Quite often one of the questions that runs through my head when watching a film is: “what kind of person does it take to make this film?” That is, what are those things in the world that one has to find interesting, what aspects of those things does one have to view as being worthy of interrogation for the materialisation of said interest to cohere as the film occupying the screen space in front of me?

The Drama poses an interesting response to this question because its sites of intrigue and investigation are directed by an attentive eye. There’s genuine interest towards its characters. The aspects of their interior lives which are exposed and displayed track with a heuristic which would appear to designate honesty as one of its primary drivers. What plays out in response to the film’s narrative provocations is a series of scenarios where interpersonal strife and struggle are articulated as genuine aspect of an emotional tableau. Characters’ reactions are understandable and sympathetic and, even when extreme, the instance of their incitement finds its root in something tangible - verisimilitude isn’t an issue on first instance. As stylistically garish as I do find some of its editing design and its incessant pacing, the dramatic throughline can still be understood through these choices and the emotional reverberations of its central twist (premise) don’t feel artificially manufactured. All this to say that there is something interesting about what Borgli finds interesting.

But of course, what we find interesting is only half the story - objects of interest on their own tell us fairly little about our own interest. And that Borgli’s interest finds topics of domestic instability, romantic expectation, and relational conflict worthy of exploration mostly evinces that he displays similar concerns pertaining to domestic and psychic life as do most. Where Borgli stands out is in the way in which he uses, or more aptly, doesn’t use these topics to develop a conceptual lineage of ideas. These topics for Borgli serve as their own cinematic question and answer. What’s interesting about them is their capability to serve as the worst interpretations of themselves - coming to discover previously unknown information about a fiancée or spouse has the potential to form for them a new emotional picture which might override and displace an existing one; difficulty in processing this new information generates an aggressive misplacement of sexualised anger at a coworker; miscommunication between friends becomes the basis for nasty mudslinging and eventual fallout. Borgli’s interest finds itself reproducing the same sequence of cause and consequence. This, of course, isn’t to say that Borgli merely repeats the same scenario in each instance that he employs this approach, but what he does do is bring the same vocabulary of behaviour and sociological intuition to each interpersonal engagement, and more importantly, to each instance of conflict.

The uneasiness, doubt, and (to an extent) fear that is generated by Emma’s central admission is most useful to Borgli in the way that it can capture and fuel reactionary sentiment in each of its characters. Psychological verisimilitude seems an afterthought to the large, looming object of spectacular discord and miscommunication. And I am under no illusion that Borgli’s film is a film about reactions. But his interest is only in distrust and assumption. Reputation is a useful and interesting examinatorial object insofar as it is something which can be dislodged, mischaracterised, falsified. The why is rarely of interest.

In contrast to my generally negative appraisal of this film, there are many ways in which I do find it interesting. Its core ideas and its motivations do have a handle on something which is worthy of investigation and critique. I certainly don’t find the content of its premise necessarily problematic (though Borgli also doesn’t sufficiently problematise the outcomes of his scenario). The Drama still recognises the tensions of public image and judgement, and it fashions characters and circumstances which are able to play out and simulate extremities of these volatile subjects. But most often, extremity seems to be Borgli’s keenest interest, and frustratingly, where his interest terminates. Borgli’s film may indeed be a film about people, it may be about the doxas and discontents of virtual social interactions. Yet, even if what we see play out on the screen is in fact Borgli’s attempts to critique or examine difficult and painful human behaviour, he ought at least to admit a little more of it into his own film.

Subscribe now