jtuohini

After seeing Vatsa sisään, rinta ulos! by Aarne Tarkas one can but compare it to Some like it hot by Billy Wilder. Similarities between these two films are striking as both of them belong to the same category of cross-dressing comedy and what more fascinating, both of the titles are from the same year (1959). The first one shows us a current (1950s) world of girls' school and garrison in an idyllic Finnish town whereas the latter one allows history to soften themes a bit. In both films there are three major characters: two men whose masculinity is under review, and a woman, who is like a sexual angel.

In Wilder's film the distinction between two major male character is shown as possibility to change the identity role, and Some like it hot even gives us a great laugh of a couple of millionaire and transvestite ("woman"), while in Tarkas' farce the much greater fear of homosexuality is handled quite openly. The transvestite theme is only like a token idiom. Happy end is more open in Wilder's film than in Tarkas' as the main characters end up in opposite possibilities: in first one impossible end and in second one totally accepted, but obviously most improbable.

Both films include musical elements, but very different ways: Wilder puts music to be an integral part of his masterpiece while Tarkas uses some popular singers in his title without any need. I mean that music in this Finnish farce could be better in few moments, but otherwise all the things seems to fit rarely well. Tarkas' Vatsa sisään, rinta ulos! gives us excellent characters - perhaps even more than Wilder in his film -, and marvellously played. Helge Herala's neurotic officer also allows us allusions of Hynkel from Charles Chaplin's The great dictator...

Surprisingly good, if we forget the overage schoolgirls and like that. A good comedy indeed.

This film was a total surprise for me. Though the commercial poster of film included one extremely beautiful (mirror) still image, I never would have believed that these days some artists are capable to create such a beauty as this cinematic title is. Visually this film resembles me of 1920s productions, and artistically the watching experience might be comparable to an enjoyment of listening Renaissance vocal polyphony.

If something should be said against this film: violence is partly understandable subject of this title, but no harm would happen to the story if the director followed the wise steps of Fritz Lang - aggressive acts can be shown also in invisible way. Compared to "action" films Paths in the night is a true pearl. Part of the magnetic power derives from the "lack" of colours. (By the way: why don't directors make decisions between black-and-white and colour more often? It seems that almost all titles are colour films without need for colours.) Imaginative world is colourless, just like history.

Sound scape of this film fits well. Limited amount of actors are introduced also through music; four persons, four worlds linked together. Main character's world is naturally the one dominating. He is actually a bit like inspector Dreyfus (Herbert Lom) from Clouseau films - partly also so because of the comedial moments of this film. But first of all, I would say that a tragical theme is the leading one. Like life itself.

I would like to recommend this film for all those who are interested in fantastic pictures and who so enjoy visiting museums dedicated to photography.

Hardly ever have I seen such a disgusting film as this. There are specially few factors which spoiled otherwise acceptable idea of this "gay" story:

First of all, violence. Why is it so necessary to offer the friends of cinema such a simplified view of horrors? Is it fault of the producer or the director to believe that audience is not capable to realize the activity of the killer without showing his victims miserable situation? Naïveté is always bad merit for a film, also this time.

Secondly the music. How on earth is it possible that music in this kind of a film can be like from MTV, again as naïve as possible. Pop music of lowest level. I naturally understand that there are persons who feel classical film music perhaps a bit too dull, but clearly discrepancy between audible and visual information was too great. One very good example of this is the sex act between the main actor and one of his one-night partners.

Also the lack of visual beauty reduces value of this "masterpiece"; I saw only few aesthetically interesting pictures during this a bit too long film. Acting was nothing special, story offered hardly anything but a glimpse of possibility to make a truly interesting cinematic work. A disappointing film indeed - or powerful, if the whole idea of making film is to have audience to feel something very strong (i.e. to loose idealism). This is one of the titles I hardly can forget.