Salle n°6 - Tchékhov

The film begins with a long prologue in which real life inmates of an asylum are interviewed. When asked about their dream they answer it is to leave the asylum and lead a normal life. Based on Anton Chekov's short story of the same name, Ward No. 6 narrates the tale of Doctor Ragin, who is more of a philosopher than a psychiatric doctor. Spending half his salary on books the reluctant doctor loves to read and have intelligent conversations. Feeling suffocated in the small town he is soon drawn to an intelligent patient in the mental ward suffering from paranoid delusions. He starts spending more and more time in the mental ward and neglects his other duties. The only intelligent conversation the doctor can have in the town is with an insane patient in the mental ward. Getting increasingly disengaged from reality, Doctor Ragin finds himself tricked into being made a patient and confined in the same mental ward, where he awaits death and freedom.

This simple story raises complex questions in our mind. What is insanity? Who defines it? The director narrates Chekov's story in a semi documentary fashion. It doesn't work too well and leaves us rather indifferent to Doctor Ragin's predicament. But I think this form of narration serves the purpose of setting Chekov's story in the contemporary context. The haunting New Year's eve dance sequence is comical yet so chilling! How easily does the State machinery makes its citizens fall in line. What if the State is a lunatic asylum? Thought provoking question for citizens who live under dictatorial regimes!

The film ends with a very intriguing sequence in which a woman who lived next door to Doctor Ragin is being interviewed. Her younger child cannot suppress her laughter and the camera lingers long over her face and that of her sister. Is it laughter of innocence or mischief? The viewer has to make his own judgement.

Brilliant Mosfilm movie by Karen Shakhnazarov adapted from a text by Anton Chekhov. Extremely innovative, with bright dialogues, beautiful and sophisticated cinematography, highly skilled acting, interesting usage of mockumentary elements. It is layered, deep, hard to synthetize, and opens various thoughts. I am sure that the more I re-visit it, new insights will rise. The old question about what is the limit between sanity and madness is in the core here, but it goes beyond. When being cynical and careless is the mediocre norm (being that little town a metaphor for general mediocrity), clever and critical spirit may be diagnosed as crazy. Dr. Andrey Yefimitch Ragin's path actually seems to cross from one pole to the other. Other characters also could be personally interested in having Ragin labeled as mentally ill. As a matter of fact, Ragin's perception about life conditions changes a lot when he changes his side, confirming that materialistic arguments by Gromov were more correct than his Kantian ones mentioning Diogenes. To resume, it is a major film, with smart philosophical elements.

This movie was awful. I worked for years as a psychiatrist at a state mental hospital and could instantly identify the real patients---to me portraying them in this run down hospital stuffed full of drugs was depressing. I particularly disliked the full of him self new Doctor who had a fast pat answer for all of them and their conditions.

There was nothing intellectually or artistically stimulating about watching these poor people... and there was nothing intelligent about the story superimposed on them at least in the confusing way this film portrays it.

Apparently in the original short story (By Chekhov) a Doctor finds the most interesting person in the backwater where the psychiatric instution is located is one of the paranoid schizophrenics. That is believable. In the original story this Doctor is tricked into being admitted into the hospital...also believable but none of this comes out in this movie! In the movie this Doctors best friend runs a store or so it seems. And then this Doctor is admitted and has a stroke. None of it is explained...

I also felt sorry for the patients being filmed. The ending with kids laughing was supposed to be deep in some way and like the rest of this movie is nothing more than meaningless garbage thinking it is deep or artful.

Also cheaply filmed and very erratic camera work.

DO NOT RECOMMEND

I had such high hopes for Ward No. 6. The summary made it sound like a Shutter Island type thriller case, where you're not sure who's really insane, who's really criminal, who's really qualified to be asking the questions.

What I got was a series of clinical interviews that sort of reminded me of the beginning of District 9. The quality of the lighting and shot set up was very flat. Patients are talking to the camera about why they're institutionalized, and it's incredibly sad. Most were dropped off at an orphanage by their own parents and once they aged out, they were moved to the psychiatric facility. They've never had a chance to have a life, because their parents couldn't handle their responsibility. That is horrible! But, I actually would not have minded a more intense study of that situation. Instead, a doctor begins to lead a tour and eventually reveals that his predecessor is now, in fact, a patient. Dr. Ragin had a sort of comfortable life going. But rather than any kind of therapy sessions, he got into philosophical discourses with friends and one patient, in particular, and seemed to be spiraling into a depression about existential issues. The plot is slow. The conversations are like Crime and Punishment. Ward No. 6 is based on a short story by Anton Chekhov, so I shouldn't have been surprised, but honestly, I had a hard time staying focused. It made me sleepy. Ward No. 6 gets a 6 out of 10.

I think Ward No.6 is an absolutely perfect film. Great acting , script, directing, and so on. Sometimes you watch a film and only after you have finished the whole film, you realise how great it was. Sometimes you like some bits from a film, but this one - Ward No. 6 is great from the beginning to end! Just brilliant!