Borgman | tomgrovesthriller

Borgman (2013, Alex van Warmerdam, Netherlands)

The most unusual aspect of this film is the extent to which the ordainment of a protagonist is subjective – a feature that gives the film an underlying atmosphere of sombre. By analysing a foreign film, I consolidated my interpretation of dialogue as being best when used minimally; to someone who speaks no Dutch, the narrative is still easily understandable, and if anything, the extra ambiguity makes the film more enthralling.

Before the first filmed shot, a quote is shown. This is an interesting idea, which could be useful in our own production. It initiates the sequence with a slow pace, at the same time as fabricating the first equivocation.

The first shot shows a dog barking, which immediately connotes danger. A sound bridge links the dog to the man, therefore providing the first indicator of his antagonistic persona. He is represented as powerful, at least in his domain; Benjamin Boe Rasmussen's acting conveys the man's character to be relaxed and unpretentious, as he gets dressed and starts eating in an casual manner, although this interpretation also engenders a contrasting element of callous, as he picks up a gun with the same temperament.

The mise-en-scène and camerawork encourage the idea of his localised power, through the use of a wide shot of an open field, signifying an explicit lack of entrapment, although a tree line creates a wall, manifesting a limit to his suggested autarky.

This is followed by a cross-cut to a church, which reduces the pace even further, and creates a facet of religious implications, which could be interpreted as satanical, to some extent. The back of a person's head is prominent to the left side of the shot; they remain ambiguous enough so that even their gender remains equivocal. A sudden dramatic increase in pace occurs with the next cut, to another man, who is sharpening a spear-like object. The framing implicitly places the object so that it is pointing towards the head of the person in the previous shot, which could be foreshadowing the person's death.

Next, is an establishing shot of the "dwelling" of the vagrant, Borgman. The mise-en-scène is efficacious in notifying the audience of his homelessness, and therefore of the stereotypes that come with this label. However, even with the most generic stereotypes of homeless people, there are at least two distinct types: those who steal and beg for drug-money, and those who are more "genuine", and usually more magnanimous than the next person. In the context, the latter seems to be true for Borgman, largely due to the sense that the three men are invading his "home", and we are naturally inclined to feel emphatic towards Borgman; it could be argued that this promotes him to the position of protagonist, at least for this scene, although in Propp's character theory, the position overlaps with victimisation, which seems more appropriate for the circumstances.

The extremely low-key lighing offers a contrast to the brightness of above ground, and symbolises the antagonism between the characters, as well as aggrandising the verisimilitude.

It is also worth noting that there are no high-angle shots of any of the three men in the group, and similarly, there are no low-angle shots of Borgman. This consolidates the distribution of power in the sequence – Borgman has very little – and therefore provides a basis for development of the fabula, as Borgman builds up power as the film progresses.

The film then shows a series of cross-cuts, which almost develop into shot-reverse-shots, simulating the group of three men's progress towards Borgman, thereby inflating the audience's concern. This series of shots contains an innovative point-of-view, through a piece of old guttering, turned into a periscope. This again increases the viewer's sense of danger and concern, as they are thrown into Borgman's own perspective. The group of men is just visible in the shot. This gives the audience information, therefore increasing the tension as Borgman proceeds to try to make a phone call.

A three shot of the group of men is shown, representing their compatibility, and consequently the danger of Borgman's situation. One noticeable change in the camerawork from this point is the sudden reliance on handheld shots, when Borgman is the subject, which forces an increase in pace and tension.

Once the men reach Borgman's hiding place, one of them begins to stab the floor with his spear. The vicar then proceeds to decimate the ground with an axe. Together with the spear-man's occassional looks towards the vicar, as if seeking commandment, this presents two different types of villain, suggesting that the vicar is superior, particularly in intelligence; the spear-man previously fell over, and nearly landed on his spear, and the vicar is later seen running after Borgman, whilst the bald men are left to struggle through the aftermath of Borgman's smoke grenade.

If the vicar is assumed to be the main antagonist during this sequence, then the majority of the conventions of thriller films are adhered to, including:

The antagonist having a vast amount of physical power when compared to the protagonist, in terms of both weapons and manpower.
The protagonist relying on intelligence and cunning to beat the antagonist – Borgman escapes through a tunnel, and uses smoke to prevent the men following him.
The protagonist being confronted with death.
The storyline focusing on the protagonist's point of view.
The representations being reasonably realistic.

In relation to our own project, the innovations that Borgman proffers include placing the protagonist in a situation of great entrapment, and having a main antagonist, who has an "army" of followers. It also presents the idea of having the designation of protagonist and antagonist to be ambiguous, and changing, although this would likely be complicated to attempt to recreate.