gudaulin

I traditionally have a problem with Vlasta Burian's acting, as I tend to lean more toward intellectual verbal humor, but I must admit that Vlasta Burian was excellent in this film and it is probably the only film where I fully accept his acting style. It's a lever comedy that surprisingly still has something to say today, and from a historical perspective, it deserves a solid 5 stars. Overall impression: 90%.

This is one of those films for nostalgics who feel obliged to give a higher number of stars than would correspond to their subjective feeling about the film. It's simply a classic. The famous book by Zola, the famous director Renoir, and the legendary Jean Gabin in the lead role. However, I won't deny that I was bored while watching and even dozed off several times. So yes, the film certainly has a lot to offer to admirers of film classics, those who diligently visit film clubs to fill in the gaps in their quest to map out world cinema. It will definitely please those who are professionally involved in cinema, as well as film critics who can extensively praise the work of the camera and other film professions, but as a viewer, the film simply did not captivate me. Nowadays, we have a different film pace, movies are more civil without pathos and theatrical poses in actors' performances, and perhaps the source material and genre are to blame from my perspective. Overall impression: 45%.

A classical French melodrama with elements of the noir genre about a military deserter who encounters a fateful love and several men from the outskirts of society during his journey. Their encounter has fatal consequences for him. High-quality cinematography, and a top-notch performance by Jean Gabin, who was already creating space for himself to become the greatest French male film star at the time. Plot-wise, however, it is relatively unremarkable. Michel Simon takes on the role of a villain as if from bad anti-Semitic films, appearing as a greedy and lascivious Jew. Overall impression: 65%.

I understand that film journalism and artistic criticism considered Cikán's Battalion a showcase of Czech cinema during that era, but after 80 years I find few merits that would still speak to me today. The film is primarily an attempt at a social drama, for which it receives one star, and the second star is for the cast, for example, for Eduard Kohout, who brilliantly played the tragicomic character of a deluded fool convinced that he is a noble. Eman Fiala, in the tragic role of pianist Lojzík, appeared significantly old for 27, and František Smolík proves why he was considered one of the greatest actors of his time. However, it lacks raw realism, and it is rather sentimental, polished, and idealized in a bourgeois way for my taste. Additionally, some of the actors could not avoid theatrical exaggeration. In short, the flaws of Czech cinema of the 1930s cannot be denied even in this case. Overall impression: 45%.

It's been about two years since a cycle of French films from the 1930s was broadcast on TV, celebrated classics that every film critic and art critic raved about. They seemed affected by time and to me, it's just film history that mostly passes me by. This film is a different story. I would say it is timeless and emotionally it managed to bring me exactly what Renoir intended. He had no intention of making an adventurous film about escape. This is a political film, where through the model of a few prisoners and their antagonist in the form of a typical Prussian aristocrat with elitist thoughts, he wanted to demonstrate and support the idea of republicanism, equality, and resistance against war, as well as resistance against the rapidly spreading antisemitism at the time. It is not a coincidence that he chose for his protagonists a plebeian officer played by Jean Gabin, a Jewish soldier, moreover, a wealthy one, who directly responded to theories about a Jewish elite pulling the strings, and a selfless officer from higher social circles who understands that the era of blue blood has long passed. Considering the time of its creation, it is truly a high-quality film, where the acting performances serve the social message. Overall impression: 90%.

In its time, this film led to the development of the so-called legionnaire's legend, one of the basic pillars of national mythology on which the ethos of the Czechoslovak Republic was built. In the closest way, it was connected with patriotic feelings and identification with the republican idea. After all, the film came at a time when aggressive voices began to be heard from Germany and international tension began to rise rapidly. The film had an overtly propagandistic dimension and was intended to strengthen the self-confidence of Czechoslovak society. To evaluate it from today's perspective would understandably mean berating it for its uncovered pathos, overacting, the theatrical performances of some of the actors, and poor set design, and the list could go on for a long time. It is evident that Czechoslovak cinema in the 1930s was not part of any film avant-garde, it had a provincial character and failed to create a truly financially strong production background. On the other hand, if I look at it as a typical product of its time and squint my eyes slightly, it does earn three stars. Overall impression: 55%.

The personality of Charlie Chaplin does not represent an indisputable symbol of artistic mastery for me, as only a few of his films have appealed to me in the past, and even fewer interest me today. The ones that I think are worth watching again could easily be counted on one hand, but Modern Times is one of them. Along with The Gold Rush, it is the only film in which I accept his character as a tramp. In Modern Times, he tries to make his way through life and repeatedly tries to integrate himself into the life of a respectable citizen, but fails as a factory worker or a waiter. The girl with whom he eventually forms a relationship is similarly unconventional, so in the end, they both recognize that they do not fit into the modern era with its rules, orders, and obligations. They retreat and walk together toward their fate. Above all, the factory part of the tramp's story seems funny and cleverly filmed to me; the desire to maximize productivity leads to the absurd motif of a machine for feeding employees. The second highlight of the film is the scene in the bar where Chaplin's voice is heard for the first time in the form of a musical number accompanied by pantomimic clowning. Modern Times can be criticized, like other Chaplin films, for the outdated aesthetics of silent films from the first half of the 1920s. But in this case, I don't mind. I perceive his film as a social critique of the system during the economic crisis and at the same time a criticism of Fordist mass society based on the suppression of individuality. It is typical that the screening of Modern Times was immediately banned in Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy. Overall impression: 80%.

A sci-fi drama, well-made for its time, in which both the political situation of the 1930s, which threatened war and the widely spread pacifist sentiment and technological optimism of that time are fully reflected. However, the film is brought down by its pathos and above all by its theatrical mannerism, with the main characters often slipping into mere declamation of slogans and noble truths. At certain moments, it would have been better suited to a large theater stage than a film camera. The most interesting and best part was the middle section, which dealt with a world destroyed by a world war. Despite limited financial and technical resources, this post-apocalyptic dystopia was portrayed more convincingly than many post-apocalyptic films of modern cinema. Overall impression: 55%.

A typical film product of its time, where it is definitely necessary, even after many decades, to appreciate Katharine Hepburn's acting skills. However, the screenplay presents a characteristic conflict, or rather the idea of happiness of the bourgeoisie at that time, and to be honest, a typically petty-bourgeois film like Alice Adams is difficult to find. The main heroine is poor and feels so very poor in her only ball gown, that it gives her a headache, which she deals with throughout the entire film. Her efforts to marry and climb the social ladder are met with overt elitism from the bourgeoisie, who scorn the common people. However, her family's social status at that time did not necessarily mean poverty, nor would it mean poverty nowadays, by the way. In any case, those who enjoy classic films of that era will not be disappointed. Oscars during that time were given out with some certainty to conventional, but well-made films. Overall impression: 40%.

When it was made, the film was received by Czech film critics with undisguised enthusiasm, seeing in it a breath of fresh air, and even a touch of worldliness, in an otherwise stale Czechoslovak film scene. Let's face it, compared to all those silly Czech films with their happiness and sadness, this can definitely be considered an Oscar-worthy affair, although unfortunately, it's more like a one-eyed king among the blind. The time period in which it was made is very apparent, as Czechoslovak cinema was just beginning to develop and Voskovec and Werich were only just finding their place on the silver screen. In both cases, especially with Voskovec, the theatrical style of the Liberated Theatre is still noticeable. Additionally, this film is a manifesto of the interwar left-wing avant-garde influenced by the Soviet model, and deeply immersed in the belief in the power of collectivism. Of course, the historical context is different from the construction works of the late 1940s and early 1950s, and the creators of the film received praise from the liberal bourgeois press, but still, that genuine naivety feels somewhat unpleasant to me. I disagree with those who claim that the film satirizes left-wing ideals, as that critical distance is missing, partly because the film was made before the Moscow Trials and there was no reason to doubt. The apparent caricature is rather a consequence of the unintentional mishandling of individual motifs. It was meant to be a social critique, but you cannot make a full-fledged adversary to Voskovec and Werich out of a trembling wheelchair user who represents a powerful factory boss and who also awkwardly overacts. Werich, as a typical representative of left-wing ideological orientation on the silver screen, portrayed his ideals much more convincingly in The Emperor's Baker - The Baker's Emperor a few years later. Overall impression: 55%.