Hawaii, Oslo

Hawaii, Oslo is a story about the fear of being alone and the struggle to find someone to love. Set in present day Oslo, Erik Poppe's second film tells three different stories that intertwine. First is the story of Leon, an institutionalized kleptomaniac who is celebrating his 25th birthday. He is waiting for Åsa, a longtime friend and soon to be fiancé if they carry out their pact to marry each other if they are both single at 25. The plan becomes more complicated when his imprisoned brother, Trygve, comes with plans to escape the guard watching him and move to Hawaii with Leon. Leon is unwillingly taken on a journey through the streets of Oslo which seem to be taking him farther and farther from Åsa.

Next, we meet Mikkel and Magne, brothers who are living on their own after the recent death of their father. Mikkel fears separation from his brother if they enter into state care and acts hostile towards two social workers who take them to see their father's funeral. He is also hostile towards his mother, who has not seen her boys in over ten years. She is introduced in the film with a failed suicide attempt, but finds meaning in life when notified of her children's' father's death by Magne. Her battle to become the boys' mother will not be easy as Mikkel and Magne run away to avoid separation in foster homes.

Frode and Mille are the last couple we meet in the film and are the happy parents of a newly-born boy. Their joy over parenthood is destroyed, however, as they learn that their child has a rare heart condition and most likely will not survive for more than a week. Only one hospital in the world has ever fixed this kind of defect, and the operation will cost 900,000 kroner (about $155,000), far more than the couple's assets. Frode will stop at nothing to raise the necessary funds for the operation while Mille gives up on hope for a cure. Their relationship understandably becomes strained over the fate of their child.

While these three story lines intertwine, they are connected by Vidar, a supervisor at the institution where Leon lives. He has the ability to see the future and past in his dreams and seems to have a platonic love for anyone he encounters. As he bumps into the troubled characters of the film, he uses his visions to prepare them for the future and comfort them about the past.

The film centers on the characters' struggle to find love in their life and the fear of losing the love or fallacy of love they already have. The characters are beautifully portrayed in this aspect, and their fears and hopes seem real. Nothing is overplayed or romanticized and the stories create a fear for the worst in the viewer. Leon is driven by the memory of Åsa and is determined to reach her if she shows up. He is also haunted by the fear that she has forgotten him and that he will never see her again. Meanwhile, Frode fears losing his child and will do anything to assure a long and healthy life for the boy. He sells all his assets, including a guitar once owned by Nirvana's Kurt Cobain, but still comes up short in his quest for 900,000 kroner. With the almost certain death of his child approaching, he must act quickly if he wants to save both the boy and his relationship with his wife. At first glance, Mikkel may appear to dislike his brother, often berating and abusing him. However, this is a sign of love as Mikkel fears losing Magne and only wants to control him to keep him close. He fears his mother does not actually love them as she attempts to become their guardian once again. We see this is not true though, for she seems to need them to carry on with her life. There are some other minor story lines about love including an ambulance worker who falls for the boys' mother after saving her and the love Trygve feels for Leon.

The movie also has religious and spiritual themes. Vidar uses his visions to guide and comfort the other characters and is seen as a guardian angel or even as a Jesus-like image. Early in the film, he quotes Jesus in order to stop a patient from harming Leon, saying, "Whatever you do to Leon, you also do to me." He also seems to shed feathers in several scenes and Leon even calls him his guardian angel while holding one of these feathers. There is a great scene later in the movie when we learn that another recurring character is "not who she says she is," but presumably an angel as well. These two divine figures interfere with what appears to be the fate of the characters to be alone and are a driving force for change in the lives of those around them. I did not find this theme particularly compelling but thought it was well done. Poppe presents the divine figures in a very subtle way, not making the movie about them but using them to progress the story. I also think that religious audiences will be more interested in this aspect of the film than I was.

Despite these triumphs, the film does have its drawbacks. The plot takes a long time to set up and the slow nature of the beginning can take viewers out of the story. The film is not particularly unique and has nothing new to say. The ending was especially predictable and turned me off a bit. However, Hawaii, Oslo was fun to watch and really involves the viewer. The experiences in the film are ones that everyone can connect to and sympathize with, and the story, driven by many great performances, is engrossing once it takes off.

7/10

I recently saw this film at a screening by the Desert Film Society in Palm Springs. I had wanted to see this at the 2005 Palm Springs International Film Festival where it had it's international debut outside of Norway but screenings were sold out so I was eager to see this as it had good reviews by those I know who saw it. Eric Poppe makes his directorial debut in this film. He had been a cameraman so experience in filming a movie was there but how was he going to direct this story and it's actors? Well this film had a wonderful cast of actors who although they may have not been individually great actors, collectively as an ensemble cast they played their parts with an authenticity that left the viewer as seeing these as real people not just screen characters. I like characters in a film and this has plenty. The implausibility of these stories weaving together is quickly forgotten and in place of the implausible is a wonderful story that you want to climb aboard and ride to it's conclusion. Poppe uses hand held cameras through this film's shooting so effectively that you forget that this is not a huge budget film with track and crane shots but a simple presentation that when effectively done presents the film in a straightforward manor that can be just as effective. No dependency on jerky movements and fast and stylistic camera movement but instead on honest presentation transcribed to film. The sound in this film is outstanding as well. Many films demand great acting performances to carry an other wise weak script. This film had good acting performances delivered from a balanced script. This is a psychological drama and a very good film and I would rate it a 8.0 of a possible 10 and highly recommend it.

"Hawaii, Oslo" is great, moving, well-acted and brilliantly directed.

I think it's a film about learning to love and be loved. About choices, about forgetting what one did in the past and moving on. About both accepting one's Reality and sacrificing oneself for the good of others...

The narrative is not linear, but we can understand the story easily. All pieces come together when the credits roll, and although it's a very pungently moving film, there is a sense of Hope throughout the whole thing.

All the stories within the story are finely woven, there are no plot holes. The characters are quite believable and every scene has a purpose.

I'm planning to see it again (saw it at a Nordic Cinema Showing in my city) to try and absorb it better.

This is a remarkably well constructed movie that is fascinating to watch yet somehow manages to fall flat. The many characters race constantly around Oslo on an atypically scorching summer day (nobody seems to walk there, regardless of the heat and sweat, or to drive slowly) on their various frantic individual quests, briefly intersecting or passing each other unknown and unknowing, until they all come together magically in the end.

As others have already said, there is much in this movie that is derivative of earlier movies, but a good movie does not have to be innovative. However, it does - for me - almost always have to make me care about the characters, and that is what this one failed almost completely to do.

I cared about only one of the dozen or so main characters scurrying and caroming around the city like pinballs, and he was the least frantic, the most unassuming of them all: little Magne, the younger (and quieter) of the younger pair of brothers, played with exquisite, tender understatement by Ferdinand Falsen Hiis.

Magne was like a small but solid rock in this swirling storm of a movie, and it would have been been crushed under the weight of its own overwrought melodrama without him. To use a contrasting metaphor, he is like the gravity that keeps the universe from spinning out into nothingness.

Erik Poppe gets one star for choreographing this frenetic dance, and Ferdinand Falsen Hiis gets four stars for holding it together just by being in it. He makes it worth watching. ALL the adults are just too frenzied to either believe or care about.

This movie got rave reviews in the Norwegian press, and has also been a huge success with the audience. Initially I thought it was sympathetic, albeit very slow - with good actors and some really nice cinematography - but what was it really all about? The script clearly not very original, a cheapo take on the brilliant Altman epos "Short Cuts". OK - the director is in every right to be inspired by great art. But then I started to notice how much was pick pocketed, from the title (Paris, Texas - hello??)- the running character; and the need for a LOT of cash (Run Lola, run)- the angelic characters (Der Himmel über Berlin) - hmmm... the list just goes on and on. Zero originality here,the borderline between_inspiration_and_simple theft is stepped across too many times. On top of this, the director stresses emotions in a not very subtle fashion. I am tempted to call this genre " feelie ", as opposed to the "feel good"-genre so popular these days. Its not feel good, but darn close. The ending of this movie is almost unbelievably sentimental. No wonder people leave the theatre weeping, but this is a response heavily stressed by and wished for of the direction, something I find deeply disturbing - almost unethical!

This movie just serves to justify my life-long suspicion towards the Norwegian film industry and so-called critics alike.