A very rich story about a dedicated man with an extraordinary gift and his own shadows. Very well played, the film takes us through three different regimes, each of which are suspicious about the protagonist's methods. Both gentle and cruel, he dedicates his life to healing others, until his perhaps greatest barrier threatens to put an end to his career. Moving and touching across several different layers. Very worthwhile to watch
Add a Review
-
denis-2379128 February 2020
-
frankde-jong25 September 2021Agnieszka Holland is active as a (female) director since halfway the 70's and has produced a very diverse oeuvre. Because there is no real masterpiece in the oeuvre I think she hasn't got the attention she deserves.
Also "Charlatan" is no masterpiece, but it is a very good movie nevertheless. The cinematography is at times very beautiful, but that is not the real attraction of the movie. The real attraction of the movie is that it has a very compex main character in a very complex society, but the movie does not try to explan everything. It is up to the spectator to think about a lot of quenstions after the movie has finished. Benath some of the questions I had after viewing the movie.
The film is a biopic about Jan Mikolasek (1889 - 1973, played by Ivan Trajon (at older age) and his son Josef Trojan (at younger age)). Jan Mikolasek diagnosis people by looking at a bottle of their urine and treats them with extracts of herbs. When later in the film Mikolasek also turns out to be a clairvoyant, the term "charlatan" seems more then justified. Despite its title the film hoewever does not give a clear answer to this question. There are some indications about questianable merchandising (empty bottles to urinate in) around the practice of Mikolasek but on average he is portrayed as a man driven to help his patients and not as a charlatan.
Mikolasek is prosecuted by the communist Czech government. The film is unclear about the motives of the government. The prosecutor calls Mikolasek mockingly a urine oracle, but as we saw before this was in all probability not the case.
The film makes clear that the prosecution is only possible after some former patients of Mikolasek are no longer on positions of power. That is however only about eliminating an obstacle and does not give a cleu about the motives behind the prosecution. Was it the homosexuality of Mikolasek? At one point in the film is remarked that this is against the law, but (again) the film does not provide definite answers.
As dedicated Mitosalek is to his patients, so selfish and blunt he sometimes is to his loved ones. Especially against his assistent and lover Frantisek Palko (Juraj Loj) he is two times real cruel and villainous. Flashbacks to his past agian provide some clues about this inconsistency in his peronality but not the full answer.
One thing is in my opinion not entirely logic. The film is told in flash backs originating from the interrogation during the proces. At other points in the film however, the impression is created that the proces is just a show proces with conclusions already drawn. But why having serious interrogations in a show proces? -
yasin-998965 March 2021The biographical film Sarlatan is good, it is worth seeing because it describes the life and destiny of an interesting and controversial character. The life of the main character is totally atypical and includes both good and evil. On the one hand he was completely dedicated to the work of a healer, treating 200 people a day of all kinds of diseases, on the other hand he was a sadomasochist, with accents of madness when torturing and killing animals or when self-mutilating or with accents of murderer when he proposes to the man he lived with to kill his unborn child... A person with extraordinary abilities but also with an obvious mental and emotional imbalance. It bothered me that the film did not show clearly what was the situation of the character towards the end of his life, namely the fact that he was sentenced to 5 years in prison and not killed and that after his release he did not deal with healing.
-
ma-cortes15 April 2023Charlatan is a 2020 Czech-Polish-Irish-Slovak drama well shot by Agnieszka Holland based loosely on the healer Jan Mikolásek (1889-1973), who cured hundreds of people using plant-based remedies ,already a local institution in Czechoslovakia before World War II, the healer gains in reputation and wealth both during the Nazi occupation and under Communist rule. It was selected as the Czech entry for the Best International Feature Film at the 93rd Academy Awards . It won five awards including Best Film at the 2021 Czech Lion Awards . This is a nice historical drama about Jan Mikolasek, a Czech herbalist who, by analyzing the urine of his patients, was able to diagnose diseases and cure them with medicinal herbs . He was an ambiguous character who assisted both , Nazi during the occupation and the communists after the war ; one after the other, each regime wants to use his skills and in return give him protection . But lost the support of the Czechoslovak authorities after the death of President Zaptocky, whom he had treated and was arrested and accused of illicit enrichment.
The impressive story of a man gifted with exceptional abilities set against the background of the events of the totalitarian fifties. The life of Jan Mikolásek who was born at the turn of the 20th century, he won fame and fortune using unorthodox plant-based treatment methods to cure a wide range of diseases . He was a well-known and successful Czech healer, who diagnosed and healed people using his intuition and his familiarity with plants. His remedies and prescriptions, although mostly plant-based, included lifestyle and dietary changes. From the urine, he was able to diagnose a disease, which he subsequently treated with herbs. Fresh urine has an amber-yellow color, while brown, for example, indicates a liver problem, and pink to red indicates a bad kidney. A more persistent foam, on the other hand, indicated that the urine contained a higher level of protein. With his helper, he mixed and matched mixtures of 27 plant species. In Jenstejn they consumed up to three tons of herbs a week. The herbs themselves do not have such an effect as their proper combinations. And vice versa, some plants do not get along with each other. In addition to teas, he was also engaged in the production of ointments, various oils, drops and unspecified "powders". Mikolásek also produced two syrups for children. One of them ministered to sick children, the other to children suffering from tuberculosis. He emphasized that the same disease cannot be treated with the same herbs. "For example, two people have the same hair disease, both are men, both are the same age and have the same body composition. And yet, if I prescribe the same thing to both, it will help one and not the other" .He healed not only poor people from the villages but also many well-known people, including the Czechoslovak President, Antonín Zápotocky. Mikolásek's diagnostic methods and notorious healing got the attention of Czechoslovakia's government . He was finally arrested after strychnine was found in the bodies of two men he had treated . Set in Czechoslovakia in 1957, the film shows his arrest and trial but also his previous life and his love affair with his assistant and lover Frantisek Palko.
Ivan Trojan, winner of the Czech Lion to best actor for this role as the herbalist Jan Mikolasek dedicated his life to caring for the sick despite the immense obstacles he faced in his private and public life , he is in charge of giving life to mature Jan, while the actor's son, Josef Trojan, plays the young healer . This thought-provoking and brooding motion picture was compellingly directed by Agnieszka Holland . And winner of 4 Czech Lions, including Best Film, the film was nominated for the Teddy (which recognizes the best LGTBIQ-themed film at the Berlin 2020 festival). This prestigious director Holland has made good films , outstanding the following ones : "Copying Beethoven¨ , ¨Julie walking Home¨ , ¨Washington Square¨, ¨Total Eclipse¨ , ¨The Secret Garden¨, ¨Olivier Olivier¨ , ¨To Kill a Priest¨ , ¨A Woman on her Own¨ and ¨Sunday Children" . Rating 7/10 . Better than average . -
morrison-dylan-fan11 April 2021In the middle of watching great movies from the online Grimmfest film festival,I discovered that the 2021 Borderlines film festival was taking place at the same time, which led to me taking a spin of the wheel,and watching the first movie that popped up at the event.
View on the film:
Taking a close-up look at a bodily function, director Agnieszka Holland & cinematographer Martin Strba take a terrific straight-lace approach to Mikolasek's examination of pee,with CGI effects in close-ups on the filled jars, bring up from under the microscope the signs Mikolasek sees to correctly diagnose patients.
Covering decades of his life, Holland notes down Mikolasek's homeopathic treatments with a refine Costume Drama atmosphere of crystal-clear close-ups on the stoic Mikolasek,which folds out to chilly panning shots of the totalitarian rulers dragging Mikolasek to court.
Playing Mikolasek at his most youthful,and most tied and old,feather and son Ivan and Josef Trojan give wonderful performances as Mikolasek, with the burst of excitement he is given by Josef being twisted to a stern, clinical gaze displayed in his older days by Ivan.
Adding a fictional male lover to his life as a poor guess for why the real marriage of Mikolasek might have fell apart, the screenplay by Marek Epstein, Martin Sulc & Jaroslav Sedlacek takes a narrow view on if Mikolasek's homeopathic treatments actually work,and if he was a actually charlatan,with the writers presenting him in a rather saintly fashion,where all who question him are totalitarian psychos who are trying to rubbish the good name of the rebellious healer Mikolasek. -
velvet_zoo12 October 2020Great art direction. Interesting story, but I felt it missed on a few things worth exploring. Great cinematography. Weak chemistry between the leads. Feels like an HBO TV movie, which is not necessarily a bad thing. 6* out of 10*
-
Interesting approach, what I liked the most was the revelation of sexuality until the middle of the film (honestly not a surprise because somewhere someone made a list of the best LGTB films and this was one of them). The film is plagued by scenes that become disconcerting and take the viewer out of his comfort zone, such as the kittens scene, really the most intense moment of the entire film in my opinion, it is very difficult to achieve so much richness in feelings in a single film.
-
ThurstonHunger29 August 2022I had never heard of Jan Mikolasek, a herbalist/healer and hero to many Czech people. I strongly feel that would be for the best, or checking your Czech history at the door during the opening credits. In fact I'd add maybe skip the post-movie googling on him, and accept this as a very-loosely-based-on-reality film.
Call it speculative biography.
That said, I found the folk therapy treatments based on urine analysis fascinating, I could almost see that as something to have a revival for a variety of reasons (health-cost widening gaps on top of a general distrust of what the authorities, medical or otherwise, say).
Indeed the day I watched this movie I also read a news story about a California state senator's wife dying with a "partially intact" white mulberry leaf found inside her stomach. Sad, but charlatans are far from a plague of the past.
Despite the title, the film seems to not be so ready to condemn Mikolasek for his quasi-medical endeavors. He is introduced with an almost superhuman power, and there is a notion of a burning need to share that power with the people.
The scenes with his mentor underscore a commitment to altruism, beneath a fervent religious belief. There is some joy to those scenes, and fun with lighting as well. Mikolasek inherits a lot of his mentor's skills, however the altruism and spirituality come with conflictions.
He lives a life of apparently both affluence and asceticism. Sitting at night for a tasty feast, kneeling the next day upon the rocks before a statue of Christ.
The conflictions in the film are expanded to his sexuality, in Holland's account there is no question to the homeopath's homosexuality. Like I said, speculative biography. That sexuality puts him at risk not just in the church, but in the eyes of state. Even as the state of the state changes.
Speaking of the state, the healer's efforts don't only lead to long lines of desperate people outside Mikolasek's stately gated home, but interest from their leaders/occupiers.
He survives thanks to his concoctions and connections. But after a stretch of time, will his friends in powerful places turn a more cowardly shade of yellow? Will the good non-doctor suffer the same shady fate?
Again I think the film is well worth a watch especially the efforts of father and son actors covering the ages of Jan. The camera shots work harder than the communists to frame Mikolasek (so many shots through gates/doorways/prison cells and other rectangles within the rectangular screen).
A mild caution on some of the brutality in the film, there are three scenes where a harsh choice of life/death is thrust upon us. A gun, a sack and and an abortifacient - while the middle may trouble other viewers the most, the third shook me.
Over the course of the movie, I felt that Holland may have tried to stack too much upon the shoulders of Mikolasek in this his reel life, but then again he apparently was a larger-than-life to many in his real life. -
nikabalejova21 August 2020Czechoslovakian cinematography is flooded with mindless romantic comedies, so it very refreshing to finally see something with a soul. And oh my, this film is something. Breathtaking acting, both Ivan Trojan and Juraj Loj showed what they can do when they are given space and great script to work with. Characters are deep and meaningful, even the smallest roles left me wandering: Who are you, what is your story? Main character, Jan Mikolásek, has an interesting and unusual personality and definitely can't be seen as "a good guy" but he is not "a bad guy" either. I don't know if i would even call him moraly gray. It is completely left on you, how you choose to see him. Personally I also loved how they choose to portray love between two men, how completely breathtaking and pure their relationship was. Couple of times I was very close to tears. If this is where our cinematography is heading, I am definitely excited and I am looking forward to more films like this. Definitely worth watching. If you are slovak/czech, grab your cinema tickets asap. If not, get hold of a subtitled version and watch it too. Great work of art.
-
akira-hideyo14 July 2021Beautifully constructed movie that tugs at your heartstrings for cheering on a gifted maligned healer that miraculously healed countless and yet makes one recoil at his own selfish monstrosity of forcing his wants and needs upon the one most dependant on him for livelihood. In the end, his monstrosity prevailed to continue do what he always did to survive. It was control, possession, ownership and instinct to look out for his own life that mattered. Despite his gift to heal, he failed to save his own own soul by sacrificing real love for survival.
-
silva_e_souza29 July 2021There are two bad points in this film: SPOILERS AHEAD 1 - It is a gay film... they lost a lot of time with the love scenes, semi-explicit, by the way, of two men.. the "doctor" and his assistant, and they are not pleasant scenes if you think that is seeing a film about a real peson.
I spent a lot of time reading about his life and, in no moment, is said that he was an homossexual or if he had an affair with his male assistant... anyway, let´s go to the second problem.
2 - If you watch the movie, as I did, you will know that he, and his assistant, were convicted to death, OK ? The film ends with both of them going to jail, perhaps, waiting for the penalty.. but no ! He was sentenced to three years, that was reduced to 1 1/2 years and lived freely almost more 10 years. It is an absurd ! You see the film and find the truth thru Google... Bad film. -
westsideschl17 February 2022The script is based on Jan Mikolasek, a Czech healer & herbalist. Hundreds would line up each day at his house seeking treatment for ailments. He ended up serving perhaps a million. His diagnosis came in large part from observing the urine of each person & treating w/herbs. He & his staff were imprisoned for several years through Czech communist authoritarian control of peoples lives in the '50s & '60s (sounds like Russia, Belarus, China, Myanmar today) through loss of freedoms, imprisonment, killings. He died of natural causes in 1973. Unmarried he gave much of his money to charitable causes. Would have liked more history in the script.
-
lee_eisenberg20 February 2024Agnieszka Holland has been one of Poland's leading directors for the past few decades. Although she has no particular style, the movies of hers that I've seen were worth seeing. This now includes 2020's "Sarlatán" (sorry, IMDb no longer allows diacritics on consonants, so I can't write the title properly).
The movie tells the true story of Jan Mikolasek, a Czech doctor in the early 20th century whose unorthodox methods caused controversy. When the Nazis occupied Czechoslovakia, they forced him to use his methods for them. Later on, the country's Soviet-backed government prosecuted him (his sexual relations with men probably contributed to this).
More than anything, the movie shows a part of history that most people have probably never heard of; I don't know how many people in Czechia and Slovakia know about Mikolasek, and in particular his sexual orientation. All in all, this is a movie that you should check out (can I say "Czech out"?). -
catzampar16 August 2021As a person who cures people, Jan Mikolasek, has a very negative side that shadows his positive side. The animal killing in the movie is cruel, I absolutely hated this movie. I would give a zero. The end is terrible, betraying his best friend and lover. Healing people and killing animals, and unborn babies without mother's consent, being a closeted gay, very complicated personality. He is very good in healing but at the same time a very bad and mean person.
-
tranngocthanhtu28 February 2021I'd like to give 5 start but this film been done so good that nothing I can point out, except the tragic story of its which I hate the most. This "Charlatan" gentlement been built so good that I wish he had a better end, It hurt me so bad to watch the film till the end, thinking of what'll happened next, knowing it not gonna be good, like all others bioraphy film. It just sad, really sad :(((
-
masak-4933631 March 2021I love the story and the contrasts. Comunists suck.
-
momomojojo28 February 2022Love the decor very well-made details are done nicely Very well played doctor Side players did a good job Lines are done very standard and too easy Totally understand the greyed out vintage film look, but the quality is low making it too obviously is not, what is almost unthink of because the method is there.
Like how the character is being created Pity the special effect they used is just low quality and not really needed The flow of the movie is so standard nothing interesting but the story does making it not really needed.
Such a nice Nice underlying story about what is the true, facts and relationships of people, with power struggles. -
henryggruning9 February 2021The whole plot started of rather light and got dark. The literal air in the cinema felt so heavy and I couldn't help but just speculate all the different sides of the story.