Leon wants to meet Asa. He hasn't seen her for 11 years. They made a silly agreement: they are going to be married if they remain single until being 25 years old. Tomorrow is the day. Leon is waiting for Asa.
Ok, an honest confession: I really don't know so much (anything) about Norwegian films. The only thing I remember that Christopher Nolan's Insomnia (2002) is a remake of Erik Skjoldbjærg's movie with the same title from 1997. We, or at least I have my homework.
Nonetheless I've never heard of Erik Poppe, maybe it's worth to remember his name. Not because his second movie, Hawaii, Oslo would be some kind of masterpiece, but because he is carrying a chance to be a setting talent. His film's plot is much more complex as I mentioned above, actually he is using a trendy network-narrative structure, moreover a "caleidoscope-plot" (between sequences (and in the poster) it appears literally as well) (for safety some of the network-narratives: Amores Perros, Bobby, Babel, Magnolia, and maybe the origo by Altman: Short Cuts). Seemingly independent storylines crossing each other time to time in order of a final culmination where all of them meet during a hot (!) Norwegian summer night. You might pat, but wait a second! There is something more. Leon, who is mentally rather unstable is in danger. His therapist has a special ability: he sees the future. Never failed with his predictions. By the end of the day Leon will be hit by a car. We have just seen it in the beginning of the film. That is sure. Is that sure? The only question is how our heroes will reach that end, or - and I'm slightly slipping into a spoiler zone - how that end could be avoidable? Is there such a thing like fate, or is it possible to make a trick on it?
My haunting question during watching network-narrative movies with a clear flash forward is 'Why causes amusement if we know (e.g. by our extradiegetic knowledge, see Bobby) or literally see the end of the events right at the beginning of the film?' The question leads us to the problematics of the suspense which isn't as easy as we might think. The suspense is usually tied to the knowledge rationing of the certain film. Holding back information creates uncertain, suspensful feelings in the audience. That is true, but then how is it possible to feel suspense during watching second or more times the same film by Hitchcock / during watching an actualization about a known historical event? The answer (anomalous suspense), explained by the cognitive theory opens up exciting discussions - if you're interested in them please visit here (and follow the whirpool of the page's links..)
But back to the actual topic: The biggest virtue of Poppe's film is the success of establishing a traditional network-storyline (builds up a working anomalous suspense (we know what will happen, but still feel hope..)) in order to destroy it's "built-in" fate by a simple but beautiful turn. The only allowed spoiler here is the film's visual help - right from its very beginning:
In my growing enthusiasm I almost gave 7 out of 10, but I rather reserve some for later.
6/10
Posts
