Some thirty years ago, a treasure of old photographs emerged from a family attic. A woman living in Sweden in the first decades of the 20th century, started taking photographs of her family, neighbors and the area around her, even though her family was very poor. This story has been turned into a feature movie, with a star cast of actors from Scandinavia to celebrate her life and work. Lets see if there might be a few other agenda´s in play also. It is hard to believe that some obscure woman, taking mediocre photographs should be elevated to stardom, just for that reason alone.
Maria (Maria Heiskanen) takes care of her home and family. her husband Sigge (Mikael Persbrandt), a former sailor and occasional drinker, works as a day-laborer, where ever he can find work... on the harbor or in the limestone quarry. Their economy is not very good not least because of all the children she is putting into the world, and in an attempt to raise some money, she decides to figure out if she can sell an old camera she inherited from her mother.
At the photography shop owned by Pedersen (Jesper Christensen), she is convinced to keep the camera by his enthusiastic and artistic view of the world. A glimpse of "another life" sparks in her mind obviously. At first she is a bit reluctant, but takes a very well made shot of her (at that time) four children. But she keeps her new "hobby" secret for her husband, as she obviously knows he will blame her for not doing her "homework" well enough if she has time to take photographs, while he is working hard labor 10 hours a day, to make ends meet.
Now best as I thought this was going to be an interesting movie about artistic expression, it drags on for 2 hours, dealing with Sigge´s drinking "problem" and the general management of the family. Never, do we get more than a hint that she is also a "photographer". Then my suspicions are raised, because there must be another agenda to show the "life" of a woman.
And shure enough. This is a camouflaged piece of feminist propaganda. Everything has to revolve around her. She never appreciate his work and the money he brings home, she keeps sex from him to force him to stop drinking but as it was in those days, society pressure to stay on the beaten path of virtue, often resulted in drunkenness to forget the prisonlike nature of everyday reality. of course she shows no empathy whatsoever, only demands to do this or that and complain that he does not do things the way she wants it.
But then, why did she marry a half-stupid, drunken sailor then, if she would rather like a soft mannered and safe choice like Pedersen, who has got the hots for her. Because she wanted the alpha-male sperm no matter what, thinking she then could turn him into a nice little beta slave afterwards. She wanted the big and muscular, and half-violent brute genes, to mix with her own ... but when the kids arrive, she wants the safe beta provider instead. This is actually the base story of this movie and it is seen time and time again in movies, but nobody recognizes it.
Back then the first-wave feminism had not yet kicked in, since women had not yet received full voting rights. But still we see her blaming Sigge for having communist inspirations, while she a bit later goes to the authorities to beg for money. The hypocrisy is complete. She does not understand that she is the problem of the family. She does not support her husband in anyway, pushing him away, in her immoral inclination to run with his genes. She keeps secrets from him, while she demands he not doing it. She keeps sex from him, but blames him keeping a lover. All is within the modern politically correct view of how a feminist sees the world and that "all men are bastards" (parafrasing) as it is stated by another woman at some point.
Her daughter starts to blame the mother that she stays with him. They can manage on their own in their little matriarchy. But as the good selfsacrificing woman she is - she stays with him. I guess she wants the alpha cock more than the beta bucks. As usual it is men that are portrayed as the sexually deviant or promiscuous and the women that have to put up with them. The women are able to show (each other empathy and support), but the men must be held down or away since they are evil. It is so stereotypical and politically correct it makes me puke. And the last shot we see is ... of course, a narcissistic self portrait, known as a selfie nowadays... that is what it is ... narcissistic feminist selfinterests spread over two hours of feature film.
I must mention the classy performances of particularly the male roles by Persbrandt and danish Jesper Christensen. They are a delight to watch. Danish actor Ghita Nørby also has a small role, but not present enough to dig into, though she is also one of the big ones. Persbrandt is so Swedish in his appearance and behavior it really melts your heart. I love this guy. he is a natural, acting with great confidence but in a effortless manner. Christensen is perfect as the introvert perfectionist, Sherlock Holmes type, photographer, looking for new love in a very understated way. He is also one of my top actors. Overall there is not a finger to put on anything about this movie ... except one thing. The story sucks. There is nothing there, the woman does not develop into anything over th course of two hours. She struggles with her feminist tendencies and her husband and so on, but that is not really the reason why I came to this movie. It is about a photographer ... and then she takes about 3-4 shots during the movie .. and then that' s it. It is a manipulation of the audience and I do not like that. I did not really find it boring at any time, but this was due to the great actor performances of said actors, not because of the plot or the story. Sorry.
Rating : 4/10
