Bold, Complex, Beautiful
Ramtin Ebrahimi
The film APART has a superb start. Generally, beginning scenes in films (especially in short films) indicate the type of film we are about to watch. The beginning always plays a decisive role in the trajectory of the story. In film, as in literature, the beginning not only determines the audience's curiosity or indifference but also sets the tone of the narrative, establishes the overall atmosphere, and fundamentally organizes the rhythm of what follows. It is almost always the beginning that introduces the characters to us, defines the quality of relationships, and hints at the film's main theme(s). APART has a very captivating start. Without any preliminary setup, it immediately shows the character, and the filmmaker’s cleverness lies in showing this character in the street, thereby also acquainting us with the environment. Instead of separately spending time introducing the setting and then moving to the character, the film merges character and environment from the outset. And this isn’t enough for the filmmaker, because simultaneously, we hear a conversation over these images, which we quickly realize belongs to another place and scene. It's a conversation between Erik and this same woman, who we learn is the mother of Erik's old friend Jakob. Through this conversation, we understand many things without it sounding artificial. We learn that Jakob and Erik were old friends who have apparently been out of touch for a long time (as Erik asks if Jakob still lives in Stockholm), and we find out that the mother was a former teacher, and Erik is currently in the same profession. This shows the cleverness of the writers, Karl Martin and Luca Pirero, who provide all the necessary information to start the story, introduce the setting, and most importantly, arouse our curiosity. Erik has contacted his friend’s mother after a long time to inform her that her son, Jakob, was involved in a school fire. The film starts exactly where it should, neither too early nor too late. At the same moment the mother learns of her son's involvement in the fire, we learn it too, making it a fantastic starting point.
The first two sequences, the street scene and the kitchen scene, lead us to the character being discussed—Jakob. For the first time, in line with the character’s mystery and the suspense the film creates, we see Jakob from behind, apparently descending an escalator. At the same time, as we understand that a party is being held for Jakob’s mother’s retirement, the information we’ve gathered about Jakob makes us curious about him. Is Jakob the arsonist responsible for the school fire? We don't know. Is his old friend lying? It's unclear. The filmmaker skillfully refrains from showing Erik and only lets us hear his voice over the phone, further keeping us in the dark, and not revealing much about Erik.
The film sets up the party without wasting any time, and with just two transitional shots (seeing Jakob from behind and a single shot of setting the table), it goes straight to the night of the party. At the table, in addition to Jakob, Karin, and the mother, there are three other guests. We are dealing with a small, intimate gathering that soon falls apart due to Jakob’s harsh words and opposition. At the party, Jakob continuously verbally attacks the other guests to convince them that refugees are the cause of all Sweden’s problems and are changing the face of the country. We gradually move through the heavy atmosphere that has filled the air, and director Luca Pirero skillfully advances this tension. From the phone conversation, he has already planted the seeds of this tension in the mother’s heart (and seemingly in the audience's heart as well). On the day of the party, Jakob is shown in the bathroom, hesitant about attending the gathering. The group of people at the party does not seem to hold a one-sided view of Sweden's problems and they do not believe that all the issues are due to immigrants and refugees. However, Jakob provokes them so much with his words that their reactions are anticipated at any moment.
The atmosphere of the party gradually turns into a confrontation between two camps, two groups, two perspectives: those tolerant of the current situation versus the extremist opponents of refugees. At this table, and through everyday discussions (which again relate to the school issue), we reach questions of what democracy is, how to view the issue of immigrants and refugees, and what the citizens of a European country think about the presence of refugees in their society. At the table, Jakob (and imitating him, the young son of the guest family) are staunch critics of the presence of refugees in Sweden. These two believe that every bad thing happening in Sweden, such as outdated schoolbooks, job opportunities being taken, or threats to citizens, is directly related to the presence of refugees. Jakob explicitly refers to an incident at an IKEA store where two black men attacked several Swedes. On the other side, the other guests try to tolerate Jakob’s remarks. The way this scene was directed, which might seem simple but is very challenging due to its execution constraints, shows that we are dealing with a skilled director.
Without wanting to give away the ending, one has witnessed how the filmmaker succeeds in examining the issue of extremism in Europe within the framework of a short film set at a small party in Stockholm. Especially nowadays, with various reports about the right-wing shift of the European Union, watching this film can greatly enhance our understanding of European perspectives. In the film, the character with extreme views was himself adopted years ago by a Swedish family and was considered a foreigner, yet today he believes that foreigners and refugees are the cause of Sweden’s downfall. The film beautifully portrays this contradiction in his character and, in particular, the confrontation of two viewpoints. A bold, detailed film, reflecting upon one of the most relevant questions/issues we are facing today.