Victoria (Sebastian Schipper, 2015)

[Tommaso]

Victoria (Sebastian Schipper) This was apparently the audience favourite at this year's Berlinale, even though it 'only' got a Silver Bear for best camerawork. Subsequently it won six 'Lolas', the German film award, and is now finally running in German cinemas, which gives all those who couldn't see it at the Berlinale a chance to finally find out whether it stands up for all the praise. In short, it absolutely does.

Set at the end of a summer night and early morning in Berlin, the film follows its Spanish title character (played by the outstanding newcomer Laia Costa) who gets involved with four slackers/low-life criminals after a night in a club and more or less stumbles into helping them as a car driver in a bank robbery which they must carry out because of one of them 'owes' it to an underworld boss. Genrewise its a mix of crime thriller, love story, and a portrayal of young people in the bustling metropolis of Berlin.

Much has been made of the fact that this 135 minute film was shot in a single take. Not a historical first, of course, but unlike "Russian Ark" or even Hitchcock's "Rope" (which 'faked' its no-cut-idea anyhow), this film is extremely fast-paced in places, with lots of different locations, the characters being chased by the police, and so on, so this must have given cinematographer Sturla Brand Grovlen a hell of a lot of difficulties with his hand-held camera. Still, every shot feels absolutely perfect, and so does the atmosphere of the film in general. Beautiful, dark colour schemes for the most part, much helped by the outstanding atmospheric music by Nils Frahm. There are some logic holes, and curiously it seems hard to believe that such a large number of events would fit into only a little over two hours, but the film by its very technique demonstrates that it's actually possible and makes for a completely immersive effect.

As I'm pretty sure that the film will get international distribution, go and watch it in the cinema once it arrives in your country. Even though the story itself might not be the greatest, original, or deepest one could wish for, the great acting and its formal achievement makes it a must-see. Without doubt one of the best German films of the 2010s, and I guess it might even become an international hit that might rival Tykwer's "Lola rennt".

[jmj713]

The 140-minute single-take Victoria looks stunning: http://thefilmstage.com/trailer/u-s-tra ... nute-take/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[zedz]

Victoria (Sebastian Schipper) This was apparently the audience favourite at this year's Berlinale, even though it 'only' got a Silver Bear for best camerawork. Subsequently it won six 'Lolas', the German film award, and is now finally running in German cinemas, which gives all those who couldn't see it at the Berlinale a chance to finally find out whether it stands up for all the praise. In short, it absolutely does.

Set at the end of a summer night and early morning in Berlin, the film follows its Spanish title character (played by the outstanding newcomer Laia Costa) who gets involved with four slackers/low-life criminals after a night in a club and more or less stumbles into helping them as a car driver in a bank robbery which they must carry out because of one of them 'owes' it to an underworld boss. Genrewise its a mix of crime thriller, love story, and a portrayal of young people in the bustling metropolis of Berlin.

Much has been made of the fact that this 135 minute film was shot in a single take. Not a historical first, of course, but unlike "Russian Ark" or even Hitchcock's "Rope" (which 'faked' its no-cut-idea anyhow), this film is extremely fast-paced in places, with lots of different locations, the characters being chased by the police, and so on, so this must have given cinematographer Sturla Brand Grovlen a hell of a lot of difficulties with his hand-held camera. Still, every shot feels absolutely perfect, and so does the atmosphere of the film in general. Beautiful, dark colour schemes for the most part, much helped by the outstanding atmospheric music by Nils Frahm. There are some logic holes, and curiously it seems hard to believe that such a large number of events would fit into only a little over two hours, but the film by its very technique demonstrates that it's actually possible and makes for a completely immersive effect.

As I'm pretty sure that the film will get international distribution, go and watch it in the cinema once it arrives in your country. Even though the story itself might not be the greatest, original, or deepest one could wish for, the great acting and its formal achievement makes it a must-see. Without doubt one of the best German films of the 2010s, and I guess it might even become an international hit that might rival Tykwer's "Lola rennt".

I found this an impressive technical stunt, but not much of a film beyond that. At no point did the content require this particular form, and the content on its own was woefully shoddy. This may be the ultimate example of a script in which characters make incredibly stupid decisions simply in order to keep the film going. I can usually make an allowance for this once or twice, but in this film it's at every single juncture. The filmmakers can't even come up with the simplest "oops, now I'm involved I'm going to have to see this through to the bitter end!" beat for the title character. After a quarter of an hour, I figured that whatever terrible things befall these stupid, stupid people will be richly deserved, and just sat back to see just how much more idiotic the plotting would get. I was not disappointed.

Spoilerific multiple choice test:

Spoiler

You are leaving a club and are accosted by a creepy gang of criminals who were not allowed into the club because they had no money and are now trying to break into a car. They want you to come with them. Do you:
a) hop on your bike and race off at top speed
b) go back into the club and wait for them to leave
c) decide that this sounds like fun, and give them your bike

After the same gang of thugs have been accosted on the street by other thugs, followed by the cops, robbed a liquor store (and made you an accomplice to this), and revealed that one of their number has been in prison for his 'anger issues', they invite you to come up to their 'secret place' on top of a tower block. Do you:
a) hop on your bike and race off at top speed
b) say you're really tired / have to go to work and sneak away
c) decide that this sounds like fun, go up on the roof with the boys, then dangle yourself off the side.

When the gang of thugs explain that they have to 'do a job' in the middle of the night and need to leave RIGHT NOW, but one of them is too drunk to drive, so could you please help out, do you:
a) lock the door and call the police
b) say no thanks, I'm at work now and have to open up in about an hour
c) decide that this sounds absolutely fine and just the thing you want to do in the forty five minutes before you have to open up the cafe.

You find out that the gang (and you!) are going to rob a bank. You are held at gunpoint for a little while, then let go. Do you:
a) disappear at the first opportunity - the big bad has no idea who you are, after all
b) play along for a little while longer until an opportunity to bail out presents itself, which it does a few minutes later
c) insist on going through with the crime and try to cheer the other reluctant members of the gang on.

By some dumb luck, and despite a very dramatically convenient stalling of the car and a lot of very slow panic-driving, you get away from the scene of the crime with the loot and ditch the car in an alley. Do you:
a) head immediately back to your cafe to establish an alibi
b) scatter and arrange to meet up again elsewhere at a later time
c) decide to go partying at a club literally just around the corner (hey, whaddaya know? it's exactly the same one from the start of the film!), where you throw cash around and generally try to draw as much attention to yourself as possible until you get thrown out.

The police are right behind you. They are looking for four suspicious characters in their twenties (three guys, one girl) carrying a bag of money (and some guns). Do you:
a) tell the guys, hey, I'm outta here, take your cut, get back to work and return to a normal life.
b) split up, hide the money, ditch the guns and try as hard as possible not to look like four amateur bank robbers on the run
c) stay in a group, nervously walking / running and constantly looking behind you. Be sure to stay outdoors with clear sightlines towards where you are from multiple directions at all times.

If you answered a) or b) to any of those questions, you would probably be able to survive for a couple of hours in Berlin, and could even be a successful criminal of opportunity. If you answered c) you may well be borderline retarded, but the good news is that you might win a Lola!

[Tommaso]

Yep, these are the things I referred to above as 'logic holes'. One can add even more:

Spoiler

For instance, how likely is it that the police let get a couple with a young child out of the house when they're just in the course of hunting down a group of bankrobbers which involves shooting? Or, how exactly does Victoria manage to check into that hotel with Sonne at the end? Why do they choose to go to a hotel so near to the crime scene in the first place? (Answer: a 40-minute taxi drive would have clearly exceeded any reasonable film length and audience endurance.)

It should be pointed out that the film won its six Lolas in the categories 'best film', 'best actor/actress', 'camera', 'direction' and last not least 'music', but NOT in the category 'script'. However, some (though not all) of the plot points pointed out by zedz might be reasonably well explained by the fact that Victoria has fallen in love with Sonne, or that she acts out of a youthful sense of solidarity. Still, suspension of disbelief is definitely required if you want to enjoy the film.

For me, the good thing is that all these improbabilities feel unimportant given the overall impression left by the film. "Victoria" is much more about creating a sense of night-time Berlin, about the feeling of what it is to be a young foreigner in the city, also partly about the backstories of the two main protagonists. And as I said before, in terms of creating the right atmosphere and immersing the viewer in it, the film is entirely successful, and I do think the single-take-technique is an essential part in creating what the film achieves.

[zedz]

Yep, these are the things I referred to above as 'logic holes'. One can add even more:

Spoiler

For instance, how likely is it that the police let get a couple with a young child out of the house when they're just in the course of hunting down a group of bankrobbers which involves shooting? Or, how exactly does Victoria manage to check into that hotel with Sonne at the end? Why do they choose to go to a hotel so near to the crime scene in the first place? (Answer: a 40-minute taxi drive would have clearly exceeded any reasonable film length and audience endurance.)

It should be pointed out that the film won its six Lolas in the categories 'best film', 'best actor/actress', 'camera', 'direction' and last not least 'music', but NOT in the category 'script'. However, some (though not all) of the plot points pointed out by zedz might be reasonably well explained by the fact that Victoria has fallen in love with Sonne, or that she acts out of a youthful sense of solidarity. Still, suspension of disbelief is definitely required if you want to enjoy the film.

For me, the good thing is that all these improbabilities feel unimportant given the overall impression left by the film. "Victoria" is much more about creating a sense of night-time Berlin, about the feeling of what it is to be a young foreigner in the city, also partly about the backstories of the two main protagonists. And as I said before, in terms of creating the right atmosphere and immersing the viewer in it, the film is entirely successful, and I do think the single-take-technique is an essential part in creating what the film achieves.

I agree we're supposed to assume there's some kind of 'love conquers all really bad writing' magic wanding going on, but it's very hard to buy, especially as the idiotic behaviour begins before they even know one another and there's no real opportunity for a plausible relationship to develop (particularly as anything that could stand for 'relationship development' simultaneously doubles as alarm bells that he's bad news in every conceivable way), and there's no particular chemistry between the actors (something that's most embarrassingly obvious in their final scene together). I suspect that "they're drunk / on drugs" is another of the script's fallback defences, but if so it's the magic film version of being high that allows you to fulfill all other plot-required activities just fine.

Spoiler

That hotel scene is just cast-iron lazy writing: Victoria somehow manages to talk her way into a hotel room without showing any ID and by paying with cash from a plastic bag, without tipping off anybody that she has anything to do with the bank robbery a couple of blocks away, which is now all over the news. The writers have no idea how she might pull this off, so they just show the crucial conversation from a distance.

Whatever technical merits the film has are, for me, just swallowed up by the black hole of incompetence that is the script. Light can't escape the gravitational field of its stupidity.

[criterion10]

If you answered a) or b) to any of those questions, you would probably be able to survive for a couple of hours in Berlin, and could even be a successful criminal of opportunity. If you answered c) you may well be borderline retarded, but the good news is that you might win a Lola!

Zedz, your multiple-choice questionnaire is spot on and addressed many of the criticisms I had while watching the film. As a whole, I enjoyed this more as it went on, particularly once that lifeless first hour comes to an end. Once the main plot kicks into effect, it is a pretty effective thriller, even despite all of its logic holes, poor characterizations, and so on.

[TMDaines]

I enjoyed this is a lot, but thought it could have been more effective were it shorter. I thought it could have, and was going to have, ended when we visited the club for the second time.

I question whether it should have been shown with English subtitles for the German speech. It would have perhaps been more immersive to further adopt the perspective of the protagonist, who barely speaks German, by not subtitling it.

Virtually none of the perceived plot holes bother me. People do stupid shit all the time, myself included when I was younger. People evade police capture all the time even when they are right under their noses. Furthermore you watch films for interesting stories, no? Wouldn't have been much of a film or a story if we watched Victoria have a dance and then prepare a cafe for opening for two hours.

[zedz]

Virtually none of the perceived plot holes bother me. People do stupid shit all the time, myself included when I was younger. People evade police capture all the time even when they are right under their noses. Furthermore you watch films for interesting stories, no? Wouldn't have been much of a film or a story if we watched Victoria have a dance and then prepare a cafe for opening for two hours.

Straw man argument. There's plenty of middle ground between "incredibly lazy writing with unbelievable characters" and "nothing happens at all," so it's completely disingenuous of you to pretend that it has to be either ridiculous OR boring. Personally, I prefer films that are neither. And all I was hoping for in Victoria was a less incompetent thriller, not no thriller at all. You do realize that thousands of thrillers manage to be legitimately exciting without having to cheat their plots, characters and audiences? The two qualities aren't mutually exclusive.

[TMDaines]

What are you being so aggressive for? I was not particularly responding to anyone in general just the general criticism I have seen of this film or other films where the script is dismissed because people make stupid decisions. It happens all the time in real life. How many stupid crimes are done on the spur of the moment by people who should know better?

It's not completely disingenuous to pretend it is a fine line between either being ridiculous or boring in the context of the story. If she goes home after leaving the club, nothing happens.

In your multiple choice test, I have got down the route of several c) choices on a night out on occasion and have wondered how I ended up somewhere, with people I feel uncomfortable with, doing stupid stuff, but still not taking the opportunity to leave.

My pet hate with a lot of recent thrillers is the constant need to twist often unsuccessfully. Trance and Side Effects are good examples of this. The old adage about a good twist is that you shouldn't see it coming, but once it happens, you shouldn't be able to have seen it happen any other way. I'm certainly glad that this film didn't feel the need to do that.

[zedz]

You're still wilfully misrepresenting the arguments of the people you don't agree with. Nobody is complaining about the writing of Victoria because it failed to turn into Jeanne Dielman, as you keep insisting. They're complaining that the filmmakers couldn't be bothered to come up with plausible motivation for the main character's extreme actions.

In a film script, stupid decisions function like wild coincidences, a convenient currency that's easily debased. One can work, if everything that follows from it follows logically and plausibly (see: just about every great film noir). Two or more is lazy, and can easily frustrate involvement in the plot and empathy with the characters. Victoria's plot is little more than a daisy chain of such moments. Sure, it keeps the gimmick going, but at a much greater cost than I'm prepared to pay.

[TMDaines]

Whose and what arguments am I wilfully misrepresenting? I don't think I have created a straw man of people arguing for the film to turn into a matter-of-fact, kitchen sink drama. What I am disputing, however, is the argument that a narrative film is inherently flawed because protagonists have the opportunity to alleviate themselves from a yet unforeseen chain of events - and go back to mundanity - yet choose not to.

As we can see from the decision tree you bought to the table, there are plenty of opportunities for the protagonist to leave. I'm not disputing that. How many of these cannot be explained rationally in a rather innocent manner though? I've ended up talking to people who I know are likely to be trouble, when I know I should probably just politely say goodbye and leave. I've then hung around and got to know them and found out things that have made me feel uncomfortable and still stuck around - maybe I've taken a liking to another member of the group? I've then got involved in something I shouldn't have done, which turned out to be worse than I thought when I initially said I'd come along. After that, I am then willing to explain away the rest of the film where the protagonist goes along with it because she is more scared of what happens if she doesn't. She figures that if she is caught, she can explain that she was coerced, and nobody is going to get hurt, right?

For what it's worth, I don't have any particular interest in convincing you of the merits of the film. If the film is too far-fetched for you, then fair enough. I simply want to present an alternate view in that I don't perceive screenplays as being inherently flawed simply because protagonists make a series of potentially unwise decisions, especially when the majority of the initial decision points, as you laid them out, are really quite innocent. In addition, for the latter three, I'm not sure they either are fair representations of the film, nor such clear-cut decisions that you think about with a rational state of mind. I'm not sure I'd split from the group when being chased by cops, especially in a country where I do not speak the language. I'm not sure how I would react to thinking I'd got away with such a crime, especially after such a cocktail of drugs, alcohol and adrenaline.

This is sort of a separate point, but from a technical point of view at least the events of the film are possible, unlike in say 24 (which I also used to like) when cutting between places gave the writers are lot of leeway to mould time and distance. People's views will vary on the degree of plausibility however. I liked that exploration of what could occur in real-time in a mere couple of hours.

What the film captures really well for me is that sense of youth when you've gained your independence and are travelling or living abroad. The feeling of the possibilities being endless and that anything could happen - and for the most part you just go along with it. That sense of meeting and getting to know someone, and your life changing irreversibly because of a chance encounter. The challenge of you both struggling to communicate in your second or third languages, but still having a connection.

If you told me when I first went to Germany in the summer of 2010 that as a result of a chance encounter I'd end up changing all my plans, I'd travel to Bulgaria by train, ditch going to university in Italy, end up spending most of the next four years in Ukraine, all because I met someone, had a spark and got engaged to her 2 months after meeting her, I'd think you crazy, but it happened. I've personally done plenty of things that seem unsensible on reflection all because of a chance encounter.

[Lost Highway]

Count me with those who thought this was a stupid and tedious film. Dramatically everything felt like it was there to facilitate the one-shot conceit, at no moment did I believe in the central character's decision making as anything more than that she need to get the camera into some sort of action. And then of course the film lumbered on for ever around scenes which otherwise would have had their pacing tightened via much needed editing. Sure we do impulsive things when we are young, but there is spontaneous and then there is moronic.

[beamish13]

Yes, it's one-note, trite and predictable, but the novelty and Laia Costa's fantastic performance somehow kept me engaged throughout its running time. I really hope Costa gets to headline some more films; I think she's amazingly talented.

[TMDaines]

I don't wish to give the impression that I thought this was the greatest film ever without flaws, but, disagreeing with Lost Highway, I thought one of its strengths were the longer scenes in the first half with the character development and observational cinema style, where things start as just a normal night. That for me was the stronger part of the film with the post-club scenes definitely the weaker. The atmosphere that initial part of the film set was so true to me.

[Tommaso]

I don't wish to give the impression that I thought this was the greatest film ever without flaws, but, disagreeing with Lost Highway, I thought one of its strengths were the longer scenes in the first half with the character development and observational cinema style, where things start as just a normal night.

I couldn't agree more. Fantastic way of simply creating 'mood' in these initial parts of the film, much helped of course by Nils Frahm's music. I guess that's why I really liked the film in spite of sharing zedz' criticisms about the plot improbabilities: the film, and not just in these initial moments, managed to immerse me: in the locations, in the characters, in the night-time atmosphere. In this respect, it's also a great 'city film'. And the one-shot technique is probably the main reason for the feeling of 'being there', not just as an observer in the cinema, but as someone who could easily be a member of the 'gang' who just perchance doesn't happen to be on screen as well.