Akaratlanul

A sociological experiment – can you tolerate watching people you don’t know for one hundred minutes? Because the director doesn’t want us to get to know them; instead, he prevents us from doing so through “unempathetic” filming from a greater distance and in long, static shots. We often don’t see the faces of the characters as they speak and we rarely know their names. Sometimes the distance and the impression of eavesdropping are enhanced by filming the characters in a reflection (a mirror, the side of a car) or – in one case – by “filtering” them through a computer camera. The only thing we can do is silently watch them. The witnesses in the film behave in the same way. And the consequence? The innocent become victims and the guilty remain unpunished. Each of us has probably found ourselves in one of the depicted situations. The film manages to elicit feelings of guilt. It’s a very cruel approach – both to the characters and to viewers – but it forces us to think. It’s a shame about the two unnecessary deviations from the drily observational style to a more standard narrative (one brief pan during the scene involving harassment on a bus and a later flashback). Or were these meant to serve as a reminder – for those who have given in to the illusion of a film without a narrator – that there is someone behind the camera manipulating us a little? It’s hard to say. It’s also hard not to give in. 75% (2012.08.17)

A remarkable sociological study that at times sends shivers down one's spine, as it makes one realize our often involuntary herd mentality. At least I often get the feeling that there is no escape from it. It is certainly a timeless film with an almost documentary approach, but it may not be to everyone's taste. (75%) (2020.11.04)