El discípulo

There are several issues touched upon in this film; some of them very complex, and others, rather simple. First of all, there are no protagonists in this film. All the characters are flawed to some degree; some are extremely flawed. Also, there is no clear delineation between what is right or what is wrong. If you are religious, you will believe in one set of outcomes; if you are agnostic or atheistic, you will believe in other outcomes. Does God exist? Thomas Tafero wrote about this issue in his book (Amazon.com) called The Defense, where he had to defend his atheistic beliefs against six religious leaders of different faiths to receive his PHD (very good reading I might add). Aside from the religious aspect, there are the sexual overtones of the film, and finally the persecution of innocent teachers by school administrators who constantly take the word of students over the teachers (I had this experience at Jimei University in China, when one of the administrators believed six students who lived in the same dorm who cheated on their final paper. I had to eventually pass them after giving them all an F). I never thought I would see the day when Soviet schools would be so permissive. The film is interesting to see the current state of Russian education.

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.

Venya is a teenager with attitude, he is cared for by a single mother who works three jobs to keep body and soul together. Then one day she gets a call from his school saying he is refusing to take part in mixed swimming lessons. She imagines all the reasons why a teenage boy may not want to do such an activity but never thought that it would be against his political convictions. However, he insists that he is religiously motivated and his stance finds traction in the school principle.

As he realises that religion is power so he sets out to control those around him by becoming a sort of walking, talking Bible. The passages he quotes are very subjective and selective but when delivered with absolute conviction seem to carry more weight and their implicit truth appears loaded with spiritual and moral currency. His Nemesis in this is a forward thinking science and biology teacher but he knows he has God on his side.

Now this is taken from the play by Marius von Mayenburg who is German and the original Russian title was '(M)uchenik' which is a play on Russian words in that muchenik is 'martyr' and 'uchenik' is student – and as such is a brilliant title, but would not work in English – hence 'The Student'. The issues of religious control and the like are hot and controversial topics with parallels to way more than Christianity and as such the film has had its critics.

The acting, directing and cinematography are all excellent and the plot is both compelling and urgent for a film that runs just shy of two hours it really does not waste any time – in Russian with good sub titles this is a film that will divide opinion and I think that is no bad thing – so recommended to those who like to have to think about their cinema.

A world-wide vision on the religious fanaticism, since it is not a Russian history, is a history that must be located in some part of the world and in this case it was Russia. From the outset, I have no doubt that Russian cinema is very intense; I am not an expert in the filmography of that country but the last Russian films that I have seen are truly visceral, anchored crudely in reality. This film is 80% masterfully directed in the intensity of its plot. Added to that brilliant baton, the interpretations of the protagonists are superb and the soundtrack is truly exquisite. However, there are two things that I did not like: the photograph could have been sublime due to the subject that was treated and it was not, and the end, after so many minutes of filmic intensity, is diluted with the scene of the school board meeting. Without a doubt, it is a recommendable film, it is a beautiful sample of the contemporary Russian cinematography.

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.