Spring för livet (1997)

User Rating:

5.6/10   

Director:

Richard Hobert

Writer:

Richard Hobert (writer)

Release Date:

19 September 1997 (Sweden)

Genre:

Drama | Thriller

Tagline:

En omskakande thriller av Richard Hobert

Plot:

Without forewarning the police storm the hospital where Catti has given birth to her and Mikael's child...

Plot Keywords:

Hospital | Illegal Immigrant | Immigrant | Sequel | Nurse

Awards:

1 win & 4 nominations

Cast

Camilla Lundén	...	Catti
Göran Stangertz	...	Mikael
Lena Endre	...	Ingrid
Jakob Eklund	...	Erik
Indra Roga	...	Maria
Armands Reinfelds	...	Stefan
Sven Lindberg	...	Ragnar
Mona Malm	...	Vendela
Peter Andersson	...	Criminal inspector
Tommy Johnson	...	Civilian Police
Reine Brynolfsson	...	Tommy, local policeman
Thomas Roos	...	The Vicar
William Rosenberg	...	Knud
Lena Viredius	...	Erik's ex-wife
Thomas Ungewitter	...	Judge

Also Known As:

Run for Your Life

Runtime:

116 min

Country:

Sweden

Language:

Swedish

Colour:

Colour

Aspect Ratio:

1.85 : 1

Sound Mix:

Dolby

Certification:

Iceland:12 | Australia:MA (cable rating) | Sweden:15

Filming Locations:

Malmö Railway Station, Malmö, Skåne län, Sweden

Company:

Cimbria Film AB

Movie Connections:

Follows Händerna (1994)

Soundtrack:

Änglarock

Good talents lost in a crippling self-righteous script

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I wonder what Swedes might think about this movie. Nevertheless, a good movie it is not, but that is not to hint it's a bad one either. I was struggling throughout the two hours to find the basis to the plot that would make it so meaningful. But I failed. It just doesn't make too much sense. So many small details that make or break a thriller just didn't stick together. Examples (beware - spoilers ahead!):

Missing crucial fact: In the end - were Maria and Stephan – who presumably were Yugoslavian refugees (it is never said so I cannot guess their exact nationalities) – real terrorists or innocent refugees? The choice of her name – Maria – suggest they were indeed just refugees.

Choice of a plot: Indeed in the end the couple is given the right to stay in Sweden. So why have them die?! Was it truly necessary for the plot? They die jumping into the water – what an odd way to terminally kill a couple! – and while that is a total No-No in American movies - don't these "foreigners" end up being - like in American movies - the expendable ones? Even in this movie they hardly speak their native tongue, we are told so little about them and the only time we see an authentic entity is when Maria sings a Christmas carol in whatever language she spoke. Throughout the movie these foreigners are consistently ignored and deceived (maybe for their own good, but still) by their own saviors. They are just there and are talked to in the simplest English – "no go", "go in car" without ever asking how they feel. This leaves me with a bitter taste - the movie is anti-racism yet utilizes the same attitude towards its lead foreigners.

Unnecessary odd details: And when the Swedish "nazis" perform the mock trial to Maria and her helpers and then taunt her by shoving Mikael between her legs – was it necessary to have Mikael admit Ingrid that he had a hard-on and to have him confess that he indeed rape Maria "unwillingly"? A symbol of the `good' Swedes screwing over. Literally, the refugees?

Bad math: We are told that Kund - the Danish old guy that would show up with his boat to save the couple – is 76 years old and that he was an officer in the Spanish war (i.e. he was at least 20 in 1936). But that would mean that the movie took place in 1992, but the cellular phones that abound the screen tell it must be about 1996. Oh, so he was a 16 year-old officer in the Spanish War?!

Motives that don't exist: The motives that make the Swedish `good people' in the movie help the refugees remain unclear. Erik's character is another riddle – a rebellious army officer (who apparently served in the Balkans) clashes with the local Nazis who come to his isolated cottage to warn him about some unclear matter… And why did he leave his family? If he had on the basis of a bad marriage (his wife has a lover) why are we shown in a disgustingly voyeuristic manner that he tries to warm things us – sexually – with his ex-wife (or something of that status)?

Lack of financial, parental and emotional concerns: How come Mikael and Catti allow these people whom they have never seen before mutilate their Volvo to the point it is left in the empty field? This couple suffers a tremendous losses of money, time and sleep, all to save a couple they hardly knew anything about and while schlepping their own one week old baby across moors and in a December chilling weather! Why doesn't Catti insists that she calls her husband but would do so only 2 days later, after leaving Erik drunk in the Jeep?

Down to it, the plot is not a plausible one, the motives to the characters' actions are very thin at best, basic facts that are given to us are just contradictory to the common sense and the end is just horrific in the choices made by the screenwriter. Sweden is shown as a police state –the police has never been so efficient as in this movie, but while policemen are so good at catching the good guys, they never bother with the hoodlums (the `nazis') that torture and Maria and the others. References to the holocaust and the Christian tradition do not elevate the story, but rather make it silly. And then Catti and Stefan end up with Erik in a `battlefield' (an army exercise) just so Catti gets to feel how a war feels like…

Good things about the movie: interesting characters (no motives, did I mention it?), effective score and overall – good production value. So what if the story doesn't make sense?! Seems to me like a lot of good talents were lost in a crippling self-righteous script. Coming to think of it – if Sweden would be so violent and dictatorial – I don't understand why Maria and Stefan would be so anxious to stay there.