NinadeL

Given the tradition of Czech historical films and television dramas, I understand that contemporary historical television films still need to find their audience. The historical genre has always been a matter of funding or official policy. We were accustomed to grand films produced by the State Film with more or less hidden propaganda, and to cheap productions with excellent dialogues and zero budgets. This film represents a new intersection; for television standards, it is a film of unprecedented production value, and likewise, for television standards, it is a film with an exceptionally good script. The style is new, the subject matter remains sensitive, and the television viewer feels uncertain about what they are watching. They don't understand because they expected something different. But that's how it often is with pioneers.

In the early days of Czech sound film, it seemed to forget the breadth of genres that could be further developed. As a result, Czech films of the 1930s might appear relatively homogeneous, showcasing various comedies, musical melodramas, and socially-oriented stories. However, if we examine each year individually, we would certainly find exceptions that counter this impression, particularly in the production year of 1937, when film production peaked with fifty new films being made. This peak resulted in an overwhelming variety that the contemporary cinema network could barely manage, and critics struggled to adequately review each title. A trio of films from this era of expansion marked the first solo ventures of Ladislav Brom. His debut, the social drama The Accordion, was influenced by his study stay in the USSR. This was followed by the charming adaptation of a magazine novel for women and girls, The Career of Mother Lízalka, and finally, Blackmailer, based on a story by Egon Hostovský. Hostovský was a prominent Czech Jewish writer who would later experience a life of double exile. It was fortunate that during the First Republic, he saw at least one of his works adapted into a film, as all subsequent adaptations were of his works written in exile. This film was created with an authentic atmosphere, reflecting the contemporary inclination towards expressionist and psychological novels. Specifically, the novella "Ztracený stín" (1931) deals with the classic theme of losing one's identity, a "shadow" of our self, when one finds oneself in an inescapable situation. The situation is excellently portrayed, and the characters are intriguing. The story includes everything from a financially struggling young love (Adina Mandlová/Ladislav Pešek), a bored factory owner's wife (Bedřich Vrbský/Helena Bušová), to a treacherous general director (Plachý) who is in cahoots with the company president (Deyl). The main character is a former accountant (Vítězslav Boček) who easily succumbs to the opportunity to escape poverty. Today's viewers, who are not accustomed to categorizing films as high or low art, can better appreciate Blackmailer as a key work that shaped the path of Czech cinema towards psychological expression.

Personalities like Martin Scorsese have the power to make the general public interested in subjects they choose. Such a personal topic for Scorsese was the novel "Silence" by Shūsaku Endō, which he presented to Western viewers 45 years after its original Japanese adaptation Silence. However, it is very difficult to establish a personal connection to the story of Portuguese Jesuits on a Japanese mission in the 17th century. The spiritual atmosphere and beautiful landscape are certainly captivating, but A-list actors like Andrew Garfield, Adam Driver, and Liam Neeson are naturally more suited to a different context.

The first biography of Liberace. It's slightly more conservative than Behind the Candelabra, which is logical given the production date. Still, it's a well-crafted film. One better understands his extravagant nature, and that he had Italian-Polish roots and was in love with classic Hollywood. He discovered his iconic style in the film A Song to Remember.

A brief overview documentary. Liberace's career was not global, and that is why it is so difficult to understand the alleged qualities of this showman. Some compared him to Elvis, and he even played for the British queen. But in private, he apparently remained a bitter homosexual who liked to buy young boys. It is quite perverse to watch Debbie Reynolds' memories, who worked with Liberace and at the end of her life even played his mother in Behind the Candelabra.

Behind the Candelabra is the second adaptation of Scott Thorson's memoirs about the years he spent in a relationship with Liberace. The first film was released practically immediately after Liberace's death - Liberace: Behind the Music. The theme is clear: the turning of the 70s and 80s, starring a gay celebrity who cannot afford to be open, and the story of a young lover that ends... badly. Scott Thorson was lucky not to contract HIV, but he had his face ruined by plastic surgery at Liberace's request. The end of their relationship then led to legal battles over alimony, something that was dealt with by a homosexual couple for the first time. The message of this film falls into the series of biographies such as Milk or later Bohemian Rhapsody. The atmosphere is identical to Spinning Gold.

Cher... Special was a big TV show that aired on April 3, 1978. Cher herself played many roles, invited Dolly, Rod Stewart, and The Tubes, transformed into a diva and many other characters from West Side Story, mastered the disco queen and Laverne, a character she played on The Sonny & Cher Comedy Hour... which the Emmy judges couldn't help but notice. Cher... Special was a historic event and fans still enjoy watching the reruns.

Cubs is one of those films that critics have preserved for the future. It may not be on the same level as other films, but it's still just a parade of vanity seen through the lens of youth. At the time, it was undoubtedly an event, but what has remained? Ultimately, nothing special. Hysterical naive youth, wanting to deal with everything immediately, without thinking about tomorrow, disregarding everyone else. The older generation of parents is portrayed schematically as blind caution (the incredibly miscast duo of Jan Pivec and Blanka Waleská), as is the deliberately depicted teaching staff, portrayed as a bunch of fools, giving exams even to those intentionally sabotaging them. Why? Because they mean well? Or, on the contrary, are they afraid of having bad reviews for those they would let fail? The world of Cubs is a world of apparent obstacles that seem daunting and unjust in the eyes of children but are realistically part of the lives of adults in the 50s and today. What has changed since then? Nothing. Perhaps only the will of the teaching staff to support students during exams has disappeared with the establishment of the Center for Educational Results Assessment. But again, you can pay for a hotel even in your place of permanent residence.

Belgian social realism? Not interested. I haven't seen anything as manipulative as this in a long time. Jean-Pierre Dardenne and Luc Dardenne didn't even notice in their quest for an experience that an attempted suicide cannot be dismissed with a single stomach pump and have that chapter closed. It's a fake, naive, and dare I say, stupid film. It pretends to arouse interest and emotions, and festival audiences are thrilled, some simply because they believe that the truth lies in Marion Cotillard (in the absurd logic that an actress who portrays a well-groomed character is not truthful and vice versa).

Absolutely brilliant. It easily outshines all the worn-out films from the journalistic environment, whether it's His Girl Friday or All the President's Men. Nothing is lacking, nothing is excessive. A magnificent script, with meticulously crafted lines, and it even managed to tastefully depict the intergenerational shift, the practical perspective, the academic theory, and the classic friction in the field of media. "This is the task of newspapers in today's world. Television and radio broadcast the news shortly after it happens. Newspapers can no longer compete with them in reporting. But they can and should tell the public why it happened."