Aki Kaurismäki's trilogy about Finnish depression and it's results began with Kauas Pilvet Karkaavat, dealing with unemployment, and continued with Mies Vailla Menneisyyttä, about homelessness. Both are exceptional works. Now, the ending chapter is out in the form of Laitakaupungin Valot, a story of loneliness, betrayal and sacrifice.
I read the script of this film when it was going to production, and saw the result at the Finnish premiere last night. As much as I'd like to tell you otherwise, Laitakaupungin Valot is not a good film. The growth needed between the script and the final film just never came to pass here. The end result is shallow and unfinished, despite all its potential.
The story is straightforward enough: a security man, lonely and bullied, meets a femme fatale, who sets him up for his gullibility and loyalty. The course of the story is clear from the beginning to the inevitable end; indeed, Kaurismäki reveals the whole story in his synopsis of the film.
The femme fatale, a central figure and most controversial character, remains shallow despite her potential. Why does she do what she does, does she feel regret or pity towards the man she's cheating? How does she feel about the man, perfectly aware of her betrayal, going down for her? That's problem number one: None of the characters develop during the film, and we are not aware of their motives. They end as they begin, as does the story; everything is as it seems. The story does not suffer from it, but without anything to chew on the experience remains shallow.
Also the choices of the security guard do not make the audience care one bit about what happens to him. He knows the woman is betraying her, but allows it to happen. We're led to believe it's because he has fallen in love with her. But that does not really hold; he's not in love with her, merely an image of some kind of a dream woman. It's pride that leads him to prison; he's not trying to protect her, but himself from admitting he's been tricked. In the end, his fate is his own doing; his pride, his problem. That's problem number two: The audience does not care about the characters. None of them have any good qualities, there's nothing to grasp and like, or even understand.
The third problem is the world Kaurismäki paints: his image of Finland, stylistic fifties, the one through which audiences abroad have learned to see us. But this story is not timeless, it's very much attached to today and today's problems, and fifties cars and radios simply do not fit in with the glass and metal scenery of Ruoholahti. They stand out and detach from the realism of the story, eats away its credibility. How much more powerful would it have been, if the security man's basement apartment would have looked like a crude, concrete basement and not been carefully styled with antique cupboards, radios and painted walls? On the other hand, nostalgia works very well musically here; Melrose's live performance rocks and rises above anything else in the film.
Laitakaupungin Valot has all the potential, but does nothing to achieve any. The story is fine - it wouldn't need twists and turns to work. It compares well with Lars von Trier's Breaking the Waves; both have a main character sacrificing themselves completely for petty reasons. Both also pace their story with still, calm images of scenery, Ruoholahti or Scotland. Von Trier manages to pull it off for two reasons as I can see it; he takes the tragedy far further, taking it on to another level, and mirrors the audience's response with the main character's sister-in-law, in whom is all the growth and compassion compressed. Laitakaupungin Valot could have gone so much further. It's a shame, and we're all wondering what the hell happened.
I read the script of this film when it was going to production, and saw the result at the Finnish premiere last night. As much as I'd like to tell you otherwise, Laitakaupungin Valot is not a good film. The growth needed between the script and the final film just never came to pass here. The end result is shallow and unfinished, despite all its potential.
The story is straightforward enough: a security man, lonely and bullied, meets a femme fatale, who sets him up for his gullibility and loyalty. The course of the story is clear from the beginning to the inevitable end; indeed, Kaurismäki reveals the whole story in his synopsis of the film.
The femme fatale, a central figure and most controversial character, remains shallow despite her potential. Why does she do what she does, does she feel regret or pity towards the man she's cheating? How does she feel about the man, perfectly aware of her betrayal, going down for her? That's problem number one: None of the characters develop during the film, and we are not aware of their motives. They end as they begin, as does the story; everything is as it seems. The story does not suffer from it, but without anything to chew on the experience remains shallow.
Also the choices of the security guard do not make the audience care one bit about what happens to him. He knows the woman is betraying her, but allows it to happen. We're led to believe it's because he has fallen in love with her. But that does not really hold; he's not in love with her, merely an image of some kind of a dream woman. It's pride that leads him to prison; he's not trying to protect her, but himself from admitting he's been tricked. In the end, his fate is his own doing; his pride, his problem. That's problem number two: The audience does not care about the characters. None of them have any good qualities, there's nothing to grasp and like, or even understand.
The third problem is the world Kaurismäki paints: his image of Finland, stylistic fifties, the one through which audiences abroad have learned to see us. But this story is not timeless, it's very much attached to today and today's problems, and fifties cars and radios simply do not fit in with the glass and metal scenery of Ruoholahti. They stand out and detach from the realism of the story, eats away its credibility. How much more powerful would it have been, if the security man's basement apartment would have looked like a crude, concrete basement and not been carefully styled with antique cupboards, radios and painted walls? On the other hand, nostalgia works very well musically here; Melrose's live performance rocks and rises above anything else in the film.
Laitakaupungin Valot has all the potential, but does nothing to achieve any. The story is fine - it wouldn't need twists and turns to work. It compares well with Lars von Trier's Breaking the Waves; both have a main character sacrificing themselves completely for petty reasons. Both also pace their story with still, calm images of scenery, Ruoholahti or Scotland. Von Trier manages to pull it off for two reasons as I can see it; he takes the tragedy far further, taking it on to another level, and mirrors the audience's response with the main character's sister-in-law, in whom is all the growth and compassion compressed. Laitakaupungin Valot could have gone so much further. It's a shame, and we're all wondering what the hell happened.