"Man of Iron" *** (out of ****)Here we have two movies dealing with Communism from a European perspective.
To a large number of movie goers, films are nothing more than "popcorn entertainment". Movies are simple diversions. Going to the movies is just something to do on a Friday night. But, to others cinema is about artistic vision. Movies are an important window into society. They teach us about different cultures. They become historical documents. Few directors have used cinema this way like Andrzej Wajda.
You'll think about these kind of things when you watch "Man of Iron" (1981), Wajda's palme d'or winner at the Cannes Film Festival. This film has an undeniable power because it is showing us history in the moment. In a way it was a crying call to other countries. The film is largely about the Solidarity movement in Poland, which was taking effect during the making of the film.
For those that don't know, Solidarity was a non-communist trading union attempting to give workers more rights. It was a major thaw in Communist controlled Poland during the Cold War.
What makes "Man of Iron" such a powerful film is Wajda uses actual documentary film footage along side his fictional film. We are seeing actual protesters and demonstrations.
At the same time that is what hurts the film a little bit in my opinion. I wasn't born during that start of Solidarity and I'm not Polish. This creates a bit of distance for me. At the time of the film's release I could see how this film would deeply resonate with people. It was something they heard about and saw in the news. The film was timely. It was putting names and faces to a problem most Americans maybe didn't quite understand.
I know what the Solidarity movement was. I understand what life was like in a Communist countries (my family is from Hungary). But it is one thing to read about events in history books and another to have lived through them and experience them. This is what stops "Man of Iron" from getting a higher rating. I can tell the film is important but there is an emotional disconnect because of my age and nationality.
But my case may not be common. That is why I'm recommending the film to others. It is clearly a powerful, emotional and personal film. People should make an effort to see this movie.
"Man of Iron" was a sequel to Wajda's "Man of Marble" (1977), which I have also reviewed on here. In "Man of Marble" we followed Mateusz Birkut (Jerzy Radziwilowicz) a bricklayer who became a national hero. This time around we follow his son, Maciej (also played by Radziwilowicz) and his relationship with the woman who tried to tell his father's story in "Marble", Agnieszka (Krystyna Janda).
The government is trying to set-up Maciej to be the fall guy to stop negotiations from taking place with Solidarity. So they pay a has-been filmmaker to do a documentary on Maciej in hopes it will turn out to be a character assassination. But when the filmmaker, Winkel (Marian Opania), learns Maciej's and his father's story he is caught in a moral dilemma of what to do.
In "Man of Marble" Agnieszka was our main character. We were following her as she learned about a time in history she knew nothing about due to her age. In "Man of Iron" she is not the main character. She has been in jail because of her relationship with Maciej. This turns out to be another flaw I have with the movie.
Winkel to goes Agnieszka for an interview in prison. She begins to tell us what happened when "Marble" ending. How they fell in love and had a baby. But also how they got caught in a political storm as they tried to tell his father's story. They were met with much resistance, his job was put at stake.
The problem I have with all of this is the film shifts focus from the Solidarity movement to a love story between Agnieszka and Maciej. The love story is not the most interesting part of the movie. It is the politics that make the film interesting. But the last 40 minutes of the film are spent on their love. I thought this slows the movie down.
Still there is no way to deny the grand sweep of the movie. Even though the film won the palme d'or it lost its Oscar nomination that year in the "Best Foreign Language Film" category to Istvan Szabo's "Mephisto" (1981). Both are fine films and each would have been deserving of the award.
If you'd like to learn more about the Solidarity movement watch Jill Godmilow's semi-documentary, semi fictional film "Far From Poland" (1984).
"Somewhere in the East" (Undeva in Est) *** (out of ****)
"Somewhere in the East" (Undeva in Est, 1991) is another powerful film about communism. This time the subject is collective farming in a small Transylvania town.
One of the things which is interesting about the film is its title. "Somewhere in the East". That could mean "somewhere" in Eastern Europe or "somewhere" in Eastern Romania, but Transylvania is in Western Romania. So who knows exactly what the title is referring to. But I think the film is trying to send a larger message. Yes it is about Romania, but, stories such as this one were happening all over the Eastern Bloc.
The government sends Radu (Valentin Voicila) to the village hoping to influence the townspeople of the benefits of collective farming. His main objective is to get a wealthy landowner, Ion Margureanu (Remus Margineanu) to sign on, since he is treated as the leader of the town. If he joins others will follow his example.
But Ion doesn't like the idea of Communism or collective farming. He says he has worked all his life. He had to save for years to get all the things he has achieved. Why should he have to share it with people who didn't work as hard as he did?
So the people resist causing a civil war between the government and the townspeople. They resist because they feel the Americans will come and help them. Of course America doesn't come to help the people of Romania or the people of any country. America and the British simply gave Eastern Europe to the Soviets in a nice package with a bow on top.
Watching "Somewhere in the East" you can feel the frustration of the people. Like "Man of Iron" this film is showing us a specific time in history.
The movie almost has a documentary look at it. This helps create the idea what we are watching is real. The characters may be made up but we know events such as this did in fact take place. In Hungarian cinema there was a very famous film about collective farming "Korhinta" (1956) directed by Zoltan Fabri, which I have also reviewed on here. So the pressures were real. People from other countries felt it.
The film was directed by Nicolae Margineanu. I haven't reviewed the films of Mr. Margineanu on here before but he is considered, along with Lucian Pintilie, as one of the great filmmakers in Romanian cinema. He has been much more prolific than Mr. Pintilie.
All of the films I have seen by Margineanu are political and deal with Communist life in Romania. His masterpiece in my opinion is "Bless You, Prison" (Binecuvantata fii, Inchisoare, 2002), which I placed on my "top ten" list for the year. He started as a cinematography before making a documentary, "This Above All" (Mai Presus de Orice, 1978) and directed his first feature film a year later, "The Man in the Overcoat" (Un om in Loden, 1979). Since then he has had a steady output of films, one of them, "The Famous Paparazzo" (Faimosul Paparazzo, 1999) was even Romania's official Oscar entry, though it didn't make it to the final cut.
"Somewhere in the East" has many powerful moments. The film, even though it deals with a single family, I don't think is interested in merely telling their story. I feel the characters are pawns used for a larger purpose. They represent all Romanians who suffered during this horrible time in history.
Sadly, "Somewhere in the East" and all of Mr. Margineanu's films are not available in America. I was lucky enough to buy all the films I did. You just have to be willing to look. Movie buffs should definitely seek out the work of this great director. "Somewhere in the East" would be a good introduction into his work and the issues he deals with.
Posts
