thao

The Synanon Fix (2024)

explains very well why people go into cults, how they start, and why they usually end in horror

I'm a theologian which is why I love studying cults. It's not often I come across a series that explains this well why people go into cults, how they start, and why they usually end in horror.

A cult needs a strong charismatic leader to hold everything together and create enough faith in them that people are willing to go along without a question. The positive aspect of that is that you create a very united social group with meaning, unlike the outside world where people are lost and lonely. The dangerous side of a charismatic leader is that he will almost always go crazy and abuse his power (usually within 20 years).

Synanon was a fascinating group because it was not a religion (even though they formed a church for tax reasons). This gives us a chance to investigate a cult without having to deal with people's belief in God and so on. It's just a group of people united in their admiration of a brilliant but very flawed and sick man.

This was not the worst cult out there but it could easily have turned so much worse if it had been based on religious writings and a belief in a higher power. That being said, there is more than enough insanity here for those who love watching series like this for that reason. There are better and more shocking examples out there but this will still give you your kick. If you are however like me and want to understand why people join and how groups like these work, then this is as good as it gets.

God's Country (2022)

A profound and poetic masterpiece

My kind of film. Incredibly beautifully filmed and all the shots are so well thought out. There is not a single shot that feels out of place, rushed, or compromised. This may sound like a strange observation but those who have made films will know what I'm talking about. Julian Higgins directs the hell out of this slow burner.

God's Country tells a simple story about an escalating conflict but it can also be seen as a take on what is happening in the USA today. This dialogue from the film captures the essence perfectly:

• "I wonder sometimes, why do you choose to be the person you are."
• "Like you're just whatever happened before you? Maybe it takes some kind of sacrifice to break the cycle."

What happens when no one is willing to sacrifice to break the cycle? When everyone just reacts to what happened before them? Are they masters of their destiny or just puppets of history - controlled by their past and the past of those who came before them?

A profound and poetic masterpiece.

Infinity Pool (2023)

Well acted, cool idea but sadly only half-cooked and badly served dinner

This might be the best feature film Brandon Cronenberg has made but that does not mean much. I did not care much for Antiviral. Possessor was fine.

My problem with Brandon is that I feel his scripts are half-cooked. He gets a great idea but never works it to the end. It's like he gives up after 3rd draft. I also think he does not know how to structure a scene. The frames are usually a little too tight, the placement of the camera a little off, and a lack of total shots that could help make the scene work. It's all very muddled. Confusing and frankly amateurish.

As for this film. It has three brilliant scenes that show clearly that Brandon could do something wonderful in the future. I'm thinking of the drugged/psychedelic scenes. They are very avant-garde. One of them, a sex scene, is simply marvelous. I usually hate sex scenes in films. Not because I have any problem with the human body, but rather because most of them are so very ordinary and add nothing to the story. The sex scene here is original and important.

Well acted, cool idea but sadly only half-cooked and badly served dinner.

Baby Ruby (2022)

Scared the hell out of me!

I thought this was really scary and surprisingly good. I don't know if it is because I am a father or because I love horror films that deal with mental health issues. It was in fact so scared that I was not sure if I would be able to get through it.

I also love this new trend of horror films that deal with the female body. Such an interesting concept.

This is Bess Wohl's debut film as a director (she also wrote the script). I look forward to seeing what Bess Wohl will do in the future as a director. If this is any indication then we can expect something original and powerful.

Noémie Merlant acts the hell out of this. This is not an easy role to play. She both does the role justice but at the same time did not to alienate the audience. I felt for her even though she scared the hell out of me.

In short, this is one of those films that are way more interesting than the rating suggests.

The Vow (2020)

Facinating look at why people get trapped in a cult

I think people misunderstand this series. If you want the sensational aspect of the case and the facts then watch Seduced: Inside the NXIVM Cult. If you want to understand why anyone would fall for a cult leader and how someone can get so much control over people then this is as good as it gets. I prefer the latter but then again as a theologian, I'm interested in this question.

The Vow does not spoon-feed you. It does not tell you how to feel about any of this. You get different perspectives, even very positive information about NXIVM. It looks like this irritated many people but I think it was very important. How are we going to understand why people fell for this if we don't show the good also? It's not like people join a cult because they believe it is evil.

I thought the second season was even better than the first. Getting Nancy's view on what happened and seeing her opening her eyes to what was happening, gradually understanding better what she did and how she was used was a brilliant study of someone being deprogrammed, or rather deprogramming themselves. It starts with small steps and a lot of pain.

As to Keith Raniere. The series shows so well how he lured people in, broke them down, and built them up anew to serve his will. And how anything good he did was probably just in service of his own darker needs. Here is a man who could have had it all, admiration, money, and success but traded it all for sadistic manipulation and sexual pleasure.

In the end, The Vow shows so well how fragile we all are. How easy it is to break us down and manipulate us. It is really scary that someone with Keith Raniere's talents can do so much harm. I would love to think that I would not have been fooled but I'm not so sure. The fact that The Vow manages to make me feel that way speaks to the strength of the series.

In short, if you want to understand cults, how they work, and why people get stuck in them, then this is a goldmine!

I'll See You in Disneyland (2022)

Well I made it so I'm not unbiased! :)

Here is an interview with me about the film.

• Why did you call the film I'll See You in Disneyland?

The title is taken from Richard Ramirez. He was an American serial killer, rapist, and burglar dubbed the "Night Stalker" by the news media. When Richard Ramirez was led out of the courtroom he was asked by the media how he felt about getting a death sentence.

He answered: "Big deal. Death always went with the territory. I'll See you in Disneyland."

It is hard to know what he meant by that but I often wondered if killing and raping women was his Disneyland. So when I decided to make a film about the dark side of men and investigate them in a dream world I felt this was the perfect title. A film about a little more dangerous Disneyland than the one you find in Florida.

• What inspired you to make I'll See You In Disneyland?

There were mainly 3 things that inspired this film.

1) I'm very concerned about the rise of the Incel culture. Incel stands for involuntary celibate, and consists of a group of men who are sexually frustrated because they can't find women who want them. They chat online. There is a lot of misogyny and radical right wing politics in these chat rooms, along with a very bleak worldview and hatred towards society. Some of these members have taken revenge on society by killing people, usually a group of beautiful women. I wanted to investigate this scary sub culture and try to understand them.

2) I wanted to write a script where I first came up with the character before I found the plot. My daughter Mirjam Sveinbjörg Thorkelsdottir did this brilliantly in her film Tape and I wanted to see if I could also pull it off.

3) I wanted to make a film only I could have made, where I played to my strengths and did what I love doing, like dream scenes, visual scenes with little to no dialogue and a lot of symbolism. In other words, I made a film for myself, in hope that others might also find it interesting.

• Is "I'll See You In Disneyland" a feminist film?

In my mind it is a feminist film but I don't think everyone will see it that way. It deals with one of the reasons why misogynistic views are on the rise in the Western World but I go out of my way not to judge the protagonist. I show empathy for him and try to understand what drove him to think this way. I want the audience to care for him, even though he does and says things that we don't like.

I don't believe in dividing people into good and bad. We are all a mixture of both. We can all get lost. Empathy is the only way to help those who get radicalized, and the only way to have empathy is to understand the motivations and reasons behind their actions. Hate only radicalizes people further.

I'm quite sure this will be uncomfortable for some people. Most films are about heros, good upright people. People we want to be or believe we are. These films make us feel safe and secure and validate our values. This is why they are so popular. We want to be comforted.

Anti heroes on the other hand make us question ourselves and they force us to have empathy with people we would normally dislike. Taxi Driver is a good example of that. I personally love watching films that take me out of my comfort zone. Help me see things from a new perspective. That's what I'm aiming for with this film. It is my Taxi Driver. So I'm quite sure that while some will see it as a feminist film, others will not.

• Is "I'll See You In Disneyland" a Taxi Driver remake?

It's not not really a ramke but it is very much inspired by it. Taxi Driver investigated troubled masculinity after the Vietnam war. The problems men face today are totally different. I wanted to make my own Taxi Driver and investigate how a Travis Bickle kind of person would have behaved today. What challenges he would face. He would not be isolated outside, amongst people, visiting x rated cinemas and walking around with a gun in his pocket. He would find like minded people online and get radicalised there.

Instead of making the protagonist a Taxi driver I opted for a car mechanic. A "masculine" job where we would see him interact with "normal" men. Making him a car mechanic was a small nod to Taxi Driver. I did however regret that decision when I started writing the script because I know nothing about cars so it was rather hard to write scenes about car troubles. In the end I opted for funny moments to hide my lack of knowledge.

• Do you think it's common amongst males to be afraid of showing their softer side? That they are afraid of not being masculine enough?

Not as much as before. I just think many men don't know what is expected of them. Should they be soft or strong? Society tells men that they should be soft but women often don't fall for those men. They try to be friends and the girls fall for the bad boys.

A lot of these incel guys are soft, sensitive men with low self esteem and they feel like they have done all they could to be what modern society told them men should be today. Still women show no interest in them. This increases their sense of injustice and hatred toward the world around them.

Women have been much better at redefining themselves in today's world. Men have a lot of work ahead of them, and that work should not start and end with what women want, or trying to get laid. It should focus on self respect, well being and mental health. And if they want women to fall for them, then start with something practical like learning how to play a guitar. Make yourself interesting. Have something to offer.

• Was it hard to write a script about a man whom most women fear to come across?

I have always wondered why men deal so badly with rejection from women. Throwing acid in their faces, rapeing, killing... Of course women can also deal badly with rejection but it is not as violent as with men. Why are we like that? I read a lot of books about incels and the violent nature of men to try to find an answer to this question.

My conclusion was as follows:

1) Men are supposed to be strong but falling in love makes them vulnerable. They are at the mercy of women, the sex that is supposed to be weaker than men. This power women have over men is even stronger when they reject them. They have no control and have to accept their lot. Their masculine pride is wounded. They are weak.

2) It is usually the woman who picks a man, not vice versa. Just look at any dating site. Women get way more requests than men. Biologically when a woman picks a man she is also looking for good genes for her future offsprings. This is why when some men are rejected they not only experience it as a rejection of their personality but of their essence, their genes. They are being told that their genes have no worth for future generations.

Those who can't deal with rejection often express their hurt with violence. Some serial killers even kill women to deal with a past rejection. Telling men not to be violent is not enough to stop this. We have to address the reason for these feelings. We have to teach men that a rejection means neither of these things. It does not make them weak and it does not mean that their genes are worthless. It only means that the two of you did not fit together, and that there are other women out there. It may sound strange but sadly for some this has to be spelled out.

The hardest part of writing a script about a character like this was to find him within myself. To investigate my own emotions. Now I've never had a desire to hurt a woman but I have experienced rejection so I tried to magnify that feeling and imagine how I would feel if I was socially awkward.

• Including dream scenes in movies is tricky and there are many in your film. Why dreams?

I did not want to make a traditional thriller or horror film about a man harassing women. I wanted to investigate what was happening inside the head of the protagonist. An author of a book can tell the reader what the character is thinking and how he is feeling. Films don't work that way. You have to guess what is happening in the head of the protagonist. Sure you can use a voice over, but they are usually rather uninteresting and boring. Film is a visual artform and one should try to show everything visually. This is where dreams can help. They can tell us visually everything we want to know about the inner life of a character.

I also love poetry and symbolism and dream scenes in films are usually very poetic and full of symbolism. It is interesting that I hate listening to people telling me about their dreams but I love dream scenes in films. I think the reason is because you have to experience dreams visually. Films are maybe the only art form that really can capture the feeling and magic of dreams.

I use dreams or dream-like scenes in very many of my films. I think I fell in love with dreams in films when I saw Wild Strawberries (Smultronstället) by Ingmar Bergman. The dream scenes floored me. I know of no director who does dream scenes as well as Bergman did in his films, which is why I have a small homage to him in this film.

• Why so many dance scenes?

To me dance means freedom and the film deals a lot with the feeling of being stuck while everyone else is free around you. This is why the protagonist watches other people dance but is unable to join them.

There is also another reason. One of my dream projects is to make a musical, so if it fits I try to include people dancing or singing. I have however never combined the two in the same film. Hopefully one day I will be able to do that.

• Why have you chosen to do everything yourself, even producing the movie?

There are many reasons for that. Here are the main ones:

1) I find it humiliating to ask for permission to make art. Why should someone else - someone I don't know and does not know me - decide if I can make something I have a need to make? I understand that it costs a lot to make films and someone has to decide who gets th.

Dual (2022)

Tries hard to be deep but ends up being silly.

The acting is wooden, the script is both badly written (everything is spelled out) and very silly. Even the whole concept makes no sense at all.

SPOILERS. Why can't a copy live? Twins do. Why would anyone make a copy knowing that this might happen? How do they make a clone in one hour that can speak English? Just from a spit? Is the language knowledge in the spit? If yes, why no other personal knowledge? I could go on and on. It makes no sense. END OF SPOILERS!

Then there's the editing. It cuts like a ping pong. The camera is always on the person talking with a little pause. It's the mistake most first time and amateur editors make.

Why did Aaron Paul act in this film? He must be a personal friend to the director. Sadly even he is bad in it. And here is a small spoiler. In one scene he takes a dancing lesson from the protagonist (played by Karen Gillan) but he is so much better at dancing than she is in the scene which makes no sense at all. Could they not find an actress who could dance better than Aaron Paul or did the director fall asleep and forget to ask Paul not to do his best?

I just don't understand how so little talent gets stars and finance for such a hopeless project. And what's even more amazing, this gets 72% on RottenTomatoes!

Roar (2022)

Don't listen to the haters!

This feminist themed anthology short film series is a lot of fun. Original, fresh and playful. For some reason it only gets 5.3/10 here on IMDb. I'm guessing because it has a feminist perspective. Don't let that stop you. There are a lot of things that irritate me in feminism but also a lot I like - and this I liked.

Some of the short films are better than others, as usually in anthology short film series but none of them were bad (IMO).

By the way, what's with the hatred of films and series that deal with the experience of women or remakes where women are in the leading roles men had before? Why does it threaten people to have a new perspective? Or even to see something they might disagree with?

Slapface (2021)

Shockingly amateurish!

The idea for the plot is good but the execution is shockingly amateurish. It fails on most levels. The actor who plays the older brother is really bad and most of the other actors just phone it in. The film becomes preachy and predictable and it even ends with a preachy text telling us how to interpret it and why this film is noble. I kid you not!

I lay most of the blame on the director/writer. There is no consistency in anything here and the plot set ups are lazy and too obvious to blend naturally into the story.

The young brother was however quite good and I liked the hands of the monster.

Wrath of Man (2021)

Cold as ice, with a cynical undertone

I don't get the lukewarm reception. I thought this was an excellent revenge/heist film. Cold as ice, with a cynical undertone. The title kind of says it all. It is about the wrath of man or maybe rather "men" and captures perfectly "dog eats dog" kind of world. It reminded me of Jean-Pierre Melville heist films. Very European and anti hero. Those looking for a Guy Ritchie comedy action flick should stay away. There is not a single joke here. Just bleakness.

Hytti nro 6 (2021)

Much more than just a brilliant character study!

This is such a beautiful film and way deeper than some might realize. It is not only a brilliant character study, but also hints at some brutal facts about Russia's past.

There will be spoilers from here on!!!

So what's the problem with Ljoha? It is never spelled out but from all we see and hear we realize that he was an orphan during the collapse of the USSR. Orphanages were never good in the Soviet Union but they got no better after its collapse.

This is from Wikipedia: "There have been reports over the years that the conditions in the orphanages are not providing proper mental and physical care. Researchers have stated that children 3 and under lose one IQ point for every month spent inside. Children adopted from Russia are also more likely than any other country to have fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Doctors visiting some of these institutions have even reported seeing toddlers sitting alone, rocking back and forth, staring blankly, or even banging their heads against walls. Children in the 1990s were often not provided with proper nutrition and were not given quality living and sleeping conditions.

The older woman whom they visited (who was more than a mother) probably worked at the orphanage. This is why he struggles with rejection. And this is also why he does not write down his address. He probably does not have one.

I love how the film first presents him as a terrible person but slowly shows us his humanity. How he is much more than what is on the surface.

The main theme of the film is lies. Lies the government tells through statistics (as the old woman points out). Laura's life in Moscow is also a lie. She is really not in a loving relationship and all these educated people are just performing for each other. She slowly realizes this and loses her camera at the same time with all the fake memories. And Ljoha is hiding his past.

And then there's the whole purpose of the trip, which ends up being the least interesting thing that happens, because even though the past matters, the connections we make here and now matter more.

Dýrið (2021)

Sadly missing a third act

This is beautifully filmed and rather original but it does drag and is unesserly emotionally distant. The whole film feels like a first and a second act with a hint at a third act (which is where the film really starts to get interesting). This is a huge shame since the idea is brilliant and there is so much more to be discovered and unraveled in this universe.

Belfast (2021)

Lack of consistency in style, tone and rhythm

Kenneth Branagh has never been a good filmmaker. He does have an eye for single shots but just as he tends to over act in films he over does things as a director. What's worse, here he will often find great shots but they serve no purpose and don't fit the style of the rest of the film. They are just there because it looked great in the camera. The whole film is like that. Very uneven film language, lack of consistency in style, tone and rhythm.

This could have been so much better if he had done his homework. Most people will probably like it more than I, not minding the lack of vision or purpose in the film language. To me it was very irritating and confusing. It felt like watching a film by a film student who thought that all you had to do was to find cool shots.

Spencer (2021)

Diana the scarecrow

If I was teaching symbolism in film then Spencer would be a strong candidate. The symbolism is a little too heavy handed and the filmmakers go out of their way to make sure we don't miss it. Sadly most people are not good at reading films so this is a very good (and easy) place to start. Symbolism in film for beginners if you like. And trust me it is everywhere in this movie. If you only got 3 of them then you missed a lot.

Was Diana a scarecrow within the family and if yes, was she maybe a much needed scarecrow? And what other role is there when all you can play is the pheasant, a useless, silly but pretty bird. This is one of the most interesting questions the film asks.

Spencer is beautifully filmed, well acted and has a well crafted suffocating feel to it.

The Power of the Dog (2021)

Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog.

This film is a magnificent character study. The title comes from the 22nd Psalm in the Old Testament: "Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog." Now who is the dog, who is the darling, and who's soul are we talking about?

The dog (as a symbol) does not have a positive meaning in the Bible. It is quite clear from the beginning who the dog is in this film. Someone who is dirty, wild and dangerous (as the dogs are described in the Bible, not to be confused with the dogs we have as pets today). That leaves two people, the son and the mother. You can decide which one is the "soul" and which one is the "darling".

But the film is also about so much more than this verse. It is about the destructive nature of masculinity, shaped and hardened by self loathing. It is about a dying culture, which may have needed this kind of masculinity before to survive but is soon to be outdated. And it is about the cost and sacrifice of such culture.

The Story of Late Night (2021)

Well made, interesting but misssing important shows/hosts

I love late night TV. I watch more of late night shows than films or TV series, so this was something I knew I would love. It is very informantive, has many brilliant clips and good interviews but I was so disapointed by the fact that thy had nothing about Craig Ferguson, other than two 1 sec moments where they say that he was on air and that his show ended. If anyone deconstructed late night it was Craig Ferguson. And no one has been better at interviews than he was.

Also if you're going to talk about social conciousness how can you ignore Last Week Tonight with John Oliver? Or Real Time with Bill Maher?

Zeros and Ones (2021)

A feverish nightmare about the end of the world

There are some directors I will watch even though the films gets terrible reviews. Abel Ferrara is one of those. He might be the bravest director out there. Always trying to push the language of film and story telling. This one has 3.2 on IMDb. I'm guessing mostly because those who have rated it thought they were getting a typical action film. The genre according to IMDb is Action, Adventure, which is very misleading.

I really don't know what I was watching and I don't think it matters. The film is like a feverish nightmare about the end of the world. I suspect it is best experienced as a avant garde video art film rather than a narrative thriller. Enter at your own risk.

Benedetta (2021)

An ode to the sanctity of life and human nature.

Who would have thought that Paul Verhoeven would make his best film so late in life! He is 83 years old today. He was 80 years old when he started making this film which was pushed back because of personal health problems and Covid.

This is an incredibly beautiful film about women who try to break free within the constraints of their times. It is a celebration of humanity, sexuality, creativity and life. Verhoeven approaches his subject with so much love - so much compassion for humanity - that one is left with the feeling of having experienced something sacred. Not the sacredness of the church or the presence of God but the sanctity of life and human nature.

A masterpiece which I look forward to revisiting.

Entombed (2020)

Claustrophobic mediation on the nature of evil

Seamus is on a run from zombies when he finds an underground shelter. There are two people there already, Konrad and Mila. Seamus is thankful for the shelter but soon starts to wonder if he can trust everything Konrad has said to him.

Many will think of 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016) when watching this film but it made me think just as much about "The World, the Flesh and the Devil" (1959), "The Quiet Earth" (1985) and "Z for Zachariah" (2015). All films with two men and one woman at the end of the world.

As in all good zombie films we learn that humans are the real monsters. The zombies only show us what lies beneath.

What impressed me the most about this film is the cinematography. This is a low budget film but it looks like a million dollars. The lighting is stunning and the frame composition is beautiful!

The actors do a good job, especially considering that they play in English which is not their native language.

If you are looking for action then this might not be for you but if you like claustrophobic mediation on the nature of evil then this might be your cup of tea.

Penitent (2017)

A dark underground film with a brilliant lead!

"Mirrors are not what they used to be." This line from Penitent (2017) captures well the essence of the film. Mirrors show us who we are or maybe even who we want to be but what happens to people if they don't like the reflection they see? If they can't forgive themselves or if they are bullied and discarded by society? Then the reflection we see starts to change and it can be hard to live with and accept that reflection.

Penitent is filmed in a documentary style realism. Even though it is made in the tradition of English realism (ala Ken Loach) it has the same rawness and bleakness as many of the early films by Rainer Werner Fassbinder.

The film is written by Michael Linehan who also plays the lead. He is an absolute pleasure to watch on screen. A true natural talent!

This is an impressive feature film debut from director Brian Stynes. It dares to take its time, and focus on characters, feelings and atmosphere, instead of chasing a traditional plot line. Something few directors dare to do these days.

A dark underground film with a brilliant lead!

Offret (1986)

A trinity of holy fools

Tarkovsky's last film is one of those perfect last film, a last testament. Tarkovsky heard he had cancer when he was editing the film. Still, he had been sick for some time so who knows how fear of death influenced his script and filming or what he knew unconsciously?

It was made in Sweden. Tarkovsky was a refugee, missing his home country, his life there and especially his young son. Tarkovsky borrows many of Bergman's collaborators, including Sven Nykvist on camera and Erland Josephson as Alexander, the protagonist.

Alexander is really Tarkovsky's mouthpiece. He has the same religious and political views and the same taste in art. Sacrifice is in fact not very Swedish at all. It is a Russian film through and through, with very Russian characters speaking Swedish. Tarkovsky even filmed it in Gotland because it looked like Russia.

The whole film is very personal. The little boy is like his own son who he missed terribly. The wife in the film is just like his own wife in Russia and the story about how they found the house is in fact how he found his house in Russia (and the house in the film looks like the that house).

The original idea for the film is found in a script he wrote and called The Witch. In it a man dying of a cancer has sex with a witch and is cured. He leaves all his riches, family and friends and follows the witch into poverty.

While Tarkovsky was filming Nostalghia he got the idea of adding an apocalyptic scene to it, an all out nuclear war. While keeping the witch in the script he added a deal with God also, which has confused many viewers. I personally don't get the confusion. It can be read in at least three ways. One that he is a desperate man who makes deal with anyone willing to make it, to safe mankind and his family. Or that he makes a deal with God to safe mankind and the witch to safe his family. And there does not have to be a crash between the witch and God. Looking at her home we see that she is quite religious. She might be called a witch but she is more of a holy fool. Otto, the post man is another and Alexander turns into the third one in the end of the film, creating a holy trinity of holy fools in the film.

Then there is the whole question of what really happens in the film. Is there a nuclear war, is there any deal with God, does he really go to the witch? What is reality, what is hallucinations and what are dreams? It is hard to say. We get hints, like turning off the music and so on but even they don't work. Tarkovsky deliberately makes it impossible to determine what is real and what is a dream. He said that he wanted it that way. People would have to make up their own mind about those things.

I honestly think Tarkovsky would have been most pleased if we did not make up our mind. If we just lived in the mystery, the uncertainty, the dreamlike state of none logic. These things happen and they don't happen at the same time. We have to believe and not believe. Life is full of those moments. We don't know what would have happened if we acted differently, took a different path in life, even what happens at times in our life. Life is uncertainty and it is very modern to try to kill that. In fact this love of cold rationality is killing the world, creating atom bombs that can wipe out all life on earth.

Tarkovsky's answer to this cold rational anti human spirit of modernity is mysticism, art and faith. This is crystallized brilliantly in the end when Alexander wakes up. It looks like God has answered his prayer or was it the witch? Or was it all a dream? He can't be sure and he can't find out. If God has moved time back to yesterday then no one but he remembers what will happen. The telephone calls hints at that. Alexander has only one possible action in front of him. To keep his promise, no matter if it was a dream or not, if God did something or not. Otherwise God might make all of it happen again and he is for sure not going to get another chance to stop the horror. So without knowing if this was a dream Alexander burns down his house and takes a vow of silence. In the beginning was the world, in the end is the silence. And here we come back to how personal this film was. Tarkovsky had in fact sacrificed his house and his life in the Soviet Unions for his art, and he honestly hoped that art and his sacrifice could change the world.

This uncertainty is also reflected in the last shot of the tree. For a moment the dead tree looks alive. The hope here is in the next generation that waters this tree of life (I call it tree of life because Tarkovsky had previously shown us the tree of life in a painting, obviously to help us make the connection). Tree of life stands for hope eternal. It was one of the two trees in the Garden of Eden Adam and Eve could not eat off. They are kicked out in fear that they will also eat of it (and become like God) and it is only promised to mankind at the end of time. In Christianity Jesus Christ is often seen as the tree of life. So what we get in the end is a hope for mankind in the from of a tree which stands for mysticism, art and faith - a hope kept alive with every new generation.

Times Square (1980)

A flawed but good film with a rich soul and a desire for sincerity

This was a huge favorite of mine as a teenager. I have been looking for a copy of the film for the longest time and finally found one in Germany. It's strange that it's so hard to get a copy of a big cult film like this one.

The film captures well the essence of punk. It is about Nicky and Pamela, two teenage NYC girls. Nicky is from the streets with a dark past and from a broken home. She has serious anger issues but is street smart and has artistic talents. Pamela is from a rich (political) family, with the security that Nicky never had but suffers because her father does not understand her. She is a great poet and full of empathy but has never dared to live her life or take a chance. They meet at a hospital and run away. Together they start a mini punk renaissance in New York CIty.

Into this mix comes a radio host called Johnny LaGuardia (played by Tim Curry) who got a letter from Pamela before she ran away. When he finds out that Pamela is living on the streets he decides to use it to get a small scoop but also to fight against the politics Pamela's father stands for. Johnny LaGuardia wants NYC to stay as it is while Pamela's father wants to clean up the streets. Tim Curry is the weakest link in this film. It's hard to tell if it is because of the script or because he or the director did not understand Johnny LaGuardiahe. Tim Curry plays him as some kind of prophet while everything points to him being a self serving, fame seeking egocentric megalomaniac. Tim Curry is at least never a convincing prophet and we never get the feeling that Tim Curry is playing him sarcastically either.

Not every scene works in this film and it does not hold perfectly together but it has a very rich soul and a desire for sincerity which is very contagious. It also captures well the culture of NYC in the late 70s/early 80s and the reason why punk spoke to the youths. And it has one of the best sound track ever (including The Ramones, The Cure, XTC, Lou Reed, Gary Numan, Talking Heads, Garland Jeffreys, Joe Jackson, Suzi Quatro, Roxy Music, Patti Smith and The Pretenders.) and a lot of wonderful poetry, like this one:

"Dear Daddy, I am not kidnapped. I am me-napped, I am soul-napped, I am Nicky-napped, I am happy-napped.

We are having our own renaissance."

Videodrome (1983)

Glorious poetic and philosophic meditation on reality and technology

A cable programmer is looking for some rough porn for his local TV station. He stumbles upon a torture porn station called Videodrome and becomes hooked on it.

The 80s brought us video cassettes and with it came a chance for teenagers and youths to watch films they had never seen before, films that had age restrictions which prevented them from seeing them at cinema. Sometimes youths could even see films that were banned in their home country. Suddenly the censor board had lost their control and uncensored material flooded the market.

Religious groups and moralists were furious and declared a holy war on what came to be called "Video Nasty", that would destroy the youths and turn them into morally bankrupt monsters. Cronenberg had had his share of this hysteria. His films had been censored, and some of his films were considered down right dangerous.

Cronenberg asked, well, let's say they are right. Let's say technology can change us. How would that look like? Let's make a horror film about that.

Let's remember that this is before Internet so the film focuses on TV broadcasting. Still, there are few films that are as prophetic as this one. The Internet runs through this film, with interactive TV, way before that was possible. And if people watched TV too much back in the 80s it really has not gotten any better today. Now we also have the computer screens to watch and our mobile phone screens. Screens and the virtual world has become more part of our life than ever before.

And if we were "basically getting f... by TV" back in the 80s, as Cronenberg called it, well the F... has not become any more delicate, with the so called Reality TV, which for some is a greater reality than their daily life. Many admit that they realize that it is bad TV, that there is very little of any value there but they just can't stop watching. The some goes for those who watch Videodeome (the torture porn) in this film. We are addicted to trash.

And what happens when you work 7 hours in front of a computer screen. You come home, you check your emails, your Facebook, your mobile phone, your TV... What is reality? Is the screen not more real than the grass in front of your door which you hardly ever see?

And what affect does this have on us, physically? Neuroscientist say that modern technology is changing the way our brains work. Just Google it. Technology is changing us. We have become a hybrid humans, a mixture of technology and physicality. Technology has even taken over evolution. It is no longer the strongest who decides who lives. Technology extends life way before evolution has a chance to do anything about it.

Videodrome came out in 1983, a year before George Orwell's "1984" takes place. I remember well back then that people waited for 1984 with anticipation, wondering how much of the book would turnout to be true. Videodrome is strongly influenced by 1984, and it even got one thing right. Unlike the book were big brother is forced upon us, in reality we celebrate big brother and welcome him. We even pay for having him. The Internet, which is connected to our computers, our mobiles, our TVs, and sometimes even our cars, is the eyes of big brother who can follow us, listen to us and watch us with out even asking for our permission. Big brother is here and has been for a while. He can use information he has on us to silence us and destroy us. And we all love him, because each and every one of us are sure that we are on his good side.

It is interesting that Cronenberg was and is so hated by morality and religious groups. His horror should be their kind of tea. Instead of seeing evil in aliens, zombies or robots, Cronenberg sees horror in our sexual nature, our own flesh. Sounds like Christianity, Islam and in fact most religious and moral groups I know.

Maybe the reason why they don't fall for Cronenberg is that they sense that his horror is also deliciously fascinating, desirable, in fact often irresistible. This is a forbidden fruit you not only want to taste, once you have done so, you want more and more. Just like those who watch Videodrome (the torture porn program) in the film and just can't stop.

And what is the new flesh. Well if Videodrome controls us, takes over our life, then the new flesh is everything videodrome is not. It is freedom from big brother, from thought controls, small mindedness of the society, religious teachings, politics and what ever tries to tell us to look at the world only one way or follow only one road. The new flesh is what has happened with the Internet, information overload where the little man on the street has world knowledge at his fingertips and power to influence the world, even start a revolution.

The film was heavily censored and was a box office bomb, grossing $2,120,439 on a budget of $5.952 million. Critics did not like it either. Time has however been kind to Videodrome. It is a cult classic today, on many of the most respected film lists in the world. It influenced films like The Ring series and The Matrix series and has even such a huge cult status that Universal Pictures is making a remake of it, updated with modern technology, which would, sadly make Videodrome everything it was fighting against. Part of the recycled trash we are feed every day.

I have only one thing to say to that; "Long live the new flesh!"

Fényes szelek (1969)

The revolution is opium for the people

"By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept when we remembered Zion."

So sings a Jew who survived WW2 because priests protected him. This Jew is a student in a Christian cluster in Hungary just after the communist revolution. A group of communist youths have climbed over the fence of the school to start a dialog with the students and try to turn them to communism.

This exorcise goes out of hand. A young revolutionary woman (Teri) suggests that they shave the heads of the priests and burn their books. This is when the Jew step forth and tells them that the priests saved his life and the lives of many other Jews and then he sings Psalm 137, the Psalm of exiles, written in the memory of slave Jews in Babylon. The psalm is very fitting here, not only because it reflects the horrors Jews had to go through in the Holocaust but also because Christians are experiencing the same thing at this moment in the film.

The use of the Psalm becomes even more interesting when leaders of the communist party turn against Laci and expel her and then asks her if she has any new songs and she starts singing Psalm 137. She has now taken the role of the oppressed.

The Confrontation is Miklós Jancsó's first film in color. It is a musical, set in the 40s but reflects the student revolutions of the 60s. The use of Psalm 137 in the film captures the heart of the story. People confront each other and turn on each other, believing they are getting anywhere but are in fact just playing cowboys and Indians while others (the Police) have the real power. Turning people against each other, changing oppressors and victims regularly keeps people busy. The revolution is opium for the people, just as religion.

Powerful film!

Így jöttem (1965)

A beautiful cry for peace, love and understanding

My Way Home deals with very much the same themes as The Red and the White and The Round UP except here we have hope and an example of a way out.

All of the films deal with the randomness of violence. War does not pick out people because they deserve to live or die. And authority is not tempered with justice. It is arbitrary. Even your own country men are a danger in this world.

The landscape, bare plains in all directions, as far as the eye can see captures the hopelessness of trying to escape. There is nowhere to hide. You are like a leaf caught in a wind that blows you one way or another. The point is made with a beautiful homage to North by Northwest (1959) when a plain chases the boys in the naked landscape, while they try to catch up with a naked woman, who is probably running away from rapists. It is telling that we never find out where she came from or what became of her. She is like one of those leaves being blown around by the winds of war.

So all these films capture the evil of war, and how inhuman and cold it is (no wonder Kubrick loved Miklós Jancsó). This film however does show us how the world could be. A friendship of a Hungarian and Russian boy is formed when the Russian boy saves the Hungarian one from a minefield. They take care of each other (even though they don't speak each other language) and form a friendship and love that is stronger than anything he receives from his own country men.

And let's us not forget that this film was made during the Cold War, when nations refused to see each other as human and threatened each other with weapons of mass destruction. Into that world comes this beautiful cry for peace, love and understanding.