Chico

Some hints how to prepare for this film:

To fully understand and to _really_ absorb something of "Chico" you must have as much historical, geopolitical and ideological background-knowledge as you can. Especially about Chile, South America, Allende, Pinochet, communism, fascism, Hungary before and after the '90s, ex-Yogoslavia and the liaison of it's nations, Serbs, Croats, Chetniks, Ustashas, minorities, Albania, Jerusalem etc., just to name some of the most important keywords. (If these terms are not so familiar for you and you haven't seen the film but you want, then I recommend looking after them for a while. Believe me. It will increase your satisfaction!)

To make this mess more "confusing" Chico (Eduardo Rózsa Flores) speaks Spanish(Castilian), Hungarian, English, Italian, Croatian and a little bit of Russian as the story moves along. Because of that, there are almost no people who could fully understand everything without subtitles. This is very interesting and challenging.

See it!

If you liked "Chico", you should also check out: Machuca (2004), Rane (1998), Before the Rain (1994). These films will also improve your understanding of "Chico" and vice versa.

I'm not sure a more challenging film has been made. Fekete, director of Bolshe Vita, itself a complex and difficult undertaking, went beyond what we think of as manageable material with Chico. Blurring fact and fiction, uniting a story told through 25 years in 5 nations, or almost-nations, or nations in the process of becoming, unified by the improbable story of an impossible man whose credibility lies in the fact that he is portraying himself, masterfully, honestly, fragmentarily. This is a film of genius by a filmmaker who is not satisfied unless she is on the trail of something very large, very real -- the only other filmmakers I can think of that approach this are the early Rossellini and the early Cassavetes. I would welcome further information on this director and how she managed to make this film.

Not a film for everyone. For those who dig at the roots of human conflict or who want some short primers in a back-corner part of the world, your time won't be wasted - It is a hard story to follow, and seems improbable even as we watch, but Flores was an actual man, who stared in an earlier Fekete movie, "Bolshe Vita", 1996. As she got to know him she was intrigued by his 'rootless' background and decided to make a movie, with Chico himself. With some fictional elements, this is his story.

It's hard to follow in part because she seems to have stitched together film footage of varying quality. Some of it is rough and blurry. It's also hard because we ordinary film-buffs will not know the national flags being flown: we are not sure who Chico is fighting with, either in Hungary or later in shattering Yugoslavia. (Hint: he's with the Croatians against the Serbs and Chetniks.) - See more at: http://www.allinoneboat.org/#sthash.D27nZrzL.dpuf

CHICO, a two hour film that is a mixture of documentary footage, biographical exploration of an amazing young man who just happens to be the actor portraying himself, and historical drama creating a film that is as confusing, contradictory, explicitly powerful and ugly as the wars it traverses. Given the fact that the film is shot in multiple locations and in many languages (Spanish, English, Hungarian, Croatian, German, and more), it is extremely demanding of the viewer: not one minute of concentration can be spared to attain the impact of the message writer/director Ibolya Fekete spreads before us.

Chico (Eduardo Rózsa Flores on whose life this film is based and who stuns with his acting skills) begins the film as a young boy living in Chile, the son of a Bolivian Catholic mother and a Hungarian Jewish father, and is caught up in the revolutions of the 1960s very much under the influence of Che Guevara's teachings. He family is Communist but Catholic (!), forced to flee Pinochet's Chile and the turnover with Allende, and though not speaking any language but Spanish, Chico goes to Europe as a young man whose goal is journalism but whose convictions embrace revolution as the means to alter the future. In his confusing role of journalist/freedom fighter he becomes intimately involved with the revolutions in Hungary, Albania, Israel, Croatia and the Balkan War with the Yugoslavian decimation of the 1990s.

Throughout his travels from revolution to revolution, first as a reporter, but always ending up as a freedom fighter, we meet a huge cast of characters, a cast representing both sides of each revolution, and the lines between identities become blurred to the extent that it is impossible to identify the two sides at odds. It is here that Fekete makes his strongest statement: war is atrocious, cruel, meaningless, destructive, brutal and foolish. Chico sees it all yet continues to actively participate in the killing and the mayhem, all the while feeling the pull of his Catholicism and even his Jewish heritage bifurcating his emotional commitment.

The huge cast passes in front of our eyes so quickly that few are present long enough to evaluate as actors. One exception stands out: Richie Varga plays Jimmie, a American from Chicago who steps into the final battle of the film and leaves an indelible impression with his good looks and his sensitive portrayal of a soul searching for meaning in the mess of war. Easily the star of the film is the Chico of Eduardo Rózsa Flores, a man who made it through all the changes and chances of the story and maintains the ability to transmit his puzzling life to us in a verismo manner. This is a film that is very difficult to follow, just as are the various revolutions and wars in countries that are forever changing boundaries and names. But in the end it teaches us a lot about the concept of 'why revolution' and even more about the absurdity of war. Burningly alive cinema, this film is recommended for those who need to understand our global condition from the 1960s to the present. Grady Harp

At the outset I'll say I love films with some basis in historical events. The problem is of course that the more a film commits itself to historical events the more a review tends to refer to those events rather than the film.

Firstly, what I like about this film is that it doesn't try to appease any group or be politically correct. It doesn't go for the soft option as many other recent movies about recent wars do,ie: there is no good or bad, both side commit atrocities. Such liberal soppiness is misleading and directly opposed to historical fact and common sense. There are aggressors and there are victims, even though the lines of demarcation are occasionally blurred. This film in a way refers back to the films of commitment made in the 1930s in Hollywood or Latin America in the 1960s.

Similarly, people usually re-write history to suit their worldview. I note that another reviewer blamed the Yugoslav War on US and German imperialism and that the "poor" Serbians, Croatians and Bosnians were their pawns that had lived "peacefully and admirably until the West engineered the collapse of Yugoslavia". What planet did that come from? The Croatians and the Serbians have not got on in since the turn of the 20th century (as World War 1 and 2 show). Yugoslavia ( both pure and post WW2) was very much held together by force and intimidation. That's a historical fact. If the various ethnic groupings had "got on" the force of violence that erupted in the Yugoslavian War would not have occurred. That's common sense. I assume such views are based on ones internal beliefs. In this case its standard old style claptrap leftism (which unfortunately gives leftism a bad name).

History is written by the victors and in Yugoslavia after 1944 the Serbians (once again) took control of the country. Their history, which was passed out as historical fact for the next 50 years, was, they were leftists and the Croatians were all fascists, therefore you should support us in this war. The reality of course is that the Yugoslav army and irregulars in the recent war were dominated by Serbian nationalists seeking a greater Serbia and using ethnic cleansing and murder as a means to achieve this, not to mention the fact that during World War 2 (up to 1944 in any event) most of the Communist Partizans were in fact Croatian.

The beauty of course is the film is attempting to overcome the conventionally held history. It doesn't deal with past history though, but rather with what is happening now. By dealing with "history now" the film sheds light on some of the lies that have been passed out as historical fact.

The central character Chico is a man of contradictions. A child of a Hungarian Jewish father and a Spanish Catholic mother he is a child of the 1960s Latin revolutions and raised in a leftist family. So he is a Communist but a practicing Catholic, he goes to a Catholic priest for confession but prays at the weeping wall, he is a humanist but advocates war.

These supposed contradictions always existed within people. People are molded from many historical events and social forces surrounding them. The only place pure ideologies exist are in philosophical arguments between half smart raconteurs or in undergrad university assignments …. ie: you cant believe in that if you believe in that etc. This film never backs away from commitment but it does subtlety (and sometimes not so subtlety) suggest that there is another side. Accordingly, you don't get the feeling you are being preached at (whereas you might from this review).

The film takes you on Chico's journey through causes around the world like a frenzied 20th century Don Quixote looking for meaning. Chico's humanity ultimately leads him to Yugoslavia and the Croatian Homeland War in the 1990s. And even though it is not a ideologically correct war (as his father tells him) he knows within himself that he must side with the oppressed.

Chico searches and is redeemed but is he content, or is he saddened and scarred? At times it seems that Chico, like a Zelig, was at all the important late 20th century events, and the film seems to make comment on them. On that level the film is not always successful (its hard enough commenting on one situation). The film is more successful as a personal odyssey through tumultuous events.

There are some standard Hollywood war movie clichés, ie: the outnumbered and besieged forces, the sing a long etc but, but they are downplayed, and I sometimes wonder if clichés became clichés because they actually occurred in times of war. What underpins the whole film though is the upfront, "in your face" reality of it all ... like Sam Fuller with a hand-held camera. The photography is not pretty, which suits the picture perfectly although I wouldn't have minded a few more scene setting shots. The docu-drama works well at drawing you into the story whilst distracting you from the budgetary limitations of the film. The "docu" is the newsreel footage of the war whilst the "drama" is Chico's journey (both physically and spiritually) and people he meets on the way. This is a war film that deals with people rather than action … there is little action and when it does come it is over quickly.

The acting is fine, and Eduardo Rozsa Flores plays Chico effortlessly, not surprisingly as Chico is based on Flores own life in part! Flores fought, globe trotted and eventually found a cause in the Croatian Homeland War. The direction ( by Ibolya Fekete) is handled nicely and the action is gritty. The real stand out though is the directors juxtaposition (you have to love that word even if it is overused) of live action with news footage.

If you want to be confronted and challenged ... watch this.