I feel the talent of the director. With no budget, no script, no location to shoot Foreman was able to put a great satire on Czechoslovakia in the 60s. The episodes with the selection of girls and the fire are incomparable. The director showed well the brutality and disregard for the consent of the average person. The film has a very strong feminist message. Many modern attempts to portray something on this topic before the “Firemen’s Ball” are still developing. There is nothing special about satire. Now every year some kind of satire is removed, and the world experiences it stoically. It's bad when society starts feeding sacred cows. Then satire turns into sedition. And if civil officials do not understand what is included in the list of sacred cows and what is not, satire is more dangerous than fire. The Firefighters' Ball was therefore perceived as a political manifesto, although Foreman himself did not show any interest in political cinema in the years that followed. And “Ball” was filmed to illustrate the thesis “we wanted the best” long before one aphorist. Whatever it was, thanks to the film, Foreman only got better, and he, having changed his place of residence, inscribed his name in world cinema in large letters. However, through time, the film looks hard. Perhaps lacking is the immersion in everyday reality that was natural to viewers of that day. As a result, some scenes look simply masterpiece, and others want to quickly miss.
In a town in Czechoslovakia, a respected committee of firefighters holds a ball named after themselves. More than 500 guests, honoring the cancer of his ex-leader, a beauty contest and the distribution of prizes following the purchase of lottery tickets – the program of the event is expected to be large and rich. It becomes that way, with the only difference that everything goes wrong and through organizational ass. Guests begin to steal gifts, girls selected for a beauty contest, appear as spherical fools, a house is burning next to firefighters, and the organizers of the holiday are those who are still swindlers.
The last work of Milos Forman of his Czechoslovak period, according to the results of which he was forced to safely swing behind the Iron Curtain and open his real potential to Hollywood. In general, the comedy of the absurd “Firemen’s Ball”, which quite causticly reveals the vices of modern socialist society, is no different from anything especially criminal and seditious. Foreman demonstrates a society with an extremely low organizational component, where, behind the facade of norms and decency, there is a total lack of professionalism, theft and a tendency to mutual deception. Something this movie resembles our Soviet "Garage" with the only difference that Ryazanov did not bring the action to outright idiocy, and shot his picture a decade (even a little more) later. But Foreman’s painting had an unexpected explosive effect, falling into the opportunistic field of great geopolitics. The film was filmed just before the Prague Spring with all the ensuing consequences. In Czechoslovakia they began to “tighten the screws”, and in the West, on the contrary, to note “crushed talents”. In a cohort of such and got a young Foreman, whose “Firemen’s Ball” suddenly acquired political overtones.
However, even outside of political crap, Foreman’s film was pretty, though not very structured in terms of plot. In some cases, the film slides to a frank farce and absurdity, which does not add to the adequacy of perception. A number of moments (like the stolen axe in the finale of the picture) are simply predictable. But there are really explosive scenes, like a beauty pageant. A separate mention deserves the selection of amateur artists. It is important not that there are all amateurs (mostly real firefighters), but how colorful and glossy textures Milos Forman scored. Chicken, plump, bald, cellulite, and just scary (including girls) – this is definitely not “socialism with a human face.”
Given the unexpected political environment in which cinema was born, Milos Forman’s work is culturally overrated. At least, this film was not a full-fledged competitor to the large-scale work of Sergey Bondarchuk “War and Peace”, which was held in the competition program “Oscar” of the same year. "Firemen's Ball" is good in itself as a sample of bullying socially corrosive absurdist cinema.
Some town somewhere in Czechoslovakia. The Society of Firefighters decides to honor its 86-year-old chairman by giving him a fire axe as he is destined to die of cancer. And they give him a ball - with a beauty pageant, a lottery and even a fire.
Milos Forman’s latest Czech painting is not a very characteristic absurdist satire. A satire that Czech firefighters didn’t really understand when they filed for dismissal (The New York Times wrote about 40,000, but it’s probably fake). It seems that Foreman made a satire on the nascent gerontocracy - it would be even more spectacular if the film was shown some 10 years later in the USSR. It's funny and sad. Whether this is what Foreman really meant is a good question. But nothing else comes to mind: mild debauchery, severe insanity, almost incapacity and complete sloppiness and theft. Perhaps this is how the director builds faith in young people on the eve of the Prague Spring. Or rather, disbelief in veterans.
“Firemen’s Ball” was the last work of the famous director Milos Forman in his homeland in Czechoslovakia. And so had proposals and a desire to leave this land in search of land more fertile, the director literally “banned” because of the creation of this film, too defaming the way of Czech life, showing the population is not far away, and the fire service is completely abnormal. Like many Slavic peoples, the irony and absurdity of the action were unfamiliar to Czechoslovaks. However, history is always honest – even though the “Firemen’s Ball” remained misunderstood in its time and on its territory, it now looks like a real diamond in a collection of satirical works.
The kingdom of the absurd has power in the tape in every frame, although the tape is often blamed for the low quality of this genre. Anyway, these visual pessimistic amusements are the best display of dark satire, however, not belittling a person, but seeing in him the victim of society and his nature. Here, chaos prevails from the very beginning, when expressive or otherwise numb firefighters begin to disperse the evening to its apotheosis. One kisses right under the table with gifts, the second steals the winning prizes for the lottery from under his nose, and his wife put on guard does not seek to help him. They are looking for girls for a beauty contest, but not only do they understand the uniqueness of tastes by their age, but also girls do not agree to take part in this competition. And the gilded axe, which is prepared as a gift for the birthday of the chief, requires that they swing as much as possible and put back in the festive packaging.
Using long satirical scenes for the most part in one location, Milos Forman presents the viewer with a theatrical performance, with vivid images and a general Brownian movement. You can't say it's fiction. The film is presented as a kind of deliberate distortion of reality, hypertrophied stupidity and the system in which Foreman had to live. And the slightest right of choice and freedom destroys it - it is no coincidence that here the gifts disappear with the speed of the shot, and a clumsy girl in one swimsuit is much more attractive even cute in clothes.
Involving real firefighters who were filmed between the service, Foreman brought his absurd encyclopedia closer to the state of society's forecast - "see what happens, or stay the same." In a sense, it can be called radical, but now it is striking in its innocence. It will be especially easy for the Russian audience to see their society in the film, however, as his relatives did half a century earlier, he hardly admits this.
“Volunteers served in the fire department of Vrhlaba. They mostly worked in the factory. They came to the dance to have a good time, and had fun from the heart. They organized a beauty contest for their daughters. They ran a lottery. They drank, and argued with their wives, and in general were themselves, recalled the work on the film Slovak director Milos Forman in his book “Circle”. Here from such a seemingly simple plot was born one of the best films of the Czechoslovak “New Wave” and one of the classic “serious” comedies.
Foreman was helped not only by the Italian money of producer Carlo Ponti, but also by the ideas of Italian neorealists. The actors were volunteer firefighters who, having worked a full shift at the factory, came to the set by the evening. They worked without a script, guided only by the director's hints. It was like seven unthinkable weeks. And so there was one of the most important and fundamental features of the "Fighters' Ball" - the complete naturalness of what is happening.
Of all that the firefighters planned to do at the ball, only one thing qualitatively turned out - drunkenness. All other undertakings will be ruined by wholesale theft, senile insanity, downtrodden local population, indulgence and formalism. The film was called “anti-socialist” and became, in the figurative expression of Milos Forman, his “caravel to America.”
By the way, they say that Federico Fellini liked the picture so much that he decided to quote one of the scenes (a love date under the festive table) in his “Rehearsal of the Orchestra”.
9 out of 10
Thick and black humor against the background of absurdity
In honor of the 86th birthday of the captain of the fire crew, his wards are preparing a magnificent ball. Prepare gifts, make congratulatory stretch marks, make surprises and the subsequent beauty contest. He is going to be presented with a gift, which is very comically discussed in the prologue. Then, at the ball itself, the organizers notice that gifts and treats begin to disappear. First the zelts, then the loaf of bread, then the cake disappears, a few gifts, etc. In the midst of fun and a beauty contest, a siren is heard - a fire is heard in the nearest house. However, because of the hustle and bustle and generally from poor organization, the house burns to the ground.
The film is concise and brief as a well-told witty anecdote.
In fact, the user Tommy2415 so wonderfully told everything about the film that I can only add and clarify.
Enlisting the support of the famous European producer Carlo Ponti, a young talented Czech Milos Forman began shooting a story that he accidentally peeked at a celebration in a real fire station. Against the background of “Prague Spring” even more caustic was the “ridicule” of the director, from which, again, he disowns.
In fact, Foreman maintains to this day that he simply decided to make a farcical story with elements of absurdity. That he did not mean to show in the picture an allusion to the top leadership of Czechoslovakia. Nevertheless, party officials were extremely unhappy with the fact that a year and a half before the release of this film, there was a major corruption scandal with one of the ministers - Novotny - in Czechoslovakia, who, as it turned out, mercilessly stole from his own department. And the suspicious “bosses” of course immediately called the seditious crafts of the director – anti-national. And when the film was almost ready, the said management expressed their extreme dissatisfaction and producer Carlo Ponti immediately took his money from the project, “blotted out” his name from the credits and completely “disowned” its creation. And if it were not for the directors Claude Berry and Francois Truffaut, it is possible to lie on the shelf to this day.
The film looks like a good show in a drama theater. The scenes are long but memorable for a long time. The characters are bright and discharged. I personally saw the direct influence of Italian "neorealism." Here it’s all just for the light: semi-professional and non-professional actors, a clear plot, “documentary” manner of shooting and chamber narrative.
In its own way, of course, the film is angry, eater and very cruel. By and large, there is nothing to laugh about. However, without knowing the most recent scenes of the film, you see it as a series of endless gags and jokes. In fact, all of Foreman’s European works are quite rigid in nature. This story reminded me of Arkady Raikin’s no less seditious, though not forbidden, speech, ridiculing the endless bureaucracy. The case occurred during a fire in the country and the owner called “01”, and they asked for documents from the insurance company and two photos.
The film is beautiful and unique in its own way. I have never seen such a vivid synthesis of absurdity, dense black humor and cruel situations in any cinema.
9 out of 10
Naive, but kind film with a bid for a satirical comedy. A little short, but early Foreman is easily forgiven. The plot is simple: firefighters gather for an annual ball, where they choose a beauty queen. Another reason is the 86th anniversary of the former fire chief.
I would like to highlight the scene of choosing the participants of the beauty contest – this is the only thing you can laugh at. And once again show the viewer that beauty is a relative concept and that there are no ugly women.
Of course, there was no fire. “Burn, burn clearly, lest it be extinguished.” This is how you describe everything on the screen.
A film for Foreman fans. The rest can not look, although, timekeeping and allows you to get acquainted with this picture without much harm to health. And maybe even cheer yourself up. Foreman still put a plus, not the worst film for a young aspiring director from the Czech Republic.
6 out of 10
The Czech language is not so incomprehensible that there are no doubts about the adequacy of the translation of the original name “Gori, my panenka” to the firemen’s ball.
I didn't like it, not funny. Material in the film for a short film, but the young Foreman almost reached the full meter. Formally - something like variations on the theme of the idiocy of officialdom or "the likenesses of M. Cow", an analogue of our "Feast of Neptune" (also a short film that could be cut for twenty minutes). The staged scenes at the ball itself plus the selection and inspection of the contestants is good, this should be limited. The inserted scene of the fire and the image of the burner do not give tragedy and ambivalence to the picture. If it's satire, it's definitely specifically softened. The film does not go in comparison with other early works of Foreman – “Black Peter” or a wonderful melodrama about the ordeals of a blonde.
5 out of 10
A movie with meaning is said to be to some extent a movie in which a riddle is laid. Forgetting about the mystery, we begin to eat greedily, quickly planted food for the mind, look and cling to the obvious. Of course, there are hints of social themes in the film, but in this film they were like a seasoning, and at best a side dish in a large dish.
I do not want to touch on the analysis of time, the analysis of modern man and the morality of society, I do not believe that the director (writer) put these things in the main. At least it's a separate topic. His sarcasm for the film quickly distracted attention, hooking us, seeing us.
He watched us closely from the screen with the wise eyes of the "chairman." Life is over. To me, the main mystery is about the life of the old man, and his “burning soul”. Do you know you're dying? What are your values at the end of your life? From the beginning of the film, to the very end, a person is needed.
From the first actions, the old man is in a special state of mind, but we miss it, distracted. Look at his wait, his walk (exit). What do you see in your life, how do you see it? Accepting a "valuable gift," his speech?! The main gift ("empty box") was no more empty than anything that happened there. The film is about the last days (minutes) of an old man’s life, and I think that’s what I should have paid attention to. .