‘DogMan‘, Luc Besson‘s first film after four years of silence, is one of those films that polarizes viewers in fans and haters from the start, and not necessarily because of the film itself but also or especially because of the personality of its director. It is not easy for me either to completely ignore the circumstances unrelated to the film, especially since the strange and lonely hero, victim of a fanatical and violent society, borrows – perhaps – something from the feelings of the screenwriter and director in recent years. At the same time, I can’t help but appreciate that ‘DogMan‘ is an impressive and very well made film, one of the best if not the best that Luc Besson has made in the last two decades.
Life was cruel to Douglas Munrow, the hero of the film. A victim of the cruelty of an abusive father, he is thrown into the doghouse as a child – literally. There he learns distrust of people and communication with the only true friends – dogs. The violence in the family leaves him disabled but gives him the opportunity to master the crowds of dogs around him, becoming their savior and protector. However, society does not offer many chances to a disabled man, the only human relationship he knows turns out to be an illusion, and confrontations with the law and those outside the law escalate. Even faith in God does not offer him a way of salvation.
The narrative is composed of flash-backs that reconstruct – in the presence of the police psychologist – the profile of an alleged criminal and his past. The lead performer is Caleb Landry Jones and his extraordinary role reminded me of Joaquin Phoenix’s Joker. The comparison holds at all levels. It would be an injustice, I think, for the actor to be bypassed by even a nomination for the Academy Award for Best Actor. The scenes where Jones is surrounded by dogs are sensitive and visually expressive. Don’t expect everything to be realistic and credible, this is not a man-dog communication and training story, that’s not the point. The relationship between the hero, dogs and the rest of the world is not realistic but symbolic. The story has pace and tension and is captivating. The ending will also be contested, and, as the entire film, it will have its supporters and its critics. It impressed me. I recommend watching ‘DogMan‘, with the necessary caveats – not everyone will like it.
‘La passante du Sans-Souci‘ (distributed in the English language markets as ‘The Passerby‘) is the last film in which Romy Schneider appeared. It is a film that the actress really wanted to make, both for personal and professional reasons. It was filmed in two periods in 1981, a dramatic year for Romy. Filming, which began in the spring, was interrupted because she broke a leg and resumed towards the end of the year, but in the meantime she had to deal with the accidental death of her 14-year-old son and the news that she had cancer. She managed to complete the filming and was able to attend the French premiere in April 1982. A month later she would die, so ‘La passante du Sans-Souci‘ remained her farewell film. Romy Schneider creates an overwhelming (double!) role and the presence of Michel Piccoli alongside her is formidable. The film, as a whole, however, disappoints.
We may wonder why Jacques Rouffio was chosen to direct this film? Today we consider him an average director with a thin filmography, but in 1967 he had made a film (‘L’Horizon’) that addressed a taboo subject of French history – a revolt of soldiers during the First World War, after which he was not entrusted with a another project for almost a decade. He had returned to the fore with two other films that did not avoid controversy, and perhaps because of this fame he was entrusted with directing the screen version of Joseph Kessel‘s novel, which is the basis of the script. At a time when France had not yet assumed many of the responsibilities of collaboration and deportations during the Second World War, and when neo-Nazi movements were raising their heads again, this film brings to the screen the story of a crime and a trial which bring to the surface events that a large part of the French ignored or wanted to forget.
The problem is that the script is excessively rhetorical and melodramatic, and the historical parallel between the 40s and the 80s is far too demonstrative to be effective. The film begins with a slightly implausible murder. Max Baumstein, the president of a large international democratic organization, a kind of Amnesty International, assassinates the ambassador of Paraguay. He turns out to be a former Nazi officer who during the war had destroyed the lives of the man’s adoptive parents. Most of the story is a reenactment of the events of the 1930s through Baumstein’s confessions to his wife and trial testimonies. The ending is meant to be a warning about the danger of neo-Nazism that refuses to leave the stage of history.
The performance of Romy Schneider – who plays the roles of Baumstein’s wife and the boy’s adoptive mother – is intense and emotional. We know today that the actress was already dealing with a serious illness, but none of the physical beauty and inner light that we had admired for more than two decades of her career seemed to have diminished in intensity. Michel Piccoli also has a generous part and plays it with charismatic dignity. However, I found the rest of the cast much less inspired and some of the story details are implausible. ‘La passante du Sans-Souci‘ is worth seeing for the meeting between Romy Schneider and Michel Piccoli and for the great farewell that the formidable actress dedicates us through this last creation of hers on the screen.
‘Family Plot‘, Alfred Hitchcock‘s last film, made in 1976, is the story of the confrontation between two couples of swindlers. In the opening scene of the film, we meet in action the first couple – a pseudo-fortune teller named Blanche and her lover, the driver-actor George. They receive the mission to search for a missing person, with the promise of a fee far greater than the earnings of their usual little scams. The two get into the taxi driven by George, argue a lot, and the car almost hits on the pedestrian crossing a blonde woman dressed in black. The camera abandons Blanche and George to follow the woman, who is Fran, the female partner in the other couple, much larger-scale crooks who deal in sophisticated kidnappings with ransoms in diamonds. It is the first but not the last coincidence in a script (written by Ernest Lehman based on a novel by British thriller author Victor Canning) that would have been judged more harshly in terms of verisimilitude, if Hitchcock were not so explicit in his intentions to start from a rather gloomy theme and treat it in a register of farce combined with action comedy. It is one of the few comedies directed by Hitchcock and, in my opinion, the funniest of them all.
The story evolves in the two parallel plans represented by the two couples of swindlers. One seeks the other and from a moment on the chase is mutual. Only in the final scenes of the last quarter of an hour of the film do the four meet in a confrontation with a final ‘twist’ typical for Hitchcock. The cast is diverse and interesting. The couple formed by the little crooks is better fleshed out, with Bruce Dern (the father of …) demonstrating his comedic talents and Barbara Harris in the delicious role of Blanche. Karen Black at least creates an unforgettable silhouette, but William Devane is an unconvincing ‘bad guy’, and when the villain is not evil enough the whole film suffers. The action scenes are excellent, on par with those of the great films of the 1950s in the master’s filmography, and the cinematography uses Hitchcock‘s ‘color code’ with red (red taxi!) hinting at danger and green introducing the counterpoint of deception. Karen Black, in the action scenes wears ,of course, a blonde wig.
Although it did not enjoy the success that Hitchcock hoped for, ‘Family Plot‘ is a film with many qualities. In retrospect, the master seems to draw the line with a comic film, a self-parody in the genre he perfected. We now know that this was to be his last film, but Hitchcock did not intend for ‘Family Plot‘ to be a career-ending one. In the following years, he worked on another project, a more ‘serious’ espionage film, also collaborating with screenwriter Ernest Lehman, who had also Americanized and adapted ‘Family Plot‘. It was no longer to be, time caught up with him. We are left with the last version of his famous cameo, a sequence in which Hitchcock himself appeared in a single frame, somewhere in each of his films. Here we see him as a silhouetted shadow on a frosted glass door. It is the door to the Births and Deaths Registry Office. Farewell, Master!
Screenwriter and director Sudabeh Mortezai took a bit of a risk by choosing the name ‘Europa‘ for her latest film, and not only because this name has already been used. I found about ten feature films with this name on IMDB, plus numerous short films, series episodes or documentaries. In this Austrian film written and directed by a German filmmaker of Iranian origin, ‘Europa‘ implies a dose of ambiguity or, if you like, has multiple meanings. It is primarily the name of a corporation trying to expand into Albania, one of the least known and least understood Balkan countries. But the story could have taken place in any other country in the Balkans or in other parts of Eastern Europe that have come out of communism. ‘Europe’ should also mean a system of values and a way of life to which all the peoples of the continent aspire. The expansion of Europe, as an institution but especially as an idea, is uneven, incomplete and often accompanied by conflicts and suffering. The story in this film is an episode of this slow and contradictory evolution.
The main heroine of the film is a German professional, a woman who works for an international corporation called ‘Europa’. Beate is one of those professionals who spend months away from home. We know that she has a family and (at least) one child that she talks with on the Internet, in the evenings, in her moments of respite. The film captures her work in Albania, where with the help of a young assistant and a translator, she is tasked with convincing the inhabitants of a rural area to evacuate the land on which a former industrial structure, now abandoned, stands. The corporation wants to take control of the area, but without its inhabitants. Only towards the end, the viewers will learn something about the purpose of these activities. To reach the goal, any means are allowed. At the beginning, the inhabitants are offered conditions that seem hard to refuse: generous compensation, resettlement aid, scholarships for the children who are going to study, donations for the dominant religious cult in those places. And yet, a few of them do not accept to leave the places where they were born and always lived, the houses and the graves of their parents and ancestors, the only way of life they knew. The story of the film focuses on the conflict between Beate as a representative of the corporation and one of these peasants and his family. When the means of persuasion through co-interest seem to fail, pressure and threats begin. The conflict threatens to turn violent.
The part that I liked the most in the film is the one that presents the meeting, which at times comes to a confrontation, between the two cultures and ways of seeing the world – the local culture with its traditional economy, with its religion and family relations, with the hospitality but also the mistrust towards foreigners tailored by history, and the ‘Western’ culture based on interests and the belief in a progress that must be imposed if it is not accepted. Director Sudabeh Mortezai comes from the world of documentary, and this is visible in a good way. Not only the setting in which the action takes place seems unpolluted, but also the scenes that meet the representatives of the two worlds have authenticity and even humor. The use of non-professional actors and of spontaneous dialogue without the constraint of a script dictating their words contributes to this. I must also mention the name of the actor who plays the lead role of the Albanian farmer – Jetnor Gorezi. The only professional actors are from the ‘western’ part of the cast, but here too the choice of the German actress Lilith Stangenberg for the role of Beate was, I think, excellent. For much of the film, viewers will wonder what she really feels, when is she being honest, and how aware she is that she, too, is being manipulated. Ambiguity, I think, is more appropriate than the categorization, too explicit in my opinion, of the characters. In the end, the continent of Europe will have to include them all. Ambitious political cinema, partially successful.
Despre Inteligența Artificială (AI) vorbește toată lumea. De la pandemie – când toți devenisem experți în virusologie – încoace, nu am avut parte de un subiect care să fie pe buzele și în mințile tuturor, de la profesioniștii IT la scenariștii de la Hollywood, de la politicienii din Senat și organizații internaționale la cercurile pensionarilor din parcuri, traversând frontiere, vârste, și clase socio-economice. Toată lumea are o părere, întrebări, angoase. Mai ales angoase, alimentate și de complexitatea unui domeniu care combină științele și tehnologiile cele mai înaintate și de declarațiile și scrierile unor personalități cu prestigiu (de multe ori, justificat) de experți în aceste domenii. Avem motive întemeiate să ne temem de AI? În acest articol, voi încerca să răspund câtorva întrebări, să deschid câteva fire de discuție și să clarific o parte dintre neînțelegeri. Multe alte subiecte vor rămâne deschise.
Avertismentele vin de la vârful piramidei experților care se ocupă de dezvoltarea tehnologică și o încadrează în contextul istoric al prezentului. Raymond Kurzweil (născut în 1948) este un informatician, scriitor, inventator și futurist american. În cartea sa din 2005 despre inteligența artificială și viitorul umanității, „Singularitatea este aproape: când oamenii transcend biologia”, Kurzweil dezvoltă termenul „singularitate”. Autorul american expune ‘legea accelerării randamentelor’, care prezice o creștere exponențială a tehnologiilor precum computerele, genetica, nanotehnologia, robotica și inteligența artificială. Odată ce singularitatea a fost atinsă, Kurzweil spune că inteligența mașinilor va fi infinit mai puternică decât toată inteligența umană combinată, iar dezvoltarea tehnologică va fi necontrolabilă și ireversibilă. El prezice această dată: 2045. În realitate progresele tehnologice ar putea fi mai rapide decât le-a prezis Kurzweil. Capabilitățile mașinilor gânditoare dotate cu inteligență artificială i-au surprins chiar și pe unii dintre creatorii lor. Nici una dintre lucrările științifice sau cărțile sci-fi nu a prezis cu precizie felul în care ChatGPT a reușit în decurs de mai puțin de un an să schimbe întreaga discuție despre AI, aducând o parte din capabilitățile generative și conversaționale ale entităților dotate cu auto-învățare pe calculatoarele personale și telefoanele tuturor. Astăzi specialiștii re-evaluează predicțiile și consideră că o parte dintre trăsăturile singularității ar putea deveni reale înainte de sfârșitul acestui deceniu. Desigur, nici aici nu va fi totul precum scrie în cărți.
(sursa imaginii: YouTube)
Săptămânalul ‘The Economist’ a organizat o discuție dintre doi experți de top proveniți din domenii diferite. Mustafa Suleyman (născut în 1984) este un cercetător și antreprenor britanic în AI, care a fost co-fondatorul și liderul tehnic al firmei DeepMind, o companie de inteligență artificială achiziționată de Google și deținută acum de Alphabet. Actuala sa afacere se numește Inflection AI. Yuval Noah Harari (născut în 1976) este un autor israelian, istoric și profesor la Departamentul de Istorie de la Universitatea Ebraică din Ierusalim. Este autorul bestsellerurilor de știință popularizată „Sapiens: Scurtă istorie a omenirii” (2014), „Homo Deus: Scurtă istorie a viitorului” (2016) și „21 Lecții pentru secolul XXI” (2018), publicate în România de editura Polirom. Scrierile sale examinează trecutul și viitorul omenirii cu accent pe liberul arbitru, conștiință, inteligență, fericire și suferință. Editoarea-șefă a revistei i-a adresat prima întrebare lui Mustafa Suleyman – ‘care sunt progresele recente și prognoza pentru următorul deceniu în domeniul AI?’ Suleiman a început prin a răspunde că progresele din ultimii 5 ani sunt excepționale în ceea ce privește capacitatea de decizie și mai ales creativitatea sistemelor dotate cu inteligență artificială. Acestea s-au dovedit capabile nu doar de inventivitate, ci și de empatie în interacțiunea lor cu ființele umane. În viitorii zece ani, consolidarea acestor progrese va duce la crearea de sisteme care vor putea acorda consiliere financiară sau administra singure portofolii de investiții, vor crea tratamente medicale revoluționare adaptate fiecărui pacient în parte și vor putea ajuta – din nou personalizat – elevii în procesul de învățare și pregătire al temelor de casa. Toate acestea se bazează pe creșterea exponențială a capacității de calcul și a vitezei de acces la toate bazele de date prezente și viitoare ale omenirii. Când microfonul s-a îndreptat spre Yuval Harari cu întrebarea ‘ce concluzii trageți din aceste evoluții prezente și viitoare?’, răspunsul a venit imediat: ‘Este sfârșitul istoriei umane, așa cum o cunoaștem. Nu este și sfârșitul istoriei, va exista istorie, Universul va continua să se existe, dar va fi istoria altcuiva, nu a speciei noastre.’ Dramatic, nu-i așa?
(sursa imaginii: YouTube)
Schimbând teritoriul angoaselor de la scara istorică la cea a problemelor socio-economice actuale, următoarea întrebare a fost legată de efectele progreselor AI asupra piețelor globale și naționale ale forței de muncă. Subiectul a fost abordat și într-o masă rotundă care a avut loc săptămână trecută, organizată și moderată de Elon Musk, cu participarea lui Greg Brockman (cofondatorul lui OpenAI – creatorii lui ChatGPT), Max Tegmark (cercetător la MIT) și a lui Benjamin Netanyahu (prim-ministrul israelian) având ca teme, printre altele, ritmul masiv al dezvoltării AI, viitoarea singularitate AI, siguranța AI, necesitatea regulației AI. Este una dintre primele ocazii în care am avut prilejul să asistăm la un dialog dintre unul dintre politicienii conducători de stat și experții tehnici din domeniu. Și Netanyahu și-a exprimat îngrijorarea în legătură cu efectele pe termen scurt și mediu. Dacă practic orice meserie și orice activitate umană va fi influențată de progresele tehnologice, dacă mașinile vor executa multe sarcini – mecanice sau din domeniul gândirii și al creației – mai bine decât oamenii, ce se va întâmpla cu activitățile productive și cu locurile de muncă? Yuval Harari observa că orice revoluție tehnologică aduce cu sine asemenea schimbări. Revoluția agricolă din comuna primitivă a pus capăt împărțirii omenirii în vânători și culegători. Tiparul a distrus profesia scribilor de manuscrise și Internetul a schimbat radical bibliotecile. În același timp, pe termen scurt, șomajul este extrem de periculos. Au fost suficienți câțiva ani de șomaj peste 25% pentru ca democrata și liberala republică germană de la Weimar să alunece în coșmarul dictaturii naziste. Nu există un răspuns bun în acest moment, dar politicienii trebuie să fie preveniți. Pe termen lung, omenirea se va obișnui, probabil, cu un ritm de muncă complet diferit și cu alte feluri de activități. În definitiv, în viziunea Raiului, nimeni nu trebuie să trudească și scopul istoriei nu este nici pe departe șomaj 0%. Procesul va trebui însă să fie administrat în mod corespunzător.
Chiar există pericolul ca omenirea să fie înlăturată de pe scena istoriei de mașini? Nu ar fi o noutate în istoria planetei. Dimpotrivă. Entitățile cu inteligențe superioare le-au înlocuit succesiv pe cele mai puțin inteligente de la dominația planetei. Chiar dacă nu au fost complet distruse, ecosistemele precedente au căpătat un loc inferior în ierarhiile ecologice și lanțurile alimentare. Vegetația a înlocuit dezolarea deșertului pustiu. Animalele au apărut mai întâi în mediul marin și apoi pe uscat și au făcut din mediul vegetal principala lor sursă de hrană. Dinozaurii au fost înlocuiți de mamifere. Homo Sapiens domină de câteva zeci de mii de ani planeta și o schimbă radical. Există un consens între experți că inteligența mașinilor o va depăși în câțiva ani sau în puține decenii pe cea omenească. Capacitățile lor de calcul, decizie, creativitate vor fi uluitoare. Din punctul de vedere al entităților AI de peste câteva decenii, inteligența umană va părea la fel de primitivă și de înceată precum ni se pare astăzi inteligența arborilor sau a animalelor inferioare. Trei scenarii sunt posibile: unul pozitiv în care mașinile gânditoare vor fi totdeauna sub controlul oamenilor în scopuri legate de supraviețuirea omenirii și îmbunătățirea condițiilor de trai; și două negative – unele dintre mașinile gânditoare vor cădea în mâinile dictatorilor care le vor transforma în arme; sau cel în care evoluția mașinilor gânditoare va scăpa controlului uman. Ce se poate face pentru ca doar primul scenariu să devina realitate? Este aceasta posibil?
Veștile bune sunt că răspunsurile aparțin domeniilor tehnologiei și ale regulației și legislației – toate aflate (încă?) sub controlul deplin al omenirii. Veștile mai puțin bune sunt că suntem departe de a fi de acord ce trebuie făcut și de avea planuri concrete – chiar la nivel național, să nu mai vorbim de nivel global. Sistemele AI au făcut progrese uriașe în domeniile deciziilor și creativității, dar nu sunt încă autonome. Avem (încă?) în mână butoanele care le declanșează și le opresc sau cablul care – când este scos din priză – le taie alimentarea cu electricitate. Este necesară cu maximă urgență stabilirea unor domenii care să fie interzise aplicațiilor AI sau în care cercetarea să se facă sub control strict, inclusiv control internațional. De exemplu, interzicerea folosirii ‘boților’ AI în scopuri electorale. Interzicerea impersonalizărilor în care entitățile AI se maschează ca operatori umani și generarea unor teste puternice, similare testelor Turing, care să detecteze și să izoleze asemenea aplicații. Știm însă că datorită capacităților de auto-învățare, aplicațiile AI vor ști, mai devreme sau mai târziu să ‘păcălească’ orice test. Trebuie să punem în funcțiune propriile noastre aplicații AI în acest scop. Pentru a recăpăta încrederea care stă la baza coeziunii oricărui sistem social, trebuie să fim capabili să distingem inteligența artificială de cea naturala.
Yuval Harari folosește o metaforă fascinantă și terifiantă totodată. El spune că dacă o rasă de extratereștri ar amenința planeta, atunci omenirea ar găsi căile de a se uni pentru a lupta contra pericolului. Așa – zice el – trebuie să considerăm amenințarea ca AI să cada în mâini rele sau să capete autonomie în condițiile în care bunăstarea rasei umane nu mai este scopul ei principal. Eforturile legislative și regulatorii au început în multe țări, dar un efort internațional pare dificil, dacă nu imposibil, de antamat în condițiile noului ‘război rece’ dintre Statele Unite și aliații săi, pe de-o parte, China și aliații ei, inclusiv regimurile totalitare cele mai extremiste, de partea cealaltă. Nu există însă altă șansă decât a continua să insistăm continuu în această direcție. Moratoriile sau propunerile de înghețare a cercetărilor și dezvoltărilor tehnologice nu vor funcționa, în condițiile competiției globale și a neîncrederii reciproce, fiecare tabără fiind conștientă că partea cealaltă nu se va opri. Și totuși, la fel ca în cazul proliferării nucleare și a cursei înarmării din anii ’50-’60, soluțiile sunt încă la îndemâna conducătorilor lumii, a oamenilor de știință și a tehnologilor. Există precedente: cursa înarmărilor a dus la ‘destindere’ și la tratate internaționale care au limitat pericolul atomic; biotehnologia a decis să limiteze și să sisteze anumite direcții considerate periculoase în genetică sau clonare. Timpul însă nu așteaptă. Este cam un minut înainte de miezul nopții.
(Articolul a apărut iniţial în revista culturală ‘Literatura de Azi’ – http://literaturadeazi.ro/)
There are no monsters in ‘Monster‘, Hirokazu Koreeda‘s latest film and the first shot in Japan after a five-year absence and two films made in France and Korea that I personally liked, but many other cinema fans liked less. It is not a horror film either, but rather a combination of a family drama with social cinema, based on an original screenplay written by Yûji Sakamoto. The subject is an incident that takes place in a school involving 5th graders and their teacher. Yûji Sakamoto and Hirokazu Koreeda use a technique here that is not entirely new – in fact, one of the famous precedents is found in the history of Japanese cinema and gave its name to the Rashomon effect, as in Akiro Kurosawa’s famous 1950 film. Hirokazu Koreeda expanded and improved this technique where different perspectives and points of view of the same events are described by different characters. In “Monster“, with each of the three iterations of the story, we not only learn more and change perspectives, but also gain a deeper understanding of the heroes and what they stand for.
Saori is the single mother of Hinato, a 5th grader. When the signs of a conflict at school appear – changes in behavior but also signs of physical violence – the mother addresses the school management. In her own way, Saori is an exemplary mother, but the child does not communicate much, and the interaction with the school principal and teachers does not work either. The school principal is a grieving grandmother who also has her own problems. In fact, the theme of the first part of the film seemed to be exactly this impossibility to communicate – due to age, due to the formality of teacher-parent relationships or simply the difficulties of communication in a society that avoids direct expression and camouflages it behind ceremonial rules of politeness. The source of the trouble seems to be a young teacher named Hori. He is forced by the principal to apologize, and is then expelled from school only to reappear under strange circumstances. Hinato also has a friend in class, but what is the true nature of their relationship? The second part of the story is told from Professor Hori’s perspective, while the third part brings to the fore the relationship between the two children. When we reach the end the perspective is completely changed. The judgments and assumptions made in the first part turn out to have been largely wrong.
Hirokazu Koreeda seems to be telling us that in the absence of communication, good intentions are not enough. There is no lack of love between the heroes in this film, but neither the mother knows her son well enough, nor the student’s teacher. The much praised and appreciated Japanese ceremonial politeness seems here to be the main object of criticism of the director and screenwriter. Only the two kids, still uncorrupted by the language and manners of adults, manage to make their feelings felt to each other, with few words and more with gestures and joint activities – what we adults call play. As always with Koreeda, the casting is perfect and the focus is on the humanity of the characters. Nature also plays its part. The story in the film is placed between two dramatic events that disturb the calm of a picturesque town located on the edge of a lake: a fire at the beginning, a typhoon that produces landslides at the end. Between them the characters live their dramas. Beautifully filmed and with a soundtrack very well suited to the story, interestingly written and full of humanity and sensitivity, ‘Monster‘ is one of the best films I have seen in recent months.
Romanian cinema, like a significant part of the Romanian society, is still obsessed with the events of December 1989, which led to the fall of communism. Romania was the last country among the former allies of the USSR in which this regime change took place and the only one in which the transition was violent. Neither historians nor courts nor ordinary people have yet given a clear verdict on those events: what really happened? was there a popular uprising, a coup d’état, media stage, or a combination of all these? ‘Libertate‘ (‘Freedom’), the film directed by Tudor Giurgiu, focuses on what happened in Sibiu, a city that in 1989 had about 150 thousand inhabitants, located in Transylvania, in the geographical center of Romania. In a style that can be characterized as docu-drama, the film follows the struggles between the forces that until the eve had been allies in the preservation of communist order and legality, and which now find themselves – out of manipulation, out of inexperience, out of fear – engaged in – a violent conflict.
Tudor Giurgiu aimed and largely succeeded to create an immersive experience for the spectators, recreating the atmosphere of chaos in Sibiu on December 22, 1989 and in the ten days that followed. He created a gallery of characters in constant motion, most wearing army, militia or security forces uniforms. After some time, a few main characters emerge: Viorel Stanese – officer in the judicial militia who shows up for work and finds himself defending weapon in hand the institution’s headquarters against an unclear enemy, Leahu – a taxi driver but perhaps also a security informant who finds himself with a gun in his hand at the wrong time, the army colonel Dragoman who evolves in days or maybe just hours from revolutionary to torturer. Almost all the characters had been collaborators and perhaps even profiteers of the old regime. The order imposed by the dictatorship collapses, everybody fears and suspects everybody else, some find themselves in the camp of the victors, others are categorized as ‘terrorists’ and become prisoners in a swimming pool emptied of water, along with some of the victims of the repression. In an anthological scene, protesting the conditions of detention, former militiamen and security officers chant ‘Freedom!’. But what Freedom can we talk about after half a century of dictatorship? What does this word actually mean?
Tudor Giurgiu makes copious use, especially in the first part of the film, of the mobile camera, with the cameramen among the characters, in the crowds on the streets or next to the panicked officers in the besieged Militia headquarters. The second half of the film is spent most of the time in the structure of the swimming pool, an excellent visual metaphor of an enprisonment space. As things quiet down, so do the cameras and the cinematic style returns to a classic narrative. The swimming pool gradually empties as the prisoners are released, but the first to leave are those who agree to cooperate. The cast is excellent, the actors live their roles rather than act and the difference between documentary and fiction is almost completely erased. With this film, Tudor Giurgiu returns to the roots of Romanian history of the last 33 years. Without judging the characters and their actions and without taking explicit attitudes, he seems to suggest that the current disorientation of many segments of the Romanian society has its origin in the confusion of those December days. ‘Libertate‘ is an intentionally chaotic film about those days of change that could have happened differently.
‘Life beats film’ might be one of those clichéd phrases, but it fits perfectly with ‘Lion‘, Garth Davis‘ 2016 debut as a film director. The film is based on the true story of Indian-Australian businessman Saroo Brierley, who was lost as a child by his family in vast India and adopted by an Australian family in Tasmania. The real Saro Brierley wrote a book describing his years-long search, finding and reuniting with his biological mother and siblings left behind in India. If it had been a fictional story, ‘Lion‘ would probably have been criticized as excessive melodrama. Aided as it is by an inspired final that ties it to reality, the film is compelling and manages to create genuine emotion.
The first half of the film is excellently crafted. Nothing shows that we are dealing with a first-time feature films director. Garth Davis brings to life in detail the India of the 90s, with its geographical dimensions and especially with its human dimensions, with contrasts and poverty but also with the complex humanity that populates it. Greig Fraser‘s cinamatography is exquisite. The lead role in this part is interpreted by an Indian kid named Sunny Pawar, exceptional in expressiveness and intensity. The hero’s journey, from the moments he leaves his native village and is separated from his older brother to the moment he is adopted by the Australian couple and travels to Tasmania, was a true x-ray of India at that time.
Twenty years later, Saroo is by all accounts a young Australian of Indian origin. His identity crisis only kicks in when he leaves Tasmania to study in Melbourne, where he is faced with questions about his origins. Memories regain their place, the image of the biological mother and brother from whom he had been separated gradually replaces that of the adoptive parents and brother, and the questions left open turn into obsession. Nicole Kidman was chosen by the real Mrs. Brierly to play her role and manages to give her – in few but well-written scenes – consistency. On the other hand, the fictional character of Lucy, Saroo’s Australian girlfriend, seems out of sync with the rest of the story and Rooney Mara‘s casting is not the most inspired either. Dev Patel is a very talented and extremely charismatic actor. I think he managed to fit into the role of grown-up Saroo well, and the scenes where he reminisces about his past or imagines the possible future reunion are the best in the second part of the film, which otherwise doesn’t live up to the first part. The ending is familiar to anyone who knows the story that inspired the film, and yet, the way it was done, many viewers will shed a tear or two. In the end ‘Lion‘ is not much inferior to the true story.
Golda Meir is one of those political figures who is seen very differently in her country and the rest of the world. In Israel she is considered as one of the most controversial prime ministers in the state’s 75-year history, not only because of her responsibility in the failure to prevent and the inadequate preparation of the Yom Kippur War, but also because of the way she approached socio-economic issues or the Palestinian problem. When she was forced to resign, Israel was a weaker country with more problems than when she came to the helm. Outside Israel, the views are radically different. Her enemies, of course, pay her the compliment of their hatred, but the majority of public opinion and a large part of the Jewish population of the world consider her as one of the important political figures in the history of the 20th century, the first female prime minister in Israel, a personality dedicated to her people and an intelligent and witty woman who left behind many memorable quotes. ‘Golda‘, the 2023 movie made by the Israel-born director Guy Nattiv on a script written by the British Nicholas Martin, will also be perceived differently by Israelis and those who do not live in this country. For the former, it is a fragment of history brought to film with a formidable timing, 50 years after the Yom Kippur war. For the rest of the viewers it may be the first deeper encounter with both the history of that war and the personality of Golda Meir. Dominated by the performance of Helen Mirren, who adds yet another ‘iron lady’ role to her formidable filmography, the film will probably not change many opinions or clear up any controversy related to the historical character of Golda.
Nothing that happens or doesn’t happen in the Middle East is without consequence. The film’s script is based on documents, books, journalistic investigations published in the 50 years that have passed since the war and which have already generated several documentary films or docu-dramas watched and debated especially in Israel. The widely accepted historical version, also adopted here by the scriptwriter, regarding the start of the war is that the top Israeli military and government, including Golda Meir, ignored warnings about the imminent outbreak of war for various reasons (negligence, overconfidence in their own forces) , but especially because America, Israel’s allies, had been putting pressure against a preemptive strike. The short-term result was a disastrous start to the war for Israel, with hundreds dead, thousands wounded and prisoners. In the long run, the relative success of the Egyptian forces made possible, a few years later, the peace between Egypt and Israel, which is preserved to this day. The film takes place during the 18 days of the war and focuses on Golda Meir’s actions and decisions, turmoil and personal suffering. Unlike other films that deal with these events and Golda’s personality, her personal physical suffering is also brought to the screen. Sick of lymphatic cancer, Golda Meir was undergoing radiation treatments. Her state of his health was a state secret. In a scene that is repeated several times, on the way to the treatment room in a large hospital, Golda and her companions pass through the corridor of the morgue. As the story progresses, the morgue is filled with the bodies of soldiers killed in the war. In another touching scene, Golda is confronted with the coffins of fallen soldiers brought from the front. In a small country like Israel, the personal cost of war touches everyone. One of her secretaries has a son in the army. Tragedy does not avoid her.
I do not think that this cinematic version of events brings spectacular news. The screenwriter and director chose the docu-drama style. Israeli viewers will have a sense of deja-vu, foreigners who know little or nothing about the characters will get lost in the details. Helen Mirren‘s performance is magnificent and I can’t add anything as all the praise has already been said or written. I liked less the interpretations of some of the Israeli actors (Lior Ashkenazi, Rami Heuberger), where I felt more their opinion of the characters than concern for authenticity. A major role is played in the film by the relationship between Golda and Henry Kissinger, which takes on some of the legends. Liev Schreiber didn’t really impress me as Kissinger. Guy Nattiv intersperses documentary sequences from the current affairs journals of the time, but chooses not to recreate any battle scenes on the screen. Government and military chiefs monitor some of the military operations from the army command center. According to the technology of the time, the voices of those reporting and the sounds of the fighting can be heard, but the images are not seen. The effect is dramatic, emphasizing the chaos of war and the degree of uncertainty faced by those making crucial decisions.
‘Golda‘ manages to offer Helen Mirren the opportunity for another great role, from a perspective that humanizes the historical character. I think that Guy Nattiv intended to contrast Golda’s modesty and humanity with that of today’s rulers, but this is another aspect that is likely to be less noticed by uninitiated viewers. 50 years after the events, that war is still discussed and controversial. ‘Golda‘ is the film of an episode of a war that refuses to end.
I liked how ‘Manhattan Night‘, the 2016 film by director Brian DeCubellis, begins. We are in a dark, cold and violent New York, and the main character is one of those who bring the public news about the crimes in the city, practicing a profession that will soon disappear, that of investigating reporter for a newspaper. In most cases I dislike voice-over in movies, but here it fits very well. Porter Wren, the narrator, who is also the main character, sounds a bit like a Philip Marlowe transplanted to the New York of the previous decade. In a short time, the stunningly beautiful blonde appears and she will use her charms to buy his services. Everything is set for an erotic thriller combined with a film noir (I guess it’s called neo-noir nowadays).
The beautiful Caroline wants to know the circumstances of the death of her husband, a famous and extravagant film director. The secret could be related to the sequences filmed by him, as he was accompanied by a camera at every moment of his life, including the most intimate ones, or maybe it is also related to the press tycoon Hobbs who had bought the newspaper where Porter works. Not only is the reporter drawn into a hot relationship with Caroline, but he finds himself threatened with the destruction of his career and of his entire marital and family life, which until then he had managed to keep at a distance from the dangerous profession he was practicing.
‘Manhattan Night‘ was the first feature film for Brian DeCubellis, who also wrote the screenplay, adapted from a novel by Colin Harrison. A few details of the plot may raise questions, but overall the story flows smoothly, the characters are truthful and well-defined, capturing the viewers’ attention. My only complaint concerning Adrien Brody is that he seems to wear the same mask throughout the film, but this mask is very suitable for the main role. Yvonne Strahovski enters very well her role, which is a kind of emulation of those played by Sharon Stone two or three decades before. Campbell Scott and Steven Berkoff are very good in two key supporting roles. Without too much innovation or daring, ‘Manhattan Night‘ is a solid film, which manages most of the time to meet the expectations of neo-noir fans.
