As great a character actor as Mads Mikkelsen has been in America—and he’s been reliably among our finest heavies in Casino Royale, Hannibal, Rogue One, and “Bitch Better Have My Money”—it’s when you see him in action in his native Denmark that he reveals even more extra soulful layers. He always has that presence, the stillness combined with height, the dark eyes and angular facial features, bringing a weight, while the complications in his flickering placid countenance imply inner storms. He’s fluid and solid at once, a dramaturg’s mind in a dancer’s body. In this way, he carries the melancholy of complicated lives, and the latent potential for taking control however he can. With a nearly imperceptible wetness in his eyes, the slightest of stoops in his regal frame, he sells the deepest griefs, and the most intractable resigned dissatisfactions. He uses his striking figure to subtle effect.
He anchors Thomas Vinterberg’s Another Round with these qualities. It’s a film that, otherwise, to describe it, sounds like a boozy lark, the sort of thing Will Ferrell or Vince Vaughn might’ve made twenty years ago. There’s a group of middle-aged high-school teachers who have found their lives growing stale. When one proposes a novel theory that man’s natural blood alcohol limit is a smidgen too low, and thus their daily routines would be improved by maintaining a slight buzz at all times, they figure it’s worth a shot. Indeed, there is some comedy in this conceit as some of the guys find that, actually, it works for them. Mikkelsen, in particular, goes from a sluggish, boring lecturer into a loose, engaging teacher bringing his subject to life with energy and skill. You can see the sparkle of mischief in his, and his pal’s, eyes. And yet, Vinterberg, veteran of the same cohort of Danish filmmakers that gave us the merciless provocateur Lars von Trier, and maker of plenty bleak films of his own, is too attuned to the details of lived experiences to let this be a careless pro-alcoholism goof or a miserable scared-straight tragedy. Instead, he lets the scenes breathe, and gives his cast room for wandering into mixtures of tones as jobs, relationships, and families teeter on the brink of familiar strife in quasi-comic observational ways your friends’ and neighbors’ might. There’s a casual ambiguity to the picture that makes for a wobbling melancholy, a sense of mid-life ennui that burbles with half-spoken regrets and uneasy contentment. By the end, with an unexpected eruption of a dance party, it’s clear it’s a movie about people who need a release from the ordinary, however they can get it, in hopes of finding a better way to cope with their quotidian woes.
Steelier is Mikkelsen’s role in Anders Thomas Jensen's Riders of Justice, an ice-pick of a revenge thriller with a harrowing inciting incident, rounds of ammunition, and bloody consequences. One can almost imagine Liam Neeson in an American remake. (I hope I didn’t just jinx it.) But the film, like Vinterberg’s, is a nervier and more ambiguous statement within what threatens to be a more conventional experience. It finds a tragic train accident taking the life of Mikkelsen’s wife. He, a military man, returns home to comfort his daughter. That’s where he’s confronted by a man with a theory that the derailment was no accident, but the work of a criminal biker gang hoping to kill a witness in an upcoming trial. The smartest aspect of the screenplay is that we’re never quite sure if the theory is correct, even as Mikkelsen, eschewing therapy for gunfire, teams up with the bumbling conspirators as the muscle they need to investigate and, eventually, pick off the bikers in a variety of action sequences. These are shot not for easy John Wick flair or swooning Tarantino exploitation. They’re down-and-gritty, stumbling with the rough rhythms and painful violence one might expect from such an amateurish outfit. Here’s a revenge thriller that, sure, inhabits the usual talking points about how violence is never the answer and revenge is a path that leads to escalating blowback at worst, and soul-draining dissatisfaction at best. But the film also doesn’t ask us to thrill to the action, even as it finds an absorbing suspense. It’s rooted in character, as everyone from Mikkelsen to his posse—who admit their own tragic circumstances, past and present—to his grieving daughter find themselves caught up in the despair of loss and the futility they feel in escaping it. The result is an unusually gripping off-kilter depressive thriller that somehow hits the expected genre beats with enough syncopation to keep one guessing.
Showing posts with label Thomas Vinterberg. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Thomas Vinterberg. Show all posts
Thursday, September 23, 2021
Thursday, May 28, 2015
Strength and Weakness: FAR FROM THE MADDING CROWD
Far From the Madding
Crowd is a handsome literary adaptation. The surface sheen is impeccable,
with gorgeous colors – cinematographer Charlotte Bruus Christensen provides the
greenest greens and reddest reds this side of Technicolor – and convincing 19th
century detail. Who would’ve thought something so sumptuous could come from
Thomas Vinterberg, the Dogme 95 co-founder who has previously given us upsetting
dramas of abuse shot in digital smears (The
Celebration) or austere pale shudders (The
Hunt)? This is a richly textured Great Illustrated Classics sort of film,
David Nicholls’ script collapsing the plot details and character motivations from
Thomas Hardy’s classic serialized novel, smoothing out the structure to make it
fit into a two-hour package. Vinterberg moves through the adaptation, hitting
the highlights of the narrative’s emotional beats while wisely keeping the
focus on the scenery and cast. He’s content to condense and visualize a story
better told in novel form. A bit more interpretive intent could’ve elevated the
effort, but what’s here is respectably effective.
What could’ve been a glossy gist of Hardy’s plot is given
some depth by the tremendously talented cast. They provide a pivot point from
which the audience can turn the thin surface on its side and glimpse the
complexity within. (In other words, it won’t lead students too far astray if
they misguidedly attempt a book report based on this film alone.) Each performance suggests
emotional currents and historical context the condensed motivations don’t
enliven in and of themselves. At the center of the proceedings is Carey
Mulligan, a performer seemingly built for period pieces. She’s at her best (An Education, Never Let Me Go, The Great
Gatsby, and so on) when she can play a woman struggling against the
constraints of what a society expects her to be. Here, as Bathsheba Everdene, a
young woman in the mid-1800s with only an education to her name who suddenly
inherits a farm, she plays a great deal of determination. She’s taking charge,
running the farm, willing to ruffle feathers of grumpy men.
But she’s also dealing with a variety of potential suitors,
and must decide whether a reliable farmer fallen on bad times (Matthias
Schoenaerts), a well-off older fellow (Michael Sheen), or a passionate soldier
(Tom Sturridge), is worthy of her time and affections. They represent three
very different kinds of men, the strong silent type, the lonely graying bachelor,
and the fiery slimeball. Each actor plays the type to strong effect, finding
nicely individualized chemistry with Mulligan. One seems a natural pairing, and
so becomes a lovely throughline of smoldering unrequited love, a fine
underplayed romance and a good way to renew your crushes on the participants. The
other two men present a variety of complications. The plot moves along in a
structure close to the novel’s original serialized nature, delaying the
inevitable for the sake of melodrama. There’s not quite enough psychological underpinning
in the script to sell the developments – especially a marriage decision with only
a nice swordplay-as-foreplay scene to explain – but the actors make it work
anyway.
Vinterberg and crew do a fine job creating the sense of place
necessary for their story. It’s a time when women were allowed some agency, and
yet still beholden to a society placing propriety and prosperity above
personhood. She’s forced to consider economics as much as emotions when contemplating
a relationship. Marriages are mergers. Betting on the wrong man can sink her
solvency. A dashing man with a good pitch can turn into a lousy husband who
would literally bet the farm, leaving them in financial and marital ruin. This
recognition simmers in Mulligan’s eyes as she tries to do what’s best for the
farm and its employees without shortchanging her own happiness. She and the
supporting cast inhabit their characters' dilemmas with appealing conviction.
Because the central interpersonal currents run strong, and the production
values are high, the CliffsNotes to which they’re deployed doesn't seem so bad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)