Okay, I definitely cannot list all the production countries from this title and I will also spare you the five languages that are a part of these slightly under 1.5 hours, but "Flugt" or "Flee" is a mostly animated documentary from 2021 and one of the bigger, if not biggest players from the recent awards season. The director is Jonas Poher Rasmussen and he scored two Oscar nominations for his effort here in the animated feature category and documentary category and he even kinda got a third one with the foreign language feature category. The film won none of those three, but I feel it came in second at least once (documentary) or maybe even more often than that. The only category where it really had no chance to win was the foreign language category or whatever it is called now. As for Jonas Poher Rasmussen, it is his first film in over six years annd surely the most successful release from his career. I am not sure that says something positive though about his body of work, but I will get to that later. If you look at the idea of this film, an animated documentary, the first similar approach that comes to mind is of course the Israeli movie Waltz with Bashir that also had some success with the Oscars, fewer nominations though, and also did not manage a win, but it was at least as hopeful, probably more. I think I preferred Vals Im Bashir. I could say that these two make for a good double feature, but I did not like this one enough to do so. You can surely say it is a Danish movie because of where it is set for the most part and because of who made it, even if the main character comes from another country. I think the current political climate and the mainstream definitely helped this film a lot. There is major focus on a refugee and also some focus on his homosexuality. These topics do come in handy and there is no denying that.
From a filmmaking perspective, however, I had a pretty hard time to appreciate this film. I did not struggle with the animation style. That was not great, but okay all in all and not among the weaker aspects. What I struggled with was the fluency of the entire thing. Or lack thereof. With that I am mostly talking about the ways in which the characters were moving. It felt stiff and abrupt and just not smooth apparently and the argument that it was a stylistic choice does not seem valid to me. It clearly at times hurts the overall viewing experience. Another criticism is about what you actually see on the screen. There are some moments (not always admittedly) when there is a background that is basically one picture (no motion) and in front of it all one character is moving. Or two. It just does not feel convincing and worthy of a movie that received so much awards recognition to be honest. Technically, there are many weaknesses and again I cannot really accept the argument that the background was irrelevant and that it was just all about the character(s) in front. I will not elaborate on the voice actors here. I am not familiar with them and I am not a Danish native speaker, so I cannot say for sure how good they were. The voices kinda fit the characters I assume, so no heavy criticisms here. The subtitles were fine as well. I had the chance to see this film on the occasion of a (50%) audience competition linked to the European Parliament and to be honest if those European Parliament folks were the ones who picked this film into the group of three from which one will be the winner, then I am not surprised at all. Fools galore. But that is another story and I am also not surprised that one other nominee is even more terrible and the third film is also not particularly great, just better than the other two, but the level overall is really, really weak.
Anyway, back to this one here: I already described briefly why I think that mainstream has more to do with this film's success than actual quality filmmaking and I will go on and elaborate a bit on that. I am all for it if you make a gay-themed movie and deliver some amazing story with it. I think Milk and Brokeback Mountain for example are masterpieces or close to being masterpieces. Because they do not rely on the homosexuality alone to carry the film, but the story that comes with it, that surrounds it. This film here does not. It shove the idea directly into our faces. Be it the moment when he says at the very start that he had always been a little bit different (and I say that as somebody who quite likes a-ha), be it the moment when we hear him talk about how he wants a pill to suppress his homosexuality or be it the moment when we see how his father so happily accepts his gay son and does not take him to a brothel, but to a gay bar - all these scenes have zero subtlety to them. No depth at all and felt so scripted and the sad thing is they even got a reaction from some audience members as if it was all something truly creative. Not the case. I also severely doubt that most of this actually happened the way it was told here, but the film is based on real events, actual people, so it should have. It simply does not feel authentic. Another scene I struggled a bit with was the one with the problems the main character has at the beginning when he asks if they can take a break and the filmmaker is so happy to be humble and says yes sure of course, he is so happy that the fella wants to share his story and it's all good etc. Right afterwards he opens up effortlessly? Yeah, right. And during this break the dialogue keeps being recorded and what he said is played to us. Either the filmmaker secretly ignored his star's wish (even if said star agreed to it later on) or it is really all staged. The moment of conflict between the two men (filmmaker and protagonist) on one occasion also felt quite for the sake of it when one asks the other if he is also no longer on his side or so.
Then there is the protagonist's boyfriend: This alleged bond made the main character even less likable to me. I mean why would he talk to the filmmaker about his plans for the immediate future and then say his boyfriend does not even know about them. Come on. This is not flawed in a likable way. This is either messed-up or fake and fictitious. The solution in the end then with the two men standing there close to each other and we see that they have a happy future also could not win me over romantically. Oh and I must also talk about the Russians/Soviets here and the way they are depicted. First, it must be said that the protagonist fled from Afghanistan. You can probably make a point that he actually had to flee that he was a refugee in the sense of the word, which many are not, and even with him it is definitely not a 100% clear case. Not everybody who leaves a country was made to because their lives were at stake. But that is another story. As for the Soviets, I mean living in Russia was not the paradise for him either, but he did not have to fear getting killed because of his sexuality. That is a crucial point. Why are the Afghans not depicted as the enemy here. Instead, how do we perceive the Russians this time? They are all corrupt, ready to ignore the law and all morals if they get some money from the poor refugees. They smell like booze in a disgusting manner even if there is a door between you and the Russian man. Their high-profile officials are ready to group-rape innocent women they arrested in the streets. In dark alley. And our rolemodel hero is sad he did not interfere. And we know he never could have this charming man. The Russians will also interfere if you demonstrate against something that they want to keep as the status quo. (We have seen that in Germany lately, haven't we? And many other countries.) So, basically the Russians in this film are depicted like animals or even worse. Bet many liked it with the current Ukraine situation. Like the lowest of the low. We must say that this was the country that let the protagonist and his folks in, allowed them to stay. For a while at least. And did not deport them without checking their backgrounds. They had no other country to go to. And still all this film does is insult and attack Russians. Shameful and ungrateful.
Very fitting too if we look at the lie that the protagonist's family were all dead. Instead, they were all having a pretty decent life in Sweden and he got to see them again towards the end of the film. The scene with the confession that he is gay I mean. This also came out of nowhere for me. Like why exactly he would have to tell them that very moment felt a bit scripted to me. No real elaboration before that that he had to get it all out or something. There is not a lot I liked from this film as you can see from my rating here. Maybe one aspect I liked was the story with the other fella who was sent to Switzerland. They left it open if he was gay too and the idea and consequence that they had to be torn apart although they got along well was depicted tastefully and without unnecessary melodrama. Just the way it was / would have been I guess. Nonetheless, the real question for me was if this is just a poor film or a really bad film. Had I gone with the latter, I would have rated it 2 out of 10 only, but as you see I did not, so I was a bit generous here. It is really as far away from a positive recommendation as it gets and I am sure that even if I watch this another five times, then I will still not give it a thumbs-up. I do not have the slightest intention though to watch it only one more time. One of the biggest film disappointments of the year. It has all the mainstream topics that liberal Hollywood loves so much, but it just does not have 10% of the substance it should have to justify all the awards recommendation it received. For me clearly a thumbs-down and I am glad it did not win any of its Oscar nominations. The poster for this film here on imdb looks strange too. All quantity over quality again and barely a (not far-fetched) connection to the story. Better watch something else.
From a filmmaking perspective, however, I had a pretty hard time to appreciate this film. I did not struggle with the animation style. That was not great, but okay all in all and not among the weaker aspects. What I struggled with was the fluency of the entire thing. Or lack thereof. With that I am mostly talking about the ways in which the characters were moving. It felt stiff and abrupt and just not smooth apparently and the argument that it was a stylistic choice does not seem valid to me. It clearly at times hurts the overall viewing experience. Another criticism is about what you actually see on the screen. There are some moments (not always admittedly) when there is a background that is basically one picture (no motion) and in front of it all one character is moving. Or two. It just does not feel convincing and worthy of a movie that received so much awards recognition to be honest. Technically, there are many weaknesses and again I cannot really accept the argument that the background was irrelevant and that it was just all about the character(s) in front. I will not elaborate on the voice actors here. I am not familiar with them and I am not a Danish native speaker, so I cannot say for sure how good they were. The voices kinda fit the characters I assume, so no heavy criticisms here. The subtitles were fine as well. I had the chance to see this film on the occasion of a (50%) audience competition linked to the European Parliament and to be honest if those European Parliament folks were the ones who picked this film into the group of three from which one will be the winner, then I am not surprised at all. Fools galore. But that is another story and I am also not surprised that one other nominee is even more terrible and the third film is also not particularly great, just better than the other two, but the level overall is really, really weak.
Anyway, back to this one here: I already described briefly why I think that mainstream has more to do with this film's success than actual quality filmmaking and I will go on and elaborate a bit on that. I am all for it if you make a gay-themed movie and deliver some amazing story with it. I think Milk and Brokeback Mountain for example are masterpieces or close to being masterpieces. Because they do not rely on the homosexuality alone to carry the film, but the story that comes with it, that surrounds it. This film here does not. It shove the idea directly into our faces. Be it the moment when he says at the very start that he had always been a little bit different (and I say that as somebody who quite likes a-ha), be it the moment when we hear him talk about how he wants a pill to suppress his homosexuality or be it the moment when we see how his father so happily accepts his gay son and does not take him to a brothel, but to a gay bar - all these scenes have zero subtlety to them. No depth at all and felt so scripted and the sad thing is they even got a reaction from some audience members as if it was all something truly creative. Not the case. I also severely doubt that most of this actually happened the way it was told here, but the film is based on real events, actual people, so it should have. It simply does not feel authentic. Another scene I struggled a bit with was the one with the problems the main character has at the beginning when he asks if they can take a break and the filmmaker is so happy to be humble and says yes sure of course, he is so happy that the fella wants to share his story and it's all good etc. Right afterwards he opens up effortlessly? Yeah, right. And during this break the dialogue keeps being recorded and what he said is played to us. Either the filmmaker secretly ignored his star's wish (even if said star agreed to it later on) or it is really all staged. The moment of conflict between the two men (filmmaker and protagonist) on one occasion also felt quite for the sake of it when one asks the other if he is also no longer on his side or so.
Then there is the protagonist's boyfriend: This alleged bond made the main character even less likable to me. I mean why would he talk to the filmmaker about his plans for the immediate future and then say his boyfriend does not even know about them. Come on. This is not flawed in a likable way. This is either messed-up or fake and fictitious. The solution in the end then with the two men standing there close to each other and we see that they have a happy future also could not win me over romantically. Oh and I must also talk about the Russians/Soviets here and the way they are depicted. First, it must be said that the protagonist fled from Afghanistan. You can probably make a point that he actually had to flee that he was a refugee in the sense of the word, which many are not, and even with him it is definitely not a 100% clear case. Not everybody who leaves a country was made to because their lives were at stake. But that is another story. As for the Soviets, I mean living in Russia was not the paradise for him either, but he did not have to fear getting killed because of his sexuality. That is a crucial point. Why are the Afghans not depicted as the enemy here. Instead, how do we perceive the Russians this time? They are all corrupt, ready to ignore the law and all morals if they get some money from the poor refugees. They smell like booze in a disgusting manner even if there is a door between you and the Russian man. Their high-profile officials are ready to group-rape innocent women they arrested in the streets. In dark alley. And our rolemodel hero is sad he did not interfere. And we know he never could have this charming man. The Russians will also interfere if you demonstrate against something that they want to keep as the status quo. (We have seen that in Germany lately, haven't we? And many other countries.) So, basically the Russians in this film are depicted like animals or even worse. Bet many liked it with the current Ukraine situation. Like the lowest of the low. We must say that this was the country that let the protagonist and his folks in, allowed them to stay. For a while at least. And did not deport them without checking their backgrounds. They had no other country to go to. And still all this film does is insult and attack Russians. Shameful and ungrateful.
Very fitting too if we look at the lie that the protagonist's family were all dead. Instead, they were all having a pretty decent life in Sweden and he got to see them again towards the end of the film. The scene with the confession that he is gay I mean. This also came out of nowhere for me. Like why exactly he would have to tell them that very moment felt a bit scripted to me. No real elaboration before that that he had to get it all out or something. There is not a lot I liked from this film as you can see from my rating here. Maybe one aspect I liked was the story with the other fella who was sent to Switzerland. They left it open if he was gay too and the idea and consequence that they had to be torn apart although they got along well was depicted tastefully and without unnecessary melodrama. Just the way it was / would have been I guess. Nonetheless, the real question for me was if this is just a poor film or a really bad film. Had I gone with the latter, I would have rated it 2 out of 10 only, but as you see I did not, so I was a bit generous here. It is really as far away from a positive recommendation as it gets and I am sure that even if I watch this another five times, then I will still not give it a thumbs-up. I do not have the slightest intention though to watch it only one more time. One of the biggest film disappointments of the year. It has all the mainstream topics that liberal Hollywood loves so much, but it just does not have 10% of the substance it should have to justify all the awards recommendation it received. For me clearly a thumbs-down and I am glad it did not win any of its Oscar nominations. The poster for this film here on imdb looks strange too. All quantity over quality again and barely a (not far-fetched) connection to the story. Better watch something else.