Manski gets Main Documentary Award in Karlovy Vary

Veteran documentary director Vitaly Mansky won the main documentary prize at the festival in Karlovy Vary. This is the catalogue description of the film that had its international premiere at the festival:

According to a claim made by Vladimir Putin, half of Russia’s state budget comes from the oil and gas industry. In the case of natural gas, construction of the Trans-Siberian pipeline became a fundamental milestone when, in 1983, it connected supplies of natural gas in Western Siberia with European consumers. Renowned Ukrainian documentarist Vitaly Manskiy sets off along the route of the pipeline to find out what it’s like for ordinary people living in its vicinity. The catch from a frozen Siberian river full of dead fish, a wedding in a dilapidated prefab building in Khabarovsk, an Orthodox mass in a disused train car, a discarded washing machine used as a doghouse, and the invocation of communist ideals due to dissatisfaction with contemporary conditions and the fear of an uncertain future – all this eloquently illustrates the often absurd banality of contemporary Russia. This visually refined road movie is an unsettling portrait of the legendary Trans-Siberian gas pipeline on which most of Europe is still reliant.

The film (116 mins.) is coproduced with Saxonia Entertainment (Simone Baumann) (Germany), Hypermarket Film (Filip Remunda) (Czech Republic) and Czech Television. Deckert Distribution handles sales.

Best documentary film under 30 minutes was “Beach Boy” by Emil Langballe, 27 mins., a film from the National Film School in England.

The FEDEORA Award of the Federation of Film Critics of Europe and the Mediterranean of Film went to a film screened in the East of the West Section, the Slovak-Czech-Croatian “Velvet Terrorist “ for an innovative approach to portraying communist past with humor and creative balance between the film’s scripted scenes and documentary sections.

http://www.kviff.com/en/films/film-detail/4135-pipeline/

http://www.kviff.com/en/news/2543-first-award-winners-announced-/

Diana Groó’s New Film Shown in Jerusalem

Hungarian director Diana Groó is in Jerusalem these days presenting her new film, called ”Regina” (63 mins). I have followed the talented director for years, and saw a rough cut, that impressed me. How to make a film about a woman, where there is only one existing photo…

The now finished film is taken for screening at the Jerusalem Film Festival that runs until July 13 including (apart from feature films) two documentary sections (one of them competitive) and a section named Jewish Experience, where ”Regina” is placed.

Here comes the fine description of the film in the catalogue of the festival in Jerusalem:

”Diana Groó’s documentary tells the story of Regina Jonas (1902-1944), a strong woman who made history by becoming the first properly ordained woman rabbi in the world. The daughter of an Orthodox Jewish peddler, Jonas grew up in Berlin’s Scheunenviertel, studied at the liberal Hochschule für die Wissenschaft des Judentums (College for the Scientific Study of Judaism) beginning in 1924, and was ordained in 1935. During the Nazi era and the War, her sermons and her unparalleled dedication brought encouragement to the persecuted German Jews. Regina Jonas was murdered in Auschwitz in 1944. The only surviving photo of Jonas serves as a leitmotif for the film, showing a determined young woman gazing at the camera with self-confidence.

Through graceful and poetic use of archival footage, Diana Groo brings us a

story of a person whose image is known though one photograph alone. Scenes from Jewish life in Berlin during the early twentieth century come to life: synagogues, Jewish schools, parks, streets, and newsreels permeate the film, while a gentle voiceover handled expertly by Dánel Böhm and Daniel Kardos tell us this unique story. What may have seemed a challenge for a filmmaker, turns into the film’s greatest creative trait.”

An excellent interview with Diana Groó is to be found at the online magazine “Midnight East”, Ayelet Dekel is the writer. In the interview Groó talks about the difficulties in getting funding for the film in Hungary, “a Nazi country”, she calls it. “So it was very difficult to find producers,” Groó recalled, “then, like a miracle, a friend of mine appeared from London – George Weisz, he’s actually the father of Rachel Weisz the actress. George has Hungarian roots, he left Hungary in 1938,  luckily, they left for London, so they survived. He’s a good friend of mine and he liked my previous films. He liked this topic and this story, and he supported the film with his foundation, and later German co-producers also joined the production.”

http://www.midnighteast.com/mag/?p=26893

http://www.jff.org.il/?CategoryID=1085

https://www.facebook.com/ReginaTheStoryOfTheWorldsFirstWomanRabbi

Impressions from Sheffield Doc Fest

Dagnė Vildiūnaitė is the producer behind the Lithuanian production company Just a Moment. She has for years had an international focus, and her films have had both national and international success. “Father” by Marat Sargsyan were this year awarded in the festivals in Nyon and Krakow, “How the Revolution Played” by Giedrė ickytė got the award as the best film at the 9th Vilnius International Documentary of 2012, whereas ”Igrushki” by Lina Luzyte still waits for the international breakthrough, it deserves. Wake up festival people, here is a creative documentary film shot in Belarus that does NOT take the usual ”easy” path with Lukashenko in picture in every other moment!

Dagne sent me a mail a couple of days ago after travels to Moscow and Sheffield. It is always a pleasure to read what she has to tell, she has opinions that go way beyond, what more mainstream producers come up with in the numerous workshops of marketplaces for documentaires around the year. She gave me an ok to post her impressions from the visit to the Sheffield Doc Fest:

… and, yes, before that I was in Sheffield. I thought a lot about what made me feel so “not in place” there. And I made certain conclusions. Almost the entire festival program is consisting of the films talking about our “bad and unfair our world is, full of social problems and heroes who give their lives to change it”. I’m totally ok with it and I like many human rights documentaries.

But just next door they are organizing the market that has a strong focus on cross-media, online platforms, teaching that the audience has to be able to choose the content that they want and even influence the story of the film… and of course we also have to make our documentaries shorter and easier for the audience to “swallow”, while they are googling the entire world on their computers. And then my question comes – isn’t it our job to try to capture the audience that has less and less interest in the world around them? And isn’t it that audience that we are making our films about/for in the end? So why not challenge them and bring them back to cinemas to watch films that make them think. Instead of teaching them to push button “stop”, when they are not comfortable with the image they see?

But I’m so happy that I have attended one the best lectures in recent years – the masterclass by Walter Murch (it made my trip worth it). After it I suddenly realized one simple thing. There has always been a real interaction between audience and filmmakers. But it was on an intellectual level where the filmmaker raises the question, and an audience leaves the cinema with a gift – a new question, a new understanding, a new inspiration… Now it seems they talk about interactive elements in a purely physical way – audience pushes the button and feels satisfaction of being part of a creative process. We support a lazy audience locked in their rooms by their own choice, not willing to know smth more. And after that we talk with serious faces how bad it is that people end up living in the streets and vote for populists to become their presidents?…

I left Sheffield really scared. The town itself is full of people living in supermarkets and people living on social security payments (or what you call it). So the market and festival in this surrounding was even more symbolic.. But maybe I’m digging too deep?

http://www.justamoment.lt/en/

Slovak Documentary Revisited

Filmkommentaren.dk has brought reviews of three new documentaries from Slovakia during the last two weeks: New Life of a Family Album, Velvet Terrorists and Normalization (scroll down and you will find them). All fine and original works from a small country with 5.5 mio. inhabitants. With different approaches all three films deals with serious subjects, always with the use of a tone that includes humour or satire or sarchasm. And with a social or political commitment. All three with a look back from today.

It makes me take a memory tour back to my pleasant meetings with Slovak filmmakers – in this century! Much happened due to the excellent training programme Ex Oriente that I was part of for many years. Several filmmakers came to the sessions with their documentary projects. Here I met Marko Skop and Robert Kirchhoff (see post below), among others. In Bratislava they introduced me to their teacher, Boris Hochel (who died 2009), a strong figure at the Slovak film school and active in the promotion of the documentary in Slovakia. If I remember right Hochel worked with Dusan Hanak’s masterpiece ”Pictures of the Old World” from 1972.

By Marko Skop I remember two fine films, mild in tone with a subtle humour, ”Other Worlds” (photo) (2006) and ”Osadné” (2009), both about how the ordinary Slovaks can place themselves in the global village and the EU without losing their own identity. Robert Kirchhoff made in 2002 the strong ”Hey,You Slovaks” which, to quote the DocAlliance vod, where it is available for 1€!, is about ” Homeless people, single mothers, TV contest heroes, Czech underground philosopher, panel neighborhood, trains, pubs, empty factories, that’s Slovakia.” Skop also worked as producer for the unique “Blind Loves” by Juraj Lehotsky – who (I read that on their website) now has premiered his fiction film, “Miracle”, in Karlovy Vary.

And then of course Peter Kerekes with “66 Seasons” (2003) and “Cooking History (2009), with his own handwriting, an international name but there is also the fine “Sonia and her Family” (2006) by Daniela Rusnoková, the excellent editor Marek Sulik, the crazy short film “Arsy-Versy” (2009) by Miro Remo…   

If you go to the DocAlliance website

http://dafilms.com/search/?q=slovakia

you find links to a lot of Slovak documentary films, enjoy!

Robert Kirchhoff: Normalization (Cernanova Case)

It is not only in Denmark but also in Slovakia that something is rotten… That is the impression you sit with having watched the new film by Robert Kirchhoff, an impressive work both in terms of the research the director has done during the 8 years, it has been under production but also because of its fresh and never dull storytelling. The film is full of anger but also of well placed sarchasm, as well as funny moments. It is called a documentary tragedy, and it is indeed when it comes to content, but there is no need for kleenex help during the watching, rather you mumble to yourself: Nooo, this can’t be right! Content below..

but first the title: Normalization (as I googled it) is ” In the history of Czechoslovakia… a name commonly given to the period 1969 to about 1987. It was characterized by the restoration of the conditions prevailing before the Prague Spring and the work to maintain the status quo.” Gustav Husak was the one in charge after the mentioned reform period led by Dubcek – a period that ended dramatically in 1968, when Soviet forces occupied the country.

The Cernanova Case refers to the tragic event in 1976, where Ludmila Cernanova, a 19 year old student died. Her body was found in a river and (quote from the site of the film) “although there were no traces of violence found on her body, yet the police claimed she had been raped… it was a case that was paraded in the communist mass-media at the end of which seven men (5 years later!) were found guilty… They are the same individuals who today proclaim their innocence and claim that they were caught up in the middle of a grand-scale political-judiciary conspiracy”.

… and were given long prison sentences.

Take a look at the still photo of two older coroners, who stand on each side of a professor of a younger age. The director has brought them together and

behind the camera you hear the director shout to the two, who were involved in the case: Was she raped or not? They do not want to talk about the case, and end up walking out of the room…

Yes, something was totally wrong with the way the 7 people was treated – and had most of their lives destroyed, if not all – and Kirchhoff acts in their defence by step by step (it took him 8 years to make the film) finding witnesses, who talk about how the police forced them to talk against the suspects. A script was already written by the system. A fabrication of stories had been made in other words.

Kirchhoff refrains cleverly from bringing in the family of the murdered woman to the film. It is not difficult to imagine how they feel the loss and to understand the traumatization due to the unsolved case 37 years after it happened. What he does, is, in the best investigative journalistic tradition, to confront people involved at that time and to uncover a story about a corrupt, communist legal system – and to bring us viewers to the fact that the case, that was raised again, in 2004 had a surprising and shameful continuation. The court repeated the first decision, with an extension of the conviction from 1982!

In an interview Robert Kirchhoff puts it like this: But in the end I found that the more recent ruling of the Supreme Court [2006] is more monstrous by far. I understand that in the 1980s it was probably about some order from above, the people were servile to their superiors, they feared not only for their jobs but also for their children, their families. They were hostages of the regime. But what happened in 2004 and in 2006 was that the Supreme Court judges were aware of the newly-discovered evidence, and they refused to hear witnesses and learn about the new circumstances in the case.

Kirchhoff insinuates an Arab link and performs a hilarious interview with a secret agent, Ali, who says nothing about the case but comes up with the following sentence: He who tells the truth will never be happy… nobody likes the truth”! The director, in picture, is speechless and can only nod with a confused open mouth face.

The most watched documentary in cinemas in Slovakia so far, FilmNewEurope writes – after a month 5400 admissions, 20.000€ in box office.

A not normal figure for a film about a Normalization that apparently is still going on in the EU country Slovakia. It is in the media but noone wants to talk about it, the president says no, the top people from the legal system says no… Shocking and scandalous, one thinks after the film.

PS. The 7 have taken the case to the European Court for Human Rights. Still waiting for an answer.

Slovakia, 2013, 100 mins.

http://www.kauzacervanova.com./film_en.php

http://spectator.sme.sk/articles/view/50320/2/cervanova_case_film_judiciary_in_a_new_light.html

www.filmneweurope.com

http://www.filmsk.sk/pdf/filmsk-en-2013.pdf

Ostrochovsky, Pekarcik, Kerekes: Velvet Terrorists

Yesterday a new Slovak documentary had its world premiere in Karlovy Vary. It will have a long life on festivals around the world. If you say to someone that they are going to watch a film about people, who fought against the Communist regime in Czekoslovakia, their first thought would probably be that here comes another black & white film, probably with a lot of interviews and a commentary, and for sure with Havel as one of the heroes.

What you get with “Velvet Terrorists” is completely different. It is a hybrid documentary, hilarious in tone, full of playful surprises in storytelling, and Historytelling, you sense immediately that Peter Kerekes is one of the three directors and the main producer, who continues his “retro” work from “Cooking History” and “66 Seasons”

Stano, Fero and Vladimír are the three characters – very different and with very different, more or less quirky stories of resistance against the Communist regime. Stano wanted to blow a first-of-May-parade-platform into pieces, Fero had bigger ambitions as he wished to kill the country’s leader, Husak, and Vladimir performed, among other things, explosions of propaganda billboards. They all served prison sentences.

The film has definitely a touch of comedy, also in its staged scenes. Stano is single and his story – the three characters come one after the other – goes mainly from him dating several girls to him with his MCP (male chauvinist pig) pals in a car discussing women’s look, to him on his bed checking his blood

pressure. He is the least sympathethic encounter in the film but the filmmakers do what they can to make also him “a romantic hero”, when they place him and the girl friend at a lake at sunset…

Fero is married with two kids, and the story about him must have been easy to shoot as he creates a fine atmosphere around him and has a talent for acting. As when he teaches one of the sons how to escape safely in a car in a James Bond-like scene. He planned the big coup with a girl friend, who he tries to get in contact with, without success, and the assassination attempt on Husak failed as Fero did not get in contact with a foreign secret service!

The third, and in the film also the last, terrorist in the story is Vladimir, and he is serious business! With no wife, tired of him getting in and out of prison, he keeps himself in very fit shape, which is used by the filmmakers to make him do a casting – among young girls – to find a girl, who can continue his resistance against the ones in power. He finds one and he trains her to be as fit as him, and in shooting and in how to make explosions that work, and how to “cheat” a lie detector.

This is a great twist to our times where there is so much to protest against. Good to know that Vladimir’s student is ready for resistance at the end of an original, intelligent and humurous documentary that is a pleasure to watch.

Slovakia, 2013, 87 mins.

http://www.kviff.com/en/films/film-detail/4173-velvet-terrorists/

Karlovy Vary – and EU Budget Cuts

Karlovy Vary International Film Festival started a couple of days ago and the documentary has a good position with an international competititon and a panorama. In the latter section you find ”Stories We Tell” by Sara Polley, ”Father’s Garden – The Love of My Parents” (photo) by Peter Liechti and ”The Expedition to the End of the World” by Danish Daniel Dencik, who also has his bicycle film ”Moon Rider” in the Czech festival, in the competition category. Here you also find Wiktoria Szymanska’s ”The Man who Made Angels Fly”.

During the festival there is of course a so-called industry section and alarming news came out of a meeeting with the EU Parliament member Silvia Costa. According to an article in FilmNewEurope (link below, written by Cathy Mells, there are ” proposed draconian cuts to the cultural budget. “Culture and creativity are really very endangered,” she said.”

“The MEDIA Programme will come under the umbrella of the seven year Creative Europe (starting from 2014, ed.), which Costa said will make it more connected with other aspects of the programme”, but as the overall budget for all programmes will face cuts of only 4%, the European Commission has suggested a cut from 1,8b € to 1,3b€. Costa said at the meeting that she will fight for (she is “rapporteur” for the Creative Europe (what a stupid name, by the way/ed.)) a 1,5b€ budget that would be closer to a 15% cut.

Costa reassured that the much talked about “cultural exception” in the EU will continue – film professionals had argued that the Americans would take over the European film industry if this exception was not kept.

About Creative Europe it was mentioned that “Creative Europe will see more support for non-profit activities, and will be more open to the inclusion of non-member countries and potential EU candidates such as Serbia, along with an emphasis on transnational projects and activities that connect the private and public sectors. Goals of the programme include greater movement of workers and works of art, strengthening cooperation, supporting film coproductions and distribution in cinemas, dubbing and subtitling of films, audience building (through film education), digitalisation, new models of distribution of a transnational nature, and marketing activities through presence on international markets and innovative sales strategies.”

http://www.filmneweurope.com/news/czech/105804-creative-europe-fights-eu-budget-cuts/menu-id-150

http://www.kviff.com/en/news/

Pawel Lozinski Wins in Moscow

Last night the Moscow International Film Festival 2013 ended with the usual grandiosity attached to the festival, led by director Nikita Mikhalkov. The competitive documentary section, set up by Sergey Miroshnichenko and Grigory Libergal, including 7 films, had Pawel Lozinski’s ”Father and Son” as the winner, awarded by a jury headed by Sergey Dvortsevoy.

The film directed and produced by Pawel Lozinski was written about by this blogger, when he met PL in Barcelona a couple of years ago – this is quote from the post published at that time when the film was still a project:

”My father and I get into an old camper and head for Paris where, 23 years ago, he dispersed his mother’s ashes in the Luxembourg Garden. Our trip will take two weeks. We’re both documentary filmmakers so we’ve decided to make a film recording the journey. We stop at camper parks or gas stations for the night. We each have a camera to keep the conditions fair and so we’re both the directors and protagonists at the same time. My father is 70, I am 44. We discuss various things – family history, difficult past, my father’s divorces. Any question is allowed. The journey is a pretext to get to know each other a little better. A cinematic-psychological experiment about the father-son relationship. Once in the editing room, will we be able to create a single version that would be acceptable to both?”

The answer to the question raised became NO, and now there is the film by Pawel, ”Father and Son” and also one by Marcel Lozinski, ”Father and Son on a Journey”. The two films, that will be reviewed on this blog very soon, shared the Silver Horn Direction Prize at the Krakow Film Festival late May/beginning of June. The Jury motivation went like this:

“Is sharing the same profession between a father and a son a curse or a blessing? And can a film be used to reconcile this and other family matters? Two famous filmmakers, a father and a son, embark on a journey in search of answers to these and other questions: their filmmaking skills, the tool in their hands and the road in front of them, a source of inspiration. The result is a unique cinematic experiment and a testament to their mutual love, despite the complexity of their relationship.”

Father-Son: Curse or Blessing?

http://www.krakowfilmfestival.pl/en/news/359

http://www.moscowfilmfestival.ru/miff34/eng/news/?id=410

Nicolas Philibert: Every Little Thing

Here, the first right is the right to roam. Nicolas Philibert, the acclaimed French documentary filmmaker, largely known for capturing the trivia of the closed worlds (i.e. In the Land of the Deaf, Animals – see MoMA series on his films: “Nicolas Philibert: The Extraordinary Ordinary”), this time pushed the gate of the progressive psychiatric clinic La Borde. Nestled in the vicinity of the sunlit Loire Valley, the film, succintly dubbed as Every Little Thing, portrays the every day life at La Borde, its trivial goings-on, loneliness and feebleness. Yet, there is room for moments of joy and laughter. Set over the summer of 1995, Every Little Thing follows the residents and staff of the La Borde psychiatric clinic as they set out to stage, what has now become a tradition, a fête production of a theatrical play. This year, they mount Witold Gombrowicz’s absurdist classic ‘Operette’.

The film opens with the scene of a woman, alone in a wide shot, singing a piece from the opera ‘Orpheus and Eurydice’, “Mortal silence. Vain hope. What a torment. […] I succumb to my suffering,” she sings apropos as if Christoph Gluck himself had composed it for her. This immediate, somewhat disorienting immersion into the world of La Borde, takes place without an introduction or a context. The slow pacing seems especially fitting for this milieu. Its natural-lit outdoor cinematography appears idyllic and even a tad utopian.

In the following scene, we see a series of alienated body plans wandering in the green space. As we watch them roam, we are suspended in a state of unease and discomfort. Captives of their own bodies, their movements are rowdy and uncoordinated – they are unbridled misfits, displaced, repressed of drive, and rendered to vacillating and haphazard convulsions. Master at finding the right balance between sound and silence in all of his films, in Every Little Thing Philibert too deftly employs silence to signal the storytelling tone. Given the environment, the long silent takes now seem to be rather disturbing than peaceful. Agitated by the wind and trees, the life of its own nature seems to have found a

relief to the agony of the troubled souls. Yet, they do not stagnate, they grow freely, at their own pace and in all directions.

“[…] Scattered, lost. […] But who can tell? Who can tell what? […] Bizarre forms, demented shapes. I don’t know, I don’t understand, I don’t comprehend. Motionless, dazed, confused. […]” As the patients recite the lines from the ‘Operette’ with vigor and anxiety, this Polish absurdist comedy from the mid-60s and its distortive dreamwork seem ideal for La Borde. Caught in the nervous tics and disrupted diction, Michel, one of the long-term patients who regularly stays at the clinic since 1969, alike his fellows, chooses the temporary safety of the art world. He feels protected by the narrow confines of the fictional world of the ‘Operette’, where “the totally illogical lines comfort him.” Embraced by the tranquil woods of the Loire Valley, the La Borde asylum alleges art as a sanctuary and repose, serving both as an act of catharsis and that of defiance.

Above and beyond the theater, Philibert pursues no spectacular shots bestowing the folklore of madness. Neither does he try to encrust the film with new twists and turns. In fact, the film is constructed within a rather basic narrative pattern that eschews an adherence to any complexity of a latent plot or drama. Nevertheless, the timeline tracing the preparation for the play, the final performance, and the aftermath lends itself a narrative cohesion. Obstinately true to his style, the legato unhurried pace gives time to be attentive to the protagonists and their everyday doings. Once we embrace the slow rhythm and gradually get comfortable with it, we find ourselves immersed in these micro-moments that otherwise would have gotten lost in the momentum of the every day life. As the simple atcs unfold in a non-narrated manner, we see people reveal themselves in unpredictable ways. The scattered mosaic of moments is poetically undercut in a complexity of patches – all rendered with a lucent beauty. Yet, when that beauty slips in, it is almost always broken.

Be it, in the garden of La Borde, where a haggard patient strives to walk up to a shrub, rubbing his forehead as if to mollify the unbearable thought that hit his head; or at the art club, where a patient tries to draw the face of another patient, pauses in a moment of panic with words, “I am afraid to miss…” but finally cedes into a grin, overwhelming her suffering – behind these small moments, there is a lot at stake. It is riveting how little can say a lot about people: a stare, a gesture, a sigh, even a smile. Such moments of intimacy resonates with the viewer eminently. It uncovers something essential and profound about the human existence. Yet, what exactly it uncovers is up to the viewer. The film does not contain much commentary, laying itself wide open to the reading. Philibert’s ambition of being “a bit of an anti-Michael Moore” shows its vestiges here as he avoids to give any answers or to “think for the viewer”. Instead, he gives the viewer something to think about.

True to his style, Philibert is not voyeuristic in approaching his subjects. He says, “this film is not about people, but with and because of them.” Throughout the film, it becomes evident that the protagonists are well aware of being filmed. It can be seen through their verbal interventions or gazes directed to the camera. But these scenes don’t end up on the floor of the cutting room. Philibert says, “It doesn’t bother me that they look directly toward the camera. I don’t try to make them forget my presence. It is a matter of making myself accepted, not forgotten.”

As Philibert makes himself accepted in the La Bodre asylum, so do we. Indeed, as we voluntarily immerse ourselves in their world, we become almost as them – mad, too. By gradually taking us into the impenetrable madness, this cinematic vigil makes us re-work our view on madness and extend the degree of ambivalence toward the notion of normality. The film is very shrewd in bringing to focus the fluidity and dynamics of the borderline between madness and sanity. In Every Little Thing, anxiety and fragility are never far behind the laughter, spontaneity, and liveliness. “You are laughing at the rubbish I say. Aren’t you? You are totally crazy,” one of the patients utters. Different expressions race back and forth over his face. His smiles come in succession like waves breaking on the surface of a little lake. “You are nuts, you are completely nuts! […] That poor nurse is crazy. The staff need care. That could happen, you know. […] True, if we get care, no one will look after you.”

Indeed, as all visible differences between the patients and the care-givers are removed and patients are liberated to actively participate in running the facility, it seems hard to distinguish between those who need care. The care-givers do not wear white coats and doors have handles on both sides. Who manages the switchboard, who answers the phone calls, who prepares the meals – each one, notwithstanding their mental status, is a member of the La Borde little community, a microcosm of the society riven by differences and tension. All are in the same boat. Within this closed community, Philibert manages to create intense feelings of both community energy and extreme solitude. He observes the patients both when they are collaborating and when they are alone, estranged and off in their own universe.

As we hear tragic arias, soul-baring confessions, and moving recollections, the film without a condescending pity or soaring valorization, brings an illuminating account of a world that is outside of most of our daily experiences. Philibert approaches his subjects with a deep but unforced empathy that does not exoticize or disown them. In this radical otherness, we see our pallid reflection, we find part of ourselves. The film does not offer an antiodite for our fear of otherness, the otherness would still keep leaking into our psyche. Profoundly disturbing and intensely personal, the last sentence of the long-term patient Michel both moves and terrifies us, “We are here among ourselves. And you are among us, too, now.”

France, 1997, 105 mins.

Adam Ol´ha: New Life of a Family Album

It is a bit difficult for me to verbalise precisely, what this film is about. It goes in many directions and I have to confess that I sometimes lackd a focus while watching. However, the reason you stay with the film is the tone and the footage available for the male director, family archive footage shot by his father over a period of almost 20 years. I write male as the director is the only male in the family with mother, grandmother and 5 sisters! The Man with the Moving Camera he calls his father in the beginning of the film, or the father calls himself so, ending up giving himself the same characteristic as the one, who is never really involved, always on a distance, always observing. We dont get to know a lot about the son, the one making the film – and we don’t get to know much about the father, who left the family to marry another woman. Why? He does not talk about it.

On the contrary when it comes to the females in the film, they are open-minded, when they talk. The mother, a famous actress, the grandmother with her photos, talking about her good looking husband, who had many affairs, and the daughters, who grow up looking for their own way of life.

The material is impressive. The father took pictures – he even made an exhibition about the Ol´ha family – and the mother acted. As she says, now with parts as either a mother or a prostitute. We see her in close-ups and we see a lot of photos and the super 8mm footage of a happy family. The sunflower sequence in the beginning of the film is gorgeous. The happy family that was apparently not so happy. Suddenly the father was not there any longer and the son felt he had to ”rewrite history”. The father who, when young in the photos, looked fresh and optimistic is now closed and reluctant to answer the questions from the son. Who never dares to ask the question – why did you leave us, your big family?

A few words about the tone of a film that has many loveable moments, difficult not to fall in love with the little girl – the youngest daughter – who in songs/rappings comment on the new interpretation of a family without a father. Maybe a bit confusing structure but seldom a dull moment.

Slovakia/Czech Republic, 2012, 80 mins.