The film, which, it turns out, was a cult in Poland, is the film directed by Stanislav Barei “Bear” (Miś, 1980). If the name of the director I sometimes came across somewhere, in any case, was not unfamiliar, then I could not remember his films, most likely, I did not watch and I never even heard of this film. So I saw it one day.
more
The film, which, it turns out, was a cult in Poland, is the film directed by Stanislav Barei “Bear” (Miś, 1980). If the name of the director I sometimes came across somewhere, in any case, was not unfamiliar, then I could not remember his films, most likely, I did not watch and I never even heard of this film. So I saw it one day. And then something else, as I usually do, I read online – in the same Wikipedia, where a large article is devoted to him in Polish, as well as on the website of Polish cinema, there were described those realities to which the director wanted to attract the attention of the viewer and which the modern viewer does not know, some of them are purely Polish. The film is a poignant, sometimes angry, sometimes clumsy satire called comedy, slightly touching politics, but mainly it is social conditions, life and human relationships, as well as the people themselves. The main character of the film, Richard Ochuzsky, nicknamed Mishka (Stanislav Tym, who was also one of the authors of the script), is the president of the sports club “Rainbow”, which is not so much engaged in sports work as various machinations. Not so long ago, his wife left him and now he faces a difficult task, he must try to take money from their joint account in a London bank, before his ex-wife gets to him. But she does not sleep, first tearing the pages out of his passport, because of which he is not allowed to cross the border, and then also going there, according to their habits they stand each other. Getting a new passport in those days was not easy, so come up with a very ornate way, how it can be done. His plan eventually succeeds. So the main storyline, as you can see, is not very original, but everything that happens in the film, the director decided to equip with additional details and storylines, which sometimes looks very deliberate, forehead and heavyweight, so I am not surprised that despite the success of the public, who were happy to look at the incriminating scenes in the film, critics reacted to the film rather negatively - not so much because of the content, but because of the director's work and form. Despite my constant interest in the genre of satire, the film did not particularly impress me, it was painfully rough and sloppy stitches sometimes all this was sewn together, some scenes are exaggeratedly disgusting - for example, a scene in a milk bar where cutlery is connected with thick chains and attached to tables, metal bowls are screwed to tables, undercooked buckwheat is poured into an unwashed bowl to the next eater, etc. Of course, I do not know the Polish realities of that time, but I remember our realities, and I think they might not have been much different from the Polish ones at that time. To the film, of course, censorship was very picky, the circumstance of the change of power helped to come out on the screens - Gerek and his associates were filmed, the new ones did not have time to get there, after which they became very popular with the public. The film was the first in the trilogy, but I really doubt that I would like to see the other two that have been directed by other directors.
|