I can not remember any successful direct port of theatrical performance on the big screen and this tape is no exception.
With direct porting, the viewer is pulled out of the auditorium, offering to watch the performance through the eyes of the operator, who is in the thick of the action, but with external similarity, the languages of theater and cinema are fundamentally different and what works perfectly in the first case ceases to work in the second.
In particular, gestures, facial expressions and dialogues in the theater should be much more emotional, so that the viewer from any row understands the intensity of the drama, but when you also see the close-up magic collapses and there is a feeling of being on a children's matinee, where adult uncles and aunts frankly crooked.
Due to the destruction of the magic of immersion, standard theatrical technical crutches begin to catch the eye in the form of a constant movement of actors around the stage depending on who is friends with whom and technical pauses, because of which plot conventions begin to emerge.
In this case, I will not even raise the question of the complete perversion of the nature of psychotherapy. Even if you take all the conventions of the plot for granted, then by the end it is not clear why for whom all this was started did not suspect a threat and did not leave?
That would somehow explain why all participants of “psychotherapy” resent what is happening, but do not leave the action is divided into 8 acts, each of which corresponds to the envelope left by the psychologist with the task. However, due to this breakdown, it seems that the actors have operational memory of the level of aquarium fish and the horn, which marks the end of the task and the transition to the next, this very not rich memory is zeroed.
In the theatrical format, such a plot structure, with all its conventions, is a standard working scheme, but to perceive this in the cinema requires effort and frank disregard of many conventions, which is not given to everyone, because of which, personally, the wind walked to the climax in my head, and at the moment of the final plot twist instead of the planned “Wow!” That's a turn!, only "Yes, of course I believe..."
The result was another passing film adaptation of the play, which killed the spirit of the theatrical production did not bring anything to replace the movie.
6 out of 10
The genre of the film is billed as a comedy movie, but! The plot of the picture says that this is not only a comedy, but also a melodrama, which in the course of the development of the plot is transformed into a psychological film with elements of a detective, and by the end it completely acquires the features of a psychological thriller!
And everything begins very harmlessly: six people (three pairs of woman + man) gather in one room, coming to a family therapy session. The psychologist remains behind the scenes (only her name is voiced), because she leaves tasks for family friends. As soon as couples discuss the given task, they move on to the next one and so on.
It all begins in a very harmless way: one couple talks about their teenage son who has problems at school that stem from certain conflict situations in the family. The deeper the plot, the more serious the problems, each of the participants in such collective therapy does not get tired of sarcastic and joking, giving the public their opinion on a particular situation and that the parties all this looks quite easy and at ease.
On the example of the characters, the viewer finds a reflection of their situations in his life. Not all situations apply to everyone, but some of them can be attributed to me, to someone else, to another viewer or reader.
PERSONAGE
- Carla (Eva Ugarte) and Esteban (Antonio Pagudo). He's a personal buyer, she's an architect. They have been together for a long time, but they live separately.
- Laura (Alexandra Jimenez) and Daniel (Fele Martinez). He's a businessman, she's a lawyer. They are the longest married, but can not come to a consensus on any issue.
Marta (Malena Alterio) and Roberto (Juan Carlos Vellido). He's a salesman, she's a former kindergarten teacher. They've been married for 9 years, but why? After all, Martha takes the character of her husband hard.
Every couple has their own problems. In principle, there is nothing surprising and unusual. The creators of the film, which is based on the play, do not invent the wheel. They just project everyday, household, family problems on the screen. And although the characters try to veil / disguise their problems, the viewer still accurately reads the information issued.
It becomes quite obvious that the good old saying “wouldn’t be so funny if it weren’t so sad” fits for this picture.
But if a solid part of the timekeeping is really a comedy (still some of the characters float on a positive wave), in which you can really see the comic nature of conflicting family situations through tears, then the final minutes are already psychology and a thriller.
At one point, the plaque of mockery and poking fun at the “problem patient” disappears when one sharp question is asked. Which looks like both the participants of psychotherapy and the viewer the mask of comedy, exposing the grin of hatred and malice.
The final part of the picture is what can be considered the culmination of the entire narrative. This family abscess had been brewing for so long, and by the end it had burst. And it was exciting, cool and interesting.
But look at you. I do not impose my opinion on anyone.
The movie is a game. The psychologist organizes the next session in the form of collective psychotherapy. Three couples (patients of a psychotherapist) are invited for a joint session with a psychologist without the presence of the psychologist. They are offered a game in the form of answers to questions. Questions 8, they are sealed in envelopes with serial numbers. Couples take turns opening them and begin to respond. Discussion begins, which is always violent, on the verge of scandal, and sometimes fights. Everything ends in the most unexpected way to the amazement of the viewer. A very high quality film in every way. Everything is done, in my opinion, so that there is nothing to complain about.
Three married couples get into an unusual session of a psychologist. Instead of the specialist in the room, the participants were waiting for sealed envelopes and instructions for their gradual opening. Intrigued by this know-how, three men and three women enthusiastically opened the envelopes. Inside were tasks that turned out to be simple: to tell something about yourself, while others in the room had to give an assessment and comment.
For an hour and a half, the viewer will listen to stories from the life of the gathered, delving into their family problems. The whole film is built on dialogue, that is, all screen time heroes just communicate with each other. Laura and Esteban have problems with her son and personal life, Karla does not want to move to live with Daniel, although they have been dating for a long time, and Martha does not want to take the garbage out of the house, telling how she wanted to take her own life and ended up at a reception with a psychologist.
These stories, in my opinion, will be interesting to listen only to those viewers who already have families and children, who are in a long relationship or who have an inner age of many over thirty. Young people are unlikely to like the film, because in addition to stories and dialogues, in which the characters either solidarity with each other, then sluggishly conflict, then try to prick, there is nothing else. Well, almost. If you look at the end, there will be a bonus.
It seems that the creators of the film when writing the script did not know how to complete all this talk, so in the end they decided to deceive the viewer, practically reducing the entire hour and a half of stories to zero. After viewing, there is an unpleasant sludge, which contrasts sharply with the positive and enthusiasm that strangers talked about. Maybe that's what it was designed to be. Here, why? Once again, in favor of the European mainstream agenda of feminism, poke, which men are their own, and women are victims of permanent male aggression?
Despite the ambiguous ending, the film itself looks quite easy and is swallowed over a cup of coffee with a croissant with a hurrah... unless, of course, you start turning your nose or yawning from the problems about which the characters tell: how to raise a child, whether you need to read correspondence in the phone of your spouse, etc. All the problems went very superficially, so some meanings, which you have not thought about or read about before, is unlikely to get for yourself.
5 out of 10
Every director needs his Garage, and Gerardo Herrero did not stand aside, making his chamber film without a plot, where the stakes are the script and acting.
If you operate with genre terms, it is a comedy, except that the finale is not as fun as they try to set us up for an hour and a half of timekeeping. The rules of the game are simple: not everything is so clear and no one can be trusted. In the best traditions of “Ideal Strangers” (original “Loud Communication”), you are waiting for capacious dialogue-fights, colorful and steeply spelled characters and a claustrophobic mood. After the film screening, there is a feeling that he actually visited a collective session with a psychologist. The guiding idea is fire, albeit opportunistic for Europe: the 'Me2' movement, condemning patriarchy, abusive and toxic relations within the family, which should not be kept silent. Yes, with a similar meaning, I have seen a lot of film works, but this picture is remembered by the fact that it really looks like a long-released Ryazanov film in form, so comparisons are after all appropriate, while it is both humorous and dramatic, and even more so the cult film Eldar is ahead of the cool finale.
Acting is great, even though I don’t know anyone. Everyone played their roles well and deservedly receive praise for their efforts. The camera work and editing are normal, but for the sake of form, you could do more long plans, and even better, shoot everything in one take, like Phil Barantini in Boiling Point. Rather, not a minus, as a personal remark that does not affect perception. Sound design is virtually non-existent, as it is a conversational chamber film with no explicit soundtrack and effects. Post-production failed to appreciate due to dubbing.
Bajo terapia is a beautiful feminist manifesto in the real world of 2023. Exciting, fascinating, funny, but with a bitter aftertaste on the final credits. You have to watch it.
Ryazanovsky Garage, Polansky’s Massacre, Genovese’s Ideal Strangers, French Name, American Confessions... Some argue about household, professional and property issues, somewhere discuss personal life, and somewhere even decide together how to live after a boy from one family killed a peer from another. Such a wide variety of semantic content, with seemingly conventionally the same form of presentation of material and used artistic techniques (camera of what is happening, several mandatory stages of the development of the conversation and continuous debate throughout the entire timekeeping of the film), that it is time to talk about such an independent genre as conversational cinema. At the same time, it does not matter whether it is a comedy or a tragedy, the main thing is whether you are hooked by this or that story proposed by the authors, and how close the ideas embedded in it are to you in terms of views, interests, values. In other words, there are two conditional baskets where you will want to put such statements on a variety of topics after watching - green or red, because the intermediate version here, as a rule, is not given.
In this regard, it is noteworthy that the Spanish novelty of 2023 "What Strangers Talk About" ("Bajo terapia"), with all the reservations and footnotes on the margins up to the very end, begs for the chosen ones, and not for the dump. An invisible psychologist gathered three completely different unsuspecting couples of her clients in one place at the same time for a group therapy session. Participants in such a psychological experiment must take turns to open envelopes prepared in advance especially for them by a prudent psychologist, and publicly answer questions posed there. About their problems, about personal experiences, about the troubles in family life, about their attitude to many things of everyday life and even about intimate secrets. The action develops quite cheerfully, the confessions of the characters, their arguments and hamstrings of each other do not give much to get bored, and the topics raised for discussion are quite curious, except perhaps for one of the last envelopes about sexual preferences, which is given too much screen time to suspect the authors of the script in some typical for Spanish cinema excessive concern with this aspect.
However, everything that was positive in the picture is completely crossed out by a ridiculous ending, because of which “Bajo terapia” instead of the virtual green box with a heart already prepared for her flies straight into the garbage bin.
And here?! Again? The very old record, which has not just become obsolete in recent years of observation by the side of what is happening in “their Europes”, but naturally causes irritation and rejection, because as you know, the force of action is equal to the force of resistance. It is clear that someone who hurts, he says, and that the problem of domestic violence (as well as sexual) actually exists, but once it is blown into the ears of each iron for a decade in the order of an immutable ultimatum, when you analyze in detail individual stories and cover the overall picture, then a real manic hysteria emerges, and instead of an immune response to the disease, the cells of this sick organism (i.e., society) begin to devour themselves.
One gets the feeling that the film was commissioned by some movement of feminist activists, which sees evil in everything old and traditional, and announces a witch hunt against those who do not want to renounce the way of life and those conservative attitudes according to which civilization has lived for centuries. Now it turns out that children are somehow incorrectly brought up (you can not say the word “no” to the child and even lightly give a butt if he is ugly), and no one owes anything to anyone (wife to husband, husband to wife, children to parents, etc.), and gender cannot be forbidden to change teenagers at their first desire, and in general everything that was previously taught about family and family relationships is fundamentally wrong. About the same new textbooks and concepts of the “open society” put poor Harvey Weinstein in prison, and then almost put Woody Allen in prison. Just because they pointed the finger at them at some point, they say, he molested me a number of years ago. Was, was not? How do you check? No way! The honest word "victim" is enough to put a man behind bars and ruin his life. Just because they were real men, not gays, transvestites, spineless heels, and more because they chose someone else in the end (by the way, Catherine Deneuve is smart enough to understand this, the rabid feminists who, apparently, determine the politics of most Western countries – definitely not). I've always been amused by procedural moments, how can you prove a crime in such cases? She says one thing, he says another, there are no witnesses, irrefutable evidence, too. Oh, don't care! We recall “The Hunt” by Thomas Winiteberg, perfectly demonstrating the “party line” with my own eyes: a little girl invented something, a man was ruined by fate.
Same eggs, only in profile, and in the movie "What Strangers Talk About." The Spaniards generally like to work out a “progressive” quasi-liberal agenda more zealously than others, they have not betrayed themselves even now. Only instead of a little girl, here is a lady drunk in the ass, whose head is bad after a long depression. The next morning, the drunken “guilty of the banquet” will invariably realize that she committed a huge stupidity, but the story about this, of course, is silent. As for the plot move itself, we are faced with an implausible pun, about which exactly one question arises: and it was worth it for the sake of such a finale an hour and a half town to town, playing the theater of Baba Fisa, because, judging by news reports, it is now much easier there? According to Gerardo Herrero and Co, it was definitely worth it, because it is necessary to show everything that is old, traditional and plant new “correct” ideas, in which there is a place for everyone... a handsome womanizer who goes to the shops according to the instructions of housewives, and another with a strained smile who endures any insult from his wife... everyone except an ordinary man with conservative values, who first timidly supported male solidarity on some issues raised, and then refused to discuss his intimate life with strangers. Perhaps this is his greatest sin, for I, as a spectator with legal education and practice, have never seen irrefutable evidence of other terrible crimes against women around the world, or at least one of them.
Careful! After reading the film, it may be even less interesting to watch.
I am a lover of chamber films. And the localizers tell us plainly: Look, it's something between 'What Men Talk About' and 'Perfect Strangers', but unfortunately, this movie doesn't make it to any of those. The skeletons in the closet aren't that bad. Slept, cheated. That was the end of the fantasy. However, I was interested in following two couples who had charisma and some confrontation. And now the envelopes are coming to an end, and there is no solution to the conflict. What a disappointment it was that it was a performance for four actors and three spectators. As much as I don’t like movies where everything is a dream or a vision, I’ve been saddened by the simple decision to get out of the story’s deadlock. Crutch. And if “Ideal Strangers” you want to review, the first “What Men Talk About” you want to pull out for quotes, then “Bajo terapia” you only want to look sadly and forget, because you do not want to watch it a second time, knowing that everything you see will be crossed out and thrown away.
6 out of 10
A real movie. Everything is fine, including a theme or idea, which is rare nowadays. I will not say that there should be many films on this topic, but he took his rightful place.
Watching the film did not give me much pleasure, unfortunately, it is completely secondary, all the problems that are raised and voiced here, they are practically not relevant for those who have studied the genre of psychological tragicomedy.
Typical problems of married couples, each with its own pattern of interaction. It should be noted that the problem itself is very characteristic of Western Europe, where this work was actually shot. If you extrapolate the whole situation to the more eastern regions, there is likely to be either a deaf misunderstanding or slight shades of interest due to the fact that someone from friends and acquaintances went through such a thing.
The dialogues themselves are quite strained, the game of envelopes is interesting, but unfortunately, not disclosed. In general, the cinema is completely the scenery for the ending, which will surprise the inexperienced viewer.
I’m one of the viewers who got bored from the first minute, so I watched the movie in an accelerated mode. Not expecting anything from him, the ending surprised me and that is why I gave the work a rating above three.
I don’t recommend it, it’s a pretty weak movie. A work is difficult to be good if everything that happens in it is just a scenery for an unexpected denouement. It feels like your attention was just being used.
Couples discuss their family issues, which leads to unpredictable consequences. A similar plot (in this case, the play by Matias del Federico) has long and firmly entered the cinematic world. Director Gerardo Herrero performed his task perfectly, although, based on his filmography, there were suspicions that the director would not do much. The picture keeps in suspense until the final, despite a fairly academic pitch. There are no visual chips or fashionable camera twists (as, in fact, in “Perfect Strangers” by Paolo Genovese), but there is an excellent script basis, woven from percussion comedic moments that instantly and gracefully turn into sad drama and back. The balance of tragicomedy with a shade of sadness is brilliantly verified here. The camera moves rapidly and smoothly from one character to another, focusing on faces, details and nuances, and watching what is happening is incredibly interesting. Artists in the frame are good - each has its own memorable type and image, and all are harmonious in the overall ensemble. The brightest was Antonio Pagudo, but he also has a more juicy, humorous and temperamental character, and it is extremely pleasant to look at the sexy and attractive Eva Ugarte. The final twist here is very unexpected and spectacular and here’s something, and you definitely do not expect such a development of the event. As a result, fans of near-theatrical conversational chamber film in the style of “Perfect Strangers” – definitely in the recommendation! Good genre work with a non-standard finale.
Three couples, unknown to each other but united by the same therapist, Antonia, come to group therapy. It should ideally help them deal with the key issues that create disagreements in their couples. They gather in some art workshop, they are surrounded by large paintings on the walls, and in general the whole interior inspires the belief that it was created by a man with taste. Only this does not alleviate the state of distrust in people gathered within these walls, they look at each other in distrust and do not understand the main thing – where their therapist is. But the answer is not long in coming – she left envelopes for her patients with tasks that will need to be performed individually and in a group.
Localized translation serves advertising purposes. I understand it’s a selling name because the wording has become popular and appealing. And comedic showdowns between friends like Perfect Strangers (2015, Perfetti sconosciuti), Loud Communication (2018) and Perfect Strangers (2017, Perfectos desconocidos) tend to resonate positively. In general, to be more precise, I think the success of this format was achieved thanks to the successful combination of comedy and drama. It’s like Roman Polanski’s Carnage (2011) and John Wells’ August: Osage County (2013).
It is already possible to introduce a separate genre for the film “stranger’s talking” (stranger’s talking) to immediately give the viewer an understanding of how the film as a whole will look like – a large number of dialogues, details about the characters, everyone is suspected of dark deeds and bad thoughts, which increases the degree of intrigue and does not let you get bored, as well as a closed space where the participants in the story are “locked”.
The new film Bajo Terapia (the name of which translates to “In therapy”, which best reflects meaning) from this category combines comedy, drama, and a social agenda.
The film was directed by Spanish director and founder of the Madrid Film School Gerardo Herrero. The film was released by Tornasol Films, which he founded in 1987.
It is based on the debut play of the same name by Argentine playwright Matias del Federico. The premiere of the play Bajo Terapia took place in 2015 at the Metropolitan Theater in Buenos Aires and stayed in the repertoire for two years, and then another year toured throughout the country.
The plot of the drama Herrero moves on humor, which ' sewn' into the narrative is very organic. It does not make the film a comedy, the stick is not overexposed with jokes, it is used very vitally, it creates a feeling of very lively dialogue, in life this too could sound.
In this film, in the end, everything is not as it seems, and there is no aggression in the disclosure of the topic, the narrative is built so that it smoothly leads to the main problem, revealing it as much as possible to the final scene. Metaphorically speaking, he does not show blood, but explains the horror in a very clear way. The final twist surprised me and pleased me with the film when I was almost bored.
The physical absence of the therapist among the actors suggests one thing: that people themselves must find solutions without placing responsibility on a third person; therapy is communication in itself in isolation from the specialist – this is what Antonia’s absence says.
People tend to draw attention to themselves, not caring about what is happening in another, and it is important to attract attention to themselves and speak their problems out loud, because their inner experience leads to self-destruction.
Humor in the foreground serves as an element that makes this film so realistic. Gathering together, strangers mask their embarrassment with jokes, an unfamiliar company allows you to be a “different” person, but sooner or later people become bolder – it’s not just that the tasks in the therapist’s letters become more complex, at some point she asks the couple to talk about their intimate life. And the theme of sex acts as a trigger for more deeply revealing characters.
I watched the film in one breath - so long it seemed like a chamber action, but full of drama, secrets, revelations for one, but such an important recognition. . .
The authors of the films very well played on the irresistible human desire to gawk into the keyhole on someone else’s “dirty underwear”. And in the end they gave an absolutely unexpected denouement ...
Three couples are invited to a pretty and quite spacious apartment, where to relieve tension you can have a light drink and snack, blow into the horn and lie on cozy sofas. All gathered invisible doctor-psychoanalyst, who believed that such a non-standard group session will help to solve problems in their relationship.
There's no point in retelling the story. But definitely watch this movie.
- If you like slow psychological detectives, theater, unexpected plot twists,
- If you prefer to see good acting and charismatic characters on the screen,
- If you are drawn into all these eternal arguments and heated debates about the role of men and women in the modern family...
And yes, if you are married or married, hug your spouse and be sure to watch.
But don't expect to see a comedy here. What Strangers Talk About is a serious social drama with detective elements.
On the screen throughout the film for you will be skillfully played non-trivial psychological combination, the outcome of which you are unlikely to guess!
Perhaps the problem with such pictures is that it will be difficult for the viewer who knows the finale to repeat the initial emotions of delight and surprise. But, it seems to me, this is the film that will definitely get into the collection and want to review it more than once.
As a result, for the pleasure, for the brilliant, almost theatrical play of the actors, for the filigree done by the authors of the film focus on the finish line - this magnificent film definitely receives the highest rating!
10 out of 10
I went to the film What strangers talk about with little expectations, but the film surprised me pleasantly.
And so what the film is about is that there are three couples who all have their own cockroaches and relationship problems. And to somehow solve them, they go to a therapist.
And now they have another session, but it will be a real surprise and revelation for everyone.
Their general psychotherapist decided to arrange a group session for everyone so that everyone shared about the pain and listened to an opinion from the outside.
So one couple lives about 20 years, she's a lawyer, he's an accountant. They have two children and problems with an older teenage child. They always argue and can not come to one opinion.
The second couple is an architect, a personal buyer. They have been dating for about 3 years, but can’t get together and live together. They have great relationships both in bed and in life, but the only problem is living together.
And the third couple, he's a salesman, she's at home, she used to work in kindergarten. He is constantly monitoring her and doesn’t say anything.
And they all came together for one of the couples, but you'll see that at the end of the movie. It was a very unusual turn.
And so the film has a lot of humor, good dialogue and a lot of topics that will interest you. For example, the topic of abusive, the topic of who is what in bed, the topic of raising children and others.
You watch and listen to the characters and you start to compare a little bit how I do.
So I think it will be useful to watch the film paired with your soul mate. I think it is necessary to openly discuss everything as the heroes of this film.
So everyone enjoy watching and don't hide our skeletons in the skin.
The film was an unexpected surprise, because both the trailers and seeing the average ratings it was difficult to say that the project may surprise, but still he succeeded. According to the synopsis, my first association was "Ideal Strangers", released in 2015 in Italy and subsequently received many adaptations in other countries. But the feeling is deceptive, the new film tells about the meeting of 3 couples, thanks to the psychotherapist Anthony, whom they all go to. And he tells cheerfully, cheerfully, interesting and even can surprise the plot.
The production sometimes knocked me out of the narrative, at times there was a lack of common plans with all the characters, and the eye was tired of the constant ' defect' from hero to hero, but sometimes these close-ups were so to place. . .
But despite the fact that almost the entire film takes place in one room, the interior is not boring, and the room where the main communication takes place is always replaced by another in time, allowing a little rest from the psychotherapy session for both the characters and the audience.
After all, all the gathered people are not at all ready to discuss their problems with completely strangers, they are too different and are not ready to admit the shortcomings of their couples to each other, and not even all of them want to go to sessions. But soon what is happening captures them and they become more open, telling about details of family life that even Antonia did not know.
In addition to interesting dialogue, their actions tell a lot about the characters, and thanks to the actors, I did not have a second of doubt that this could not happen in reality. And the ending is just amazing, I was so fascinated by the action on the screen that I did not even think about how the film actually ended.
The result was an interesting and unusual story about the meeting of three different couples, leading to an unexpected finale. All the characters are different, perhaps someone recognizes themselves or their partner in them, and may see problems that were previously closed to them. . .
The companion effect is a psychological phenomenon in which people are easier to talk about their feelings and share thoughts with strangers than with loved ones. (c)
A chamber story in the spirit ' Perfect Strangers' Paolo Genovese. Three couples get together for a group therapy session. They do not do it of their own free will, was the idea of their psychologist Antonia. The lady decided that by talking about her problems in the team, her patients will certainly find ways to solve them.
And at first, communication goes with a big creak - people met too different in temperament, lifestyle. The hot-tempered Danielle and the feminist Laura, the imperious Roberto and the quiet Martha, the cheerful Esteban and the ever-doubting Carla. Even themselves, they are afraid to admit that their relationship is far from perfect. They don’t want to share it with strangers.
But gradually the process captures our heroes. Moreover, they are Spaniards, which means they have no temperament. In the white light begin to appear such interesting details of the family life of each of the three couples, which they could not tell even their psychologist. How this unusual experiment will end is difficult to predict. It's impossible, I would say.
I liked the movie, although it seemed a bit long. Towards the end, I was completely dull, but the finale redeemed all my expectations. It's really unorthodox and exciting. There is a lot to think about.
I wanted to make a really bold film that could hook everyone. The way it clings to the lives of real people on TV shows. . . "
So, we have three very different pairs, but united by a common element of being in a crisis of relations:
Carla (Eva Ugarte) and Esteban (Antonio Pagudo). Perhaps the most attractive couple on the screen. He is a personal buyer and former travel agent, she is an architect in a construction office. They have been together for a long time, but they live separately.
Laura (Alexandra Jimenez) and Daniel (Fele Martinez, who also played a role on the stage). He's an accountant, she's a lawyer. They are the longest married couple, but they can’t agree on any issue, including parenting.
Marta (Malena Alterio) and Roberto (Juan Carlos Vellido). He's a salesman, she's a former kindergarten teacher. They've been married for 9 years, but why? After all, Martha is hard to bear the character of her husband and clearly not completely frank with the rest.
The film of the director (The Mystery of Galindez, Ice Silence, Goya Murders) and screenwriter Gerardo Herrero, inspired by the debut play of the same name by Matias del Federico, a popular playwright in the Spanish-speaking world, who received a number of prestigious awards for it, is a bold mix of funny and damn witty dialogue, brilliant acting and unsurpassed manipulation by the same director de cine. We seem to shamefully look into the keyhole, where we observe the characters of the picture not in the best light, then together with them lift the carpet in the bedroom, in order to sweep out the old dust. In this regard, it is impossible not to mention the excellent camera work of the experienced Juan Carlos Gomez, whose camera always captures the most important aspects of what is happening at the right time.
Bajo terapia is a work full of unexpected conflicts, with humour as the main tool and... in which everything is not at all as it seems. The main advantage of del Federico’s text and its embodiment is that the last thirty minutes of what is happening really become a real surprise, where the plot twist takes us definitely not where we expected to go, dipping us into a state of catharsis. From this story one could make a social drama, but Herrero chose the main genre of black comedy, full of irony to the brim (sometimes very bitter), demonstrating that it is possible to deal with very complex topics, while not forgetting to entertain the viewer.
Spanish director Gerardo Herrero, known to the general public as the executive producer of the Oscar-winning Argentine-Spanish crime drama directed by Juan Jose Campanella “The Secret in His Eyes”, presents the viewer with a witty comedy about married couples who are invited by a psychologist to a group therapy session without warning and prior approval. Relying on the fact that the characters will deal with their problems themselves, the psychologist does not appear for the session, leaving clients eight envelopes with tasks that will make them open from the unexpected side and answer uncomfortable questions under the gaze of strangers.
There are three pairs at the center. Carla and Esteban have been in a relationship for three years, but due to doubts, Carla will not take the next step and start living together. Danielle and Laura have known each other since school, but a problem with an underage son drives a wedge into their already shaky relationship. With a couple of Martha and Roberto and not so clear. Roberto advocates solving family problems at home behind closed doors, without going to a psychologist, and Martha clearly has something to say about this, but being in the role of a victim that is read by her insecure and secretive behavior, she gathers her thoughts for a long time to finally hit everyone with her thoughts in the finale of the film.
The camera operator Juan Carlos Gomez like the eyes and ears of the viewer, listening to the conversations of couples who came to group therapy, quietly moves from the general plans of the group, when the viewer only gets acquainted with the characters on the middle planes, when the situation begins to slowly heat up and get out of control. Close-up plans predictably show emotional outbursts and reactions of the characters, but what makes you wonder is how closely the operator follows the characters of Martha and her husband Roberto, who does not let Martha say a word without his approval, blames her for secretly drinking alcohol, and then begins to cover her mouth with his hands, causing an explosion of emotions in Laura and Carla, who, feeling wrong with motherly love, begin to take care of and support the depressed woman.
Despite the fact that the actors of the film, with the exception of Pedro Almodóvar and Alejandro Amenabar Fele Martinez, are known for their roles in Spanish sitcoms and melodramatic series, their game disarms. You want to watch them, listen to every word, and believe them unconditionally. The film takes place in one location – a group therapy room and the actors easily let the viewer forget about it. Actors get so used to the role, as if living the lives of their heroes. The themes covered in the film concern anyone who has ever been in a relationship, whether successful or doomed to break up. The viewer will be able to look at himself and his partner from the outside, and someone may open their eyes to obvious problems and inefficiencies in the relationship.
From the first minutes of the film, it feels like the director was inspired by Roman Polanski's Massacre, where two married couples meet in an apartment to discuss their sons' fight, but a courteous conversation quickly turns into a furious squabble in which decency and social norms fly out the window. However, after the first tasks of the psychologist, which perform the characters, it becomes clear that the idea of Gerardo Herrero is much more original. Group therapy gradually reaches a boiling point and when it seems impossible to come up with anything more exciting to keep the viewer at the screen, because all the topics are exhausted, the characters are already packing up to leave the room, the director leaves the best for last – a shocking denouement that even the most sophisticated viewer can not predict.
What happens if you leave three couples in the same room who visit the same psychologist? A game of truth and revelation! It was fantastic, the hype was doing its job, and the climax just blew the roof off. The exposition simply brings people to one room in order to intrigue the characters in bewilderment and possible errors in the schedule.
We have three couples who have their own problems in the family, and the named but absent psychologist decided to arrange joint therapy, allegedly looking at everything from the outside will achieve the desired results. The intrigue is in envelopes with tasks. 8 envelopes, but when we open each of them, we plunge into an even greater revelation. Let's get to know these couples better.
The first and most active side is Esteban and Carla. We go through the internal defenses of the body, when jokes cover important marital secrets. Esteban acts as a jester, defusing the situation, but with each open envelope we recognize him from the other side. Carla also reveals her reasons for family quarrels, exposing her soul to strangers. The interaction is very thinly visible, the opportunity is provided through the problems of others to solve their own.
It is striking how couples do not immediately admit to problems, do not immediately reveal themselves, addressing their question to others, as if afraid to get reprimanded from their soul mate.
The second pair involves impulsive and nervous Daniel and calculating Laura. Each revelation is accompanied by indignation, swearing, digging into other people's problems. But this is the calculation: everyone has problems, so the questions concern every family. How do others raise their children? How do you deal with the midlife crisis? What is the situation with intimate life? And the fewer envelopes with tasks remain, the more frankly and emotionally passions are played out. Laura acts as a strong and independent person from her husband, while revealing the problem of inattention, projecting her situation on Esteban and Carla. We see significant differences and, like the characters, try to apply new practices. Spouses who have built their social unit from school against spouses who can not even move together.
The third pair is the quietest, Roberto and Marta. Here you can see the patriarchy and the demonstration of influence. You see how the characters behave, how they react to certain topics, but similar problems allow the wife to get out of the shadow of her husband. Roberto decides everything, chooses topics, accuses and threatens, and the point of each person in this room is important, so the word is increasingly given to Martha.
With each envelope, the characters delve deeper into each other’s lives. And if women find a solidarity approach to each other, then men, like defectors, then unite with one, then with another, just to avoid responsibility and avoid uncomfortable questions. The best defense is an attack. The skirmishes of Esteban and Daniel are accompanied even in common actions (not for nothing there is a sound accompaniment in the form of a horn), and Roberto, as the oldest and most experienced, looks at this as children's games. But if the topic touches him, he breaks down like a dog, blaming everyone.
The topic of intimacy becomes the second powerful catalyst that allows you to look at new revelations and confessions. In an attempt to shame others, the heroes reveal themselves. Issues of sexual intercourse flow smoothly into free time, into a myth that dissipates after the candy-bouquet period and lies in a thick layer of family routine, everyday life. In fact, director Gerardo Herrero raises important questions by exemplifying his characters. But it is in the heroes that the rival spirit of men and the impressions of women from the experience of their partners flash.
One thing remains as Martha loses control. This happens in seconds, in passing, but this is the focus of attention. Every family has problems, we have already learned a lot about them, but direct questions put the heroes at a dead end. Emotions beat over the edge, causing a flow of energy, heating up the temperature in the room, before the explosion. Each member of this company shares the most hidden. Masks come off consistently. There is no more shame or shyness; we see wives confessing, husbands being guilty. This is a beautiful transformation.
The climax fights hard. In a matter of seconds, the picture turns everything upside down, revealing the most terrible secret. You don't expect or assume that. Perfect! The plot is so skillfully played on passions, confessions, that the finale is delighted with the very idea and ingenuity. Well, it's a conversational movie that reveals people from all sides.
The film is recommended for watching couples: not only married, but also on the candy and bouquet period. It will allow you to ask the right questions to each other without crossing personal boundaries.