Hunger (1966)

"All is lost, ladies and gentlemen, all is lost!", Pontus screams hysterically in the middle of the street, inviting more of those never-ending, curious stares from passersby. Pontus, a gaunt, bespectacled man, now almost over the edge with his gradually deteriorating mental faculties is the pitiable soul at the center of Danish filmmaker Henning Carlsen's "Hunger" (1966). This is a harrowing portrait of a defeated, down-on-his-luck writer, reduced to a lonely, penniless wanderer, with nothing to eat and no permanent roof over his head. The viewer becomes a mute spectator, as the hunger in Pontus' stomach systematically begins to eat away into his sanity...

An air of gloom and desperation almost instantly engulfs us at the onset of the film. A creepy background score accompanies the scene in which we are introduced to Pontus (Per Oscarsson), a man of thin build, standing over a bridge, observing the water below and scribbling something away on a single piece of paper with a small pencil. The paper and the pencil are his only possessions, aside from a quilt which he keeps in his dingy old rented place, the rent of which, he has not been able to pay for an unknown period of time. The scribblings are possibly the beginnings of a new masterpiece, or simply delusional musings of a man who isn't able to think straight. It appears, that the latter is true, for Pontus goes on to promptly tear that piece of paper up and attempt to swallow it!

On the surface, "Hunger" is a film that focuses on an impoverished character struggling to survive in the city of Oslo. This film is, however, quite different from the Italian neo-realist films of Vittorio De Sica. Carlsen's main focus is not the tribulations of Pontus but rather on the disastrous effect of his miserable state on his mind. His sufferings are distressing to say the least, but they serve as vehicles in outlining his mental imbalance, worsened upon being torn apart between poverty and a sense of pride which he refuses to compromise on, even if it comes at the cost of lies.

Pontus is without money or a morsel of food in his stomach, and yet just to show that he is not one of them, he quickly pawns something in order to offer some alms to a homeless man. He has but one pair of clothing on him, a coat, a trousers, and a hat that he so religiously doffs in an attempt to appear sophisticated. Upholding his dignity is of utmost importance to him, and he wouldn't so much as touch a free meal even offered by an old acquaintance, if only to not let it out that he is in need of any kind, including his pining for some grub.

He would rather feed off the dust in an old cupboard, or chew on discarded bones from a meat packing factory! Of course, this he would do quite surreptitiously, and promptly go on to hide if he feels he is being watched. It's a heartbreaking scene, and yet while some part of us would back his will to preserve his honour, it is troubling to see him refusing help when it comes his way. Even when it comes to self-respect, how much is too much?

Pontus is a delusional man, perhaps living in denial, refusing to accept that he has been reduced to this. It is hinted later in the film that he once had a good life, which he is now deprived of. He meets acquaintances who recognize him from a time not so distant, indicating he has been reclusive and aloof from the public eye owing to facing failure, but is not quite ready to admit it, perhaps in the hope of regaining his lost paradise.

This inability to cope with a setback and a feeble mind that is a product of an empty stomach give way to hallucinations and sudden bursts of hysteria. These are often accompanied by those abundant muscular twitches, an inherent part of Pontus' body language that manifest to a greater degree, when he is at his most honest, whilst delivering a tirade. He is quite vocal about this honesty too, even unable to eat a meal bought out of accidental money he receives owing to a shopkeeper's mistake.

Pontus strikes conversations with random people, tries to make a pass at a beautiful girl (Gunnel Lindblom) in a rather awkward fashion, knocks at strangers' doors and asks for completely made up names claiming he has an errand or an appointment of some sort. A touch of humour is added to the proceedings, when he always asks the cops the time, every time they so much as approach him for seemingly suspicious behaviour. This is his only connect with other human beings, the momentary escape from his loneliness which often gets the better of him and he talks to himself or even to his feet!

The camera hovers about Pontus most of the time, and at times his face looks directly at the camera; a steely gaze that seems to eerily lock eyes with the viewers, daring them look away and almost evoking a sense of guilt. How many times have we seen people on the streets talking to themselves and either greeted them with stares, or walked away from them? Could one of them be suffering like Pontus does? Carlsen gives us food for thought, and a chance to take a look from the other side. It doesn't get much more accurate than this.

Carlsen's film, is a bleak masterpiece, a film so soaked in tragedy that it seems like there is no escape from the despair and madness, especially since, for those 110 odd minutes, we almost follow Pontus' every move in his miserable existence. The film is shot in stark black and white adding to the atmosphere of haplessness. Despite having a destitute character at its center, Carlsen completely eschews any heightened melodrama, and designs his film as a doom-laden, psychological mood piece.

And at the heart of it all, is the extremely talented Per Oscarsson, whose weak frame carries the film on his able shoulders with such finesse, it is difficult to tell whether he is even acting. This is one unforgettable performance that deserves to go down in history as one of the greatest lead acts in film ever.


Score: 10/10

The Hunt (Jagten) (2012)

***NOTE: The following analysis/review may contain MILD SPOILERS regarding some detail in the film, but not to the extent of making the film viewing experience any lesser.***

Thomas Vinterberg's "The Hunt" (2012) is set in a small Danish village, a self-sufficient universe where the population is sparse, and all the townsfolk seem to know each other pretty well. It is a quaint little neighbourhood, where the state of affairs is calmer and quieter than the serene and picturesque surroundings that these individuals are graced with. It is the kind of small town where people have grown up together, known each other for years and hence share a very strong bond. The village then, is like a family in itself.

The protagonist, Lucas (Mads Mikkelsen) is one such member of this community, a well-respected, friendly, trusted individual, who is separated from his wife but is happy that his teenaged son Marcus (Lasse Fogelstrøm) would be joining him soon. A former teacher at school, he is now working in a nursery for kids with Grethe (Susse Wold). The amicable Lucas is quite popular with the kids. He actually becomes one of them, has fun and frolics around with them. He clearly enjoys his job and the healthy interaction with the children. What’s more, his beautiful colleague Nadja (Alexandra Rapaport) expresses a strong interest in him and life seems to be going great guns for Lucas.

Little does he know though, that his life is about to be turned upside down, when one of the kids, a young girl Klara (Annika Wedderkopp, in a stupendous performance), who also happens to be his best friend Theo's (Thomas Bo Larsen) daughter makes a rather vague statement about Lucas that hints at sexual abuse, over his minor, but justified snub!

Vinterberg's film paints a rather scary, but accurate picture of the cataclysmic effects of a tiny lie, especially if it comes from a child. For the uninitiated, it may seem a bit too far-fetched and contrived when Grethe, the nursery supervisor instantly believes Klara's obviously vague story and gets help from a child psychologist who throws Klara off balance with his leading and uncomfortable questions. 

Only it is common knowledge that there is a widespread belief that a child can never lie, especially about inappropriate conduct from an adult! Apparently, there is no way a child can make up all those things, for its fragile little mind is simply not capable. But is that really the truth? What of those mischievous teens or even some parents who are careless with what they say or do in front of their kids? We are shown early on, how Klara's vulnerable little mind is polluted with her brother's flippant act of exposing her to porn, even if for a split second! Klara's lie contains fragments of that careless but affecting exposure to something that a child of her age isn't ready for. What's worse is, even if later, she retracts her statement, it is considered as denial from fear of having said or done something awful!

Vinterberg hits the bull's eye when it comes to child psychology and the adults' seemingly inadequate ways of understanding this psychology! Klara clearly doesn't realize the gravity of her implication or the magnitude of the possible devastation her accusation is capable of giving way to. But given her innocence and difficulty in comprehending these matters, there is no way one could possibly reason with her. The situation, of course, goes out of hand, all hell breaks loose, and Lucas gradually becomes a victim of mass hysteria. All his trusted friends and loyalists turn their backs on him. He becomes an outcast, with even Theo refusing to believe him.

Vinterberg very precisely portrays how a lack of clarity can mushroom into grapevines stemming from frivolous assumptions. And hence, even though Klara initially makes broken and unclear statements, the sane adults do the job of filling the gaps and forming their own sordid stories of Lucas' non-existent evil deeds. Other children follow suit and possibly out of confusion or because of words being put into their mouths, make similar accusations! In such a state, Lucas is left to fend for himself, with only his son Marcus and one friend Bruun (Lars Ranthe) standing by his side to help him.

Mads Mikkelsen portrays the angst of a broken man with a restrained but superlative performance. The anxiety shows on his face, but the awareness of his innocence keeps his spirit intact and he tries not to react in a way that would destroy his chances at exoneration. His character reactions are as realistic as they get except in one tiny bit in a church mass. Noteworthy is the scene in which he is thrown out of a grocery store with physical violence. Lucas never raises a finger when hit. "You can’t hit someone like that", he keeps saying. After all, he still behaves like a civilized individual while the so-called morally upright men, the self-proclaimed upholders of a virtuous society around him resort to fists! It is only when they refuse to let him take his groceries that he finally decides to use the physical strength that he possesses.

"The Hunt" showcases Thomas Vinterberg's firm command on the narrative in a film that is well-written and well-shot. Apart from being a tense, gripping drama, Vinterberg's film is a remarkable study of herd mentality and how unwarranted rumours can permanently destroy an innocent man's immaculate reputation. It is also a very important wakeup call and a cautionary tale of sorts for parents. You can never be too careful with children, but what you expose your children to, even unknowingly and how they perceive it is an extremely delicate matter and needs a lot of investment of thought.

The immensely satisfying culmination hints at one of two things. No matter how innocent a man is in the eyes of the law, some individuals will always believe that he is guilty and that he got away with his crime. Thus, he will never be completely vindicated. Or perhaps, it means, that it doesn't matter that the incident is far behind, or that life has moved on and people have grown up and accepted him in the society again. The psychological damage is irreversible and the trauma lives on. The man will always be watching over his shoulder, with a feeling of being hunted for the rest of his life!

Score: 9/10

  

After the Wedding (2006)

“After the Wedding” (2006) begins on the streets of Mumbai, India, where several orphaned, homeless children are queuing up for food, courtesy ‘Anand Orphanage and School’, assisted by Jacob (Mads Mikkelsen) who has taken up the cause. He teaches in the school attached to the orphanage, and is a favorite with the children there. The initial scenes make one wonder if this is yet another ‘poverty porn’ focusing only on the dirty underbelly of India and projecting it to be a country worse than it actually is (Think “Slumdog Millionaire”). But any negativity formed in the beginning is quickly quashed with what follows.

The orphanage is clearly falling short of funds. A silver lining is seen, as some tycoon in Denmark, by the name of Jorgen Hansson (Rolf Lassgård), has agreed to offer a huge sum of money as donation to the orphanage, but only on the condition that Jacob travel to Denmark personally, meet with Jorgen and then return with the necessary funds and paperwork. This tiny detail offered in the beginning, highlights the whimsical nature of the wealthy businessman’s offer, and immediately hints at a catch, so we begin to brace ourselves for an early twist. Any surprise quotient, then, is automatically reduced to half.

Jacob travels to Denmark, leaving behind his shanty life, albeit promising one of the orphan boys, Pramod (Neeral Mulchandani), who he has brought up and loves like his son, that he would be back in a week. Once in Denmark, Jacob is given red carpet treatment; a personal airport pickup, a luxury suite in a posh hotel, and later a meeting with the man himself; who takes a look at the project put together by Jacob (a videotape detailing the activities of the orphanage), but seems to be more interested in having a drink with him. Jorgen turns off the tape halfway, leaving Jacob stumped and disappointed, but proceeds to invite Jacob to the upcoming wedding of his daughter Anna (Stine Fischer Christensen). The unsuspecting Jacob accepts the invitation and shows up at Jorgen’s plush mansion, the venue of the wedding.

But a series of startling discoveries at the wedding and after it, make this visit to Denmark, a life-changing experience for Jacob…..

Writer-Director Susanne Bier’s screenplay shows great promise, at least in the first half, thanks to the periodic revelations. Some dark secrets are revealed at regular intervals, and thus the pace is well maintained ‘til then, although the film revolves only around four major characters. There are great moments of power-packed drama, sometimes intense, sometimes warm, sometimes awkward; mostly the uncomfortable encounters between characters are very naturally captured; it couldn’t get more real than that. The director knows exactly how the characters would emote under the circumstances, and thanks to the terrific actors, it’s all well done and earnestly acted. The cinematography is somewhat grainy, mostly devoid of the usage of special lighting, and is shot on a handheld camera, reminiscent of the style of the Dogme 95 movement first initiated by Lars Von Trier. It is no surprise that the filming of the entire wedding sequence very much reminds of that in Von Trier’s “Breaking the Waves”.

It is the extreme close-ups of eyes, lips, hands, and even some facial hair that come across as an eyesore. There are way too many close-ups that just weren’t required and suit neither the genre, nor the subject matter. In fact they take away from the scenes somewhat, by not showing us the visage of the actor during a scene, when his/her reaction or emotion is vital to the scene. It is in the latter half, that the drama begins to shed the subtlety, when the most important twist of the story is revealed, and the film dips into mawkish melodrama giving rise to histrionics and gawky over-sentimentality! The major twist is itself a cliché and a bankable ingredient for a weepy soap opera. But there are other events that follow, and at such timings, that you can’t help but think that the screenplay is taking an emotionally manipulative direction, by forcing some events that just weren’t necessary, but used merely because they, somehow, serve as good excuses to make the proceedings sappier!

That said, it is indeed noteworthy, how almost all the characters are very well written; they have a lot of depth and more importantly, the initial impression that is created about them, takes a drastic turn in some key events, and we are forced to see them in a different light. Of course, the convincing dynamics of the characters, are owing to the choice of actors that are immensely talented. Mads Mikkelsen brings a range of emotions to the otherwise stoic Jacob who is taken aback when he first learns of the shattering truth that hits like a bolt of lightning. Ditto for the mixed emotions and the inevitable awkwardness he displays, later, in one of the best directed scenes of the film. Rolf Lassgård is brilliant as the drunk, but loving father and business tycoon, whose real intentions, and hence the kind of person he is, becomes clear only later. Stine Fischer Christensen is cute and does a commendable job as the daughter Anna who gets a double whammy of deceit. And then we have Sidse Babett Knudsen as Helene, who finds herself in an extraordinary situation, by a twist of fate, following a seemingly strange coincidence, and a past that refuses to let go. It is a classy performance indeed.

What “After the Wedding” needed was a steady grip and restrained tone, that it maintains in the first half of the film, despite the plot contrivances, after which it nosedives into unnecessary melodrama and starts to come undone. Too bad, really!

Score: 7/10