Ucitelka

One thing must be explained: only people who lived through this era here in Czechoslovakia, or other Socialist or Communist country, will understand this movie in holistic ways. A perfect cast portraying, what was once an every day practical life of ordinary subordinated people, who either served the system or those who refused and suffered the consequences. The thing is, it does not matter if your motives were opportunistic or not, most were afraid and did only what they had to, just not to be seen stepping out of the row or just simply to survive. Anyhow, my parents were also not part of the Communist party, so I give credit and kudos to all who raised their voices and were often times silenced. Only these people practically know, how hard it was to survive, once you were blacklisted... And the others? It is just very sad, that most of the powerful communists, are today were well established, wealthy and continuing to poison our society in new ways possible... The regimes have changed, but the people remain the same...

Simply and perfectly a microcosm of eastern europe. I would never presume to ask of you to rate this film 10 stars but it was you who offered.

Kompromat but with children.

Saw this at the Leiden International Film Festival 2016. The exposition of characters is very original, but it confused me in the beginning and made me wonder where the story was heading. The following may serve as heads up for subsequent viewers. In alternating short scenes, we observe a school building at daylight with students, and the same building at night with parents inside. In hindsight, we see a meeting of parents as the main course, and it is precisely that meeting that carries the story line. The parallel illustrations with scenes in and out of school are necessary to bring the core message home.

Several movies from former communist countries drive the message home that corruption and power abuse is a major issue. We start getting an idea what the problem is, when the teacher in question, on her first day, asks all students what their parents do for a living. It gradually grows on us that her interest is not seeking background information about the students, very commendable if that was the case, but foremost that she is planning to make effective use of their potential.

An example: One of the fathers is said to work on the airport, and she immediately sees an opportunity to smuggle bakery to her family abroad. Later on it appears that the airport employee in question is working as a sales clerk, and has no contact at all with plane crew personnel. So he can only make a feeble attempt to hand it over to passing plane personnel. It does not work due to everyone ignoring him. He is stuck with the cake, and sees no other way out than eating it by himself and not facing the music when coming home with it. This is just an example, but serves well as an illustration what this movie is about. Said teacher uses parents and children for a variety of domestic tasks, and passes information in return which parts of their home work should be studied in depth, as an examination about that particular material can be expected the next day.

The meeting called by the school director does not progress as smoothly as planned. The majority of the parents do not dare to speak out that they feel "used" by the teacher too, or either see no harm in it "everyone does it". It all comes down to the fact that high marks for the children are very important for their future, and parents are prepared for anything to accommodate that. At first, the screenplay focuses on two families in particular, who are very outspoken they will sign the petition. We see various scenes in class and at home to illustrate the problem very thoroughly. Alas, for a considerable part of the running time these two couples are alone with their complaints, and no other parents seems prepared to follow suit. It takes some time for a few (very few) others to join in, and we hear their stories as well via scenes at home. This approach with scenes alternating between locations and protagonists works very well, and is useful for keeping our interest.

Nevertheless, the meeting falters and most parents leave without having signed the petition. Yet, a very surprising outcome is to be expected, after all (no details, no spoilers). Apart from an indictment against people in a powerful position who may abuse their official position for private purposes, it also reminds us that corruption is still a major issue in some of the former Communist countries, as can be readily derived from recent movies like Durak/The Fool (Bykov 2014), Dolgaya Schastlivaya Zhizn/A Long And Happy Life (Khlebnikov 2013) and Leviathan (Zvyagintsev 2014). Those issues are not eliminated, apparently, and we still read about power abuse, self-serving bureaucrats and other forms of corruption in contemporary newspapers. On the other hand, similar issues exist in our Western countries as well, and the fact that papers, books and movies are not so outspoken about is, cannot be construed as a reason to believe that we are very different off here. Situations like the ones demonstrated in this movie, are feasible everywhere. I think this is the central theme of this movie, letting us stay awake and not lean backwards while thinking such problems only exist in far-away countries.

I dont understand the low ratings for this film. it is a great movie , story telling and acting is superb. i would strongly recommend this movie.

Some genre labels are highly deceptive. The Czech Republic produced film The Teacher (2016) is labelled a comedy drama but there is little humour in this dark political satire about totalitarian regimes. Minimalist in dialogue and action, it paints a sombre picture for the youth of the communist world.

The storyline is simple but the atmosphere chilling. It is 1983 in Soviet-era Czechoslovakia and a long way from the child-centred education systems familiar to modern Western audiences. On the first day of school term, new teacher Maria Drazdechova (Zuzana Mauréry) asks each pupil to stand up and declare their parent's occupation. As the powerful chairwoman of the local communist party committee she seems over-confident while the camera pays close attention to her notebook of free services to be called upon. When the pupils inform their parents what happened, a cycle of silent complicity is triggered. Low performing pupils whose parents agree to Maria's hints, such as a free haircut, a fridge repair, or housecleaning, suddenly show an improvement in their school marks. High performing students whose parents do not curry the teacher's favour see their marks and future career prospects spiral downwards; one even attempts suicide. School authorities are intimated and there is no higher avenue of appeal. Both parents and pupils know that something sinister is happening as their school becomes a place of terror.

The central narrative premise is so disturbing that little embellishment is needed to portray the moral brutality of a corrupt political system. Sub-plots of parent meetings and conspiring pupils add texture to drama. The desaturated filming palette conveys the cold fear of life under communist control and the acting style has a realistic, almost cameo quality that intensifies the trauma of Maria's victims. Zuzana Mauréry and the support cast are largely unknown but are perfect in their roles. Mauréry is particularly effective in portraying a smugly callous disregard for her pupils with a veneer of smiling innocence that masks her ruthless exploitation. While the teacher may depict the corrupt face of totalitarianism it is the parents who reciprocate the mass compliance necessary for propping up such regimes.

It would be hard to describe this film as entertaining. There are few light moments and little to laugh at when depicting the communist way of life. Being sub-titled, some loss of dialogue nuance is inevitable but the message is unmistakable. With an authentic voice and sense of place, this is a gripping allegory for the moral corruption endemic to communism.