Audience Member
Subtle and shocking, this short and quietly disturbing film is actually an astute attack on cultural conformity. The film's denouement is truly frightening.
Rated 3/5 Stars •
Rated 3 out of 5 stars
02/11/23
Full Review
s r
A good idea, but ultimately left you wondering why you watched it.
Rated 2.5/5 Stars •
Rated 2.5 out of 5 stars
03/31/23
Full Review
Audience Member
reminded me of luis bunuel's pix
Rated 2.5/5 Stars •
Rated 2.5 out of 5 stars
01/21/23
Full Review
Audience Member
Why the controversy? Why the scandal? Why was it "BANNED FOREVER" (lol) in 1973, decree which was eliminated in 1989 after the Velvet Revolution?
A Report on the Film and its Boldness:
<b>Act I:</b>
--> A group of picnickers share a time together in equal life conditions and with an equal distribution of means: natural resources, food, social class, interests and health.
--> What might it mean? We are introduced to a "primitive" society, but primitive in the sense of devoid of advanced technological means or form of government. The fact that they are surrounded by food, water and nature itself might indicate their "natural" lifestyle devoid of any governmental impositions.
<b>Act II:</b>
--> The group is intersected in their journey by a group of sadist bullers with one charismatic, yet hiperactively bizarre ruler that begins to deprive the picnickers from their freedom and draws physical lines (literally) to delimit their territories. However, the picnickers only complain, but do not rebel and somewhat conform(!) to this new system, obeying the limitations.
--> What might it mean? An external group to the original "primitive" society has a different vision of what a balanced society is, and therefore begins to experiment its own ideals over the perfect guinea pigs: the members of the society itself. Conditions are established and limitations are drawn, and yet, perhaps in an act of extreme faith - more properly described as naive "unquestioning conformity" - the picnickers submit themselves to this new unknown form of government.
<b>Act III:</b>
--> An old man who is in the day of his birthday arrives to the scene and scolds the perpetrators of this cruel joke, who turned out to be actors. Also, the ruler of this buller group is the old man's son. In an act of apology, he invites the victims, along with other people, to his grand celebration.
--> What might it mean? The fact that the buller group was formed by actors mirrors the fake promises made by politicians in any form of totalitarianism, executing their authority, and yet lying in the process for their own interests of personal amusement. But still, all authorities answer to a single ruler of the highest hierarchy, the one in charge of the system to work. This ruler invites everybody to HIS celebration, where every single woman and man have a specified spot to sit. They will all be given the same food and provided the same treatment, but their identity is completely personalized and calculated. If one of these places is modified, the system gets angry!
<b>Act IV:</b>
--> Oh no! A guest decided to leave! The old host gets angry at this, added to the disorder of the designated seats, and searches for him with dogs.
--> What might it mean? The totalitarian arm of Communism is extended! Nobody escapes! Equal conditions for all!
Add to this a Buñuelesque disorder of the bourgeois class with the childish disorder performed in Buñuel's "Last Supper" in <i>Viridiana</i> (1961)....
Phew... Well... This is not a criticism to a regime. It's a Chuck-Norris-roundhouse-kick to Communism's balls.
94/100
Rated 4.5/5 Stars •
Rated 4.5 out of 5 stars
01/22/23
Full Review
Audience Member
With all the underlying satire of the Communist regime, Mr. N?mec has resembled the world of Kafka with characters and events in the real world. Despite the intense political implications, the absurdity and ridicule under Kafka is never my cup of tea to have it on the big screen, especially with the presence of the disgusting, sadistic, maniacal and homosexual fatty.
Rated 2/5 Stars •
Rated 2 out of 5 stars
02/25/23
Full Review
Audience Member
Another banned Czech film, because it was an allegory for caving in to the state. Gotta love these banned films.
Rated 2.5/5 Stars •
Rated 2.5 out of 5 stars
01/14/23
Full Review
Read all reviews
>
