good back-story, and good acting

A Masterpiece!

There are better movies of two hours length. I loved the actress'performance.

Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

Director Margreth Olin follows a number of students at "Hauketo Ungdomskole" in Oslo the last months before the final exams. The film is made in accordance with a set of rules dictated by Lars Von Trier, hence the genre-description "dogumentary". Examples of such rules is that no lighting or other optical effects can be used, and that there must be a black cut between every scene. This has, of course, significant impact on the film's aesthetics. The short black cuts between every scene gives the film a fragmented impression, something which is further established by the fact that the film has no (conventional) narrative. The only thing that "holds together" the film as a unity, is the reoccurring characters (Kazim, Mikal and Anne-Lise as the most significant ones) and the fact that all the action takes place at Hauketo Ungdomskole.Although the film is edited from some 120 hours of footage down to about 80 minutes, the film gives an objective impression. It shows us how teachers interact with students and how students interact with each other. Some of the most important themes that we discover throughout the film are communication breakdown between generations, violence and how concrete incidents of violence (e.g. the racially motivated murder of Benjamin Hermansen) as well as violence in general (e.g. the ongoing war in Iraq) affects the youth.As viewer one often gets frustrated with the students' behavior; many of them are violent, many of them show a total lack of respect towards authorities, they generally treat each other badly and the majority of the students we follow seemingly makes no effort in school. Whether you aim your frustration at the inability of the teachers, the youth in general, the school-system or something else; the poem which is read at the end of the film will probably shed some new light on your reception of the film. The poem is the same as the one the film borrows its title from, namely "Ungdommens råskap" written by the Norwegian author Jens Bjørneboe.

This "dogumentary" shows the life of teens on the east side of Oslo. I believe it is pretty realistic, and I am really happy I live on the other side of town.This film focuses on the immigrants from the Middle East and Pakistan, mostly the "problem children". They don't care about grades or school at all. Although I do not personally know anyone who is this bum-alike, I definitely recognize this type of people from school.The movie is made after the dogme rules of Lars Von Trier. That means that we get many short cuts, showing short episodes. Often too short. That is why it doesn't get a better rating from me. But if you have the opportunity you should consider to watch it.

Some 120 hours of raw footage have been cut down into a 81 min documentary. We get to follow some kids in a Norwegian high school. The film-makers have chosen to focus on boys. And a particular type of boys, with difficulties concentrating, perhaps with certain ADHD tendencies, probably the "problem children" of the school. This makes the film a bit lop-sided. Essentially the boys are shown goofing around, screaming and displaying violent tendencies. We also, in a shorter segment, get to follow a girl with depression.Many of the students are immigrants, and immigration and racism are the themes explicitly discussed throughout the film. We get to see both the students and teachers prejudices against immigrants clearly. The immigrant students are conscious of their situation, and the stigma attached to being an immigrant. A boy thinks that there is no point in him pursuing education, since he will anyway end up an outcast. The film-makers interest however seems to be in the conflicts arising, in themselves, rather than providing insights into the conditions that create them, which leaves the film lacking in this respectWith the focus that the film has, on boys with "disciplinary problems", it is hardly representative of the way kids live today. And we all already know that school is there to teach the majority how to endure boredom, setting them up for the rote jobs of capitalism. Neither does the racism theme really go anywhere. This does not mean that the material is not interesting however, the film does succeed in giving us a bit of the raw deal that is part of youth.