Hello hello, people of the internet, how are you? Today I would like to talk to you about a series that has me hooked, I'm already on the 5th season (the last one) and as you may have noticed, I don't usually watch or talk about series or movies that are trending at the moment 😄, I don't know, it's just that I always avoid doing what everyone else does, so in my eagerness to postpone the series, also because I had other ones pending, little by little I was forgetting about Money Heist, until recently I suggested to my family to watch it.

¡Hola Hola, gente de internet ¿Cómo están? Hoy me gustaría hablarles de una serie que me tiene enganchadísima, ya voy por la 5ta temporada (la última) y tal como quizá ya se hayan dado cuanta casi no suelo ver o hablar de series o películas que estén en tendencia en el momento 😄, no sé, es que siempre le huyo a eso de hacer lo que hace todo el mundo, así que en mi afán de postergar la serie, además porque tenía otras pendientes, poco a poco fui olvidando La Casa de Papel, hasta que recientemente le propuse a mi familia verla.

The series shows us how Sergio Marquina, also known as "The Professor" begins to recruit a group of criminals, each with specific skills, and begins to carefully instruct them with the goal of getting them into the coin and stamp factory and later the Bank of Spain, but in the process the characters learn valuable lessons and create such strong bonds that they make them rethink issues such as existence, the meaning of life and friendship.

The chapters are very exciting, each one different from the last, some more emotional, others more passionate or temperamental, impulsive, cynical, sentimental, logical—in short, there's a bit of everything, and each one contributes a lot to the plot. That's why the episodes are incredibly dynamic and always end in a way that leaves the viewer wanting more. The character development is, from my point of view, perfect, especially with Stockholm and Palermo, the latter my favorite character. Stockholm, for example, went from being a dependent and weak woman to a determined woman with clear goals, while Palermo went from being a selfish egomaniac to valuing friendship, love, and teamwork.

Los capítulos son muy emocionantes, cada uno diferente al otro, algunos más emocionales, otros más pasionales o temperamentales, impulsivos, cínicos, sentimentales, lógicos, en fin, hay de todo y cada uno aporta muchísimo a la trama, por eso los episodios son increíblemente dinámicos y siempre terminan de una manera que dejan al espectador con ganas de ver más. El desarrollo de personajes es, desde mi punto de vista, perfecto, en especial lo noté con Estocolmo y Palermo, este último mi personaje preferido. Estocolmo por ejemplo pasó de ser una mujer dependiente y débil a una mujer determinada con objetivos claros, mientras que Palermo pasó de ser un ególatra egoísta a valorar la amistad, el amor y el trabajo en equipo.

The narrative is very interesting because it alternates between what is happening at the mint and stamp factory or the Bank of Spain (the present) and the months of preparation in the abandoned house or the monastery (the past) but the flashbacks are very well defined and even labeled with the time left for the robbery, in this way they avoid it being confusing for the viewer, and it is also an excellent resource that serves to reveal part of the plans or how certain actions were carried out.

More than the robbery itself, the objective of the gang of robbers seems to be to expose the darkest secrets and methods of the system that governs us, and to do so they obviously must use drastic methods. But when all this comes to light, it makes you rethink who the real criminals are. Often, the system prioritizes power and the need to maintain the status quo over the lives of the hostages themselves, because it is inconceivable to present themselves to the world as weak and incapable, or worse yet, to make it evident that they are also criminals, but with important positions in the government, beings whom everyone sees as heroes and not as pariahs.

Más que el robo en sí, el objetivo de la banda de atracadores parece ser exponer los secretos y métodos más oscuros del sistema que nos rige, y para ello obviamente deben usar métodos drásticos, pero cuando todo esto va saliendo a la luz hace que te replantees el hecho de quienes son los verdaderos delincuentes. Muchas veces el sistema prioriza el poder y la necesidad de mantener el status QUO que la vida de los propios rehenes, porque es inconcebible mostrarse ante el mundo como débiles e incapaces, o peor aún, que quedara en evidencia que ellos también son delincuentes, pero con puestos importantes en el gobierno, seres a quienes todos ven como héroes y no como parias.

And well, people, that's all for today's post, I hope you liked it. Thank you very much as always for supporting my work, I welcome new readers, I love you all very much, I send you a hug and I'll see you in another post.

I made the cover and farewell image in Canva

How many days did I skip posting a blog here? I am sorry for being inactive. I have been facing a problem here in our house, but never mind, I feel a little better now.

For today's blog, allow me to share with you what I watched last week. I started to watch this last August 29, and I finished it last Wednesday of this week.

I want to share with you a good drama series to watch. It’s not Korean-made, but this time it’s Thai. The last time I watched a Thai drama was during the Mario Maurer era. Can I be honest about why I don’t watch Thai movies and dramas nowadays? It’s because most of the dramas they air are BL and GL. I don’t hate the LGBTQ+ community, but I’m just not comfortable watching two boys and/or two girls doing the things that are usually done by a man and a woman.

The Thai drama I’m talking about is Enigma. I know I’m two years late because this series aired back in 2023. I honestly didn’t know there was a non-BL/GL Thai series like this at that time.

The genre of this series is a supernatural thriller, but it’s also categorized as a drama, which is why I decided to watch it. That’s also the reason I was shocked and a bit confused while watching, because it actually has some horror vibes in it.

The first thing I noticed was their phone. Usually, actors and actresses in dramas use well-known or very popular gadgets like iPhones or Samsungs. But this? I wasn’t sure if it was a Xiaomi Redmi Note 13, an Infinix, or a Vivo, since those are the only phone brands with similar colors and designs.

I was amazed by the props. I don’t know if they bought them from a shop or if the director and staff were just really creative. I also admire the director for the uniqueness. It actually reminded me of my high school days when we also had to be creative in making props for our multimedia activities. Aside from writing scripts and editing videos, we also had to make props using cardboard, stones, used CDs, and so on.

I actually love the plot—like, seriously! You know what I mean? Charought! To be honest, I didn’t like Win Metawin before. I never really got the hype around him because I thought he was actually gay. But after watching him act, I was really amazed at how well he portrays every character he’s given. Now I understand that he’s not actually gay in real life; he just plays those roles as part of his work. I admire him for that, because it’s not easy to portray such a character if you’re straight in reality. I don’t know him personally, of course, but I see him as manly *(After i saw his abs 😂🙏🏻)*.

In this part of the series, the mask really gave me trauma. Like, damn! I couldn’t handle it. It wasn’t at all what I expected, since I usually manage to guess what happens next and even figure out who the real villain is in this kind of genre. But this time, I really didn’t see it coming—there was something I totally didn’t expect. That scene behind the mask is still stuck in my mind. My God!

This drama series is not the first one made in Thailand that I have watched. I actually watched a lot of Thai horror movies, and one of them is The Death Whisperer, which is what I actually remember here on this bamboo tree.

I said that I am not a fan of the GL series. But now, I finally get it! Dang, she's pretty and hot here in this part. I jaw-dropped while watching her like that. I really see some girls wearing eyeglasses much prettier because they have beauty behind those glasses. That’s why I’m now a fan of Prim. Aside from Baifern, she’s the second female lead whose beauty and acting skills I truly admire.

Beyond the humorous title of this video review, which aims to make you laugh and encourage you to watch this series, I must highlight the most positive aspect I noticed about Wednesday: its narrative balance. It is a story designed for teenagers with ambitions to achieve more narratively speaking, while retaining the exotic, dark, and humorous soul of the Addams family.

I recently watched the entire second season and call the story ambitious because its villains have surprising connections to the protagonists. The thing is, I don't think the impact was achieved. In other words, I see the effort Tim Burton and the rest of the team made to leave something memorable, but they didn't succeed, at least in this season.

I think the director and writers themselves realize that doing something cumbersome is not the way to go, and I applaud that because at the end of this season, I see how they try to return to the basic narrative roots, which in the case of Wednesday is the psychopathic, gloomy, obsessive, and toxic romance of the protagonists, which is what I liked most about the series and, in fact, where I detect that the audience reaches its greatest Addams climax.

Mas allá del titulo gracioso de esta video review con el propósito de hacerte reír y animarte a ver esta serie, tengo que resaltar lo mas positivo que percibí de Wednesday fue su equilibrio narrativo, es una historia diseñada para adolescentes con ambición de llegar a mas narrativamente hablando a la vez que conserva el alma exótica, oscura y graciosa de los Addams.

Recientemente vi ya toda su segunda temporada y nombre lo ambiciosa de la historia porque sus villanos tienen conexiones con los protagonistas que si sorprenden, el detalle es que el impacto no considere que se lograra, es decir, veo el esfuerzo de Tim Burton y el resto del equipo por dejar algo memorable pero no lo logra al menos en esta temporada.

Pienso que el mismo Director y los escritores se dan cuenta que hacer algo engorroso no es el camino, eso lo aplaudo porque al final de esta temporada veo como intentan volver a las raíces básicas narrativas que en el caso de Wednesday es el romance psicópata, tétrico, obsesivo y toxico de los protagonistas que en si es lo que mas me ha gustado de la serie y de hecho es donde detecto que la audiencia alcanza su mayor clímax Addams.

Resources used in the Thumbnail:

Thumbnail in my VIDEO Review Edited with Paint

Thumbnail in my VIDEO Review Edited with Paint

Thumbnail in my VIDEO Review Edited with Paint

Resources used in the video:

Source of TMDB Images

Source of IMDB Image

Source of IMDB Image

Source of IMDB Image

Source of IMDB Image

Source of TMDB Images

Resources used in the description:

Source of Youtube

Source of TMDB Image

Poster TMDB Source

My Social Networks: PromeX

Translated with DeepL Translate (Free Version)

---

▶️ 3Speak

Synopsis: Bill and Hall are twin brothers who, after finding an old toy monkey that belonged to their father, must deal with a series of horrific deaths that begin to occur around them. In their attempt to get rid of the toy, the brothers grow apart, but they reunite under unexpected circumstances.

Every horror movie that features an inanimate object as its main threat bestows upon this antagonist certain characteristics (physical or behavioral) that make them somewhat unique. This is almost like a trademark in this movie genre, because it's through this trait that the audience can more easily recognize the fear that inhabits that character. In this movie's case, we have a toy monkey with bulging eyes and a pair of drumsticks, which, when struck on a drum, randomly "choose" the people to be murdered.

Wherever I Look

Frame Rated

The toy's "peculiar" appearance truly stands out throughout the movie, even though it's only seen in a few scenes, always maintaining its "imposing" presence as the main threat. The toy's "macabre smile" also helps establish its identity, making this "graphic" aspect of the project a fun watch. This context is well-crafted, and the script capitalizes on it (although it could have done so in a much more interesting way), but the project's positive aspects end there, as everything else is quite tedious.

In the plot, when two twin brothers (Bill and Hall) rummage through their father's old belongings, they find a toy monkey. It doesn't take long for one of them to realize something is wrong when unusual deaths begin to occur around them. Literally, every time someone winds up the toy, the monkey chooses to brutally "murder" someone. When the brothers decide to get rid of the toy, they end up separating and growing up on opposite sides, meeting again years later under horrific circumstances.

CBR

Daily Bloid

The script for this movie is one of the most disjointed and uninteresting things I've ever seen, and I even refuse to believe it's based on a Stephen King short story (which it is, but I'd rather not believe that, and I'll eventually read this story just to make sure it's true). Narratively speaking, nothing works well here, and even though the essence of the plot is diabolically entertaining (something that reminds me of good productions from the 80s and 90s), the result of this project's execution is deplorable from its chaotic beginning.

It all begins with a brief, seemingly didactic explanation of the origin of the "demonic monkey," but everything that follows is a jumble of absurd situations "masked" with a type of dark humor that is anything but effective. The script even tries to play with everyday situations to create “horror gore” scenes with heavier weight and form, but all this plot managed to “pull” out of me were brief moments of involuntary laughter within a context that should have been taken more seriously to become something terrifying within its scope.

Flickering Myth

Frame Rated

No plausible explanation is given to the audience about the monkey's origins, how it was made, or why it's "cursed". There's only a preposterous plot twist to try to justify what kept the two brothers apart for so many years. Amidst all this, there's still room to address some family dilemmas with the depth of a saucer, and all of this is fueled by extremely poor and empty dialogue, delivered entirely by a cast of characters lacking a shred of charisma, which makes this movie even more tedious to watch.

Theo James is the "big name" in the cast, playing a doubly cartoonish and poorly constructed role (as is the rest of the cast, which also includes Adam Scott and Elijah Wood in rather embarrassing cameos). Overall, all the characters are boring and constructed within the well-worn conventions that embrace this movie genre (but here, the use of them is clearly misplaced). Everything gets worse when they need to interact with each other, showing how bad their entire construction is (made even worse by their weak performances).

Rotten Tomatoes

MUBI

The Monkey is a flawed blend of horror and comedy ("disguised" as dark humor) that relies on a gory tone (ineffective, because it becomes very banal as the narrative unfolds... nullifying its visual impact, which, by the way, features digital and practical effects of dubious quality) to try to impact the audience, but all it manages to do is waste time. Osgood Perkins directed and wrote this project, and all I wonder is how he managed to star in this doubly bad work. Everything would have been "less bad" if it had been a short movie.

---

CRÍTICA DE PELÍCULA: “The Monkey” (2025)

Sinopsis: Bill y Hall son hermanos gemelos que, tras encontrar un viejo mono de juguete que perteneció a su padre, deben lidiar con una serie de muertes horribles que comienzan a ocurrir a su alrededor. En su intento por deshacerse del juguete, los hermanos se distancian, pero se reencuentran en circunstancias inesperadas.

Toda película de terror que presenta un objeto inanimado como su principal amenaza otorga a este antagonista ciertas características (físicas o de comportamiento) que lo hacen único. Esto es casi una marca registrada en este género cinematográfico, ya que es a través de este rasgo que el público puede reconocer más fácilmente el miedo que habita en ese personaje. En el caso de esta película, tenemos un mono de juguete con ojos saltones y un par de baquetas que, al golpearlas con un tambor, "eligen" al azar a las personas que serán asesinadas.

La peculiar apariencia del juguete destaca a lo largo de la película, aunque solo aparece en unas pocas escenas, manteniendo siempre su imponente presencia como principal amenaza. Su macabra sonrisa también contribuye a establecer su identidad, haciendo de este aspecto gráfico del proyecto una experiencia entretenida. Este contexto está bien elaborado y el guion lo aprovecha al máximo (aunque podría haberlo hecho de forma mucho más interesante), pero ahí terminan los aspectos positivos, ya que todo lo demás resulta bastante tedioso.

En la trama, cuando dos hermanos gemelos (Bill y Hall) hurgan entre las viejas pertenencias de su padre, encuentran un mono de juguete. Uno de ellos no tarda en darse cuenta de que algo anda mal cuando empiezan a ocurrir muertes inusuales a su alrededor. Literalmente, cada vez que alguien le da cuerda al juguete, el mono decide "asesinar" brutalmente a alguien. Cuando los hermanos deciden deshacerse del juguete, terminan separándose y creciendo en bandos opuestos, reencontrándose años después en circunstancias terribles.

El guion de esta película es uno de los más inconexos y aburridos que he visto, e incluso me niego a creer que esté basado en un cuento de Stephen King (que sí lo está, pero prefiero no creerlo, y eventualmente leeré esta historia solo para asegurarme de que es cierta). Narrativamente hablando, nada funciona bien, y aunque la esencia de la trama es diabólicamente entretenida (algo que me recuerda a las buenas producciones de los 80 y 90), el resultado de la ejecución de este proyecto es deplorable desde su caótico comienzo.

Todo comienza con una breve explicación, aparentemente didáctica, del origen del "mono demoníaco", pero todo lo que sigue es un batiburrillo de situaciones absurdas "enmascaradas" con un humor negro que es todo menos efectivo. El guión incluso intenta jugar con situaciones cotidianas para crear escenas de “horror gore” con mayor peso y forma, pero todo lo que esta trama logró “sacar” de mí fueron breves momentos de risa involuntaria dentro de un contexto que debería haberse tomado más en serio para convertirse en algo aterrador dentro de su alcance.

No se da ninguna explicación plausible al público sobre el origen del mono, cómo se creó ni por qué está "maldito". Solo hay un plot twist débil para intentar justificar lo que mantuvo separados a los dos hermanos durante tantos años. En medio de todo esto, todavía hay espacio para abordar algunos dilemas familiares con una profundidad inaudita, y todo ello se ve alimentado por diálogos extremadamente pobres y vacíos, interpretados en su totalidad por un elenco de personajes carentes de un ápice de carisma, lo que hace que esta película sea aún más tediosa de ver.

Theo James es el "nombre estrella" del reparto, interpretando un papel doblemente caricaturesco y mal construido (al igual que el resto del reparto, que también incluye a Adam Scott y Elijah Wood en cameos bastante vergonzosos). En general, todos los personajes son aburridos y están construidos dentro de las convenciones habituales de este género cinematográfico (pero aquí, su uso está claramente fuera de lugar). Todo empeora cuando necesitan interactuar entre ellos, mostrando lo mala que es toda su construcción (empeorando aún más sus débiles actuaciones).

The Monkey es una mezcla defectuosa de terror y comedia (disfrazada de humor negro) que recurre a un tono sangriento (ineficaz, pues se vuelve banal a medida que avanza la narrativa, anulando su impacto visual, que, por cierto, incluye efectos digitales y prácticos de dudosa calidad) para intentar impactar al público, pero lo único que consigue es perder el tiempo. Osgood Perkins dirigió y escribió este proyecto, y me pregunto cómo logró protagonizar esta obra doblemente mala. Todo habría sido menos malo si hubiera sido un cortometraje.

---

CRÍTICA DE FILME: “O Macaco” (2025)

Sinopse: Bill e Hall são dois irmãos gêmeos, que após encontrarem um antigo macaco de brinquedo que pertencia ao pai deles, precisam lidar com uma série de mortes horríveis que começam a acontecer ao redor deles. Na tentativa de se livrarem do brinquedo, os irmãos acabam se distanciando, mas se reencontram em circunstâncias inesperadas.

Todo filme de horror que traz como sua principal ameaça algum objeto inanimado, confere a este antagonista algumas características (físicas ou comportamentais) que o torna em algo relativamente peculiar. Isso é quase como uma marca registrada neste gênero cinematográfico, porque é através dela que o público pode reconhecer mais facilmente o medo que habita aquele personagem. No caso deste filme, temos um macaco de brinquedo com olhos bem esbugalhados, e um par de baquetas, que quando tocam em um tambor, aleatoriamente “escolhe” as pessoas que vão ser assassinadas.

O visual “peculiar” do brinquedo realmente consegue se destacar ao longo do filme, ainda que ele seja visto em poucas cenas, mas sempre mantendo à sua “imponência” como ameaça principal. O “sorriso macabro” do brinquedo também ajuda a criar a identidade do mesmo, tornando essa parte “gráfica” do projeto em algo divertido de ser assistido. Esse contexto é bem produzido, e o roteiro consegue tirar proveito dele (ainda que pudesse ter feito isso de um jeito muito mais interessante), mas os pontos positivos do projeto acabam por aqui, porque todo o restante é bastante entediante.

Na trama, quando dois irmãos gêmeos (Bill e Hall) vasculham pertences antigos do pai deles, eles acabam encontrando um macaco de brinquedo, e não demora muito para que um deles perceba que algo está errado quando mortes muito inusitadas começam a acontecer ao redor deles. Literalmente, a cada que vez alguém decide dar corda no brinquedo, o macaco escolhe “assassinar” uma pessoa de maneira brutal. Quando os irmãos decidem então se livrar do brinquedo, eles acabam se separando e crescendo em lados opostos, reencontrando-se anos depois em circunstâncias medonhas.

O roteiro é deste filme é uma das coisas mais bagunçadas e desinteressantes que eu já vi, e eu até me recuso a acreditar que ele seja baseado em um conto do Stephen King (o que de fato ele é, mas prefiro continuar a não acreditar nisso e eventualmente irei acabar lendo este conto apenas para me certificar de que isso é verdade). Narrativamente falando, nada funciona direito aqui, e mesmo que a essência da trama seja diabolicamente divertida (algo que me lembra boas produções das décadas de 80 e 90), o resultado da execução desse projeto é algo deplorável desde o seu início caótico.

Tudo começa com uma breve explicação aparentemente didática sobre a origem do “macaco demoníaco”, mas tudo o que vem depois é um amontado de situações absurdas “maquiadas” por um tipo de humor negro que não de eficiente não tem nada. O roteiro até tenta brincar com situações cotidianas para criar cenas de “horror gore” com peso e forma mais pesados, mas tudo que essa trama conseguiu “arrancar” de mim foram breves momentos de risadas involuntárias dentro de um contexto que deveria ter sido levado mais a sério para se tornar algo aterrorizante dentro do seu escopo.

Nenhuma explicação plausível sobre a origem do macaco, como ele foi feito ou porque ele é “amaldiçoado” é entregue ao público, há apenas um plot twist estapafúrdio para tentar justificar o que manteve os dois irmãos separados por tantos anos. No meio disso tudo, ainda há espaço para tratar de alguns dilemas familiares com a profundidade de um pires e tudo isso é alimentado por diálogos extremamente pobres e vazios, sendo totalmente replicados por uma gama de personagens sem um pingo de carisma sequer, o que torna este filme em algo ainda mais maçante de ser assistido.

Theo James é o “grande nome” no elenco, fazendo um papel duplamente cartunesco e mal construído (assim como o restante do elenco, que ainda traz Adam Scott e Elijah Wood em pequenas participações especiais bem vergonhosas). De modo geral, todos os personagens são chatos e são construídos dentro das já conhecidas convenções que abraçam este gênero cinematográfico (mas aqui, o uso é nitidamente equivocado). Tudo piora quando eles necessitam interagir entre si, mostrando como toda a construção deles é muito ruim (ficando ainda pior por causa das performances fracas).

O Macaco é uma mistura falha de terror e comédia (“disfarçada” de humor negro) que apela para o tom sanguinolento (ineficiente, porque se torna muito banal ao longo do desenvolvimento narrativo... anulando seu impacto visual, que aliás, traz efeitos digitais e práticos de qualidade duvidosa) para tentar impactar o público, mas tudo o que ele consegue fazer é ser uma perda de tempo. Osgood Perkins dirigiu e escreveu este projeto, e tudo o que eu me pergunto é como ele conseguiu protagonizar esse trabalho duplamente ruim. Tudo teria sido “menos pior” se fosse um curta-metragem.

In an age where algorithms are turning us into consumers of recycled and indistinguishable products, it's appreciated that there are still filmmakers and platforms that show different things. I've only seen four films by Danish director Lars von Trier, but it's been enough to realize that he's a creator who doesn't make films to please or satisfy an audience through labels. Lars makes the films he wants, the ones we don't know we want until after we've seen them and suffered them.

En una época en la que los algoritmos nos están convirtiendo en consumidores de productos reciclados e indiferenciables, se agradece que aún existan directores de cine y plataformas que muestren cosas distintas. Apenas he visto cuatro películas del danés Lars von Trier, pero ha sido suficiente para darme cuenta de que se trata de un creador que no hace cine para complacer o cumplir con un público a través de etiquetas. Lars hace las películas que él quiere, las que nosotros no sabemos que queremos hasta después de haberlas visto y sufrido.

Four years after dazzling the world with his bizarre, violent, and emotional Breaking the Waves, von Trier triumphed again at Cannes with the now-iconic Dancer in the Dark, a film that surprised in many ways, primarily because it starred a singer, not an actress: the exotic and unique Björk. The film tells the story of Selma, an immigrant from Czechoslovakia who works in a factory in a small town in the United States. Selma is a single mother and suffers from a degenerative eye disease. Sooner or later, the woman will go blind, and her greatest concern is to save her son from the same fate because his condition is hereditary. So, by working double shifts and saving as much as she can, Selma scrapes together the money to pay for her son's operation. She wants to save him; for her, it's already too late. With that dark destiny looming in her near future and amidst the routine of her work as a factory worker, the only escape route for this naive, dreamy, and noble woman is her passion for music, those songs from Hollywood musicals and their dance numbers. What for others is noise, running machines, and the clang of metal, for Selma are melodies, songs, the way life distracts her and rewards her in the midst of a boring, proletarian life. This contrast between a dull, industrial world and Selma's bright, hopeful interior sets the tone for most of the film.

Cuatro años después de haber deslumbrado al mundo con su rarísima, violenta y emotiva Breaking the Waves, von Trier volvió a triunfar en Cannes con la ya icónica Dancer in the Dark, película que sorprendió de muchas formas, principalmente por ser protagonizada por una cantante y no una actriz, la exótica y única Björk. En la película se cuenta la vida de Selma, una inmigrante proveniente de Checoslovaquia que trabaja en una fábrica en un pueblo pequeño en los EEUU. Selma es madre soltera y padece una enfermedad degenerativa en sus ojos. Más temprano que tarde, la mujer quedará ciega y su mayor preocupación es salvar a su hijo de su mismo destino porque su condición es hereditaria, así que redoblando turnos y ahorrando lo más que puede, Selma va juntando el dinero para poder pagar la operación de su hijo. Quiere salvarlo a él, para ella ya es muy tarde. Con ese negro destino en su futuro próximo y en medio de la rutina de sus labores de operaria, la única vía de escape de esta mujer ingenua, soñadora y noble, es su pasión por la música, esas canciones de las películas musicales de Hollywood y sus números de baile. Lo que para los demás es ruido, máquinas andando, golpes de metal, para Selma son melodías, canciones, la forma en que la vida la distrae y la recompensa en medio de una vida proletaria y aburrida. Ese contraste entre un mundo industrial y opaco y el interior brillante y esperanzador de Selma marca el tono de la mayor parte de la película.

Scene from the movie | Escena de la película

From all this, it follows that the film is a drama that deals with illness, migration, and the difficulties of the working class, but it is also much more because Dancer in the Dark is a musical. Not a Hollywood musical with ornate sets and colorful costumes like the movies Selma loves to watch, but a musical with dull colors, industrial sounds, and filmed with a handheld camera to give it a certain documentary feel. Yes, it's an unusual mix, but as with other Lars von Trier stories, it's an oddity that works.

De todo ello se desprende que la película es un drama que habla de enfermedad, migración, las dificultades de la clase obrera, pero también es mucho más porque Dancer in the Dark es un musical. No un musical de Hollywood con escenarios vistosos y vestuarios coloridos como las películas que Selma ama ver, sino un musical de colores opacos, sonidos industriales y filmado con una cámara de mano para darle cierta sensación de film documental. Sí, es una mezcla rara, pero como sucede con otras de las historias de Lars von Trier, se trata de una rareza que funciona.

Dogville is a three-hour drama that feels more like a play than a film, and its minimalist set design focuses the viewer's attention solely on the plot. Melancholia is a depressing, apocalyptic science fiction story. And Breaking the Waves is a love story that turns tragic and has a fantastical, religious ending. I mean, the rare is common in Lars von Trier's films, and I thank him for being unpredictable. How many times have we seen a movie on Netflix or in the theater and deduced the entire plot fifteen or twenty minutes in? In this director's case, I feel like you don't know what to expect. I mean, yes, you know you're watching a drama, but it has plot twists, devices, ideas, and executions that challenge the cinematic logic of the movies we're used to seeing, and in doing so, it helps us exercise not only our attention but also our analytical skills, our resilience, our morality, and more. Von Trier's stories move you, shake you, and impact you with their mix of naiveté and violence, cruelty and redemption, rawness and love, hope and defeat. Dancer in the Dark is yet another example of this, because although at some point we may sense or anticipate what's going to happen, we certainly don't imagine it would happen the way the director's own script lays it out.

Dogville es un drama de tres horas que parece más una obra de teatro que una película y cuya escenografía minimalista hace que todo el interés del espectador se centre en la trama. Melancholia es una historia de ciencia ficción apocalíptica y depresiva. Y Breaking the Waves es una historia de amor que deviene en tragedia y que tiene un final fantástico, religioso. Es decir, lo raro es común en el cine de Lars von Trier a quien agradezco ser impredecible, ¿cuántas veces hemos visto una película en Netflix o en el cine y deducimos toda la trama a los quince o veinte minutos? En el caso de este director, siento que uno no sabe qué esperar. Es decir, sí, uno sabe que verá un drama, pero tiene giros en la trama, recursos, ideas y ejecuciones que desafían la lógica cinematográfica del cine que estamos acostumbrados a ver y con ello nos ayuda a ejercitar no sólo nuestra atención sino también nuestra capacidad de análisis, nuestra resistencia, nuestra moralidad y otras cosas más. Las historias de von Trier son historias que te remueven, que te sacuden y que te impactan con su mezcla de ingenuidad y violencia, crueldad y redención, crudeza y amor, esperanza y derrota. Dancer in the Dark es una muestra más de ello, porque aunque en algún momento podamos intuir o anticipar lo que va a ocurrir, de seguro no imaginamos que sucedería de la forma en que el guion del propio director lo dispone.

Scene from the movie | Escena de la película

So: a musical drama filmed with handheld cameras, with primarily industrial settings, that deals with illness, migration, and abuse, starring an experimental Icelandic singer who, in addition to composing the soundtrack with the director, performs some songs from the classic The Sound of Music in the film... sounds like a risky mix—which it is—and different. But that's typical of von Trier.

Entonces: un drama musical filmado con cámaras de mano, con escenarios principalmente industriales, que habla de enfermedad, migración y abuso, protagonizada por una cantante experimental islandesa que además de componer el soundtrack junto al director interpreta en la película algunas canciones de la clásica The Sound of Music... suena como una mezcla arriesgada - que sin duda lo es - y diferente. Pero es lo común en von Trier.

The presence of the historic Catherine Deneuve as Cvalda is an invaluable support for Selma in the film and for Björk on the big screen; and the blend of drama and musical, which highlights the evocative and inspiring power of music, gives the story its heart. However, at the time of its release, Dancer in the Dark was highly divisive among critics. Some said it was the worst thing they'd ever seen, that it was a resounding artistic failure and an act of self-centeredness on the part of the director, while others celebrated it with nominations at numerous festivals and two awards at Cannes, a Palme d'Or for the director and Best Actress for Björk. I say this in all honesty: I found it very strange to learn that the director had chosen a singer with no acting experience for this role, but Björk's performance is deeply moving, raw, and memorable. There are scenes in which she doesn't seem to be acting but rather experiencing the anguish of the tragic fate looming over her head. Except for some similarities with the character played by Emily Watson in Breaking the Waves (by von Trier himself), I can't recall another with that naiveté and nobility who only gets cruelty and tragedy in return. Whatever your opinion might be after seeing Dancer in the Dark, whether you love it or not, I think it's an experience worth having. The simple fact of seeing something different from what's shown everywhere else is already a victory. Have any of you seen Lars von Trier's films? Which one is your favorite? I'll read you in the comments.

La presencia de la histórica Catherine Deneuve como Cvalda es un apoyo invaluable para Selma en la película y para Björk en la gran pantalla; y la mezcla de drama y musical que resalta el poder evocador e inspirador de la música le aporta corazón a la historia. Sin embargo, en el momento de su estreno, Dancer in the Dark dividió mucho a la crítica. Hubo quienes dijeron que era lo peor que habían visto, que era un fracaso artístico rotundo y un acto de egocentrismo del director, mientras otros la celebraron por todo lo alto con nominaciones en muchos festivales y dos premios en Cannes, Palma de Oro para el director y el reconocimiento de Mejor Actriz a Björk. Lo digo con total honestidad: se me hizo muy raro enterarme de que el director había escogido a una cantante sin experiencia actoral para este papel, pero la interpretación de la Björk es muy emotiva, cruda y memorable. Hay escenas en las que no parece estar actuando sino viviendo la angustia del trágico destino que se cierne sobre su cabeza. Salvo algunas semejanzas con el personaje que interpreta Emily Watson en Breaking the Waves (del mismo von Trier) no recuerdo otro que tenga esa ingenuidad y esa nobleza y que obtenga a cambio sólo crueldad y tragedia. Sea lo que sea su opinión después de ver Dancer in the Dark, si la aman como si no, creo que es una experiencia que vale la pena vivir. El simple hecho de ver algo distinto a lo que muestran en todas partes ya es una victoria, ¿alguno de ustedes ha visto las películas de Lars von Trier? ¿cuál es su favorita? Los leo en los comentarios.

---

---

Other posts that may interest you | Otros posts que pueden interesarte:

3 x 1: female directors you don't know |

--- | ---

La Ola: the new gem of Chilean cinema |