MamaGravity good back-story, and good acting

Sameer Callahan It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

Sabah Hensley This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

Sanjeev Waters A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Emil Bakkum In my recent reviews of the Defa films about the life of Karl Liebknecht I pointed out, that the textbook Bolshevist character is revolutionary and self-sacrificing, willing to exploit itself for the benefit of society. It chanced that I have just seen the Polish film Man of Marble, which elaborates on just this subject. Hence I enjoyed the film, even though the message in the narrative is rather vague. The story plays in the late seventies. The leading thread is a film project, that is meant to finish the studies of Agnieszka, one of the main characters. She decides to make a commentary on the former lead worker Mateusz Birkut, who rose to extreme popularity in the fifties. Then in the aftermath of Stalinism he was discredited and put in prison, apparently simply because he became a bit of a nuisance - like so many others. Agnieszkas project is not welcomed by the authorities, because it reopens old wounds. However, they do provide her with the means to start the project (a camera crew of three people). As the story unfolds, Agnieszka turns out to be a typical news-hawk: intrusive, chasing "great material", without much respect for other peoples feelings. In a chain of interviews the old companions tell about their part in Birkuts career. I don't know if it is intended, but my sympathy went mainly to those characters, people who were less fortunate than Birkut, and nonetheless managed to do something useful with their lives. Birkut starts as a brick layer. He participates in a propaganda project, that aims to boost productivity in building. It uses the division of labor, and the mechanic motion, that in the west is called Taylorism. Birkut is launched as a celebrity, a working class hero, and enjoys all the privileges. Many former colleagues get a dislike for him, since he pushes up their norms. At the same time, the authorities get tired of Birkuts mediation for fellow workers,and try to put him on the sidelines. Birkut ignores the warning signals, and is eventually convicted and imprisoned for four years. In the post-Stalin era he is rehabilitated, but due to his embitterment he remains an outcast. After all these years Agnieszka is unable to track him down, but she finds his son Maciej Tomczyk (Birkut never really married, and later abandoned his girlfriend). Maciej tells that Birkut has passed away. In the sequel Man of Iron we learn that he was actually shot during a workers' upsurge. As said above, the film message is mixed. Birkut is not a man of high morals, but a victim of the system. The increase of labor productivity is a common goal in all economies, no matter what their ideologies may be. In capitalism the driving force is extra pay, or in times of large unemployment the competition between the workers. In the Bolshevist states the workers were supposed to voluntarily exploit themselves. Solshenitsyn once told a story, that just after the revolution the propaganda drove some simple minds to actually work themselves to death. Later productivity was stimulated by giving social rewards for excellent achievements (the famous surpassing of the planned task), in the form of marks of honor (often to a collective or enterprise). Workers ethics in Japan have also been mentally unhealthy. You need trade unions to provide for a counterbalance, and this is in fact the subject of the sequel film Man of Iron. In my opinion the film is not anti-Bolshevist - and it was financed by the state. It just calls for better balances in the social power distribution within the system. Probably there are lots of hidden meanings in the film. For instance, Birkut burns his fingers, after "subversive elements" have heated one of his bricks, which is quite funny. From then on Birkut wears gloves. And a fellow worker of Birkut enters the office of a party bureaucrat and never returns, even though there is no other exit. The legs of Agnieszka move in all directions (you will not see this behavior with for instance Julia Roberts). This category of social films is just my cup of tea, so if you like the type I suggest that you read my other reviews.

potter_flies 'Man of marble' is usually seen as an bold, anti-communist movie which is strikingly accurate at the deep level of practices within communist countries. Indeed, trough a story of a student who tries to make a graduation film Wajda beautifully succeeds in describing at the same time the soft violence of the '70s in Poland and the totally different hardcore 'prison' violence of the Stalinist regime in the 50's. Hence, it is gradually revealed trough the eye of the camera the contrast between the heroic, raw atmosphere of the first communist years and the light perestroika of the present cinematographic time. Nonetheless, there is a common thread throughout the movie as the all-pervading party monopoly deeply affects everybody and no one has the option of an Utopian escape.The no exit strategy is probably for me the main theme of the movie. The rebellious young girl who tries to see beneath the propaganda images is also on psychoanalytical trip to confront her family history.There are two scenes which can more or less summaries the story: in the first one, we can see her right at the beginning in a rough quarrel with her Television supervisor, and we can consequently grasp the theme of the incessant conflict with the authority. However, if on the one level wecan see her rejecting the father figure, on the second level we can witness desire as the film maker is practically possessing the hero statue which she finds in a basement of a museum.Well, basically the catch of the movie is the intertwine of the story with the girl on the way of her desire and the political level which makes this trip also a trip of a historical clearing up. And, in the strange development of we find that the "fake" hero is in fact an authentic one and that we did know the secret of the narrative - the "hero"(the father, the phallus) of the propaganda is the "true" hero, as he had to face real tough moral problems and he lived "the life in truth" . The heroine can develop at last real emotional attachment with the paternal image and she eventually can end her trip by accepting an ally and a friend in the final scene.

MartinHafer When I saw this film, I was very shocked at how subversive the content was. While it was filmed in Poland during the Soviet-dominated era, the film focused on a fictional character's rise and fall in local government. Mateusz Birkut is an ordinary Polish bricklayer working on a massive government project. A film maker decides to stage a propaganda stunt to see if a new record for speed bricklaying could be set. Birkut agrees to give it a try along with his crew. Not only did they meet their goal but they exceeded it--and it was all captured on film to be shown to the masses. Overnight, Birkut becomes a minor celebrity and he is given a nice job working for local government. And, for some reason, over the years his name is just about completely forgotten.Now, over 20 years later, a young film maker has stumbled upon Birkut's name and some of the newsreel footage but she is really curious how he went from hero to nobody so quickly. She spends most of the film reviewing old film clips and tracking down those who knew Birkut to find out WHY. However, repeatedly she is told to mind her own business and lots of roadblocks are thrown in her path. Finally, after exhaustive work and putting herself out on a limb politically, she finds out how the repressive government worked during the Stalin years--taking a hero and eventually jailing him as a political prisoner and then erasing memories of his existence. Repeatedly, she is warned to let the matter drop, as even in the post-Stalin era it wasn't exactly a free country. How this very critical film ever got made it beyond me but it's wonderfully made and captivating.

Daniel Hayes So many film students have wasted their time trying to study "Kane" as a character study and as a satire. But it wasn't really either of those things, but an experiment in depth for the camera and narrative structures. The frequent comparison between that film and this one makes a lot of sense superficially; the newsreel footage, the interviewees made up to look 20 years older.But Agniezcka is making a film, rather than a piece for a newspaper: journalism vs. art, capitalism vs. socialism. Although the journalists in "Kane" said otherwise, they were never seeing "who he was" rather "what he was like" ie. his behaviour, how others perceived him etc. Here we have something broader, examining a man confronting society, confronting his friends, and confronting himself all at the same time. Newspaper journalism tells us what something is like. Good documentary strives to really define what or who something was.This is a highly intelligent structure, moreso than his previous works and moreso even than "Kane." As a meditation on film-making, it moves gracefully from the shots captured by Agniezcka's cinematographer, and the shots of Wajda himself, forcing us to draw parallels.It's a shame Wajda remains largely unknown. Perhaps the up-coming Criterion set of his "War Trilogy" will change that.4 out of 5 - An excellent film