This is a conscious echo of the film I was reminded most while watching "The Harvest" (or, more, "The farm" as it is closer one supposes, to the non-profitable title in German), that is "That old dream that bounces" by Alain Guiraudie, that takes place in a factory ready to close doors, and between two men, in a manner that is a bizarre combo of french, Racine classicism and Godard-inspired muted and yet operatic class activism. One also supposes that this is so far from "Harvest"'s tone. Yet one could appreciate the contrast, in just this manner: while that old dream bounces in the earlier - that is Guiraudie's - film, one wonders what does the dream do in the "Farm". For the final shot tells me that this is a dream, or questions one: the two boys, after some kind of rupture after the rapture, embrace in the somewhat phobic (at least for one of them) environment of the farm they work and study at, in a defying and implausible manner, as if the shared (?) news of the phobic one's success at getting his diploma, dispelled the unnamed barrier between them.
At various points the woman that teaches and advises the farm's students gives straightforward chunks of Saxon class-conscious practicality, if not clear and even-minded political guidance. This, along with cinema-verite explorations of agricultural "process" (as in the old communist jargon), gives an account - if you excuse the pun - of a new, yet nebulous political sensibility. The final shot, instead of resuming or opening up or pinpointing the unnamed object/intersection of the communal and the amorous, makes a leap that obfuscates the imaginary support. It neither convinces that the boys can truly embrace so, nor that we should view this as what in the situation going beforehand is improbable as quilting point. Is this the point? To confront us with the obfuscation of the fantasmatic scenario? This makes me wonder. The pastoral/social realist commitment of the greatest part of the film, makes it a dream that does not bounce, but simply works, where work has an utilitarian muteness. Simply? But a dream is the ideal worker.
At various points the woman that teaches and advises the farm's students gives straightforward chunks of Saxon class-conscious practicality, if not clear and even-minded political guidance. This, along with cinema-verite explorations of agricultural "process" (as in the old communist jargon), gives an account - if you excuse the pun - of a new, yet nebulous political sensibility. The final shot, instead of resuming or opening up or pinpointing the unnamed object/intersection of the communal and the amorous, makes a leap that obfuscates the imaginary support. It neither convinces that the boys can truly embrace so, nor that we should view this as what in the situation going beforehand is improbable as quilting point. Is this the point? To confront us with the obfuscation of the fantasmatic scenario? This makes me wonder. The pastoral/social realist commitment of the greatest part of the film, makes it a dream that does not bounce, but simply works, where work has an utilitarian muteness. Simply? But a dream is the ideal worker.