Skip to main content

Is that an avalanche?

Force Majeure (Turist)
(2014)

An arresting premise isn’t everything. That’s the major takeaway from Ruben Õstlund’s Force Majeure, a darkly humorous study of the fallout from a supreme act of cowardice/self-preservation on a family on a skiing holiday; dad flees an oncoming avalanche, leaving his nearest and dearest to be engulfed.


I say darkly humorous, as that’s clearly the intent (witness the use of Vivaldi as scenic punctuation points, signalling grand folly), but I found the proceedings overwhelmingly monotonous rather than astute or insightful. We can see Tomas (Johannes Bah Kuhunke) is a self-involved parent right off the bat, one who spends little quality time with his family. It doesn’t come as that much of a surprise when he legs it after a controlled avalanche comes a bit too close for comfort, leaving wife Ebba (Lisa Loven Kongsli) and two children to be enveloped in icy fog. Once the coast is clear, Tomas saunters back to their balcony seats as if nothing has happened, and it takes Ebba a spell to actually verbalise her disdain for his behaviour. Which he denies (“I don’t share that interpretation of events” he says repeatedly, attempting to reduce the experience to a mere difference of emphasis).


Various conversations with other couples further explore what undoubtedly is a strong kernel. Mats (Kristofer Hivju, readily recognisable from Game of Thrones) and Fanni (Fanni Metelius) are themselves infected by the implications of the event (“So maybe you planned to go back and dig them out?” Mats offers, ridiculously), as Fanni suggests Mats might have done the same thing in that situation.


But Force Majeure never really grasps hold of its idea. Õstlund’s approach is too distancing to turn this into a piece where we really analyse our own motives. Tomas’ act is so comically chicken-livered, it has little resonance as something that might make us question how we would respond, and the attempts to break down notional masculine ideals lack depth (“I’m a bloody victim of my own instincts!” cries Tomas over-dramatically). There are some curious little moments; a drone plane the family have bought, which suddenly flies into Mats in the living room, may be intended as a metaphor for how we remove ourselves from reality, and thus have no capacity to deal with life-altering events when they slap us in the face. Or it might just be a daft bit with a drone.


Later, a pretend rescue is played out to “empower” Tomas (which ironically leaves the kids on their own while he plays white knight to Ebba), and a final scene with a bus driver who has watched The Italian Job one too many times appears to be suggesting Ebba is also capable of rash responses. Acclaimed as Force Majeure has been, I found it determinedly unengaging, apparently intent on eschewing anything truly thought provoking. Instead of this, you might want to check out the Seinfeld episode The Fire, in which George bundles women and children out of the way to escape a kid’s party when he thinks there’s a blaze in the building. It’s actually funny, and covers the same ground in a sixth of the running time.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

Never lose any sleep over accusations. Unless they can be proved, of course.

Strangers on a Train (1951) (SPOILERS) Watching a run of lesser Hitchcock films is apt to mislead one into thinking he was merely a highly competent, supremely professional stylist. It takes a picture where, to use a not inappropriate gourmand analogy, his juices were really flowing to remind oneself just how peerless he was when inspired. Strangers on a Train is one of his very, very best works, one he may have a few issues with but really deserves nary a word said against it, even in “compromised” form.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

You’re easily the best policeman in Moscow.

Gorky Park (1983) (SPOILERS) Michael Apted and workmanlike go hand in hand when it comes to thriller fare (his Bond outing barely registered a pulse). This adaptation of Martin Cruz Smith’s 1981 novel – by Dennis Potter, no less – is duly serviceable but resolutely unremarkable. William Hurt’s militsiya officer Renko investigates three faceless bodies found in the titular park. It was that grisly element that gave Gorky Park a certain cachet when I first saw it as an impressionable youngster. Which was actually not unfair, as it’s by far its most memorable aspect.

I don’t like fighting at all. I try not to do too much of it.

Cuba (1979) (SPOILERS) Cuba -based movies don’t have a great track record at the box office, unless Bad Boys II counts. I guess The Godfather Part II does qualify. Steven Soderbergh , who could later speak to box office bombs revolving around Castro’s revolution, called Richard Lester’s Cuba fascinating but flawed. Which is generous of him.