I saw this at last month's 2011 Palm Springs International Film Festival. This was the Czech Republic's official submission to the 83rd Academy Awards in the Best Foreign Language Film category. Pavel (Martin Huba) is set to receive an award to commemorate his contributions to freedom as a dissident during the Dubcek era. His son-in-law Ludek (Milan Mikulcik) is part of a documentary film crew making a film about Pavel's life. Ludek, meantime, is cheating on his wife Lucie (Lenika Vlaskova), Pavel's daughter, who has been battling a form of cancer. Ludek's affair is with Radka (Petra Hrebickova) who is part of the documentary film crew. In making the film, Ludek has stumbled upon some information that may implicate that Pavel was giving information to the secret police to silence a romantic adversary. Pavel's wife Jana (Daniella Kolarova had been lovers with the sculptor Borek (Antonin Kratochuil) who was forced to flee his country to live in exile in Sweden and has taken in a Japanese painter named Mr. Kawasaki (Isao Onoda). This story sounds like a soap opera and it kind of is but it's a little more intriguing and sophisticated than that. A great ensemble cast gives some wonderful performances. With Ladsislav Chudik as the menacing unrepentant ex-secret police investigator Kafka. Written by Petr Jarchovsky and directed by Jan Hrebejk I would recommend this and give it a 7.5 out of 10.
Add a Review
-
johno-2122 February 2011
-
sinsecticide1 June 2010I knew nothing about this movie when I went to watch it. I also didn't know anything about the Velvet Revolution or the collapse of Communist Czechoslovakia. Maybe I'm just ignorant. But it is only really nominally about those events. This movie is as much about what it means to be a father, and a hero, and how important the truth is, and whether exposing the truth at all costs is more positive or destructive.
The Doktor is about to be given an award for his service fighting the Communist regime. He's looked at as a hero. He is successful and well respected in the community as both a professional psychiatrist, and as a father and husband. There is a documentary being filmed about his life.
But there are accusations, whispers, rumors that maybe he didn't fight the communists as hard as everyone says. Maybe he was an informant for the secret police. Maybe he gave up information on certain state enemies and benefited both personally and professionally from them. Maybe he isn't a hero after all.
If the accusations are true, will he lose his family, friends, and the respect of everyone? Will he still be a hero, or a villain? Does it change the opinion of those that know and love him? Is the truth even relevant? Or is it best to just go on with life? Is an ugly truth more valuable than a beautiful lie? Can a man be both a saint and a monster? -
JvH4820 October 2010I had this film on my "must see" list for the Ghent Film Festival 2010. I have always asked myself how I should act in situations like those described in the announcement. Being all alone, isolated from everyone, in the hands of the secret police, not knowing how long this will last, and with serious doubts whether they will let you go when they (eventually) got what they want. Of course, there are always people on their moral high horse, who will say that they never.... But I can't be sure for myself.
In the course of the story, some examples other than physical torture were mentioned to impose pressure on people, e.g. when the secret police promises to arrange some hard-to-get medicine for a sick relative. Such immoral bargains move the focus of the current situation away from yourself (how much and how long can I endure this) to a new level beyond yourself: maybe the damage from my confession is not so bad after all, in comparison the benefits that someone else could have from this.
There is a sub-plot within the film about a triangular relationship (1 man, 2 women) that existed in secret for one and a half year. Suddenly, the man decides it is time to throw it all in the open. He really thinks that everyone will benefit from the newly created situation. Of course, it works out differently from what he expected. Though I can only outguess the intentions of the film makers, I think this second story line is created to make the movie acceptable for those that are not so interested in moral issues. Such viewers may be moved instead by real world dilemma's they can imagine as "real" (experience in their own life). In other words, this sub-plot does not add to the story in general, but it may well suit its purpose in catching and holding the attention of the average viewer, hence a good thing from a compositional (or commercial?) point of view.
Initially I found it a nice touch to include the score of the "betrayal" aria from Handel's opera Ariodante. The same score re-surfaced several times throughout the film. Eventually, while the credits were shown, it was played again, now including a considerable part of the whole aria (voice part replaced by a oboe). At that time, when hearing the same notes for the 5th or 6th time, it was not so nice anymore. I think there is other suitable (betrayal) repertoire, even when only considering opera's from Handel. Most probably this is just me, and it does not hinder me from valuing this film with high marks.
All in all, this movie covered the subject very well, and more than satisfied my expectations as derived from the text in the announcement. I wonder how it would be experienced by someone who did not read the synopsis beforehand. From the beginning of the film it is not made clear where the planned interviews are heading, and how the other persons are related to the underlying subject. IT MIGHT have been better to have part of the speeches that we see at the end of the movie, or at least some newspaper headlines about it, to be included in the beginning. This is not a complaint, just a hint.