howToDie
Joined Jan 2007
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews5
howToDie's rating
The film is a well-executed attempt to record the transient youth impressions of the aging generation of the Soviet baby-boomers. Or rather the inevitable fantasising about them 20+ years later. Not that it makes it any different from any other generation which has ever lived.
Just as in the end of a news hour, there's a 60 second feel-good segment, in every generation, there's its own feel-good story. The scrutiny of how realistic those dreamy fantasies of the past are is beyond the point. Relaxing in the backyard's arm chair with a glass of well-deserved glass of wine reflecting on the past is of course a part of the drill.
In the end, this patriotic narcissistic drivel could have been "Ya shagayu po Berlin (1964)" or "Ya shagayu po Hiroshima (1964)" full of love, spring vitality and romanticism. Which is of course fine as the life obviously goes on.
And perhaps it's fine. It depends on the viewer's outlook. But for some, the film will be clearly interspersed with visual and conceptual references aggrandising and beautifying what the country has gone through in the preceding 50 years. A sort of the Soviet Union of Amnesia that is. A common propaganda "feel-good" trick in a wide range of other tricks in the toolboxes of various Ministries of Truth across the globe.
One thing is for sure: this is a movie done by the power which won the war, so history is written accordingly. Small but curious detail.
Just as in the end of a news hour, there's a 60 second feel-good segment, in every generation, there's its own feel-good story. The scrutiny of how realistic those dreamy fantasies of the past are is beyond the point. Relaxing in the backyard's arm chair with a glass of well-deserved glass of wine reflecting on the past is of course a part of the drill.
In the end, this patriotic narcissistic drivel could have been "Ya shagayu po Berlin (1964)" or "Ya shagayu po Hiroshima (1964)" full of love, spring vitality and romanticism. Which is of course fine as the life obviously goes on.
And perhaps it's fine. It depends on the viewer's outlook. But for some, the film will be clearly interspersed with visual and conceptual references aggrandising and beautifying what the country has gone through in the preceding 50 years. A sort of the Soviet Union of Amnesia that is. A common propaganda "feel-good" trick in a wide range of other tricks in the toolboxes of various Ministries of Truth across the globe.
One thing is for sure: this is a movie done by the power which won the war, so history is written accordingly. Small but curious detail.
This is more than a beautiful tribute to Jørgen Leth's artistic genius.
It is also Lars' personal and intimate confession so powerful and emotive no doubt it is there to overwhelm you. As in many von Trier's movies the revelation comes at a climatic moment completely changing the direction and the pace of the film. And suddenly it reveals so many intricate details of the great friendship between these two extraordinary artists of our times.
The five remakes of "The Perfect Human" are as fascinating as the original short and are not to be missed by anyone who is interested in world cinema.
It is also Lars' personal and intimate confession so powerful and emotive no doubt it is there to overwhelm you. As in many von Trier's movies the revelation comes at a climatic moment completely changing the direction and the pace of the film. And suddenly it reveals so many intricate details of the great friendship between these two extraordinary artists of our times.
The five remakes of "The Perfect Human" are as fascinating as the original short and are not to be missed by anyone who is interested in world cinema.
One thing notable about this movie is a remarkable collection of interviews with a number of international textbook economists, shadow politicians, and powerful tycoons. Take Dr Milton Friedman for example. What other popular presentation would boast 20 plus minutes of footage of this iconic economist?
But leaving the entertaining visual impact of headshots of the smart, the rich and the powerful, there's not much else positive to say about this 6 hour film which is as ridiculously long as it is ridiculously fictitious.
The thesis of the movie can be summarised as "the only economic system which guarantees long term economic prosperity and political stability is free market". This controversial claim has never been settled in the academic circles, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_capitalism#Market_failures for example. So, it is no surprise that the inherent weakness of the thesis invites the extensive use of *weaker forms of arguments* to advance their position including
(a) omission or downplaying historic facts contradicting the thesis (e.g. the Nazi Germany was a free market economy, the Great Depression happened under free market conditions, the communist USSR had marginal poverty rates while the free market USA never went down past double digits),
(b) failure to mention more plausible explanations of surveyed historic events (e.g. the dramatic fall in prices for copper, the major source of income for Chile, and the CIA efforts in destabilising the political situation during the Salvador Allende term),
(c) trivialization (e.g. the suggestion that the visit of a *free-market revolutionary* Margaret Thatcher to Poland in 1989 ultimately led to Poland independence),
(d) false claims (e.g. removing price controls in India resulted in less red tape)
(e) fantasies (e.g. a Soviet defector who finally revealed to the West that the USSR was economically doomed was illegally transported across the boarder by two British individuals in a car boot)
(d) claims lacking substantiation / causal explanation (e.g. the Polish shock therapy worked while the Russian did not despite similar political situation)
(g) conflating ideas (e.g. balancing the budget in Bolivia which brought economic stability had nothing to do with the movie's thesis)
(h) conclusions which do not follow (e.g. the Russian financial crisis 1998 gave the country the second chance)
So although the movie fails in presenting a coherent logical support for the thesis, it also succeeds remarkably (according to its IMDb ratings) in persuading the uninformed viewers that free markets and resulting globalisation is the only panacea for economic and political ailment.
In fact the movies is so bad, it could be a class-room case study of successful public indoctrination.
Summary: avoid unless you are in the process of writing an essay on corporate/government propaganda.
But leaving the entertaining visual impact of headshots of the smart, the rich and the powerful, there's not much else positive to say about this 6 hour film which is as ridiculously long as it is ridiculously fictitious.
The thesis of the movie can be summarised as "the only economic system which guarantees long term economic prosperity and political stability is free market". This controversial claim has never been settled in the academic circles, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_capitalism#Market_failures for example. So, it is no surprise that the inherent weakness of the thesis invites the extensive use of *weaker forms of arguments* to advance their position including
(a) omission or downplaying historic facts contradicting the thesis (e.g. the Nazi Germany was a free market economy, the Great Depression happened under free market conditions, the communist USSR had marginal poverty rates while the free market USA never went down past double digits),
(b) failure to mention more plausible explanations of surveyed historic events (e.g. the dramatic fall in prices for copper, the major source of income for Chile, and the CIA efforts in destabilising the political situation during the Salvador Allende term),
(c) trivialization (e.g. the suggestion that the visit of a *free-market revolutionary* Margaret Thatcher to Poland in 1989 ultimately led to Poland independence),
(d) false claims (e.g. removing price controls in India resulted in less red tape)
(e) fantasies (e.g. a Soviet defector who finally revealed to the West that the USSR was economically doomed was illegally transported across the boarder by two British individuals in a car boot)
(d) claims lacking substantiation / causal explanation (e.g. the Polish shock therapy worked while the Russian did not despite similar political situation)
(g) conflating ideas (e.g. balancing the budget in Bolivia which brought economic stability had nothing to do with the movie's thesis)
(h) conclusions which do not follow (e.g. the Russian financial crisis 1998 gave the country the second chance)
So although the movie fails in presenting a coherent logical support for the thesis, it also succeeds remarkably (according to its IMDb ratings) in persuading the uninformed viewers that free markets and resulting globalisation is the only panacea for economic and political ailment.
In fact the movies is so bad, it could be a class-room case study of successful public indoctrination.
Summary: avoid unless you are in the process of writing an essay on corporate/government propaganda.