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?
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?