Eddie Axberg, who eventually played one of Troell's emigrants, here plays the lead of this story of a young man in Sweden. This as a working class young man trying to make his way on his own after having left his home. Axberg's character of Olof isn't one of extreme complexity, in the sense that the emphasis is on Olof being in many ways this average surrogate. He's not some young man who has an exceptional purpose or intent, for much of the film he's just trying to make his one through one job, one boss and one different event after another. Axberg's performance is one that very much exists within a natural state, and such a thing while not showy by any means shouldn't be entirely overlooked either. What Axberg does though is find the purpose within being just a naturally unassuming young man. This as there is definitely a danger to be just a purely a blank slate, but Axberg is a talented enough performer to do a little more. This is as his state is one that is strictly convincing. He convinces you of the existence of the young man and finds the right degree of nuance, even while maintaining the general sense of simplicity within the character's life. This in finding the right moments to really reflect what is going on around him.
This can be relatively straight forward such as just acting in a brief rage when being harassed by some men, or something subtle such as the brightness of his expression when he's in a moment of, what he believes to be, romance. Axberg's work very much accentuates the situation effectively. This bringing the sense of frustration in a moment of hardship, a bit of charm in moment, or just sort of the sense of enjoyment of life when frolicking in the countryside. This is a minor aspect of potential revolutionary thoughts in Olof. This is more attuned to those around him than Olof himself. Axberg plays these moments well in portraying in his eyes the sense of interest in the words of revolutionary thought, however even in this he is the one who reacts more than acts or speaks these thoughts. This is all intended within the film that works in just basically showing this coming of age, in a seemingly simplistic, yet thanks to Troell's touches, effective portrayal of this young man's life. There isn't some great upheaval just life, and Axberg's performance is a reflection of this. His work isn't really able to go beyond a certain point, however within the limits of Olof as just a normal guy, living a mostly normal life, he's good. He brings life to Olof, and even as just a typical quiet person, he importantly still grants the right sense of individuality, and understanding of his experience.
48 comments:
Louis: your thoughts and ratings on the rest of the cast and your thoughts on the direction, cinematography and the flashback scene?
Well Michael, You're right on the money as usual.
Luke: in response to the previous post I consider Hepburn, Stockwell to be leads, Richardson and Robards on the border but leaning towards lead too.
Saw Palm Springs, really liked it.
Samberg - 3.5
Milioti - 4
Simmons - 3
Louis: I've read that Tarantino wanted Sandler to play Donowitz in Inglourious Basterds. Thoughts on this?
Anonymous: As in Adam Sandler....well, that certainly would've been a bold choice anyway you look at it. I'm unsure if it would've payed off, but I do think Sandler could've given a less egregious, distractedly over the top performance than Roth.
Louis: What are you currently watching on TV.
Saw Palm Springs as well, which I thought was decent. I concur with Calvins ratings.
Oh, and Greyhound. Solid action scenes and Hanks is good, but it’s thinly-written.
Luke, would be great to see Whishaw get a 5 review (Richard II) on here if he doesn't get one for Bright Star or Perfume which I assume would possibly be his remaining reviews from the bonus rounds.
Louis: Based on his last two turns, how do you think Daniel Craig would’ve fared as Rick Dalton? (Although DiCaprio was great of course.)
Luke, I know you mean well, but you have to give Louis a break with those questions. The bonus rounds aren't even halfway finished :)
Just a question for everyone here; Of the one's you've seen, what would you say is your favourite Canadian film(s)?
For myself I can think of 3 in particular...
1) The Sweet Hereafter
2) C.R.A.Z.Y
3) Mon Uncle Antoine
Mitchell:
The Sweet Hereafter
Incendies
The Silent Partner
Videodrome
Dead Ringers
Scott Pilgrim vs the World (It takes place in Toronto, so...it counts?)
Dead Ringers
Room
Enemy
Cube
Snow Cake
Those spontaneiously came to mind
Omar:
von Sydow - 3.5(Although too little of him, he does make the most of really his one scene in portraying sort of a palatable sense of nostalgia, where you instantly are granted a sense of who he is and who he views Olof's father is as well.)
Bjornstrand - 4(The most substantial supporting role, though still minor in a sense, but Bjornstrand's good in portraying largely seeming just this respectable citizen. He riffs on the edges of his performance with these more extremes of the man that creates the proper sense of the man's eccentricities.)
Akselson - 3(Relatively simple performance however she is good in her brief screentime in creating a sense of enough of a concern for her son combined with a minor sense of judgment.)
Sjoblom - 4(Wonderful in creating a real off-beat energy within her character. This in portraying this sort of sultry quality that she owns in a way that is beautifully performed in granting the sense of someone who entirely knows who she is. Her offering this strange sort of combination with an erotic exoticism with though this sense of understanding that is a strange yet naturally realized combination.)
Everyone else I thought was fine, albeit brief.
Jan Troell's direction I really thought about it, as I had to ask why do I like if not love when Troell is filming the mundane compared to many filmmakers. Well one reason obviously is that Troell doesn't use this as an excuse to have boring people, they're normal but not dull. It goes further though in he seeks to make every scene interesting even if what is going on seems so simple. Troell realizes this a few ways, one being a major sense of place with his delicate and lively cinematography, more on that in a moment. He though also seeks to grant you the emotion of the scene, often through those visuals, but also through extremely astute used scoring which punctuate this quality within his work. Although my only minor critique would be his editing is definitely not a killer of darlings, however even with that his pacing is effective in bringing you into the idea of the main character's life in a truthfully tangible way.
The cinematography by Troell, so every idea then basically can be attributed to him, is gorgeous work. This in just looking that great black and white pristine, with the focus of the shots, that allow every space to feel so tangible. This though with just an eye for dynamic yet unshowy composition of interiors, and then just amazing work in creating exteriors that grant you this sort of eyes view of the beauty of every sight. This with a real sense for the scenic, but also careful to gather the state of the weather in the lighting of a given scene, that makes it all the more remarkable.
The flashback scene is effectively done in the choice of the switch puts you instantly in a different state of mind. This in creating a stream of consciousness through the various images, that are the best sort of "home movies" one will see.
Anonymous:
Would've been a better choice. Roth is a bad actor, Sandler can be a great one, I think I'd put the benefit of the doubt on Sandler who definitely could've brought the intensity however I think he probably, oddly enough, would've been less over the top.
Luke:
Nothing at the moment, 1966 films are all pretty long.
Bryan:
I mean if anything Craig has shown his knack for comedy, so that would've been fitting, however I don't think he would've been as good in showing the overly petulant quality needed for Rick that DiCaprio excelled with.
Hope Pleasence is up next.
Louis, would you consider reviewing Sergei Bondarchuk in War And Peace for 1967.
Anonymous:
Well hopefully it is his best work in the series of films, as they are four separate films in my view, and I honestly don't see how one could view them any other way, as they were released months, a full year in one instance, apart from one another. If one views that as one film, they ought to view the Human Condition as one film, Lord of the Rings as one film and Infinity War/Endgame as one film (which would be wrong in all three accounts).
Louis: Have you seen the first two yet and did they meet your expectations.
thoughts on Alfred Molina in Raiders of the lost Arc?
Luke:
I've decided to return to being completely steadfast on not giving films of the year in question until the results.
Tim:
Molina's performance is more comical in terms of remembering that he played such a random character than in all seriousness what he actually does in the role. Having said that Molina does some fine scared faces throughout, while throwing a bit of sleazy edge to those reactions to suggest what his character is going to do before he does it.
I saw Palm Springs as well. I'm an easy mar for time lop stories, so I obviously dug it. Liked Samberg and Milioti in equal measure. Definitely appreciated its storytelling economy in fitting so much into 90 minutes after the arduous two hours of Eurovision.
(Seriously, how hard is it to make a short comedy anymore?)
Louis: On War and Peace, I'm not sure I completely agree with you saying it'd be like calling LotR one film. In pretty much every non-Soviet market, it was released at a single film. I get that it's original Soviet release makes it 4 separate films the way you do it though.
Robert:
Too much improv.
Michael:
Well if it's one film, would it not then be the shortened English Language dubbed version? That would be a silly version to go with.
I'll further support my earlier statement though, in just like the films I mentioned, War and Peace was originally released in its country of origin in multiple parts, separated by months.
Robert: completely agreed with all your points, and in Eurovision for that matter.
Also, gonna have to say some of these 1966 films have been REALLY hard to find. Thank god for YouTube for Andrei Rublev and Hunger.
Calvin:
Very true, my Criterion Collection subscription is really paying off with this year.
Calvin: Cul-de-sac is free on amazon Prime and Morgan is on Kanopy if you’re looking for them.
I can only dream of the day that Criterion Collection membership will be available outside the US.
Michael: That's really helpful, actually since I have both. Cheers!
Calvin:
It's a shame the options around Criterion are so limited, and it doesn't appear there's any internal push to really expand that. One of the most vexing streaming changes was when Criterion dropped out of Hulu.
Louis, your thoughts on Troell ås än director. I feel that if you want to watch a great movie about the same subject but more gritty you should watch Raven's end. Keve Hjelm gives a fascinating portrayal of a self loathing father and Tommy Bergren is great at playing the son who is lost
Luke, which Katharine Hepburn performances that Louis has yet to see, do you think she might get fives for.
Anonymous: She's a dead cert for Long Day's Journey Into Night (I think she'll get the win for the year) and maybe Summertime (It's a David Lean leading role after all).
Louis: Could I have your thoughts on these following Hamilton songs-
Helpless
Yorktown
Say No to This
The Reynolds Pamphlet
I watched Closely Watched Trains and that’s definitely a good one to look out for 1966. I also found a copy of Wings but annoyingly, no English subtitles.
Calvin: Any performances worth talking about in the former.
Luke: not really, very much a director’s film although everyone is entertaining and hits their marks well enough within the very particular style.
Calvin: By the way, I'm so happy that Williamson's your runner-up for 81 Supporting.
Calvin: Your ratings for The Boy Who Harnessed The Wind cast.
Louis: Angel Face is 1953 instead of 52.
Louis: Could Ian Holm take the win for supporting for Chariots of Fire in that year?
John Smith:
Having seen all of his critically lauded films except the Flight of Eagle, Troell lowkey has such a distinct eye as a filmmaker. This as his overarching approach is this technically naturalistic approach, supplemented by his choices in subjects that are typically largely of the "ordinary". In that sense he's great in that you do feel that authenticity in the performances of his films, and his creating a real sense to the people even in the most minute interactions that can be filled with meaning. His work though actually has a pretty overt voice, though he's an expert at hiding it, in that his vision is always penetrating. This in using such captivating and dynamic camerawork, with such powerful use of music, but also clever editing choices. The latter in particularly used for example in Robert's ill-fated "adventure" in The New Land, in creating a sense of the character's journey. Troell's work to me is how essentially to do naturalistic, in never does he use it as an excuse for dullness. This as Troell's work I think realizes an essential truth, this is he creates the feeling of place, this as we don't automatically have the feeling of an environment in looking at a picture of it, and Troell makes that bridge to bringing us there in his very best work.
Tahmeed:
Helpless - (Side note, I'm glad I delayed really listening to anything of Hamilton till now, since I'm thoroughly enjoying listening and constantly re-listening to it all but I digress. A wonderful song, I have to say, though there really is no obvious weak link in my mind, and it is so impressive how each song can really be so many styles in one while different from the other songs yet never lose itself. This one being particularly pop like style (though more 90's early 00's), and I think is just supremely charming in this, while also being so perfectly reflective of the character of Eliza at the beginning of the musical. In turn I love the way it works as contrast to the complicated "Satisfied" this just a sweet love ballad in the best of ways.)
Yorktown - (A song that is best described I think as a "action song", and brilliantly done in that sense in the sheer intensity/momentum in. This in the way it not only gets so much exposition in it, while also so much sense of emotion, while also just being engaging with never losing itself with how much it is covering at once. This being song I'll say in particular would be ideal for a cinematic montage, as it is basically all layed out in every element of it.)
Say No To This - (Again the ability for the musical to encase, through such clever manipulation of the style, again bringing in this slow jam here, and wonderful one at that, that also completely gives you the story beat and Alexander's failure in the moment. This while just being entertaining, in that alone is an amazing achievement.)
The Reynolds Pamphlet - (Excellent use again of style, here with the more synth/auto tuned element that usually, creating a harsher style within the musical without being in fact harsh in its largely mashup of other beats. Also have to note might contain one of my favorite deliveries in the musical of Diggs's "never gonna be president now".)
Calvin:
Definitely one of the most artistically shot sex comedies I've seen.
Anonymous:
Well I'll just say it isn't a "case closed" year for that category.
Is it just me or does anyone else think that Troell utilized Sydow to a greater extent than Bergman did.
Luke, your Jan Troell ranking with ratings.
1. The New Land (5)
2. The Emigrants (5)
3. Flight Of The Eagle (4.5)
4. Here Is Your Life (4.5, I saw it recently and his talent was certainly evident from an early stage)
5. Hamsun (4, very much elevated by Sydow's brilliant work)
6. Everlasting Moments (4)
Louis: Your thoughts on The Gang Cracks the Liberty Bell? I actually chuckled a bit when you put it on the Revolutionary War ranking.
Bryan:
I actually don't think it's a great episode by any measure, most of the comedy just comes from the slim measures of the gang being period like "MacDonald". It's largely a rambling episode, where it seems in search of bits rather than making the bits work consistently. Some of the rambling is funny though, particularly a Sleepy Hollow sendoff combined with the cutback to the storytellers.
Post a Comment