






 
|
 |
Oslo, 31. august (2011)
    
|
Director:
Joachim Trier |
COUNTRY
Norway |
GENRE
Drama |
INTERNATIONAL TITLE
Oslo,
August 31st |
RUNNING
TIME
95
minutes |
|
Producer:
Hans-Jørgen Osnes
Yngve Sæther |
Screenwriter (based
on "Le feu follet" by P. D. La Rochelle):
Joachim Trier
Eskil Vogt |
Review
Oslo, 31. august opens as a homage to Oslo, the capital of my
beloved Norway, and continues to what appears to be a delve into one
crucial day in the life of Anders, a 34-year-old recovering drug addict
out on "parole" from his open-style rehab clinic. Unfortunately, both
the homage and the delve turns out to be superficial and inane in
nature, as writer/director Joachim Trier (Reprise)
reveals himself to be more interested in style and intellectuality than
he is about looking beyond the complacent and charmless society and
protagonist we're only slightly getting acquainted with.
Trier's directorial style is about following his protagonist around with
a handheld camera, with a lens as grainy as is to be expected in
contemporary Norwegian cinema, and create shots so narrow and excluding
that whatever impression we get of Oslo or the environments Anders
circulates is forgettable at best. And much of the same can be said of
what the script gives us of Anders: He is reduced to a state of being;
disillusioned, lifeless frustration in protected, privileged
circumstances. Anders represents the 21st century welfare-state
drug-addict - he feels that the prospects of a "normal" life in this
society is as numbing and meaningless as continuing his life as an
addict. And if this bleak social criticism is Trier's objective with
Oslo, 31. august, I guess you can say he has succeeded. But that
would also require us viewers to share this world-view, to be happy to
soak in the film's negativity and insipid outlook on life as small and
unchangeable.
The
Oslo we see in Oslo, 31. august is hardly something most of the
city's drug addicts will recognize. It might be a city that Trier's
fellow members of the semi-intelligentsia will recognize, but if any of
the film's pessimism sticks, it's that in which this group of people end
up biting their own tails. The film's bottom line is that it tries too
hard to say something relevant and valid about society, but in doing so
without distance, inspiration or any real substance, it turns out saying
little about anything - other than about its creators - which is a
meta-level that I'm not prepared to give Trier credit for. So despite
all of Anders' suffering, actor Danielsen Lie's praiseworthy effort, and
Trier's obvious desire to create something important, when that final
moment eventually comes, we really do not have that much reason to care.
|
|