Dom dobry - film review

I am quite fond of Wojciech Smarzowski’s films, to such extent that as a person not into a moving pictures, I reviewed four of his films here: Drogówka, Podmocnym aniołem, Wołyń and Kler.

Whenever Mr Smarzowski releases a new film, he touches upon a meaningful social problem and depicts it hitting exactly where it hurts. For many his films are too naturalistic and filthy. Many critics have claimed while shooting “Dom dobry” he had gone over the top with filth and cruelty, an approach I cannot hold with, since my sensitivity to filth and cruelty is probably below-average. Lots of people who have seen the film argue the actor who played the oppressor, Tomasz Schuchardt, I believe unknown to wider audience until now, was the least suitable for the role. When looking at him, I would argue he has a son-of-a-bitch apparition at first sight. In one of the pre-premiere interviews he revealed in had been impossible to identify with the character he had play, but someone must have done that job.

Domestic violence is a hidden problem not only in Poland. Dramas play out behind closed door in families which seem normal. Hundreds thousand of Poles, mostly women, are victims of oppressors who resort to physical, mental, economic and sexual misdeeds to bully their targets. I am immensely grateful to Mr Smarzowski for painting an accurate and merciless picture of the phenomenon.

The director must have done a lot of homework while delving on the topic before setting out to shoot the film. He shows a repeatable scheme which puts a victim into a vicious circle and then keeps it turning. It begins with upbringing in a defunct family, running away from it into the arms of at first charming tormentor who bombs their new partner with love and slowly manipulates them. Unacceptable behaviours slowly creep in and get more frequent among the good moments. Victims are usually treated like a boiled frog and refuse to try to break away from a toxic relationship for several reasons, including economic dependence, lack of family or friends to take comfort in or toxic relationship patterns learnt at home.

The premiere of the film coincided with an intense time in Szlachetna Paczka. This year I have come across a few women being hosts of Warszawski Ośrodek Interwencji Kryzysowej who have run away from their violent husbands or partners and are on their way to start over. Having listened to the stories of their lives I partly relived them in a cinema. It also occurred to me I owe them watching this film if I am to be an emphatic volunteer.

To spoil as little as possible, the film has two endings. One of them is a poignant reminder not every cloud has a silver lining and an oppressed human might overstep its boundaries to fight out freedom.

Don’t look up – film review

A belated review (though Michael beats it to me), since I watched the film on 27 December, after reading several recommendations on Twitter on it.

My very first reaction before watching the film was that the title had been translated incorrectly into Polish. Don’t look up sounded to me as nie sprawdzaj, nie weryfikuj informacji. Such worked my fondness of phrasal verbs, yet I was wrong. I literally tells you not to look at the sky.

The film which premiered in cinemas on 10 December 2021 and on Netflix on Christmas Eve went absolutely viral among well-educated people I follow on Twitter during Christmas. While at my parents’ for Yuletide I could not watch it, my only access to Netflix is via application on my TV set (shared account).

Michael as he summarises the plot claims the film, dwells on dumbed down masses. The first word which sprang to my mind when I tried to describe Don’t look up with one word was ignorance. Overwhelming, dazzling, overpowering ignorance individuals feel comfortable with. A portrait of omnipresent ignorance and a bunch of pundits trying to tear down the walls of ignorance to save the planet is dejecting.

While watching the film I saw two parallels. First was about early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. In late 2019 Chinese authorities strived hard to shut mouths of doctors who warned of a perilous new virus, then their reaction to contain the spread of the virus was delayed. They failed to nip it in the bud, so now we have what we have. Second was about the global warming, which unlike the pandemic is a relatively slow process with long-term rather than immediate implications. Experts presage how bad it might get in a few decades, but politicians remain deaf to it or make inconsistent moves to combat it or just pretend they do something, not to wind up their voters with inconvenient decisions to curb carbon dioxide emission.

If I were to choose one picture which conveys the same message as the film, I would opt for the one to the right. I first saw it nearly a year ago, in the context of people who worship self-styled experts who claim SARS-CoV-2 does not exist / is as dangerous as ordinary flu, mask and vaccinations do not work, etc. Those individuals are either too thoughtless or too cowardly to face the complex situation the mankind need to get to grips with. Some humans have a tendency to deny facts which are inconvenient to them, searching for a comfort and peace of mind. I realise why this happens, but advise to rise above it.

The film deftly depicts the worst human traits – greed, selfishness, unjustified self-esteem, ignorance, laziness and many more. The moving picture is well-crafted, but has left me exhausted after watching it. If the film is meant to be an eye-opener for many, I hope it keeps going viral, though I keep in mind the human memory is short-lasting and it soon will be forgotten.

Zabawa w chowanego - film review

The recently released film by Sekielski brothers is a continuation of “Tylko nie mów nikomu” which a year ago provoked a fierce discussion on the problem of paedophilia among clergy. The second film, though similarly heart-wrenching, does not smash as badly as the first one, which has brought the problem to wider audience.

Having watching “Zabawa w chowanego” (literally "Playing hide and seek") I feel anything but taken aback. Confessions by victims of harassment confirm such childhood trauma leaves a scar for the entire lifetime. The main emotion the film has left me with is gratitude that my psyche has not been broken by such distress. Gratitude for lack of miseries inflicted by the fate upon us is what we forget about. Instead, we should profoundly and consciously foster it.

The biggest sin of the Church, regardless of the country is covering up cases of paedophilia. The Polish pope has had a substantial contribution to it. Frequent incidences of sweeping the muck under the carpet bring out an impression that sinful priests (or simply criminals) are outlaws, since only on account of their profession they get away with punishment.

The film also strikes with insolence of perpetrators, who deny their responsibility for harm inflicted for their (already adult) victims.

Quite interesting is the mechanism of sexual violence towards children, which is common for all culprits, not just priests. It rests on ease with which an unmindful victim gives in. A child is the easiest person to manipulate (compare it to harassing an adult), which actually adds to cruelty of the deeds.

On Wednesday TVPiS has broadcasted a counter-document on the same problem among celebrities. The film was slashed on account of poor evidence material presented therein, yet since I have not watched it, I refrain from commenting on it. I recall last year TVPiS attempted to detract from the problem of paedophilia among priests, quoting statistics the number of paedophiles was higher with locksmiths or bricklayers. Their dim-witted audience might have not noticed bricklayers or locksmiths rarely deal with children. While priests, teachers, sport coaches and therapists do, therefore peril of the problem varies depending on a profession.

Polityka - film review

Went to a cinema yesterday for the first time this year (shame on me, flat finishing tribulations and summer period were inconducive to familiarising with new moving pictures). To see the long-awaited depiction of Polish political arena, I chose a lunch-time screening at a local Multikino. The film which had premiered on Wednesday is played more than 10 times a day over the first week in Multikino Ursynów, which signals the only cinema in the neighbourhood has braced for high demand for tickets. I feared the screening room would be crowded, yet I was nearly alone out there. The audience was composed of around 20 viewers. Not a blockbuster…

I have watched some of Patryk Vega’s films shot in recent years, some were reviewed as not worthwhile buying a voucher exchangeable for a cinema ticket, therefore I knew I should have not expected a highbrow sense of humour nor a sophisticated plot. Polityka’s first reviews were anything but favourable; critics and journalists view the film as mediocre.

As for the plot, a little spoiler – the film is made up of a few stories whose plots and characters intertwine with one another. The stories are a mixture of “I have seen it all before” and some political fiction, however far too predictable and far too obvious in terms of similarities with real persons and events.

The cast and the effort of actors to play the scenes from Polish politics after 2015 are major strengths of the film that make it worthwhile at all. Hats down to Andrzej Grabowski (the chairman), Antek Królikowski (an almost minister of national defence) and Zbigniew Zamachowski (the father director) whose roles in the film proves their mastery in the craft.

The film deals blows nearly only to the ruling party, although there are several prominent politicians of it omitted at all (not a second dedicated to the current justice minister who has done more harm to Poland than the former prime minister). The opposition is ridiculed in one of the stories only, yet for the sake of symmetry and despite my antipathy towards PiS I would see more opposition-flogging scornful scenes (Ryszard Petru being my main candidate to be derided).

Just like Kler and Tylko nie mów nikomu, the film is going to change nothing in the parliamentary election due in 5 weeks. I keep hoping for a result ensuring PiS misses the simple majority by a number of seats large enough to make buying off deputies from other groupings a nuisance.

Tylko nie mów nikomu - film review

The yet another controversial film delving into depravities of the clergy premiered on 11 May. Unlike Kler which went to the silver screen (and has become the blockbuster immediately), Tylko nie mów nikomu is a documentary exploring the topic of paedophilia plaguing the Catholic Church in Poland and has been released on YouTube. An investment in a cinema ticket is hence unnecessary; a broadband Internet connection is fair enough to get to grips with the film in one’s place. The exact number of actual viewings in unknown, since Youtube counts in every playing longer than 30 seconds, however the approximate audience of 20 million is whopping.

The film is available free of charge since it has been… crowdfunded. Sekielski brothers had decided not to seek commercial sponsors to raise money for the controversial documentary, but had not problems soliciting donations from munificent private contributors.

Unlike several people who I have talked to, I have stuck it out till closing credits. Most of viewers I have talked to had to pause in the middle of watching since the content of the film was too heart wrenching. My tolerance to dirt is relatively high, but this film made me want to puke several times during the two-hour watch. The documentary leaves a mark or even a scar and poses questions rather than gives answers.

Firstly, hats down to victims who had the courage to tell stories of their trauma to the camera and to confront with the priests who had harassed them.

Secondly, the documentary reminds sexuality is a very delicate sphere of human psyche. It takes little to harm it and lasts years to recover from a trauma.

Thirdly, I cannot refrain from sharing the most shocking observation learnt from a film. Academically, most criminals whom we call paedophiles, are not genuine paedophiles. A genuine paedophile can reach sexual arousal only in contact with a child (an adult would not stimulate them). The overwhelming majority of criminals (including priests) convicted for sexual harassment of children do not meet such definition. They resort to sexual contacts with children, since the same activities with adults are, for some reason, out of their reach. This is the most appalling and disgusting, since I would not consider a girl (let alone a boy) aged let’s say 17 or less a sexual object. In other words, a girl below certain age (approximately 17 years) would not even stimulate me sexually. The most horrifying conclusion, not just after watching the film, but after conversations with workmates and friends is that the percentage of men who react like me appears to be smaller than I would expect…

In the public discourse, the film was dubbed as a part of all-out anti-church campaign. I would refute the accusation the film attacks the Church as an institution. It points at specific representatives of the clergy who are guilty of criminal deeds and highlights practices aimed at covering up incidences of paedophilia, sweeping it under the carpet, disregarding victims. It also plainly blows a deal to cult of the late Polish Pope whose shameful heritage in concealing paedophilia crimes is inexcusable.

The timing of film’s release somehow coincides with the home straight of the campaign before the European election. Striving to foresee the result of next Sunday’s vote in Poland, I bet the ruling party and the combined opposition who go neck in neck, will get similar outcome. Much will depend on the turnout and mobilisation of voters. I will visit the polling station around the opening hour, before heading for the sanatory. Deep down I hope a situation from 2015 presidential election when the one who was bound to win did not end up victoriously, repeats.

Customarily, for the period of being off for holidays, blogging is suspended, but in mid-June will be resumed with a coverage of the trip or with another allegedly noteworthy note.

Kler - film review

At last. Nearly a fortnight after the premiere, on Thursday afternoon, having learnt I would not receive files to work on from my workmates from another department, I spontaneously checked availability of seats for Kler screening at 5:00 p.m. in the nearby cinema. Half an hour before the inception of the advertisements (lasted 25 minutes) there still were few single seats free in the upper rows.

I rushed out of the office and marched towards Złote Tarasy. Some seats were still available (though the choice was meagre), during the screening it turned out around two-third of all seats were finally occupied. Two weeks had lapsed, audience of more than two million had seen the film before me, the start time was kind of too early for corpo-rats who slowly contemplate knocking off around 5 p.m, so I did not expect a room chock full of viewers.

The very film…. Highlights problems clergy has not gotten their act together to cope with. As in each motion picture directed by Mr Smarzowski, problems are piled up, fleshed out and illustrated veritably abhorrently. Binge-drinking, hypocrisy, greed, lust for power, pursuit of career at all cost or adultery are common sins of weak humans. Paedophilia, fortunately, is not (though this sin is the most abject). The priests are only humans, they stumble and fall like every human, however are expected to stand for higher moral standards and for centuries have failed to live up to such expectations.

Some scenes show situations we are familiar with (the infamous “co łaska, nie mniej niż dwa tysiące”), others touch up on problems known only to a charmed circle of those privy to dealings of top-of-the-top executives of the world’s biggest and oldest corporation. The film portrays clergy as a jumble of dark characters, however I would not agree that the film lacks a bright side – the ending contains the self-purification of one of the characters, which I believe is his penance for his and the clergy’s sins.

As the final credits appeared on the screen, approximately half of the people, including me, were left numb in the seats, the other half filed out towards the exit. Such reactions of the audience prove Mr Smarzowski remains at his best and no matter whether you appreciate his work or not, the last possible reaction is indifference.

If the turnout (in relative, not absolute numbers) in the polling stations in a week and in three weeks is similar to those recorded during first two weeks of Kler screenings, the tide will turn. One day it will, the only question is how much has to be spoilt before the benighted folks begin to see the light.

All the money in the world – film review, but not only

There is no uniform definition of being rich. Two-third of Poles, earning less than national average salary of somewhat more than four thousand zloty before tax, can consider me rich. While ordinary people bridle at politicians’ five-digit bonuses, for me such handshake, leaving out my dislike for PiS, is imaginable and justified for officials who take on substantial responsibility for the state. KPMG report on luxury goods in Poland defines as “rich” a person who earns PLN 20,000 before-tax monthly. For most people unthinkably much, yet after-tax and after getting into the second tax bracket this converts into PLN 11,000 and if such “rich man” is the only breadwinner of a family with two children, their salary is high enough for comfortable life, but not to accumulate substantial savings.

People come into wealth in several ways. Some inherit it, some set up businesses and work tirelessly to grow it, some quickly climb corporate ladders and after several promotions their base salary grows to several times national average and they become eligible for generous bonuses and other perquisites. The pace of growing rich depends not only on the income, but on your… spending habits and if we talk about wealthy, yet not rich people, spending habits matter the most. Thrifty people whose lifestyle is far from luxurious are, needless to say, more likely to accumulate wealth. But while being prudent with money is considered a merit, it is easy to overstep a boundary beyond which one becomes a skinflint.

All the money in the world, nominated to several awards, including, sadly, only one Oscar nomination, tells the true story of once the richest man in the world, who also was the biggest skinflint in the world (how parsimonious a human being can be, if, being the richest person in the world, he skimps money on hospital treatment of his terminally ill son?). I will write little about the plot and simply recommend you go to a cinema before it disappears from the silver screen (unless it already has disappeared, since it premiered in late January and I watched it in mid-February). I will only share my general thought that the picture is well-shot and advise you look up in a search engine shots with Kevin Spacey whose character, after the outbreak of sexual harassment scandal, was replaced by Christopher Plummer.

The film has made me ponder even more upon the role of money in interhuman relationships. On Friday in the office I had to listen to a conversation about advantages of pre-nuptial agreement and heard several pieces of advice how to move into separate property regime after you forgot to sign the pre-nuptial agreement in the right moment.

But each day brings talks about money:

- A guy who organises a wedding gave his girlfriend a ring some time ago given to his previous girlfriend (why pay twice, everybody knows how resourceful he is, except for his girlfriend) and then worked out how much money they should collect in envelopes so that the wedding reception pays for itself.

- Another guy has told a story of his girlfriend giving him money (he had an employee account with higher interest) which he invested on the stock market (but returned to her with 3% interest, the rest kept for himself.

- Yet another guy has an arrangement with FX dealer who exchanges him currencies at most favourable rates, this guy offers exchange service to other people. The effect is that they split the difference between the favourable exchange office rate and the rate from the dealer and split the profit between the two. The funny thing is that the profit to be split is some PLN 0.30 per EUR 100.

- Talks about tax refunds, discount offers, how to save money in honest or dishonest way, etc are the order of the day in the office.

I am also thrifty and watch every zloty before I spend it, I admit, but life is not a profit and loss account; money, though at times I believe the world revolves around it, is not major (albeit essential) part of life. But the saying “gentlemen do not talk about the money” is something more people could put into practice. Actually I am not in favour of avoiding money as a subject of conversations at any price, yet I am calling for more reasonable proportions.