Dionysos

Politically correct and, from a historical perspective, a fairly balanced film. The original inhabitants of North African colonies go with the French army to liberate "their" homeland, which most of them have never even visited - although the filmmakers, even though they clearly focused mainly on describing the courage and patriotic awareness of the Muslims, didn't forget to touch on at least the marginal aspects of the involvement of "Moroccans", etc. on the European fronts, i.e., thefts, rapes. The combat scenes are also in no way offensive. It is ironic that those who had hoped for freedom and equality through cooperation with the French during the World War had to fight for their own definitive freedom in the 1950s and 1960s in wars against them.

Did Malevich's "Black Square" deal a deadly blow to painting as such and does the painter Rodolfo admit it? And yet he still continues to paint? This is called a love for creation as such, a love that all the main characters have more than enough of. However, it does not mean that there is no longer any room for human love. It can only be torn from a life in timelessness when the surrounding world speaks up, in the form of money, from which (unfortunately) artists must draw their livelihood. A funny, melancholic, and at the end bittersweet glimpse into the lives of three men who could have lived both 150 years ago and yesterday.

Watching the helplessness, despair, and hopelessness of the main character, whose only desire is to work and provide for his family, is a heart-wrenching experience, as we see more and more bitterness and disappointment. The struggle for one's own dignity is even harder because it is not only happening in front of him but also through his son and in the presence of future generations. For a 21st-century viewer, the seemingly uniquely beautiful Rome of the 1940s hides rather a sense of hopelessness from which prayers or God himself cannot help, but so far neither can anything else...

Perhaps in the distant or near future, it will be possible to rationalize love and human reproduction and fit them into an equation á la Heisenberg or Bohr, but until then, we are all condemned to be guided by our unconsciousness, especially sexual instinct - this time á la Sigmund Freud. Indeed, libido is truly the main driving force behind the motives of both main characters, although it manifests itself differently in each, and it is skillfully accompanied by another well-known psychiatric maxim in the style of "Tell me about your mother." From the subsequent ferment, two personalities emerged, from whose comparison it may seem that the rational and objective approach to the sexuality of the scientist-brother prevails rather than the sexual passion bordering on the obsession of the teacher-brother. Can this statement be made even after watching the final minutes of the film?

The film captures the impact of the social "witch hunt" in the USA in the 40s and 50s, which was able to do more than just turn the uncomfortable individuals' professional careers and personal lives upside down. Trumbo (and not only him) had undeniable writing talent but due to contemporary paranoia, he was prevented from freely creating and even signing his own works, and yet, like the majority of other similarly persecuted individuals, he did not morally submit. The documentary is strongly enhanced by the recitations of Trumbo's authentic letters and works, which add depth to the film as a whole.

An impressive connection between two men and one woman, who fought for her favor both during her life and after her death. A brilliantly acted open and hidden battle for the love of a dead woman, sometimes dominated by the lover, sometimes by the husband, leading to a painful realization that neither of them is spared. It is indeed better to let the dead rest in peace...

A professionally filmed documentary that focuses primarily on Godard's early creative years and the beginnings of his "political" period. The main advantage is the interviews with prominent American directors who reflect on both Godard's own work and the influence it had on their work and their views on cinema as a whole.

Objectivity was clearly disregarded and trampled upon in 1955 by the impartiality of that time's ideologies, historians, and, last but not least, screenwriters and directors. Ideology truly emanates from every scene like the heat from a well-heated furnace of the Kladno steelworks, yet the film describes real events that actually took place, only the behavior or attitudes of the characters, the overall tone of the film, and its message are marked by the socialist realism of the 1950s and its ideology. However, it is precisely this ideology, and not the film, that is being evaluated by the majority of those who mechanically assess it as trash! By the way, I believe that a large part of the people who called it trash haven't even seen the film.

The key to the final scene lies in the battle between the feminine and masculine principles. Against Any's emotionality and spontaneity (the woman as the giver of life), there is a man, the falcon from the opening scene, representing violence and selfishness (associated with the congressman's machismo). So Ana, who has absorbed all the pain and suffering of women for the past 1,000 years, makes a (dove-like) gesture of defiance for all the women who have found refuge in her and have given her strength and confidence. The film also offers a number of other questions to contemplate, accompanied by excellent music and an overall captivating atmosphere.

This film offers an equally corrupted "happy ending" as all other corrupted and tasteless happy endings in American mainstream Hollywood films. It's a sharp satire on life and work in the factory of dreams, where your ideals and visions are twisted and forcibly squeezed into a traditional commercial template and where your work is decided by people who are willing to walk over corpses for their careers. "That's reality."