Songs from the Second Floor

source: Songs from the Second Floor

Sånger från andra våningen

Like in the story from the Grimm brothers, someone has to say that the king is naked. - The king is naked. In commercial after commercial, Mr Andersson has proved his ability to shoot the most remarkable scenes, building a special trademark for himself. You can instantly tell that this is a Roy Andersson scene. The footage is just beautiful, and it is just awesome to imagine the amount of stage building done for each scene. Unfortunately, a film is more than awesome scenery. There has to be a story told. And this film does not have a story. It bends and crumbles under a tremendous fragmentation load. It is so fragmented I start wondering that either I (that might just be the case) or the storyteller is stupid. In scenes where the storyteller intends to criticize "the establishment" he repeatedly fails due to either bad luck, or lousy timing. Establishments have undergone dramatic changes since the script was written, and do in some cases not even exist anymore (as government controlled establishments). Example: Church of Sweden, assumed to be a safe target for criticism within the government, as it has existed as an institution for over 500 years. It sure will last another ten years so he can include it in his script. It did not! Bad timing, or just bad luck. This repeats in establishment after establishment. The recession is long forgotten, and so on. Paraphrases are as if they were written by a child; "society sacrificing the children", "the union sleeps with the employers" and such. I am impressed though by the ability to raise funds, distributor and to execute the complete project with such a thin soup.

Spoilers herein. No, this is not cartoonish as the term is commonly used to mean simplified or childish. Instead, I mean it as stained glass artists did to imply the evocation of something by merely providing the outline. Such cartoons were considered magical, giving meaning to something not by actually defining it, but by defining what separates it from the rest of the world. It is a special kind of abstraction, not one normally used in art and even more seldom (alas) in formal systems. Here it is done effortlessly and effectively. This is not a `surreal' film, as many have described. I suppose they mean to say it is strange. But surrealism is the creation of worlds whose underlying mechanics or metaphysics are different, other than `real.` The art in surrealism is usually focused on what isn't different. This is instead abstraction. The objects in this world are a bit strange but the whole point is that the underlying physics is the same to which we are subject. The art in such cases is usually a matter of insight by strange light. This bears more resemblance philosophically to Roddenberry than Bunuel. And that qualifies it as serious enough to pay attention to. Past that point, I abandon it. That's because it really is true to the Bergman tradition that imparted despair is a worthwhile endeavor. Not for me. But I must admit that the last scene is really very fine. Few movies know how to end, and almost no one does it well. This, my friends is done well. I can recommend sitting through the entire thing then stopping right before that last scene. Take a few days and clear your soul, refreshing yourself. Then go back and experience the visitation of all that has come before, but this way you can see it as the stained glass it is and not a morbid essay on gloom. This is a world, incidentally where you (the camera) does not move, but the buildings and meadows do. Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

'Nuff said. I was going to end my review with "'nuff said" but IMDb won't allow it, so...here goes. After a half dozen scenes I kept waiting for this nonsensical junk to end. Scene after scene of unconnected dreariness. Don't get me wrong...I don't mind dreary flicks with a point. But this movie just plain sucks. I even listened to the director speak of the film on one of the DVD special features, and his disorganized dribble did nothing to change my mind. I rarely disagree with Roger Ebert, but this stupid movie made it happen. I read that it took this guy four years to make this movie. Its a complete waste of life, if you ask me.

there is no greater meaning to all this, henke. this movie is plain simple. there is no sunlight and the faces of people are white - as already being dead, yet they can obviously be chased by guilt of the dead (zombies?). i am stunned the critics gave this movie high rates. i don't believe in making "art movies" to torture audience. there is some capitalism and Christianity criticism (not amusing at all and also without any strong point) in it as we can all see. on the basic level, that is. there is some gender inequality expression. there are some self-damage scenes. also not fun at all. not even shocking or empathy provoking. they just are. just exist. its interesting, because at first you expect this dark comedy (?) will develop into something. then it just doesn't evolve into anything and there is less and less humour. i took a nap, woke up, the movie was still the same. i actually don't regret taking a nap during the movie and feel no shame for doing so. this movie makes you feel "big nothing" at the end. erase everything and live without sunlight. wanna feel like that? then run and see it.

How, on Earth, could this movie have won prizes like Jury Prize at Cannes Film Festival and Best Film at Guldbagge Awards? HOW?! The cinematography is... interesting, though. The film itself is unbelievable boring. It's THE worst Swedish film I've ever seen. I can give you a list of a whole bunch of other Swedish movies that are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than this piece of crap. If you like Swedish films, will say. For instance: Låt Den Rätte Komma In, Lilja 4-Ever, Nionde Kompaniet, Livvakterna, När Mörkret Faller, Alla Älskar Alice, Storm, Besökarna, etc. Do yourself a favor: Don't watch Sånger Från Andra Våningen! I'd rather watch Teletubbies 24/7 . . .

This film won the prestigious Cannes Film Festival award in 2000, and it is indeed very well made. But damn, it's not what you'd want to take someone to on a date. Unless they have odd tastes. Songs is a kind of allegorical black comedy about capitalism and the brutalising effects of modern society. The cast is mainly depressed middle-aged men in bad suits and there are multiple storylines and little scenes that all add up to one big condemnation of the Western world: a man who hasn't missed a day in 14 years and decides to go to work rather than have sex with his wife, then gets fired. A poet/taxi driver driven insane by the misery around him. His father, who burnt down his store for the insurance and spends most of the film covered in soot. You get the picture. The film is full of powerful symbols, like a heap of cheap plastic Christs being thrown onto a rubbish heap, or the eternal traffic jam, and moments of absurdity that made me laugh out loud, such as when the Swedish high command gather to honour a retired commander who is so senile his bedpan gets emptied while they give him a speech. But the even the humour is bleak - there isn't a single happy moment in this film. Frankly I didn't buy it. Life may sometimes be dull, bad things do happen to good people, capitalism can suck, but it just isn't that awful. Forgive me for getting lyrical, but life is too full of hope and friendship and beauty to get sucked down in to this grey, dreary view of the world. RATING: 7/10

I'm broad minded about movies and drama, honest. I believe my taste to be eclectic. But this movie is sheer pretentious twaddle. It had nothing whatever to commend it. We couldn't stick it. Thank goodness we had waited for the video as that enabled us to fast forward once we couldn't stand it any more. Forget it.