"Juha Holm's family is a happy and classic model Finnish family. Let's get to know the Holm's world .. Anja, Juha's wife, is a qualified economist .. but she gave up her job when the family built a .. house, and devoted herself to the care of the home. The kitchen has all the gadgets that help make everyday chores easy .. The family has two cars. Juha has a Volvo 144 Sport supplied by his firm, four geared, very roomy and suitable for his long business trips. Anja has a nifty little Datsun Bluebird for shopping. She cleans it regularly in front of the house. .. Father takes an active part in the household chores and Mother gives frank advice to her daughter about sexual problems – and life in general. The family's lifestyle gives meaning to their life."
So is archly introduced another of this director's own written roles, played by himself in a sort of lazy Marlon Brando / Steve McQueen way (although failing miserably!), here as a droopy eyed, laconic, vacuous adulterer.
However, despite such writer credit, I got the idea that the script was mostly actually delivered through improvisation, which would be the only excuse for such continuous throughout the film inane drivel spouted by all the characters: even the protagonist 'hero' adulterer's romantic poetry attempt comes over as some form of hilarious pseud's corner composition (although that's from the English translated version: perhaps the original Finnish is moving?) I can only think that as a dissection of tawdry eternal triangle tale of 'idealised' family broken apart, may have been what Finnish audiences saw to tolerate sitting through this tedium - although for the sixties, there is several nude, supposedly lovemaking, close clinches, but all are devoid of any passion at all. Perhaps that was the director's point, in keeping with his dreary portrayal.
Notably, for no other discernible reason to show, husband Juha (Donner) reluctantly attends a piano recital with his wife at which he begins to doze off, presumably because he finds it oh so tediously dull: which would seem to provide a - presumably unintentional - metaphor for this turgid eternal triangle tale: at another point, a camera malfunctions so to screw up the film inside it and one character angrily, exasperatedly rips it out to discard it: assuredly metaphor number two for this enervating effort, perhaps?
The only positive thing I could find was that in the end – (besides being the end!) - Donner focuses on an image with caption which presumably makes the point he wanted to about Finnish women - and perhaps the reason for his philandering ways, too: that at least bemused me IN THE END! And by which, the beautiful Kristiina Halkola is sorely served/ wasted in this, too!
Dismal! Although, possibly, just possibly, sort of archly amusing in a worst way.
So is archly introduced another of this director's own written roles, played by himself in a sort of lazy Marlon Brando / Steve McQueen way (although failing miserably!), here as a droopy eyed, laconic, vacuous adulterer.
However, despite such writer credit, I got the idea that the script was mostly actually delivered through improvisation, which would be the only excuse for such continuous throughout the film inane drivel spouted by all the characters: even the protagonist 'hero' adulterer's romantic poetry attempt comes over as some form of hilarious pseud's corner composition (although that's from the English translated version: perhaps the original Finnish is moving?) I can only think that as a dissection of tawdry eternal triangle tale of 'idealised' family broken apart, may have been what Finnish audiences saw to tolerate sitting through this tedium - although for the sixties, there is several nude, supposedly lovemaking, close clinches, but all are devoid of any passion at all. Perhaps that was the director's point, in keeping with his dreary portrayal.
Notably, for no other discernible reason to show, husband Juha (Donner) reluctantly attends a piano recital with his wife at which he begins to doze off, presumably because he finds it oh so tediously dull: which would seem to provide a - presumably unintentional - metaphor for this turgid eternal triangle tale: at another point, a camera malfunctions so to screw up the film inside it and one character angrily, exasperatedly rips it out to discard it: assuredly metaphor number two for this enervating effort, perhaps?
The only positive thing I could find was that in the end – (besides being the end!) - Donner focuses on an image with caption which presumably makes the point he wanted to about Finnish women - and perhaps the reason for his philandering ways, too: that at least bemused me IN THE END! And by which, the beautiful Kristiina Halkola is sorely served/ wasted in this, too!
Dismal! Although, possibly, just possibly, sort of archly amusing in a worst way.
