Change Your Image
kragerup0
Reviews
Fem mand og Rosa (1964)
Fem mand og Rosa
As a subgenre, the heist film is not a particularly common one. More than once I've set out to find a good heist flick and failed. In other words, listing the good ones won't take you all day as evidenced by a search here on IMDb or Google. It's welcome, then, that Fem mand falls among those heist films I'd put near the top of the list.
Directed by Sven Methling one wouldn't automatically assume Fem mand to be as good as it is. Not that Methling wasn't an able director, but perhaps because that's how you'd describe him - as able. Then again, making films in Denmark during the fifties, sixties and up to the early nineties must have been an exercise in sidestepping one crap project after another. And in that respect Methling by and large exonerates himself. That he two years later yet again forged a wonderful classic, the horror comedy Gys and Gæve Tanter, showed what he might have been able to do had he been born with a passport from a bigger country than Denmark. No matter.
At first glance, Fem mand might not be the obvious gem that it so truly is. I credit Methling and Boje's tightly crafted and economical script, and it's especially admirable as this is essentially an ensample cast who for large parts of the film is confined to a hospital room with only dialogue to hold the tension and move the plot forwards. But it works! Wonderfully!
As the premise is set up, we quickly understand that this heist movie is not to be taken all that seriously. Methling is at home here, having directed a slew of light comedies for the 'whole family' he knows when to let up for a laugh and when to go for the kill. We're in safe hands.
Although a film with an ensample cast, there's one character who stands above, and he has to for it all to work. Morten Grunwald is the hero here; in more than one sense. Although a criminal, a con man laid up with a broken leg and guarded by members of the Copenhagen Police Force right outside the doors of his and his fellow bedridden cohorts' hospital room, Smukke-Arne is a man with a heart of gold. And Grunwald is wonderful as Smukke which is lucky, because if he fails, the film fails. The rest of the cast, stalwarts of Danish films of the period, all do well, some more well than others - Judy Gringer was never a natural talent but her over-the-top delivery sort of works here in the guise of the titular Rosa, Smukke's better half and his, if not exactly equal, then certainly indispensable companion and a through and through professional who takes a backseat to no-one.
The characters in this neat black and white caper generally rise above what you could expect. Never dull or surplus to requirements.
But the real standout is the score by Ole Høyer. Mancini ain't got nothing on this dude! You'll be reminded of the Pink Panther theme, but in my opinion, Høyer does it better. More subtle and tense than Mancini, yet so melodically dense and elegant you'll be humming the theme for days after.
In the end, Fem mand og Rosa is a fast paced, fun little film that sits so neatly in the heist genre that it's a shame it won't be discovered by more people.
Døden kommer til middag (1964)
Death comes to dinner or, for some reason, at high noon in English
Film is a classic murder mystery told in a tight and controlled manner by Balling, always moving the plot along and thusly managing to sidestep the pitfalls his stock characters could so easily fall into by themselves had they been left in the hands of a lesser director.
Poul Reichardt plays the unfortunate author of crime novels who on a dark, wet, and cold evening runs out of petrol and so happens upon murder most foul in one of those houses deep in the forest such films are aplenty with. As the murderer puts him out of play without revealing him or herself after our hero discovers the body, he comes to the morning after only to be told there was no murder but a suicide. The police won't be told otherwise and so begins our hero's quest to prove it was in fact murder.
Reichardt is teamed up with Helle Virkner, a pairing that would later become iconic although in a much lighter setting as the Olsens in Huset på Christianshavn - yet again guided successfully by Balling. Virkner is effective if at times a bit over the top as the slightly rebellious young literary reviewer decked out in black. Her profession is as on the nose as is the conflict it's meant to spur between the pair via her bad review of his latest crime mystery.
Virkner's character quickly reveals the main suspects, herself one. And so, we're off. The characters in this murder mystery aren't all that interesting, but they serve their purpose well enough, superbly supported by one of Bent Fabricius-Bjerre's more atypical scores creating a foreboding atmosphere heightened by the film being shot in black and white.
This type of film is interesting not because it breaks new ground - it doesn't, but because it was a rare venture into a genre mostly avoided but the Danish film industry. That we saw another murder mystery two years later in 'Gys og gæve tanter', an excellent pairing with this film for an evening of light horror, was unexpected but as the rising score of both films here on IMDb suggests, very welcome.
A traditional and well told murder mystery by the incomparable Erik Balling - beloved by the people, overlooked by the those who should revere him most. If, like me, you're increasingly impressed by Balling's output, this film is a must so don't hesitate if you get the chance.
Tour de France: Unchained (2023)
Why cheat?
I suppose that as a fan of pro cycling from the age of twelve, this Netflix documentary series could only ever disappoint. Why? Well, pro cycling is perhaps one of the easiest sports to explain on a strictly rule-based level, but it's perhaps one of the most difficult sports to understand without experiencing it continually over many races and many seasons. As is so well explained in this series, it's a sport of extreme attrition while also being a highly tactical game; something you don't just get by watching a single stage in a Grand Tour or a Spring Classic.
So, the creators of this series had their work cut out for them. They had to educate while also managing to entertain. I suppose they found that task too great a challenge as they failed miserably at educating. Does it then absolve them that they know how to entertain?
For me, it might have had they been honest in the way they'd chosen to construct their narrative threads. They were not. As an example I can't forgive is the way they set up the team EF Education, rightly, as an underdog in need of UCI points, but then chose to completely ignore reality in favor of a good story. You see, stage 12 ended on the legendary Alpe d´Huez - a mountain so occupied by people during the stage it could be claimed to be more populated than certain European capitals, so of course such a stage has to be front and center. And so, to set the scene we're told EF Education has had a bad Tour up to that point; that this is the chance to turn it around. The young and talented Neilson Powless, who has proven to be anything but powerless, is set up as the man to save EF. Now, while that's all very entertaining and sets up a battle between Powless and later winner of the Stage, Tom Pidcock, it's nonetheless utter nonsense as two stages earlier Magnus Cort, an unsung hero also of EF Education, had won stage 10. We see one clip of Cort... in the bus, in the background. And Jonathan Vaughters, general manager of EF Education, even mentions that it's been a good Tour as Cort won and in the process he contradicts himself and this documentary.
There are multiple examples like that and of editorial choices to steal shots from a mountain stage where fatigue is obvious and then splice it into another, earlier stage to construct a conflict and thusly drama.
So, my overall point is that the Tour does not need this kind of dishonesty - it's abundant with drama. It's one of the most suspenseful events on the sports calendar and it's widely believed that 2022 was a new high point. Had the 2022 edition been a wine it would be invaluable. So why cheat? Why rob sporting heroes of their achievements by editing them out? I'll let others answer that and just conclude that if you're already a bit of connoisseur, then this is most likely not for you. And if you're considering watching this series and haven't any real knowledge of pro cycling and the Tour de France, then by all means enjoy it but be aware that reality is much wilder and more dramatic than this soap-operatic endeavor.