I first learned about this film from the documentary Side By Side, which I once watched due to pure chance. It’s not hard to understand why Thomas Vinterberg’s 1998 feature was referenced in a movie that delved into the film-making process, given its status as the first film to be released under the much heralded Danish movement ‘Dogme 95’. Not long after it was produced the film had a decent theatrical run in the United States which lasted for about 5 months. Universal acquired the home media rights in the US and released the film on DVD in 2004. I suspect that due to the film’s slight historical significance, it was not difficult to find a DVD copy a decade and a half later.
One method for accessing films which I haven’t really mentioned so far is Amazon. And no, I’m not talking about Amazon Prime Video, but rather buying physical copies of a DVD from Amazon’s main website. When I first sat down to watch this film, there were copies of the Universal release being sold on Amazon for $53. Wait!?! 53 bucks! Were these people for real? Apparently they were.
There’s probably no better starting point for a Dogme 95 film then to discuss its cinematography which I thought was rather weak especially in the early stages of the film. I found the combination of incredibly tight, up-close shots with unwieldy hand-held camera movements to be very disorienting. And to experience this early in the film when, as a viewer, you’re still trying to getting acclimated to the overall cinematic style was a bit jarring. I will admit though that the film showed a lot of flair and creativity with its camera angles and perspectives. One of my favorite shots was the one taken from inside the tube where Helene hid the letter. The fact that this shot showed more written content than what Helene was willing to admit to, acted as a harbinger of things to come. Here the intimacy of the shot was incredibly effective. But overall I thought the intimacy in the framing too often created an ambiance of unease and discomfort which perhaps wasn’t totally inappropriate. Whether it was intended or not I could interpret some artistic merit to this style, given the film’s narrative.
While I don’t know if the film was shot in sequence I generally felt as if the framing and camera movements improved in quality as the film progressed. For instance there was a curling, moving shot that zeroed in on Mette that I liked due to the fluid gracefulness of how the camera panned in on the character. Had the film done more of these types of shots I think it could have been seen as more innovative in its cinematic style. However in its adherence to the stated rules of Dogme 95 film-making, I felt as if the film sacrificed a great deal of stylish, professional polish in exchange for stark verisimilitude. While this could be considered a positive transaction in that it enhanced the melodrama at the heart of the story, it still veered the film toward embracing the deficiencies of low-budget productions which can’t be ignored. The image quality of the film was often poor and in many of the nighttime scenes the lighting was very meager which established an aesthetic that would be comparable to amateur shot home videos. And yet despite the low-grade production values, the filmmakers were able to achieve some artistry in what they did. The nighttime romance between Christian and Pia took advantage of the poor lighting to give the sequence a certain surreal, haunting feel. I also liked the laser quick jump cuts between all the grown children in the beginning which rather slyly established the backstory on the death of the other child. The film also had a rather brisk pace and a chaotic tone that worked to its’ benefit. I think the filmmakers were largely successful in finding ways to make the Dogme 95 credo work in their favor.
Much of the film’s chaos though came from the narrative which I thought started out slow and tedious. However the effectively shocking and unexpected manner in which the family’s dirty secrets got spilled made the story significantly more intriguing. Granted the narrative depended mostly on shock value and some modest subtle humor in order to maintain its engrossing nature. Most of what actually happened at the party was not particularly fascinating. The character development was also rather flimsy. One of the more arresting characters in the film was Michael who was essentially an overgrown petulant child. Often he was completely incapable of displaying any reasonable restraint in expressing his emotions. The character was not particularly likable, although I can at least appreciate the passion that Thomas Bo Larsen injected into the role.
In fact much of the film’s energy had to come from the acting and the cast were up to the task. One of the better examples of this was seen in the emotional intensity of Paprika Steen’s performance when Helen read her sister’s letter. In regards to Steen I also liked the subtle quirkiness that she injected into the film during her scenes with the receptionist, as well as the playfulness that she displayed with Michael at the beginning of the film. Such moments offered a hint of a comedy that never truly developed. Steen for the most part though played the role as a woman on the brink of an emotional breakdown which was very fitting for the story and made Helen engaging as a character. Henning Moritzen was a bit more subdued in his role as Helge, but even then the small hints of his dark past were actually fairly visible. There was the way he choked up when mentioning ‘the twins’ in his opening speech, not to mention the dreadful countenance that he gave when hearing Christian’s toast. I thought Moritzen was very good in these types of moments but generally his performance could be classified as modestly restrained.
Ulrich Thomsen as Helge’s elder son Christian, played what was easily the film’s most interesting character. Early on I think he did a good job of playing a character who’s clearly consumed internally by some difficulties in life. But yet he showed enough restraint not to give too much away which made the big reveal seen later in the film much more surprising. Often during the film Thomsen was called upon to play a character who was very contemplative and stoic, and yet his performance was not devoid of personality. Thomsen should get credit for the way he reacted physically to Helge’s opening speech which provided additional texture to the nature of their relationship. There was also something about the casual and blasé manner in which he mentioned his father’s transgressions that I enjoyed. The revelation offered a great blend of bitter sarcasm and chutzpah, which was then punctuated with an absurdly coy chuckle. Thomsen assuredly changed the tone of his performance in his second speech where the character charged his father in a completely acerbic and forcefully indignant manner. I also liked the way Thomsen playfully bit on a fork when Helene read her letter, as if to take some morbid pleasure in hearing further support for the narrative that he helped bring to light. It was an interesting performance in his ability to meld together both tragic and humorous elements.
The conflict at the heart of the film wasn’t a moral conflict, since there could be no defense for Helge’s actions, but rather a conflict on how to best obtain justice. The biggest issue in the film was determining the process by which Christian should seek redress. What ultimately made the film fascinating was the manner in which Christian went about this, which was unabashedly bold, brazenly confrontational and defiant to the traditional manners of polite, civilized society. This made me ponder about whether or not the film could be seen as a thematic extension of Dogme 95’s principles. Dogme 95 ultimately is a revolution of process. It doesn’t question the stories that films tell, but rather how they should be told. I can respect the movement for wanting to deconstruct the notions on how film-making should be done and for possibly re-establishing the idea that film-making is more of an art than a science. But the thing about artistic endeavors is that no one can truly teach you how they should be conducted. There are always certain things that an artist has to learn and figure out on their own. In a pure, unadulterated artistic endeavor there are no rules, and this is what makes art intriguing. Ultimately Dogme 95 ridiculed itself by imposing rules that were every bit as deserving of being violated as the commercial industry standards and practices that they initially sought to oppose. Still in Festen we see a celebration of a more frank, unfiltered, and open type of dialogue that ended up working well for both its protagonist and the cinematic movement that produced it.