karolinaszin

There are several very interesting podcasts available online where the director explains how she found the protagonist girl (Benfors 'Wee Do) by accident. She also mentions that in some scenes, she wanted to deal with the film's central theme with humour, instead of forcing the viewer to feel guilty for laughing. It may be due to ignorance or lack of knowledge of the cultural context but personally, I did not feel the delicate line between humour and seriousness, between fairy tale and reality. For this very reason, I found these motifs overtly forced and simply too symbolic. At the same time, it is a movie with a really strong imagery and important message. The potential for catharsis is there all the way through the film but sadly, it just did not happen for me this time.

I loved it!!! I felt that every little symbol and detail had its place without them being far-fetched or forced. I am totally honest here when I say I was not able to figure out the protagonist until the very end - in fact, I am not even sure today whether she was a psychopath or not. I think the film reflects very well on women's expectations today and, at the same time, it turns them completely upside down, while raising a lot of ethical questions as well: for a while, I'm taking the side of the oppressed protagonist, then the picture is slowly getting more complex and her depiction more layered as we are getting ahead in the film. I don't know why, perhaps due to the mythological element in the balcony scene, but the mood of Spring (2014) came to my mind. This is one of the most exciting movies of the year for me dramaturgy-wise. Granted, I really like weird movies :)

It is such a pity that it was not enough for the director to talk about Godard, he also tried to make a film in Godard's style. In my opinion, he was not able to capture the "Godard mood" at all. Instead, the film is executed in a textbook manner, meticulously using Godard's cinematic language like a receipt and that's always a risky move (for example, Gus Van Sant's case with Psycho). Godard is Godard not for using these elements, but because he used them at the right time and in the right way. If this would have been done by breaking new grounds in cinematic language, or even without breaking the mould in such a way BUT finding the right tone, I would have liked the film much more. Godard's world has a sexy, humorous yet tragic atmosphere, where the viewer feels for the characters. To be honest, when watching a Godard movie, I'm always terribly envious that I was not born at the time of Belmondo. Here, I did not feel this longing, sadly. Having said that, the actors are cute and the director seems to be cool and all, judging from interviews, so it may be that I'm just too sentimental. :)