Thorkell Ágúst Óttarsson

I just saw Antichrist (just got the Blu Ray). This is most definitely one of the best films from 2009. Why do people have such a problem with it? Yes it does have some graphic scenes but no more than in most horror films today! This is a beautiful and poetic but at the same time quite difficult and horrific.

OK, here is my take on the film. SPOILERS!!! It plays like a drama but it is in fact a horror film. I believe she is a witch and is afraid to face her own identity. She might also be mentally so disturbed that she started to believe that she was a witch. If it is the latter then her mental problems started before the child died. She had tortured the boy before that (by tying the shoes wrong to his feet) and she saw what was happening when he climbed to the table and did nothing.

There is also an underlying reality to this. We usually see mothers as symbol of love but mothers often torture their children and even kill them. I personally know off three new incidents in my small community where children have been taken away from their mothers because they tortured them. This is what Trier is talking about in this amazing film. Women are capable of much evil, just as men are. In the middle ages it was called witchcraft. Today it a psychological disturbance. The man in the film does not realise this. He thinks she is just getting over the loss of a child, when in fact she is getting over the loss of her old self and embracing her new self (as a witch). Ironically, he helps her to do just that.

I loved the animals in the film, the way they are used and what they symbolise. There is a constellation map in the film which explains the meaning of the three main animals. The deer symbolises grief, the fox symbolises pain and the raven symbolises despair.

I believe that a good film should stay with you. Make you want to read what others have said, look at the extra material, think about scenes and even watch them again to be sure that you saw it right. Antichrist did just that to me.

Here is a crazy idea, I have been thinking about for some time. If you could only pick one director for each decade, whom would you give the decades to?

Here is my suggestion:

1890-1899 Lumière
1900-1909 Georges Méliès
1910-1919 D.W. Griffith
1920-1929 F.W. Murnau
1930-1939 Josef von Sternberg
1940-1949 Powell and Pressburger
1950-1959 Alfred Hitchcock
1960-1969 Michelangelo Antonioni
1970-1979 Andrei Tarkovsky
1980-1989 Woody Allen
1990-1999 Abbas Kiarostami
2000-2009 Chan-wook Park

How would your list look like?

This month I will be studying the films by Abbas Kiarostami, not only those who he has directed but also those he has written and are directed by others.

I stared my month on his first film, The Bread and Alley. It is a 10 min. long silent film about a dog and his clever way of
staying alive. The film is quite brilliant. It starts with a boy trying to get home, but there is a dog in his way who will not let him pass. In the end the boy throws a bread to dog and the dog lets him pass, and even follows him as a good friend (in hope of more food). The mother of the boy does not however like the dog and locks him outside. The dog lies down and along comes another boy and the story repeats it self. It is well filmed and has some nice music. I strongly recommend it! It can be found on Youtube.

Two Solutions for One Problem is a 5 min long film, which must have been made for children’s program on TV, and supposed to tech children that fighting does not solve problems. It is not bad and has some comical moments. It can also be found on youtube.

The Chorus is a wonderful short film about a grandfather who tunes off his hearing aid. I’m sure we would all sometimes like to do that. But there is a reason why we have been given ears, because no matter how nice it is to turn a deaf ear to the world, we need to hear to be a part of it (or at least try to hear). That goes for us as humans as well as for our governments (there might be a underlying political message here). There is also a nice joke in the end. This great film can be found on youtube.

If there is something Iranians know how to do then it is children films. They are always so sincere and meaningful. And the best thing is that they are just as interesting for grownups as they are for children. I”Where Is the Friend’s Home?” is one of many great children films from Iran and also one of many by Kiarostami. It is about a boy (Ahmed) who has taken (by a mistake) a notebook from his friend and has to return it, because otherwise his friend might be kicked out of school. The problem is that grown ups tell children to do good but when they try to do that, they are told to do other things, or just ignored. What should Ahmed do, do as his parents (and grandfather) tell him or follow his heart and do what he believes it right. This may not sound like a huge drama but the film had me at the edge of my seat most of the time. This is a film parents need to see. A wonderful film about how difficult it often is to be good in this world, especially when parents give you conflicting information.

To be continued…

September 2006 I started an Internet film club with a boy from Denmark. The members of the club pick one director or a theme each month to study (this month we are watching Abbas Kiarostami). The members watch the films by them self and then discusses them on the net with others. My blog is mainly going to be related to the activity of this club. This club has been the light in my life and made it possible for me to watch and study films in a more organised manner.

Here is a list of everything we have seen until now.

Those who would like to become a member can do so here.

“Cinema Europe: The Other Hollywood” (1995) is a brilliant docoumentary by Kevin Brownlow, Michael Winterbottom, David Gill and Dan Carter.

It should appeal to anyone interested in film history, especially the silent era. Its goal is to document the birth of cinema in Europe and its development all the way to the early years of the sound film – in just 6 hours! Six hours is way to short for such an endeavor but the filmmakers manage to pack amazing amount of information in to these six hours, so much in fact that one is left with the desire to see it immediately again.

The film is in six parts. The first covering the birth of cinema in Europe, the second one is about the Swedish silent film industry, the third one about the German Masters, the fourth one about France, the fifth one about Britain and the last one about the death of silent cinema and the arrival of sound.

One would expect that the German part would be the best of the six but it was unfortunately one of the least interesting, IMO. This may have something to do with the fact that I knew the German story quite well, but I just felt that it lacked insight and a clear direction. The same goes for the Swedish part. The narrator spends most of the time retelling the plot of the films in question, including their end.

The France and English parts are pure pleasure to watch. They are full of well based social insight and focus more on techniques and experiments than story lines. The British one is admirably honest and at part quite funny.

The transfer of the films they show is exceptionally good and the collections of the shots they gather together here is a goldmine. Many of the films shown from in the documentary are still not available on VHS or DVD.

On the down side though, I felt they often chose wrong scenes from the films they picked, and left out much superior scenes, but such is always a matter of opinion.

Cinema Europe is a true gem which I’m going to revisit again and again in the future. It should be on the shelf of any serious film buff.

Welcome to Icelandcinemanow.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!