User Reviews (12)

Add a Review

  • What you need to know about "Man of Iron":

    1. Palme D'Or 1981

    2.Wajda's sequel to "Man of Marble"

    3.Sweet-a** performances from Poland's acting elite

    ****NOTE**** Ok, you really do have to have a Warsaw-pact historical/political background when approaching this film, because it's compactly interwoven into flashback sequences recalling various anti-commie events (worker's movements and so on). And yes, that's mustachioed Lech Walesa making a cameo. If you have no idea what the Solidarnost movement was read up before watching this. Of course, the emotional and thus universal element is present (Maciek and Agnieska's love, etc) but this is mostly a story of survival and determination in the face of corruption and political hostilities. Polish people took amazing steps against their government as early as the late 60s, and here we see the triumphant and climactic finish to these efforts. Wajda incorporates interesting documentary footage within the film to make it more effective and appealing to his audience.

    See "Man of Iron" and feel nostalgia for the times when Eastern Europe saw change as a forthcoming and hopeful force. Classic.
  • Typing in a correctly spelt 'Man of Iron' into a DVD search-engine and immediately every conceivable configuration of Robert Downing Jnr's "Iron Man" comes up ....presuming that we are both illiterate morons AND couldn't possibly want a 1981 film about Poland - made in Poland.

    Even the most news-shy hermit could fail to have heard something about Solidarity, Gdansk and Lech Walesa's rallying, admittedly 30 years ago but now is a time to reflect, with the dust settled.

    Like many, I was already familiar with Poland's most well-known (at least in the "west") director Krzysztof Kieslowski but Andrzej Wajda was a name I'd heard but not seen his work. I'm always keen to see movies, especially long ones made about social issues by a native of that country and reviews were all favourable. Buying this Mr Bongo DVD, I was not disappointed.

    Some other reviewers have gone into detail about the political ins & outs but it was the film itself I primarily wanted to see and I want to immediately commend both the casting and performance of Marian Opania, as Winkiel, who excellently conveys a very believable TV journalist whose lifestyle may be typical of the profession. We witness and share his hopes and anxieties, from squeezing out the cloth he used to mop up the vodka from the bottle he'd just broken into a toothbrush cup, his other mental and physical angsts and the very real situations of power- cuts and strikes that affect everything, such as the phones.

    As Winkiel gets down to the task of reporting on the uprising from the inside, especially of the charismatic leader of the striking shipbuilders, Maciek Tomczyk, whose father was killed in the riots of 1970 and whose wife was detained. As the journalist interviews those around and who know Tomczyk scenes are recreated, including the occasional use of actual news footage which illustrate the various strands leading up to the strike.

    Obviously, a lot more than this goes into a riveting two and a half hour film but hopefully, with your appetite whetted, you'll now want to try it yourself. There's a whole canvas here on which Poland is painted and it's an absolutely fascinating one, but still well enough made to be both informative and entertaining.

    Highly recommended for those who, like me, want to expand their World Cinema repertoire beyond the easily available/popular but still want to play safe as this is a universal film that just happens to made in the Polish language. If the subject matter is of particular interest too, well, you know it's one for your online shopping cart!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    A sequel and companion to and a parody of Man of Marble. Whereas Agnieska, a young woman and an idealist about what she can do, is trying to find the truth, here Winkel, middle-aged and alcoholic, is out to create convincing lies to discredit a strike-leader, the son of Agnieska's subject and now her husband. The same process of flashback and revelation takes place, showing past strikes in the ship-works and how Maciej Tomczyk became the "man of iron". The ironies here are harsher than in Man of Marble- there's an unmentioned man of steel- Stalin, creator of communist Poland- lurking behind the scene; the state operatives- minister, shipyard manager, Captain Wirski of the police- have lost any of the idealism or beliefs that may once have inspired them and have only the belief in their right to rule. At the end the manager insists that an agreement imposed by force isn't valid to explain why the one agreed to between Solidarity and the government will fail, without ever realising that that is why every government-imposed agreement has failed and would fail. We see Captain Wirski practising Polish Police martial arts- truncheon work- in a gym for exercise while his subordinates sympathise with and help the strikers. Finally, even if Winkel cannot tell the lies he is meant to, the strikers will not accept him as a friend; he is too tainted by his past. He has to go out and probably lose his job and face prison for the accident that was hushed-up but he may have begun to save his soul.

    One fascinating thing about this film and Man of Marble is the revelation of how helpless the Polish government was. A dictatorship, with ideological control of the police, the film studios, the press, could not stop Wajda making films excoriating them. The best they could do was to censor them for Polish distribution.
  • Poland's historical and turbulent political moment is captured in a part documentary and part fiction film directed by Andrzej Wajda in "Man of Iron", a sequel of "Man of Marble" another classic directed by him. The film is very similar to its predecessor, which is a very good film and that's why to some it might seen a repetitive thing, except that this one took a more political approach to the story, seemed more real the situations presented. It is inferior than the previous film but it is very good too.

    Here, a reporter has the assignment to cover shipyard strikers led by Maciej Tomczyk (Jerzy Radziwilowicz) and members of the Solidarity Union that are fighting for better work conditions and against the abuses of political authorities. The reporter is told by his bosses to make the news about this man and other people will take his notes and all to make something against the leader, something to make him look bad, but while covering the protests, and finding more and more information about Maciej's past, the reporter gets divided by the whole situation without knowing in which side to stay: with his controlling bosses that work for the government or with the strikers.

    Wajda uses the same technique to present the story by developing flashbacks that tells us the life of Maciej, and more interesting, he concludes the almost inconclusive story of "Man of Marble" (the ending scene from that film appears in "Man of Iron" in the middle and from there we are able to see what happened to those characters, asking some questions about the film made by the documentary). To fully understand "Man of Iron" watch the 1977 film is necessary, otherwise it will be a confusing and difficult experience to understand the characters motivations, emotions, the political background (also you need to research more about what happened in Poland between 1960's and 1980's).

    I liked this film because of its involvement with a noble cause which was the strikes made by the Solidarity Union and the way Wajda was able to use this to make a relevant sequel of a great film yet is not a movie "selling" a group, or a political movement; it is a statement of how things were changing and who were the people behind these changes. Wajda directed this film during the controversial period, after all the government tended to persecute his oppositors and this film could be considered as a opposite propaganda, so the director took a lot of chance to make this wonderful film, a situation that resembles the one confronted by the female filmmaker in "Man of Marble", who is trying to make a film thesis about Maciej's father but she doesn't get enough assistance from her bosses that work for the Socialist regime.

    The importance of this film was big enough during the time of its release since there was a sense of lack of information about how Solidarity was changing things in Poland, and a movie like this, that combines archive footage of the real events, and includes a cameo by Lech Walesa, was important to make their cause famous around the world. The great prestige was the Palm D'Or at Cannes, something that was viewed by many as a recognition to the movement and not much of stating that this was a great film. Indeed, I think that it combines both, since both were triumphant and Walesa few years away would be elected Poland's President.

    The things that made this an inferior film compared to the previous film is the political subject and the way it was used in the film, in extended dialogues and scenes that were a little distracting, and some confusion in the presentation. The screenplay covered a more complex subject and intertwine the flashbacks reminding us about some of the characters and bring back memories from the first film. As you see, it's very difficult to put altogether, but the film succeeds in its great message. More of the humanistic aspect of being involved in solidarity and strikes than the far too rational political theme would make this film ten times better than it is. As both films points out, knowing the past is very important so that we can built a better future, and viewers, pay attention to the past moments presented here, so that you can understand their future and all of their struggle. 9/10
  • This film movement, while in no way the most important film movement artistically, considerably helped morally support and unite the Poles into a decade long, almost nation-wide rebellion against the Communist party which bloomed into the freeing of the Polish state from Soviet rule. This was a catalyst for the break-up of Communism in Central and Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, the end of the cold war, and a new stability in Europe, and indeed the world. Only taking this into account can one watch "Czlowiek z Zelaza" and truly appreciate how powerful this film is.
  • "Precz z zaplesniala elita wladzy!" "Do away with the moldy old governing elite!"
    • Graffiti in Gdansk, 1981


    Mass protests always seem to be about such basic things, e.g. stop killing us, or give us enough money so that we can feed ourselves, and here under Soviet communism it was the same. The context of Wajda's film is extraordinary, as it was made in 1981 during the heart of the Solidarity movement, and wove a fictional sequel to his 'Man of Marble' amidst the real-life story of the Gdansk shipyard workers practically while it was taking place. In the documentary 'Wajda by Wajda,' he explained the genesis of the film thusly: "I entered the shipyard in August 1980, going from the gate to the room where the workers were deliberating. I was led by one of the shipyard workers with a white and red armband. He showed me into the room and said: 'Mr. Andrzej, make a movie about us!'"

    The film shows the usual management responses to worker organization - the playbook never seems to change, just the characters/country/time in history - and it includes police brutality, corruption of the union bosses, propaganda (here leaflets dropped from an airplane instead of posted on the internet), provocation as a way of inciting violence and to put pressure on the unity of the group, and infiltration. It's amazing that a brief window in the evolution of the government allowed all of this to be shown, another in a string of remarkable successes for Wajda over his career in this regard.

    Unfortunately, I think the storytelling doesn't quite live up to the historical moment, and at 153 minutes, the film is too long. It was probably a mistake to first center it on the infiltrator, a man torn between both sides and whose desperate need for vodka seems to underscore how lost he is (at one point he breaks a bottle in the bathroom, and using a towel, soaks it up, wrings it out, and carefully avoiding broken glass, drinks it...ugh). We don't see Krystyna Janda's character until the 98 minute point, and even then it seemed a narrative mistake, as for the next 20-30 minutes we get a long flashback that for me was defocusing, including footage of her wedding, even if that did allow Lech Walesa to appear in another way. I think Wajda got a little bogged down in trying to tell the ending to 'Man of Marble' the way he had wanted to, though I suppose in taking pains to do this, he illustrated the handing off a struggle from one generation to the next.

    Where the film shines is in showing us these real moments of progress in Poland, and it has a place in Polish history for doing so. As the father (Birkut from the first film, now a shipyard worker) debates with son (a student, also played by Jerzy Radziwilowicz), his simple line "No lie can last forever" is incredibly moving. Later one of their elderly mothers says "We are going to win. If not now, then next time," indicating dogged optimism and the need for sustained protest, over years and generations. When we see the real-life footage of interviews of striking workers and they talk about cost of living and one says "They know that today workers aren't ignoramuses from the 18th century," it comes from a place of intelligence and courage. And lastly when we see the great Lech Walesa and his fellow members of the strike committee, it's powerful, powerful stuff. It gave me goosebumps when we first see him walking through a crowd, set to the acoustic guitar of Maciej Pietrzyk's "Piosenka dla córki" (Song for daughter). The ending, with Walesa being carried on the shoulders of protesters in the real-life story and the son honoring his father's makeshift grave in the fictional one, is very strong. Whatever his faults, Wajda again bore witness, and to have made the film in 1981 I think he was deserving of the awards he received.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I believe that the true value of a film lies in the clear exposition of his message (nonverbal, if need be). Two-edged narratives are not my cup of tea, unless any kind of siding is in reason impossible. In this latter case the message is actually nothing but the complexity of life. On the face of it, the Polish film Man of Iron has main characters with a mixed message. Winkel is a reporter, who appears to be fairly satisfied with the Bolshevist regime, and lives the life of a fellow-traveler. He tries to do a good job and steer clear of any extremism. On the other hand, Maciej Tomczyk is an intellectual, who continuously tries to stretch the freedom that is given by law. He regularly lands in prison for a few weeks or months, on the ground of petty verdicts such as littering with pamphlets (he assures the court, that they were all picked up). The characters are embedded in the true happenings at the Gdansk shipyard around 1980. The workers go on strike and occupy the shipyard, because they demand the recognition of their union Solidarinosc (Solidarity). The perseverance in this strike shows that something big is at stake. Tensions are rising. In the Netherlands the shipyard would probably have been cleared after a while, or the union would have called off the strike. So one can grasp the confusion of the regime, who no longer wants to exercise violence against the people that they employ and profess to represent. Remember that in this case the state is synonymous with the enterprise-owner. Of course one might argue, that the occupation is simply a plea for political democracy, but I tend to disagree. Nowhere it is suggested for instance to allow liberal parties. Here the opposition has limited goals. The deeper essence of the story seems to be, that trade unions are indispensable, irrespective of the social system that we live in. Finally an agreement is reached, the regime gives in, and the workers celebrate their victory. What does this mean for the integrity of the main characters, that demand our attention for several hours? who has an evident claim on our sympathy, Winkel, Tomczyk or both? You need to interpret the society, and the ill-informed viewer feels somewhat lost. Although I boost my expertise With respect to the GDR (East-Germany), here the situation is clearly different. The GDR was at least formally a multi-party state - although this did not guarantee democracy. On the other hand, independent unions remained absent. Since Lech Walesa, Anna Walentynowicz, and Jerzy Borowczak play themselves, the narrative apparently shows the perspective of Solidarinosc, and may be called union propaganda if you will. But independent unions appear in all sorts and conditions. Tne story suggests a workers'loyalty towards the catholic church, which comes as a surprise, considering that in the Netherlands the catholic unions faded already in the sixties. The Polish people are obviously different, among others due to the relatively large population of conservative small farmers. We simply witness the establishment of a catholic union in a Bolshevist state. Now we can understand the reporter, representing the interests of the media, who appreciates the freedom and objectivity accompanying social pluriformity, and embraces Solidarinosc after its formal recognition (but not a moment sooner). And we can empathize with the recalcitrant intellectual, who protests against the repression of the working class. Therefore the state of permanent confusion, that pervades all characters in the film, seems justified. Vehement emotions emerge only with the characters representing the most stubborn Bolshevist fanatics, who sense their forthcoming superfluity and oblivion (a circumstance that is also portrayed nicely in the South-American film El juego de Arcibel, surprisingly about a journalist as well). Even in the scene where the reporter wildly thrashes a punching-ball, in all likelihood he just mirrors the thoughts of the nearby security police. Or do we glimpse at the professional frustrations in a strongly controlled society? Deep inside, Winkel would undoubtedly have preferred a social drink. Anyway, in general we just witness people negotiating and groping for moderate social reform.
  • jboothmillard10 September 2014
    Warning: Spoilers
    I found this Polish film in the book 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die, alongside its predecessor Man of Marble which came five years before, I hoped this near sequel would be as interesting as the original, from director Andrzej Wajda (Ashes and Diamonds). Basically the story continues where it left off, Maciej Tomczyk (Jerzy Radziwilowicz), the son of Mateusz Birkut (also Radziwilowicz), is the young, charismatic and articulate leader of striking Gdansk shipyard workers, and he is married to the filmmaker who found him previously, Agnieszka (Krystyna Janda). Winkiel (Marian Opania) is a burned-out, alcoholic journalist and youthful radical assigned to look into Tomczyk's activities, she uses her reputation to her advantage, forming an understanding with him, while at the same time searching for something to slander him. However as she interviews Tomczyk's associates and his detained wife, hears about his painfully difficult times and the death of his father, killed in the December 1970 protests, she feels sympathy towards him and is forced to reconsider her actions, even siding with the strikers and putting her career at risk. Also starring Wieslawa Kosmalska as Wieslawa Hulewicz (or Anna), Irena Byrska as Anna Hulewicz's mother, Matka Hulrwicz and Boguslaw Linda as Dzidek. To be honest, I found the previous film much more interesting, especially because it was much easier to understand, it is not the subtitles that cause most problems, the film feels too political and that is not something I am always keen to watch occurring, there were bits and pieces that were alright, it's not something I can see myself watching again, but I know it's not a bad drama. It was nominated the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film. Good!
  • A great movie about Poland's history containing also authentic material from the civil disorders. The movie handles also the viewpoint of individual in communist system. Screenplay is great.

    Nine stars out of ten.
  • There's just one thing that strikes me as odd and keeps me from giving the film ten stars. The wonderful protagonist of Man Of Marble, Agnieszka, is turned here into a stereotypical, boring wife/girlfriend. At a time of great historical importance , when issues she deeply cared about were the talk of Europe, all she finds time to discuss with a reporter who visits her at the detention center is romance. I'm having a hard time picturing the dedicated, driven and idealistic young person we know from Man Of Marble gasp unintelligibly about a child when her husband is on strike with Lech Walesa. A needless and surprising flaw in an otherwise great film.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I can appreciate that the film was of great importance in its day... but I can't say I enjoyed watching it for two full hours and them some...

    just piping up because ... I'm the only person who has commented on the film who didn't adore it. I have seen others by Wadja I liked better... didn't much care for the whole set up of earnest filmmaker doing her rounds with flashbacks to what people are telling her and the many newsreels. have to say that I was distanced from the film by its use of a lot of archival footage mixed with faux archival stuff, eventually the texture of the whole film ended up looking very fake to me. it did seem that quite often there was inter-cutting between shots not got at the same time, even in conversation between two characters... to me the effect of the film was very artificial, but this is all... stylistic concern... anyway I was kinda bored by man of iron
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Having been to the Solidarity centre twice and seeing this film mentioned there, I thought it was time to queue it up and see how it fared. The answer is ... fair to middling.

    I love the story as told in the centre itself. This film is a story within a story. It has the events of 1980 as a backdrop to the story of one worker who is active in the cause ... so it's really only quite loosely tied to the events of the time.

    I really liked the use of archive footage ... and it was cool seeing Lech playing a small part.

    Some of it was a bit too in-depth for me politically speaking. I think if I hadn't been to the centre twice I would have been completely lost - but then I'd never have watched the movie, I suppose.

    53/100.