Sennin

In a general way, this movie can be divided into two parts, that differ in temporal terms, as well as in substance ones. The first part, shorter in time, seemed to me to be similar in content to those save the whales spots that Greenpeace makes you watch in school to generate environmental conscience. Not that I have a problem with Jewish folk, nor the whales, in fact I find extremely appalling both genocides, but the truth is that the victimist discourse that tries to bring the public into tears by making them feel impotent in front of the images is a very wasted one, particularly if the topic in discussion is the Jewish Holocaust (not to mention the whales). It would have been interesting to see Polanski driving the narration in a more objective way, showing the cause and the effect (in other words the reason why the Germans invaded Poland and persecuted the Jewish folk, as well as the persecution itself), and not only the effect, especially if proceeding that way the victimization of the Jewish is out of question (there's no way to be an apologist of the Holocaust, but there could have been a little sketch of the poor excuse for a twisted logic there was behind the invasion that would "explain" the behavior of the German soldiers in the movie), but would have avoided to fall into the coarse cliché it did. The second part, that entails a sudden twist in the narration, characterizes for being quite faster then the previous one (justifying its longer time), becoming a sort of adventure movie, well-driven most of the time, but that tended to be superfluous and implausible (fact that, by the way, has in this movie a wider tolerance rate: facts that in other movie would have tasted false or fictitious, in this movie were forgiven, due to the fat that it was "based on a real story") by times; in which the ups and downs of the pianist are told in a lineal way and without focusing that much on the external events, closing the public's perception: as opposite as in the first part, where one was witness of the "pathos" of the main character's family and the entire ghetto; in this one, one only gets to acknowledge only the facts concerning him. On the other hand, by the same time this perception is closing, one can feel a relief concerning the effectist discourse mentioned above. In deed, by this time they start to enter the scene the pro-Jewish characters, that seem to appear as life savers in this sea of anti-Semite people. But this relief comes a bit late into scene, as the public is already determinated by the previous scenes. From the technique aspect, we find the strong side of the movie: the photography is just splendid (keep an eye for the scene where the pianist finds himself before the destructed Warsaw); as well as the piano playing scenes, which are not only of a visual interest, but also provide us of an exquisite hearing pleasure (While many may complain about Chopin and say he is some sort of Gustavo Adolfo Béquer of the music, in the way that he didn't compose for art, but in order to get dates; they cannot deny that he is just more that a deployment of mere virtuosity à la Malmsteen, but that the music has a feeling and beauty that surround it). Regarding the acting, we must say it is well over the average but it isn't something out of this world, nor something like that. In the case of the secondary characters it's not that easy to tell, as there are so many and their performances are too little to define an opinion. Nevertheless, despite these last favorable points, I must continue to think that Polanski could have made a greater effort in this movie, since just by it self, or in comparison with his previous work, is quite unsatisfactory.

In first place, to be able to appreciate any movie from this genre you must be a-. a nationalist-imperialist green-go (or in the exterior, a pro-yankee that still thinks (or prefers to think) that the U.S. are the good guys of the movie); or well b-. ignore the strong propaganda that is patent on it, and to separate the moral/ethic judgment we may have about the facts from the movie it self. In this movie's case, as hard as it could be, I could achieve this last thing, and, from this position, I may say that it is a fine movie, but nothing extraordinary, and, when compared with other movies from the genre, it may become one more of the lot. Anyway, the tension is well managed, as well as the camera work and the takes, achieving some really interesting scenes. In addition you may notice the direction of someone that knows what he wants, and the plotline, though all the distracting factors that may attempt against it, manages to make it through the the movie and to perform without problem. Other than that, I can't bear it anymore, it's all cheap propaganda (as you may see it isn't that true that I managed to achieve the previously said). About the director, without regarding any personal opinion one may have about him, we can't deny that he is one of the most versatile directors there are in the medium, as there are not two of his movies that belong to the same genre, but, in an opposite way, he has made a foray into every genre he has been able to: from K. Dick's science-fiction, to the historical film, passing through the space terror; and later making he's epic megaproduction. In this terms, being this his first (and probably the last) incursion into the war genre it is not bad, but as said before, it doesn't go further than that.