You see what you want to see.

After last week's surprise, I was a little more open to tonight's screening of "Everlasting Moments (2008)." Okay, okay, I'll admit that I fell asleep after about 45 minutes, but I have an excuse! For once my dozing wasn't the result of the movie boring my lids shut, but because of being overly comfortable and tired from such a long, arduous day of being a student of my caliber (Ahem...). On the contrary, my first encounter with a Swedish film was an enjoyable one.

Gritty and minimalist (in regards to the score), "Everlasting Moments" portrays the life of a Swedish woman, Maria, belabored by an alcoholic husband and the children he has her bare. Like so many other films before it, this one is propelled by the horrors of capitalism, and how it can tear families apart. Though a common theme in cinema, it is a story that is told well by director Jan Troell. The cinematography is also noteworthy, as it is nothing short of fantastic. It perfectly captures the Sepia tones present in photography of the early 1900s, accentuated by bursts of color in very particular shots.

Though I'm certainly not ecstatic after watching this, I was only able to find two faults. The first is the narration provided by Maja, Maria's eldest daughter. The voiceover feels almost like an afterthought, as it is prominent in the beginning, and reappears at the end. From the middle section, it seems almost entirely absent, though I know this is not the case. What is spoken seems superfluous; what she says we already know, or can figure out on our own, from the action and the dialogue already occurring. The only time Maja's grown voice plays a crucial role is the resurgence at the end when she comments on her Mother and Father's relationship; quite a bit is revealed here in only a few words. The second area of contention is with the ending. I'm reminded of the fifteen or sixteen endings of "The Return of the King (2003)," though that is a gross over exaggeration. The film seems to end over and over again during the last ten minutes, and though they're all wonderful, they could have been arranged in a different manner, perhaps ending with the snapshot of Maria being spun around in her husband's arm. But I suppose you can't change the past.

Which leads me to my next point: the philosophical nature of "Everlasting Moments." I think this movie bridges on metafilm. Or meta something. I wracked my brain in the theater during Maria's last scene with her would-be lover, Mr. Pedersen, trying to find a term for this. Maybe it's meta-art. If that doesn't ring any bells, what I mean is that this film could be considered art about art. It focuses on a woman's inherent talent for photography, and the things she makes using it. The film, aside from being about family life and the struggles of women in early 1900s Sweden, is about how art is created and the effects it has. At one point, Maria wants to sell her camera back because it's starting to interfere with her home life. She says she forgets that she's a mother and puts all of her effort into her art. As a writer, there are often things I have to put aside to focus on my fiction, and it sometimes is detrimental to my personal relationships. But it is unavoidable. Art in any form, even those intended for exhibition or wholly collaborative, is born out of a certain solitude. Working with a group of people still necessitates that each member participate in serious inner-reflection, and often must shut out those not in the group. This is Maria's quandary. She distances herself in order to produce pictures, and her family suffers as a result.

Secondly, this film asks "what purpose do photographs serve?" This film unflinchingly states that they serve as a window into the past, and are taken under the assumption that the current happy moment will be better than the one that follows. Each picture in this film is taken when there is an abundance of beauty, no matter how ironic. Immediately after the capture, something even worse happens, usually involving the husband's rage. I had more to say during the movie, and now I've forgotten it. If I had written it down (or maybe taken a picture) we'd be in much better shape.

I guess that's all. Thoughts?

Verdict: Not Overly Stoked. Another great turnout. I'd like to think this blog and all of my advertising is having something to do with consistent attendance, but I'll keep my ego at bay for now.

Next week we've got Paul Giamatti playing Paul Giamatti in "Cold Souls (2009)." So Stoked for this movie. Hope it exceeds all set expectations.