Mammoth

There was a big speculation of Moodysson being a total sell-out, doing a major picture in America, but that obviously wasn't the case. It isn't Moodysson quite like you've seen before, but definitely not in a bad way. He innovated his style into new directions, without compromising his vision.

Gael García Bernal has proved himself to be one of the greatest actors of this generation in Iñárritu's pictures, and Mammoth comes as no exception. In fact I feel a little Iñárrituish vibe in the movie; the whole theme is pretty similar with Babel.

Somebody commented earlier here, that Moodysson was just "teethless" with his society critic in Mammoth, but I really have to disagree. I wouldn't even use the word "critic" in Mammoth's case - I don't see Moodysson as a preacher, but as an objective lens, which allows us to see the world differently. It's art people, not politics; pointing fingers isn't the point.

Now that Moodysson is back from the grave (oh, but what a fine grave it was) there is ridiciously high hopes for this first international production. It usually takes about five to fifteen minutes before I get tangled up in his movies, this time though it toke almost half an hour. Mammoth is of course more complex, with much more going on at the same time in different parts of the world, than his other works. Or not more complex, maybe just wider. Nevermind; it's a fine piece of cinema, great storytelling and speaks grimly to us about the world we're raping, the time we're wasting and the people suffering becaurse of our western lifestyles. Mostly it's about the children who are crushed in the middle of our lost struggle to make a life, buy more stuff or just to survive. Does that make sense? The movie does, in a sad way.

After reading the reviews here I wanted to put in my own 2 cents. This movie is basically about being a parent in a modern age. There are three story lines, one about a nurse in NYC, one about her husband, a computer geek with lots of money, and one about about their nanny.

The one thing the woman, the man, and the nanny all have in common are the sacrifices they make for their kids. The man and woman both have very successful jobs, and the nanny from the Philippines works in the US to earn money for her kids back home. However, the sacrifices they make are so extreme that each person becomes detached from the very reason why they made these sacrifices in the first place: Their children.

The film presents us with a critical portrayal of this lifestyle, and as such in the end this is a tragedy.

This is an excellent film, highly recommended, especially for those of us who must balance work and family life on a daily basis.

I notice that many of the positive reviews for this film are from Scandinavia. I'm not, and I ran into some real holes in the story. The subject of the film is parents and children, and what happens when the two are separated by necessity. The film opens in New York, where Leo, the main character, has become fabulously wealthy, and loves his kid, but must fly off to Bangkok to seal a deal that will make him even wealthier. His story is the skeleton of the movie,but it's also the weakest and least convincing. Two other stories (or four) complete the film, showing us family separations-by-necessity that are more convincing. I for one found the story of the Filipino nanny much more watchable and believable. The Philippines produces too many intelligent, well-educated people for its economy to support, so roughly 15% of the adult workforce are forced to leave the country to work overseas; Gloria, the nanny, is one of them, and she has to leave her children in Olangapo while she sends money back from New York. I knew about that situation going in, but the film does a nice job of dramatizing it. meanwhile, the main story, starring Gael Bernal as the wealthy-but-tortured New Yorker, just doesn't work, partly because it's either poorly-written or not written at all. Bernal is a good actor, but here he sounds as if he's been asked to improvise his own dialogue, and it sounds just like improvised movie dialogue from other badly-improvised movies: boring, flat, and very, very, very repetitious. Improvisation can be done right, and when it is, it works beautifully, as in Happy-Go-Lucky and The Class, but not here. Whether it's improvised or not, Leo's part of the film is one long boring cliché. There are some other little glitches in the film that strain credulity, but overall I'll ignore the Leo section and give it a 6 out of 10.

Mammoth is an ambitious, highly contemplative take on the implications of global capitalism for individuals, families and communities. Moodysson illustrates a world in which market economy as the Western way of life both encourages and obliges human action that, irrespective of one's intentions, reproduces unequal social relations and reinforces existing power structures.

One could criticize Moodysson of presenting only conservative, private solutions for the social problems caused by globalization. The protagonists do not try to face their social circumstance head on or to find political ways for addressing their situation. In stead of seeking social change through collective action, family becomes of central importance. Only some vague escapist dreams are left for the disillusioned workers at both ends of the global working class.

Despite the film's fatalism, Moodysson succeeds beautifully in constructing a convincing and authentic interpretation of the 21st century social reality of global interconnectedness. The tragedy of highly educated Western professionals that Mammoth portrays lies in the fact that they are conscious of the disastrous social and ecological consequences of their actions, yet find themselves completely unable to transform the social condition.