Very interesting film-parable about the philosophy of the layman.
World War II is ending, but for the people of Budapest it is aggravated by the fact that in addition to the approaching front line, a coup d’etat took place inside the country, bringing the ultra-right to power, thereby stepping immediately into agonizing radical fascism.
Several zucchini regulars sit in a darkened cellar and talk about their philistine themes (where to get tasty food, how to cook Korean), until a photographer who came from the street begins to challenge them with provocative questions.
It is noteworthy that he was provoked to such questions by the words of the innkeeper that war cannot be a way to solve any problems. As a result, it all boils down to the fact that it is impossible to stand aside from current global events. The watchmaker comes up with the question - what would his interlocutors prefer to become - a cruel tyrant with a calm conscience or his slave, meekly carrying out all atrocities.
The photographer who chose sacrifice is suspected of insincerity, which only strengthens him in the desire to help his casual interlocutors make a choice.
The scene of the night in thinking reveals the characters on the other hand - a simple innkeeper tries to make straws for himself everywhere, he also obligingly helps and supports the wife of the executed communist (should Budapest fall?). The position of the slave Dudu is in principle incomprehensible to him.
An honest carpenter, on the contrary, laments that he cannot see himself in the role of Dudu. He is very ashamed of it, but he can not deceive himself and his wife.
A bookseller who tries his best to get away from this topic at the table indulges in drunkenness and debauchery (totally cut by Soviet censorship), for him the question itself is meaningless.
The thinking of a cunning watchmaker is not shown to us. He's got a lot to do.
Soon all the characters will be forced to choose sides in the ongoing conflict. You don’t have to choose if the choice was already made. In the instruction of the instructor from the Gestapo is also noticeable oversight — his methods work only against the inhabitants.
The author does not give direct answers, so only my interpretation of this parable is higher.