
Halfdan Ullmann Tøndel, the grandson of illustrious filmmaker Ingmar Bergman, goes straight into our Mexican remembrance with ‘Armand.’ Here we are in a Norwegian primary school. Elisabeth attended the school for a meeting with the teachers ‘ ccm regarding a particular pupil. It is about her promising six-year-old son, Armand, Armand is not present, or for that matter any other kids which is strange in some sense because this is a kid’s film, who she fears may have been a little over-decisive with one of his peers. She reveals that expression, the expression of an accused who doesn’t want to be asked further questions directed at her, and in any case, there is no predatory nature in what a six-year-old can be aiming at. She bears some micro aggressions, as they can be called, and she ends up cackling. In essence, she is roaring with laughter.
Elisabeth is the character of Renate Reinsve, who is known for her acting in “The Worst Person in the World”, directed by Joachim Trier. One of the finest cinematic experiences is her intense burst of laughter, that lasts for about five minutes. She believes that she will never stop laughing. I started to consider that perhaps laughter, for an actress at least, would be more challenging than crying as It’s evident that laughing seems to be a struggle to contain it for a while. And how do you make it seem as though everything is staged? For several minutes, without stopping, how can you put on a show?
But it looks like Reinswe begins to end her laugh, while still in the midst of laughter that is how she puts it. It’s laughter if it could be so described, that is vicious and tinged nearly with a tinge of sarcasm, a hint of ‘are-you-kidding-me’ head-shaking agony is buried under a quick chuckle. It’s not simply that she finds her questioners silly and mercilessly laughs at them. Rather she laughs at the idea that she is now forced to believe that she belongs with people who have cultivated sufficient behaviour modification to achieve this level of control.
Thus, amiable keeps laughing. As she describes it, the exclaiming shock laughter she keeps breaking into is layered with layers, each layer, the lower the layer becomes, the bigger the expectant giggle is. Reinsve, in a way, diminishes slightly her efforts because, unlike the director of the film, she is not burdened with some sort of eminent filmmaking history, but what she does in this particular scene made me think of Liv Ullmann the very great Liv Ullmann.
There is an interesting premise in ‘Armand’ (a parent trying to figure out why her son behaves the way he does within the context of social value systems, action as the story) but the film in its bulk is simply chaos. You are being bombarded with stuff in a random, indirect manner and it has the feeling of having a narrative with a plot and that it was a jigsaw; only the pieces have been lost. Ingmar Bergman came out in the second half of the twentieth century as the keynote figure of the art cinema but as much as the greatness of his efforts are meritorious Bergman-fashioned script that resembled a vortex in the sense that it would draw the attention of every audience member.
On the other hand, Halfdan Ullmann Tøndel defeats all others for making ‘conversation’ as breezy and elliptical that it is unmistakably written in the fashion of a late-period David Mamet except that it is childishly disarrayed.
Ullmann Tøndel does not understand the importance of completing the story, often he just walks away from it, and most elements find a way to conflict. The inquisitors form a panel that interrogates Elisabeth, but for some reason, they seem to be doing it in a classroom instead of in an office, and the reason for this is unclear. Is it because of the context of what might have happened? But then why do they waste such a long time of 45 minutes beating around the bush instead of just coming out and saying what they want to say? Sunna (Thea Lambrechts Vaulen) a trainee teacher with no importance is the head of the panel and is definitely moist behind the ears. However, if this is how the Norwegian drama is paranoid and cautious culture has made this country to such an extent, which is One of the important themes of the movies is the role of a woman in society, so why was this Young Graduate supervisor in the first place? As more information and evidence about the case comes to light, it has been deduced that 6-year-old Jon was the key witness in accusing Armand of sexual abuse. But, as Elisabeth points out, this would be quite unusual for a child of 6 years to say and behave.
Above all, Ullmann Tøndel decides to employ etiological connections and traumatic layers between characters. To put it simply, Elisabeth and Sarah, Jon’s mother, are in fact, sisters. (However, that is one bit of information that has not been disclosed to us for quite some time.) Thomas, who married Elizabeth and happens to be Sarah’s brother, is the one who attempted suicide (and Sarah blames Elisabeth for it). What I find rather unbearable is that there are so many characters who are never shown yet there is such detailed analysis of them. Also irritating are the repaired old photographs of some of the characters as students of the school placed in the corridor which makes certain parts of the film ridiculously over the top ‘Girl and the Dragon Tattoo’ like. Even an earned thematic device, nose bleeds, is absurd. In my view, which is shared by other movie reviewers, the latter appears several times, especially towards the end, without necessary words. These are an absurdist interpretive piece where a little body groping is simultaneously done with Elisabeth writhing in modern dance. Why are these scenes there? Do not ask me.
Ullmann Tøndel infuses his signature style into the school, a style that can tend to be a little grim. The dark colors made the hallways a little too labyrinthine however, it goes well with the film as we are always anticipating for the plot to make sense. As much as I enjoyed discussing the film’s plot development, Armand could not help but be graphically beaten by the film, and I think we all recognize why. Tøndel is an excellent director (considering he directed Burstow in that one scene) Also, I’m sure people who are used to watching incoherent films would fit right in with its audience but who is the film really for? Do the toxins really appeal to more than just the voyeuristic audiences or do they appeal to anyone interested in its nonsensical plot? While Ingmar Bergman once said from Savior-Pamre that he urged us to do a rewrite bit I do sincerely believe he was at least partially right.
For more movies like Armand visit 123movies.