fucking-amal.com

hi everyone! another newbie who just saw the film and is going through all of those FÅ-feelings you guys have aready described loads of times on here:) even though i'm about ten years late

Actually, I saw it about a month ago, but it has taken a while to digest everything this movie hit me with, and all of the memories it brought back.. I can easily say I have NEVER been affected in this way by any movie. It just came so close. I mean, here you have a young Swedish girl who is struggling with her secret but ever-so-close bisexuality, and suddenly I get to see my life being shown in front of me, like Lukas Moodysson had stolen my non-existing diary and made it into a movie. It felt like a punch in the gut. So I guess you understand how happily surprised I was that there are actually some people who are still keeping a forum going after all these years. Hugs to you all

Anyway, now I have seen this wonderful little film a few too many times (lol like that's possible) and the last time i watched it, there was a detail that i noticed and now I can't see that part of the film without getting annoyed by it. So i turn to all of the wise people on here, hoping for answers
I assume you are all aquainted with the beautiful scene when the girls are on the bridge that crosses the motorway, talking about getting out of Åmål, being different and stuff. Well, first they are clearly on the bridge, looking down on the cars underneath them. Then Elin starts running away, and Agnes goes "where are you going" or someting like that. Then, suddenly they are both standing down on the road! And Elin answers Agnes, saying "We're going to Stockholm", like nothing happened. And it's filmed like they are supposed to have been there all the time (or at least it looks like it).

OK, maybe it's not really a huge deal, but it kinda annoys me cause I just really don't get it. I mean, if they were on the bridge at first, and then ran down to the motorway, why couldn't our beloved Mr Moodysson just have filmed like a brief shot of the girls running down? Cause now they are first on the bridge, and next thing they're down on the road, and, judging from the conversation, it seems like no time at all had passed.

So is this just me not getting something that's obvious for everyone else (wouldn't be surprising of course) or is, in fact, Lukas Moodysson trying to trick us all by discreetly (or not so much) moving the girls FROM the bridge TO the motorway without anyone noticing, and making it look like they were there all the time ??

OK, I have been going on for wayyy too long about this little thing.. anyway, I'd like to thank you guys again for keeping this forum alive after so many years. It warms my little Swedish heart.

an interesting view triddy, and one that has been the subject of debate.

My own view is that up on the bridge, neither character knows WHAT to do next.

The state of play is resolved by Elin running off with the very instinctual madcap idea of them running away to Stockholm.

Agnes follows, wanting to be sucked into this madness, but realising it is herself had to point out that they are even on the wrong side of the road to hitch a lift that way.

For a brief period it is Agnes in charge determining how many cars they will attempt to flag down, but all the while wanting to go with Elins moment of madness. it is Agnes who comes up with a semi-plausible explanation of why they are hitching a lift.

It makes the passionate scene in which briefly Elin embraces and wrecklessly kisses Agnes all the more poignant. You could say at this point they are both ''afire''. Agnes logic is short-circuited.

When the guy chucks them out Elin is pissd off but Agnes feels her past enshrouding her.

They part with a perfunctory kiss, and promise to hook up. The moment of magic is gone, for the time being.

I think Moodysson gets it spot on with all the rest of the film and the unfolding story.

In the words of the relationship expert Liel Lowndes ''being ATTRACTED to someone is something that happens IN THEIR PRESCENCE. FALLING IN LOVE with someone is what happens when they ARE NOT THERE''. I think is true both for Agnes, and ultimately Elin.

Hello triddy, welcome aboard!

Welcome Triddy.

I think what Moodysson has done is to use a bit of an artistic device to link the "bridge" and "road" scenes together. To let us see it as a continuation of the same conversation between Agnes and Elin, rather than something happening minutes after what we saw on the bridge. In that way we, the audience, know we haven't missed anything.

Is it true?
Were you really the last Swede who hadn't seen this film?

Ok, I didn't understand the big deal about the bridge and the motorway, but welcome Triddy anyway

Thanks everyone

Well, yeah I get that it's not the most important thing in the film, it's just that the rest of the movie is filmed so realistically, that it just kind of surprises me that Moodysson chooses to make such a sudden, unrealistic jump in that scene. And you know, sometimes when you notice something it just gets stuck in your brain in a way But, Fish, your explanation does make sense, and for some reason, all of the small "flaws" (if you can call it that) in this film just seem to make it even better

And unfortunately I'll have to say that I'm probably not the last Swede to have seen Fucking Åmål.. I mean, most of the people who are from the same "generation" as the actors in the movie, or older, have seen it and regard it as a classic from the 90's, but those who were too young to be a part of the hysteria that happened back when it came, are actually pretty unaware of it. I mean, when I've talked to my friends about it (they're about 18-19, so I guess we were like 7-8 when it came?) most of them have heard about it, but few have actually seen it, and they certainly don't get why it could have been such a big deal. I think Moodysson is known today more for his later films, like Lilya 4-ever and Together, and I think that, among today's swedish teenagers, he is looked at as another one of those "weird Swedish directors who makes uncomfortable films" . But then again, I wouldn't say that FÅ is forgotten in any sense - the filmed aired on Swedish TV the other month, and it got five stars in the magazines I checked

Well, I guess I'll just have to force everyone I know to see it, and do my best to save it from becoming another one of those "old Swedish classics" that only filmnerds know about!

1998 is old.

Someone kill me, please.

codyw1 wrote:1998 is old.

Someone kill me, please.

Of course it's old.
What's wrong with you?
I mean it's like 111 years ago.........

Hang on, I thought you said 1898.

After you with the razor Ian.

what the heck, it's a kickass movie and it will stay so for the next century or so.

triddy wrote::lol:

what the heck, it's a kickass movie and it will stay so for the next century or so.

Well kick my ass for a start! The Bible's been around for a coupla thousand years but it's still got some good kickass stories in there.

I think everyone's reaction to FA is slightly different. I have found reactions among my friends vary a lot. Samuel Johnson (an English writer, from centuries ago) wrote ''He who is tired of London, is tired of life''

I get a similar buzz, even now off FA. I use it as a ''litmus test'' with people I know and get introduced to. Their reactions tell me a lot. Either people see some part of themselves in there somewhere, and it isn't necessarily about the sexuality. It's just a confirmation that there is still a pulse beating, and a desire to believe that you don't have to settle for acceptance/ ''being content'' when there is a whole wild world outthere to be explored, or else people are doomily resigned to their fate.

I know the kinda people I gravitate towards

I am reassured to know I still have a pulse beating somewhere.

C'mon, I have this razor poised and now you tell me to keep on living?

snaps wrote:I use it as a ''litmus test'' with people I know and get introduced to.

I feel much the same. I think it shows an open mindedness, a warmth, a compssion, a gentle soul, and those are all qualities which attract me.

Yeah, well, I don't see how anyone could watch this film without being extremely moved by it, and recognise themselves in it to an extent that's almost unbearable. At least not if they have any trace of human being in them. Cause that's what this film is about, right? Human beings the way they are, not the way Hollywood pictures them or the way we'd like them to be. And that's what makes it so wonderful and frightening at the same time.

so yeah, if I watched it with someone who went like "oh, cute film", I'd run.

I know what you mean. I found it to be a very moving film too, though I probably related more to Olof than anyone else as far as personal recognition goes. Kids will do that to you.
But then, that's the kind of film it was, something that everyone could recognise.

As I've said at other times I think it's a masterpiece. I'm not sure I've ever seen a better film and I'm sure I've never seen better performances from two leading actors.

fish wrote:I

As I've said at other times I think it's a masterpiece. I'm not sure I've ever seen a better film and I'm sure I've never seen better performances from two leading actors.

Ever seen "Aguirre" or "Fitzcaraldo" or any other film starring Kinski (also the bad ones)? Watching this mad man in Aguirre for the first time made me realize what "acting" actually can mean and do to people who watch the actor. Anyway, Rebecka and Alexandra are absolutely great in FA, that's for sure.