I feel a strong sense of security when I think of how much I like Andersson's films. I think that applies to all the people that have more humanitarian, or politically left views. Because how can we see a Dali painting and not feel guilty about liking it, in the same way Andersson is repelled from the works of Bergman, who was inspector (whatever that means) at the film school he studied.
Roy is the kind of director that, unfortunately for us, discovered his true self very late and after many adversities. What interests me most in his films is none other that the camera movement decisions.
In his first movie (A Swedish love story) we follow the love story of a very young (almost juvenile) Swedish couple. This however is not the main theme of the film. Unfolding around them are stories of mature people facing problems of the "grown-up reality". Loneliness, bad choices, unfulfilled dreams... Life is so complicated. When each person tells his fears the camera lies still. Everything is moving around the character, but he is standing there unable to move back or forth and away from his sorrow. If he is furious, he is walking as if going on circles without reaching any destination. Contrary to all that, the young couple overcomes any difficulty by being ...young. And innocent. The camera moves freely. It comes closer, pans, follows their motion and expressions. It might have not been in his intentions but when Andersson came back to full feature film-making, after his brake for success in the commercials industry, he had abandoned both the concept of a specific main story and camera movement altogether. He concentrated on the human being, and the virtual barriers that he poses to himself.
The truth is that his ingenuity lies not only in the aforementioned but in every single aspect of his work, from screenwriting to scenery, colour and sets and of course he is the only director I know that managed to provide more realistic characters in his surreal films than in his realistic ones.
Roy is the kind of director that, unfortunately for us, discovered his true self very late and after many adversities. What interests me most in his films is none other that the camera movement decisions.
In his first movie (A Swedish love story) we follow the love story of a very young (almost juvenile) Swedish couple. This however is not the main theme of the film. Unfolding around them are stories of mature people facing problems of the "grown-up reality". Loneliness, bad choices, unfulfilled dreams... Life is so complicated. When each person tells his fears the camera lies still. Everything is moving around the character, but he is standing there unable to move back or forth and away from his sorrow. If he is furious, he is walking as if going on circles without reaching any destination. Contrary to all that, the young couple overcomes any difficulty by being ...young. And innocent. The camera moves freely. It comes closer, pans, follows their motion and expressions. It might have not been in his intentions but when Andersson came back to full feature film-making, after his brake for success in the commercials industry, he had abandoned both the concept of a specific main story and camera movement altogether. He concentrated on the human being, and the virtual barriers that he poses to himself.
The truth is that his ingenuity lies not only in the aforementioned but in every single aspect of his work, from screenwriting to scenery, colour and sets and of course he is the only director I know that managed to provide more realistic characters in his surreal films than in his realistic ones.
Comments
Post a Comment