- Frozen Land
Saw this incredibly bleak Finnish film last week. It’s similar to Crash in that it features several different protagonists whose messed up lives are all interconnected in some way. The story is kicked off by the forgery of a 500 Euro note, which passes through the lives of several characters, old and young, as they struggle to make it in an unforgiving city where vice and money hold more sway than integrity and honesty. The key difference between this and Crash is that Frozen Land is devoid of any of the latter’s Hollywood warmth – it offers an unremittingly bleak picture of life, and more subtly too: the semi-improvised dialogue never at any point veers towards the occasionally cod-polemic tone of Crash. I can’t make my mind up though. Frozen Land struck me as being a good film (just to clarify, so did Crash), but I still can’t really pin down why I think this is, especially as my overriding impression was that I don’t want to see it again any time soon. The title provides a neat little analogy: I’d describe this film as bleak because it made me quietly melancholy and contemplative, rather than manically depressed. Frozen rather than heated, if you like. Pace is probably a big contributing factor here: Frozen Land is a slow film (despite what the blurb might have you believe), where people don’t so much crash as slowly unravel (barring one notable exception involving a train, which I don’t want to give away too much more about. Or remember.) I felt similar after watching Capote , another good film which I’d probably to struggle to sit through again, and left me feeling slightly cold and empty. It’ll be interesting to see how Frozen Land is received, but I’d recommend it.
Incidentally, the film is loosely inspired by Tolstoy’s novel False Note, which I haven’t read. I have read Anna Karenina though and the connection makes sense: a none-too-cheery study of human interaction and the inevitable misery that results from it. Maybe I’ll read False Note and see if that sheds any new light on the film.
…On second thought I think I’ll just leave it at that and say that it’s worth seeing. I just hope my upcoming visit to Finland is more cheerful.
I find if you can’t define why a film is good, then usually it is just the overall mood created that has been good. I hope your trip to Finland is nice (I’m Finnish myself, and after living in Finland many years I can say I like the country).
Heh, “quietly melancholy and contemplative”..I think that is funny that you chose to describe the film thus, because that describes the stereotypical Finn as well. (Don’t let the cool exterior fool you though, because there is a lot below the surface.)
Anna Karenina was a true tragedy, but this was a result of the personal choices the characters made. Whereas in Crash bad results occured due to the prejudices of the characters, and the situations the characters faced.
07 Sep 2006, 18:48
Add a commentYou are not allowed to comment on this entry as it has restricted commenting permissions.