La Communauté

The emotional upheaval of a tightly-knit community has become Thomas Vinterberg's trademark as a film maker. He explored this theme with great success in 'Festen' and in 'Jagten', and now he does it in 'Kollektivet'. This time, the community is a group of people living together in a large house, a way of living that was trendy in the sixties and seventies. The group consists of friends and acquaintances of architect Erik and journalist Anna. Together, they fill up the huge villa he inherited from his parents. Anna thinks this social experiment can add some spice into her life. After all, she has been married to the same man and doing the same job for fifteen years.

But the cozy atmosphere of having meals and drinking beer together with a group of friends, turns sour when Erik introduces someone new into the group: his girlfriend, a young and pretty student. His wife Anna agrees with this arrangement, and in fact proposes it, hoping to keep Erik close to her. But predictably, the whole experiment ends in tears, fights and bitter reproaches.

Vinterberg's film has a different tone of voice than 'Festen' and 'Jagten'. It is a bit more lighthearted, and less harsh. He not only analyzes the emotional feelings of the characters, but also shows how society has changed in the last forty years. What struck me, was how easily Erik gets away with abject male-centred behaviour. He cheats on his wife practically in front of her eyes, and seems to have hardly any emotional connection to her or their daughter. In the end, it is his girlfriend who has to point out to him that his wife is having an emotional breakdown. But even then, he doesn't see the damage he has created. Instead, he complains that all these 'women issues' distract him from his work. Nowadays, a man would get a slap in the face after saying something like that.

The seventies-atmosphere adds an extra dimension to the film, and the period setting makes it an easier viewing experience than 'Jagten' or 'Festen'. At the same time, it is also less intense. It's nice to watch, but doesn't make you shift uneasily in your chair.

"The Commune" at the center of Thomas Vinterberg's film isn't typical of the communes I knew back in the day. For a start, the members of this one are reasonably well off and are mostly middle-aged and, of course, they bring to this 'living together' thing all the baggage you would expect. Things come to a head when commune founder Erik, (Ulrich Thomsen), falls for one of his students and moves her in leading his wife Anna, (Trine Dyrholm), to have a nervous breakdown.

Vinterberg's film began life as a play and it's certainly very theatrical but despite the emotional conflicts at the film's heart, it's also fairly conventional with everyone other than Erik and Anna fading very much into the background. You never get to know any of them. Subplots come and go and it just trudges on. On the plus side, it's very well acted particularly by Dyrholm who won the Best Actress prize at Berlin; she's the only one you actually care about. It might have worked better on stage where at least you could feel 'in the same place' as these commune-dwellers. On screen, it just feels like another piece of Vinterberg navel-gazing.

Thomas Vinterberg performs an experiment / study of the human personality by gathering a gallery of characters (with whom it is difficult to identify yourself personally) and placing them in an extreme situation of coexistence. The supposed pragmatism or cold- blooded of Nordic people to face problems, here blows up. The ability of the director makes the viewer to take part inadvertently in the plot of the film as one more character of his work. Anna, TV presenter. and Erik professor of architecture form together with his teenage daughter an apparently happy family with no more complications than "the problem" of managing the use of a big inherited house. So great the house that they decide to share the use. The new experience begins with great joy but ends up in a dramatic way by crushing the promoter of the idea of sharing the house. It is interesting to observe the behavior of the teenage daughter through the story and also trying to understand how difficult it can be for a teacher accustomed himself to dominate students and situations from a position of strength to have to give up the domain of his house and almost his way of life for the general interest of a group composed by people whose specific weight is equal to nothing; the parasite that barely contribute, the "bums" that do not compromise themselves in anything, a liberal couple contributing to the experiment with a sick child who possibly might have been better brought up in the privacy of a normal home, etc. In summary, this film is full of teachings and is a great exercise in the expression of different behaviors, through the coexistence of a group of people with whom (out of the movie) it would be difficult to establish a friendship and still less to share your life. Finally highlight the great interpretation of the wife versus the weak of Erik's lover. talking of actresses terms, of course. The plot is set in 1970 but this fact is totally irrelevant.

The story is not a good study of characters. All of them are almost caricatures. When the existential problem between Erik and Ana arises, both behaves in a way too much elementary, taking in account the gravity of the situation which is going on. More precisely (1) Erik is absolutely incapable to realise that he is ruining the emotional life and the self respect of the woman with whom he has been married and living in a pleasant way during at least fifteen years. A woman who proved to be generous when she accepted that Emma could live with the community, and who had probably fantasies of living a ménage à trois, along with Erik and Emma, thing that I think reasonable and human, considering what was going on. Erik sticks with Emma as if he hadn't any responsibility with regard to Anna feelings. (2) Anna is incapable to react in time to rescue her dignity which is being hurt by the irresponsible behaviour of Erik. The rest of the characters manifest themselves very poorly with respect to the crisis between Erik an Anna. Except the young Freja, daughter of Erik and Anna which is the only one capable to say that her mother must leave the community and seek for a new life. In short, Erik who is almost a pivot of the whole story, behaves - in the light of existentialist philosophy - as an individual with bad faith. I would add also, on my part, that he is a kind of mediocre individual.

Vinterberg, understandably having grown up in a commune, doesn't properly establish the hippy commune lifestyle. Probably because to him, that's just what he grew up with. He assumes you already know (and I do) but most people don't (or haven't thought about it) so the film feels severely lacking in world building. If this movie were an essay the first paragraph with the hypothesis is missing. Tell us a little bit about the ideology behind the choice in lifestyle; you did it beautifully did with Druk! Without it, the dramatic, emotional and ideological arithmetic doesn't quite add up. Have Ole tells us a bit about his left wing literature! Not to mention, Vinterberg shares nothing of the drug culture that the hippy lifestyle so adamantly relies on. Squash any human instinct/desire with a physical simulation; that's the hippy way. Feel unhappy: drink. You don't get that spark from learning something new? Just take a smoke and you'll get that spark relearning things you already know. Everything is material for the hippy, everything superficial. Real emotions always denied because we have pills for that! This film severely lacked a proper set up of that world in the first half.

That being said, this film develops into a deeply pertinent and important message. He perfectly diagnoses the problems with a hippy approach to a family structure. And I know this because my own family was a victim of this way of life. The mom in the film is my mom. The dad is my dad. The people in the film are from 70s Denmark, and my parents are from 90s LA. And while we live miles apart, the way of thinking leads to the same outcomes, and I have to repeat: Vinterberg perfectly diagnoses the problem with this type of thinking. While the woman may be the one suggesting a free love lifestyle, it's ultimately the women who will always suffer. The patriarch is to blame because he is the leader, whether or not he rhetorically offloads his duty to others.

The institution of marriage protects women, as their prospects of love virtually become null and void once they become old and ugly. The man however can remarry. This is why marriage exists. My parents were stupid enough to never make this observation and like in the movie, my mom ended up hooked on pills and alcohol while my father ran off with his tight new muse. And if you think the corporate world has any interest in supporting old women, think again.