An engaging portrayal of indecisiveness and its consequences.
"What is fear after all? It is indecision. You seek some way to resist, escape. There is none." - Anne Rice
After hearing that this Norweigan film was perfect for people who don't like romantic dramas, I wanted to watch it. The cheesy, overblown aspect of romances always jaded me, often because they don't illustrate the unsureness and confusion that comes in part with loving somebody. In Hollywood romance films, the couple instantly knows they are meant for one another and seemingly embark on a relationship with no hesitation. As a kid, this is how I imagined relationships to be: you find someone, instantly know they are "the one," and every step after - marriage, kids - is done without hesitation. It is the myth of "happily ever after" often presented to us.
This movie dispels that myth by placing the flawed and sometimes unlikable Julie at the very heart of the story and demonstrates that relationships are not merely a matter of circumstance and known devotion. Through its main character, we discover that the part of us that thinks, "Are they really the one for me?" is more prominent in some minds than others. This doubt and fear of missing out on something greater drives this film and demonstrates the existential element of relationships and life: you only have one life to live: are you sure you are with the right person? Are you sure you are in the right career? Are you sure you are happy with the way you are living? Then it lays out the consequences of having this mindset, exploring the cliché "the grass is always greener on the other side."
As a thirty-year-old, Julie has changed her mind countless times. In the prologue, she changes from studying medicine to studying psychology when she realizes she is more interested in the mind than the body. Yet still changes from psychology to photography when she realizes she is more visual. She also rotates from relationship to relationship until settling down for a steady coupling with comic artist Aksel. The two are driven by chemistry and communication, although Julie is left jaded by the fact that Aksel wants children and she does not. While still in a relationship with Aksel, she meets Eivind at a party, who is decisive in his desire not to have children. Eivind, who is also in a committed relationship, feels drawn to Julie, and they spend the night "testing the limits" of what is considered cheating while still remaining faithful to their partners.
Their meeting, and consequent reuniting at the bookstore Julie works, leaves Julie questioning whether or not Aksel is the right choice. Aksel's devotion to her is set aside because, in Julie's words: "I love you, and I don't love you." Perhaps there is something Eivind offers that Aksel cannot replicate - the upfront insistency on not reproducing; perhaps more spontaneity. But in a riveting scene between Aksel and Julie, Aksel comments that he would rather be in a childless relationship with Julie than have children with anybody else. It is the perfect depiction of this wandering mentality; the reasons behind Julie's discontentment with Aksel, which we believed to be concrete, are not really a matter of relationship flaws. The viewer is left in a state similar to both Aksel's and Julie's: one of confusion and disorientation. We are driven to surrender to Julie's unpredictability.
Through the character of Aksel, we learn that relationships can be a steady choice and a commitment to working things out. There are no Hollywood glimmers of a "perfect love" in his relationship with Julie. Their relationship is presented factually and unglamorously - the one scene that first introduces their dynamic involves discussing bookshelves and closets. Throughout the movie, they discuss things matter-of-factly and find points of argument. Aksel is not portrayed in an idealistic fashion - in a TV interview regarding his comics, he steps over the line and accidentally infers to the reporter as a whore when discussing political correctness and his art. The movie dispels the myth of perfect people in perfect relationships but approaches it with sympathy and understanding. Despite Julie's flakiness, Aksel's persistence in maintaining his relationship with Julie is perhaps due to his knowledge of the imperfection and often confusing nature of relationships. He is aware that they are two individuals with different ideals who sometimes want other things; he is mutable and dynamic. He is the heart of the film, displaying the notion of love as a commitment.
For those who can relate to Julie's struggle, we can empathize with her condition - the attribution of our unease with life, displaced onto the decisions we have made surrounding us. Julie believes that a better relationship or a more attractive career choice is why she is unfulfilled and aggrieved. The film poses the question: Does Julie's discontentment stem from her simply being discontented?
The film ends on this note. It is hazy and uncertain and suggests that Julie's disposition to feel unsettled is the very crux of the film and perhaps not one that can be quickly resolved. But it also seems to explore this more profound notion of discontentment, illustrating how it is often falsely attributed to external factors. Julie realizes that her fear of missing out on "more" can leave her missing out on what is right in front of her. The openness she experiences with Aksel, which she cannot reproduce in her following relationship with Eivind, is viewed retrospectively. Still, as Julie gazes towards the skyline, in a similar state of discontentment in her current relationships, she realizes that the fault lies not in Aksel nor Eivind but within herself. The true richness of our lives is not enjoyed by surmising what could be; it is experienced through enjoying what we already have.
This film will stick with me because Julie's road to understanding is one that I can relate to. I often feel that because life is so short, I have to cram in as many experiences as possible. Sticking to one thing - one career path, one person, one place - can often seem daunting. I used to believe that this monogamous approach to life limits you from what life offers. I didn't realize that this way of life can be just as restricting. The desire to "collect" a variety and extensive quantity of different experiences can create a series of moments in your life that may feel substantial but are merely surface-level. Sticking things through, despite hardship, allows you to experience a sort of depth that is unavailable to you when you bounce from one thing to the next. This depth is where a sense of "life" comes from because it brings the ability to truly experience the feelings and intimacy that give you a sense of humanity and "alive" -ness. This movie perfectly captures the experience of coming to this understanding.
Comments