What makes it different from others?

disgusting, overrated, pointless

Charming and brutal

I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

Anders Thomas Jensen's Oscar-winning "Valgaften" ("Election Night" in English) is about prejudices and how people will often vote based on these. Well, sure enough it came true. The current president of the US ran an entire campaign pandering to everyone's prejudices, and now those sorts of people are making inroads in Europe's governments. Could this in fact be the end of civilization as we know it? I haven't seen any of the other movies that got nominated for Best Live Action Short Film that year. They'd be hard-pressed to make as good a point as this one made. It might not be the greatest short of all time, but I recommend it as a warning of what can happen when people's base instincts manifest themselves. Worth seeing.

I just re-watched this great short film. And I have a new interpretation of it. I'll admit to being a bit of a Anders Thomas Jensen fanboy, as I love his humor.A year or two ago, I ran into the new term "virtue signaling". For the uninitiated: "Virtue signaling is the expression or promotion of viewpoints that are especially valued within a society, especially when this is done primarily to enhance the social standing of the speaker." This is often seen when a person labels and shames someone else for "wrongthink". Being racist, sexist, homophobic etc. Often for things that are completely innocent, or rather mild.I see the main character as virtue signaling. Already early on, he labels his friend a racist, because he doesn't want to drink Mexican beer. Thus attempting to shame his friend, and showing how virtuous he himself is. He continues in this vein, though with more reason, as he refuses cab-rides, because he finds the opinions of various cabdrivers objectionable. Thus he ends up traveling by foot, and fails to complete his original goal, of getting his vote cast, before polling closes. In an ironic twist, and perhaps a bit of karma, he himself gets labeled a racist, and physically assaulted. My possible interpretations are that people who are busy labeling and judging others, maybe should spend some time examining themselves.That being quick to judge people, and take offense, may well condemn people unfairly, for no reason, or for being verbally clumsy. And miss examining a persons actual opinions and intentions.In the end, the main character asks for the local beer brand, rather than the Mexican beer. Does that mean that he actually wanted the local beer all along, and he learned that pretending to like something else, to signal his virtue as tolerant and multicultural, really wasn't worthwhile?Or is it the more sinister interpretation, that he becomes jaded, gives up on his ideals, and tries to fit in?Virtue signaling as a concept may be new, but the underlying mechanism is age-old. Pretending to be something you are not, to gain status.To quote Tycho Brahe: "non haberi sed esse" A notion that can be found in many variations, and far back in time.

I enjoyed Election Night the first time I saw it and laughed out loud at times. It is a film I recommend to people and that I have watched again. However, a sober re-viewing of this film made my laughter stick in my throat. It is a provocative piece, with a message that perhaps the filmmakers themselves did not intend, and for that reason I recommend viewing, but do not endorse the message in Election Night.An Aid Agency worker, Peter, leaves a bar to try and reach the polling station to vote. His castigation of his friend and the barman in the opening scene reveal his humanitarian, multicultural leanings. His condemnation of racists is clear and concise.What follows is his quest to vote in the election, and like all quest tales, the valiant hero faces a series of ever-more difficult challenges to achieve his goal. Utlimately, as befits a tale based on a protagonist out to accomplish a mission, the final test is to identify and overcome a weakness in his own character. For Peter, it is the revelation that he is just as capable of racist sentiments as the next man. And this is where the film starts to veer off-course. Peter is punished for his weakness by a punch in the nose, delivered by a character who reveals the complexity of attitudes to race by his confused comments. I do not doubt that the reasons for taking the narrative in this direction are to do with fulfilling the structural demands of cinematic storytelling, and are not the result of the filmmakers wish to make an anti-liberal statement.However, the effect is one and the same. Humbled, defeated, Peter returns to the bar and symbolically, through his apathetic lies and rejection of foreign beer, 'converts' to the other side. Sure, this pathetic wretch toasting his Danishness at the end is funny, but it means the end note of the film is, 'Don't try to be tolerant, it isn't worth it and the recipients don't appreciate it anyway.'I don't think this is reading too much into the film. The co-opting of Peter to the racist side at the end means the film endorses (I am sure unintentionally) the views of Peter's bar friend at the beginning - that attempting to understand and sympathize with other cultures and peoples just isn't worth the bother. This is a film well worth watching, especially in culture studies classes as a primer for discussion. But try to think, as you watch, who you are laughing with, and who you are laughing at. And at what point do you cross the line?

It is election night in Denmark and the polls are close to closing. With a busy day behind him sending off blankets to war-torn countries, Peter has completely forgotten to vote and, being a very socially conscious citizen he sets out to try and get to the polls before they close. However he abandons his first taxi after he encounters racist views that he does not want to hear – but then he doesn't have a great deal of luck trying anything else.This is a great little short film that deals with a complex and difficult issue – racism, or rather the way we have of looking at people differently on the basis of their skin colour or ethnic origin. In a way I'm sure this film is more meaningful in Denmark than it is in other places because many films will capture the spirit of the nation as well as wider issues (many good British plays etc are very much set in the British experience) but I still got something from this despite not being a Dane! The film starts us off with a clear cut case of racism – few of us would support the taxi driver's views. However it then gets progressively more subtle and wide spread until Peter himself reveals himself to see others differently ('I doing it for you people' he tells the black employee). At this point we realize the point of the film – what is racism? What is acceptable forms of it and don't we all, regardless of colour, treat people a bit differently based on colour, dress, class etc?The film does not propose to answer these questions or offer solutions but rather just challenges us and leaves us to make our own minds up. In this way I appreciated it – it ends with a comic moment as Peter just slumps into accepting the world for what it is, but this is a mature way to leave it, not banging a drum but simply putting this situation out there and letting us see it for the complex issue that it is.A great short that is simple but very well written. The cast deliver their characters well but it is the steps down in behaviour that compares and contrasts 'racist' behaviour where it succeeds in showing us how complex the issue is and how wide spread it is, even if we don't see it we all do view others differently depending on their jobs, their race, their accent, their intelligence, their colour, their class, their clothes etc. That the film offers no solutions to this is not a failing – it is responsible and respectful.