Ucho
- 1970
- 1h 34min
CALIFICACIÓN DE IMDb
7.7/10
3.6 k
TU CALIFICACIÓN
Agrega una trama en tu idiomaAfter coming home from a Party gathering one night, a Czech official becomes convinced that he is about to be the subject of a political purge and tries to do damage control, while also deal... Leer todoAfter coming home from a Party gathering one night, a Czech official becomes convinced that he is about to be the subject of a political purge and tries to do damage control, while also dealing with his turbulent marriage.After coming home from a Party gathering one night, a Czech official becomes convinced that he is about to be the subject of a political purge and tries to do damage control, while also dealing with his turbulent marriage.
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Elenco
- Premios
- 1 premio ganado y 2 nominaciones en total
Opiniones destacadas
It is very confusing! This movie was finished in 1970. To put 1990 it is so confusing. I thought it was another movie when looking for it just because of that date.
This is an outstanding film, even by the standards of the Czech New Wave and a hundred times better that The Lives of Others which covers similar ground and won much acclaim and the Oscar for Foreign Film- which just confirms that the process of critical evaluation and film recognition is grossly unfair. The only reason Ucho is not on any Best Film lists is because is was made in the wrong place at the wrong time. In fact I am also baffled that it every got made at all- I see how it got banned, but how did anyone get the studio to make it?
So what makes the film outstanding?...well everything really: Like all the Czech films of this period, it is great in every department.
Very good photography cutting from the pitch black house (shot entirely by candlight- no mean feat technically) to the crossly overlit party. At the party, there is a lot of virtuosic hand held camera and wide angle point of view shots as the man slips in uncut sequence from intense gossip huddle to gossip huddle. These shots alone are remarkable.
Acting- the core of the film is the disintegrating relationship between the man and his alcoholic wife – it's like Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolff but with the added edge that every accusation she makes of him is overheard and potentially going to destroy them. It's very well acted.
Music and sound- typically of Czech films, a minimalist modern score with a very skillful post dub sound edit and mix
Script- beautifully nuanced...maybe drags a little in the middle, but it takes on a huge challenge and it does it very well
So what makes the film outstanding?...well everything really: Like all the Czech films of this period, it is great in every department.
Very good photography cutting from the pitch black house (shot entirely by candlight- no mean feat technically) to the crossly overlit party. At the party, there is a lot of virtuosic hand held camera and wide angle point of view shots as the man slips in uncut sequence from intense gossip huddle to gossip huddle. These shots alone are remarkable.
Acting- the core of the film is the disintegrating relationship between the man and his alcoholic wife – it's like Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolff but with the added edge that every accusation she makes of him is overheard and potentially going to destroy them. It's very well acted.
Music and sound- typically of Czech films, a minimalist modern score with a very skillful post dub sound edit and mix
Script- beautifully nuanced...maybe drags a little in the middle, but it takes on a huge challenge and it does it very well
Like so many other films made in Eastern Europe in the 60s and 70s, I've longed to see this gem again. Once upon a time, back in the 80s, the UK's Channel 4 used to show all kinds of weird and wonderful films into the early hours, introducing this teenager (now 36) to a new and exciting world of international cinema.
This Czech classic (banned when Dubcek's regime was toppled in '69) concerns Ludvik, a top bureaucrat, and his wife, Anna, coming home one night from a reception to find their home has been bugged (during a period of political purging). The paranoia and sleepless night sets Lunvik and Aanna against each other, and the film finally shows what it took to 'get head' in a Stalinist regime.
This Czech classic (banned when Dubcek's regime was toppled in '69) concerns Ludvik, a top bureaucrat, and his wife, Anna, coming home one night from a reception to find their home has been bugged (during a period of political purging). The paranoia and sleepless night sets Lunvik and Aanna against each other, and the film finally shows what it took to 'get head' in a Stalinist regime.
i saw this at a university art screening years ago and this is one of those rare glimpses into what one can only wonder as being one of many practically lost gems as i have never seen it available on video or screened ever again, yet this is a truly classic film. i sadly don't remember much of the plot, but this film is about the very real fear that the main character's home is bugged by state police (the ear in question). the black and white cinematography is great, but this film is all about tension. it deserves to be seen.
Husband and wife stagger tired and tipsy through their house at night holding candelabras. Something's not quite right, a basement door open ajar, keys where they shouldn't be, electricity and phone are out of order. A little earlier the movie opens with the couple back at their house after a 'party' gala. They fight and bicker on the pavement out of the car, then inside the house, like we're behind a closed door hearing echoes of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf. Flashbacks to the party earlier that night in subjective POV shots take us through a roomful of people dressed in suits holding up cocktail glasses ready to toast prominent Party figures, faces peering intently into the camera, huddling together to hide conspiratorial whispers or perhaps simple idle gossip. When the husband goes to the bathroom to freshen up, an old woman shows up to offer him a towel; in doing so, she disappears in the background and stays there, as though placed there to observe.
This is a great movie about paranoia, the "fear" of being watched and discussed, and it's a half good movie when it stops being about paranoia, because at some point we know the couple is being monitored by the Party and have had to live with bugs in their living room for years. In the famous finale of The Conversation, a maddened Gene Hackman tears through his apartment looking for bugs. His nightmare echoes through the years of cinema because it's a nightmare left incomplete, damnation through eternity. Here things become clear in the final act.
This is ambiguous psychodrama for as long as it suits the movie, then it becomes the political indictment it planned to be. It's stunning to me that a movie like this was allowed to be made in the Eastern Bloc of the 1970's. Usually filmmakers working in Soviet Union satellite republics spoke of Soviet tyranny indirectly. They used the Nazis to tell us about living through the oppression of a totalitarian regime. Here comrade Stalin is mentioned by name. As such, this is a brave movie that attacks contemporary things of a contemporary society.
The dimensions of this political thriller are most chilling for me in a particular scene: the husband asks the wife to remember earlier at the party if one particular guest was friendly to her and addressed her by her first name. He reasons that if he did so, if he recognized her in public in a friendly manner, that the husband is not under political scrutiny by his higher-ups, if that were the case everyone would keep their distance from even the wife. Social life in The Ear is not leisure time or exchange of ideas, it's an arena of suspicion and conspiracy, a chess game of ritualized behavior and expected moves.
Back home, behind closed doors, The Ear never sleeps. Under its scrutiny, married life becomes the forum of vented anger and frustration. As the married couple stagger through their household in the dark holding candelabras as though exploring the catacomb of a Gothic horror movie, their exchanges become increasingly unpleasant and hostile. There's one very grueling scene in the bathroom where the wife berates her husband for the choices of a lifetime. Yet in the important moments of life and death, when a man is about to take his own life or when they're coming to get him, they're close together in defiance of everything.
This is a great movie about paranoia, the "fear" of being watched and discussed, and it's a half good movie when it stops being about paranoia, because at some point we know the couple is being monitored by the Party and have had to live with bugs in their living room for years. In the famous finale of The Conversation, a maddened Gene Hackman tears through his apartment looking for bugs. His nightmare echoes through the years of cinema because it's a nightmare left incomplete, damnation through eternity. Here things become clear in the final act.
This is ambiguous psychodrama for as long as it suits the movie, then it becomes the political indictment it planned to be. It's stunning to me that a movie like this was allowed to be made in the Eastern Bloc of the 1970's. Usually filmmakers working in Soviet Union satellite republics spoke of Soviet tyranny indirectly. They used the Nazis to tell us about living through the oppression of a totalitarian regime. Here comrade Stalin is mentioned by name. As such, this is a brave movie that attacks contemporary things of a contemporary society.
The dimensions of this political thriller are most chilling for me in a particular scene: the husband asks the wife to remember earlier at the party if one particular guest was friendly to her and addressed her by her first name. He reasons that if he did so, if he recognized her in public in a friendly manner, that the husband is not under political scrutiny by his higher-ups, if that were the case everyone would keep their distance from even the wife. Social life in The Ear is not leisure time or exchange of ideas, it's an arena of suspicion and conspiracy, a chess game of ritualized behavior and expected moves.
Back home, behind closed doors, The Ear never sleeps. Under its scrutiny, married life becomes the forum of vented anger and frustration. As the married couple stagger through their household in the dark holding candelabras as though exploring the catacomb of a Gothic horror movie, their exchanges become increasingly unpleasant and hostile. There's one very grueling scene in the bathroom where the wife berates her husband for the choices of a lifetime. Yet in the important moments of life and death, when a man is about to take his own life or when they're coming to get him, they're close together in defiance of everything.
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaAlthough made in 1970, this didn't see major release until 1989.
- ConexionesEdited into CzechMate: In Search of Jirí Menzel (2018)
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
- How long is The Ear?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
- Tiempo de ejecución1 hora 34 minutos
- Color
- Mezcla de sonido
- Relación de aspecto
- 1.33 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta
Principales brechas de datos
By what name was Ucho (1970) officially released in Canada in English?
Responda