ironhorse_iv
Characterized by visual stylization, elegantly choreographed shots, long takes, historical rural settings, and a lack of psychoanalyzing. The Red and the White is a very interesting well-made movie from director Miklós Jancsó. Set during the Russian Civil War (1917-1922), the Russian-Hungarian film, was originally commissioned to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the October Revolution in Russia in which the Bolsheviks aggressively seized authority. However, the director chose to set the action two years later in 1919 to show the Communist "Reds" Army in a firefight with the Tsarist "Whites" Army over the control of some hills near the Volga River. While, the movie remains one of the director's most widely seen and admired films; this movie is very hard to follow. The reasons for this, is because the film lacks a central character. Instead, we follow, a number of nameless characters from both sides on their quest to survive the battle. There is one character played by Andra Kovak who kinda ties the whole film together, appearing in the first scene and the last, however, he was never really assuming a central role. Supporters of the film point out that the director aim was to prevent the audience from feeling emotionally identify with any one side. He didn't want anybody to seem like they were winning in the battle of ideologies. Like a chaotic stalemate game of chess. Both sides are just killing each other without any strong offensive. We see, both forces try to take control of an area, only to find himself or herself, having temporary peace, before being execution, a minute later, by the next invading force. While, the movie doesn't show blood. The film hardly has any scenes, where somebody wasn't shooting at somebody. Indeed, the movie had no rest point, from the violence. I guess, it's supposed to tell, the audience. That no matter, how much control, you think you have, there is always, somebody gearing up to take your place. While, the repetitive action makes it a hard sit. It was done on purpose, to show the meaningless nature of war. It's one of the most violent movies, I have ever saw, pre-1970s. The movie also really surprised me on how much nudity, it had for a pre-1970s film. None of it was portray to be sexy. Those sexual abuse scenes were made to be disturbing and degrading. It really haunting imagery on the horrors of war. What I like about the film is while, the list of characters is ever, so changing, the landscape barely moves. It's always set around the beautiful surroundings of the Volga River. You really get to see the large scale of the battle. I also like how the film rejects, the war film convention and clichés. For example, key moments of action, such as the deaths of certain characters are sometimes shot with a long lens from a distance rather than in close-up, making it unclear what has happened or who it has happened to. It's give the movie a feel of mystery. Not everything needed to be explain. The only problem with it, is that it's hard to tell the different between the 'white' army compare to the 'red' army. There were times, where I was often confused, on what army, I was, now watching. It didn't help that the director's choice to use black and white, made everybody look the same. I guess, the choice was made to turn it b/w to serve a deeper viewer's immersion in the historical settling, or to show, that despite your political colors, everybody in war is a shade of grey. The artistic advantage of black and white did help heightens the impact of the film's violence. I love the fact, that the film used a lot of long take unedited movie footage. Since the film has barely any cuts, it transcribes the screen time as if it's real time. While, this movie might seem lawlessness, it does have one strong message show by the actions of a few characters, throughout the piece, such as the one refuses to aim properly during an execution, the one who stops the rape of a peasant woman and one stops the execution of their own soldiers for "cowardice". The message: "a man can fight and still be human." A very strong message, indeed. While, the film might look upon as communist propaganda to the untrained eye. It's barely was. While, yes, Whites are presented in a much more unfavorable light than the Reds. The movie hardly felt heavy-handed political preachy. During the Cold War, Jancsó was often criticized for being formalist, nationalist and generally against the Socialist ideology. A frequent theme of his films is the abuse of power. His works are often allegorical commentaries on Hungary under Communism and the Soviet occupation. It was no surprise, that the film was not well received in the Soviet Union. It was first re-edited to put a more heroic spin on the war for its premiere and then banned, afterwards. However, in Hungary and the Western world, it was more favorably received. The film was even listed to compete at the 1968 Cannes Film Festival, but sadly, the festival was canceled due to the events of May 1968 in France. Overall: This is an Astounding piece, might be a bit hard to watch to some viewers, but if you get the chance to. Try watching it. It might change, your opinion on war.
zlovc
Like Varlaam, based upon the generally high critical appraisal this movie has received, I came to "The Red and the White" full of high expectations. Unlike Varlaam, I made the foolish mistake of actually purchasing the DVD before viewing. Let's see: first a group of Reds (or were they Whites?) run down a hill and shoot some Whites (or were they Reds?). Then a group of Whites run up a hill and shoot some Reds. Repeat ad nauseam. Some Reds hide in the bushes. Some Whites hide in the bushes. Repeat. A flag is raised. It is lowered and replaced by a different flag. Repeat. Some fellows are shot in their underwear. A little swimming. A few folks wave swords in the air. Flat characterizations. No resolution. If there was any propaganda in the movie, I missed it. That might have provided some interest. The following quotes from the commenters above and below who allegedly admire this movie tell the whole story: "Sure it's boring! Sure it's confusing! Sure it's stupid!" "You'd be hard-pressed to be able to identify more than one or two characters at all after it has ended." "It's hard to explain why all this should not be highly boring." "There is no plot." "With no characters to care for ..." "The whole film is just confusion." "It is very long, and can be quite tiresome." I rest my case. The DVD now sits on the "wasted money" shelf, ashamed of itself, knowing that it will linger there unloved and untouched for years. Maybe one of the admirers of this "masterpiece" would like to purchase it. It's going cheap. By the way, there are any number of far superior movies with themes centering on the violence, absurdity and loss of morality in war. Examples are "No Man's Land," "Come and See" and "Paths of Glory," the latter being the quintessence of the anti-war genre.
lifesurfer2002
The best I've ever seen I guess is Band of Brothers,and this one is right up there. Good war films seem real, closer to real life, you see it and you know this is how it should happen, even if you have never experienced it. "good" people do some bad things and "bad" people do some good things. Guess there are more degree of cultural freedom in Hungary in those years to let this kind of film come to light.I watched it the first time without moving my eyes off of it, and then I watched it a second time. It feels really beautiful, so vast is the background and the storyline is so unique. The third time I tried watching it, almost all the scenes feels so bloody that I cannot watch it.
