Login
Moral dilemmas, even age-old ones, won't ever get old in cinema, because they easily provide one of the central elements that all films must have: conflict. If you've got a moral quandary, and you've got one character who leans in one direction, and another character who leans in the opposite direction, you've at least got the potential for a solid plot. The issue in controversy in IN A BETTER WORLD is one we've seen, heard of and talked about a dozen times: if someone is physically or emotionally aggressive towards you, should you try to deal with them civilly, or should you just let your animal instincts dominate you and allow you to become physically aggressive towards the offender? Ancient as the question may be, IN A BETTER WORLD is anything but trite, because it examines that question with amazing nuance. It is a constantly affecting, occasionally devastating, cinematic experience.
Claus (Ulrich Thomsen) recently lost his wife to cancer, which means he's now alone in taking care of his son, Christian (William Johnk Nielsen). As a way of trying to move on, they've decided to move to a different location, which means that Christian will now be attending a new school. When Christian arrives at his new school, the first scene he lays eyes on is that of fellow classmate Elias (Markus Rygaard) being bullied severely by some of the bigger boys. Christian and Elias become quick friends, and Christian, who seems to be driven by a sense of angry rebellion as a result of his mother's death, is all about helping Elias physically defend himself from the bullies. Things get out of hand when Christian badly beats one of Elias' bullies and even threatens to use a knife. The boys' parents are called to school, and we meet Elias' father Anton (Mikael Persbrandt), who starts trying to teach both boys how to try to resolve conficts with a peaceful, non-physical approach. Unfortunately, his attempts don't produce the desired results, and the friendship between Christian and Elias becomes turbulent, as the first boy grows more and more prone to using dangerous weapons to resolve things, while the weak Elias is torn as to whether to follow his friend or his father.
We soon discover the reason why Anton was so adamant about teaching the two kids to steer clear of violence. Anton is a doctor, and he frequently travels to Africa to attend victims of a terrorist known as "The Big Man." In adding this thread to the film's overall story, the film challenges the belief that being a part of war will lead you to be aggressive, whereas having nothing to do with it will make you a non-confrontational saint. In fact, the film takes the opposite viewpoint, by telling us that perhaps being a part of war actually makes you more sensitive, because you get a first-hand look at the potentially devastating effects of being physically aggressive, whereas being divorced from it may mean you simply have no clue of the potential impact of that.
The most interesting thread of the moral questions presented throughout the film comes about when Anton is faced with the decision of whether or not to treat the so-called "Big Man" who was wounded during one of the scuffles, and has been brought to him for medical attention. (As a side note, the touch involving the maggots is brilliant in its raw gruesomeness and in the sense of realism it gives to the proceedings.) In determining what to do now that "The Big Man" has been brought to him for attention, Anton has a lot to consider: Should he follow the same advice that he gave his son and his duty to help EVERYONE in need, and treat this horrendous villain? Should he simply wash his hands, do nothing and leave him to die? Should he toss him over to all the families of the wounded victims, so they can have a field day torturing him? Should he just kill him himself? In a matter of a couple of scenes, all these questions surface, and the film is terrific in the way it handles them. The even more interesting aspect here is that, once those scenes end and those questions are answered, there's another question that the viewer should ask him or herself: Did what happened satisfy or bother you? Or do you just not care? Some audience members will probably be ashamed to admit their answer.
Meanwhile, back home, the two boys' continue careening towards darkness and tragedy. Christian grows more and more convinced that the way to teach people their lesson is by physically hurting them, and Elias is perpetually conflicted as to what to do. The film works tremendously well because of how deftly it intertwines both storylines, and because of how devastating the final act is. One unfortunate thing here is that, precisely because these closing scenes are so devastating, some of the performances (from child and adult actors alike) occasionally become a mite over-sentimental. In addition, the very last frames of the film are entirely irrelevant and feel like they've been pulled out of a UNICEF commercial - it seems like an unnecessary attempt to give a level of international relevance to the movie, and it makes little sense. Were it not for these hiccups during the film's final few minutes, I'd gladly give even higher praise to IN A BETTER WORLD, which triumphed at last year's Oscars in the Best Foreign Film category and has now gotten its release in 2011. Still, it's got all the ingredients needed to make for a powerful and unsettling dramatic offering, and that's much more than what can be said for most of what's been released so far this year.
7/10
