Hans_Grob

Contrary to my expectation, the cinema auditorium was nearly full this evening. And the audience, mostly elderly persons, were rewarded. The scenes switch from place to place (one in Texas, one in Geneva, one in Berne), hence also from language to language, and from present to past. It is well explained, why this artist was for a long time underrated and is still internationally. It shows very early scenes with Amiet from the silent film period till his last days. The depiction of his problematic relation with painter giant Hodler er leads also through history. This film quickens one's appetite to paint oneself or to visit a corresponding exposition.

Based on critiques, I was not sure whether I should dislocate to the next cinema to watch this film. One compelling reason: around 1960, the then called Dahomey was the focus of developmental aid by a Swiss supermarket cooperative, as depicted in that bi-weekly magazine. So by watching, I hoped to revive this past experience. Professional ratings are also quite good, and the short duration of only 1h+ would make a bad surprise bearable. It is anyway a weakness of contemporary film-makers to try to give 'substance' by making films of 2hours or more.

Contrary to some critiques here, the final scene with the discussions by the students was everything else than boring. The question is: what is the truth behind their assertions 'Only some dozens have been brought back, but there were thousands robbed'? I assume, the majour works have been returned.

It happened that I had seen this film in cinema about 20 years ago. Now I got this title again in a bundle of three Menzel films, not knowing that because I had forgotten it completely, so weak the content: unmotivated smiling, mating: very funny?! After the first few scenes I switched off the player, because I detest cruelty. It is not even for beer drinkers, the best beers nowadays made out of Plzen, even out of Czechia.