A rural melodrama that stood well the test of
time. Indeed, the impact it causes nowadays is even bigger than in the past.
This film having been made already at a time when Hollywood was at the height
of its art in the silent era, reflecting transformations brought by
urbanization and progress, this film remains a valuable witness of a way of
life gone long ago.
Having been
able to build up an unique cultural patrimony, Finland has always had a very
characteristic way of life, not being so much similar to its Scandinavian
neighbors. Having been part of Russia until late 1910s, back to 1925, they have
been an independent country for less than 10 years. Nevertheless, despite their
close cultural and political contact with Russia, they got to retain their own
culture. As in neighbor countries, most people lived in the countryside and
peasants had their own values and beliefs. Regardless of peaceful place, there
were a plenty of political conflicts and people had their share of problems.
The film
portrays the conflicts of free peasants and Russian rulers. The wounds of their
recent Civil War were still very recent and political conflicts and resolution
of traumas among country population were still an issue back to 1920s. Russian
authorities were also displayed as disrupting the tranquil, honorable and free
way of life of Finnish peasants, representing the voice of oppression over
those good people, who would not allow their honor to be stained so easily.
Nevertheless,
despite all suffering brought by the authorities, we can see the fields, forest
and nature represent spaces where the freedom of people could not be taken by
anyone. They were spaces were people could feel happy without fear, being
directly connected with God, with their values, honor. The interaction with
nature as a whole was perfect, almost sacred. This can be reflected even in the
beautiful and strong religions ethics of people and in the solidarity among
themselves. This is a somehow idealized portrait, even though it's not entirely
distant from reality. Just a way to paint reality with a more beautiful paint,
but a realistic one somehow.
Somehow we
can remember of the "good country people" being so many times
portrayed in American life and literature, but with a very important
difference. The peasant and rural way of life was already changing little by
little in main American cities back to 1920s, while it was much more untouched
in Scandinavia at the same decade. Thus, this film, rather than being a
reconstruction of a country life that was starting to face, was in fact a
witness of how people actually lived. This is something that brings a realism
to this film that is impossible to be ignored. The nostalgia it inspires is
something that only increases the high emotional impact of the film in the
audience.
However,
the audience must pay attention to one thing that might be one of weakest
points of the film: There are many characters, all of them are important to the
development of the story. It's important to pay attention to their names and in
some of their personality traits, otherwise it becomes difficult to keep track
of the plot.
For non
Scandinavian audiences, not only the time references are different, but also
cultural references are quite different from what they are used to, which sometimes
gives the impression that people are watching a "folkloric" movie.
But, once
again, what makes a film like that so special? After all, back to the silent
era, in many countries the majority of population lived in the countryside and
rural areas. Consequently, rural values were still nationally and culturally
valid, opposite to urban values that were considered alien and even somehow
wicked. An example this thought can be seen even in the more-urbanized United
States in its film Sunrise ― a song of two
humans, directed by F. W. Murnau,
which was made in 1927 at the very end of American silent era.
It has been
said that urbanization has begun relatively late in Finland in comparison with
most Central European countries. So, the production of films emphasizing rural
values, considered legitimate among most of population members, was also a way
of praising their own national values and at the same time discussing themes
that many people would feel related because it was part of their daily lives.
We must also not forget that manual work was still very much present in the
lives of people in the entire silent era compared with subsequent decades.
Although it
is a melodrama in all senses, acting is not very stagy and it is even subtle
and natural at some moments, despite some other moments of acting that resemble
the stage. However, the performances have a natural effect in the overall,
specially in comparison with some films made in Denmark and Russia back to
1910s, which had a much more stagy acting.
All in all,
this film stood well the test of time and its appeal just gets bigger. It is a
must see, specially when compared with Hollywood films of the same era. Both
Scandinavian and American silents are very good and it is very fun to compare
them both and see their similarities and differences.
Further reading and materials:
1. Directory of World Cinema:
Finland, edited by Pietari Kaapa,Pietari Kääpä http://books.google.com.br/books?id=iXJ0hNaTwJcC&pg=PA73&lpg=PA73&dq=the+bothnians+%281925%29&source=bl&ots=8gpq_SJCp9&sig=8a3Qwnkkph6XzxjgFlHEibxyuH8&hl=pt-PT&sa=X&ei=cQrAU_7RFa_fsATfmYDIBg&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=the%20bothnians%20%281925%29&f=false
2. Nordic National Cinemas, edited by Gunnar
Iverson,Astrid Soderbergh Widding,Tytti Soila http://books.google.com.br/books?id=7zKIAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=Pohjalaisia,+plot&source=bl&ots=rz8zTr7WuF&sig=Koh9UlpR-zrAcXZRM5iUjFqj9uU&hl=pt-PT&sa=X&ei=PwDAU9DzI4rPsAST0YG4DA&ved=0CF4Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Pohjalaisia%2C%20plot&f=false
No comments:
Post a Comment