NinadeL

Cubs is one of those films that critics have preserved for the future. It may not be on the same level as other films, but it's still just a parade of vanity seen through the lens of youth. At the time, it was undoubtedly an event, but what has remained? Ultimately, nothing special. Hysterical naive youth, wanting to deal with everything immediately, without thinking about tomorrow, disregarding everyone else. The older generation of parents is portrayed schematically as blind caution (the incredibly miscast duo of Jan Pivec and Blanka Waleská), as is the deliberately depicted teaching staff, portrayed as a bunch of fools, giving exams even to those intentionally sabotaging them. Why? Because they mean well? Or, on the contrary, are they afraid of having bad reviews for those they would let fail? The world of Cubs is a world of apparent obstacles that seem daunting and unjust in the eyes of children but are realistically part of the lives of adults in the 50s and today. What has changed since then? Nothing. Perhaps only the will of the teaching staff to support students during exams has disappeared with the establishment of the Center for Educational Results Assessment. But again, you can pay for a hotel even in your place of permanent residence.

Belgian social realism? Not interested. I haven't seen anything as manipulative as this in a long time. Jean-Pierre Dardenne and Luc Dardenne didn't even notice in their quest for an experience that an attempted suicide cannot be dismissed with a single stomach pump and have that chapter closed. It's a fake, naive, and dare I say, stupid film. It pretends to arouse interest and emotions, and festival audiences are thrilled, some simply because they believe that the truth lies in Marion Cotillard (in the absurd logic that an actress who portrays a well-groomed character is not truthful and vice versa).

Absolutely brilliant. It easily outshines all the worn-out films from the journalistic environment, whether it's His Girl Friday or All the President's Men. Nothing is lacking, nothing is excessive. A magnificent script, with meticulously crafted lines, and it even managed to tastefully depict the intergenerational shift, the practical perspective, the academic theory, and the classic friction in the field of media. "This is the task of newspapers in today's world. Television and radio broadcast the news shortly after it happens. Newspapers can no longer compete with them in reporting. But they can and should tell the public why it happened."

In the mid-90s, topics began to be sought that would refresh classic romantic comedies. The supernatural was one way to achieve this refreshment. Emotions play a big role here, as everything is fatal. The night scenes are very tender, but overall, is not that great of an experience. Michelle Pfeiffer later made the slightly better supernatural film What Lies Beneath, as well as the alternative romantic comedy The Story of Us. This genre swallowed itself long ago.

The books by Jojo Moyes all present themselves as significant bestseller events. They have a unified design and are very popular. Unfortunately, they are just empty kitsch, similar to Nicholas Sparks and a million others. The film adaptation doesn't offer much either, just depicting typical tear-jerking situations. If I am to be moved, I prefer it to be by a quality film; for example, Guzaarish is one such option.

A formally interesting experiment (being created concurrently with the book of the same name by Martin Amis), drawing attention to a topic that we should have already processed. Many fundamental questions concerning the primary human attitude, such as "How could the main commander of the Auschwitz concentration camp, Rudolf Höss, calmly sleep, go home every day, and peacefully have dinner with his family...?" should not be posed for the first time by a co-produced film. Similarly, the everyday life of Höss's wife, Hedwig, should not surprise or fascinate us for the first time. On the contrary, we should have a rich knowledge of the reality of the war and be able to work with it. Many prominent women from this time have written memoirs, which in many ways only repeat, complement, and explain to us what and why happened in their lives. They serve excellently as memories, especially the memoirs of secretaries Traudl Junge, Brunhilde Pomsel, and Louise Fox. The question of obedience to authorities and blind fulfillment of orders was thoroughly analyzed by Hannah Arendt in her series of reports "Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil". Furthermore, we should be immune to demonizing the German language itself and always remember that the Third Reich existed for only 12 years and is primarily the language of Goethe, Schiller, and Rilke. It is absurd to what extent the current public is not interested in the new film Terezín, but the Oscar-nominated The Zone of Interest naturally appeals to moral values and interest in the matter. However, if this trendy film brings some understanding even to those viewers who only watch new titles, this concession can be accepted.

This film on the topic of 9/11 could have been incredibly moving. With the cast of Tom Hanks, Sandra Bullock, and Max von Sydow, it was practically impossible to go wrong. Nevertheless, the result is only awkward, illogical, and uninteresting. The eponymous book by Jonathan Safran Foer managed to captivate its readers more. Perhaps due to its creative annexes.

Somewhere between The NeverEnding Story and Labyrinth stands this unofficial continuation of The Wizard of Oz. Stylistically, it is a purely dark fantasy adaptation of the second and third parts of The Marvelous Land of Oz and Ozma of Oz. I thoroughly enjoyed it in this spirit. Little Fairuza Balk is amazing, and Jean Marsh is devilishly brilliant. L. Frank Baum's fairytale doesn't feel overly childish, but rather very imaginative. The special effects are brilliant, and the set design is magnificent. In addition, my favorite Oz characters, Jack Pumpkinhead and Tik-Tok, are here.

The classic operetta "On the Green Meadow" by Jára Beneš, first performed in 1935, has repeatedly crossed our borders. Naturally, locals are most familiar with Karel Lamač's 1936 film adaptation, but this modern classic also enjoyed success in Austria. After Beneš's death, it became clear that his work possessed enduring qualities, and his pre-war librettos needed only minimal refreshing to remain excellent. A few new songs were composed by Will Meisel, but he can't be faulted for this, as he was a contemporary of Beneš and had experience with Czech-Austrian-German productions as early as the 1930s. Among the classic faces, we have the eloquent Lucie Englisch, and the younger generation is represented by the charming Hannelore Bollmann in traditional costume. Later, a TV adaptation was made in 1971, and a stage recording followed in 1972.

Front Row Center used to be the name for a television series of original dramatizations, often broadcast live. The first version was aired in 1949 on DuMont Television Network (only one episode from this era has survived), and a similar program started on CBS in 1955. During this era, television broadcasted adaptations of Broadway dramatizations of that time, and it was the highlight of weekend television. I have seen an episode dedicated to the last novel by F. Scott Fitzgerald "Tender is the Night" (the 10th episode of the 1st season aired on September 7, 1955) and surprisingly I had a more interesting viewer experience than what I got from the problematic feature film version Tender is the Night from 1962. The drama was shortened to an hour, the characters had to become more readable, and the atmosphere was intentionally made stifling, to the point that you could cut it. An interesting battle for form took place in American television in the 1950s.