Über die Unendlichkeit

Of all the great Swedish filmmakers, none is quite as easily identifiable as legend Roy Andersson. He is known for his quirky yet miserable films where each scene -- or rather, vignette -- is done in a static, uninterrupted wide shot (barring a few highly deliberate exceptions) and showcases pale everyday Swedes with the weights of modern life constantly on their shoulders, but also ultimately basking in its beauty.

This is what made his Living trilogy iconic; About Endlessness (Om det oändliga) shakes things up a bit by having a clear leading lady, yet is still very much an Andersson movie. Like all his films, it seems so hopeless on the surface, yet we cannot escape the feeling that Andersson genuinely hopes that things will get better (suffering is simply part of the wonder). Another oxymoron is the deliberate "fakeness" of the visuals (the movie willfully looks like a stage play at points) versus how "real" the movie's being. As usual, the scenes range from simple to large and intricate - with entire lives going on in the background, usually indifferent to the main subject. The colors are as pale and sickly as the characters.

Now, I've been a huge fan of Andersson since I started the Living trilogy with A Pigeon Sat on a Branch last year (I'd say he's up there with the Bergmans and Östlunds of our sausage-shaped country). I then moved on to Songs from the Second Floor and eventually finished the journey with You the Living not too long ago. I adored all three and maybe it helped that I let each film sit with me for a while. I was ready to put About Endlessness on my 2019 list.

But since I checked on Andersson's catalog rather recently, and had seen his unmistakable style done in two more pictures before then, I'm sad to say a lot of what I saw in About Endlessness felt a little been-done. I've seen these maudlin Swedes in these hilariously sad situations before. I still enjoyed the cringe comedy, visuals, music, and the delightfully old-school Swedishness of it all, but it is no longer as extraordinary.

What sets this one apart from the Living trilogy, however, is the presence of a narrator who identifies reoccurring themes in all the vignettes, such as loneliness, love (or lack thereof), and faith. I have read that she is supposed to be an angel, and she seems to be experiencing a series of moments, similarly to how Dr. Manhattan perceives his own memories; we see past and present events in non-chronological order.

Strangely, this does not necessarily tie all the sketches together in an especially neat way. The movie may have felt more fully-realized if the different characters we meet ran into each other in sketches focusing on someone else. You the Living used this "hyperlink" method of tying together vignettes but my favorite instance of Andersson doing this must be the final shot of Songs from the Second Floor, which haunts me to this day. One might suspect that the vignettes we see here are scenes that Andersson deleted from his previous films since they didn't fit together with the rest anyways, but Andersson is hardly so thoughtless.

I will say this, though: this was an inordinately pleasant screening. The local multiplex didn't play it, of course (factory-made stuff like Charlie's Angels and The Lion King is clearly more important than art), so I had to go to the arthouse cinema/cultural center, where you can have a burger and alcohol before the film and whatnot; my first time going there since the Die Hard anniversary screening one year ago (I'll be there with someone special for their celebration of Akira next week, as well). I was the only attendee under 60.

This movie is a thrill, trust me. I really wanted to watch this one because i loved its look and how unique and gloomy it is. The storyline seemed also really promising, something about human connection and our desire to understand life and explain its power and darkness and infinite but absurd beauty always gets. It is what makes "Synedoche, New York" or "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" so great. They are sad, but lead to a greater realisation about humanity or left things and questions to digest. I personally expected something of the same feel, but what I got was... a comedy? Now, now wait a minute.

This film is one of the most funny films of the year and what is so striking is that it magages to poke fun at people and situations but at the same time it is so consistent in its sad tone and it feels so clear and to the point. Its flow is unbeatable. Yes, its basically a series of short stories, two of which are exlored more. Some moments are everyday simple moments that we give zero attention, but they are presented i nsuch a poignant way that we see how we sometime miss the overall beauty of simplicity and nothingness, bercause we have the idea that the big moments matter and are of great importance and we are often so blinded by our sadness and everyday issues that we don't allow ourselves to take a step back, look afar and see that everytihng hides a beauty, from a historical moment ,like war images, to a walk to school.

Personally, I feel like I've missed so many good moments becauseI was stuck in small problems and rubbish and I forget that a conversation or a kind gesture might be what we need to feel so that we can deal with our sad and torubled lives. Maybe looking from afar at anything and stopping to try to deal with every single thing we feel or suffer from, can lead to a small taste of salvation.

The film talks about faith, religion, bureaucracy,politics, existence, identity, the desire to feel and love and experience and find importance in true beauty and search for a way to feel complete, but its tone is sad and funny and I really loved her voice as the narrator.

The sad blues, the stylish browns, the dark reds and finally the hopeful yellows create a brand new world so distinct but so familiar to ours. The consistency in the framing and presentation, the delicate and socially and politically active script with tons of funny and satirical dialogue and coscepts and the truly entertaining storytelling, lead the viewer to a significant, enlightening and kind of cathartic and profound experience about the human struggle and joy.I don't want to analyse or dig any short story up. Just definatley watch this one and experience it.

It's like the most fullfilling and beautiful poem cmae to life to tell its story in the most interesting and hillarious of ways.

31 vignettes that are a cross between the film Wings of Desire + paintings by Edward Hopper + a thematic apperception test.

The camera doesn't move.

The colour palate is richly muted.

Not a lot happens.

Some scenes are completely banal.

Some are fantasy.

Some tragic.

Still, it's engrossing in its quiet feeling of solitude.

This perfect slice of life story vignette its so meticulous and purposeful just a series of random memories from a somebody's life, I never felt so identified with a movies plot before, its a movie about nothing and all at the same time, looking forward to see the other directors work.

Yes. We know Anderson and his style by heart. Yes, we love him with all our heart!

But... I was a bit de-mystified by the fact that in this (potentially very meta-physical) story-composition there was MANY TIMES a voice over telling us what we just saw on our own. Chances are I truly missed the point of this, but after few minutes I felt truly annoyed by it... "yes I see myself a man with a problem that is xy" I thought many times. Was this the point?

Overall, apart from the seemingly unnecessary narrator, some of the scenes were "too light" for my taste, but I guess taste is just taste. Young people, dancing in sunlight; young people staring at each other. More profanity without the dark, underlying melancholy. Most of his other scenes in older movies feature also way more "mystical" (unexplained/riddled) situations, might they be more absurd, more surreal, more melancholic, more dramatic. Many scenes in this film felt quite "un-dramatic"... but again, maybe this was his point, finally giving us more light, more normal situations, more insight into happiness?

Apart from this point ( that I maybe didn't get): loved the absurdity, some of the actors, most of the sets (splendid as ALWAYS), the groteque, the paintinglike style, the "Andersonesque" techniques to tell a story.

Maybe one of you "unlocked" the solution to this film's mystery?