The Man Without A Past

[Michael Brooke]

A full review is in progress, but I just thought I'd write something quickly while I'm still on the biggest post-film high I've experienced since <I>In the Mood for Love</I> two and a half years ago.

In a word: fabulous. Aki Kaurismäki's first film in four years (and 1998's <I>Juha</I> was barely shown here) is blissfully funny (quiet giggles pretty much throughout, quite a few belly laughs), achingly poignant in the most surprising and unexpected ways, and its generosity of spirit is sometimes quite overwhelming - it makes most contemporary cinema look horribly cynical and mean.

How on earth he does it I simply don't know - although in essence it looks as though he's simply been making the same film over and over again (I've now seen eleven Kaurismäkis, and I can recognise his style in two seconds flat), the reality is that much like the great Japanese director Yasujiro Ozu - who also had Kaurismäki's miraculous ability to turn the most outwardly banal situations into sheer magic - he's been gradually refining and deepening his art.

At 97 minutes, this is something of an epic for him - many of his films run less than 80 and a couple are under 70 - but there's no sign of slackness: he still knows exactly when to draw a scene to a close. He's a master of the perfectly-timed fadeout, and his ability to cram an entire encyclopaedia of emotional information into a single expression or gesture is undiminished. It's intensified, if anything - just look at the scene with Irma's neighbour when the two of them are by the phone. The character's total screen time is thirty seconds (if that), and she could easily be cut out of the film without losing anything at all - but her expression as she realises the call isn't for her and hands the receiver to Irma is truly priceless, and it's the cumulative effect of seemingly inconsequential moments like this that make the film so deceptively powerful.

Although a long-term festival darling, critics (and audiences: his
films don't stick around for long) have been bafflingly slow to catch up - possibly because he suffers from the wholly erroneous impression that because virtually all his films are comedies he's not worth taking seriously. But with his ever-growing and increasingly impressive body of work, that kind of dismissal is getting harder and harder to sustain.

The technique is astonishingly simple - indeed, much of the time
Kaurismäki and his actors don't appear to be doing anything at all - but scenes resonate in the mind long afterwards. The scene between M and Irma where he offers to walk her home and steals a kiss could, if shown separately to someone who'd never seen a Kaurismäki film, look clumsy and clichéd - but in context, especially when we find out later that he is her first love, it's immensely touching: the scene looks stilted because neither is entirely sure about what they're doing or what they're supposed to do.

I'm well aware that I've said virtually nothing about the plot, and
that's deliberate - the less you know in advance the better, as this is the kind of film that creeps up on you and wins you over with its hangdog charm (the dog, incidentally, is worth the price of admission on its own).

More later - but catch this when you get the chance: there seems to be more of a marketing push this time round, but it's never going to pack out the multiplexes: it's too quiet and self-effacing. But at a time when most films shriek banal inanities, it's such a relief to come across one that prefers to whisper genuine profundities, even if they're usually couched in one of Kaurismäki's delightful throwaway aphorisms.

[Raphph]

Strange, my opinion of the film seems to be the antichrist of yours. I genuinely wanted to like this, but sadly found it to be one of the most tedious films I've seen in a long time. Granted, it's heart is clearly in its right place, and it's refreshing to see films with elements of originality hitting the cinemas, but I was thoroughly unimpressed. You mentioned the love scene to be deliberately stilted, whereas I found the whole film to be full of stilted performances, which sadly slowed my heartbeat to an all time low. The telephone scene which you claim to be priceless, I found to be ultimately pointless and indulgent. And far from scenes resonating in the mind long afterwards, I can barely recall a scene that convincingly won me over. Indeed, to me the whole film was a one-reel plot stretched over a 97 minute running time.

Maybe the stylistic framings were completely lost on me - I saw this very early on a Sunday morning, but I was very happy to finally hear the MOR guitar music gracing the end credits.

[Michael Brooke]

I'd be the first to admit he's an acquired taste… but if that was genuinely your reaction, I feel as sorry for you as I felt for the friend of mine who said Kieslowski's devastating <I>A Short Film About Love</I> was "a long film about boredom" or the American film critic who asked of <I>In the Mood for Love</I> "Who wants to see a film about two boring people not having an affair?"

For what it's worth, the IMDB verdict is rather closer to mine - after nearly a thousand votes, nearly a third gave it a perfect ten, roughly three-quarters rated it at eight or above, and the proportion who rated it at five or less wasn't much more than 5% in total. I particularly liked the Swedish viewer who summed it up as "See this! It will make you happy".

It certainly did me - I'm seeing it again this weekend, together with one of the people I saw it with last night.

[Raphph]

Originally posted by Michael Brooke

It certainly did me - I'm seeing it again this weekend, together with one of the people I saw it with last night.

Are you sure the deadened pace of the film didn't hypnotise you into coming back?

[Michael Brooke]

As I said above, I've seen eleven Kaurismäki features (all but two more than once), and if <I>Calamari Union, Shadows in Paradise</I> and <I>La Vie de Bohème</I> had got British distribution I'd have snapped them up too (I can probably skip <I>Leningrad Cowboys Meet Moses</I>, on the grounds that I've yet to come across anyone with a good word for it).

So if Aki is some kind of hypnotist, he's a remarkably good one, as it's nearly fourteen years since I first fell in love with his work. And it's not as if I owe him any favours, since the four films of his I was directly involved with marketing were all resounding flops and he cut me out of <I>I Hired A Contract Killer</I> (where I played Man Sitting Behind Jean-Pierre Léaud).

But your comment about the film's plot reveals where you're coming from - and if there's a single constant in your reviews, it's a strong belief in narrative and a general lack of sympathy with films whose pleasures are more subtle and incidental. So I'm not surprised you're not a Kaurismäki fan, and I'd hazard a guess you probably aren't too keen on Bresson, Ozu, Vigo or Jim Jarmusch either. To each their own, I say - but people who <U>are</U> fans of any of the above will almost certainly love <I>The Man Without A Past</I> pretty much unconditionally.

[Raphph]

Originally posted by Michael Brooke


I'd hazard a guess you probably aren't too keen on ...Jim Jarmusch either.

Au contraire mon capitan! Jarmusch is the exception! I find his films more rewarding on subsequent viewings, in particular Down By Law, which is slowly creeping into the list of my favourite films!

[Michael Brooke]

Originally posted by Raphph
Au contraire mon capitan! Jarmusch is the exception! I find his films more rewarding on subsequent viewings, in particular Down By Law, which is slowly creeping into the list of my favourite films!

In which case there's hope for you yet, as Jarmusch is one of the world's biggest Kaurismäki fans (he rhapsodised on this very subject at some length in <I>Time Out</I> a fortnight ago).

I also commend the introduction to Keith Reader's recent book on Robert Bresson, an oddly and touchingly confessional item where he confessed that he simply didn't "get" Bresson at first, finding his films cold and faintly repellent, and only kept watching his films because his reputation was so colossal. Which is just as well, as on the third or fourth attempt the penny belatedly dropped, and he not only became a passionate Bresson advocate, he ended up writing a book about him.

As I said, there's hope for you yet.

[Morpheus2000]

Originally posted by Raphph
You mentioned the love scene to be deliberately stilted, whereas I found the whole film to be full of stilted performances, which sadly slowed my heartbeat to an all time low.

Surely Raphael that is a positive thing, since you’ll probably live longer?

However, this one of most boring films I’ve seen recently. I couldn’t be bothered writing a review for it. I was bitterly disappointed with it. Nothing happens in the entire film, with the exception of him getting beaten up.

[Michael Brooke]

Originally posted by Morpheus2000
However, this one of most boring films I?ve seen recently. I couldn?t be bothered writing a review for it. I was bitterly disappointed with it. Nothing happens in the entire film, with the exception of him getting beaten up.

Purely out of curiosity, what were you expecting?

I only ask because it seems to me that existing Kaurismäki fans (I can't think of any exceptions) have absolutely loved this with a passion not seen since his work first started getting shown outside Finland some twelve or thirteen years ago - and the only negative comments have come from complete Kaurismäki virgins, which suggests the marketing has created the wrong impression.

(One of the people I went with was a Kaurismäki beginner, but I think I did a rather better job of priming him, since he thoroughly enjoyed it - even though he's being oddly silent here! ;) )

[Morpheus2000]

I was expecting an interesting story. I thought I would have liked it from what I read, but it wasn't really my type of film.

The film had some funny parts, but while it was clever at the times the rest had some plot holes. Why didn't he contact the cops to find his identity? Why is amnesia illegal in Finland?

It was wonderfully shot though, very vibrant colours.

[phlebas]

Saw this a couple of weeks ago and loved it - it left me with a huge grin on my face. I don't think it's the kind of film that needs a perfectly 'non-holey' plot. I really don't think it was meant to be realistic, especially as the protagonist was beaten so severely he would never have walked away.

I agree that the dog is worth the admission price alone. Did you notice on the film poster that the film won the 'Palm D'og' at Cannes.

[Narshty]

I'd not seen any Kaurismäki prior to this, and the more I think about it, the more glorious it seems. There's something immensely compelling about the apparent lack of incident within scenes, definitely enhanced by the impeccable sun-baked photography, but the combined effect is both spine-tingling and heart-warming, not to mention endless chucklesome moments ("Tickets please").

Although an obvious comparison is Jarmusch, I'd cite, of all people, W.C. Fields as another. His brand of comedy is similarly elusive first time round (I found even his 20-minute shorts desperately tedious to begin with), and only through a familiarity with his style and work does a true appreciation blossom. It's more a sustained air of deadpan absurdity rather than blatant gags and one-liners (although these do crop up from time-to-time in all three cases as well).

As for Morpheus2000's concern over plot holes, get your head round this - why exactly would an airtight bank vault have a sprinkler system? :D

[Morpheus2000]

Originally posted by Narshty
As for Morpheus2000's concern over plot holes, get your head round this - why exactly would an airtight bank vault have a sprinkler system? :D

I was wondering the same myself. Probably just in case the money went on fire! ;)

[Michael Brooke]

Narshty is absolutely right - and I urge those who found it "boring" and "tedious" not to write Kaurismäki off just yet.

My ex's first Kaurismäki film was <I>Take Care Of Your Scarf, Tatjana</I> (1993), which alongside <I>The Match Factory Girl</I> (1989) tell stories so po-faced and gloomy in a style so stripped-down and minimalist that it's practically impossible to convince sceptics that they're actually supposed to be funny. She was polite about it afterwards, but I knew her well enough to recognise when she wasn't having a good time.

But when <I>Drifting Clouds</I> opened in 1996 to ecstatic reviews, she decided to give him another go - and she unreservedly loved it: I think the scene that won her over was the one where a recently unemployed woman goes to the job centre and is told that she's unemployable because of her age. "But I'm 38!" she says plaintively. "Exactly", says the official implacably, "you could go at any moment". My ex was 38 at the time, and this obviously struck a chord - and once she'd tuned into one Kaurismäki scene she had no problem with the rest, and has been a firm fan ever since. And a fortnight ago, courtesy of BBC4, she watched <I>Tatjana</I> again for the first time since it came out... and this time round she loved it.

I'd never considered comparing him to W.C.Fields before, but I can absolutely see where Narshty is coming from - and I might as well throw two more left-field comparisons into the mix: Alan Bennett and the composer Erik Satie. Like Kaurismäki, at base they're serious artists (and hugely original ones), but they can't resist going for easy laughs from time to time, whether it's incorporating a farting pig into <I>A Private Function</I> or labelling pieces of ostensibly straight-faced and indeed rather mournful music with ludicrous titles like <I>Dessicated Embryos</I> or <I>Flabby Preludes (for a Dog)</I>.

And because of this, it's tempting just to look at the surface and miss what's going on underneath it, which is a huge pity as the rewards are immense for those who have the patience to seek them out. I'm especially conscious of this, having just watched a dozen Bennett plays in quick succession for <A HREF="http://www.screenonline.org.uk">Screenonline</A> - a blissful experience, but also a humbling one, as I'd never really realised just how wide his range was, or what a rich emotional experience his work offers. And I suspect I'd feel the same about Kaurismäki if I ever get the chance to have a similar blow-out.

[Raphph]

Originally posted by Narshty
I'd not seen any Kaurismäki prior to this, and the more I think about it, the more glorious it seems. There's something immensely compelling about the apparent lack of incident within scenes, definitely enhanced by the impeccable sun-baked photography, but the combined effect is both spine-tingling and heart-warming, not to mention endless chucklesome moments ("Tickets please").

Although an obvious comparison is Jarmusch, I'd cite, of all people, W.C. Fields as another. His brand of comedy is similarly elusive first time round (I found even his 20-minute shorts desperately tedious to begin with), and only through a familiarity with his style and work does a true appreciation blossom. It's more a sustained air of deadpan absurdity rather than blatant gags and one-liners (although these do crop up from time-to-time in all three cases as well).


Deary me Narsh! Maybe you were hypnotised too! I'm starting to feel like Brooke Adams at the end of Invasion Of The Body Snatchers when she sees Donald Sutherland! :nuts:

[Narshty]

The reference is lost on me. :(

[Michael Brooke]

Originally posted by Narshty
The reference is lost on me. :(

I think what Raphph is trying to say, with his customary quicksilver wit, is that anyone who liked this film is some kind of cloned pod person.

Whereas of course it's actually a gigantic con whereby you, me, my ex-girlfriend, most serious critics, the Cannes jury, the Academy selection panel, the 76% of over a thousand IMDB voters who rated it 8 or above (nearly a third giving it a perfect 10) are only <U>pretending</U> to like it in an attempt to appear big and clever.

I mean, you don't really think that I've actually sat through eleven Kaurismäki films, do you? (I mean, whoever heard of a film called <I>Take Care Of Your Scarf, Tatjana</I>?) This was just part of my elaborate plan to ensnare you, but as I've been exposed as a fraud and charlatan by Raphph's fearless and incisive investigative reporting (his true courage revealed, I think, by the risks he took in posting a truly humungous spoiler for <I>Invasion of the Body Snatchers</I>), I think <I>hara-kiri</I> is the only solution.

[McD]

Originally posted by Michael Brooke
...but as I've been exposed as a fraud and charlatan by Raphph's fearless and incisive investigative reporting

No, no, no - it happened long before that. ;)

[Michael Brooke]

Originally posted by McD
No, no, no - it happened long before that. ;)

Ah, but Raphph has uncovered a much bigger conspiracy involving literally thousands of people. I am merely a tiny cog in a vast international network that's spreading its tentacles in a fashion not unlike the Church of Scientology. We stand outside cinemas with those gizmos from <I>Men in Black</I> zapping people's brains in an attempt to convince them that they like films that no sane person could possibly sit through without screaming.

We would have got Raphph too, but he was far too clever for us. Either that or the operative who was supposed to see to him had a lie-in on Sunday three weeks ago - I must investigate.

[Michael Brooke]

Having just spent the past fortnight rewatching and transferring all my old Aki Kaurismäki films and interviews to DVD-R (if his UK rights holders are reading this, let the record show that I'll be first in the queue when you finally pull your collective finger out and release them properly!), I thought I might as well post capsule reviews of the rest of his output - not least so that people who loved <I>The Man Without A Past</I> as much as I did can have some idea of where to go next and which ones to avoid.

So here goes, in chronological order:

<B>Crime and Punishment (1983)</b> - commendably ambitious for a first feature, and it's impressive to see how Kaurismäki's style is clearly recognisable even at this early stage (he was only around 25 when he made it), but it doesn't really work. It's too simplistic to say that a novelist like Dostoyevsky doesn't suit this kind of spare, stripped-down style, as Kaurismäki's idol Robert Bresson has made two superb Dostoyevsky adaptations (three, if you count <I>Pickpocket</I>), but he never tackled <I>Crime and Punishment</I> - and on balance I think he was wise. Those already familiar with the book and Kaurismäki's style might enjoy it, if only out of curiosity.

<B>Calamari Union (1985)</b> - not seen this, but by all accounts it's the first "wacky Aki" film, shot in black and white and about fifteen men, all called Frank, leaving working-class Helsinki in search of a better life. Doesn't have much of a reputation, and very rarely shown even in Finland.

<B>Shadows in Paradise (1986)</b> - I've not seen this either, but it looks like the first film in a hypothetical working-class romance cycle that would also include <I>Ariel, Drifting Clouds</I> and <I>The Man Without A Past</I>, and it's also the first film to feature regulars Matti Pellonpää and Kati Outinen in the lead roles. It's very highly thought of, and the clips I've seen - for instance, a first date at a bingo parlour - make me want to see the rest.

<B>Hamlet Goes Business (1987)</B> - Wacky Aki again, this time in a black and white <I>noir</I>-style update of Shakespeare's play restaged as a boardroom drama in which Hamlet is the majority shareholder in his uncle's company, which is about to be taken over by a Swedish rubber duck firm. Very funny in parts, and with some surprising insights into the play that aren't often explored by more conventional productions, but probably best appreciated by those already familiar with both Kaurismäki and the original play.

<B>Ariel (1988)</B> - my first Kaurismäki and still a terrific starting point (though <i>Drifting Clouds</I> and <i>The Man Without A Past</I> are equally good for beginners) - a drolly solemn road movie about an unemployed miner falling in love with a traffic warden before being driven apart by his inadvertent involvement in crime. Its final scene of reconciliation and flight to Estonia (a lot of Kaurismäki characters end up there) is set to a Finnish-language cover version of 'Over the Rainbow', which just about sums up the tone of the whole film. I defy anyone (yes, even Raphph!) to emerge from this without a huge grin on their face.

<B>Leningrad Cowboys Go America (1989)</B> - probably Kaurismäki's best-known film, if only because it has the most ridiculously memorable premise: a dreadful rock'n'roll combo distinguished by their foot-long quiffs and winkle-pickers to match, having failed to achieve anything in their native country ("Somewhere in the tundra, in no man's land") embark on a tour of America, which inevitably involves playing the smallest, most hick-ridden backwaters imaginable. That's pretty much it in terms of plot, and it lacks the poignancy of Kaurismäki's best work, but there are irresistible moments, such as their tyrannical manager (Matti Pellonpää) stepping out of a swish restaurant and solemnly handing out raw onions to the band, who have been queuing forlornly outside.

<B>The Match Factory Girl (1989)</B> - this story of a young woman abused by everyone from her parents to her colleagues to her lover before she finally snaps and exacts a typically low-key revenge is beautifully summed up by Kaurismäki himself as "a film that makes Robert Bresson look like a director of epic action movies", this is almost certainly the worst Kaurismäki film to start off with: it's so fanatically determined to avoid depicting <U>anything</U> deemed "unnecessary" that at times it appears almost catatonic. It improves on repeated viewings, as it's much clearer what Kaurismäki's purpose is (and of course scenes that seemed irrelevant first time round are far more loaded when you know what's going to happen), but this is one for hardcore fans only. The latter love it for its "purity", and I can see where they're coming from, but it's a little too dour for my taste, and also a little too similar to Bresson's <I>Mouchette</I> (a far better film).

<B>I Hired A Contract Killer (1990)</B> - I really wanted to like Kaurismäki's first 100% English-language effort, and it does have its good points: a lovably hangdog charm, a fascinating outsider's view of the remoter parts of North London and some great moments such as the unexpected appearance of Joe Strummer as a café busker. But the central story of a man so inept at even committing suicide that he hires a contract killer to do the job for him, but then changes his mind after falling in love doesn't really go anywhere, largely thanks to a miscast Margi Clarke as the female lead (she's too lively a personality to give a convincing Kaurismäki performance). It's nice seeing Jean-Pierre Léaud up on the big screen again, especially as his career hit rock bottom after the death of his mentor François Truffaut.

<B>La Vie de Boheme (1991)</B> - Léaud pops up again in Kaurismäki's first French-language film, which sadly never achieved British distribution, though I've heard good things about it.

<B>Leningrad Cowboys Meet Moses (1992)</B> - This also never achieved British distribution, and by all accounts it's no loss.

<B>Take Care Of Your Scarf, Tatjana (1993)</B> - as with <I>The Match Factory Girl</I>, this is emphatically not recommended for beginners, but those who more familiar with the Kaurismäki (or even Finnish) male will find this a hoot. It's about two Finnish men, pathologically shy and seemingly only interested in talking about workshop tools, who hit the road and inadvertently pick up two garrulous women (Estonian and Russian). Much of the film is spent in restaurants, cafés and bars with the foursome looking awkward and not saying anything, which is either blissfully funny or painfully tedious depending on how in tune with Kaurismäki you are. On a sadder note, this would be the last Kaurismäki film to feature his regular leading man Matti Pellonpää, who died a couple of years later (though there's a reference to him, usually in the form of a mournful black-framed photo, in all his subsequent films). Those who have seen Jim Jarmusch's <I>Night on Earth</I> will remember Pellonpää as the Helsinki cabbie who wins the bet with his passengers to come up with the most grimly depressing story (Jarmusch shot that whole sequence as a tribute to Kaurismäki, a close friend whose work he adores).

<B>Total Balalaika Show (1993)</B> - A film of a wonderfully crazed concert that took place in Helsinki to cement Finnish-Russian solidarity in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union. If that makes it sound drearily worthy, most people will be laughing out loud pretty much from the start as the Leningrad Cowboys team up with the Alexandrov Red Army Chorus to massacre a blend of Western rock'n'roll and Russian folk tunes, the show-stopper being a cover of ZZ Top's 'Gimme All Your Lovin' that segues seamlessly into the Soviet national anthem for the chorus and back again.

<B>Drifting Clouds (1996)</B> - The first in a planned trilogy of films celebrating the downtrodden working classes (<I>The Man Without A Past</I> is the second) in a way that harks explicitly back to the 1930s masterpieces of Renoir, Vigo and Carné, this is just as eccentrically irresistible as its "sequel" and would make another great starting point for Kaurismäki beginners. The plot bears more than a passing resemblance to <I>Bicycle Thieves</I> - a married couple are made redundant on the same day and find their lives spiralling into ruin - but the deadpan tone, constantly teetering on the edge of farce, is pure Aki. It's also got my favourite ending of any film of his - a new restaurant's first block booking might sound banal in the extreme, but Kaurismäki turns it into something truly radiant.

<B>Juha (1998)</B> - First written in 1911, this melodrama about a happy marriage torn apart by the arrival of a mysterious stranger has been filmed several times in Finland, starting in the silent era. Kaurismäki's version harks right back to the first version in that it's also a silent film (or rather a black-and-white, intertitled and entirely dialogue-free one: the standard blues-and-tango soundtrack is present and correct). The first half is unexpectedly touching - Kaurismäki said he wanted to recapture the innocence of the silent era, and the finished film bears this out - but when it descends into revenge melodramatics the film becomes more plot-driven and, paradoxically, less involving.

<B>The Man Without A Past (2002)</B> - see above!

[CraigKORE]

Cheers for that Michael :thumbs:

[Mike]

"The Man Without A Past" is a delightful film, constantly funny and surprising. I also found it very touching. A definite candidate for the best films of 2003 list.

[Michael Brooke]

I finally persuaded my wife to watch it over the weekend (after suffering the torments of the damned, as she insisted I watch <I>Two Weeks Notice</I> with her first), and she absolutely loved it - much more than she was expecting to, as she still hasn't quite shaken off the ingrained belief that anything with subtitles is automatically going to be an intellectually dense art movie.

What she particularly liked (especially after <I>Two Weeks Notice</I>, one of the most crunchingly unsubtle so-called comedies I've seen in ages) was the way Kaurismäki trusted his audience to pick up on the comedy without feeling the need to bash us over the head with it. Some of the film's most exquisite moments are so subtle that they could easily pass by unnoticed, and as a result I may well have enjoyed it even more second time round.

A bit of digging between viewings helped too - for instance, the ending is lifted to a different plane once you know that the song in question ('Do You Remember Mon Repos') has immense emotional significance for Finns, as it's a lament for the lost people of Karelia, a former Finnish province annexed by the Soviet Union after World War II (which beautifully parallels the film's portrait of Finland's present-day dispossessed) . It's also sung by the woman who first performed it in the 1950s, who seems to be the Finnish Edith Piaf in real life - I imagine her throwaway line earlier on, "I've done a bit of singing in the past", got a reaction in Helsinki, if nowhere else!

A lovely film - and I completely agree with Mike: it's a certainty for my best of 2003 list.

[Dunbar]

I can only add that "Shadows in Paradise" is a must see if you're into Kaurimäki's films. It was my seventh Kaurismäki and the best so far, together with "The Man Without a Past". It clocks in at 69 min and that is all Kaurismäki needs for this brilliant film. Efficient storytelling, dead pan acting and very funny dialogue. From memory (and translated from swedish);

- How much is a room?
- 300, including breakfast
- And without breakfast?
- The same
- I'll take it
- It's impossible
- Why?
- All rooms are booked
- You could have told me
- Why?

[Alan b]

Moving to World Cinema and DVD Forum

[stegon66]

I've seen all of Aki Kaurismaki's features (minus the telefilm Likaiset kädet) and can recommend them all with the exception of Leningrad Cowboys Meet Moses (a rather dry disappointment). Juha, Drifting Clouds and Hamlet Gets/Goes Buisness are exceptional.