The story in ‘Pelísky‘ (titled ‘Cozy Dens‘ in English distribution), made in 1999 by director Jan Hrebejk, takes place between December 24, 1967 and August 21, 1968. These 8 months were probably among the most significant in the history of the country then called Czechoslovakia and included one of the main events of the year of uprisings and changes that was 1968. During this time, Czechoslovakia went through a period of change due to the coming to power of a team of reformist communist leaders who tried to liberalize the society ankylosed in the post-Stalinist dictatorship and to experiment with a ‘socialism with a human face’. The attempt to combine socialism with democracy was cut short by the brutal invasion of the country by the armies of the Soviet Union and four of its satellite countries in Eastern Europe. It would be another 21 years before Czechoslovakia and the other countries in the Soviet sphere of influence would regain their freedom. ‘Pelísky‘ follows the lives of two generations of two families, neighbors in an unnamed town, who clash in lifestyles and worldviews. It is a sensible film, full of humor and compassion.
The setting is an ordinary building in an ordinary Czechoslovak city. In an apartment in the building lives the family of an officer who has two children, the teenager Michal and his younger sister. Michal is in love as only teenagers can be with Jindriska, a high school classmate and the daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Kraus, who live in the apartment above. His love is hopeless, as the girl prefers a classmate with longer hair and parents in America. Mr. Kraus is a war hero and an opponent of the communist regime, nostalgic for the past and hoping for the imminent fall of the ‘Bolsheviks’. Mrs. Kraus is very ill. Nearby lives the officer’s sister, a widow and mother of a ten-year-old boy, who is still trying to find a new life partner and a new father for her son. In each apartment Christmas is celebrated differently. The differences subtly highlight the characters and opinions of each family. Even deeper seem the differences between generations. Teenagers and children long to live their lives. Parents are stuck in their opinions, which differ politically, but which meet in obtuseness and misunderstanding of the aspirations of young people for freedom.
If a revolution is taking place outside the walls of the building, it does not seem to concern the film’s heroes too much. They do not discuss politics and there is not even a television set to bring home the news about the changes that are taking place. Only in the school where a few scenes are filmed can we observe divergences that have a political substratum. And these are mitigated by the language, a mixture of European politeness inherited from tradition and the wooden language of communist comradely relations. I really liked the approach of the screenwriters and director Jan Hrebejk. Some of the characters have dark corners in their biography but these are approached with humor, understanding and in the most severe case with sarcasm. The comedy of characters is mixed with a few scenes of classic sitcoms, and the political substratum is insinuated. The actors’ performances are excellent. I lived in 1967-68 in another communist country, the teenagers in the film are from my generation, the parents in the film are from my parents’ generation. I could recognize in many of the characters in ‘Pelísky‘ the typologies that I encountered in those times. The cinematic narrative is fluent. For those who know history and follow the dates mentioned in the film, what happens at the end is not completely unexpected. The infernal noise of the planes and tanks of the invading armies breaks the apparent comfort of the micro-universe in which the heroes of the film were trying to survive. The ending is a well-known tragedy and a two-decade postponement of history.
To those looking for a captivating mini-series for the end of summer, I recommend ‘The Serpent‘, an international co-production with the participation of BBC studios, released in 2021. The story is inspired by a series of crimes that took place 50 years ago, in 1975 and 1976, in Asian countries that were at that time part of the track of young hippies in search of themselves, sensations and experiences that did not avoid use of drugs. It is a ‘true crime’ case or rather ‘true criminal’ that follows the corpse-strewn trail of a serial killer named Charles Sobhraj, who with the help of his girlfriend and another accomplice lured, drugged, robbed and killed young Westerners naive enough to fall into his nets. We know from the beginning who the criminals are and the fact that they were caught and punished for at least some of their crimes. They committed at least 12 murders, but were only convicted of two. What the eight episodes of the miniseries tell is how they were captured and how their crimes were put to an end in a time when there were no biometric passports, video cameras on every street corner, electronic records of border crossings, social networks and Internet messaging that today allow the location of anyone and anywhere. The three grim criminals are opposed by a couple of young Dutch diplomats who, starting from the disappearance of two of their compatriots, investigated fiercely and eventually managed to overcome the indifference of bureaucrats in Western diplomacy and the corruption of local police, not without endangering their own careers and even more.
I liked the way the narrative was built, managing to catch and keep the attention of viewers, especially in the first 3-4 episodes, alternating between the investigation of the diplomats turned amateur detectives in the conditions of a foreign country and the crimes that succeed one another, gradually revealing the psychological profile of the criminals and their backgrounds. Repetitions appear in episodes 4-6, but the pace of the action accelerates again in the final two episodes. There are three groups of characters: the criminals, those who chase them and the victims. The fact that viewers have the opportunity to get to know some of the victims, young people who went on a trip in search of spiritual or action adventures, whose lives and dreams are cut short by the assassins, puts the cruelty of the crimes into true light, compensating for the initial attraction caused by the encounter with the two criminals, played by two actors with charisma and remarkable physical presence: Tahar Rahim and Jenna Coleman. The role of the young Dutch diplomat who risked his career to track down and capture the criminals is played by Billy Howle, who expressively portrays the hero’s anxieties and doubts, despite some unnecessary theatrical exaggerations. The cinematography is spectacular and allows those who did not live through the hippie era and the times when the mirage of Asia much less corrupted by mass tourism was still strong to imagine the continent, and those who did catch those times to remember them. ‘The Serpent‘ is an interesting and captivating series, quality entertainment.
Born in Korea, raised and educated in Canada where her parents settled when she was a child, Celine Song now lives and works in New York as a theatre and film director. She is, in my opinion, one of the most ambitious and interesting filmmakers in North America right now. She writes her own scripts, has a lot to say and share, and does it in an interesting way. But she doesn’t succeed in everything. I really liked her debut film, ‘Past Lives’, and I was waiting with hope that ‘Materialists‘, her second film, would be as good as it or better. Unfortunately, this second film of hers was a disappointment for me. However, there is a lot to discuss and argue about it. Even in a relative (and hopefully temporary) failure, Celine Song is an interesting filmmaker.
I didn’t know that the job of ‘matchmaker’ was still in fashion. It seems so, because the film is inspired by the life experience of the screenwriter-director, who for a while worked at an agency like the ‘Adore’ the firm that Lucy, the heroine of the film ‘Materialists’, works for. Today, matchmakers are, of course, no longer the some old village women but workers in a corporate environment, who use psychological and socio-economic profiling, forms and digital methods, to find and recommend the most suitable partner to clients (women and men). A meeting follows, if all goes well a second one, and in the happiest cases it leads to a wedding. But a lot happens along the way and rarely does one reach the celebrations that mark successes. Lucy is one of those who has had the most successes in her career – 9 weddings! -, but she herself might need matchmaking. She is an elegant and beautiful woman, but she is about 35 years old and her annual income of only five figures is barely enough for her to survive in New York. A client’s wedding brings her to meet two very different men. One is super-rich and physically attractive, the other is her childhood sweetheart, just as poor and in love as she left him a decade ago. How do matchmaking technologies work in her case? One of Lucy’s clients is assaulted on a date by a man she (actually the algorithms!) had recommended as a suitable match. How will this incident affect her personal life? What decisions will she make?
In her previous film, Celine Song also dealt with a love triangle formed by a woman and two men. As there, there is no dramatic or violent conflict in ‘Materialists‘. Two men love the same woman, it has been happening for ages. Both deserve her, each in their own way. Could she be happy with either one when a decision means a permanent separation from the other? The same question, but what a difference in style and approach! The cinematic quality and psychological depth of the relationships in ‘Past Lives’ lie precisely in the characters’ silences, in what they say to each other with their eyes and not with words. ‘Materialists‘ is excessively verbose, and the text in its worst moments borders on the ridiculous. The cast doesn’t help. Dakota Johnson has all the physical qualities and too few of the acting qualities to make us care about the character and her fate, and her partners didn’t help her much. The result is paradoxical: a romantic comedy in which the most interesting part is the intellectual game of comparing the results of the matching algorithms with the realities of the relationships, an original idea that ends in a denouement like those we’ve seen in countless productions of the century of American romantic films, dialogues with unintentional humor alternating with cinematic pearls that remind us of what we expect director Celine Song to become. The prologue and epilogue, for example, as well as some of the scenes shot in New York reminded me of Woody Allen’s films from his heyday. I still think Celine Song will be a great director once she gets over this setback.
Musical biopics seem to be one of the most prolific film genres of recent years. ‘Monsieur Aznavour‘ had the premises of a special case, as it is a film whose conception started while Charles Aznavour was still alive. He himself chose the two filmmakers – screenwriters and directors – Mehdi Idir and Grand Corps Malade – and granted them access to his personal archives and in his residences for discussions with him and his family. Aznavour died in 2018, when the film was in pre-production. The two filmmakers let a few years pass before resuming the work at the film, releasing it in 2024, when 100 years since the singer’s birth were celebrated. We cannot know how the film would have looked if it had been made when Aznavour was still alive, but it is hard to imagine that it could have been more respectful and reverential in its attitude towards the musician’s biography. ‘Monsieur Aznavour‘ is a classic-style biopic, more a docu-drama rather than an artistic interpretation from a different perspective of the artist’s life and work.
The script is conceived as a classic biography, almost in documentary style. We first see the little Aznavourian as an 8-year-old boy, living with his family of Armenian refugees following the genocide during the First World War, the difficult years of adaptation and integration in France in the interwar period. With the help of his classic good family (father, mother and his sister Aïda who was his best friend and confidant throughout his life, or in any case throughout the film), the child and then the young man will get through the difficult periods of war and occupation and begin a career as a musician, becoming Aznavour. The change and true launch will occur with the meeting with Édith Piaf, who will make of him her personal driver, favorite composer and the singer who appears as a ‘warm-up’ at the opening of concerts. The true independent career will only begin when he leaves the tutelage of the great star, who did not believe or did not want to believe in his future as a singer. The road was not easy, some decisions were not optimal, but in the end Aznavour gets where he wanted to, achieving glory and success with the public. The film depicts several key moments in the artist’s biography, including famous encounters with personalities such as Johnny Hallyday or Frank Sinatra, his role in Truffaut’s film ‘Tirez sur le pianiste’ or episodes from his private life. The price paid on a personal level was huge. When he had to choose between career and personal life, the former took priority, and the price was paid not only by him but also by those around him.
The script divides Aznavour’s life and career into five chapters, with the first three, which describe his difficult youth, his launch, his rise, his crises and the beginning of his success, taking on the greatest importance and occupying most of the screening time. Some aspects of his personal life are ignored (the second of his three marriages is not mentioned at all) or treated rather superficially. In my opinion, the casting of Tahar Rahim in the lead role was not that inspired. He is a talented actor, but with a very different profile. He looks excellent, for example, in the series ‘The Serpent’, but here I don’t think he managed to portray the complexity of this highly talented artist, workaholic, permanently dissatisfied with himself, overcoming shyness with bravery. In addition, sorry, he is too tall for the role. Aznavour’s height (1.60m) was part of his personal complexes, he compensated for his anti-male model physiognomy with charisma and warmth. These are precisely what Tahar Rahim lacks, in my opinion. An interesting casting is that of Marie-Julie Baup as Édith Piaf, a very difficult role to play after seeing the film with Marion Cotillard. I liked her acting, same for Camille Moutawakil in the role of Aïda. From time to time, documentary sequences are inserted into the film, short excerpts from what Aznavour filmed on his travels with his amateur camera (another hobby of his) and only at the end we enjoyed original music. Most of the songs are performed by actors, and it is hard to avoid, for those who know and love the voices of Aznavour or Piaf, the unfavorable comparisons. The film was made with many good intentions and looks good. Due to the history of this production, ‘Monsieur Aznavour‘ is probably the most detailed and historically accurate biographical film that will ever be made about Charles Aznavour. But that may not be enough for a very good biographical film. It lacks an original perspective, it lacks the passion and intense artistic and emotional experience that I had every time I saw and heard Aznavour sing. I hope there will be better films about him. Charles Aznavour deserves it.
My problem with ‘Midas Man‘, released in 2024 and directed by Joe Stephenson, is that – starting with the posters – it is marketed as ‘a MUST watch for Beatles fans’. Those Beatles fans who will come to see it because of this advertising will be disappointed, because they will not learn anything they did not know about the Beatles and they will not even be able to hear the sound of their favorite group because the film producers did not have the rights to use the original music. This film is a cinematic biography of a musical personality, but this is not one of the Big 4 but Brian Epstein – the man who discovered them and became their agent and promoter during their years of ascension. The Beatles are not the heroes of the film but the background against which Brian Epstein’s biography is told to us. ‘Midas Man‘ is the biographical film dedicated to Epstein’s personality and to his short life full of contradictions. Nothing more, nothing less.
The meeting that changed the destiny of Brian Epstein and the four boys from Liverpool took place in a club in the basement of a building in Liverpool in 1961, but the story begins a few years earlier, when the young man who worked in his father’s furniture store convinced him to diversify his business and also sell music records. When he discovered the sound of the group that already called itself the Beatles and understood the effect it had on the young audience, Epstein decided to become their manager and promoter. The film follows the young people’s struggle to be noticed by the major record companies, their rise to the British and then American charts, concerts and tours in America. Four years later, the Beatles were at their peak. Like King Midas in legend, Brian Epstein had turned them and everything around them into gold. But he was the one who paid the personal price.
A few episodes known to all fans of the band are mentioned, but these are not the focus of the authors of the script and the director. The main character is Brian Epstein and the filmmakers have emphasized two main important threads in his biography: his Jewish origin and his sexual orientation. It was not easy to be gay in England in the early 1960s, when same-sex relationships were still illegal and revealing them could lead to criminal convictions and social ostracism. This aspect seemed to me to be well reflected in the film and acted with drama but also with sensitivity by Jacob Fortune-Lloyd. Less inspired and more superficial was, in my opinion, the cinematographic treatment of Epstein’s Jewish identity. Taking aside the stereotype of the business-savvy Jews, to what extent did his origin influence his career and relationship with the Beatles? If it did – it is not very visible in the film, if it did not – why did the topic occupy so many minutes on screen? As a side note: the memorial service dedicated to Epstein in London took place at a synagogue located right on Abbey Road. The band members attended this service (but not the funeral in Liverpool). The music was Jewish, inspired by Psalms and other traditional songs. None of the Beatles’ music. And none of those were in the film. The cast is excellent, the five actors chosen to embody the band members are very well matched in physiognomy and it is clear that they have seen many documentaries of the Beatles studio recordings. Watching Emily Watson is always a pleasure, and the appearance of Jay Leno as Ed Sullivan, his predecessor on American television, is a nice gig. More a document of the early days than a film ABOUT the Beatles, ‘Midas Man‘, despite its shortcomings, is quite interesting even for those who are not necessarily fascinated by their music. It could have been much more.
Why didn’t Alan Rudolph become one of the most appreciated filmmakers of his generation, that of the great American directors born in the 1940s? Born sometime between Scorsese and Spielberg, launched as an assistant to Robert Altman, he is almost completely forgotten today. Watching his films, however, is a revelation. This is the case of ‘Choose Me‘ from 1984, a film surprising in its freshness and intelligence, which enjoyed some success in its time and which today is almost completely forgotten. Unfairly, I think, because it manages to be full of suspense and originality in a genre dominated by clichés – that of romantic comedies.
We are dealing with six characters in ‘Choose Me‘ – three women and three men. Eve is the owner of a bar, she is a woman around whom men swarm, but none of them seems to be the right man, so she has decided never to marry. Nancy is the voice of Dr. Love, a radio talk show host who gives relationship advice to her adoring audiences, but who herself seems to need advice to fill a life devoid of feelings. Pearl is a poet and married to Zack, a man twice her age, rich, violent and unfaithful. The bartender Billy is hopelessly in love with Eve. The character who appears in Eve’s bar and disturbs the peace and unstable balance of the lives of the others is Mickey – a mysterious man with a completely unclear past and character: he tells everyone that he was a pilot and a spy, that he has been in prisons and mental institutions. He has traveled all over the world but does not have money for the bus that would take him from Los Angeles home to Las Vegas. Is there any truth in what he tells? Maybe the fact that he has been married twice and that he proposes marriage to every woman he kisses? Madman or hero, all women fall prey to his charms.
Most of the action takes place at night in Los Angeles, especially in Eve’s bar. Soul and R&B music performed by Teddy Pendergrass plays an important role in the film, which could almost be considered a musical, but if I had to choose a suitable song it would be Kris Kristofferson’s ‘Help Me Make It Trough the Night’. Over the course of three nights, the characters will meet, get to know each other but not recognize each other, fall in love, kiss and make love, and in the end decide who will choose whom. The script is very cleverly written, using the medium of late-night radio shows, which inspired some memorable films in those years, to provoke the audience’s thoughts about how words express or hide feelings, about love and emotional involvement, even about real life and that of radio shows (today we would call it virtual life). Keith Carradine plays the role of Mickey, the man who no woman in the film can resist. He was usually cast in much darker roles at that time – here he is an apparent bad boy with a kind heart and a charmer, who slowly conquers both male and female viewers. In a French film, this role would have been suitable for Belmondo. Lesley Ann Warren was at the time a star of the American screen and music who had debuted very young, two decades earlier, as ‘Cinderella’ and is undertaking here the role of a woman challenged by life. A surprise for me was Rae Dawn Chong – a brilliant, beautiful and talented actress who, I think, deserved a better career. John Larroquette is one of those actors who look extremely familiar to us from many excellent supporting roles, like that of Billy here. I left Geneviève Bujold for the end. She had the opportunity for a formidable role, that of Nancy, the radio presenter who advices others, but fails to manage her own life very well. This role has not aged well in the 40 years since the film was made. The performance seemed to me stiff and contrasting with the naturalness of everyone around. If this film were to be remade today, the story about virtual and real identities, about social life on the radio waves and real emotional life would certainly take place online. The Internet has taken over the role of late-night radio shows, Internet aliases have replaced the pseudonyms that were used on radio. A remake of ‘Choose Me‘ would be very interesting, but those who will dare to make it should know that the reference for comparison has raised the bar very high.
Orice carte nouă a lui Andrei Kurkov este un eveniment așteptat de cititorii săi fideli și de lumea literară. Născut în aprilie 1961, luna în care Iuri Gagarin inaugura era explorării spațiale cu echipaj uman, scriitorul ucrainean (care scrie mai ales în limba rusă) a devenit una dintre cele mai cunoscute și mai distincte voci literare venite din țara vecină României care nu părăsește de câțiva ani prima pagină a actualităților. Ce scrie și publică prozatorul (devenit în acești ani refugiat în țara sa) în acești ani? Două cărți despre actualitate (‘Jurnalul unei invazii ‘- 2022, ‘Războiul nostru’ – 2024) și primele volume dintr-o serie de romane intitulata ‘Misterele Kievului’, inclusiv ‘Samson și Nadejda’ a cărei lectură tocmai am terminat-o. Scriitorul care ne-a obișnuit cu fanteziile sale istorice cu tente absurde și suprarealiste, în care Beckett și Jospeh Heller se întâlnesc cu Ilf și Petrov, începe acum un ciclu de romane ale căror acțiune se petrece în Kiev-ul de acum un secol. Intrigile sunt detective, eroii principali sunt personaje ale epocii care încep să se contureze și să ne câștige empatia de la primele capitole, stilul este alert și aparent ușurel. Literatură escapistă în vremuri tragice? Sau poate doar un pretext pentru o întoarcere scrutătoare în trecut, spre o parte dintre sursele conflictelor de astăzi?
Editura ‘Paralela 45’ a tradus și publicat deja trei dintre romanele precedente ale lui Andrei Kurkov în colecția ‘Ficțiune Fără Frontiere’. ‘Samson și Nadejda’ a fost publicat aici în 2024. Traducerea din limba rusă îi aparține Dianei Iepure. Traducerea în limba engleză a fost nominalizată pe lista lungă a Premiului Booker, iar cea în limba italiană pentru premiul Strega Europeo în 2024.
Primul paragraf al cărții începe cu descrierea, în câteva fraze, a unei tragedii care va marca soarta eroului principal al romanului:
‘Sunetul unei săbii prăbuşite peste capul tatei îl asurzi pe Samson. Cu coada ochiului, el reuşi să surprindă sclipirea fulgerătoare a tăişului şi călcă într-o băltoacă. Mort deja, tata îl îmbrânci cu mâna stângă şi, datorită acestui brânci, următoarea lovitură nu căzu direct în capul lui roscat, dar nici nu trecu pe lângă – îi reteză urechea dreaptă şi el, văzând-o cum cade în şanţul de pe marginea drumului, reuşi să întindă mâna, s-o prindă şi s-o strângă în pumn. Iar tata căzu secerat direct în drum, cu capul crăpat în două. Și calul îi mai aplică o lovitură cu copita potcovită a unui picior din spate, lipindu-l încă o dată de pământ. Apoi călărețul îi dădu pinteni şi se repezi înainte, unde vreo zece orăşeni puşi pe fugă se aruncaseră de bună voie în şanţuri, de ambele părţi, înțelegând ce îi aşteaptă. În spatele lui, mai veneau încă cinci călăreți.’ (pag. 5)
Anul este 1919 și tânărul Samson, student în inginerie electrică, rămăsese singur pe lume. Mama și sora lui pieriseră doborâte de o epidemie în timpul războiului, acum tatăl său, contabil de meserie, este asasinat. Provenea dintr-o familie de clasă mijlocie, avea un apartament în orașul din care jumătate este în ruină, în care apa și electricitatea sunt furnizate sporadic și aleator. Va trebui să caute de lucru, poate să se însoare, cum îi recomandă văduva portarului casei în care locuiește. Mai ales însă va trebui să se adapteze schimbărilor de regim. În ultimii ani, în succesiune rapidă, alternaseră autoritățile țariste, bandele de naționaliști ucrainieni, armatele albe și acum Armata Roșie care pare să iasă învingătoare din aceste răzmerite și ciocniri. Între oameni, chiar și între foștii prieteni, se instalează suspiciunea. În ce tabără se afla vecinii sau foștii colegi? Cât de mult este necesar sau prudent să împărtășești altora propriile sentimente?
Samson își va găsi de lucru într-un loc surprinzător. Atunci când se duce la miliție pentru a reclama confiscarea (din greșeală sau nu) a unor obiecte și a mobilei din apartament, este remarcat pentru scrisul său ordonat și i se face propunerea de a fi angajat ca anchetator criminalist. Noua orânduire caută funcționari care să înlocuiască birocrația țaristă, competențele nu au prea multă importanță, ceea ce contează este originea, măcar în aparență, ‘sănătoasă’. Interviul de angajare și propunerea de racolare sună delicios:
‘- Este biroul tatălui meu, în sertarul lui… e paşaportul nostru de familie…
– Ei bine, aceste documente în curând nu vor mai fi bune, vom elibera altele, noi, Naiden sorbi din ceaiul fierbinte și se strâmbă, se vede că-şi fripsese buzele cu marginea cănii.
– Și dumneavoastră cum vă raportați la susţinătorii lui Denikin? întrebă el, uitând de arsură.
– În niciun fel, prost.
– Și la hatman?
– Ca toată lumea, răspunse cu prudență Samson. La fel ca şi la nemţii lui.
-Ah, clătină aprobator din cap Naiden. Și directoratul lui Petliura? L-ați simpatizat?
-De ce? fu băiatul uimit de întrebare.
– Dar puterea noastră, muncitorească?
Samson îi aruncă brusc interlocutorului o privire plină de compasiune.
– Pe dumneavoastră vă simpatizez, spuse el, referindu-se la interlocutorul lui nedormit, cu fața stafidită din cauza modului de viață pe care îl ducea.
Naiden tăcu, apoi se apropie de birou, luă raportul scris în ajun şi se lăsă iar în fotoliu.
– Aş putea să vă ajut, dar doar în cazul în care veți dori să ne ajutați pe noi, spuse el.
– Cum adică?
– Noi trebuie să oprim dezordinea şi banditismul din stradă. Avem nevoie de oameni hotărâţi, şi, spunând aceste cuvinte, aruncă o privire spre bandajul ferfenitit al lui Samson, de oameni hotărâţi şi cu carte… Dacă sunteți de acord, acest birou va fi biroul dumneavoastră de serviciu! Și tot cabinetul va fi al dumneavoastră! Vom mai pune aici și o cuşetă, ca să vă puteți odihni, fără să părăsiți încăperea!’ (pag. 65-66)
Iată-l pe studentul în inginerie devenit peste noapte anchetator criminalist. Odată cu funcția vine și uniforma (temută) și arma la centura (utilă) și mai ales bonurile de masă la cantina sovietică. Meseria se învață din citirea dosarelor crimelor comise pe vremea vechiului regim. Instrucția de bază înseamnă doar câteva gloanțe trase într-un poligon de tir. Colegii sunt și ei racolați printre cei gata să colaboreze cu noua orânduire. Chiar și un fost preot care descoperise că ‘nu-l iubește pe Dumnezeu’. Vremurile sunt periculoase. Pe străzi încă se dau lupte cu bandele de răufăcători sau cu adepții vechiului regim. Contrarevoluționarii încearcă și reușesc pentru o scurtă vreme să recucerească orașul. Anchetele sau chiar o simplă misiune de patrulare se pot termina cu un schimb de focuri cu urmări fatale.
‘- Cum vine asta! bombăni nemulțumit Holodnîi. Patrula trebuie să fie compusă din trei oameni, iar ei ne-au trimis doar pe noi doi!
– De ce din trei? nu pricepu Samson.
– Cum adică de ce? Ca, în caz de pericol, să te poți apăra din trei părți! Dacă vom fi cumva încercuiți! Dacă suntem doar doi, nu vom reuşi. Şi în general, Dumnezeu iubeşte treimea! mai adăugă el imediat, dar, surprinzând, la lumina felinarului stradal, privirea nedumerită a lui Samson, murmură: Doar că eu nu-l iubesc pe Dumnezeu şi, din punctul meu de vedere, nu contează ce crede el despre asta!’ (pag. 112)
Sunt curios cum va fi continuată această temă a ‘revoluției care se învață din mers’ în episoadele următoare. În acest prim volum, populația sleita de război, de lipsuri, de foamete, pare să se fi obișnuit să conviețuiască cu ororile și majoritatea oamenilor doresc doar o formă sau alta de stabilitate. Sistemul vechi de legi este clar că nu mai operează, dar personajele cărții par să tânjască după altele, crezând că legi strâmbe sunt mai bune decât lipsa completă a legilor.
Samson pare să-și găsească echilibrul în noua slujbă, dar mai ales în relația cu Nadejda, o fată puternică și optimistă, un fel de prototip de tânără sovietică, funcționară la un birou de statistică a cărui principal scop este un recensământ al populației mutate din loc în loc și decimate de război. Legătura dintre cei doi nu avansează în acest prim volum dincolo de o îndrăgostire treptată și promițătoare, un sărut furat și o noapte castă petrecută în același pat. Vizita lui Samson în casa părinților Nadejdei și primele dialoguri și tatonări sunt și ele delicioase. Este o scenă tipică de întălnire a unui viitor ginerică cu viitorii socri, cu tatonările firești îmbibate de atmosfera de suspiciune și teroare născândă a epocii. Din nou avem un exemplu al acelui ‘umor al seriozității’ specific lui Kurkov în descrierea personajelor sale, care permanent practică ‘double speak’ – din frica și naivitate, dar în special din cauza instinctului de conservare.
‘- Mă scuzați, dar am uitat patronimicul dumneavoastră, îl privi pe Samson în ochi tatăl fetei.
– Teofilovici. Pe buzele lui Trofim Sigismundovici apăru un zâmbet aprobator. Şi, concomitent, în ochii Nadejdei sclipi o doză de ironie.
– Omul trebuie să aibă dreptul să se elibereze de trecutul care îl stânjeneşte! spuse ea pe un ton viclean.
– Eu nu am de ce să mă eliberez, se pronunță tata.
– Eu însă am, declară ea cu încăpăţânare, dar destul de vesel. Și dumneata, Samson?
Tânărul rămase îngândurat.
– Mi-aş dori să primesc înapoi câte ceva din cele pierdute, spuse el atent, temându-se că fata îi va cere să-şi continue gândurile. Şi hotărî pe dată să schimbe tema.
– La noi, la secția de miliţie, a apărut un nou colaborator! Un fost preot!
– Un răspopit? se învioră Trofim Sigismundovici.
– Da, a spus că s-a dezis de Dumnezeu şi îşi dorește să lupte pentru ordine!
Aveți grijă cu el, spuse mama Nadejdei, cuprinsă de nelinişte. Când o persoană devine opusul său, se poate întâmpla să nu mai deosebească binele de rău.
– Ei, oricine se poate rătăci, dădu din mână tata. Aşa sunt timpurile. Uneori nici nu e clar unde e binele şi unde e răul. Iată, de exemplu, eu deja știu că petliuriştii sunt răul, despre hatman nici nu pot spune nimic! Iar cei care sunt de partea lui Denikin? Vor veni ei în Kiev? Sunt buni sau răi?
– Nu vor veni, îl opri supărată Nadejda. Kievul nu e o luntre, să fie clătinat atât de tare!
– Uite că bolşevicii au venit deja a treia oară! continuă tata.
– Păi, lui Dumnezeu îi place treimea, spuse mama şi, imediat, îşi acoperi gura cu mâna, de parcă şi-a dat seama că spusese ceva nepotrivit.’ (pag. 96-97)
Suntem într-un roman al lui Andrei Kurkov, așa încât nu avea cum să lipsească un element de absurd cu tente suprarealiste. Tânărului Samson îi este retezată o ureche în episodul care deschide cartea. Precaut, are prezența de spirit de a pastra urechea tăiată în speranța (vană) că va fi posibila realipirea ei în viitor. O păstrează într-o cutiuță într-un sertar, pentru ca, după scurt timp, să-și dea seama că în mod magic, urechea retezată și-a păstrat capacitatea de a auzi și de a transmite creierului tânărului anchetator criminalist cele pe care le aude în jur. Acest ‘talent’ pe care, desigur, nu-l poate împărtăși cu nimeni, îl va ajuta și pentru a se salva pe sine în situații extreme, a și pentru a demasca răufăcători în ancheta criminalistică a primului caz pe care îl are de rezolvat. Referința la ‘Nasul’ lui Gogol (și el scriitor de origine ucraineană care scria în limba rusă) este imediată.
Prefer să nu povestesc mai nimic despre intriga detectiva. Deși apare tărziu în carte (cam pe la jumătate) ea este tratată destul de serios pentru a da cititorilor să înțeleagă că dacă este vorba despre un pretext, acesta este luat foarte în serios. Este vorba despre crime și jafuri în care obiectele dorite și furate sunt mai ales de argint, inclusiv un os femural perfect modelat, care va juca un rol destul de important pentru a-i determina pe traducătorii și editorii versiunii engleze a cărții să-i dea acesteia titlul ‘The Silver Bone’. Metodele folosite de detectivii care își învață meseria pe măsură ce avansează acțiunea sunt departe de a fi convenționale, iar aspectele naiv sau pretins ideologice sunt la fel de importante pentru ei ca și rezolvarea enigmelor, găsirea și pedepsirea infractorilor.
Dacă încercam să privim puțin cu detașare ne-am putea pune întrebarea: ce rost are criminalistica într-o dictatură sau într-o lume aflată în plina schimbare revoluționară? Mai contează elucidarea unei crime sau a unui furt atunci când în jur domină violența, când poliția politica își face de cap și cadavrele victimelor acesteia se acumulează pe străzi? Întrebarea este deschisă și există un întreg sub-gen al literaturii polițiste cu tentă istorică în care putem căuta răspunsurile. Mărturisesc că sunt și eu amator al acestor cărți, de la romanele lui Philip Kerr (avandu-l ca erou pe detectivul Bernie Gunther) sau ‘Fatherland’ al lui Robert Harris care se petrec în Germania Nazistă până la ‘Gorky Park’ al lui Martin Cruz Smith și celelalte romane din seria plasată în ultimele decenii ale Uniunii Sovietice. În ‘Samson și Nadejda’ avem de-a face cu începuturile puterii sovietice, dictatura își formează aparatul represiv și distincția între acesta (reprezentat de faimoasa Ceka) și miliția care se ocupă de ordinea publică și crimele de drept comun este din ce în ce mai neclară. Pentru cititorii mai puțin cunoscători dar curioși să afle detalii despre istoria Ucrainei (ca mine), lectura este fascinantă. Nu știam, de exemplu, despre existența unor detașamente chineze în Armata Roșie și în forțele de ordine de la începuturile Uniunii Sovietice. Orașul Kiev este cadrul cărții și cred că daca autorul ar fi avut inspirația să adauge o hartă a capitalei ucrainiene la 1919, vizualizarea locurilor ar fi fost mai ușoară pentru cititori.
Scrierea este cursivă, ceea ce face lectura ușoară și plăcuta. Recomand cartea și amatorilor de intrigi detective și a celor de istorie, dar mai ales pasionaților de literatură bună, scrisă cu umor și empatie. Atenție însă, riscați să începeți să vă îndrăgostiți de Samson și de Nadejda. Veștile bune sunt că volumul se încheie cu cuvintele ‘Sfârșit. Dar urmează continuarea.’ Eu o voi căuta.
‘Tropicana‘ (2024) is the debut feature film of a young director – Omer Tobi -, known so far mainly for music-related films (music videos and a television series). And what a debut! In 82 minutes, this film (for which Omer Tobi also wrote the script) introduces us to a story of emotional and erotic suspense and presents us with a complex female character, whose life is turned upside down just when it seemed that she was approaching the age when nothing could happen anymore. I confess that I have not been so impressed by a debut film since Coralie Farget’s ‘Revenge’. In fact, there are several parallel lines in the creations of the two film directors and first of all the fact that they have something to say and that in order to do it with impact they are ready to go much further than many other filmmakers.
The main heroine of the film is called Orly and she is a cashier at a supermarket. Her life is divided between work and home where she takes care of a sick mother who needs special care, an indifferent husband and a son who suffers from obesity. The opportunity for a change arises when the head cashier is murdered. We know nothing about her or the motives for the crime. Orly insists and manages to get her job, along with a box of things that belonged to the murdered woman. Among them is a mobile phone. This will become the point of contact with her predecessor, who maintained a very different way of life, including erotic adventures in dangerous areas. Perhaps even her violent death was linked to these relationships. The dangers are obvious, but the temptation of change is also great, especially since everyday life seems to be an accumulated mass of failures and frustrations. Orly enters the world of the woman she replaced and what she discovers is astonishing in terms of situations and especially from the point of view of self-knowledge.
Omer Tobi, with the help of cinematographer Philippe Lavalette, creates a visual universe that suggests the heroine’s feelings: the cold and indifferent ugliness of the workplace, the crushing walls and corridors of the home, the dangers of the spaces she enters to consume her adventures. The camera is fixed most of the time (except for one scene), in the tradition of the way filmmakers like Yasujirô Ozu filmed interiors. In these uncomfortable spaces, the heroine’s life unfolds. Irit Sheleg is another great discovery for me. She creates a memorable character, a woman who struggles with destiny and advancing age, surrounded by people and alone at the same time, a woman who has probably never traveled far from where she lives and who nevertheless does not find her place or even a hint of hope. Fantasy with its dangers seems to be the only way that can bring about change. She assumes it reluctantly, with dignity, with humanity, but the price paid is immense – not socially, but especially personally. I did not notice until now this talented actress, who gives life to the character and supports the entire film. ‘Tropicana‘ is not an easy film. The concentration of drama and intense feelings that it proposes are like a bitter pill and full of psychological realism. I hope that what follows in Omer Tobi‘s career will be as good as this film and surpass it.
Much will be written and many films will be made about the events triggered by the terrorist attacks of October 7, 2023, and the war in Gaza. The conflict continues and it is not clear how and when it will end (if it will ever end), and what is being written or filmed now are the first artistic reflections, which have the advantage of proximity to the events and the disadvantage of a lack of historical perspective. Too early? Perhaps it is never too early. ‘October 8‘, the production directed by Wendy Sachs, is one of the first such documentary films, dealing with the impact and echo of the events in the United States and especially on American universities, in the days and months that followed that infamous day of terror in the fall of 2023. The period covered is less than a year, as the filmmakers wanted the premiere to take place exactly one year after the events. Such a film cannot avoid controversy and the way it is seen and received also depends on the viewers, on their degree of familiarity with the events and their context, on their political opinions if any.
The authors do not hide their sympathies. The film begins with a brief recapitulation of the horrors of the morning of October 7. These will always be in the background and will be recalled several times throughout the film, with an emphasis on aspects related to the fate of the Israeli hostages or the unimaginable violence against women. The focus of the film’s authors’ was, however, directed to something else. What happened on October 8 (a metaphorical date for the entire period that followed)? How were the events received and how were the reactions in the media, in international organizations, in the artistic community and especially on American university campuses? Protests, accusations, attempts to blame Israel for the events appeared immediately, even before any Israeli response. Combining filmed images (most of them well-known) with testimonies and interviews involving students and professors, activists from international or Jewish organizations, artists and politicians, ‘October 8‘ builds a worrying picture of the influence of Hamas propaganda in Islamic organizations, of the protests that often took violent forms and paralyzed the activities in some American universities, of the atmosphere of threats and intimidation to which many Jewish students were victims. The general picture is worrying, but at the same time, the dignified attitude and bright figures of a few young people determined to respond courageously, firmly defending their rights, awaken hope.
‘October 8‘ manages to reveal many details about phenomena happening in America these years. I watched the film at a screening followed by a discussion with two of the authors. From what they said, I understood that the target audience is the American and international audience, less the Israeli audience, who should be more familiar with the facts. The film has clarity and clearly and convincingly exposes the positions of the authors and those interviewed, but I still think that it lacks a broader perspective on events and a presentation of other opinions. How does Palestinian propaganda manage to penetrate with such ease environments that should be armed with a basic education, such as universities? Interviews with professors or activists who would articulate (preferably with arguments) different positions would have been interesting. The different positions within the American Jewish community are also completely missing. ‘October 8‘ manages to be a manifesto film that convincingly conveys the message the authors wanted, but it fails to be an investigation that goes into depth to the causes of the phenomena exposed and presents them in a more diverse context. However, it will certainly be a film cited in the many future documentaries and books that will follow.
‘Capricorn One‘ was produced and released in the same years (1978-79) as ‘Superman’, ‘Star Trek’, ‘Alien’, ‘Grease’, ‘Apocalypse Now’ and ‘Deer Hunter’. The estimated budget of around $5 million was modest by the Hollywood standard at the time and probably a fraction of the budgets of any of the big hits listed. And yet, the film written and directed by Peter Hyams was an unexpected success with the public even then, and today, as it approaches half a century old, it remains an action entertainment worth watching. I not only liked it, but it also reminded me of why I liked action movies mixed with science fiction in the ’70s.
‘Capricorn One‘ is the ultimate film in the genre inspired by conspiracy theories. We are in a kind of alternate present or near future of the 1970s in which the Apollo program completed successfully and was followed by the exploration of the planet Mars. The first mission to Mars, with three American astronauts on board, is on the launch pad when, minutes before departure into space, the astronauts are secretly extracted from the space capsule and transported to a military base. There they will be blackmailed into participating in a staging that lasts for months, simulating in live television broadcasts the flight to Mars, the descent to the planet’s surface, the return home. One of the operators at the command center suspects that the transmitted data is not consistent with the alleged video and audio communications. An investigative journalist begins to ask questions. The entire government mechanism is set in motion to silence the whistleblowers by any means. The staging, which was organized out of fear of losing the support of public opinion and the Senate, but especially because of the damage to the national prestige in the conditions of the Cold War, is in danger, but so are the lives of those who ask too many questions and of the astronauts themselves, people of integrity prepared for deeds and not for masquerades.
The film works well and still impresses today, although there is no shortage of clichés, situations lacking credibility and pompous dialogues. The main quality is, I think, the intelligently written action script, with adequate rhythm and alternation between political thriller and action and even survival films. Peter Hyams imagines good cinematography for this film, with references to the masters. Some of the filming is spectacular, especially the desert scenes and one of the best aerial chases, perhaps a tribute to Hitchcock’s ‘North by Northwest’, but with Telly Savalas at the comands of the small plane pursued by killer helicopters. The NASA operating rooms that we know from so many other films are transformed into conspiratorial dark rooms like in Kubrick’s ‘Dr. Strangelove’. I found the acting performances less inspired. They were not helped by the script, with cartoonish action movie characters, without nuances or depth. The actors did their job, but they didn’t really have much rely upon. Among the curiosities of the cast, I would mention that the lead roles are played by Barbra Streisand’s ex-husband – Elliott Gould – and by her future husband – James Brolin. However, the most spectacular casting in a historical perspective is that of O.J. Simpson, who was trying to launch an acting career and did not yet know how famous he would become for completely different reasons.
Putting aside the small flaws, I think that ‘Capricorn One‘ is still something more than just another action thriller. I’m not at all a fan of conspiracy theories, but at that time these had a different resonance than they do today. That was the America after Watergate and the Vietnam War, when distrust in government was at its peak, even Neil Armstrong’s moon landing was questioned, and the heroes were the journalists who exposed government machinations like those in ‘All the President’s Men’ who also inspired the character of the journalist in this film. Making a film in which NASA and politicians are the bad guys was also a political statement. I think Peter Hyams and his team succeeded here. Maybe even a little too well.
