http://kinoart.ru/archive/2016/03/obida-kommuna-rezhisser-tomas-vinterberg Well, I looked at Thomas Winterberg’s Commune, I agree with some of the provisions of the article, I disagree with some. I do not see here any particular resentment of the author, except that Anna's offense, but here "for what she fought, I ran into it," she, you see, with her husband became bored, decided to blossom her life with brighter colors, and received in return not a more interesting life, but her own disintegrated family. If she hadn't, she wouldn't have lived with a million dollars for the house Eric was determined to sell. In general, the film is not bad, they play well, but in some places they overdo it with a melodramatic component.
The drama film Commune was released in 2016 by Thomas Winterberg. The film won the Silver Bear Award for Best Actress.
Plot. A family of an architect husband, a news anchor wife and a daughter inherit the house. To pay for it, his wife proposes to create a commune. The husband agrees, but he has doubts. With the development of the commune, the husband does not stand up and is forced to cheat on his wife with a student. The arrival of a student in the commune worsens the situation as a whole and this lasts throughout the film.
The director cites part of his biography in the film. The actors are playing quite well.
The film makes a good impression of the logic of the characters in the situation. Husband, student and daughter trying to find a way out of the situation, the wife is not. The husband immediately honestly admits to cheating on his wife and tries to find a solution to the situation. The student understands everything and also tries to find a solution. The main character (wife) does not cause pity. The main character looks like an idiot in the film. She, as a self-confident person who knows the problems in the family, should know the possible consequences of her idea. Because of this, her daughter is forced to watch the tragedy of the whole situation.
The message in the film is that if there are any problems in themselves or in the family, then a person should be well aware of his proposed idea. The film is suitable to watch for this situation.
The house is too big for a family of 3 people. Why don't you have 7 more friends in this house and start a commune? It's done, and everything's going well, until another person comes into the house. There is a love triangle. . The drama looks easy and captivating with its narrative. And in the end, it gives you a smile and bright sadness. . .
In the 1970s, despite the echoes of the Cold War, another rift occurred in the consciousness of Western society, and many representatives became seriously involved in socialist and communist ideas. Someone embodied these ideas in ordinary life, creating communes of people in which several strangers lived as one big family. Participants of such cohabitations sincerely believed in the idea of their communes, but the constant presence in the personal life of an outsider could not but provoke serious problems, as happened with the heroes of the drama “Commune”.
Synopsis After university professor Eric inherits a luxurious house from his father in a fashionable district of Copenhagen, his beloved wife Anna offers to move him and her daughter Freya to a new house, and in order to save and change for the sake of the house to create a commune of people close in spirit. They successfully bring the idea to life, but the original idyll turns into squabbles between Eric and Anna themselves, when he starts a mistress Emma and on the initiative of Anna settles her in the commune.
Game of actors Danish cinema has always been particularly candid in demonstrating the everyday life of the characters, and this candor was expressed not only in the visual series, but in the play of the actors. In general, the cast made a positive impression, but I would emphasize the psychological confrontation in the characters embodied by Ulrich Thomsen and Trine Durholm. If Thomsen played the role of a selfish husband, accustomed to everyone living according to his rules, and therefore falls into hysteria when something does not go according to his desire, then Trine Durholm played at first a strong-spirited spouse, whom even sincere faith in free relationships could not protect from heartache after breaking up with her husband.
Directing Thomas Winterberg is a versatile director. Sometimes he can shoot a picture that will then be rightfully considered a classic of Danish cinema, and sometimes something that comes out, as they say, “once”. A commune is a case of something between the first and the second. The focus of the picture is the relationship between the participants of the commune, created in the prestigious district of Copenhagen. The director could convey a persistent attempt to build tolerance and understanding between strangers, and make the quarrel between the main characters only part of this complex small world. Instead, he focuses on the marital melodrama between Eric and Anna, who, having lived together for 15 years, for the first time face a crisis in the relationship, which results in a serious conflict both between the characters and within themselves.
Scenario According to the plot of the film, one of the main characters Eric receives an inheritance from his late father a chic mansion in a prestigious area of the capital of Denmark. His beloved wife Anna, with whom he managed to keep a warm love relationship after fifteen years of marriage, strongly persuades him to move to a new house. However, the high cost of living in such a house forces him to go for an alternative. Anna, a man of free views and a lover of modern trends of society, proposes to found a commune that will live together as a large friendly family, support each other in everything and enjoy life. At first, everything goes as planned: joint shopping, joint lunches and dinners, joint bathing naked and so on. However, life in such a non-trivial environment for the first time really separates the spouses from each other, and Eric has a mistress in the face of a student Emma, who is very similar to a young Anna. Despite breaking up with her husband, Anna still offers Emma to become part of the commune and even tries to make friends with the girl. But staying in an already unusual environment literally turns former spouses into sworn enemies, ready to tear each other apart. There is only one way out for the heroes - someone must leave this commune forever.
Result On the one hand, “Commune” attracts with its simplicity, in the sense that this film is not from the category of deeply philosophical films, after watching which the viewer must think for a couple of hours more, and what he just saw. On the other hand, I expected the film to focus more on the idea of the commune, on how this system affected the relationship between all the characters, not just individual characters. Therefore, the film can be assessed as follows.
Architect-teacher Eric inherits a large house in which he spent all his childhood. Maintaining such a large living space for him and his family can not afford, so Eric without hesitation is going to sell the house and get a lot of money. However, wife Anna and daughter Frey want to live in it, and Anna offers her husband to arrange a hippie commune in the house, they say, so we will kill two birds with one stone - and the costs will be shared, and I will have more fun, because I am tired of you. Eric, of course, a little freaked out with such frankness, but, in the end, accepts Anna's offer and a lot of people live in the house. And the first, which is not surprising, she invites Ole - you see, our heroine, by her own admission, had the thing "to live with Ole under the same roof", although, objectively, he is not remarkable man - not handsome, not rich, not smart, only drink beer and burn other people's things is able, and also walk around naked wherever he wants. Well, what's a hippie dream? Eric quickly realizes that his wife has forgotten about him, her thoughts are completely absorbed by her new friends in the commune. So, when the chance presents itself, Eric immediately strikes up a relationship with his beautiful and young student, Emma. The most interesting thing begins when our architect tells everything in spirit to his wife, who, with a calm face, soon offers Eric to bring Emma to live in the commune.
I was inspired to see this picture first of all by Ulrich Thomsen – I respect this actor, I am very talented and a true professional in my field. I noticed him in the mainstream “Banshi”, where he played just flawlessly the role of the criminal boss. Ulrich is written to play dramatic roles. And only then, played the role of the received award at the Berlin Film Festival, by the way, the actress who played Anna.
Did I see what I wanted and expected? I find it difficult to answer that question. But I can say for sure that the events taking place in the film seemed absolutely irrelevant to modern society. The times of hippies are long gone, and I am not particularly touched by this topic, and modern “hipposity”, nothing but a trend in fashion, no connection with the then philosophy simply does not. However, that doesn’t mean I didn’t like the movie, so why – the actors played flawlessly, everything looks very lifelike and tragic. Perhaps in some places, even too tragic. I don’t like it either, it’s a negative attitude. I think few people will argue that spoiling the viewer’s mood is certainly not the goal of drama as a genre.
As for the purpose of this film, its message, it is quite simple and understandable - the traditional family is not a monolithic construction, but rather a spike on clay legs, but radically change the vector in favor of hippie ideals about living together and promiscuous sexual relations, perhaps, in many ways worse than living an ordinary life. And Anna personally felt that this was not what she wanted, but the thirst for fun “in old age” got out of control.
Speaking of the ideals of hippies, we see almost nothing like this in the film, our communards simply live, in the most primitive sense of the word, devoting time to everyday routine, and all the fun is often reduced to drinking beer and eating together. Oddly enough, although we see here and there flickering naked bodies, this, in general, all the hippopotism ends. No one is in a hurry to share sexual partners, and this leads to a severe crisis in Anna’s life, as Eric now sleeps with Emma. In fact, they are the only people who behave adequately. That is why I see in their actions the solution to the problem – we need to move on, but do it wisely, and not rush from extreme to extreme, as Anna does. It is also clear to us that Emma, just like Anna, is much younger. Other conclusions can be drawn from this parallel. For example, the cyclical nature of everything that happens, the fact that nothing lasts forever, or the fact that Anna has aged inside, that Eric no longer sees in her what is now in Emma. Quite interesting way copes with grief daughter Frey - she boldly falls in love with her boyfriend, much older than herself, and this finds comfort. Perhaps the irony of life is that in the future they can quite repeat the sad experience of the breakup of their parents. Looking at this picture from such an angle, we can say that it contains a lot of Eastern philosophy and the frailty of being, the cyclical nature of everything. In short, what we have repeatedly seen in Kim Ki-duk.
In general, I think that everything can be reduced to the understanding that there is no escape from love, but one must realize that there is no “best” or “perfect” solution, strategy – everything ends sooner or later, collapses – this is inevitable, life does not tolerate dogmas. There will be time for love, time for separation. I think this is what the director wanted to hint at, including the role of a boy with a heart defect, Vilads, who can die at any minute, and sees no meaning in life, except love for the opposite sex.
In conclusion, this film, albeit indirectly, deals with the problem of children who grew up in various non-traditional families, not necessarily only in hippie communities. What will happen to them in the future, what will they become? It’s hard to say, but one thing is clear to me – a child should not be subjected to such psychological pressure as a child, should not live in a house full of hairy naked grown men, and hear a mother’s desperate confessions about wanting to sleep with her father.
8 out of 10
She wanted the change that opened Pandora’s box. But she probably didn’t know that.
I came across this movie by accident, as it was 2016, decided to watch it. The film is saturated with the atmosphere of the 70s, about the European history of that time. But it is so colorful, as if events are happening in our time.
Sun - Sex - Sun again ...
You have to live with interesting people, right?
Have you made the rules? There are no rules, but they are developed.
“Listen, don’t teach me to live, this is my home, but you gave this house to us all.”
Hello Eric - Hello Anna - That's what it came to!!
The main star of the film is Trine Durholm, who played Anna and received the Honored Silver Bear in Berlin. At the beginning of the film, she is a happy and successful woman who has everything: a home, a TV job, a daughter and a husband. But at the end of the film there are: disintegration of personality, degradation, fading of consciousness - that is, the destruction of the myth of a successful popular woman. All because she made the worst decision that ruined her life.
Very nice actress played Freya, her heroine - despite the disintegration of the family and parents, she is looking for a way out of this situation, but finds it in a very dubious way. In the end, it turns out that she is as weird as all the inhabitants of the Commune.
Ulrich Thomsen plays Eric, an architecture teacher who wants more. Not bad at all.
Pluses:
The music is good throughout the film, that’s good. Bed scenes are also good, especially when they are in the beginning – it’s not usual to see them immediately. And the most impressive moment is the whole group bathing naked, i.e. an attempt to hide from society together. It looks very funny.
The film is not for everyone, but those who watch it, he can give an impression that will remain genuine. For almost two hours, the viewer gets into a family from which it is a little hurtful to return to reality.
Eric and Anna are no longer young: they have a 14-year-old daughter Freya, and they seem to be tired of each other. At least, this can be said about Anna: she was the initiator of the founding of the commune in a huge house that her husband inherited. In a short time, they find several more people with whom they will share misfortunes, joys and a roof over their heads.
Thomas Winterberg to his 46 years managed to shoot eight feature films. He began loudly - his debut picture "The Triumph" won the Jury Prize of the Cannes Film Festival. In addition to this obvious merit, Winterberg is one of the founders of Dogma 95, the avant-garde manifesto of the last known movement in cinema. At the same time, he always remained a much less popular and successful director than another “dogmatic” – Lars von Trier.
Since "The Celebration" came out, the Dane's career has whirled bizarrely. He went to shoot in English – it turned out the film “All about love”: strange, to some extent attractive, but in many ways unsuccessful and defeated by critics. Written by von Trier, the script turned into "Dear Wendy" - a cute yornic sketch that seems to claim no more. Then Winterberg returned home: of the three pictures shot in Danish, perhaps the best was “Hunting” – bullied Mads Mikkelsen bears the bullying of the residents of the town, confident that he is a pedophile. Then the director again tries his luck abroad - "Far from the mad crowd" turned out to be a tolerable, but bland adaptation of Thomas Hardy.
And now Thomas Vinterberg is home again: “Commune” was played, albeit not according to the rules of “Dogma 95” (there are no hand cameras here even in a word), but the author feels a warm feeling for the material. This is not surprising: according to the director, he spent his childhood in such a commune.
Actors who played in the debut of the Dane, migrated to this picture. Ulrich Thomsen plays Eric, an architecture teacher who wants more. When his wife engages with other people, he, resentful and offended, seeks comfort on the side and finds it in a young student, Emma. The marriage, which stood strong for a couple of decades, begins to crack at the seams, even though Eric’s wife offers Emma to move to the commune and live together in harmony.
The main advantage of the film is Trine Durholm, who played Anna and received the deserved Silver Bear in Berlin. A young TV presenter tries to find happiness in communicating with others, survive betrayal and remain in her sane mind. Although the film does not focus solely on this married couple, Anna is certainly a key link in the film: she caught fire with the idea of the commune, and she suffers from it the most.
Winterberg’s nostalgic feelings could not help but play a cruel joke with the film: sometimes the rhythm of the film is significantly reduced, and the last half hour seems quite a bit long. Sometimes his sentimentality begins to irritate, and the script seems frankly weak, but all the uneven angles are smoothed by the actors, so skillfully that the film will rather leave a pleasant impression.
There are no tedious orgies in the film at all, as well as long arguments about anarchy and the nature of the collective (okay, only a couple of times), and the theoretical part of the director’s interest is the least: life does everything in its own way anyway. His commune is just a group of people who have become a real family. Even when an official marriage breaks at the seams and the family breaks up in the usual sense of the word, the commune continues to live.
Winterberg’s film is hardly worth reviewing, but the impressions it can give the viewer will remain genuine. For almost two hours, the viewer gets into a family from which it is a little hurtful to return to reality.
But Winterberg himself leaves more sediment after time: he paints a society of people far from ideal, but sincere, with too “correct” shots. The director makes a film about the brave 70s, but he lacks the courage to experiment. That’s when it becomes a little pity for the man who broke into the cinema with a radical film, who was a harbinger of change. Now he is a stable author who jumps well, but above his head, alas, can not.
After last year's successful melodrama Far From the Mad Crowd, Dane Thomas Winterberg returned to the audience with "The Commune." A film that sends us back to the late 70s. The film, with the help of which 47-year-old Wintenberg says goodbye to all his teenage skeletons in the closet and allegorically projects the events of the film on the latest European history.
"Commune" is a film about trying to hide in the collective from the impending universal loneliness. Two quite successful representatives of the middle class fall inheritance in the form of a huge house. No kidding, 450 square meters. Eric teaches modern architecture at the university, Anna is a successful talking head on television. In 15 years of marriage, Eric and Anna already know everything about each other. Anna is frankly bored with such a sweet, but already absolutely predictable Eric.
Anna wants attention and impressions. Little did she know that she was opening Pandora’s Box by creating a commune of old friends and acquaintances in a house inherited by Eric. Is it necessary to say that the company owners will not be the same successful representatives of the bohemian, and aged children of flowers 10 years ago? That Eric will be hit in the ribs by a demon in the form of a young student? That Eric and Anna quickly get tired of the company of marginalized cohabitants?
Simple in the plot and leisurely on the pitch, "Commune" becomes a film where the storylines trace the rift between the values of old Europe. The world of aging hippies, clinging to the common familiality in the form of joint lunches and bathing naked, looks like an ideological anachronism and an attempt to hide from society. Anna’s compromise, trying to introduce her husband’s young passion into the commune, turns into a complete collapse. The collapse of the myth of a successful popular woman.
In Wintenberg, all residents of the commune are represented as teenagers and did not taste the charms of mature age. All the joys and sorrows of their existence are consciously enhanced by the director at times. Collective in the “Commune” is both a way to avoid individual responsibility and an opportunity to somehow survive in the impending post-industrial world. If the Commune is a paradise for the socially useless, then Eric and Emma are the Adam and Eve of this paradise. Strangely, “Commune” in the end resembles an old TV movie, which lay for several decades on the shelf. Requiem for the childhood of Wintenberg.
I read the description of the film with interest, it is well written, it is a pity that it has nothing to do with the new film by Winterberg.
Why did Eric (an architecture teacher) and his wife Anna (a TV host) need to start a commune? It’s simple to maintain a huge house that Eric inherited is expensive, even for middle-class people like a teacher and a television worker. Eric wants to sell the house, and squints sweetly (presenting bundles of banknotes from the sale). Anna offers to share the costs, inviting friends as guests, and in addition, “you are very witty, but all your jokes I have heard many times, I want fun.” That's it, sickle on ... pinkish dreams of big money.
No ideals (there is not a word about them in the film), the only dream that inspires Anna is the dream to know happiness in the arms of Ole (a puffy, gloomy drunk with Hitler’s mustaches). Thus, Anna's motives are: greed, lust and boredom. A bored matron is looking for adventures on her crumpled ass, and she will find them, Eric is in prostration (the first half of the film), he is clearly bent on being strangers in the house in which he grew up and considers his own.
Who sees in communes people close in spirit, what do the unemployed, (smearing tears on bristling muzzles, and constantly snorting with snot with self-pity) emigrant Allon, beer intellectual Ole, smiling like Mona's oligophrene (the only pride of which is gums, so often she shows them), a couple of unwashed hippies Ditta and Stefan, and the owners of the house? Nothing, they have nothing in common. They do not have political disputes, they do not have common ideals and goals. Greatly combines bathing naked (it turned out that most neighbors have nothing to boast of), driving around the Christmas tree and fascinating conversations about the dishwasher. You know, it's spiritual.
Eric (stunned by the audacity of the guests at the beginning of the film) slowly thaws, and consoles himself in the arms of a young student Emma. Emma is a copy of Anna, only thirty years younger. The director takes full advantage of the similarity of the two heroines, Eric several times pronounces monologues about his difficult life, Winterberg so skillfully builds the frame that it does not immediately become clear - which of the two women is the interlocutor of the courageous architect. Both are blonde, with loose hair, and a similar oval face. It seems that the director is amused by this guessing game.
Despite the warm, pastel tones, the film was shot in a detached, cold manner. None of the heroes are worthy of pity, except Vilads (the son of Stefan and Ditte), a charming nine-year-old who, with childlike spontaneity but very politely, suggests to Emma, "Would you like me to fuck you?" Anna herself is to blame for her problems, you wanted fun - get it, did not like a calm, measured life, the director shows how easily the usual way of life collapses, with one click. Limonov has such a story “Silty fish”, it describes the life of an American family, people deprived of horizons, scope, fantasies lead a leisurely, plant-based lifestyle, occasionally smoke weed, thus showing their rebellion against the system. The heroes of “Commune” are typical squalid fish, crawling at the bottom with their sluggish passions, bubbling sleepily, occasionally bristling in situations when it is necessary to protect their own, and immediately returning to the usual, cozy world.
Beautiful Trine Druholm as Anna, at the beginning of the film she is a blossoming, happy woman, gradually she turns into a ruin - deep wrinkles, careless makeup, crazy look, incoherent speech. She is the wreck of a human shipwreck. Disintegration of personality, degradation, extinction of consciousness - all these moments are very well, meticulously recorded by the dispassionate camera of Winterberg. Very nice actress played Freya (she has a high-rise Danish name), a confused child present at the breakup of the marriage of parents, she desperately seeks a way out, and finds it ... in a very interesting way. A guide to action for women: like a man - just take him by the trunk, you are mine!
There is no nostalgia in this film, Winterberg is very evil at dealing with the past of his parents (he grew up in such a commune), it follows from his film that all attempts to create an appearance of unity in a divided, atomized society are artificial, contrived and doomed to failure. According to Winterberg, the bourgeois family is an atavism, a dying relic, a screen that hides a purulent boil (" Triumph), a sprawling construction, the tearing fabric of which is kept on conventions. Having no illusions about love, traditional family, and primitive human nature, the director weighs the ideals of the seventies weighty kick. The attempt to realize socialist ideals within the framework of a single commune, while the consumer society flourished in the yard, which one comrade called “peaceful growth into capitalist savageness,” failed successfully.
Bottom line.
Unhurried, sticky trampling on the wreckage of what is commonly called family values. Evil, breaking from the leash satire on the ideals of free love.
10 out of 10
“A commune is an ideological community of people living together with common interests, property and resources. Basic principles: greater importance of the group, not the nuclear family; shared money and spending; collective home ownership; group decision-making in general and in personal affairs. Members of the community feel a great spiritual closeness to the whole group. — Wikipedia
Why did the head of the main character Anna (Trine Durholm), happily married to Eric (Ulrich Thomsen), having a charming daughter Freya (Martha Sophie Wolstrom Hansen), come to the idea of creating a commune in a luxurious mansion empty after the death of Eric’s father? She wanted a change that was not long in coming.
Nine people are interviewed and become part of a large family. In a commune, the spouses are increasingly distant from each other. Anna is passionate about her new surroundings, and Eric has to console himself in other ways.
The commune is chaos, where a small unit of society cannot survive. The new members of the “family” are, in the end, nothing more than freeloaders living at the expense of others and not showing sincere concern for the problems of others. They only create the appearance of a friendly monastery, where regular meetings are held and questions about the mood are asked on duty.
In the midst of absolute destruction, the tragedy of the little man unfolds. Anna is broken, depressed, withering, no longer feeling like a woman. Striving for an interesting and diverse life, she herself provoked the collapse of the family. A liberated and wise woman, nothing but pity in the finale of the picture does not cause. It goes into oblivion, as well as the most ancient values that have outlived themselves in the modern world. And it's not alone.
Love disappears from our world, and those who cannot live without it are expelled. They are released easily, as is the late owner of the house at the beginning of the picture. To sympathetic words, the heroes with a smile on their face respond: “Nothing terrible.” In cold blood, the characters say goodbye to the ideal of love, which father, mother and daughter seem to remember at the dinner table with lit candles in silence.
Chaos. Destruction. People can't hear each other. Total indifference. The first scene of the film, where the family performs an experiment: will they hear each other’s whistles if the wife and daughter are in the attic and the husband in the basement? The condition is closed doors, but they cheat, opening them, and therefore hear each other. In the course of the action, all the doors between members of the real family slowly and painfully close and it becomes impossible to hear one person.
Director Thomas Vinterberg made a film-crying: crying for romantic perfect love, crying for a traditional strong family, crying for trusting altruistic relationships between people. Having gained the courage to recognize and accept, this path seems to be the only way to continue to exist. Thomas Winterberg's despair.
In Scandinavia, Bergman's heirs live, in Italy - the followers of Fellini, we have only a spectator behind Tarkovsky. So, north of Europe. He comes to life from the first frame with the simplicity of shooting, and even the subtitles are no longer read, but hear instead of Swedish speech.
The movie is about me. It carried me 15 years ahead, and I saw a bored strong woman who wants to have fun with a tired unrealized husband, but in the flow of passion loses control, weakens and eventually remains alone.
After all, the women of the world are similar in their dependence on the male decision. Men are the same in their desire to be fulfilled. That type of woman was definitely mine. She does not know exactly what she wants, but even confessing to herself in secret, she spends her energy not directly on the goal, but evasively. He expects the man to figure it out, change everything himself. But a man is different. He's more honest with himself and direct. When he understands what he wants and it appears in his life, he accepts without thinking. Usually, he wants to fulfill himself, and the muse gives him inspiration, and the muse is usually young, beautiful and intelligent. She loves, so she's a mistress. And the former queen decides in such a situation that she is the strongest and will be able to survive everything. She is invigorated by the presence of her mistress, she remembers that her husband is dear to her, brings the couple closer to her, decides to be friends. But in the end it does not stand, collapses, weakens and loses everything.
I have always been close to my husband’s interests. I became stronger, but apart from the desire to break with him, to abandon what was built and leave, nothing arose. Noble anger, noble pride. After all, all the feelings given to us are noble, we need to love ourselves. The movie taught me in 2 hours that no triangle is allowed. To tolerate, to endure treason, to be a victim, not to understand what you really need - absolutely impossible. Making your husband cheat is also stupid and painful. To prevent this from happening, the situation must be managed. Always define your goals and lead people to them. Everything you do should be done not as correctly as possible, but as much as possible to satisfy your desires. And if you suddenly feel like you're in a terrible position, figure out what you want to be in, and just stand in it.