A Passageira

What the hell is this? I can appreciate a good avant-garde film but this just takes the mickey. Firstly its only half a film because unfortunately the director died before it was complete, there's hardly any dialogue and it kinda just jumps all over the place. Cinematicly its brilliant but the content isn't so good. I would direct people to 'Fateless' which is a much better independent Hungarian film. Yes I appreciate it was made in the 1960s at a time where there wasn't hardly any films on the subject of the holocaust and in that context then I would say its pretty ground breaking, however, i think audiences are harder to please these days and so you might end up just a little confused wondering why you spent the last hour on this film.

Don't bother watching this unless you have no other options. I can't believe i wasted £10 on this.

In what was to be his final, incomplete film, Andrzej Munk gives an insight into an "island in time", as the narrator calls it. A woman on an ocean cruiser meets what seems to be a person from her own past - a past where she was overseer in the Auschwitz concentration camp, and the other a prisoner. They were bond together by a strange link, which in the view of guard (Liza) was generally build up by some sort of respect and protection, whereas the actual events that follow Liza reminiscences leave no doubt about her participation in the inhumanity and her guild. From the point of view of Marta, the surviver (or is it someone else?), the "relationship" was different. Munks pictures show us two sides of the story in a dream-like atmosphere: Black and white, eerie music, haunting pictures. Though a totally different content, the aesthetic atmosphere recalls 'La Jetee' by Chris Marker, filmed around the same time. In all, a short but intense viewing experience that achieves great emotional impact. Way ahead of it's time.

We can't judge this film because it was unfinished and it may well have been a good career move for Munk to die before he finished it. What we have and what we imagine of the rest is a little masterpiece, but I can't help wondering whether it could have been tied together and made into a unified whole. It's got Munk's wonderful camera movements and his chracteristic concentration on faces, but I wonder what he would have done with the rest of the film.

It's worth remembering that Lisa's self-accusing account of her behaviour is every bit as subjective as her self-excusing one. In fact, it could be that there was no Marta or that Lisa never was a concentration camp guard and is imagining everything in the film.

Passenger is a Polish film about a German ex-officer at a concentration camp who sees someone she believes to be an ex-inmate on board a cruise ship. From there, she recounts her experience during the war, and the odd dynamic she had with this one particular prisoner.

It only runs an hour long, and is very upfront about the fact it's an unfinished film, due to the director suddenly dying during production. The people who picked up the pieces and edited into what it is today try to work this into the film via a narration which adds some subtext, and tries to link what happened to the film to the themes of the film's story, to mixed results.

I guess an attempt at acknowledging the film's backstory and working it into the film was better than nothing, but it might strain a little in the closing narration (especially when the narrator also stops speaking mid-sentence, then the film ends).

But for what it is, it's still quite good. Might well have been even better had all the scenes been filmed, but there was certainly enough here for a compelling, semi-experimental hour-long film.

The first 8 minutes of this black-and-white movie are not representative for the rest of the movie. Since the director of this movie died before he could complete this movie, it is explained that the movie is shown to you in its uncomplete state. First of all they show some photos of the director and start the movie with a photo-based introduction. I assume this is done because this part of the movie was not filmed yet when the director passed away. And this introduction of around 8 minutes is not representative for the rest of the movie. So please take this into account when you start watching this movie.

During watching the movie, other unfinished scenes are also substituted with photos and a voice-over that explains what the original idea was for those missing scenes. But this will be only short "interruptions" that are unlike the first 8 minutes.

What though is completed, are all scenes in the Auschwitz concentration camp. And I must say that it is excellent material. Of all the movies and series that I have ever seen, this movie seems to contain the most accurate of how the camp really looked like. The layout of the ramp, the way arriving people had to walk to get to the crematoria, the downwards stairs that functioned as the entrance of the gas chambers... they are all like the real Auschwitz.

Even the infamous and much feared "Block 11" - the so-called "death block" - is shown in the movie. This block is where many people ended up being killed or tortured to death. The movie also has an accurate view of the "death wall", which is used for shooting people. And it is the first time that I see the so-called "standing cells", with its low doors that people had to crawl through to enter. Cells where people were left standing many days with no possibility whatsoever to lie down. And people where left in such conditions - in the dark and even without food - until they died an agonizing death.

One may think that it is an unattractive watch because the movie is black-and-white. Another pretty valid argument may be that the movie is unfinished and with its 1 hour duration doesn't even meet the 1.5 hour duration of the typical feature-length movie. But I think we have here an excellent opportunity to see how life in Auschwitz may have been like. So I therefore think that it belongs in any serious list of WW2 movies.

I am not going to give away the details of the storyline itself, which would spoil the watch. I though want to say, what I think that the purpose of this movie is. And it is to show how warped the reality of some SS camp guards is. And that, even many years after the war ended.

I really get the idea that the director wants to show us that there were SS guards that saw some people as their personal pets (or personal slaves). It is those same guards that "play around" with these "pets" until they lose interest and kill them. As such, this movie shows not only the overal inhumane conditions of life in Auschwitz, but also the large differences in how people were treated.

Combined with some very decent acting, this movie deserves a score of 6.5/10, thereby just barely making it an IMDb rating of 7 stars. And of course I needed to include the facts that it is incomplete. But this score is in my opinion very decent for its current state.

Were it not for the untimely death of the director, I think we would have ended up with an 8-star IMDb movie that would have been known to a large public.