Under the vaults of the bank, the spirit breathes where it wants.
"Happy Lazarus" is built into the glorious tradition of neorealism and the representation of the people in Italian cinema. Class struggle and left discourse is a plowed field where neorealists like Rossellini, De Siki, Visconti and many others crossed their hoes. Antonioni and Fellini were also at the origins of this trend and highly valued it. But not the whole harvest is harvested: but what about Pasolini, Bertolucci, Olmi, the Taviani brothers ... If neo-realism were a lit fuse, which, burning, moves towards a great social explosion and the redistribution of the means of production, the audience would open their mouths, blinded by the bloody fireworks of the revolution, and leave the cinema happy with the change. However, class struggle in cinema has lost popularity over time. The wick of neorealism has long faded, lying in the sand and soil. Following it as a tradition, you can come to a village called Inviolata, where people work under the most real feudalism, although capitalism has long been in the backyard. It is not at all ironic that the change of formation will be announced to the peasants by the Carabinieri, who stand guard over the new order.
Neorealism contains the seeds of a peasant work ethic sanctified by Christianity and a critical Marxism. This was well understood by Pier Paolo Pasolini, who believed that people should not be separated from their religious roots and traditions. He created vivid and unforgettable images of faith at the intersection with other concepts. A good example of this is his parable Theorem, in which there is a capitalist, a factory owner, who gives his production free of charge to the workers, and then goes naked into the desert; or a maid from a rich house who, shocked by her sensual and impossible love for an angel, goes into asceticism, gradually transforming herself into a saint. These are undoubtedly man-made myths-miracles, producing a strong impression on the minds of people. If you look at the harvesting peasants in the “Happy Lazarus”, then in the middle of the whole vegetation you can hear the same step of the Great Sower, the Holy Spirit. Audiovisually this is expressed in gusts of wind, which always occur near Lazarus.
Ideology of myth
The legend of Lazarus is the triumph of faith over death. This legend is woven into the myth of a hungry wolf who smelled a strange smell of a “good man” in a dead person, which interestingly contradicts the rotten smell of a corpse that emanates from Lazarus before his resurrection (myths embalm eternal values). The story of the wolf goes back to the expression “man to man wolf”. It follows that the predatory (exploitative) chain is interrupted on Lazarus, which is morally pure. It is worth noting how myths are introduced into film narration: the myth of Lazar unfolds by default and the viewer can only fix the moment of his death in the flesh and transition to life in the spirit of eternity; the parable of the wolf is superimposed over the voice of the narrator - this is a modus vivendi, trying on people in the heat of class injustice; a spell against retraumatizing reality, the balm of a moral narrative.
Another myth, or rather the bike, can be heard from the unpredictable trickster Tancredi, rebelling against his planter mother. Tancredi tells Lazarus that they are paternal brothers. This message strikes Lazarus in the heart, because he is an orphan and has not known parental love. Here it is worth noting the kinship of Lazarus with the angelic Toto – the main character in the film “Miracle in Milan”. The latter is also an orphan, who was once found in a vegetable garden with cabbage, is quite reminiscent of Lazarus making his way through the huge leaves of tobacco. Toto, unlike the selfless hard worker, is an active Christian: he helps the poor build their town in the slums. Lazarus’ behavior is fundamentally different: yes, he also helps his people, sparing neither strength nor health, but he has no mission as such. He seems to be chosen by God, but is always used in someone else’s interests (printing his own blood on a letter with extortion, intercession in a bank for an impoverished aristocratic family), which partially undermines the reading of his God-chosenness, and brings to the fore the problem of subjectivity and alienation from labor, nature and people, exploitation in general. Lazarus’ fate is similar to that of the long-suffering donkey in Bresson’s Luck, Balthazar, this great parable of suffering. In fact, the fate of peasants and future urban marginalists is reduced to suffering, but in a Marxist way: they cannot realize and stop the conveyor of existence that produces goods in the mode of alienation.
It seems that Aliche Rorwacher has chosen a non-accusatory, subversive strategy toward a post-industrial society with its ideology of progress, functionality, and benefit. It contemplatively registers and negates the ethics torn from the logic of the market, the banking system, the relationship of the constant exchange of goods, services, marks. The scene with the Lord’s feast and the servant Antonina is connected with the scene a few decades later, when the peasants had long settled in the city and came to the “party dinner” to the impoverished Tancredi. In the first case, the poor peasants lick a cake that is unattainable for them; in the second, they spend their last money to treat the aristocrats of Tancredi with sweets, who are not waiting for guests, but the hotel is taken away, as in the good old days, when in conditions of sharework they took what they earned from the peasants. This situational diptych is almost sentimental waste on the Hegelian model of the slave and master, with the difference that this model is not dead, but only made a qualitative leap. And then you feel the postmodern irony with which this solemn scene is shown, which for a moment resurrects the former alliance of the oppressor and the oppressed, their interdependence, deep and contradictory sympathy for each other.
During this meeting, Tancredi's sister complains about the bank that took everything from them. Hearing this, Lazarus, with sincere sympathy, will repeat the words "The Deception of the Century ... the Bank." This reaction, like the episode in which Lazarus and Tancredi howl (initiation into the rules of hunting), can be interpreted as a manifestation of Lazarus’ self-awareness and perhaps of Lazarus’ class consciousness, as a reference point for analyzing the state of affairs. A very symbolic frame, which shows the dark reflection of Lazarus in the water - the mythologem of Narcissus in this case indicates not only the absorbed self-admiration, but also the stage of the mirror, the birth of the subject, which is caused by the two-faced figure of Tancredi. Lazarus is a fragile and perfect vessel, accompanied by the holy spirit, like the cut music in the cathedral, after it has ceased to sound there. He is a transparent signifier, beautifully manifested by the light and not articulating ideas; canonized by a movie screen as a saint without a pronounced agenda, existing in a pre-subject paradise where the spirit still dreams. In all the scenes where Lazarus enters into communication-exchange, he is like a child who wants to exchange flowers for justice, but his currency (unconditional good threatens to collapse the economy) is not accepted. Martyrs and saints die edifying deaths, preferring the heavenly to the social elevator. It is an argument in terms of catharsis, decorated with Christian vignettes, a sacrifice on the altar of the bank to atone for the sins of this world. But this is no argument for critical discourse: an oppressed man of flesh and blood dies below the poverty line, thrown into a socioeconomic pit.
This picture, permeated with biblical notes with a slight admixture of paganism, in fact, is absolutely nothing.
I will start with the main character – a kind of hero with a blissful look and a phlegmatic face, whose life resembles the history of poor Lazarus and Lazarus of the Four Days. At the same time, he is more like a golem, not aging and not remembering his creator, apparently, therefore ready to serve anyone who orders. And if in the semi-primitive world it was in demand, then in the modern world nobody needs it. The most important thing is that if you remove it, the film will lose almost nothing from this, it will not even be noticed! Is this the main character?!
The individuals next on the list are also not anything remarkable: this peasant rabble is a continuous degenerate, even a small river is afraid to cross (it is not surprising, given their isolation in several decades, it turns out that they are all victims of incest, and in the end – oligophren). Therefore, you do not feel any sympathy for them, and the Marquis and her entourage are just a typical bourgeois nest.
Even slightly touched in the film the subject of constantly arriving in the country migrants - a source of cheap (more precisely slave) power, looks like a quite normal phenomenon - although this is far from the case.
What the film plays on is only in a successfully shown contrast: the bright, sunny nature of the rural landscape is contrasted with gray, concrete and cold urban backyards.
In general, the dominance in the films of philosophy of only Abrahamic religions, I am already decently tired - as if humanity knows nothing better. This seems to be some kind of spiritual cell, from which, unfortunately, few people have escaped. And this creation is no exception.
In short, this festival and supposedly intellectual film, overly fondled by aesthetic critics, I find banal empty.
Italian cinema is my favorite, and now I managed to see the film ' Happy Lazarus' 2018, from one of the faces of modern European cinema - director Aliche Rorvacher. Even for the festival level, the film is quite unusual and has interesting features and author's subtexts worthy of discussion. If we talk about genre affiliation, the plot is based on real events, but it is considered fantasy. There are no unrealistic heroes, as in 'The Lord of the Rings' or 'The Hobbit' the situation is rather similar to 'Forrest Gump' where the story taking place in the present time in our world, in order to create a fairy-tale image, is filled with some conventions and absurd characters. In a tiny Italian village, residents unaware of the abolition of sharecropping (a system like serfdom) belong to the Marquise de Luna, who ruthlessly uses their labor. On one of the visits of the family of patrons to Inviolata, the young aristocratic Tancredi makes friends with Lazarus, a beautiful and simple-minded village youth. After a series of small events, the villagers return to the city, where they relive the remnants of a past life. The plot is long and stretching, but the interest is rather not the story itself, but the attitude of the characters to it. It becomes a kind of parable, where more meaning is expressed allegorically than in direct text. The film, in addition, was awarded the golden palm branch of the Cannes Film Festival for best screenplay.
The visual style of the film is simply incredible. Of course, the eye immediately pleases shooting on film, which in our digital time can only allow such mastodons of cinema as Tarantino, Spielberg, Nolan and Thomas Andersen. Although, it is more labor-intensive, some directors continue to shoot on film to this day, believing that it better conveys life on the screen. The construction of the frame and the work of the operator look aesthetically and tastefully. Aliche Rorwacher often uses the rule of golden thirds, and generally works according to all the canons of the old school cinema. It is impossible not to note the texture and unusual now divine beauty of the main actors. The color palette of the frame is divided together with the film into two parts: the first - warm green and yellow shades, a natural paradise, isolated from the world, slow and relaxed. In spirit and atmosphere reminiscent of the film 'Call Me by Your Name'. The second half of the film, which takes place in the city, is endowed with cold and gloomy shades of foggy day and night, the outlet of civilization, the feeling of emptiness and uselessness are transmitted on the screen.
Against the background of fashion for opportunistic cinema, Happy Lazarus is pleasantly distinguished by its ideas and meanings worthy of deciphering. On the one hand, the film provides an important social commentary on the likes of Parasites about class inequality. But it doesn’t end with a discussion of how unfair the world is. The idea of subconscious slavery of people, the choice to live according to the principle “always it was and always will be so, why change, if now it is quite appropriate here.” Even when life changes and freedom comes, the peasants continue to live in abhorrent poverty and the rich aristocrats eat at their expense. So, for us, the film is presented as the life of saints. Lazarus is a martyr suffering for some abstract values, destined to live a life for others, for what is called good. However, he lives in a lie and is more comfortable with it. Let it remain a ray of light in the midst of darkness. But the question is whether there is a desire for empty obedience. This image of a naive, curly, like an angel of a good boy hides a simple ignorance and personal insufficiency. In my opinion, the title “Happy Lazarus” directly shows the fate of the hero – to be happy, whatever happens. Because happiness is good. And being kind is the right thing to do, isn't it?
In this film, a great ability to show a fairy tale is realized in such a way that it does not unnerve and does not want to shout “well, it can not be! why the music runs away like a full-fledged hero!”
The director skillfully creates an atmosphere of magic, playing with the attributes of time. On the one hand serfs, on the other mobile phones.
Although this is a parable, and with biblical motives, (where else without religion, because the Italians even in war mention the virgin Mary), but moralizing is not felt. another paradox is that basing the story on fraud and a little humiliation, the feelings of viewing bright and movies seem kind.
Italian life, when the poor and the big family live together, it is so charming because it is noisy, funny and united. Sharing one light bulb and erasing the boundaries of personal space, shouting at the groom bullying about the fat ass of his bride. Something catches in the Italian spirit, no wonder my Italian-Russian friend says that these two peoples are similar in their souls, that it is easy to make friends with us heartily.
The confrontation seemed eternal: the bourgeois and the peasants. The first is condescending, the second is cute. You will not scold a child for his naive look and inexperience. And the privileged at that time play the games of the gods, giving sweet ignorance (history, by the way, is based on real events). The conflict between fathers and children is eternal. Here, too, the rebellious son insists on the truth and decides to hand out deceitfully for the poor peasants. But it is not clear which desire is stronger: justice or to go against my mother. And in their idea somehow slip the manners of high society - the absolute absence of hesitation in the request to shed blood instead of themselves. And with their own hands, even the slingshot does not work.
But Lazarus the opposite, pleases in any request. He does not know who he helps: a friend, an animal or someone worse. And he, everyone understands as a prototype of whom, as if he does not play the main role, he does not even age. I am a guide or a tool. That's why Lazarus leaves in the end, and his absence doesn't break the endings. The commune, transformed from peasants into urban nomads, finds its way back. And everything is cyclical, the light bulb is still divided.
Speaking about this film, it is worth noting that it is original, although built on real events, the director seeks to convey his vision of this situation, on the example of the main character - serene Lazarus, a peasant, like all others, submits to one mistress, a certain feudalism in the 20th century.
As far as history is concerned, it focuses on two important aspects: friendship and socialization. The storyline is tied to the friendship of the son of the mistress of Tancredi and the peasant Lazarus, their friendship is based on the fact that the son does not like the fact that his mother uses peasants, in particular Lazarus, as a labor force, he saw in Lazar something more, a human soul, his own world full of secrets and mysteries. But the very uniqueness of this idea lies not only in their friendship, but also in their relationship, despite the different social status Tancredi tries to be with Lazar in equal relations, it perfectly demonstrates the nature of human communication of people with different social status and reveals a very simple message - all people are equal, do not put yourself above others.
Also in this work, since it is based on real events, there is another story, with its own meaning and message, since it turned out that the Marquis de Luna simply exploited all the people who lived in this village, the idea of the need to improve the legal culture of the population, everyone should know their rights and not neglect them, as well as monitor the political state of the country to avoid such situations is clearly expressed.
I also want to note that the director Aliche Rorvacher skillfully uses symbolism, for example, the chicken in the house of the Marquise de Luna symbolizes the imperious woman she was, and the wolf in the city is an opposition to Lazarus, who, living in ignorance, not familiar with the laws and orders of society, looks in the eyes of other people somewhat strange, without realizing it, also thanks to this, the problems of socialization of Lazarus in the city are revealed.
In general, summing up, I want to say that this film is definitely not for everyone, it does not attract a twisted story of friendship and betrayal, it is not full of star cast, but this is not a banal story, this film is special, it is multifaceted, and this is unique, perfectly tells the story of strong friendship of people of different social status and the need to improve the legal culture of the population, these 2 important messages that are shown on the basis of simple dialogues and relationships, a little symbolism, make this film unique and refined, really worth your attention.
7 out of 10
If you don’t watch this movie, you won’t lose anything. But if you like romanticized movies with a drop of magic, then you may like it. The film is about a man who saw only good in others, did only good and believed only in good. It's an amazing film.
The tiny Italian village of Inviolata ("Untouched", "Untouchable") seems to live outside of time and space, especially the serfdom of its inhabitants in the tobacco factory owned by the Marquise de Luna. Although slave labor has not been used for a long time in the yard of the 80s of the twentieth century, the locals live so many years and do not protest against their situation at all. But one day in Inviolata comes the son of the hostess, a spoiled city dude named Tancredi, and his acquaintance with the local guy Lazar, because of his kindness and constant work on errands, considered almost half-witted, will mark the beginning of great changes.
The image of Italy Aliche Rorvacher is very different from the vision of her modern colleagues - it is not the glamorous gloss of Paolo Sorrentino, not the sunny languid paradise of Luca Guadagnino and not the criminal brutal darkness of Matteo Garrone. In detail, she notices the preserved foundations, traditions and way of life of the country, still existing only in its most remote corners, like a museum diorama. And when this nostalgic world is invaded by guests from big cities with their rich, rhythmic and completely different life, conflict inevitably arises, but whether progress can change the archaic past for the better is a big question.
In “Happy Lazarus”, deservedly awarded the prize of the Cannes Film Festival for best screenplay, Rorwacher develops the theme of his past “Miracles”, bringing to almost documentary manner of narration a lot of metaphors and clearly tangible notes of magical realism, while admiring the rough, but through the present and vivid image of the former Italy. Her Lazarus, which evokes not so much associations with the biblical Lazarus of Bethany (although there will be a resurrection here too), as with the Catholic St. Francis of Assisi, is an instrument of this observation, and not only for people, but also for the destruction of eras when the freedom from slave labor suddenly fell on people for a mistress with a fabulously villainous name does not mean great changes for the better. Against the background of the dominance of migrants, languish in urban slums and small scams as the main way of survival in the middle of a soulless stone metropolis, the naive, primitive peasant life of Inviolat and gratuitous service to the Marquise de Luna no longer seems to be something burdensome or miserable, since with the advent of civilization something important, elusive and authentic is so quickly destroyed.
As for acting, for Rorwacher, the naturalness and expressiveness of images are again much more important than the lyceum professionalism. Refusing the usual open casting, the director herself was looking for the performer of the role of Lazarus, since she needed a person who usually does not go to auditions - and did not fail. In the face of the unknown Adriano Tardiolo, Rorvacher found her hero, able to easily turn into a clumsy mattress from the province, whose functions are reduced to “give-take”, then into the embodied spirit of some saint, as if descended from icons or classical canvases, mesmerizing with an absent, but completely unearthly look, in which the sadness and wisdom of entire centuries are hidden. And because of these qualities, Lazarus is the most fragile and vulnerable character, not so much because of his boundless kindness and refusal to judge people for ignoble deeds, but because of the growing inability of modern society to dispose of the Miracle and appreciate it.
To be stupid and die asking for money for your abusers, is that holy?
What do we have here?
People have been deceived all their lives, but why, even in the city, have they not grown wise enough not to give away candy bought with the last money, as if they were slaves? They read the article! Why not teach the younger (at least them!) that you can master a profession and earn? Did they not give them housing, after all, it is not Russia?
In any case, in the detached fool who is used by everyone around him, and he humbly and without any questions fulfills these requests, there is nothing holy and bright. What if he was ordered to kill someone? Or do something bad under the guise of good? He would have done without thinking, just as he had pierced his hand, and most likely would not even have understood what evil is doing. Virtue is help, it is miracles that man himself creates, radically changing the reality around him. A good person must be reasonable at least, otherwise this kindness can be manipulated. Kindness and virtue are not to "take the music" and "come to the evil bank and talk nonsense," but to help his fellow men find their way, their business and their place, and as far as we can see, he did not cope with this task. Is it worthy of respect, reflection and film adaptation? I don't think so.
His death did not bring or change anything in these people or in the world. He might not have actually come back from there. To save people from slavery can be and end this film. Although, it would be interesting to see how they get used to urban rhythm and order for the first time. . .
The moment when children are brainwashed by religion to make them stupid is very revealing and true. In the same way, all these stories about martyrs are hammered into our heads to this day as the pinnacles of nobility and goodness, but goodness should be on par with justice, not with the inability to turn the situation in your favor and evidence!
From the very first shots, the joyful recognition of the familiar aesthetics – referring to the “Tree for Shoes” and the tradition of Italian classics as such – makes you immerse yourself in the world created by Rorwacher with trust and genuine interest. The remote village where the main characters – ordinary Italian peasants – live is an example of blatant lawlessness, as a certain Marquis de Luna keeps these people in slavery, without telling them anything about progress or about what age is in the court. In such laboratory conditions, they live and work, have children and die without thinking at all about protest and attempts to escape. Their very consciousness is arranged differently, which makes the unnatural for everyone seem normal to them. And one of them is a kid named Lazarus. He's kind of a local fool, although that's not entirely true. The point is in his incredible simplicity and naivety, which on the child’s surprised face are read by everyone without difficulty. It is not surprising that with this character, Lazarus turns into an errand boy, without experiencing any fatigue, resentment, or any signs of discontent. On the contrary, it feels calm businessability and willingness to do whatever is required.
Alas, the idyll of serene, albeit enslaved existence, is cut off somewhere in the middle, as the external world suddenly bursts into the life of the village, destroying its way of life to the ground. What will happen to Lazarus himself is not difficult to guess, given his name. Ridiculously dead and quietly resurrected, he, in general, and sees no difference. How almost no old acquaintances see her, with whom he will meet after many years (not even a minute has passed for him) and who will take him to their new world full of the same poverty and lawlessness. And here it becomes extremely clear that Lazarus is superfluous in him, that his sinless, non-malignant nature cannot be understood and accepted by others, mired in selfishness and material self-pleasure. It is as if he does not need anything, does not want anything - and yet an innocent look is constantly looking somewhere, freezing, unable to resist something.
With all the apparent clarity of this division into parts, the second of them seems much less authentic and fascinating, if you remember the beauty and amazing spans of the camera from the first, demonstrating the beauty of the divine world in the same way as the Taviani brothers did once. It seems that the transition from the existence of the village to the urban is like the transition from the old cinema to the modern, from neorealism to reality, much more true - but at the same time cruel and gray, not causing a trembling delight in the magic that seemed to be happening in the village. So the impression is mixed. On the one hand, Rorwacher is good, because he created a cinematic universe that combines both the present and the past – and allows you to speculate about the divine. Even if it's purely visual. On the other hand, there is something artificial, secondary in all this, which does not allow us to reach the level of soaring lightness with which Italian masters created before - when it was more appropriate and closer. Therefore, the film itself, like that village - like a fabulous corner lost in the world, mysterious and captivating - but with the fact that around, acclimating little.
6.5 out of 10
To live with wolves. Aliche Rorwacher skillfully plays with time, perfectly without science-like things like “time machine” or “time loops”. Lost among the mountains and valleys, the village of Inviolata, inhabited by peasants belonging to the Marquise, recalls its entry into the twentieth century except with electric light bulbs. Young Marquis Tancredi de Luna brings with him a cassette player, the sounds of disco from which take the viewer for decades to come. And then the game eventually turns into a dance around the simple-minded Lazarus of Inviolata, who is ready to help everyone, whether it is not too hard-working fellow villagers, spoiled Tancredi or marauders, ineptly pretending to be loaders. Working, thinking about the future rest, and having the opportunity not to work, think about how to prolong this state: “I exploit them”, says the Marquis, looking at Lazarus. This is a chain reaction that cannot be stopped. And here are valuable minutes and hours of rest add up in the years that devour you. “Give them freedom – and they realize that they are slaves locked in their sufferings” – for the aristocrat, freedom is painful, for the time of freedom-idleness becomes the worst enemy that sucks your life. By placing herself at the beginning of the chain of exploitation, the Marquis receives only dubious consolation in the form of power over the peasants, who call her a poisonous viper behind their eyes. Lazarus not only does not refuse to help, he also watches you, trying to understand what you need - he offers you his meager lunch, volunteered to make coffee, carry heavy things, without any face-to-face: sometimes the Marquis has to refuse to do nothing together to go to work. Fleeing from freedom and idleness, Lazarus escapes from the power of time, where your companions will be the freest and noblest of animals. The wolf, busy with his cares, even a distant howl can bring terror, but he is ready to meekly accept bread from the hands of the saint. Antonia kneels before her true freedom. The freedom that induces the poor to make an expensive gift for the rich or inspires the idea to engage simply in the hard work of agriculture for themselves (the slaves of time are not capable of such decisions), and in others causes the same horror, making a noble boy see the accuser of his unauthorized slavery. 9 out of 10 Original
This is only the third feature film by the young Italian director Aliche Rorvacher. The first two works “Heavenly Body” and “Miracles” were very warmly received by critics, the second work received the Grand Prix of the jury in Cannes. Like the first two works, this is the story of small, provincial Italy.
In the new work, the director connected feudalism in a single Italian village with the post-industrial era.
A little bit about the setting of the painting. The first part of the picture takes place in the small village of Imviolat, as an archaic island lost in the mountains where patriarchal relations between owners and peasants are preserved. In general, this is based on a real story that happened in Italy not so long ago, in order to avoid spoilers, I will not develop this line any more. The second part of the picture takes place in the modern Italian city.
The director was able to compose a universal plot, where feudal foundations and modern lifestyle are intertwined, choosing the biblical Lazarus as the prototype of the main character. All the miracles that occur in the film come from a village simple-minded, in some ways even naive, kind man named Lazarus.
The first part of the picture is served as some kind of paradise, here is almost an idyll and the transition to the second part of the picture is served as a kind of exile from paradise, only not for sins, but because now it is not so.
In the city, the peasants do not find themselves and their expulsion turns into serious consequences for them, they join the ranks of migrants and other declassed people. What about the main character? Returning to the city, he also cannot find himself, but to a much greater extent than the rest, he, like his biblical prototype, tries to work miracles, to help people, but the only miracle he does is to take music from the temple. In the finale of the film, the hero appears to us as a kind of martyr, but unlike the biblical heroes, he is unlikely to be elevated to his prototypes. Why? The time is probably not the same.
The whole style of the film can probably be labeled as magical realism. Where everything seems to be real, we see that it is our world, our life, but miracles happen in it. Maybe these miracles are not so global, but they are. This picture is very nostalgic for the director. It gives her memories of her childhood in the Tuscan province. Nostalgic stylistics is created by the frame itself, the corners of which are slightly cropped, which creates the feeling that you are looking at old photos, in addition, the graininess of the picture and very colorful saturation.
This movie is very metaphorical here a lot of archaic images, but relevant to this day. Whether it is peasants who are afraid to cross the river to the depth of the ankle or a wolf who does not kill a person because he feels that a kind person (unlike people).
Overall, Aliche Rorwacher has created a very personal, incredibly tactile picture and at the same time incredibly comprehensive. It is a pity that this work was not much appreciated by awards. In Cannes, only the best screenplay prize and nothing at the Euro Oscars. Nevertheless, this is definitely one of the strongest author’s works of 2018 from, let me remind you once again, a very young Italian director and with a non-professional actor in the lead role.
Provincial sunny Italy. Skinny and colorful. Fertile and measured. Perhaps paradise on earth should look like this. Maybe that's what he is.
The tiny village of Inviolata is inhabited by ordinary peasants. They live according to a predetermined schedule, as if descended from heaven, and do not think about their purpose: with the first rays of the sun they begin to work, in the evening with a guitar and homemade wine the whole community is located at the hayval, cheerfully and carefree talking about nothing. In Inviolat, as if there is neither time nor progress: even a light bulb is only one in fifty people.
Among these simple working people lives a young man with a pure enlightened gaze, meek, silent and mysteriously quiet. A little naive, but at first glance disposed to himself. It's Lazzaro. He has no parents, no one knows where he came from. Like everyone else, he just works from dawn to dusk, dousing himself with sweat. However, even after an exhausting day of work, a barely distinguishable blissful smile does not come off his face.
One day, Lazzaro falls off a cliff. He lies facing the earth, whether fifteen, twenty, or thirty years. A wolf approaches his lifeless body, but as if finding something native in Lazzaro, the predator leaves him. Lazzaro himself gets up, shakes off and, still smiling, looks at the changed world.
Resurrection. A miracle.
Italian director Aliche Rorvacher, perhaps, can be attributed to a cohort of selected filmmakers, able to his creation to enter the audience in a state of awe. Without excessive pathos, without superficial flaunting with skills and education, she appeals to her special simple, but to the point of insanity, beautiful and elegant film language to the inner graces inherent in each, so often deliberately buried. Rorwacher seems to remind his viewer that he is, first of all, a person.
“Happy Lazarus” is a movie in which, of course, there will be a place for politics and criticism of the existing world order as a whole. How else, if holiness and kindness are often ridiculed and taken for weakness? But it's all under our feet. There is a desire to forget about the mundane swarming and soar with music, touching the sky. Dissolve in sparkling holiness and become a spirit, forever transcending time and space, remain in eternity.
Such a fate, most likely, awaits a quiet, seemingly humble picture. I want to believe that.
Titian, Tintoretto and Veronese were attached to the plots of biblical stories, capturing them in their paintings, preserved classics of art, inspired by previous and current generations, now more committed to progressive cinema, habitually returning to the lives of saints and preaching the truths revealed by them, which did not fail to remember Aliche Rorvacher, mirroring in the script of his film the traces of a medieval righteous man who was now found in a dusty Italian village with burdened himself and given to them by the participation of the inhabitants, who were obliged to pass through their life from the inside.
It is extremely difficult to evaluate a film that requires absolute resonance with the events, incidents and accidents unfolding in it, putting the main character and his accompanying characters in the position of victims who have conceded honor and guilty, when you are required to get into the mood of a director illustrating his images, inspired by an obviously close reality, which does not create a solid ground for a wide interest, starting from the methodically calibrated style of Italian classicism with its refined and spiritual trepidation, dissonant with the dynamic rhythm of the modern film time, which the righteful audience does not return to its valued audience.
What is happiness? Do you think everyone has their own? No, it's not about happiness, it's about something from the mind. And happiness is a perception of the world... it is... consonant in every heart. How is that? Lazarus will tell us. Not in words, of course, can it be put into words? He doesn't say much at all - a perfect character - but two hours of screen time you look at him and don't come off - an icon - that association comes.
Lucky Lazarus (Lazzaro felice, 2018) is a retro picture, like photos in an old photo album - even the corners of the screen are rounded. As if accidentally wandered into an abandoned Italian estate and found a music box in the attic, or a music ashtray - such as in the film - the director plays great with this through detail. As with others.
Recently, audiences around the world gave their hearts to Japanese director Hirokazu Koreeda, who in his film “Shop Thieves” so fully revealed the theme of love that it is possible not to return to it. Italian director Aliche Rorwacher did the same with the theme of happiness. Both, by the way, received the Palme d'Or - Koreeda for the film, Rorwacher for the script. Why just the script? Fans lament. Only? Yes, there is such a fine lace that it is on the script that you want to emphasize and line the author’s bed with golden palm branches.
How to write a story where the main character is in full acceptance of what is happening? Where in this case to lead the story, how to create tension? It's a special gift of a storyteller. With gentle touches, Aliche leads the story in the right direction, creates a voluminous, living world around Lazarus, where the accurately drawn real and easy breath of the irrational, surrealistic merge. It naturally weaves the lines of characters into the canvas of being.
Minute by minute you get happiness. The film is healing on the deepest level. And it seems that the director did not set himself such a task, but it happened. This is always the case when the author carries light. Absolutely bright this story can not be called, it is permeated with longing - longing for the world, innocence, happiness, paradise ... But it is this longing that makes you feel full... valuable. Just for a moment. And heading this way. This is a great movie to watch in the run-up to Christmas.
Aliche Rorwacher made a noisy shot at the Cannes festival, where Lazar was one of the main favorites in the opinion of viewers and critics, but received only the prize for best script, which, by the way, is also more than justified. Expectations were high, and it is safe to say that the director almost completely justified them.
Lazarus is a name in any case found in the Bible, as long as you do not twist this book, and there are objectively acceptable analogies to this character. But no matter how much you call the movie “happy”, it will still read “saint”, with all the presence or absence of motives. The funny thing is, on the one hand, the director is as far away as possible from this believing miracle, on the other hand, it is this miracle that the film lives on. Drawing analogies not Christian, but artistic, the memory immediately reproduces the picture of Vittorio De Sica “Miracle in Milan”, and it seems that Aliche managed to catch the wave of the real Italian cinema, which went along with his geniuses, which speaks about the fairy tale and beauty of the world around, interspersed with social status and poverty. He does not stop at the usual soot of the world, but tries to blur it with the help of faith in accidental magic.
To its next advantage, the film has a two-part structure. In the first part, Lazarus is a member of a family that is enslaved by a family of landowners who exploit them in every possible way, and does not even realize that the time when people could belong to someone is long over. Friendship with Lazarus begins the son of the mistress, who invents his kidnapping and asks Lazarus to become his kidnapper. Since a gullible guy never refuses anyone, trying to help and show his kindness at every opportunity, he easily agrees to friendship and any other service.
It seems that the end of the twentieth century, and the world is modern, and the difference between people is colossal, and their position is still caused by their archaic status. The countryside, expressed in one abstract Italian village, pierces with its artistic motifs - classical painting, where small, shaded people trample the land on all planes, working for the benefit of their master. Yes, there is also Lazarus with the whole appearance of the Renaissance and the tragedy of the realization that no epoch has been revived since that one.
The second part exactly copies the first, only at the time of its operation dominion and land domination have already been abolished. This time the banking system, which once again bent under itself humanity and leaned on it. The appearance of Lazarus here takes place in the name of the miraculous - all the characters of the first part by the time of the second have grown old and moved to the city, which pulls all the juices from them as much as the earth, but Lazarus remained himself, both externally and internally.
He's really not from this world, a naive and trusting person on top of all the world's frustrations, he takes music from those who are really unworthy of it. Is there anything more realistic than this?
Rorwacher’s film is first of all a smart and reliable movie, giving confidence to its viewer that it has a view of the problem, the situation and the assessment of the possibility of identifying the surrounding reality, which never changes. The director does not try to look beyond what is already visible, but she insists on seeing what is happening before your eyes every day. It's not a protest, nothing in the film speaks louder than its characters, nothing speaks louder than Lazarus, every element is a hope that things can change, it's the same credulous fairy tale in which belief in a strange miracle that is called kindness and compassion comes first. Rorwacher is so candid in her picture that any scene from it literally looks “holy”, only this word does not have its usual holiness. It is filled with happiness, even if it is imbued with hatred.
A city is like a village, all people are a product of one life, all good deeds are a reflection of the only right way. Everyone can be resurrected if they have the opportunity to show their kindness. No wolf will go against it, because it cannot hide what lies in it as well as in every other creature.
Kindness.
And he said to him, “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, they will not believe even if one rises from the dead” (Luke 16:31).
Thus ends the parable of Jesus Christ about the rich man and Lazarus, which tells how the rich man who went to hell appeals to Abraham and the poor Lazarus in the womb with a request to alleviate suffering. Abraham refuses, claiming that the rich man received enough good in this world, and therefore is doomed to eternal punishment. Then the rich man asks Lazarus to raise from the dead and warn his surviving brothers that they would not commit a fatal mistake, adding that they would not listen to Moses and other prophets, but they would certainly believe the dead man who descended from heaven. However, Abraham rejected the request completely. And yet Lazarus will rise again, only in the Gospel not from Luke, but from John, and Lazarus will be another from Bethany, also called Lazarus the Four Days. It was on the fourth day after Lazarus’ death that Jesus came to bring him back to life. Thus, from the New Testament we learn about the existence of two Lazarus, and the history of one of them, a beggar, goes back to the Old Testament past. But it is precisely this past that is implanted in the modern plot of the Italian Aliche Rorwacher, who was awarded in Cannes for best script.
Somewhere in the Tuscan wilderness, far, far in the mountains, stands the estate of the Marquis de Luna. There, half a hundred peasants work on tobacco plantations in the hope that they will be able to reduce debts this year. Cut off from the world by a single bridge destroyed, they do not know about wages, taxes, their rights or what age they are today, and therefore work serenely for the landowner, like black slaves for the mistress in Lars von Trier’s Manderley. A special hard work is distinguished by the village simpleton Lazar (Adriano Tardiolo). On the cliff, far from the estate, there is a sheep pen, where Lazarus has a secret place to relax. One day he shows this place to the son of the Marquis, a blond peer of Tancredi (Luka Chikovani). Tancredi is bored with his parents, so he decides to prank them and simulates his own kidnapping. No one takes the boy’s trick seriously, except his sister, who will soon call the police. She arrives in a helicopter, scaring the local peasants. One of them, looking, even falls from a multimeter cliff and breaks. This is our Lazarus.
However, he did not crash to death, but lay in the grass, until the wild wolf began to smell him, as in the painting of the Russian painter Fyodor Bronnikov, who lived in Italy, depicted the heroes of the above-mentioned parable of Christ. After the symbolic act, Lazarus seems to wake up from a long sleep, unharmed rises to his feet and goes to the already destroyed estate. With the awakening (or resurrection) of Lazarus, the film Rorwacher seems to throw on itself a mystical robe, in which the remaining journey will be one hour long. Since the wild wolf witnesses Lazarus’ awakening, the predatory animal will become an integral figure of the narrative, nothing less than the divine spirit that resurrected the protagonist. However, the wolf is mentioned in the Happy Lazarus many times before, in particular in the tale of the wolf and sheep, told by peasants. It's about fear in the face of danger, or rather fear, which, as it turns out, has big eyes. The fear of the wolf is nothing but a fear inspired by someone to fight off the herd and become the victim of a merciless predator.
Meanwhile, the predatory nature of the wolf does not prove its hostility to man, although the peasants are convinced otherwise. But, in that case, what is a dog, if not a domesticated wolf, capable of protecting a sheep herd? With this well-known domestication one would like to bring to mind the origins of man’s relation to the wolf as a deified animal. Not only Slavic mythology, but also ancient Greek and Roman mythology confirm the cult of the wolf as the god of abundance and procreation, which was the cause of many agrarian rites. Thus, the incarnation of God in the wolf in Rorwacher is not accidental, because in her picture she raises the problem of the withering away of agricultural culture and the migration of villagers to industrial cities and megacities.
After waking up, Lazarus walks from the estate on the road. He's never gone this far. Along the way, he meets radio towers, factories, refugees, ready to do any work for pennies. He meets his visibly aged Marquis, who would like to ask why there is no one left in the estate, but he drives him away in anger, leaving him unanswered. The answer is that several decades have passed since the police found the peasants, and the Marquis de Luna family has become impoverished. This is reported to Lazarus by Antonia (Alba Rorwacher, the older sister of the director), who saw Lazarus on the estate as a little girl. Now Antonia, along with other homeless people, is forced to beg and engage in robbery. Migrants and immigrants from the Tuscan estate are afraid, consider him a ghost, because he has not aged at all and wears the same village clothes.
In fact, Lazarus is nothing but a ghost. Lazarus is the ghost of the forgotten past, the shadow of a man inextricably connected with nature, a conditional forefather for people who have lost their former destiny. He will tell them about each plant that grows under their feet and explain which one is edible. Dark-faced, dark-haired, brown-eyed Lazarus is in many ways similar to Jelsomina, the heroine of Rorwacher’s previous film, “Miracles”, which won the Grand Prix of the jury in 2014. But these similarities are by no means limited to external features: Jelsomina, like Lazarus, a villager who does not imagine herself outside the village way of life. But isn’t the whole first half of “Happy Lazarus” a repetition of “Miracles” with its pastoral landscapes, primitive life and equally primitive people? Depicting the idyllic microcosm in the civilizational space of the macrocosm, Rorwacher to some extent gives grounds to justify the marquise, who wanted to preserve this idyll.
Together with the homeless Lazarus comes to the Catholic Church, where organ music plays, but inside only a few nuns, who hastily drive away the crowd. With the departure of Lazarus and his company, the church music leaves the walls and the keys of the organ cease to make sounds, as if the Holy Spirit had left a Christian monument to be entirely with man. Perhaps Lazarus in Rorwacher, like the Son of God, becomes the messiah who came to atone for the sins of the villagers who became refugees. At least his fate is also tragically predetermined. But what matters here is not so much Lazarus himself as his appearance in the two-part composition of the film, which is the Old Testament and the New. In the first half, society on the estate is built on the basis of subordination, and the conditional God (the wolf of legends or the marquis) keeps the peasants in fear. In the second half, after the fall of Lazarus, the viewer is given to understand that the wolf is not dangerous and is present at the moment of suffering. And it is the idea of salvation and redemption through Lazarus that is taken as the basis of the second part of the picture.