| Index | 6 reviews in total |
11 out of 15 people found the following review useful:
Breaking new grounds in story telling and use of symbolism, 22 December 2007
![]()
Author:
stalker vogler from Xanadu
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
This is an astonishing movie, one of the few movie experiences I ever
had that came close to that of watching an opera on stage. I watched it
twice in a row not only for its beautiful takes (it is remarkably made
out of 27 takes, at least that's how many I numbered) but for the
extraordinary music and set design. This is so unlike any other movie
you will see that you will be swept away not knowing what to think.
There is a serious amount of red propaganda here, and many sensitive
natures will feel offended by one of the characters reciting what
should have been Pater Noster but with key phrases replaced with
workers manifesto quotes.
As much as it would seem impossible given what is on screen there is
actually a story here, only the way it is expressed is not
characteristic to the movie forms we have grown accustomed with. In an
allegorical manner the images tell the story of a peasant uprising on
an estate in Hungary in the late 19th century. The whole thing is
staged like a 16th century masque (this movie reminded me somehow of
Greenaway's The Baby of Macon in terms of storytelling) with the
peasants celebrating harvest and the bolyars coming to take their due
only to be met with resistance. The Church then comes to appease the
uprising and set the peasants straight only to meet with a similar
attitude from the unflinching protesters who want to live in a society
articulated after their own rules. The end is tragic as becomes such a
story with the rebels being slaughterer by the army.
Needles to say that the movie is sustained by a very elaborate
symbolism, only part of which I understood. There is, of course, the
pervasive use of the color red, but that's just part of it. There are
numerous religious symbols thrown in, I don't really know if the
director is an atheist or has a deep relation with God but I tend to
favor the latter view. Even if the movie shows the burning of a church,
the protest seems to be more directed against the institution of the
Church and not religion per se. There are some pagan symbols introduced
related especially to the naked virgins shown as symbols of intangible
purity and there are also to be found symbols related to the fertility
of the land and animals and the Dionysian character of feasts as times
of communion with nature.
Overall, I enjoyed this movie like a work of art and I happily look
forward to another viewing
20 out of 33 people found the following review useful:
Challenges our ideas of what cinema should be., 12 November 2002
![]()
Author:
Sorsimus from Kaarina, FInland
The Red Psalm is an almost unapproachable film these days; the filmmaking
practises of today have made us western viewers forget how to watch films
that are not made to entertain.
The Story is simple enough: the Red Psalm depicts the rise and fall of a
peasant revolt in the earliest days of socialism. The focus is on the
reasons why it doesn't succeed, rather than on characters and plot. In
fact,
to use words like "character" and "plot" in connection to the Red Psalm
would be misguiding.
This is an example of a film where message dictates the cinematic language
of the film. It is not meant to be a realistic depiction of the living
conditions of the peasants in the late 19th century. Instead it tries to
depict realistically the reasons and causes of such tragedies in general.
The film is full of what some people would call "gaffes", but they are
there
just because it does not matter if the actor has his wristwatch on or
whether the guitar has nylon strings. That kind of authenticity is only
superficial.
All in all, The Red Psalm is an ultimately challenging viewing recommended
for everyone who is looking for alternatives to Hollywood pap. It demands
the attention of the viewer throughout, because it is not generic in any
way. Yet it is not without its flaws. It is extremely slow paced, full of
folk dancing and saturated with socialist propaganda. Yet features like
Jancso's free flowing camera should interest at least wannabe filmmakers
to
this challenging and complex film.
8 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
memorable, 14 July 2006
![]()
Author:
Lucia Joyce from United States
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I saw this three times on the same evening as a teenager at UC Santa Cruz, which claimed at the time (this was before DVDs) to have the only existing print in the United States; this is almost 20 years ago now, but I still remember being -- if not exactly entranced, at least lulled, by Jancsó's restless, dancing camera, and the underground pulse of menace that pushed and shaped the actors' dancing. It takes place on a great plain or meadow, I think; and there's a cast of what seems to be a hundred dancers, dancing in the circle-dances not unlike the end of Bertolucci's "Last Tango In Paris," Communism and film form all one. The shots are long and languid, like Bela Tarr: there's something like 17 edits in the entire 90 minute film. And the last image is still seared on my mind's eye: a beautiful woman slits her palm with a knife, holds it to her breast, and then faces the camera, showing us her wound: instead of blood, a red scarf is tied around her hand, a banner that combined with her defiant pose speaks revolution, the red psalm of the title.
1 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Red Blood, 25 October 2008
![]()
Author:
raskimono
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
How does one go about describing this movie? Odd? Bela Tarr before Bela
Tarr. Boring. Without a doubt. Definitely not for the mainstream cinema
goer but is it also for the art house lover? Only a hard-core
alternative cinema can love this movie. But can you appreciate it?
sure. Roving cameras. Complex rhythms and sudden breakouts into song
and dance, yet there is nothing musical about it. It is first and
foremost a mood piece. To understand it, you really need to know the
background of the opus.
This might be considered a spoiler.
"According to film critic, Raymond Durgnat, the movie is based on a
series of psalms, thus the title, and prayers written circa 1890. They
are of a socialist nature echoing such biblical models as the Lord's
Prayer."
END OF SPOILER
Knowing the background, the movie makes sense as a series of short
stories, each ending with the same thematic resolution. A socialist
parable for chaotic times. It was the seventies after all. Using a kind
of folk narrative medium, kind of like performing in the village square
for the elders, it possesses an African or European medieval story
telling technique. Hard to follow, except as a tale of the lower
classes versus the aristocracy and tyranny, it is something short of a
dictum for revolution. Refusing to explain itself, it comes across as
live theater packed with heavy symbolism. There is blood and lots of
it. Gun shots and death. Camaderie, community, resistance, nakedness of
the soul and death. Rambling in circles, at times, it is laughable;
sprinkled with unusual sound edits, curious performances and image
synching. But it is all controlled by the invincible hand of Jancso who
orchestrates the mise-en-scene like a virtuoso marionettist. Tricky,
intricate camera movements supposedly done in 28 shots make up the
movie. It is a ballet of zoom lenses curious camera set-ups and
resistance to the basic nature of its medium. Neither here or there on
the engrossing meter scale, it does present experimental cinema and a
different film vocabulary. Championed by some wayward critics over the
years, it did win the best director at the Cannes film festival. So
that is what you get. Limited story, confusing actions and narrative
arc in a stop and go fashion but camera tricks comparable to the best
of Fellini.
PS. I saw the movie on the big screen but the projectionist framed it
to look like a big TV screen. It looked odd. I have no idea if this was
the original framing.
8 out of 18 people found the following review useful:
RED PSALM (Miklos Jancso', 1972) **1/2, 12 May 2008
![]()
Author:
MARIO GAUCI (marrod@melita.com) from Naxxar, Malta
In the book “1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die” eminent film
critic Jonathan Rosenbaum wrote about RED PSALM being
“…dazzling…awesome…ravishing…striking…it may well be the greatest
Hungarian film of its time…”; conversely, Miklos Jancso'’s acknowledged
masterpiece THE ROUND-UP (1965) – which I adore – is conspicuous by its
absence in that singular pantheon. Besides, the late great film critic
Raymond Durgnat wrote extensively about this film in his very last
article published in 2002. Furthermore, Jancso' won the best direction
prize at the Cannes Film Festival when Joseph Losey (whom I admire a
great deal) was the President of the Jury and where RED PSALM was
competing against such remarkable contenders as Robert Altman’s IMAGES,
Harry Kumel’s MALPERTUIS, Peter Medak’s THE RULING CLASS and Andrei
Tarkovsky’s SOLARIS! Why is it, then, that my star rating is such a
lowly one?
There is no doubt in my mind that this is a key work in the director’s
canon (which makes my underwhelmed reaction all the more painful to me)
but, frankly, this is truly a case where form completely overpowers
content or, to put it in the apposite layman’s terms, a film which can
only be admired but not enjoyed. The main reason for this is that the
entire running time (a relatively modest 81 minutes in PAL mode) is
taken up by Jancso'’s obsession with politics and folklore with no
space left for any real characters to emerge much less a discernible
plot line. This would hardly be a problem in itself where it not for
the fact that when somebody takes a break from the constant – and by
now familiar – communal dancing marathons (which, thankfully, does mean
that some of the typically stunning girls get to shed their clothing),
they do so only to spout a litany of Communist diatribes which
completely wear the viewer (and the film itself) down before long.
Although Jancso'’s exuberant visual style always had a certain
aloofness to it, I really didn’t connect at all with any of the
characters or events depicted here. In fact, I’d go so far as to say
that this is one time where the English subtitles (which, in
themselves, are grammatically awkward and replete with spelling
mistakes) distinctly felt like an intrusion and their verbosity
detracted from the power of the meticulously composed images.
Consequently, one’s enjoyment of the film as a whole suffers for it and
given the generic, prosaic nature of the dialogue, I might well
consider watching the film unsubtitled in the future! Amusingly enough,
however, the Catholic prayer of Our Father is even blasphemously
transformed into a Communist credo at one point.
Still, this is not to say that the film is completely worthless: the
rebelling peasant farmers sing various songs (a couple of which are in
English) that, while lyrically are merely propagandistic, are also
melodically haunting. Given Jancso'’s penchant for lengthy, traveling
sequence-shots (the film is said to contain a mere 26 in all!) which
are, essentially, its true raison d’etre, some striking images can’t
help but stand out, in particular the burning of a church by the
peasants and their eventual massacre by the landowners’ army of
defenders. Even more remarkable is Jancso' fusing his historical
recreation with unexpected but decidedly welcome fantasy elements which
sees dead people coming back to life with a kiss and, in an unheralded
uproar to which nobody retaliates, an incensed peasant woman shoots
several soldiers in quick succession single-handedly, etc.
As a result of my disappointing viewing of RED PSALM, I have decided to
to take a sabbatical from Jancso' for now and postpone the three other
films of his that I have in my possession to a later date (by which
time, nevertheless, hopefully I would have acquired two more)…
0 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Very Hungarian. Very socialist. Very difficult., 8 September 2009
![]()
Author:
Boris European from Austria/Bulgaria
Jancso's movies can be recommended only to people with serious interest
in movie-making and especially alternative European cinema. As in
"Szerelmem, Elektra" Jancso again uses his favorite images and sounds.
Hundreds of extras dance and perform rituals on the vast Hungarian
plain surrounded by galloping horses (a traditional Hungarian animal as
the Hungarians are heirs of the nomadic Huns). Very often the viewer is
confronted by naked women walking around, I am still confused as to
what they symbolize...that socialism needs no violence to overtake the
old regime? Another typical feature is the solemnity with which the
actors converse and act, no real dialog is to be found but a series of
monologues. These monologues reveal what Jancso is most interested in -
socialism and the equality of people. It is difficult for the viewer to
keep up with them as they follow one after the other to bombard him
with socialist ideology on the rights of the workers, the rising of the
masses, the resistance, etc. Jancso tries to show that socialism can
peacefully convert even the officials of the old order as seen by the
officer refusing to suppress the mutineers and the soldiers dancing
with the crowd towards the end of the movie. Regarding the lengthy
monologues on socialism, a resemblance to Godard and his La
Chinoise...?
This movie is difficult to watch due to its complex imagery intertwined
with the socialist ideology that Jancso's characters devour us with.
There may appear the question whether this movie can be seen out of the
context of a life in a regime glorifying socialism (Hungary between
1945 and 1989). For anyone interested in movie-making by Hungarian
directors, I recommend first starting with Szabo's films such as
Mephisto, Oberst Redl and Sunshine, then going through Bela Tarr's
movies, and finally trying Jancso.
| Ratings | Awards | External reviews |
| Plot keywords | Main details | Your user reviews |
| Your vote history |