criterionforum.org

That's the same font and colour that was used on at least one of his other movies so it's not too surprising. Maybe an attempt at a signature?

You're right. I looked at some of his other posters. The man seems to have an inordinate fondness for Microsoft WordArt.

zedz wrote:Le Havre is certainly charming, but there are no surprises (even the various twists you can see coming miles ahead): it's exactly how you'd expect this material to play and look in a Kaurismaki film (you can even predict the lighting from shot to shot). The contemporary immigration issue was nicely integrated into his old-world vision, however. I can understand people liking the film a lot, but I don't get the Cannes raves: is it just that genuinely nice films are so hard to come by at the moment?

I suppose you could accuse Kaurismaki of working and re-working such a highly specific aesthetic niche that surprises aren't really reasonable to expect, but the films of his I like the best are the ones that have unexpectedly gone darker (The Match Factory Girl) or deeper (Drifting Clouds) than usual.

Le Havre opened in Finland few weeks ago and received mostly extremely positive reviews.Critical comments were along the lines what Zedz wrote,everything is too familiar.I can understand the criticism as there really isnt nothing new here but I thought it was a beautiful film and noticed couple of nuances worth pointing out.I knew that this was going to be a "fairy tale " film and maybe as a result the movie has an odd,innocent tone.This might have something to do with the fact that Kaurismäki has rarely used a child actor(only Ariel comes to mind),and even Marcel(leading character)is,if I remember correctly,described as a big kid.Secondly,this turned out to be the most optimistic film he's ever made which was somewhat surprising in the light of his recent comments(see page 1)in Cannes about the state of mankind.This man is full of paradoxes indeed.

This was my first time seeing a Kaurismäki, and right off the bat, I thought the lighting, sense of composition and total disregard for the 180 degree rule was excellent.

I've been to one of those refugee encampments in Calais and talked to both refugees and the locals as part of a journalism assignment - that makes it a little difficult for me to assess the story, because certain aspects of Kaurismäki's portrayal of this issue seem a bit warm and fuzzy to me, but his intentions aren't journalistic so I don't want to hold it against him. (The ending alone makes that clear.)

An absolutely beautiful film in every way possible. Wonderful characters, the colors are mesmerizing, and the entire tapestry of the film was just delightful. I loved it.

JPJ wrote:Le Havre opened in Finland few weeks ago and received mostly extremely positive reviews. Critical comments were along the lines what Zedz wrote,everything is too familiar.

The AV Club criticized it on the same grounds.

hearthesilence wrote:

JPJ wrote:Le Havre opened in Finland few weeks ago and received mostly extremely positive reviews. Critical comments were along the lines what Zedz wrote,everything is too familiar.

The AV Club criticized it on the same grounds.

I really HATE reviews like the AV Club one.

I agree (though if we're finding the same thing obnoxious I don't know). If a movie's good it's good no matter how well tread the ground is.

Haha, I really like Scott Tobias, but it does seem like a pretty meaningless critique- if you're unfamiliar with Kaurismaki, it won't matter to you, and if you like Kaurismaki enough that you keep going to his movies, you probably aren't going to mind that this one is like the other ones.

I think it's reasonable to criticize an artist for repeating themselves, and it's worth bringing up in a review- the trap there is the letter grade, which forces the critic to weight how much that repetition means in absolute terms. There's not really any good solution to that.

matrixschmatrix wrote:the trap there is the letter grade, which forces the critic to weight how much that repetition means in absolute terms. There's not really any good solution to that.

Well, an excellent solution would be to scrap the letter grade altogether, on the grounds of it being both patronising (to the film and the reader) and pointlessly reductive.

But I concede that Scott probably doesn't have much control over that.

Tobias's "well, Ozu was different" line of argument strikes me as incredibly disingenuous - and unconvincing. I suspectt that if Ozu wasn't (at the moment) too revered to allow for shallow patronizing, he'd get the same sort of brush-off. This review positively reeks with the odor of smug condescension. (Not unexpectedly, his review of Lights in the Dusk was quite similar in its tone: http://www.avclub.com/articles/lights-in-the-dusk,3424/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ).

I've seen every Kaurismaki film so far, except the newest -- and not one has seemed "unnecessary" (except LC2) or unduly repetitious of territory previously covered. I doubt I'll find the new one any less valid. I eagerly await the opportunity to judge for myself. ;~}

MichaelB wrote:Well, an excellent solution would be to scrap the letter grade altogether, on the grounds of it being both patronising (to the film and the reader) and pointlessly reductive.

But I concede that Scott probably doesn't have much control over that.

Right, I think the critics there have all more or less said they wanted to get rid of it, but it's apparently commercially dangerous to do so. I meant there wasn't a good solution within the context of having to keep a letter grade.

Michael Kerpan wrote:Tobias's "well, Ozu was different" line of argument strikes me as incredibly disingenuous - and unconvincing. I suspectt that if Ozu wasn't (at the moment) too revered to allow for shallow patronizing, he'd get the same sort of brush-off. This review positively reeks with the odor of smug condescension. (Not unexpectedly, his review of Lights in the Dusk was quite similar in its tone: http://www.avclub.com/articles/lights-in-the-dusk,3424/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ).

I've seen every Kaurismaki film so far, except the newest -- and not one has seemed "unnecessary" (except LC2) or unduly repetitious of territory previously covered. I doubt I'll find the new one any less valid. I eagerly await the opportunity to judge for myself. ;~}

Looking at the other review, I suspect part of the problem is that Tobias just isn't fully on Kaurismaki's wavelength, yet has seen all of his movies for one reason or another. I wonder if the AVClub just doesn't have a full-fledged Aki fan on its staff.

What I also sense is a considerable degree of impatience towards film makers who don't boldly stake out new territory with each and every film. (You also see something of this in Tobias's reviews of Jia's and Hou's films).

Not to mention his (or someone's at that site anyways) reviews of Wes Anderson.

Le Havre was photographed on 35 mm film of course and I've been wondering why the movie looked like shit when I saw it on opening day september 9th,until I just realized that I actually saw it projected digitally!Seems like most(all?!)movie theaters in Finland are getting rid of traditional film projectors.This is truly terrible and short sighted situation!

I saw this today, in a nearly empty showing on one of the last days it's playing at the theater here- it's pretty delightful. I haven't actually seen much of his other work, so I don't know how often the sort of Amelie-esque tone of optimism shows up in Kaurismaki's other films, but I really can't imagine that it would be something that would grow tiresome- the texture of the movie, the moment to moment sense of a really decent and optimistically-viewed community is such a good time that I wouldn't mind spending any number of movies with it.

We saw this on its first (and last, for now) weekend in Boston -- and the theater was almost full. The audience seemed to love it -- a surprisingly high percentage (over half) actually stayed all the way through the credits. My top tier of Kaurismaki films is already large, but had room enough for this to be added. One of the most genuinely nice films I've seen in a while (since Linda Linda Linda, perhaps).

Michael Kerpan wrote: The audience seemed to love it -- a surprisingly high percentage (over half) actually stayed all the way through the credits.

Is this really a reliably indicator for audience enjoyment? My experience when I worked at a theater was largely that those who stayed through the credits were fanatics and zealots who were going to stay regardless of whether or not they enjoyed the film.
I don't understand what one gets from watching credits in a language one doesn't understand, especially when there are reams and reams of technical, catering, corporate sponsorship, and animal training credits to cycle through on nearly every latter day production.

FerdinandGriffon wrote:I worked at a theater was largely that those who stayed through the credits were fanatics and zealots who were going to stay regardless of whether or not they enjoyed the film.
I don't understand what one gets from watching credits in a language one doesn't understand, especially when there are reams and reams of technical, catering, corporate sponsorship, and animal training credits to cycle through on nearly every latter day production.

I always viewed it as a sign of respect for the hard work of the people whose names are listed on the screen, English or not. For me, the credits are part of the film experience. Yes, I'm the guy who sat there preventing you from sweeping the popcorn off the floor.

I'll admit that if a movie sucks, I'm a lot more likely to check out before they're over, and I think that Kerpan is probably right that if a large number of people stay (more than just the "fanatics and zealots"), it likely indicates a feeling of satisfaction from the audience. Le Havre is an absolute crowdpleaser regardless. I drug a couple of casual filmgoers with me two a festival screening a few weeks ago, and they were both enraptured, as was I. It's a slight little fable, but it's hard not to fall for its considerable charm.

Yes, a lovely film, in any case. And I imagine the credits were quite short.

PS: I hate to slight your film-going habits twice Jeff, but I must admit that i find your practice of drugging friends in order to get them into the theater questionable. I hope you at least paid for their tickets!

Ha! Though a substantial amount of alcohol was consumed, I guess "dragged" would have been the correct word choice there.

"My name is Jeff, and I take advantage of the inebriated by making them watch Kaurismäki films."

Most of the remainees seemed to be happily chatting about how they liked the film as the credits rolled (at least the ones we could eavesdrop on).

I don't think this little fable is as slight as conventional wisdom would have it (which is true with most of the other Kaurismaki films of this sort -- viz. the utterly wonderful but generally little-regarded Tatiana, Take Care of Your Scarf).

I quite liked this movie. It, along with a special screening of Leningrad Cowboys Go America was my introduction to Kaurismäki. I wrote a review of finally seeing these two movies here.

Slight, this movie certainly is not, and I would expect it to go for the best foreign language Oscar this year. This man is a master filmmaker!

Hans M. wrote:I would expect it to go for the best foreign language Oscar this year.

Well, it is indeed Finland's nomination for the Oscars, but whether or not it'll get on the final shortlist is anybody's guess.

The last time he was nominated (for The Man Without a Past), he boycotted the ceremony in protest over the Iraq invasion, and this is the sort of snub that the Academy tends to remember. He also refused to attend the New York Film Festival in protest over Abbas Kiarostami being denied a visa, saying something like "If they don't want an Iranian, they certainly won't want a Finn".

MichaelB wrote:Well, it is indeed Finland's nomination for the Oscars, but whether or not it'll get on the final shortlist is anybody's guess.

The last time he was nominated (for The Man Without a Past), he boycotted the ceremony in protest over the Iraq invasion, and this is the sort of snub that the Academy tends to remember. He also refused to attend the New York Film Festival in protest over Abbas Kiarostami being denied a visa, saying something like "If they don't want an Iranian, they certainly won't want a Finn".

Interesting. The thing is I see it high on critics' lists (especially) Europe, but you are right, you must account for the industry types that run the Oscars. Still, despite that, I do think the film hits all the right notes (aesthetically) for consideration.