Der die Zeichen liest

Yet another bleak, cynical Russian take on the modern world and its moral conditions (Leviathan, etc). Here, Russian director Kirill Serebrennikov and German playwright Marius Von Mayenburg re-tread the age old argument that pits Christianity against the modern worlds view on human morality. Made in a somewhat trendy, dismal style, with too many shaky hand held shots and some overbearing music - these movie makers, as with so many others over the decades, seem to think they have reached an informed conclusion so, able to convince us all of their superior intellectual standpoint. They have both chosen to overlook the fact that vast numbers who went before them, have concluded that it's an unwinnable topic that leaves more questions than answers – in fact, many who set out to fight against and disprove the wisdom of Christ's word, converted over to it.

They use many of the Bibles strongest passages to substantiate their subservient arguments but the language presented on both sides of their viewpoint tends to suggest that perhaps: The Wisdom of Man is Less than the Foolishness of God. Their protagonist is portrayed as a psychotic who quotes almost verbatim Bible scriptures but, he is ultimately shown to be as crippled as the cripple he tries to heal, then harms. This character offers no real basis to mount a genuine argument. As another reviewer has already stated: Laughable.

Set in a current (surprisingly undisciplined) Russian school, many of the usual hooks are put-out to appeal to our basic instincts: Sexual freedoms (with lashings of nudity and sexual situations) ~ Anti Semitism (with the biology-sex-ed teacher being both anti-Christian and Jewish, in fact - her character simply allows for situations of associated Christian based hatred, to be easily introduced within the ideals of the modern world) ~ Next, there's the headmistress and the teacher of religious studies - both shown to be perhaps out of touch (as one might expect). These movie makers have perfectly armed themselves with so many manipulative character devises to support their biased point of view. It's too easy to mount an argument by designing characters to serve an already formed view.

If the topic leans your way it could appeal - otherwise, stay away.

This is the cinema we should be watching right now to rest a little bit of the same old famous faces from Hollywood and the same narratives.

The storyline adapts itself to the times we are living where the ultra Orthodox thinking is starting to rise again. Maybe it's not the end we were expecting to happen but it's the one a Russian direct can afford in their own political context.

like many Russian contemporary films, it seems be portrait of near reality from East. in fact, it is a puzzle of questions. about school and about teenager crisis, about the use of religion and the answer of Church, about friendship and fear and teachers, about situation of a student as personal struggle for a woman looking defining his life direction. it could be perceived as attack against Chistianity, as satire or as precise reflection of the state of school. but, more important, it has two virtues - the performances - especially the performance of the lead actor and the status of support for reflection about near every day reality. because it gives nothing new. well known facts, the crisis of a teenager, empty head teachers, a revolutionary Biology teacher, her boy friend, a young student looking for love. each as part of a lucid and admirable interrogation. so, an admirable work.

Nowadays Russian cinema is more political than ever. And its political word is not shy, it frankly declares war against either bureaucratic or societal corruption (or both), as we can see in Leviathan, Durak, and this film. But the most dangerous enemy in this war, is the scope of the enemy. If you define the whole corrupt society as something to destroy, who will be your allies in this war? No one, for sure. You're as lonely as Don Quixote in his delusions.

Actually, the idea of "the Holy Bible in a human's body" as a character is striking, strengthened by the undeniable references. The viewers are forced to observe how religious fundamentalism can threaten the society, especially when the people around cannot see the big picture, cannot imagine what will come next and feed the beast naively as if donating to the church.

But as I mentioned above, despite the power of its criticism this movie too is unfortunately flawed with the problem of being incapable of providing solution, like similar others. The film rightfully asks: "This religious fundamentalism is poisoning us! What is the antidote to it?" But the answer is perfectly oxymoronical: "We need idealist individuals, but hopeless at the same time due to their loneliness..."

So, according to me it's clear that these "pessimist-idealist" characters represent the directors themselves. They can foresee what's coming, they want to do something, but when they look around they realize that they don't have anyone to cooperate with. So, disappointed with this loneliness, they get critical of the society much more than the problems the society is experiencing. So, contradictorily, what we as the viewers have in the end is not a motivation for action, but a reflection of the pessimism of the director dictating us to sit and smile cynically at the inevitable self-destruction of the society.

The plot revolves around religious interpretation validity, but just out the shell.However, religion issues are a mere devise to show the detrimental progress of the mind of a boy traumatized for the absence of a father. That father longing, becomes the Father, and the Son religious metaphor that is at the same time took literally by the main character. The boy that is treated as a devote religious man, is never taken seriously as the boy that needs urgently a shrink to disclose the only reason for being ill minded. The pain of Growing without a father and the mother as the remaining culprit, no matter how she cares. The Bible as a textbook. And the Bible as the metaphor of the lacking lessons that a father could had given to his son. Divorce is the apple eaten by the new Adams and Eves of the 21th century.