User Reviews (36)

Add a Review

  • ferguson-61 April 2012
    Greetings again from the darkness. In the United States, we typically get limited access to the films of Israel. In recent years, there have been two that I like very much: The Band's Visit, and Waltz for Bashir. Written and directed by Joseph Cedar, Footnote was nominated for the Best Foreign Language Academy Award. It's a very creative and insightful story utilizing slight comedic elements to show the destructive forces of petty professional jealousy within a family.

    Most parents wish for true happiness for their children. If the professional success of their offspring far exceeds their own ... it is a reason to swell with parental pride. But what happens when father and son choose similar paths? What happens when animosity builds as the father's life work (30 years of research) is deemed unnecessary and irrelevant? What happens when the son becomes publicly revered and adored for his populist writing? Well, in the case of father Eliezer (Shlomo Bar-Aba) and son Uriel (Lior Ashkenazi), we get strained relations and a thesis on the pitfalls of pride and ego.

    All of that is sufficiently fascinating for a story, but here we get an even more severe test of human nature. The father is erroneously informed that he has won the prestigious Israel Award, providing vindication and meaning to his work and well, his being. See, the award was supposed to go to the other Professor Shkolnik ... yes, his son. This much is shown in the trailer, but the true guts of this story is what happens after this mistake.

    There are a few tremendous scenes in the film, but two really jumped out for me. In an early scene, the son is receiving yet another reward and he is attempting to provide some credit for his father's inspiration. However, the words seem to add credence to the irrelevancy instead. The best part? The camera never leaves the face of the father and he sits quietly listening in immeasurable pain. The other scene takes place in a beyond cramped meeting room for the Award committee to discuss the mistake with Uriel. The manner it is filmed and the choreography more than make up for the fact that the group of brilliant people never thought to find a more suitable meeting place.

    The score of the film is one that I would appreciate more without having the film playing. The music is wonderful, but often distracting to the moment. It is interesting to note how it changes along with the posture and walking pace of Eliezer after he is informed of his award. One need not be an academic researcher or writer to understand the damaged relationship between father and son ... and how it has impacted wives, mothers and sons. That's a story that is painful in any language.
  • Footnote, one of the five nominees for Best Foreign Language films at the Oscars earlier this year, boasts two extraordinary performances. And it's absolutely vital that those two performances are pitch perfect, because the key to the film's drama and tension lies in those particular characters.

    The premise is fairly straightforward. A father and son are both philogy professors at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Eliezer Shkolnik is an old school researcher who believes findings are only valid if research is conducted in the proper scientific method, while his son, Uriel, follows the more modern philosophy. Eliezer loathes the popularity and acceptance of the current methods, and is so stubborn he even refuses to cancel one of his classes even though only one student is signed.

    Having background on research methods or philology is not necessary however, when it comes to following along the movie. Shlomo Bar'aba and Lior Ashkenazi, as Eliezer and Uriel respectively, both make sure to humanize their characters and portray their conflicting ideals by showcasing conflicting personalities as wells.

    The plot gets really interesting when Eliezer finds out he has been voted the winner of the Israel Prize, forcing him to rethink how he feels his colleagues, and the field in general. However, Uriel soon gets a phone call that will shake things up even more.

    Unfortunately, Footnote does not deliver a satisfying conclusion, at least not a memorable one. The tension is slowly built up really well as the film cuts deeper into the plot, yet when the time comes for a huge clash, the film ends up kinds of just floating around not knowing the right time to fade out. However, the meat of the film is too good to be ignored, as both Bar'aba and Ashkenazi deliver performances you won't soon forget.
  • lee_eisenberg25 December 2012
    One thing that has become common in American popular culture - if you can call it culture - is to have all sorts of salacious family feuds. That makes it all the more satisfying to see Joseph Cedar's "Hearat Shulayim" ("Footnote" in English). The movie focuses on a father and son, both of whom are professors at the Talmudic Research department of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Despite the father's extensive studies, the Israel Prize committee refuses to recognize his work, while the son has garnered a lot of respect. One day, the father receives a call announcing that he's winning the prize. There's just one problem: the committee meant to call the son.

    The movie makes sure to avoid tabloid-style situations. It takes a serious approach to the situation. Probably the most effective scene is when the son meets the Israel Prize committee in a cramped office and reminds them of the hypocrisy of their decision to deny his father the prize. Nonetheless, the tension between father and son remains. In the end, it's a really good movie. I haven't seen many Israeli movies, but now I would like to.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    'Footnote' is an enormously clever film by an American born Israeli filmmaker, Joseph Cedar. It concerns the rivalry between father-son Talmudic scholars, Eliezer and Uriel Shkolnik. Before seeing the film, I assumed that this was going to be a film about insular Hasidics, chronicling the rivalry between Talmudic scholars in an ultra-religious community. However, that's not the case at all; we soon learn that the two principals are actually academics in the Talmudic department at The Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Uriel can best be described as either a Conservative or Modern Orthodox Jew and Eliezer, seemingly completely secular (as he does not wear a yarmulke).

    Utilizing inter-titles, cross-cutting and an intrusive musical score (that some have compared to Shostakovich), Cedar offers up an amusing back story for both father and son, during the first ten minutes of the film. We learn that Eliezer has been toiling in obscurity at the University, engaging in arcane research that few care about and teaching one class a year in which only one student attends. In contrast, Uriel heads the Department and is insanely popular with the student body and the community at large. Eliezer's problem with his son is that he deems his research as bogus—that he's only interested in providing modern interpretations of serious Talmudic passages (familial relations in ancient times is one research area that Uriel has garnered accolades for, which his father regards as a joke).

    There's much more about Eliezer that comes to light that places him firmly in the camp of the confirmed curmudgeon. His grand claim to fame is that he's mentioned in a footnote in the work of a famed Talmudic scholar, Feinberg, who Eliezer regards as his mentor. Eliezer also spent years interpreting more recent texts to reconstruct a lost manuscript from the Middle Ages. When a rival scholar, Grossman, found the original manuscript, he refused to share it with Eliezer and published his own findings, thus extirpating years of Eliezer's work, now deemed irrelevant by the Talmudic academic community. All this has made the curmudgeon bitter, magnified of course by the community's acclaim for the ever popular son. Nonetheless, the humor stems from Eliezer's perseverance in the face of total ostracism, despite his complete lack of social skills and mean-spirited demeanor.

    If Eliezer's narcissism is a tad bit psychotic, Uriel's can best be described as a lesser neuroticism. His colleagues at the University make it clear (while talking amongst themselves) that Uriel needs constant stroking and any kind of dissent will result in retaliation on his part. Nonetheless, Uriel shows depth of character in the film's defining moment. That occurs when the prestigious 'Israel Prize' is awarded to Eliezer instead of Uriel, due to a clerical error. In a very amusing scene, a committee at the Ministry of Education meets in an extremely small file room with Uriel in order to maintain secrecy, explain their 'mistake' and request that he inform his father of what has transpired.

    Despite all of the Eliezer's jealousy and contempt for his son, Uriel defends the father in front of Grossman (who is head of the Prize committee) and who insists that the award must be rescinded and given to the true intended recipient (Uriel). Things get so heated that Uriel punches Grossman in the nose but then apologizes. Eventually Grossman caves in but with two demands: Uriel must write the judge's considerations and never accept the award for himself, ever again.

    The emerging scenes are perhaps the best in the film. While writing the judge's considerations, Uriel keeps amending his text, and upon further reflection, realizes Grossman was right about his father all along—that he really is a mediocrity and doesn't deserve the prize. Eliezer, who regards himself as a philologist, ironically shows his mettle by realizing (utilizing his text investigatory skills) that Uriel was responsible for composing the 'judge's considerations'. Eliezer finally recalls the original conversation in its entirety, where he believed he had been awarded the Israel Prize; with his memory clearer, he finally figures it out: the prize was obviously intended for Uriel and not him!

    While Cedar utilizes a comic tone for most of the film, the denouement unfortunately veers toward melodrama in the closing sequences. This can be seen when Uriel grows sour on the idea that he's been cheated out of the Israel Prize, and takes it out on his teenage son, who he demands to make something of his life. Cedar does nothing to develop the teenage son's character and Uriel's sudden transformation into a sour puss (just like this father), does much to ruin the clever humor of the earlier scenes.

    While Eliezer wasn't much of a likable character to begin with, you could at least laugh at him for most of the film. But when he realizes (through his true philological talents) that the Israel Prize was not meant for him, he's poised to accept the Award, as a last, petty, spiteful act toward his son. What we needed there was some kind of twist. Perhaps either Eliezer's (underutilized) wife could have stepped in or both the wives could have come up with some kind of plan to 'save the day'. The way it stands now, Eliezer's 'victory' is a Pyrrhic one, and the estrangement between the father and son, is worse than when we saw them at the beginning of the film.

    Despite the heavy-handed ending, I enjoyed 'Footnote'. It not only ridicules the pettiness found in academia but goes deeper by exposing the narcissism in familial relations. The conflict between Talmudic scholars is not an easy topic to be made into a full-length film. Cedar has for a good part of his film, delivered a most clever and eye-popping experience.
  • FOOTNOTE is an appropriately titled sparklingly intelligent and entertaining film written and directed by Joseph Cedar. With a small cast and a focused story this little film form Israel is not only a pleasure to watch as a story performed as shared by brilliant actors, but it is also one of the most visually artistic and creative venture of cinematography to be on the small screen in a long time: the genius cinematographer is Yaron Scharf. Add to this a musical score that enhances every moment of the story - courtesy of composer Amit Poznansky - and the film simply succeeds on every level.

    In a most ingenious way we are introduced to the two main characters - father and son, both professors in the Talmud department of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. The film opens on the confused and somewhat unattached facial expression of the seated father Eliezer Shkolnik (Shlomo Bar Aba) as he listens to his ebullient son Uriel Shkolnik (Lior Ashkenazi) being inducted into the prestigious Israeli academic union. Uriel's acceptance speech reflects his childhood when his father informed him upon questioning that he was a 'teacher' - an occupation the young Uriel found embarrassing at the time, but now honors his father for this guidance. After the ceremony we slowly discover that there is a long-standing rivalry between father and son. Uriel has an addictive dependency on the embrace and accolades that the establishment provides, while Eliezer is a stubborn purist with a fear and profound revulsion for what the establishment stands for, yet beneath his contempt lies a desperate thirst for some kind of recognition: his only clam to fame after long years of intensive research is that the man who published his findings mentions Eliezer in a footnote. When it comes times for the Israel Prize, Israel's most prestigious national award, to be awarded, a clerical error results in a telephone call informing Eliezer that he has won, while in reality the award was meant for his son Uriel. How this error is resolved open all manner of windows for examining family relationships, fame, pure academia, and forgiveness.

    The film is an unqualified success. Lior Ashkenazi (so well remembered from 'Walk on Water' and 'Late Marriage' among others) gives a bravura performance and that of Shlomo Ben Aba balances it in quality. The supporting cast is strong. Joseph Cedar has produced a fine film very much enhanced by the brilliance of the cinematography that tells the story as much as the dialogue.

    Grady Harp
  • Warning: Spoilers
    If 'Footnote' will win the Oscar for the Best Foreign language film it will certainly by more than a footnote in the history of Israeli cinema, it will be a big event, the first time an Israeli film gets the Oscar. It's just that I do not believe that this will happen (and of course I wish to be wrong), and I also believe that out of the four Israeli films that made it in the final selection of the category in the last five years Footnore is maybe the one that deserves less, as it is simply not as good as the previous three, including director Joseph Cedar's own Beaufort.

    Just to make clear, Footnote is not a bad film and it has its moments of real beauty. Many of these turn around the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, the words and their meanings, the buildings block of the language and of the Jewish wisdom, and of the sacred text of the Bible. This is probably one of the elements that fascinated the jury of the Academia and made them decide to shortlist the film and include it in the prestigious final selection for the Oscar prize. The film is before all the story of the dramatic relationship between a father and a son who are unable to communicate in and within the terms of real life, but they do communicate and understand each other in codes of words. As with the famous (or infamous) Bible codes stories, the letters and words of the Hebrew language hide a story hidden beyond the first layer of perception available to us, the other mortals. But even if we set aside the element of exoticism that is not that striking for the Israeli or Hebrew knowledgeable viewer we are still left with the exquisite acting of the two lead characters (Shlomo Bar-Aba and Lior Ashkenazi), with strong supporting roles from Aliza Rosen and Micah Lewensohn, and with a mix of styles which is sometimes daring like the description of the career of the son using techniques of 'professional' publicity juxtaposed to the restrained way of presenting the work of the father in the style of commentaries on text. It is in the conflict between the world of ideas and the material world, in the lack of acceptance and integration of the character of the father with the universe dominated by the obsession of the security, showing respect not for the essence but to the superficial ceremonies, it is here that lies much of the ideology that motivates the story in the film.

    Yet at the end I also felt a feeling of dis-satisfaction. Part resulted maybe not directly from the film itself but my own experience of living in Israel, where religious studies are not and exotic element but one of the key pillars at the foundation of the social and cultural life. There is much to be told about this world which is full of wonders and miracles but also of cheating and demagogy. Cedar's film left me with the feeling that while trying to approach the problematic aspects of this field of life, refused to take any position or insert a critical comment beyond the sin face. Then the openness and the life-like ambiguity which in many other films works wonderfully is taken here in my opinion one or several steps too far. We never know whether the research of the father had any real value, we are left in the dark with the roots of the conflict between the father and the head of the prize Israel jury, and a character like the wife and mother could have been better developed. The strong story of the relation between the son and the father and the son's sacrifice which here goes in different direction than usual remains suspended. 'Footnote' looks well polished but unfinished.
  • Joseph Cedar has written and directed a truly multifaceted film. "Footnote" is listed as a comedy, however, I found it to weigh more toward the dramatic side with a peppering of comedy that is well done and not overly utilized. The story is about a father and son who are prominent Talmudic scholars in Israel and who are competitive in the academic world where they both work. Shlomo Bar-Aba plays Eluezer Shkolnik the older of the two, and his performance is filled with struggle and empathy that pervades the film. The son is played by Lior Ashkenazi and he too provides a convincing portrayal as well. The family relationships are weighed heavily and transcend the entire movie which takes place in Academia. The film is rich in tradition, and the music complements it with great synchrony. The ending is abrupt, and it encourages some extra time thinking about the content. However, it also induces satisfaction in knowing that the cultural display of relationships and social intercourse are well documented on the screen. Some of the film dealing with comedy is not a belly splitter, but it is way of lightening the mood, and noted to be a well recognized mechanism of writing even in Shakespeare's writings. Although the relationship of the father and son is a strained one throughout the film, it also is a transcultural one that exudes with emotion and intellectual curiosity. This film is well worth a trip to the cinema or one can just wait for the Blu Ray DVD to be available.
  • h-b-bos12 March 2012
    This is a very good movie, but it could be better. The feel of the whole story very much reminded me of the Coen Brothers movie 'a serious man'. It has the same sense of general awkwardness in its characters. The story is very well told. It has a chapter structure and the parts of father and son have kind of symmetry to it, resulting in a feeling of bittersweet irony. If you like irony in all its layers and subtleties, then this is definitely something to watch. The one thing that could make this movie better in my opinion, is the climax that the whole movie is building up to, but which is left to your imagination. In my taste a little too much so, but decide for yourself!
  • The fictitious hero is a old man who takes himself and his work completely seriously-- to the exaggerated extent that we expect to find only in a fable. The screen displays to the audience a number of arch textual explanations about him and his son, and the audience chuckles at his eccentric single-mindedness. But a sort of tension appears as the characters' behavior slips outside the limits of the explanations. Is the old man cheating on his wife? What's behind his grandson's oblomovism? Eventually the movie focuses on an unknown that is stretched almost to the point of paradox: Is the quality of the old man's work in academe really unsurpassed, or is it really unsatisfactory? The movie does turn out to be a fable, and a fable worth taking seriously. It attracted an all-star cast, and Shlomo Bar-Abba, in the lead, continues the tradition of comedians who, when they undertake a dramatic role, gain additional impact from the contrast with their familiar persona. The movie received the 2011 screenplay award at Cannes.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The film directed and written by Joseph Cedar brings to light some of the dirty clothes in the Academic world by making emphasis on the personal flaws of two professors of Talmud, father and son, ensnared by their attempt to seize "the word of the Authority" that will bestow them power, recognition, respect and, above all, satisfaction to their needs of self-assurance. In the story, those who are in charge of delivering to one of them the good news that he has won Prize Israel in his field, commit a tragic error owing to the fact that father and son have the same initials in their names. The misunderstanding reveals more than ever the envy, jealousy, and pitiless competition that reigns between the two, and not only between them. In the struggle for a prestigious place in the academic map, the ones that believe they are the best and the ones that are carried to believe themselves so, don't spare means to pull their rivals out of the way. A playful music and comic situations contribute to free the story from an expected somber atmosphere. In some scenes the rhythm of the movie is decaying due to excessive enlarged discourse. On the other hand, Cedar shows his virtues in the management of actors, choosing with the camera the adequate angles and distances for obtaining the most appropriate expressions and gestures from his excellent cast. The use of real sceneries of the Academy in Jerusalem City adds to the tone of authenticity of the story. The very old myth of father devouring his son returns in an Israeli representative version.
  • SnoopyStyle15 November 2016
    Eliezer Shkolnik and his son Urien are both Talmudic researchers and professors in Jerusalem. Eliezer is bitter as his son receives wide acclaim from the Jewish Studies community. He spent most of his life working on a revolutionary take on an European version of the Talmud only to be scooped by an accidental discovery one month before publishing his own work. He toiled in his work alone. His class has one student. His most noteworthy accomplishment is a footnote in an important textbook. The father and son relationship has traveled a long and problematic road. Eliezer covets the Israel Prize above all else and one day, he gets a calls from the Minister of Education congratulating him. It is big news and then Uriel is told by the Ministry that the call was a mistake and he is the real winner. The head of the committee Grossman is an old foe of Eliezer.

    This movie takes a small world and shows how the people in it treat this world as life and death. The opening sequence with Eliezer and the security guard is very compelling. Eliezer is a quietly bitter old man and that scene sets it all up. The problem is that he's not that charismatic as a character. Urien's struggles are more compelling. It's an intriguing premise but I don't find Eliezer lovable enough.
  • I would like to keep this note very short. A lot of useful reviews have already been posted on this film. The only thing that I would like to comment upon, is the ending.

    I believe the ending makes a lot of sense. It actually summarizes the complete concept of the movie. It makes you think about how the relationship between the father and the son will continue. It also reflects how their relationship will impact the further evolution of the family. The tension, the secrets, how will they evolve further ... It expresses that family values can go very deep. A son who has deep respect of his father, and a father, who got blind of his own frustrations, not seeing this respect. And when he finally finds out the love of his son, he ... See the film yourself. Then read back what i wrote here ...

    If the ending would have been different, it would have ruined the film.

    Sven
  • FOOTNOTE is the second Israeli film I've seen and while it felt rather insular in the cultural sense, it did explore some interesting themes and had a great sense of humor. The story is about a father and son, both professors of Talmudic literature. The father has largely been forgotten, his only significant achievement being a mention in a footnote in someone else's book, while his son is more celebrated. However, the dynamic between them changes when the father is selected (errantly) to receive the prestigious Israel Prize for his life's work. One thing the film does really well is explore the sometimes contentious relationship between parent and child. Eliezer (father) and Uriel (son) Shkolnik both have the same profession, yet the son's success in light of the father's failure certainly must have weighed heavily on both of their consciences. And when Eliezer is mistakenly nominated to receive the Israel Prize, his son comes to his defense since it would vindicate the decades of work for which he had previously gone unrecognized. There was also the subtle element of comedy and self-deprecating humor that seems to be part and parcel of the Jewish experience. It wasn't exactly laugh-out-loud hilarious, but there was some excellent situational humor as well as some ribbing on cutthroat competition in academia. Still, given the subject material it was a little hard for me to get into the film completely. The single element which I did connect with was the idea that a parent at some point might give up on their child, as I have had similar fears in the past. The film also had a somewhat unsatisfying ending, although it probably didn't have to show everything in order to be effective. The film was subversive enough without seeing what you know is coming. If there's one actual complaint I have, it's that the score was a little overpowering at times. Sometimes, more is less. Overall, the subject of academia is something that's a little too "inside baseball," particularly when it's about the Talmud (I'm not a Jew), but FOOTNOTE has some interesting themes that allow you a way into this story about a father-son rivalry.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    "FOOTNOTES" 2012 (Hearat Shulayim) was the opening film of the Budapest Israeli film week on Dec. 1, 2016 A tale of father and son as Talmudic rivals. Director, Joseph Cedar. 103 minutes. Stars, Lior Ashkenazi and Shlomo Bar-Aba. This unusual subject matter about academic bickering over obscure Talmudic research was an indication that things to come might be contrary to expectation. The film, extremely talky and overloaded with extreme facial closeups was all about a batty old scholar, Eliezer Shkolnik, who has spent his life making notes on the Talmud , and is basically "out of it" (to the point that he doesn't even understand what security guards are for at checkpoints) and is a candidate for a major national prize. Hieever this highly prestigious award is mistakenly given to his handsome charismatic but more superficial professor son Uriel-- who has certain guilt feelings about the misaccreditation and struggles to set things right against the stonewalling opposition of the awards committee. The bulk of the picture is taken up with internal academic bickering over whether or not Papa should ultimately be recognized or not. Basically what we get is dramatically charged father and son rivalry tale cum inquiry into academic chicanery. The primarily Hungarian-Jewish audience was enthralled, but to me it was a shrill shaggy dog story, basically the making of a mountain out of a molehill. Aren't there more important things to worry about in Israel than who should get the credit for marginal notations on the Talmud?. The father was played by Shlomo Bar-Abba (66) and the son by Lior Askenazi (43) both well known Israeli actors.

    Roger Ebert in one of his last reviews, focusing on the father son relationship, gave this film a rave review mentioning that it was to be seen as a comedy. I personally saw nothing comic in it at all and, while somewhat impressed by certain scenes, was not quite as swept away as Roger. To me it was too much of a talkathon with too many extreme facial closeups. Nevertheless, interesting for the portrayal of internal academic politics and backbiting which is not a topic often addressed in the current cinema. PLOT: Talmud scholar Eliezer Shkolnik (Shlomo Bar-Aba) has worked in obscurity for years at Jerusalem's Hebrew University. In contrast, Eliezer's son, Uriel (Lior Ashkenazi), also an academic, has published many books, received numerous accolades and is something of a social celebrity. Eliezer looks down on his son's achievements and pursuit of fame, and so the pair have a rocky relationship. Their rivalry comes to a head when Eliezer receives word that, at long last, he is to be the recipient of the prestigious Israeli Prize. Yes, in the end Dad will get the prize but not everybody is happy about it.

    image3.jpeg
  • Though Joseph Cedar's Footnote is a look at the Israeli academic community's insularity and hubris, the problems it raises are universal and the film could most likely take place anywhere in the world. One of five nominated films at this year's Oscars in the Best Foreign Film category, Footnote allows us to take a peak behind the hallowed walls of academia and it is not a pretty sight. With its exposure of political maneuvering, egotism, ambition, and tightly controlled orthodoxy, the film makes clear its point of view that professors who are out of the mainstream are marginalized and passed over for recognition by their peers.

    The film centers on Eliezer Shkolnik (Schlomo Bar Aba), an aging Talmudic scholar and philologist, who has become a bitter and aggrieved man after having been passed over for the prestigious Israel Prize for twenty years. Eliezer arrogantly denounces the selection committee for the Prize as people who have forgotten the meaning of true scholarship. He has spent his career researching corrupted Jewish texts that deviate from the original Talmud, but whose only recognition has been a citation in a footnote.

    Ill at ease in the hallowed walls of academia and in relationships in general, Eliezer sleeps in his office and only ventures out to go to the library. He continues to schedule classes even though as little as one or two people enroll. His relationship with his wife Yehudit (Alisa Rosen) appears strained and distant and, when he is at home, he blocks out the world by putting on gigantic yellow earphones. His behavior is contrasted with that of his more sociable and outgoing son, the bearded Uriel (Lior Ashkenazi) who is also a Talmudic scholar but one whose work is more attuned to popular tastes. His father, unfortunately, is generally disdainful, calling him a "folklorist" and a scholar subservient to the prevailing academic status quo.

    The film opens with Eliezer sitting in an auditorium with a dour and rigid look on his face as Uriel is being inducted into a scholarly academy, an honor which the father has never received. Despite the downbeat beginning, the first part of the film is fairly lighthearted with Cedar entertaining us with inter-titles describing the background of the characters and Amelie-like cutesy cinematic tricks bouncily scored by Amit Poznansky. Halfway through, however, the film takes a more dramatic turn when Eliezer learns that he has finally won the Israel Prize after waiting for twenty years, an event that threatens the resentment he clings to so obsessively.

    Unfortunately, a ridiculous faux-pas by the Nominating Committee only serves to place more obstacles in the father-son relationship. It is, unfortunately, not an easily correctable mistake but a true ethical dilemma and one that precipitates a confrontation between Uriel and the academic committee in a tiny room, an absurd scenario that would be funny if it did not have so many potential disastrous ramifications. The brunt of Uriel's attack is directed towards Yehuda Grossman (Michah Lewesohn), a scholar who has either rejected or ignored his father's work and whose publication of his own Talmudic discovery undermined all the meticulous research Eliezer had been doing for years. In the film's most dramatic sequence, the confrontation escalates into highly articulated personal attacks, ultimatums, and even a bit of physical violence.

    While Uriel is defending his father at the committee meeting, Eliezer is doing the opposite, criticizing his son during an interview, lumping him in with those whose Talmudic studies he considers to be shallow and superficial. Needless to say, this even further exacerbates their troubled relationship. Footnote is an engaging film marked by exceptional performances by Lewesohn, Ashkenazi, and Bar Aba and you can enjoy it whether or not you care very much whether or not the current version of the Talmud correctly reflects the original ancient texts. The depiction of Eliezer, however, is one-dimensional and the father's incessant self-righteousness turns the film into a sour and mostly unpleasant affair. In addition to its depressing tone, numerous plot points are introduced and then dropped without further comment.

    Eliezer is seen talking to another woman, a sequence that leads to a bedroom discussion of the event between Uriel and his wife Dikla (Alma Zack), but soon morphs into an argument, its purpose obscure. Also in another thread that goes nowhere except to add to the general unpleasantness, Uriel's son Josh (Daniel Markovich) goes on a hiking trip and comes home having to confront his father's anger at his ostensible lack of ambition or goals. Although the film's loose ends are particularly annoying, we are caught up in its very compelling scenario. Cedar knows how to build up the tension and we eagerly await some sort of resolution but, as is the trend of late, the director feels that his film is more valuable as a gigantic set-up than as a satisfying resolution and the result is a film that leaves us thinking that the projectionist inadvertently cut out the best part of the movie.
  • georgep5326 March 2012
    Warning: Spoilers
    Eliezer Shkolnik is seated at a ceremony honoring his son Uriel Shkolnik's admission to the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities an honor that has never been accorded to him. He appears uncomfortable barely forcing himself to rise to his feet in perfunctory applause before quickly sitting down. Hence begins "Footnote" the brilliant Israeli 2011 Oscar nominee for Best Foreign Language Film. Both Shkolniks are Talmudic researchers at Hebrew University in Jerusalem but that is where the similarity ends. Eliezer is an obstinate traditionalist and loner who rejects new ideas and the establishment that embraces them. As a result he is relegated to obscurity by his colleagues who deny him any recognition beyond the dusty footnote he received in the book of an old revered scholar. Uriel on the other hand is popular and adopts the changes his father despises. One day Eliezer receives a phone call informing him that he is the recipient of the Israel Prize. What he doesn't know is that the call is a mistake. It is his son Uriel who is the intended recipient. The roles of father and son are beautifully played by Shlomo Bar-Aba and Lior Ashkenazi respectively. Micah Lewensohn is excellent in a supporting role as a rival of Eliezer's who refuses to relent in his dislike of his old academic adversary. The screenplay by director Joseph Cedar was inspired by a real life incident in which he received a phone call notifying him of an award he suspected was really intended for his father. Anyone interested in something fresh at the movies should find this film compelling and thought provoking. "Footnote" asks us how much does a father owe a son and vice versa. It also asks us to think about the different ways we have of arriving at the truth and how much we're willing to sacrifice for it.
  • It's not like this is a bad movie but it's just one like dozens of others, that get made each year, mostly in Europa or as little art-house movies in America. When watching this movie I just couldn't help wondering what was supposed to be so special about it. In my opinion there is nothing special about it really but that of course does not make this a bad movie to watch as well.

    It's simply an enjoyable and light little movie, that doesn't ever get too heavy handed, even though it could had easily gone that way. And I thank the movie for that but at the same time it's also giving too little in return.

    The movie is taking a more comedy approach to its buildup but with as a problem that there isn't really any true comedy in this movie. It sort of reminded me of a Wes Anderson movie. They are supposed to be comical movies, without anything comical ever happening in it really. It's just not my favorite style of film-making but I know I'm probably a minority on this, so to most people, this won't be a complaint at all.

    It's a movie with a good enough story, that ensures that the movie keeps going at all time. It's definitely not a boring movie to watch, despite of a slower type of approach at times.

    I wasn't the biggest fan of its visual and technical approach though. I don't know, I guess I have just seen a bit too many movies like this already, so I'm sort of starting to get fed up with these type of movies looking all the same with its camera-handling and editing, that all should remind you of a more indie type of movie. I really did wish that this movie would bad done some more new and interesting stuff at times. That way I would had, no doubt, got more into the movie and would had found it more interesting and pleasant to watch all. It now instead is not a movie that I can wholeheartedly or enthusiastically recommend to you, since it just isn't ever doing anything special, with its story, characters or visuals.

    Certainly not bad and still quite good for what it is but it's still a movie you could so easily do without.

    7/10

    http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
  • Warning: Spoilers
    It's a heartfelt story of a tough father who is obsessed with getting recognition to the point he neglects every other thing and relationship on his way, including that of his wife and kid. It seems that life tests us and such a test appears in this clever script. The kid, the unappreciated kid (unappreciated by his father) is given an opportunity to get recognition his father never did, and he decides to use all his power to pass it to his father as a "life achievement" only to find out the father fails his test and still stays obsessed with his feelings of superiority. It's a cold and hard look into our hearts and dilemmas. What will we do if we were the father, if we were the son? What is the right thing to do? Well, for once, see this movie.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    "He'arat Shulayim" ("Footnote") is an Israeli 2012 Oscar contender, a 2012 Cannes screenplay award winner, and altogether a very highly praised movie. It tells a story about Eliezer and Uriel Shkolnik, a father and son, both Talmud scholars but with different amounts of public recognition. Eliezer devoted all of his life to comparing different versions of the Talmud but never published anything since his colleague beat him to it leaving as his greatest achievement a footnote in his mentor's book. On the other hand, his son Uriel wrote a lot of books on all kind of subjects and got praise for all of them. As a matter of fact, the movie opens with Uriel getting accepted to the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, the honor which his father never got, and it's immediately clear that Eliezer doesn't take it well. The plot thickens when Eliezer finds out he won the Israel Prize, the most prestigious national award, after 16 consecutive failed nominations, and Uriel learns that it is he who should get it and his father got notified by mistake.

    The profession of the characters could really be anything, it isn't of much relevance. What the film talks about is how easily people get infatuated with greed, jealousy and the (imagined) importance of their work. It also talks about the father-son relationship, not just through the example of Eliezer and Uriel but Uriel and his son Josh too. It shows the difference between generations but also the inevitability of our family ties. It is all well displayed in the behavior of Uriel. He tries to be a better father than his own but still makes some of the same mistakes. He also tries to help his father despite of the contempt Eliezer shows for his work, but can't help being angered by it.

    The movie is very precise in depicting how an academic community functions. It is all about prestige. Who will publish something first or who's work will be cited in a footnote. It is unbelievable, but true, what would people do just to get their name mentioned or written somewhere. A colleague of mine told me today "It's all about immortality.". But what does that really mean? A hundred years from now someone will be reading something and my name will be there. So what? Neither of us gets anything from that. But let's get back to the movie. In the beginning you sympathize with Eliezer. He has been working hard for years and just because someone got lucky it turns out it has all been in vain. But as the movie goes on we learn that he's no better than everybody else. He just wants the spotlights on him. In the end it's even suggested he realized that the award shouldn't go to him but he accepts it anyway. It isn't shown explicitly because the movie ends just before winners get on the stage, but I can hardly imagine any other outcome. And because of that we wound up feeling sorry for Uriel who won't get the deserved award and can't even get nominated ever again (part of the deal with the president of the committee) because of his selfish father.

    The acting is very good. Shlomo Bar-Aba in the role of the father and Lior Ashkenazi in the role of the son give subdued but impressive performances. Cinematographer Yaron Scharf did a good job showing libraries and houses crowded with books, emphasizing in that way the absurdity of wanting for your name to be mentioned just to be lost in a heap of others. Probably the best part of the movie is editing done by Einat Glaser-Zarhin. In the first part of the movie narrator lists things we should now about Eliezer and Uriel and it's a joy watching those sequences. The movie balances between serious drama and a little less serious comedy and is greatly helped in it by Amit Poznansky's amusing soundtrack. He often uses tense music to create a comedic moment, at the same time keeping us aware of the seriousness of the whole situation. The only thing that got me disappointed was the most lauded one, screenplay. While it has some great moments, like the one in which a numerous committee holds a meeting in the tiniest of rooms, it feels stretched and unpolished in places which decreases the overall impression.

    There's one more thing. The movie talks about many things. Greed, excellence, compassion, jealousy, revenge, dedication, fear, happiness, and more. But I just can't figure out what's the point. What did the author, Joseph Cedar, want to say with it. Just to be clear, this isn't one of those movies where people are wondering what is it all about. It's all very clear, it just doesn't feel like Cedar had a point to make. Maybe he just wanted to show how the things are functioning without drawing any conclusions. If so, I would find a documentary a better way to show it. If not...I don't know. Maybe I'm just too demanding. It's best you see it and decide for yourselves.

    More reviews at http://onlineimpressions.blogspot.com/
  • Ramascreen24 February 2012
    -- www.Ramascreen.com --

    FOOTNOTE is an Israeli film that's Oscar-nominated this year for Foreign language category and I can see why it received the nod. It's quite possibly one of the funniest rivalry stories I've ever watched, and what makes the dilemma even more complicated is that it's between father and son. I think it's a well-made film, it's funny, it has its charms, you'll enjoy writer/director Joseph Cedar's way of telling you the backstories of each character, some of the scenes interestingly move like microform reel, those of us who didn't grow up knowing anything about Talmud or Jewish culture would get a slight education on one of some of the things they regard highly over there, but halfway through the film, it loses its attraction, it doesn't engage you enough, and ultimately it ends itself in somewhat of a tactless manner…

    Eliezer is the father and Uriel is the son and they both share the same last name, and that's where the misunderstanding plays its card. Both individuals dabble in the same literature but the father is old-school and stubborn and even though the film doesn't come out and say it, he may also suffer from some kind of autism or something that keeps him from desiring any social contact unless it's meant to celebrate him, or perhaps he's just introverted to the extreme. The son is more progressive, people are fond of him, and he enjoys the success that his father has always wishes he had. So when a certain prestigious award mistakes one for the other, Uriel is faced with the dilemma of what is the right thing to do. After he makes his decision, his father goes off and discredits his son's work. It's a pretty sad and tough family dynamics, if you think about it, because on the father's case, it's envy that turns into bitterness that turns into gloat, on the son's side it's wanting to live up to his father that turns into generosity that turns into feelings betrayed. Writer/director Cedar designs it so that things would escalate to the point where there is no other option but to openly confront each other, although oddly enough, the film never gives us that luxury.

    The comedy aspect of it is very enjoyable, Cedar takes us through awkward room sizes and you'll get the giggles from watching Elizer putting on his giant headset, shutting everything around him down just to get some silence, and for the old professors roles, Cedar casts actors who look just like the stereotype, they look unintentionally amusing. Embedded in the competition is also a the theme of whether or not you are your father's son or if you are your own person. Uriel seems distraught and offended when his own son doesn't make any effort to win his love, like he used to do with his own father. Both Eliezer and Uriel are obsessed with the idea that success can only be found in one's achievements and accomplishments and the recognition from your peers, and how one can be better at that than everybody else, so much so that they're missing out one what's truly important, each other. I think FOOTNOTE is a very unique family dynamics film that deserves attention at the very least.

    -- www.Ramascreen.com --
  • A middle-aged man and his father are both professors of Talmudic research at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. There are bad feelings as the younger man has received more praise than his father in their respective careers.

    The film has a major challenge: how to make the subject of academia interesting to a majority of viewers who are not academic. This limitation shows at times especially in dialogues of details of the research.

    Luckily, the film works quite well within these limitations especially with two major scenes. One involves a confrontational meeting that is called to deal with a major gaffe. The scene is so well played (especially by actor Lior Ashkenazi, seen in many Israeli films) that it even has a thriller quality to it. The other scene includes a shocking betrayal.

    With these powerful scenes and the usage of clever directing techniques, this film does well in drawing interest to a subject that would otherwise have had limited appeal. - dbamateurcritic
  • Warning: Spoilers
    What to say: the rhythm is perfect, the tone is expertly controlled by the director, the acting is close to sublime. This character-driven narrative lacks nothing and, yes, it is unpredictable at times. The autistic father is played with deceptive ease and gusto by Shlomo Bar Aba and, when you think about it, his finding of the truth could only be unavoidable given his expertise with the written word and his penchant for making nearly impossible (for us poor mortals!) connections between expressions, phonemes and other linguistic beasts. The fact that the film ends up with us wondering if Eliezer, the father, will accept the prize or not is part of the quality of the movie: it depends on you as a viewer, as well as your personality. I think he can only accept as to level off the playing field, so to speak, and to let his son think he (his son) is in control. But who knows? Last word? Excellent!
  • Intriguing and intelligent comedy. I enjoyed watching it, although the ending was somewhat disappointing. The script is well written and has good moments of humor and sarcasm. Congratulations to your creators. I recommend it to everyone.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    It's a tragic comedy set in the 2000s in Jerusalem, Israel. It follows two academics, father and son, and their relationship when a prize intended for the son is accidentally given to the father.

    Eliezer Shkolnik (Shlomo Bar Aba) is a philologist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem who has studied details of the Jerusalem Talmud's textual history for decades. After years of study, he prepared primary research on an earlier version of the Jerusalem Talmud. However, a scholarly rival, Yehuda Grossman (Micah Lewensohn), accidentally stumbled on a copy of the earlier text and published his research before Eliezer. Ever since, Eliezer has worked in obscurity, never receiving the recognition he believes he deserves.

    Eliezer is married to Yehudit (Alisa Rosen), but they sleep separately, and Eliezer may have an emotional relationship with a female colleague at Hebrew Union. Their son, Uriel (Lior Ashkenazi), is a celebrated academic at the same school, though Eliezer considers Uriel's scholarship superficial. Uriel's wife, Dikla (Alma Zack), considers Eliezer rigid and describes him as autistic.

    The film follows the awkward relationship between Uriel and Eliezer, especially after the Ministry of Education erroneously calls Eliezer to say he has won the "Israel Prize" for his scholarship. Uriel learns of the mistake but fiercely defends his father's selection. He is then deeply hurt by Eliezer's comments in a newspaper interview.

    This film is delightful, partly because it sheds light on competition within the academic world. Uriel's meeting with the prize selection committee in a tiny room where everyone has to stand up and move chairs to enter or exit the room is priceless. The academic offices and home libraries overflowing with papers and books are a scream. Bar Aba, Ashkenazi, Rosen, and Lewensohn are excellent in their roles. Highly recommended.
  • It is to explain to depth the claim in the healine. As an israeli, I can admit that there are many bad israeli movies, but slso many good ones.

    Footnote is not just good. It is amazing, and can be compared to any movie, not just israelis. It is smart, touching, played and directed wonderfully, funny and sad, and full of details and characters.

    It is really one of the best portrayals of Israel and Jerusalem and its academic life. But it is also a humane and universal movie that anyone can enjoy.
An error has occured. Please try again.