A minimalist expressive style from the perspective of a municipal garbage collection man of limited means and victories; Almost felt like an older counterpart of Wes Anderson's classic storytelling style ("The Darjeeling Limited", "The Grand Budapest Hotel"). As people, we expect something livid and visibly bad even in an seemingly alright world though, what lies 'within' could be more defying than external stuffs."Why do I keep losing?", asked Nikander. And, answered his friend, " Maybe you aren't trying to win."Stoic, simple... A little too bland from present standards, and yet a curious account of the lives that 'should' matter even when they seemingly don't.

One of reviewers has called this movie "a beautiful example of minimalism". By this I believe is meant minimalism of acting, as the two leads, Matti Pellonpää and Kati Outinen, spend the first forty minutes of this movie without any expression, until one breaks out in a sardonic smile. This does not look like minimalism to me, but depression. As I have remarked in other reviews, a low affect is typical of depression and accurate in its portrayal. It is not, however, interesting.It's a movie about two lower-class loners. He's a garbageman. She's been fired from three jobs in the last few months, for what she says is no reason. On their first date, he takes her to what appears to be a bingo game in a DMV office. She asks him what he wants. He says "nothing". I believe him. Eventually she stops showing up.She regrets it. So does he. He shows up to invite her to see his sister in a mental hospital.In the theater, in the dark, surrounded by other people who are paying attention, the bleached colors and the effort made to read emotion into the blank eyes of the players is an engrossing operation. It's clear that these two want the simplest and most human of things, a little sex and not to be alone. However, they demand too much from each other, to make the offer without indicating they want it. How can they expect anything? And, given the director's indifference to the audience, his "minimalism", how can he expect an audience to put in the work without more of an indication that there is an expectation of some reward?

Some random observations: 1. Kaurismaki's "paradise" is grimy city streets, garbage, landfills, jails, flophouses, shabby apartments. Two kinds of people inhabit this Eden: either the few, the snooty, the well off – or the subverbal, poorly educated quasi-lumpen stumbling about among the aforementioned sites. The settings, both exterior and interior, belong more to the England of "The L Shaped Room" or "Billy Liar" than to the Scandinavia of travel agency brochures.2. Kaurismaki delivers virtuoso satire founded upon the stereotypical shy, wordless Finn. But he offers more by pushing beyond stereotype to display a deep familiarity with the kind of people he shows on the screen. An American director similarly so in tune with his people might be Kevin Smith. A possible British counterpart? Maybe Ken Loach.3. "Shadows in Paradise" is also a testament to Kaurismaki's confidence in the cinematic medium itself, in its power to tell stories using sight and sound without principal reliance on the material of theater or literature – words. We are accustomed to the many films about how XX meets XY, where the characters express feelings, establish plot, indeed, do just about everything through words. Sometimes we even get entire orations, regardless of a film's "realistic" intent. Dialogue rules everything from the quippy screenplays of Nora Ephron or Preston Sturges to the tangly Gallic word-webs of Eric Rohmer. The similarities between Ernest Borgnine and Betsy Blair in "Marty" and Matti Pellonpaa and Kati Outinen in "Shadows in Paradise" end with "Marty's" theatrical, dialogue-soaked provenance. It would be hard to transfer this film of Kaurismaki to page or stage. The story would weaken and likely die in print or any exclusively verbal form.4. For his comedy Kaurismaki employs a delay-deadpan technique, something familiar to anyone who has seen the "punishment" sequences in Laurel and Hardy's "Tit for Tat' (1935) or who remembers the standup routines of Jackie Vernon in the 60's. Kaurismaki's comedies – and "Shadows in Paradise" is a good example – prove the technique still achieves the desired result: laughs. And like Jackie Vernon or Laurel and Hardy, Kaurismaki makes his words just another ingredient in the comedy. They are well chosen and sometimes hilarious but enjoy no special preference.5. The movie screened the other night on TCM with the host's caution that this is an unusual sort of romantic comedy – but why the caution? And why the need for any "category" in the first place? To call this a "romantic comedy" and then warn people about its "quirky" or "offbeat"nature does it a double disservice. The warning for possible category transgression either implies that the film is deficient for disregarding certain "rules", or cautions the audience that it will be disappointed, since the movie does things it probably won't accept. But comedy, like so many things in life generally, thrives on surprise. In "Shadows in Paradise", Kaurismaki presents modern, free, prosperous Finland as a bizarre and rather dismal place which he proceeds to mine for laughter and the occasional tear. Whatever a television host labels it, the movie manages to be funny, entertaining – and accessible.6. A Kaurismaki movie has a distinctive "feel", as strongly trademarked as the comedies of Lubitsch or Sennett.

Nikander is a garbage collector. He appears about 35-40 and lives alone. Ilona is a woman who keeps losing jobs. The two of them, inexplicably, start dating even though you never have an idea what motivates them or brings them together. And, once they are together, they soon part--and the Nikander sulks....I think. That's because when Nikander (and Ilona for that matter) is sad he looks and acts exactly like he does when he's happy or bored or asleep. Will these two very dull people find each other before the film ends? Will anyone care?Imagine you took the film "Marty" or "Napoleon Dynamite" and sucked every last bit of energy out of them--then you'd have "Shadows in Paradise". "Shadows in Paradise" is a completely joyless film about two lonely people, who between the two of them, don't even have half a personality. As a result, they just seem to exist--and the viewer is stuck. Stuck because you cannot really care about them and stuck because the film seems to go on and on forever--even though it's only 72 minutes long. Why would the filmmakers choose to make such a film? It lacks heart...it lacks soul. Why?! Yet, oddly, this film is part of a set from the high-brow Criterion Collection.By the way, IMDb says this is a comedy and a romance. I saw no indication of either as I watched the film. Now had they said it was a zombie film, that I could have believed.