I like that the movie can be applied to different current issues. I think it depends on your personal focus and environment you live in.
In your interpretation i would also add that kidnapping the child could also be applied to the fact that the government (and also the media) takes more and more parental tasks and things like all-day schools are disconnecting the child from their parents. In Germany it is now possible for an 14 year old child to get a gender transformation against the will of their parents, if a doctor confirms a gender dysphoria. You can imagine how difficult it is to find an understanding specialist in this day and age, for a teenager with an smartphone and lgbtq-bubble. (Yet another applicable issue :D)
But i most likely see the connections to the culture clash of left- vs right-leaning persons. Especially the rising conflicts of uncontrolled migrations from islamic countries to europe. In parts they live a much more conservative life, and in some cases dont accept the freedom in europe and abuse the kindness, tolerance and naive pacifism.
The stoning in the end speaks for itself.
However, if you want to get a movie made you have to be very subtle with this topic. So the movie can mostly be applied to the general conflict of conservative and progressive, based vs woke, brutal vs pacifist, strong vs weak.
So the chosen ending was quite a bold move in my opinion.
And i guess its good as it is, everybody can apply their fears but get the same message:
Don't be like Bjørn and Lousie: Fucking do something!
You will have to fight for your freedom. Else the stronger will take everything, even your live.
reply
share
Gyroscope888 (6)
6 months ago
Good post, I agree that the movie can be interpreted many different ways.
I'm not sure about the movie's motive though. I read somewhere that the director made his debut as an actor in Hollywood, which is in big part responsible for the social erosion you describe in your post. You don't get to work in Hollywood if you're not part of the "gang". In that sense, I think the movie was just showing their doings.
reply
share
bibabutze (10)
6 months ago
What was his Debut as an actor in Hollywood? I only see danish productions.
Speak no Evil is also produced by danish and a dutch production company and got financed by the danish 'Det Danske Filminstitut': Tax Payer money.
In Europe its very common, that countries have public funds to support local artists and culture in general. You can apply your Projects and ask for money. A board of people decides if the project get support.
In germany there are already rules in place to only finance projects that fit a checklist, with a lot of diversity points. Its nearly impossible to get a movie financed by public funds. And very similar to DEI by big companies.
I dont know how its handled in Denmark, but it seems that in general they taking more risks while making movies.
But maybe he could already checked the marks, by adding the dutch couple and their babysitter 'Muhajid'.
So beside all conspiracies, the production of the movie is pretty much independent and not influenced by hollywood - only in the good old arts of film making :)
reply
share
Gyroscope888 (6)
6 months ago
Ah ok, I'm not from Europe so didn't know that. I didn't do a deep dive into the director, but here is what I had read: "Christian Tafdrup was an actor who had a successful Hollywood career. Tafdrup worked on a variety of projects during his early entertainment career, including "Dancer in the Dark" with Björk (2000) and "A Soap" with David Dencik (2006)". I just checked his IMDB credits and you're right, there's no Hollywood movies on the list?!? Thanks for the clarification.
reply
share