La trêve

There are books and films. Two different ways of telling a story. Sometimes films are based on books. In that case one does good by not concentrating on the book and see the film as an independent work of art. Barthes already proclaimed 'the death of the writer', the discourse is not a message of the writer. But sometimes it's impossible to ignore the writers' work and his message. This is the case with one of this centuries' most important writers, Primo Levi. He didn't just write books, but was able to put in words his very own experiences in the German Lagers and this way put it in a much broader sense, he wrote history.

Many years before, Rosi had succesfully filmed 'christ stopped at Eboli', which was also based on an autobiography (Carlo Levi, not related to Primo) of the fascist period. Rosi did well not to choose Primo Levi's 'if this is a man' (se questo e un uomo), which describes the unimaginable experiences of Levi in the German Lager, he chose what could be called its' 'sequel'. 'the truce' ('la tregua') in which Levi describes his journey home from the camp in Poland to Turin, Italy, which took him an absurd nine months.The film starts when killingfactory Auschwitz-Birkenau is liberated by the Russians and the survivors are freed and put in trains, not to go home directly, but to be send to other camps. From there the journey continues, by train, by foot, meeting various characters. Levi, played by John Torturro, is a silent man who now and then expresses wise words or memorable sentences, but somehow never really makes you think. It's a man we follow, but doesn't touch us, let alone move us. This is not Turturro's fault, he gives a fairly good performance, but Rosi wants too much tell an important story, forgetting the ones who ARE the story; namely the characters. None of them is very well worked out. Take the Greek Nahum, in the book a surpising, colourful person, here just one-dimensional. Symbolism is overly present; Levi who doesn't want to throw away his campjacket, 'to remember' is credible, but the survivors are faced with german prisoners twice and it's given an unconvincing weight, as one German throws himself on his knees, when he sees Levi and his yellow star of David, far too grotesque. Another unconvincing role is given to the music, it's overly present, even a violin is stolen (where Rosi had this idea from is very unclear??) for no good reason. Music should be on the background.

I am sure Rosi had good intentions, but sometimes it's better to read and reread a book and try to reach as many people as possible in that way.

**out of ***** If this is a man (se questo e un uomo)-primo Levi The truce (La tregua) - Primo levi The saved and the drowned (I sommersi e i salvati)-Primo levi

The movie which held great promise seemed to stop short of coherency. The dialog was hard to understand and the characters never really were fully developed. Some things should be left alone as books. This was one of them.

The broad scope of the book could not be shown and the internal thought processes simply did not make the transition.

Just saw it, think it was great. Had no problems understanding the english at all. Kinda slow but I think that's the only way to make a movie like this, especially when it's a true story .. Nice to see a slow movie sometimes, most movies of today are to hectic. Good movie, absolutely worth while seeing.

I have read "Se questo è un uomo" 15 times, and I also consider "La Tregua" as one of the most extraordinary Odysseys of our times. I can hardly find any of Levi's masterpieces in this hodgepodge of episodes, hardly connected to each other and with barely any historical explanation of the events. Several comments about god and religion reported in the movie were not even present in the book, giving the impression that the director wanted to twist Levi's thought to serve his own philosophical agenda. The movie relies too much on images and too little on Levi's own considerations. Some effort has been put in trying to represent the chaotic world of those times, but I would have appreciated less scenic representation and more intimate comments.

I suppose everyone has seen one or more film representations of The Holocaust, but this one is different. It focuses not on the horror of the events themselves, rather, it's main thrust is struggle to return from the nightmare.

I liked the film for its apparent accuracy in location and the detail of what it was like for some of the Jews liberated from Auschwitz to find their way back to their homelands. Virtually helpless, the Jews in Primo Levi's autobiography embark on an odyssey that eventually gets them back to their homes -- at least some of them. All the more surprising is that Stalin's Soviet Union is their main benefactor throughout all of this. While this is supposed to be an autobiography, I have to wonder at some of the scenes, for example, when the train load of Jews arrives at the Munich main rail station, a former Werhmacht soldier kneels before them. In another, a Jew with barely enough food for himself, gives some bread to German POWs in Russia so that he can watch them fight over it. The irony is unmistakable.

Overall, I liked the film. It's one you have to see more than once because of all the detail. It's a bit difficult to follow the dialog in part, because much of it is in the language of the people who are represented: Poles, Russians, Ukrainians, French, Germans, Italians. Not only that, but the English dialog is accented and somewhat difficult to follow.

I intend to see it at least one or two more times in order to get the full effect of this very well done story.