The film is sandwiched by scenes of rural India. You see images of undeveloped Indian with starving children who have to live on the street and young girls forced into prostitution. These people have to worry about living- having food to eat or a place to sleep; or worry getting money for the shelter. They have to work to stay alive. While at the same time, Jorgen and those who live in Denmark have complicated lives that center on birthday dinners, wedding receptions, and reputations. These are chronicled in the “meat” of the film. The comparison of the social complexities between the two sides of the world is interesting because at first glance it seems that the film comments on the vainness of the way the wealthier part of society lives. But the framing is much more complicated than that. The film makes an obvious point that the complexities within Danish society come at a price; they tear at relationships and add immense moral dilemmas. In fact, just as those on the streets in India have to worry about death everyday so does the wealthy businessman, Jorgen.
We cannot help but to see an interesting commentary on social inequality in the film. As Jorgen and Jacob discuss the horrifying statistics of all the women and children dying in India and how insignificant an individual life seems in the spattering of numbers, the film emphasizes the death of one man and details the complexities associated with his death. Is this a comment upon how futile we are as a society when the death of one man is more important than the death of another? Or does this just simply describe a sociological pattern?
It is also interesting how money lies at the center of nearly every moral negotiation in this film. We see Jorgen as the ideal husband, father, businessman, and son. However, he still wants to prove himself when he dies. He remarks that the fund is pay back for his sins. Here, money is used as a moral currency. Jorgen believes that using his money in a philanthropic way makes him a great man. I wonder if and how does he think a poor man can pay back for his sins? This also creates complications for Jacob. Jacob is in a bind in that he refuses to lose his dignity and “be bought,” however he feels a strong obligation to his shelter and Pramod. Eventually, his decision to stay in Demark was the best he could do. He acknowledged this with a final smile – knowing that he has made his family happy (both Pramod and Helene and his daughter).
Nicely done, Bradley. Good reading of the end. In a sense, we could see Jacob as an example of the poor man, though I'm sure you were thinking more of those he's trying to help. As a sort of proxy for them, though, while he may not be able to pay for his sins as Jørgen does, he can be absolved, forgiven by Jørgen, who gives him (back) his family. This is a troubling form of absolution, don't you think? As you say, in many ways we may see Jørgen as a loving father, husband, etc. And we might praise his willingness to be such a caring father to Anna, who is another man's child. But, again as you mention, there's the money that makes all his largeness of spirit that much more possible. Somehow, it feels like a much darker film than it seems.
ReplyDelete