O Charlatão

Great art direction. Interesting story, but I felt it missed on a few things worth exploring. Great cinematography. Weak chemistry between the leads. Feels like an HBO TV movie, which is not necessarily a bad thing. 6* out of 10*

I had never heard of Jan Mikolasek, a herbalist/healer and hero to many Czech people. I strongly feel that would be for the best, or checking your Czech history at the door during the opening credits. In fact I'd add maybe skip the post-movie googling on him, and accept this as a very-loosely-based-on-reality film.

Call it speculative biography.

That said, I found the folk therapy treatments based on urine analysis fascinating, I could almost see that as something to have a revival for a variety of reasons (health-cost widening gaps on top of a general distrust of what the authorities, medical or otherwise, say).

Indeed the day I watched this movie I also read a news story about a California state senator's wife dying with a "partially intact" white mulberry leaf found inside her stomach. Sad, but charlatans are far from a plague of the past.

Despite the title, the film seems to not be so ready to condemn Mikolasek for his quasi-medical endeavors. He is introduced with an almost superhuman power, and there is a notion of a burning need to share that power with the people.

The scenes with his mentor underscore a commitment to altruism, beneath a fervent religious belief. There is some joy to those scenes, and fun with lighting as well. Mikolasek inherits a lot of his mentor's skills, however the altruism and spirituality come with conflictions.

He lives a life of apparently both affluence and asceticism. Sitting at night for a tasty feast, kneeling the next day upon the rocks before a statue of Christ.

The conflictions in the film are expanded to his sexuality, in Holland's account there is no question to the homeopath's homosexuality. Like I said, speculative biography. That sexuality puts him at risk not just in the church, but in the eyes of state. Even as the state of the state changes.

Speaking of the state, the healer's efforts don't only lead to long lines of desperate people outside Mikolasek's stately gated home, but interest from their leaders/occupiers.

He survives thanks to his concoctions and connections. But after a stretch of time, will his friends in powerful places turn a more cowardly shade of yellow? Will the good non-doctor suffer the same shady fate?

Again I think the film is well worth a watch especially the efforts of father and son actors covering the ages of Jan. The camera shots work harder than the communists to frame Mikolasek (so many shots through gates/doorways/prison cells and other rectangles within the rectangular screen).

A mild caution on some of the brutality in the film, there are three scenes where a harsh choice of life/death is thrust upon us. A gun, a sack and and an abortifacient - while the middle may trouble other viewers the most, the third shook me.

Over the course of the movie, I felt that Holland may have tried to stack too much upon the shoulders of Mikolasek in this his reel life, but then again he apparently was a larger-than-life to many in his real life.

The script is based on Jan Mikolasek, a Czech healer & herbalist. Hundreds would line up each day at his house seeking treatment for ailments. He ended up serving perhaps a million. His diagnosis came in large part from observing the urine of each person & treating w/herbs. He & his staff were imprisoned for several years through Czech communist authoritarian control of peoples lives in the '50s & '60s (sounds like Russia, Belarus, China, Myanmar today) through loss of freedoms, imprisonment, killings. He died of natural causes in 1973. Unmarried he gave much of his money to charitable causes. Would have liked more history in the script.

The biographical film Sarlatan is good, it is worth seeing because it describes the life and destiny of an interesting and controversial character. The life of the main character is totally atypical and includes both good and evil. On the one hand he was completely dedicated to the work of a healer, treating 200 people a day of all kinds of diseases, on the other hand he was a sadomasochist, with accents of madness when torturing and killing animals or when self-mutilating or with accents of murderer when he proposes to the man he lived with to kill his unborn child... A person with extraordinary abilities but also with an obvious mental and emotional imbalance. It bothered me that the film did not show clearly what was the situation of the character towards the end of his life, namely the fact that he was sentenced to 5 years in prison and not killed and that after his release he did not deal with healing.

Agnieszka Holland is active as a (female) director since halfway the 70's and has produced a very diverse oeuvre. Because there is no real masterpiece in the oeuvre I think she hasn't got the attention she deserves.

Also "Charlatan" is no masterpiece, but it is a very good movie nevertheless. The cinematography is at times very beautiful, but that is not the real attraction of the movie. The real attraction of the movie is that it has a very compex main character in a very complex society, but the movie does not try to explan everything. It is up to the spectator to think about a lot of quenstions after the movie has finished. Benath some of the questions I had after viewing the movie.

The film is a biopic about Jan Mikolasek (1889 - 1973, played by Ivan Trajon (at older age) and his son Josef Trojan (at younger age)). Jan Mikolasek diagnosis people by looking at a bottle of their urine and treats them with extracts of herbs. When later in the film Mikolasek also turns out to be a clairvoyant, the term "charlatan" seems more then justified. Despite its title the film hoewever does not give a clear answer to this question. There are some indications about questianable merchandising (empty bottles to urinate in) around the practice of Mikolasek but on average he is portrayed as a man driven to help his patients and not as a charlatan.

Mikolasek is prosecuted by the communist Czech government. The film is unclear about the motives of the government. The prosecutor calls Mikolasek mockingly a urine oracle, but as we saw before this was in all probability not the case.

The film makes clear that the prosecution is only possible after some former patients of Mikolasek are no longer on positions of power. That is however only about eliminating an obstacle and does not give a cleu about the motives behind the prosecution. Was it the homosexuality of Mikolasek? At one point in the film is remarked that this is against the law, but (again) the film does not provide definite answers.

As dedicated Mitosalek is to his patients, so selfish and blunt he sometimes is to his loved ones. Especially against his assistent and lover Frantisek Palko (Juraj Loj) he is two times real cruel and villainous. Flashbacks to his past agian provide some clues about this inconsistency in his peronality but not the full answer.

One thing is in my opinion not entirely logic. The film is told in flash backs originating from the interrogation during the proces. At other points in the film however, the impression is created that the proces is just a show proces with conclusions already drawn. But why having serious interrogations in a show proces?