They threw out information with a negative connotation in non-stop mode. I, of course, do not like silent cinema (and also protracted, which in itself is a serious drawback), but when the lines go with high density to each other, without stopping, without respite, not giving an opportunity to comprehend what was said, too. In 20 minutes, they said as much and as much as they did, which is not the case in the entire film. There must be certain proportions, rules of making a film (of course, if we are talking about quality). It's like it's automatic. After all, this film is not exclusively for personal consumption. Temperamental, expressive characters, as another argument in favor of the fact that the film is alive. A very quick beginning, without swinging, is a plus (movement), and a minus (not increasing) at the same time. For all the advantages of the situation is as follows: the disadvantages outweigh the pros.
In 1995, Danes Lars von Trier and Thomas Winterberg and colleagues proclaimed Dogma 95, a set of rules for new cinema. In accordance with this manifesto, only what was shot on nature, without props, scenery, artificial light and resounding, was considered a real movie. Unrealistic actions and plots were denied, movies about the past and the future were rejected. Genre cinema was forbidden. And even the name of the director should not be present in the credits.
The Celebration of 1998 is one of the most important films of this direction. But don’t assume that this film is only valuable. Not at all, this painting by Thomas Winterberg is no less valuable for its content.
“The Celebration” immerses the audience in the tragicomedic confused world of one wealthy family. Relatives come to the estate, which turns out to be both a parent house and a hotel complex. The reason for the meeting is a holiday. 60th birthday of the head of the family.
In between, we learn a lot about heroes: One of his sons is a successful businessman living in France. The other is a loser who doesn’t behave quite well. The sister is aloof and serious. The family recently experienced the death of another sister, who committed suicide.
In the end, all the guests and the culprit of the celebration will gather at the table. And when the word is given to the eldest son, he will give a seemingly shocking speech. He will allege that a respected and beloved father sexually exploited him and his late sister. That the father was responsible for the girl's death. . .
Terrible accusations dividing the world into before and after. But everyone sitting at the table pretends not to hear or understand the allegations. What happens next, you have to see for yourself.
When this film first appeared, it certainly surprised first of all with its unexpected bold technical and creative techniques. But “The Celebration”, as time has shown, was also ahead of its time thematically.
In the 1990s, the topic of pedophilia was widely discussed, including due to accusations against Michael Jackson and Woody Allen. But society, as well as the heroes of the film “The Triumph”, absolutely did not want to hear the accusers and continued to worship and extoll the accused. It was only in the 21st century that society, grudgingly and painfully, was finally forced to acknowledge the existence of the problem.
In the late 2010s, when the MeToo scandals broke out, society again began to go through a similar process. It’s like experiencing a phase of grief, every time our eyes are opened to something we don’t want to see, know and understand, we deny everything, react aggressively, bargain, fall into depression and only then dutifully accept a new picture of the world.
Thomas Winterberg in his film “The Triumph” magnificently showed us – ready to close our eyes and ears when in contact with unpleasant facts. We are. As difficult as it is to accept, it is.
So if you haven’t seen 1998’s Celebration, take the time. This is both a vivid example of the style of Dogma 95 and a cruel lesson in the knowledge of social norms and personal defense mechanisms that effectively cope with the task of saving us from the perception of everything that can break us and lead us to despair.
I was the first to hear about this independent film festival. It was very interesting to know more about him. In 1999, to my astonishment, one of the nominations was won by the great Christopher Nolan’s first film, Persecution. But I've seen it before. After reviewing all the other participants, including several Russian films (one of them even won one of the main nominations), I chose one of the first films of the famous director Thomas Winterberg. This was the second film I have seen. From the first “One more” I was very impressed, having received great pleasure while watching it.
In a luxurious country mansion, a celebration is planned. On the anniversary of the venerable father of the family come children and relatives. The holiday begins. The eldest son makes the first toast. And no one suspects that the gathered guests will hear the shocking and terrible truth.
This film is influenced by the manifesto Dogma 95 written by Winterberg and Lars von Trier. It proclaimed a turn to purity and simplicity, minimalism in visual means and technology. The authors of the manifesto proposed a “vocation of chastity” of ten prohibitive points (you can not use props and scenery, voiceover music, special lighting, and so on). But the well-known films that have the certificate of "Dogma" are few. The authors themselves collected only one (from Trier - Idiot).
This film is a representative of this manifesto. As simple as possible in technical terms. It looks like watching your parents’ wedding or a video from the late 90s/early 00s. No voiceover music, one location (country house). All on Dogma. This gives him some style and unusual charm. Everything looks as realistic as possible and what happens next becomes even more frightening.
At first, this film reminded me of the tuned-up comedy about the funeral, I forgot. The same collection of relatives, comical and even absurd (especially given the style of shooting). The main characters are also being revealed. But what happens next? As it is written in the synopsis, after the eldest son of the birthday boy begins to say his toast, everything changes dramatically. It is as if the whole atmosphere of lightness is being cut down with an axe. And just bang, bang. They turn this movie into a family drama. And then you feel different. You somehow realize that what happened was as bad as possible and you're just as uncomfortable as you are. Although the tone seems to be funny in some places, after the toast you already perceive it differently. So the plot of this film is quite simple, but as realistic and frightening as possible. There is also the idea throughout the film that you should not be silent about what happened to you. The main character breaks himself, conquers his own impotence. He has the courage to talk about the worst. At the end of the day, he will be rewarded for starting a new life.
In the rest of the film, as I said from the technological side, everything is as simple and specially simplified as possible. The acting is very lively and realistic, I especially liked the roles of Ulrich Thomsen and Thomas Bo Larsen.
At the end of the day, this is a really scary movie. It's like watching someone else's home video and going through someone else's dirty laundry. The main character breaks himself, conquers his own impotence. He has the courage to talk about the worst. And at the end, we're waiting for a reward. The film is based on the canons of Dogma-95 as simple as possible on a hand-held camera, but this adds to its charm and atmosphericity.
It seems to me that to treat this film only as a film about skeletons in closets and the search for truth is too narrow. Perhaps more important in this picture is the acceptance of this truth by society (otherwise, perhaps, the film would have ended in the middle, then everyone would have hollered and ached, condemned and discussed). The audience who came to the celebration is perhaps the most important character of this film.
No wonder the main character has to repeat the terrible truth several times and encounter silence. The first reaction of people (and this is calculated by many characters) to leave the game, to leave (because they can become depressed). The second reaction is to pretend nothing happened and keep celebrating. The third reaction is to direct his indignation and his aggression against some external enemy, emphasizing his conservative closedness (in my opinion, one of the most outrageous scenes, besides Christian's speeches, is the scene when Mikael begins to sing a racist song intentionally in Danish (!!!), which is not understood by a black friend of Helen, emphasizing the alienity of the guest, and most terrible, it is picked up by virtually all the guests).
It is not for nothing that this character appears in the film at all, and it is not for nothing that he looks so different from the rest of the guests. This is also a sign that only a person from outside this society sees the horror of the situation and cannot but react to it.
At the same time, Winterberg does not pronounce an unambiguous sentence on the invited, even finds an excuse for some of them - they depend on the culprit of the celebration with a purse, but frank lyricism and absolute detachment and indifference still look disgusting. The most terrible thing is that at the celebration not only guests, but also older family members who are either physically unable to hear the horrifying truth, or no less terrible than the perpetrator of the celebration.
This film raises another very difficult problem - how to deal with a criminal of this magnitude. Does he deserve revenge in the form of physical punishment? Will the avenger then become the same criminal?
The film has very voluminous and ambiguous characters. The apogee of ambiguity is probably Michael. At first, the real embodiment of rudeness, quick temper and anger, he is the hardest to cope with the truth, he is harder than others to accept it, and, probably, he will not be able to forgive anyone.
The film is very metaphorical: the time of day, the schedule of the celebration are clearly correlated with the development of the action, many of the lines sound symbolic, and at the very beginning we see literally Hamletian references to a ghost who is waiting for revenge.
Heavy film (I didn’t do it the first time), superbly thought out and built, with amazing acting. Just unable to leave anyone indifferent.
It’s so overwhelming that I don’t even know where to start. And this is despite the fact that I knew the plot, and Dogma 95 rated low, but still did not expect such structure, coherence of all elements of the picture. Impression can be defined as the aesthetic shock of Dogma 95 movies still looking fresh, bright, still hitting the head. Unlike “Idiots”, the picture is certainly significant, but still loose, in which the second half with two powerful climaxes completely covers the first, “The Triumph” is a kind of archetype of integrity in the cinema, you can not throw a minute out of it, so everything is worked out, weighed, calculated.
There is not even a shadow of spontaneity in the picture, not even a hint of improvisation, although it would seem that the manifesto of Dogma should dispose of this, in contrast to the iron, almost tyrannical will of the director unfolds before us a hundred-minute social exposure, of course, with pathos, perhaps didactically, but still purposeful and powerful. “Dogma 95” was originally an anti-Hollywood and anti-bourgeois manifesto, so it is not surprising that in its first two films (“The Triumph” and “Idiots”), the attack of the bourgeois spirit, dissecting its inside out, became the basis not only of aesthetics, but also of content.
If Trier in Idiots showed the deadlock of anti-bourgeois protest, which is itself bourgeois to the bone and shocks only when it is associated with real pain, then Winterberg created a comprehensive parable about the “feast that must continue” in spite of everything. Surprisingly, how convincing plot moves in the “Celebration”: the shock of the characters and the viewer then passes in an atmosphere of total hypocrisy, then again returns. Keeping a good mine in a bad game is an inherent property of every bourgeois. One of the episodic characters even wants to leave after the revelations of the protagonist, explaining that he already has depression. Is it not the same way do those viewers who are afraid to face the shocking truth, leave the hall, formulating it by the fact that they do not want to deal with dark art?
The “celebration” leaves a heavy aftertaste, the emotional storm of this picture burys the viewer under itself: the multi-stage dramaturgy, the polyphonicity of the story, where each character sooner or later will play his role, the decentralization of the novelly similar narrative, which includes many individual situations combined in the narrative of the family, the center of psychological gravity placed in the history of the absent character, turning inside out bourgeois decency as an artistic principle – all this develops in the viewerator into one complex feeling in which despair and dominates society.
It is striking how, as a young filmmaker and inexperienced man, Winterberg was able to make such a wise statement about the world, aiming the sharp edge of criticism at patriarchy as the basis of puritanical bourgeoisism, he convincingly showed its fascist and racist roots, he did not dwell on one thing in his criticism, but made it total, destroying, leaving no stone unturned in the stereotyped notions of a decent capitalist society. Society is often called the family, and here we see its essence, the worms that devour its corpse. Christ also compared the Pharisees with painted tombs, which are outwardly beautiful, but inside full of bones of the dead and all impurity. Like these words, Winterberg carried out an exhumation of the past, showing what many do not want to see: violence, segregation and oppression in a world that declared itself free.
It is difficult to overestimate the merit of the actors in creating this “family portrait in a pig bourgeois interior” (as Plakhov put it in relation to Haneke’s early film), “Dogma 95”, as it is not surprising, reveals new boundaries of authenticity, new sincerity in professional performance, the actors look like laymen, so they are convincing emotionally. “Celebration” is an acting picture to the same extent as the director’s, it takes the viewer by the breasts of a high degree of feelings from the very beginning and guts them before his eyes throughout its entire length, not letting him come to his senses until the very end.
The last few words I want to say that many film critics who accepted “Idiots”, the picture did not like (for example, Sergey Kudryavtsev, who accused Winterberg of unprofessionalism and amateurism). What is the reason for such a strong negative reaction? Probably, all the same in the unconditional innovation of the picture ("Idiots" are more traditionally made), in its aesthetic and conceptual uncompromising, for which not everyone was ready, and of course, in the manipulative programming of audience expectations.
But cinema is generally one big manipulation of the audience, if it is successful, then the film is talented. Just in the author's film, we are not used to the fact that we are taken by the breasts and beaten with the help of film material. Shocking yes, shock yes, but rejection and disgust for everything that the bourgeois viewer appreciates, a blow to the sore spot - no, dismiss. In this sense, the "Celebration" can be compared with the Balabanovsk "Cargo 200", which the same Kudryavtsev and many other scrupulous film critics also did not accept. Celebration is, of course, a trendy film for its years, setting the fashion for outrage and protest, it just does not do it within the framework of social decency (the bourgeoisie likes to be criticized by the rules), but across them, this is the source of its artistic value and emotional truth.
Realistic about the need to accept the hopelessness of pain from the past
One of the most powerful films about domestic violence. I recommend not watching alone, but in the company of a loved one. Raises a lot of emotions, violence was in every family, only in the film one of the terrible types is shown, but everyone experienced to one degree or another pain from misunderstanding, power, etc. Since there is no such thing as a perfect parent, the film will respond. But the realization that life goes on despite all the horror of the past and you can go and laugh, but remember that there is a story that you can not change.
The actors’ play is excellent, the script is thought out to the smallest detail, it is interesting to watch each of the characters, many subtle psychological observations, for example, the reaction of a brother who was excluded from the family.
What helps to immerse yourself in the film from the very beginning is shooting, the format of home, documentary video. This creates a sense of presence.
Well, after the film, I want to get drunk, which, however, we did, discussed secrets from our childhood. That’s why I recommend watching in the company. You can not only discuss, but also get to know each other better. But this is all for viewers who are ready for a serious painful film.
Drama by Danish film director Thomas Winterberg ' Celebration' - the first film from the project ' Dogma 95' - presented at the festival in Rotterdam in 1999. What is 'Dogma'? How do you feel about watching this unusual movie?
This project was created by the aforementioned Winterberg and Lars Von Trier, whose main idea is to abandon technically complex shooting, intricate editing and heaped stylistics to emphasize the true essence of cinema, reflect reality as it is, and draw the viewer’s attention directly to the problems of the characters.
The concept of the manifesto and the idea of the project are clear and clear: a handheld camera, natural light, truth and truth in all its forms. Why not? The search for new solutions, supported by the idea of the higher purpose of art, can be quite successful. Starting watching, I imagined that this was what was waiting for me, so I had certain prejudices, considering this project an arrogant invention of a Danish director who is burning out in search of forms to express his talent.
But how much of a surprise I was when, by the middle of the film, I began to realize that I had a masterpiece in front of me. In other words, whether or not Winterberg made the film, whether it was dogma or traditional filmmaking, it didn’t matter to me. All my attention was fascinated by the unfolding scenes on the screen. Winterberg reveals the plot gradually, slowly unravelling a tangle of your own questions about the characters. The moral level of the characters is as bad as I think, or is it all a game? Are they trying to mislead me or not give any answers at all by leaving the final open? But this is 'Dogma': there will be no falsehood. Honesty here is not only in the camera, sound and editing, honesty here is primarily in the story told by the author. The director is strict and we will not beg, because his characters are what they are. They are vicious, hypocritical, blind and deeply unhappy. European cinema will always impress me with acting, so simple and natural in its expression. As natural and tangible as life itself. The life that Winterberg saw as brutal drama and made it a great art.
Here I consider it necessary to give a brief background on how I came across this tape.
In connection with my love for Lars Von Trier, I read the manifesto Dogma-95 written by Von Trier and Thomas Winterberg about filming. In fact, it was from here that I learned about the work of this director (Thomas) and became interested in the first film shot completely in accordance with the manifesto - "The Triumph". After watching the film, I was left with a mixture of the most contradictory thoughts and emotions.
"Celebration."
Here you will see firsthand the triumph of impunity and justice, hypocrisy and disobedience. The whole situation in the film is burning with the triumph of life, because the action takes place at the celebration of the anniversary, but at the same time crawls out of the closet with skeletons the triumph of death.
There are absolutely no effects in the film (not surprising, because everything is in accordance with the Dogma), the film is designed to show human reactions, and, in my opinion, the director more than displayed everything that was intended.
In the behavior of guests, you can distinguish the inconsistency of reactions after the toast of the eldest son. The rest of the children refuse to believe and are puzzled, but the changes in the guests on the face - we see duplicity, consisting in audible silence, bowed heads and attempts to get rid of the instigator of "troubles", but flashes of faith are noticeable in fleeting gestures and faces - because it is very easy for us all to believe the worst about a person, although we know him "a thousand years".
We can talk about this for a long time, but...
... In general about the film: for lovers of author's cinema - this is an excellent, good-quality and high-quality picture!
Talking about the film “The Triumph”, the Danish director Thomas Winterberg, the pioneer of “Dogma 95” along with its founder – Lars von Trier, it is impossible not to draw obvious parallels with his last film “Hunting”.
Both films deal with the same theme, the theme of pedophilia (in "The Triumph" it is also associated with incest). Both films show the reaction of the environment to the incident. And unfortunately, in both films, this reaction is more frightening than the incident itself.
Conformism, indifferent silence, timidity towards the culprit - in a word, everything that makes it clear that "my house with the edge" is opposed to conformity to another - ardent, blind, behind the veil of emotions, who does not see the truth. In the same way, the victims are contrasted, where, on the one hand, humility conquers the struggle, and on the other, nonviolent resistance.
Speaking about the manner of shooting, first of all, you need to understand what Dogma 95 is and why it was invented. Relatively speaking, it is content without form. The plot and characters dominate, and the technical part of the picture, whether it is camera work (recording should occur only on a manual camera), lighting (only natural), scenery (only field shooting, if you need props – shoot where it stands), go to the background. You can read more on Wikipedia, for example.
However, it is clear from the example of the “Celebration” that all these restrictions play a specific role in helping to achieve the desired atmosphere. After all, the operator here is an anonymous person with a camera, working at weddings, anniversaries and other holidays, who can be hired by ads in the newspaper. He is not a man, but only a man. But upon arriving at work, a man with a camera unwittingly becomes a witness to a raging family drama. From here all these strange angles, trembling picture and so on. It was terrible for a person with a camera because of what he captures.
It became scary, understanding how the authority of the head of the family crushed both motherly and brotherly love, allowing to hide the family “skeleton in the closet” from themselves.
It was terrible that among all these extras, people of skin and bones, you can recognize yourself and the people around you. The recognition of the main character to none of them is interesting, even disgusting. “We came here to rest, and you with your dirty underwear will sort it out yourself,” with this mood they throw him out of the house like a dog, tied to a tree. And after the third shot in the air - reading the shocking suicide note of the late sister of the protagonist - for a second they stop, look at each other, and then, as if nothing had happened, continue to chat on secular topics and sip their soup, either from lobster or trout.
The drama of the Danish film director Thomas Winterberg kills all doubts that real cinema exists. It was shot with a handheld camera in a room with natural light, with “live” sound and music. What was surprising to me was that it had absolutely no effect on my perception of the plot. Often, pictures shot in this way do not differ in bright plot, all the emphasis is placed on form, not content. Here, a completely different story: all the techniques used make the film only better.
The film amazes with all its components. Every look, every action of the actors – everything in this film is amazing, because it can not be thrown out of the overall picture. After watching it, it was an extraordinary feeling. The feeling that I read the story of the great classic, and not watched the film.
This is the best thing I’ve seen lately.
To watch this film, I was once driven by an interest in the work of Winterberg and the satisfaction of acquaintance with his other works. The parallel interest in Dogma 95 as a movie brought these two lines together, and I was looking forward to something special. Well, that's what happened.
So, Celebration. Relatives and close friends gather for the birthday of the head of the family. This venerable family from the very beginning seems not quite sane - in general and separately, and it is clear to the naked eye that not everything is calm in this Danish kingdom. There is no real kindred warmth and sincerity here, relations are strained to varying degrees, and brief scenes of interactions between family members before the celebration give an opportunity to see this. Despite the outward observance of certain family rituals, it quickly becomes clear that everyone here has a load on his soul - whether from the knowledge of some terrible secret, or from its ignorance, but the understanding that something is hanging in the air, and it is not a candelabra.
Everything clears up quite quickly, when during a festive dinner from the bowels of a mothball wardrobe falls out of the skeleton, and from those about which in decent society prefer not to talk, because the topic is too delicate. The evening stops being languid. General confusion, embarrassed grins, eyebrows with a house, whispers, and in the end “let’s pretend that nothing happened, and all this is just an unfortunate joke”... the public hangs slightly when it is unceremoniously poked nose into the monstrous details of the private lives of respected people. And here Winterberg very well caught in the lens the standard model of behavior of secular hypocrites in unpleasant situations. In general, everything turned out realistically - and the manner of shooting, similar to amateur recordings of family events "for memory" and creating the effect of presence in the viewer, and extremely live acting, as in a semi-documentary film. And most importantly, from a simple plot and a minimum of scenery, an extraordinary creation emerged, which, like a mirror, reflected many attitudes and trends of the surrounding reality that do not inspire optimism. Perhaps the only spoonful of vanilla in this barrel of tar becomes the final in the traditions of catharsis, when during a thunderstorm raised from the depths of the pond muddy slurry settles, and the water becomes clean and transparent. So here, after passing through exposure and humiliation, spitting out the truth hidden for many years or just recognizing it, each of the heroes becomes himself - no longer a masked actor "in the image", but a real, normal, as much as possible, a person with his own vices and mistakes.
For me, one of the most important quality criteria for a film has always been its own emotional response. In the case of "The Celebration" it was not even a response, but rather a lion's roar - when viewed, he kept his nerves strained so much, touched so deeply for all his ambiguity: without a soundtrack, ugly visually, shot on a hand-held camera in the best traditions of Dogma 95. And the plot itself cuts through the living, because even in today’s liberated society, the themes of pedophilia and incest are not yet considered the norm, but, nevertheless, they do take place. This is much talked about, denounced, discussed when it comes to an abstract phenomenon or some stranger. But what is strange is that when this fact is revealed in the immediate surroundings, an illogical reaction occurs. Rarely when stones fly towards the pervert and loud censures are heard. On the contrary, the whole spectrum from the behavior of the ostrich, hiding his head in the sand, “tactical” detachment, to putting the probability of misconduct into question and trying to translate everything into jokes. All shades of banal indifference, which is the cause of too many crimes, not to consider it the most that neither is a full-fledged evil.
"Celebration" is just that. A crime with a delayed sentence that may not have occurred at all. About the hypocrisy of a respectable society that would prefer to adjust the most monstrous situation to the framework of the norm, but would not dare to openly express a radical attitude to the issue. On indifference, when the fate of each of its members is placed on the altar of the external well-being of the family. All unhappy families are unhappy in their own way.
As a summary, the film was a success. Even if the final scores of those who watched it differ in definitions from “masterpiece” to “thrash”, it is imprinted in memory. At worst, because of a provocative theme and pain in the eyes from a trembling camera, at best, because of a powerful emotional influence that makes you think not only in terms of good and evil, but also in related categories, for example, this happened with deep reflections on the nature of indifference. In general, everyone will find their own, no one will leave offended.
9 out of 10
Sometimes you read people’s comments on some “genius” film and you realize that everything about this opus – in your understanding, only very individual impressions. What good is that it is not very surprising, but rather provokes. And that’s just a lot and it’s not too surprising.
There's a celebration in the big house. On the anniversary of the father of a large family come relatives. The table is set. The holiday begins. The eldest son makes the first toast. No one suspects that the gathered elegant guests will have to hear the amazing truth.
Irritating chaotic, twitchy, sometimes deliberately defective image. At the moment, I completely agree with the review of Kudryavy, although this is extremely rare. The manner of shooting, as if from the detective chronicle, when they catch types somehow and yell at them “hands up”. I know it’s a dogma principle, but Trier’s Dogville is very interesting.
Stylistics of the famous provocateur Trier, who after every two films comes up with another "chip", like in each film to show something forbidden, like another perversion, well, or just show a poo... Wow, it delights and provokes those who are raised in puritanical manners and just those who like to resent. And I just don’t like when the trier tries to provoke, and I do not have his provocations at all and only one thing in my head – why else did the film, for the sake of provocation? So that the hamsters start to resent? I don't give a damn when some weirdo shows his fifth point on camera or an effeminate creature shows his chest. What a special task as an artist is not clear. Arouse a storm of emotion? They don’t exist, and I don’t make up additional meanings. It is good that Thomas Winterberg limited himself only to such an experience as "The Triumph". If it wasn’t for the Hunt, I wouldn’t have noticed this director.
The film, for an amateur, and a rare... Dogma, no dogma, no more than a temporary whim of the experimenter and provocateur. Not a very interesting story, not enriched by something artistically strong. Perhaps this depressing nonsense will be interesting to someone.
People (me, you too) sometimes sit at the same table with nothingness. Not everyone is smart enough to understand the extent of this nothingness. If there is enough, few people get up from this table. The most insignificant laugh at not the most ridiculous jokes of nothingness. Others are silent but do not stand up. Only a few people will see the truth. And if this unit succeeds in achieving the truth (and this is rare in real life), then those who have slobbered and humiliated will be the first to trample the defeated nothingness. And only those who have achieved the truth will understand the trampled man, forgive and regret. I think that’s what I mean by “Celebration.”
There's a lot of tension in the script, but it has to be. Unfortunately, only pedophilia can confuse the viewer. Murder, betrayal, treason will not be embarrassed - these are all small things in the cinematic table of sins.
The film is very dramatic. Sometimes it's theater - on one nerve, not to break away, not to relax. Winterberg skillfully, detachedly leads us. First Dostoev scandals in noble collections, then a horror film. The most terrible heroes are not aliens and monsters, but ordinary such people – picking up a song about blacks, dancing in a train, talking about food. Then the Dostev final. Climax. The hum of voices grows, the person leaves. Tell the truth. But compassion is more important than truth.
This movie is good for everyone. Which side you can't look at. Perfect form and meaningful content. Easy and casual narrative style. Crazy, knowing no rules and thus grabbing the essence of what is happening camera. The filmmakers make it possible not to observe the sharpness or not to notice the camera twitching. I can imagine how annoyed Visconti would be. But, Winterberg manages to leave a holistic visual impression - a fusion of pompously solemn moods in which the participants of the action reside. We, the audience, are right next to them. At the same table. Accidental witnesses of family exposure, or as they would now say "coming out."
Only now, I wouldn't get attached to the plot. The essence of the revelations is, of course, nothing more than a skilful distraction from the main thing. The ease with which a father is accused of pedophilia by one of his sons is comparable to accusations of eating babies or flying on a broomstick at night. It’s a bit of a joke, like a failed joke. And here, instead of feeling the psychology of the situation, the author enjoys the absurdity. After all, for a long time, no one present, as well as we, the audience invited personally by Mr. Winterberg, simply can not decide how to react to what is happening. Is it safe to say that there is only one villain in the film? Aren't the attendants frankly picking their pockets? Is not the most “innocent” brother, at first glance, a pig’s attitude towards his women? Is your mother so innocent? And don’t all the participants of the feast sing a racist song, cheerfully and bravura?
It's everyone's fault. The children are to blame. Parents are to blame. Hamlet and Yorick are to blame. And in this brutal story, Winterberg twitches cautiously on one of the most obvious nerves of modern Europe: responsibility for the deeds of the previous generation. It turns out that all those questions about which Trier had to shout directly in “Europe”, Winterberg only elegantly indirect brackets. Without saying a single word of reproach or condemnation. After all, we are nothing more than a fantasy sketch, an allusion to "Hamlet." Nothing more. This is all the author’s significance.
A celebration is planned in a chic country house. The head of the family has a birthday. He turns 60. Gradually, guests are pulled up - children, grandchildren, brothers, sisters, grandparents, great-grandparents, great-grandparents, uncles, aunts, nephews and nieces. Almost each of them has children and grandchildren, someone has husbands and wives, and someone still has just a soul mate. Everyone gets acquainted with each other, greets each other, someone begins to remember someone when he or she was still young, older people begin to ask questions to the younger generation: “Well, did you find a girlfriend that?” or “Well, where is your fiancé?” Or do you want to stay in girls until old age? It's a normal family idyll. And now, when all the guests gathered, talked to each other, and the “star of tonight” is ready to accept congratulations and gifts, everyone gathered at the table. As befits tradition, toast begins to speak the oldest of the offspring. And so he got up, raised a glass over his head, before that, offering to choose his father two different colored notes, on which are written different kinds of congratulations. Father was not lucky, for the fate of tonight depended on his choice. And so, all the glasses are filled, the guests are waiting for the toast, after which the first dish will follow, the eldest son begins to talk and ...
But to wait for the climax, you need about 30 minutes to look at the cutting of incoherent scenes. In the beginning, we meet one of the offspring of this wonderful family. His name is Michael. He has a small business, a wife and three young children. Here they go, go and here they meet Michael’s brother, Christian, who for some reason decided not to use transport and decided to get to the estate on his own two. A completely incomprehensible moment immediately appears. Michael kicks his wife and children out of the car under the pretext of talking to his brother, and there are only a few kilometers left to walk. It's understandable, because Mikael isn't some hen-heeled guy, and it doesn't matter that there's room in the back seat. This scene is illogical because he expelled his wife on the pretext that it was necessary to consult his brother, but he did not talk to his brother; they drove silently.
While the guests drive up to the estate, we are waiting for 3 scenes glued ta-a-a-akim montage that all sorts of Spielbergs and Nolans envied (sarcasm), 2 of which are well not related to each other and certainly not with the plot.
The first scene involves Michael and Christian’s sister Helen. She will have to play the young Miss Marpel and find an important note that will play an important role in this story.
Another scene involving Michael shows us what's wrong. In the beginning, he yells at his wife for not taking his black shoes, and now he has to wear brown shoes, which is completely contrary to ... er... Masonic laws, or what. Well, after shouting and orags, they begin to engage in animal sex in the literal and figurative sense of the word. What was that? Why was that even necessary? I don't know.
Meanwhile, we're showing Christian. Here he just sits and ... and does nothing; while his girlfriend (who is she? where did she come from?) asks for a shower, undresses in front of him and brags about his toned ass, which is actually flat and so unobtrusively alludes to Christian having sex, to which he responds with a loud snoring. I don't even know what to say here.
Alas, the climax was leaked. Logically, everyone should have been surprised, or at least whispered. The phrase “action – reaction!” from the movie “Chorists” does not come here. You know, the son publicly told everyone that his father raped him and his sister. Who hasn't that happened to, huh? Okay, try number one ended. Can the second one draw the attention of the public? No, no way. Third? Well, almost. They begin to whisper, but then quickly forget about it and begin to dance. Only the daughter, and not in the most logical way (indeed, what are the chances that this note was written not by her late sister, but by Helena herself?) managed to pay attention to this problem. Alas, instead of any bright finale, we got nothing.
The themes and problems posed by Winterberg, alas, were not fully developed; there is no need to talk about any relevance of this film. They seem to exist, but they are either not fully developed, or somewhere so glimpses. His so-called “penetration of evil” proved unconvincing, much less sinister. Whether the problem is in the unfinished scenario, or that Winterberg just wanted to make a super-duper-mega art house, which is celebrated in Europe (especially in Venice, because there are such films that not every elite group / sect will be able to watch them), in order to grab some niche (which he did). I am silent about the fact that all sorts of Pasolini and other European masters made similar films before him, and they really did it! They could use the example of one character or one family to show what happens so and so and what can happen if it happens so and so. And Winterberg just rubbed everything in one pile (well, every person), they say, this truth is about everyone and about everyone. They seem to forget that people are different.
A celebration, not a celebration. Captured action with a potentially negative connotation. On the birthday of the gray-haired Mason from all over the world attracts guests. They can hardly be called living people, they are furniture, nature, atmosphere, anything. Reactions are inhibited, unnatural, inside each demon of conformity raging. The only ones alive here are a couple of waiters and relatives of the birthday boy. The same family: a Nazi, a victim of incest and pedophilia, a lover of promiscuous interracial ties, a “dumb” wife (talking in secular phrases or pandering to her husband). Another daughter committed suicide. One of the sons raises a glass, a toast begins. Shaking a camera, blurred scale, inconvenient angles, the author, as he later expressed himself, “penetrates the essence of evil.” And evil is glad to show itself in all its glory.
Again (albeit chronologically for the first time) Winterberg sparks the flames. “Hunting” was watched in the notes of a psychiatrist, “Celebration” overheard on the radio. The connection is expressed not even by the theme of pedophilia, it is on the surface; the torn, twitchy “Telemination” is in many ways a mirror image of the stately and smooth “Hunting”. The key inversions are probably two. The hero tries to fight or forces himself to accept. Similar to the behavior of others: in the first case they silently observe, in the second violently intervene. Thus, the basis of Winterberg is the reaction of the victim and the reaction of the crowd, hence the ethics. However, family is still a priority here. The popular expression about “skeletons in the closet”, glued to the “Festival”, does not at all reflect the essence. Looking into this very “cafe” we will not find any “skeletons”, there is a void. Winterberg does not ridicule hypocrites, denounces anyone, he destroys, denies. The institution of the family is destroyed, the family tree is saturated with poison from the roots to the crown. Parents maim children - an axiom. It is not for nothing that a friendly team of waiters constantly flashes in the frame - you just look, even the servants have stronger connections, this is where the family is! This metaphor is reminiscent of one of the ancient Greek utopias, where children were “general”, “state”. As for society, the “dinner ritual” for local phantom guests is much more important than pedophilia, incest, suicide. What does it matter who died, much more interesting is the burning issue of roasting meat.
The problems begin when the question arises about the cinematic coordinate system, about the position of Dogma N1 in it. Winterberg is not a pioneer, he uses the developed site, new here only form. And if anything has in common the form with the content in the "Telemination", it is impotence, hopelessness. “The vow of chastity”, these shameless left-wing ideas of dogmatists, as if cinema can shoot every incompetent – and nothing at the exit, Potemkin villages, nakedness, covered with a fig leaf of “realism”. The rules of dogma are technique, instrument, and nothing more. The handheld camera did not add new meanings, field shooting did not stir up frozen semantics, anti-Hollywood pathos came out inflated posturing, and the system was mired in contradictions, crashing into Gödel’s theorem. However, the chances of the founding fathers were few. It is impossible to surpass the great Italians, and it is impossible to convey the suffering of the world more poetically than the modernists. And the thieving postmodernists have been here for a long time - flying around like a black crow, predatory beaks tearing a piece from the best images, plots, deconstructing everything and everything. That is, there is no place to go at all, the dead end, the space is filled, the places are occupied, no one will pay attention to even the inspired Scandinavian riot - ha, how many there were! Put your manifesto away! And what remains for Winterberg (with Trier)? It remains only to fight in the paroxysm of irrational rage, frantically knock in the air with hands and feet. The “celebration” is the fervent cry of an innocent man in a straitjacket, the desperate spit of a condemned revolutionary in the face of a fat gendarme. No society, no family, no cinema. Nothingness triumphs over being. "Dad, you have to go." Dad gets up from the table and resigns.
Last year, Danish cinema opened up to me in a new way. It so happened that my acquaintance with Danish films did not immediately go well. I didn’t like both the dramas “Soap” and “Prisoner R,” so I labeled them “doubtful” and was already suspicious of other works of their production. Until my interest reappeared after the magnificent "Royal Novel" and "Revenge" by Susanne Beer. In general, I wanted to see this film for two reasons: familiarity with the project Dogma 95 and Trine Durholm, who struck me in Revenge.
Unfortunately, he did not live up to my expectations. I would even call this film a theatrical production, because one of the tenets of Dogma 95 is the lack of entertainment and effects. Only the actors and their characters should retain the interest of the audience. And shooting on a handheld camera is carried out where the action itself takes place. That is, the effect of amateur video here is justified by the vow of chastity, which was signed by the directors of this project. And if I still understand the idea and conceptuality of Dogma 95, I can't understand the idea of this movie. What's the point? I see the desire to shock the audience and that's it.
The plot is about nothing. A family of freaks gathers for the anniversary of his father, where with each new toast they take out an old skeleton from the closet. They are all crazy there: a father with his sexual deviations; the eldest son is a victim of violence with a deep psychological trauma received in childhood; a sister is hysterical, weak on the front; a younger brother is a Nazi with sadistic habits; an indifferent mother; a senile grandfather who repeats one toast... It's not a sin to drown in such a family. This is the craziest holiday I've ever seen. The guests don't care. They keep drinking and eating. Bread and circuses!
It’s an absolutely crazy movie with talented actors that I didn’t like at all. From the film remained a nasty feeling, as from a cheap diner with dirty dishes on sticky tables, overcooking with a mixture of sweat and the appropriate company. But it was nice to see [b]Trina [b] in a supporting role. Next month I will be preparing my Danish program, so Thomas Winterberg will have a chance to rehabilitate in my eyes.
3 out of 10
“Frequently, education implies the establishment of frameworks determined by one’s own picture of the world.”
This is the second picture (after "Jagten") that I watch at Thomas Winterberg. And again, the focus is on pedophilia. Again, it's a distraction. I don’t know why the director is so close to this topic, but he uses it for glory. First of all, I mean palm branches, in one or another nomination. What I would like to note is the dynamic editing Valdis Oskarsdottir. Given all the specifics of the format of dogma-95 and manual shooting, specifically in this picture, the plot keeps at the screen. Largely due to a quick and competent change of personnel.
Now to the story itself. I suggest paying attention to the slogan of the film - "In every family there is a secret". By default, we mean families with children. Under the secret - the terrible word "education", or rather his methods. Some parents are able to gently lead children to adulthood, acquaint them with responsibility, most do not. And this majority uses primitive, proven by their parents methods of suppression of personality. Such as spanking, punishment, shutting your mouth and so on. That is, everything that the hero of Ulrich Thomsen undergoes after his speeches. The behavior of guests looks more than strange when taken literally. And the explanation is very simple. When it comes to raising their own children, each of them is ready to defend their parental rights to the last, and logically believes that the policy of non-interference is a good thing. I mean, raise your kids as you want, and don't get in our way. And nothing that this education has nothing to do with love, the main thing is to believe in your infallibility. That is why the attempt of the son on the authority of the parent does not cause them approval. Replace your father's penis with a belt and everything will fall into place. “You know, it’s a flogging thing that doesn’t happen to anyone.” You must have made a mistake, the guests think about themselves and drive away remorse. However, the tension is growing and after the loud words of the hero about the “murder of his sister” they already become uncomfortable, want to escape, to escape from the very responsibility. The deceased sister personifies childhood, which appears in dreams, and then in nightmares. Despite the pressure, our hero does not give up and removes the halo from his father, and at the same time from his mother. The truth triumphs. No wonder in childhood he was the wildest, finally his will was not broken. And the father cannot answer the child’s question – why should he be bullied?
The younger brother is a separate song. In particular, on his example, you can see the absence of any kind of education, at one time parents simply threw off responsibility on other people's shoulders. A weak-willed man, he is not even responsible for his things, let alone his own children. Waiters can be seen as a symbol of obedience to children, which is not eternal. As you can see from the last scenes, control is lost. Thus, the director rejects the blind veneration of parental authority, it must be earned. In the image of cute waitresses flirting with brothers, we are love. The love that parents put into service. Well, the negro is the cherry on the cake, the essence is not like everyone else, despite the color of the skin, the bright side of the personality of children, their right to freedom to be themselves.
Anyone fantasizing about incest, please. But then you will escape the happy end – return to innocence.
I have long been approaching this picture, heard a lot of unpleasant reviews about it, but I did not think that it would be so heavy and produce the same effect as for example Dogville. A very scary, nude movie, shot without unnecessary effects, with one handheld camera, as is customary in the Dogma Charter, authored by Trier and Winterberg. The topic of domestic violence is revealed very directly and in the forehead, simply not giving a chance for at least some exhalation from the viewer.
I don’t know who in this family was the bigger monster – a father who is hard to come up with epithets, or a mother who knew everything, but was silent for 30 years. I do not know what courage it took for the eldest son to reveal this sick and terrible truth to the guests at the colorful anniversary of the respected father. How this truth deformed all the participants of the Celebration, the director shows an hour and a half of almost exhausting shooting.
The Scandinavians have an icy heart, I do not understand how the then 28-year-old Winterberg so, almost playfully, exposed and opened this most terrible abscess that can only be imagined in society.
10 out of 10
I'm starting to love Scandinavian cinema. Beginning acquaintance with 'Pretty kind man', I casually turned my eyes to Thomas Winterberg. Mostly, having heard about the success of his 'Hunting'. Acquaintance with the film authored by Winterberg I decided to start with his most famous tape.
' Celebration' from the first minutes resembled some ordinary home shooting of a major celebration. Children, relatives gathered. Each of them has their own life and problems. The relationship between them is far from perfect. This often occurs in real life: when sisters conflict with brothers, and sons with fathers.
The main conflict is based on a heavy burden on the soul of the eldest son of the father of the family. From the first minutes, the hero, wonderfully played by Ulrich Thomsen, shows all the sadness, longing and sadness inherent in the person who has lost the most dear and loved one in life. All these emotions, as well as the dog buried in their family garden, prevented him from living a normal life.
What did he want to get out of everyone recognizing that #39. I think everyone decides for themselves. One thing is clear: revealing the true face of his father to the whole family, he finally felt relieved. That heavy burden on his soul, so pronounced in his face, in his eyes, in Christian’s behavior, was thrown off. Letting him start living for real.
Everything in this movie deserves to be appreciated. Wonderful performance of actors such as Ulrich Thomsen, Thomas Bo Larsen, Henning Moritzen, etc. Excellent camera work. A very interesting scenario that does not allow you to take off the screen and dig deeper and deeper, in search of a buried dog.
And, undoubtedly, the director's work, which was definitely a good start for Dogma 95.
10 out of 10
Numerous households and guests of high class come to the respectable country villa to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the owner of the house Helge Klingenfeldt. But the first toast of the eldest son Christian stuns the audience with a shocking revelation. It turns out that a respectable bourgeois and venerable father of the family, whitewashed with gray hair, molested his children for many years, which caused the suicide of one of his daughters.
Despite the subsequent confusion in the ranks of the guests, there is no adequate explosion of emotions. Everyone swallows the bitter pill and continues to regularly consume food from the richly served table. Then Christian makes a second exposé, after which he is declared insane and brought down the stairs. And only a farewell letter read under the curtain makes the ranks of guests tremble. But even that, more because of the finally spoiled appetite, rather than because of the terrible truth heard.
Turning to a real case from life, about which the director was once told by one of his friends (although then the guests, hearing the terrible truth, immediately dispersed, which the authors, of course, could not afford in the picture for purely dramatic reasons), Thomas Winterberg harshly interpreted one of the most topical phobias of the end of the twentieth century - fear of incest.
“The Celebration” accumulates the postulates of conflicts between Bergman and Williams, Chekhov and Albee. Despite the fact that the director is alien to any social revelations and anti-bourgeois pathos, the concentration of human passions reaches Shakespearean proportions. Family conflict leads to the fact that the patriarch-anniversary is still removed from his throne. The efforts of the eldest son skillfully uses the younger offspring: who already by the end of the "holiday ceremony" takes over the reins of power.
Nervous dynamic manner of shooting, stylized as an amateur home video, may well cause someone idiosyncratic reaction, or even attacks of CPU. With the obvious neglect of the young director to the “holy of holies” – a movie camera (all filmed on a mobile and light digital video camera, and, when mounted, translated to film), the film is distinguished by the virtuosity of form. His fractional, uneven rhythm fills the screen with the vital energy that brings to the audience's feelings the discomfort sought by the authors.
In 1998, this painting made a splash at the Cannes Festival. But its main mission was different: it was Festen that initiated the manifesto Dogma-95, which soon became world famous. In Dogma, ambitious Danes led by Trier outlined the rules by which they were going to make films, and which, in their opinion, were supposed to save the cinema from another crisis. From what they did, Dogma came at the right time and place.
In 1995, the manifesto Dogma 95 was created. “Dogma” is a list of rules by which a movie should be shot, one of the rules: reliability, i.e. the viewer should have the feeling that everything that happens on the screen “home video”, “the film cannot take place where the camera is installed; on the contrary, the shooting must take place where the film unfolds ...” The creators of Dogma are Lars von Trier and Thomas Winterberg.
“Celebration” is the first film shot according to the rules of “Dogma”, at Cannes this picture was nominated for the Golden Palm, and that’s not all, the film “Celebration” received an award from the European Film Academy as the opening of the year, and was nominated for many awards, at many film festivals. The plot of “Celebration” is very interesting, it develops far from the first frames, but for an hour and a half, we will have time to see a lot: the relationship in the family, the problems and joys of each of its members and all this will happen against the background of a sudden scandal.
What could be better than celebrating your family’s anniversary? Even better, if the celebration will be in a huge mansion, each guest has his own room. The show is going to be great!
The ceremony begins, guests sit down at tables on which there is nothing: exquisite food, and expensive alcohol, everyone can choose to their taste. Traditionally, everyone should say toast. This is where it all starts.
The son of the anniversary in his toast will tell the disgusting story “when Dad takes a bath” All guests will be shocked, but no one will believe the narrator.
For the holiday, each family member put on a “mask” that hides his real face. The closer the end, the clearer the mask.
In the end, everything will be decided to know good or bad, you need to watch a movie.
By the name “Celebration” I mean not only the anniversary holiday, but also the triumph of truth over lies.
Thomas Winterberg managed to create a wonderful psychological drama, with elements of a thriller.