Lost. I still love all sorts of rare films that rarely get to theaters, or even to TV screens. Among them there are really high-quality, interesting, and sometimes just pretentious, but do not contain something really worthwhile. Where to take "Anarchy", I have not yet decided: I probably still do not understand the film.
At first glance, “Anarchy” is beyond any doubt a “smart” film in which you can find both the problem shown in the example of a particular district and the contradiction, but what I wanted to say, I did not understand, maybe just not sufficiently enlightened. But at a second glance, the thought begins to creep in that something is wrong. The film gives the impression that there is a thought in it, but whether it is real, I cannot say.
There is a feeling that the viewer is provided with a package that is correctly and competently decorated - these gray tones, repetitive words and actions, informality - which, however, is not filled with what was promised. So why does that feel? Perhaps the film remains misunderstood on my part, because I am not from Lithuania at all, and I am not familiar with the problems of this country. But what is there? Declared anarchy. This phenomenon in this picture is used in two qualities: as a banner and as a veil. Anarchy is both a lifestyle and just a vivid fascination. There is nothing political here, but there is a clash of two different cultures and ways of thinking. Why is anarchy a banner and why is it a veil? Because by drawing a sign of anarchy on various things, the heroes seem to justify their actions: they are ideological, they are only for good, just good in their understanding - this is what they are. This is what they call anarchy and almost believe in it. And the cover? Because it serves as a purification for conscience and something that hides the criminality and illegality of actions.
The question I couldn't answer was: Who is this painting addressed to? If it's young, it's too gray. It is not a fact that young people are able to appreciate this, and it is unlikely that young people are ready to associate themselves with heroes. Older people? Maybe to be able to talk to the younger generation. But such people are unlikely to see the film at all. There is also a festival audience, and it is probably the target audience. Anarchy is an opportunity to look into the problems of a foreign country, to see not the brilliance at all, but practically the bottom. Perhaps that is why almost the only place of action chosen area of Soviet-built, where more old, and maybe even suede, and not some modern European quarter of the city. There is a contradiction in this: the district is interesting for young people, although the district itself is not young. The clash of young energy and peace.
There are in the picture and its chips: for example, jam, which even the viewer begins to bother, not to mention the main characters who for some reason do not like him. Jam seems to be some kind of reminder of peace and tranquility, about something very native, so, probably, the rejection of any heroes from jam can be quite painful for the heroine Ville. And the end of the story with jam is a clear summation of a certain feature, when this is all that embodied jam, the heroine lets go, changing her values and priorities. Ville, albeit the main character, acts as an observer in the film, although something in it also changes. It's all about brilliance and eccentricity, in this case, in this defiant way. Sandra, the film’s main anarchist, acts as a ghost that exists, speaks to you, but is never seen again. Throughout the film there is a feeling of unreality of its existence. Even a very frank scene between the heroines - it also seems much more a dream, imagination than reality. The heroine is too fearless. Everything about her, at the same time, is somewhat false - her attempts to punish and beat someone, her dashing driving is not her car, her speech. She is almost not a living being, but the embodiment of something that is here and now becomes attractive. She is a living person and does not need to be, and her transformation into him from a belligerent ghost in the finale leads to a complete fiasco of everything that was told earlier.
This picture does not boast of a variety of places. Almost all the action takes place in the apartment, sometimes on the night streets or at the university. All this remains somewhat dull, quite consistent with the main line - allegedly anarchy. Her manifestations are like flashes of flame in a sleepy world. But perhaps such limited action is still bad. After all, in addition to anarchy, the evolution of Villa itself was shown - from the simple need to be independent and somewhere to live and equip your nest, to the need not to be alone. However, this line turned out to be some kind of abandoned: the personal life of the heroine is devoted to a small piece of the film, where the hero appears pleasant appearance, and everything else is still chasing ghosts, trying to understand them and even sometimes exposing them. And ghosts do not need to be exposed, because this can lead to disappointment, which is even worse than deception.
And the main idea with all this abundance of words I still did not understand. It is clear that anarchy is only a cover, albeit attractive. I know what a young man might want. It is clear that in the shown on the screen a lot of falsehood. But what's the big problem? The problem of migration from the country, declared at the very beginning, is touched on in the picture only a couple of times. Anarchy doesn't exactly reflect it. Perhaps the point is to highlight the problem of the loss of the younger generation, which has a lot of energy, but a lot of unwillingness to do anything, and principled. For such young people, any social movement is an opportunity to express itself, perhaps cheaply, albeit brilliantly. That's Sandra's loss. But what is Ville's loss? Maybe only that it does not have this brightness, but it is much more real, and in fact, not related to this strange layer of marginals. Anyway, the story is somewhat strange, somewhat unsaid, and I continue not to understand it.
For general development, it is very worth seeing the picture, but I would not like to believe that our closest neighbors have only such cinema. After all, there is a clear festival focus, which makes it clear that the film is not a typical representative of the industry. Whether it is true in the film, I do not know and will hardly know. We also have to admit that the film is not very well shot, the narrative is rather slow and monotonous, despite the cheerful musical accompaniment. There is a certain regret in the film, but it does not infect the viewer too much. Sometimes it is worth shooting a movie with a better mood, it may turn out more piercing.
6 out of 10