Mientras dure la guerra

Well directed, well acted, As always Alejandro Amenábar has done an excellent job.

The story follows Miguel de Unamuno who was the rector of the university Salamanca before the war. As with happens with many intellectuals he was blind to the consequences of what was happening around him.

The dictatorship's rise and time in power is still a hot potato here in Spain. The transition to democracy, though smooth, did not manage to heal the wounds of seventy years of dictatorship.

This story is timeless: we cannot see the reality of something until it is too late. But even if we can, are we able to change things? Or is it the man with the gun and all the bullets that decides who is in the right?

This is a very simple story and I think Amenabar wants to warn us about the dangers we are facing today. Our intellectuals, not only academics, are watching, without any big unrest, the rise of fascism in our countries and aren't clearly going against it. Miguel Unamuno was one of them, he thought their current regime (the republic) wasn't going good enough and he believed that those right wingers bringing some force and order could solve the problems of Spain. He even financed them! Meanwhile, he closed his eyes to the reality, despite warnings from very close friends, and all the signs around him, but then, when he woke up, it was already too late. See any resemblance to what is happening today? What are our intellectuals doing? Think about it, soon it might be too late again.

This is a very good movie, well-acted, well directed and with a nice photography, but the most important is its message and the reflection it causes.

The movie is about Spain in the 30s, but I see its importance in the actual context I'm living right now in my country as a brazilian.

The people who supports or simply doesn't stand up against fascism are not necessarily fascists as we can see in the main character. The brutality, fanatism and absurd could be right in front of your eyes and you still are not able to see and comprehend it, specially if the context you are living is confusing and complex.

Spain paid a very high price because of this and suffered for 40 years in the hands of a fascist - an upholder for the "good spaniards".

That's a movie that should be shown to people like Miguel de Unamuno before it's too late, like it was for him.

Great story, great acting, great direction. Maybe it did not happen exactly as it is told (it is a film not a documentary) but the portrait of that Spain, of those days, of Unamuno, of the militars is perfect. The reasons of the caracteres, of all of them, not only Unamuno or Franco but also Millán Astray, the friends and family of D Miguel are a perfect mirror tonlook at and think over. After enjoying this film I started reading again some of Unamuno's books I had already read many years ago when I was younger.

The Spanish Civil War was one of the first intensely publicized armed conflicts, and it inspired numerous fictional and fictional stories, some of them written and published even during the events, between 1936 and 1939. 'While at War' (the title in Spanish is 'Mientras dure la guerra'), the film by director Alejandro Amenábar, made eight decades later, brings to screen the figure of writer, linguist and philosopher Miguel de Unamuno, perhaps the most famous Spanish intellectual of that period, and his attitude towards the events related to the outbreak of civil war. It is a biographical and historical film with many qualities. It is also a movie of actuality. Perhaps the most surprising aspect for the spectators is the fact that even today the controversies and ideas raised by the film seem to be contemporary, despite its historical theme. When is the activism that favors 'order' slipping in dictatorship? What is the role of the intellectuals and when does political engagement become inevitable? Does silence mean complicity?

The events described in the film happened in reality, which does not mean that they are not controversial to date. Their facts and interpretations also have a political resonance in contemporary Spain. Two lines of action take place in parallel. The first describes the beginning of the military rebellion led by the junta of generals and the taking of its leadership by Franco on the way to the absolute power that he would hold in Spain until 1975. A redefinition of the aims of the rebellion takes place - from 'restoring order' to an absolutist ideology that combines a return to monarchy, the supremacy of Catholicism and a nationalism with fanatical tendencies, including the cult of death. The second parallel theme relates to the ideological path of Unamuno, from a moderate support of the junta combined with the escapist avoidance of the political engagement at the beginning, to the clarification of his own conscience and the courageous taking of a position in defense of the diversity of ideas and religious freedom, against fanaticism and extremism.

The rendition of historical facts and the atmosphere of the time are performed in a professional and clear manner. The script fails to avoid a few common places, such as a few melodramatic flash-backs and the family scenes related to Unamuno, but most of the time expressively refer to the historical characters of the time. Karra Elejalde creates a human and complex Miguel de Unamuno, dignified but subject to pressures, who, having reached the old age and struggling with his own tendency for balance and compromise and with his born-in intellectual ambivalence, finally manages to gather the physical and intellectual forces to take attitude on the just side of history. Santi Prego not only physically looks exactly like we know Franco from the history books and filmed journals of the time, but also creates a psychological profile of this historical figure in which intellectual mediocrity meets the political talent sustained by opportunism and unscrupulousness. Eduard Fernández plays the role of the other general, Millan Astray, a kind of Spanish Goebbels or Beria, the ideologue of the ascending dictatorship, a far more sinister character because of his fanaticism and inciting of the violence of the fascinated masses. Temporarily the generals will defeat and silence the philosopher. In the perspective of history, however, the philosopher is the one who wins.