"The Bridgeman" *** (out of ****)There are certain films which could be described as "important". They tell us about famous moments in world history. Stories which deserved to be told on the screen to reach a wide audience. And while the film may have very good intentions that doesn't always mean it translates well on-screen despite everything.
"The Bridgeman (A Hidember)", a 2002 Hungarian film directed by Geza Beremenyi, is on the border-line. It is a well made movie with, at times, powerful moments, nonetheless it never fully makes the viewer appreciate the historical significance of what they are watching. It paints history with too broad a brush and while it means well actually belittles its subjects.
The film tells the story of Count Istvan Szechenyi, considered to be "the greatest Hungarian". Count Szechenyi was part of the Hungarian aristocracy during the Hasburg Monarchy. He was born in Austria however and fought in the Napoleonic Wars for the Austrian army. He founded the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and till this day for his achievements a statue has been dedicated to him in both Budapest and the town of Sopron.
"The Bridgeman", while briefly covering some of these moments in Count Szechenyi's life (except for the Napoleonic Wars), is actually about his attempts to build a bridge which would connect east and west. The bridge would bring the two cities of buda and pest together. For those unaware Budapest was in fact two separate cities. The bridge stands today and is one of the major tourist sites in Budapest. It may be better known to you as Chain's Bridge. This is the story of how it came to be.
The film is important to Hungarian history though, not just because of Chain's bridge. It is the only film I can think of which tells of Count Szechenyi's life. The film shows us what life was like for Hungarians during the monarchy. Hungarians were treated as second-class citizens. It was the Austrians who ruled the Empire. The Hungarian nobility, which could have their voice heard on the behalf of the working class Hungarians, often sided with Austria. Not wanting to upset the Empire. Due to people like Count Szechenyi it would eventually become a duel monarchy leading to the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
As the film starts Count Szechenyi (Karoly Eperjes) is now an older man. He has upset the Hungarian nobility and the Austrian monarchy. He is on his way into an asylum. From this point on the film is now told in flash back.
In real life Count Szechneyi was an extremely well bred man. He had travelled throughout Europe. On his trips back home he would become disappointed with his fellow Hungarian countrymen. Hungary was behind in the times in his opinion. It lacked the technology of say England. In one scene in the film the Count introduces a new device he saw used by England's royalty. A toilet. This world view is what prompted Count Szechenyi to do the things he did. In "The Bridgeman" I never quite got that feeling. The film almost suggest he did it all for the approval of a woman, Crescence (Irina Latchina, a Russian actress whose lines are dubbed into Hungarian). In order to win her love and show her he was a serious man he starts to speak up for the Hungarian working-class and his dreams of a bridge.
I can live with this and other slight differences. I'm reminded of the famous quote in "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance". "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend". Movies are not historical fact. Movies are made to entertain us. So these things are to be expected.
Count Szechenyi brought about a Hungarian nationalism which had been buried deep within the Hungarian people. Here was a man of wealth fighting for the little guy. A man who claimed to understand what everyday people were feeling. He wanted Hungary to be a respected country. He wanted the world to see what it was made of.
One of the people who starts to champion the Count's cause is Lajos Kossuth (Ervin Nagy), another very important figure in Hungarian history. The two, while seemingly, fighting for the same cause become adversaries. Their ways of achieving their goals differ. Kossuth wants to start a revolution. Szechenyi wants to work within the system. He is afraid if a revolution breaks out it may lead to Hungarians fighting each other. I find this aspect of the film most appealing. The struggle of power between these men. Kossuth is presented as almost being an ignorant fool with an ego problem. I found this portrayal very surprising. As I say Kossuth is an important figure in Hungarian history. You normally do not see such a negative view of him.
"The Bridgeman" is considered the most expensive Hungarian film of all time. It was made on a budget of two billion forints or $7.5 million. It was financed by the government, which went all out in its support, causing some controversy among other Hungarian directors. But even with this budget "The Bridgeman" reminded me of a BBC mini-series. I suppose the production designs and costumes are good and add to establish the period but everything feels slightly staged.
The director, Geza Beremenyi does not have many credits to his name. In fact he started off as a playwright and a theatre director. This was his fourth feature film. He did direct a TV mini-series and two TV movies. He lacks the visionary eye of say Miklos Jancso, who made a film which took place in the same time period about Kossuth, "The Round-Up (Szegenylegenyek)".
As I say though the biggest problem is Beremenyi's inability to fully make us care about the events on-screen. We feel we aren't getting a full and accurate account of the man. The movie never really shows us the 1848 revolt against Austria led by Kossuth. It mentions a revolt could take place and mentions the aftermath of it, but never shows the revolt itself and what Szechenyi was doing during this time. I found this to be a strange decision by the director. I would have preferred Beremenyi show us Count Szechenyi's scope as a man and the far reaching impact of his life. Some viewers might view this all as a "forgotten moment in history". But it isn't. And it is the fault of the film not to fully explain why it isn't.
Still, I can't condemn the performances in the film. Karoly Eperjes does his best as the Count. You may recognize him from the work he has done with Istvan Szabo in his latest film "Rokonok" (2006), "Hanussen" and "Colonel Redl". He does go through a wide emotional range and does his best to present the many different facets of the man. While the Count may have wanted to do good did he have a bit of an ego problem himself?
After watching this film I would strongly advise others to find out more about Kossuth and his positive impact on Hungary. He is a much better known historical figure who has even been celebrated in America. A statue of him is in Washington, D.C. where he is seen as a freedom fighter. There is also one of him in New York City near Columbia University. Streets and towns in Ohio, NY, New Jersey and Indiana are named after him. Statues were even kept of him in Romania and Bulgaria. Plus you should watch "The Round-Up".
I appreciate the story "The Bridgeman" is telling and the obvious craft which the actors brings and the director and the screenwriters good intentions but a man like Count Szechenyi deserves a better more thought provoking film. This is not a disaster by any means but sadly a minor attempt on a great man's life.
Posts
