Footnote

-- www.Ramascreen.com --

FOOTNOTE is an Israeli film that's Oscar-nominated this year for Foreign language category and I can see why it received the nod. It's quite possibly one of the funniest rivalry stories I've ever watched, and what makes the dilemma even more complicated is that it's between father and son. I think it's a well-made film, it's funny, it has its charms, you'll enjoy writer/director Joseph Cedar's way of telling you the backstories of each character, some of the scenes interestingly move like microform reel, those of us who didn't grow up knowing anything about Talmud or Jewish culture would get a slight education on one of some of the things they regard highly over there, but halfway through the film, it loses its attraction, it doesn't engage you enough, and ultimately it ends itself in somewhat of a tactless manner…

Eliezer is the father and Uriel is the son and they both share the same last name, and that's where the misunderstanding plays its card. Both individuals dabble in the same literature but the father is old-school and stubborn and even though the film doesn't come out and say it, he may also suffer from some kind of autism or something that keeps him from desiring any social contact unless it's meant to celebrate him, or perhaps he's just introverted to the extreme. The son is more progressive, people are fond of him, and he enjoys the success that his father has always wishes he had. So when a certain prestigious award mistakes one for the other, Uriel is faced with the dilemma of what is the right thing to do. After he makes his decision, his father goes off and discredits his son's work. It's a pretty sad and tough family dynamics, if you think about it, because on the father's case, it's envy that turns into bitterness that turns into gloat, on the son's side it's wanting to live up to his father that turns into generosity that turns into feelings betrayed. Writer/director Cedar designs it so that things would escalate to the point where there is no other option but to openly confront each other, although oddly enough, the film never gives us that luxury.

The comedy aspect of it is very enjoyable, Cedar takes us through awkward room sizes and you'll get the giggles from watching Elizer putting on his giant headset, shutting everything around him down just to get some silence, and for the old professors roles, Cedar casts actors who look just like the stereotype, they look unintentionally amusing. Embedded in the competition is also a the theme of whether or not you are your father's son or if you are your own person. Uriel seems distraught and offended when his own son doesn't make any effort to win his love, like he used to do with his own father. Both Eliezer and Uriel are obsessed with the idea that success can only be found in one's achievements and accomplishments and the recognition from your peers, and how one can be better at that than everybody else, so much so that they're missing out one what's truly important, each other. I think FOOTNOTE is a very unique family dynamics film that deserves attention at the very least.

-- www.Ramascreen.com --

Though Joseph Cedar's Footnote is a look at the Israeli academic community's insularity and hubris, the problems it raises are universal and the film could most likely take place anywhere in the world. One of five nominated films at this year's Oscars in the Best Foreign Film category, Footnote allows us to take a peak behind the hallowed walls of academia and it is not a pretty sight. With its exposure of political maneuvering, egotism, ambition, and tightly controlled orthodoxy, the film makes clear its point of view that professors who are out of the mainstream are marginalized and passed over for recognition by their peers.

The film centers on Eliezer Shkolnik (Schlomo Bar Aba), an aging Talmudic scholar and philologist, who has become a bitter and aggrieved man after having been passed over for the prestigious Israel Prize for twenty years. Eliezer arrogantly denounces the selection committee for the Prize as people who have forgotten the meaning of true scholarship. He has spent his career researching corrupted Jewish texts that deviate from the original Talmud, but whose only recognition has been a citation in a footnote.

Ill at ease in the hallowed walls of academia and in relationships in general, Eliezer sleeps in his office and only ventures out to go to the library. He continues to schedule classes even though as little as one or two people enroll. His relationship with his wife Yehudit (Alisa Rosen) appears strained and distant and, when he is at home, he blocks out the world by putting on gigantic yellow earphones. His behavior is contrasted with that of his more sociable and outgoing son, the bearded Uriel (Lior Ashkenazi) who is also a Talmudic scholar but one whose work is more attuned to popular tastes. His father, unfortunately, is generally disdainful, calling him a "folklorist" and a scholar subservient to the prevailing academic status quo.

The film opens with Eliezer sitting in an auditorium with a dour and rigid look on his face as Uriel is being inducted into a scholarly academy, an honor which the father has never received. Despite the downbeat beginning, the first part of the film is fairly lighthearted with Cedar entertaining us with inter-titles describing the background of the characters and Amelie-like cutesy cinematic tricks bouncily scored by Amit Poznansky. Halfway through, however, the film takes a more dramatic turn when Eliezer learns that he has finally won the Israel Prize after waiting for twenty years, an event that threatens the resentment he clings to so obsessively.

Unfortunately, a ridiculous faux-pas by the Nominating Committee only serves to place more obstacles in the father-son relationship. It is, unfortunately, not an easily correctable mistake but a true ethical dilemma and one that precipitates a confrontation between Uriel and the academic committee in a tiny room, an absurd scenario that would be funny if it did not have so many potential disastrous ramifications. The brunt of Uriel's attack is directed towards Yehuda Grossman (Michah Lewesohn), a scholar who has either rejected or ignored his father's work and whose publication of his own Talmudic discovery undermined all the meticulous research Eliezer had been doing for years. In the film's most dramatic sequence, the confrontation escalates into highly articulated personal attacks, ultimatums, and even a bit of physical violence.

While Uriel is defending his father at the committee meeting, Eliezer is doing the opposite, criticizing his son during an interview, lumping him in with those whose Talmudic studies he considers to be shallow and superficial. Needless to say, this even further exacerbates their troubled relationship. Footnote is an engaging film marked by exceptional performances by Lewesohn, Ashkenazi, and Bar Aba and you can enjoy it whether or not you care very much whether or not the current version of the Talmud correctly reflects the original ancient texts. The depiction of Eliezer, however, is one-dimensional and the father's incessant self-righteousness turns the film into a sour and mostly unpleasant affair. In addition to its depressing tone, numerous plot points are introduced and then dropped without further comment.

Eliezer is seen talking to another woman, a sequence that leads to a bedroom discussion of the event between Uriel and his wife Dikla (Alma Zack), but soon morphs into an argument, its purpose obscure. Also in another thread that goes nowhere except to add to the general unpleasantness, Uriel's son Josh (Daniel Markovich) goes on a hiking trip and comes home having to confront his father's anger at his ostensible lack of ambition or goals. Although the film's loose ends are particularly annoying, we are caught up in its very compelling scenario. Cedar knows how to build up the tension and we eagerly await some sort of resolution but, as is the trend of late, the director feels that his film is more valuable as a gigantic set-up than as a satisfying resolution and the result is a film that leaves us thinking that the projectionist inadvertently cut out the best part of the movie.

The fictitious hero is a old man who takes himself and his work completely seriously-- to the exaggerated extent that we expect to find only in a fable. The screen displays to the audience a number of arch textual explanations about him and his son, and the audience chuckles at his eccentric single-mindedness. But a sort of tension appears as the characters' behavior slips outside the limits of the explanations. Is the old man cheating on his wife? What's behind his grandson's oblomovism? Eventually the movie focuses on an unknown that is stretched almost to the point of paradox: Is the quality of the old man's work in academe really unsurpassed, or is it really unsatisfactory? The movie does turn out to be a fable, and a fable worth taking seriously. It attracted an all-star cast, and Shlomo Bar-Abba, in the lead, continues the tradition of comedians who, when they undertake a dramatic role, gain additional impact from the contrast with their familiar persona. The movie received the 2011 screenplay award at Cannes.

It's not like this is a bad movie but it's just one like dozens of others, that get made each year, mostly in Europa or as little art-house movies in America. When watching this movie I just couldn't help wondering what was supposed to be so special about it. In my opinion there is nothing special about it really but that of course does not make this a bad movie to watch as well.

It's simply an enjoyable and light little movie, that doesn't ever get too heavy handed, even though it could had easily gone that way. And I thank the movie for that but at the same time it's also giving too little in return.

The movie is taking a more comedy approach to its buildup but with as a problem that there isn't really any true comedy in this movie. It sort of reminded me of a Wes Anderson movie. They are supposed to be comical movies, without anything comical ever happening in it really. It's just not my favorite style of film-making but I know I'm probably a minority on this, so to most people, this won't be a complaint at all.

It's a movie with a good enough story, that ensures that the movie keeps going at all time. It's definitely not a boring movie to watch, despite of a slower type of approach at times.

I wasn't the biggest fan of its visual and technical approach though. I don't know, I guess I have just seen a bit too many movies like this already, so I'm sort of starting to get fed up with these type of movies looking all the same with its camera-handling and editing, that all should remind you of a more indie type of movie. I really did wish that this movie would bad done some more new and interesting stuff at times. That way I would had, no doubt, got more into the movie and would had found it more interesting and pleasant to watch all. It now instead is not a movie that I can wholeheartedly or enthusiastically recommend to you, since it just isn't ever doing anything special, with its story, characters or visuals.

Certainly not bad and still quite good for what it is but it's still a movie you could so easily do without.

7/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

One thing that has become common in American popular culture - if you can call it culture - is to have all sorts of salacious family feuds. That makes it all the more satisfying to see Joseph Cedar's "Hearat Shulayim" ("Footnote" in English). The movie focuses on a father and son, both of whom are professors at the Talmudic Research department of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Despite the father's extensive studies, the Israel Prize committee refuses to recognize his work, while the son has garnered a lot of respect. One day, the father receives a call announcing that he's winning the prize. There's just one problem: the committee meant to call the son.

The movie makes sure to avoid tabloid-style situations. It takes a serious approach to the situation. Probably the most effective scene is when the son meets the Israel Prize committee in a cramped office and reminds them of the hypocrisy of their decision to deny his father the prize. Nonetheless, the tension between father and son remains. In the end, it's a really good movie. I haven't seen many Israeli movies, but now I would like to.