes of the movie seemed ambiguous; confusing. I was left with a sense that there was no real closure involved with this and questioning what was "real."

It's rated highly. I have to give it that. Sometimes, though, I really do believe that people have a tendency to rate foreign language films highly because they're foreign language films - almost as if it's a sign of being cultured. And, of course, you start to see reviewers talking about the "great cinematography" - because what else are you going to talk about to justify rating it so highly? And there was some great cinematography here - some beautiful shots of rural Luxembourg. But it really didn't make up for a confusing and rather bland story. (2/10)