Preface.
A couple of excuses before I start the real review.
First: is it polite to discuss someone's personal life, relationships within the family? This is not only my opinion, and I am not alone in this consideration. In this particular case, permission, of course, is given by the author, who herself opened the discourse and invited us to participate. However, privacy is a very sensitive topic, and there are certain limits for reviewers that need to be maintained. Therefore, I have to judge the film as an ordinary person watching a film, knowing nothing about the author. My review is based on what I saw on the screen, and only on this.
And one more thing: I'm not a fan of the documentary genre. I'm not looking for something new, I don't track festivals - my entire viewing experience is based on recommendations from friends and my random finds. Nevertheless, I have developed a taste for this kind of art: I admire some great works, and some I can criticize.
And finally - this review is for those who have already seen the film.
Picture.
Any acquaintance with any work of art begins with a form, in our case, with a cinematic picture, "food for the eyes". Developing this metaphor, we should talk about the taste, smell and appearance of a meal. Well, every aspect mentioned in relation to this film is attractive, readable and tastefully done. It seems that it is prepared by a professional and skilled chef. There are no superfluous visuals where artists play with their virtuosity just because they can. No, every movement and every element is reasonably ascetic, although aesthetically comprehended and felt. Laconic and at the same time poetic visual language does not distract us from the content. Clear and readable, aesthetically pleasing, the picture shows us the story without focusing on itself.
Story.
The story is simple: the husband left the family and the children grew up without a father. Especially the daughter, because the son received almost all the remnants of attention unspent by father for a new family.
Well, that's the backstory. Actual story starts when the lady asks - Why? To find the answers, she, the author and heroine of the film, is searching for a meeting with her runaway father.
It was said billions of times: true art, like philosophy, does not provide us with answers - it formulates questions. In other words - it opens the discussion,rather than concludes it. And the more frank, more natural the art, the more proper and explicit the questions are posed.
The story itself is not unique - we know thousands of families who found themselves in similar circumstances. Moreover, the problem of abandoned children is important and requires more attention and analysis.
Question 1: Why do people get married? Why do they consider it possible to have children, keeping in mind an escape route?
Father of The Artist.
This film is a masterpiece, a true flower of art, whatever raw reality it is talking about, whatever mud and soil was the ground it grew upon. It is about how a human being discovers a talent in herself, develops it, and becomes an artist. And this happens in the process of searching and creating, understanding the world and oneself in this world.
There's no Father at all in the film, there is a place, a cell in space which must be filled with, but it is empty. This emptiness calls, requires to be filled, and not with something, but with real person, an instance. I was even going to call my review "Not the Father of the Artist", but then I realized - such a title is already an independent review, it describes the film as a whole.
Question 2: How is life without a father?
"Lighter than Air".
A story with this title, written by the Russian writer Kuprin, tells about a Circus acrobat who invented a new, rather simple and at the same time very sophisticated number. He was thrown into the air, holding weights in both hands, and just at the moment when his flight almost reached its highest point, he got rid of the weights and, starting to fly again from this peak, "took off again." The film we are talking about shows the human who tries to fly "keeping weights in her hands". Entire first half of the film is about that. That weight does not allow her to live a full life, sometimes - to breathe. This puts pressure on the mind, leads to a sense of injustice. It is bad when a person does not have a father, but it is probably no worse than when father exists somewhere, but is not present in life. Briefly: to have a parent, but feel like an orphan. It bothers Margarita permanently, and she tries to restore balance in life, the relationship of the child with the father, to meet him at least.
This doesn't work.
Question 3: What is the priority, life or art?
The only answer why her attempts were unfortunate, the only excuse that is not mentioned directly in the film, but which is guessed from the narrative, is that the father is an artist and all his thoughts, all his time is devoted to art, so he is not up to family worries. People say: in order to achieve some success one has to sacrifice something. We won't analyze all the different situations, when it is needed or not, but doubt creeps in, is it love for art, or for yourself? We all sometimes try to avoid unwanted communication, but mostly it does not apply to relationships with children. Is it such a great distraction from work, art, to talk to your own daughter or son from time to time? So, what is the priority, life or art? Or ego?
Question 4: Do we really need our parents?
Don't carry that weight.
Second part of the film is an elegant, artistic attempt to answer the unsolvable questions that arose in the first part. I, as probably many viewers, watching the film, being pretty much discouraged at the beginning by what was happening, tense from a hopeless situation, now suddenly felt some relief.
Weight is gotten rid off.
It appears that after all, there is not much needed to be a father.
Make friends, share life knowledge, and spare a little time. You don't need to be a hero, just be beside your child once in a while. It appears that parenthood should and could be, just normal, ordinary human behavior."
Is the film too personal?
Yes, and no. Yes, because the author worked with her own, personal, too private material. But at the same time, the problem is far from isolated. Margarita has a big advantage as a movie director unlike many ordinary people, to dig in the situation, to analyze, to figure out and understand. Not only for herself, but for many people living in the same situation. It is a real social issue, a big and popular one - to be abandoned by living parent(s).
Going further, this is not only about fugitive parents and abandoned children. As parents, we need to think about relationships in the family constantly or at least occasionally. The subject is worth our attention, and it is much more important than many other things that make up our lives.
Congratulations to all of us. Documentary cinema received another master, talented, deep and fearless, who expanded the genre boundaries, moved the frontier to unexplored areas.
Oleg Lipchenko, artist, illustrator.
A couple of excuses before I start the real review.
First: is it polite to discuss someone's personal life, relationships within the family? This is not only my opinion, and I am not alone in this consideration. In this particular case, permission, of course, is given by the author, who herself opened the discourse and invited us to participate. However, privacy is a very sensitive topic, and there are certain limits for reviewers that need to be maintained. Therefore, I have to judge the film as an ordinary person watching a film, knowing nothing about the author. My review is based on what I saw on the screen, and only on this.
And one more thing: I'm not a fan of the documentary genre. I'm not looking for something new, I don't track festivals - my entire viewing experience is based on recommendations from friends and my random finds. Nevertheless, I have developed a taste for this kind of art: I admire some great works, and some I can criticize.
And finally - this review is for those who have already seen the film.
Picture.
Any acquaintance with any work of art begins with a form, in our case, with a cinematic picture, "food for the eyes". Developing this metaphor, we should talk about the taste, smell and appearance of a meal. Well, every aspect mentioned in relation to this film is attractive, readable and tastefully done. It seems that it is prepared by a professional and skilled chef. There are no superfluous visuals where artists play with their virtuosity just because they can. No, every movement and every element is reasonably ascetic, although aesthetically comprehended and felt. Laconic and at the same time poetic visual language does not distract us from the content. Clear and readable, aesthetically pleasing, the picture shows us the story without focusing on itself.
Story.
The story is simple: the husband left the family and the children grew up without a father. Especially the daughter, because the son received almost all the remnants of attention unspent by father for a new family.
Well, that's the backstory. Actual story starts when the lady asks - Why? To find the answers, she, the author and heroine of the film, is searching for a meeting with her runaway father.
It was said billions of times: true art, like philosophy, does not provide us with answers - it formulates questions. In other words - it opens the discussion,rather than concludes it. And the more frank, more natural the art, the more proper and explicit the questions are posed.
The story itself is not unique - we know thousands of families who found themselves in similar circumstances. Moreover, the problem of abandoned children is important and requires more attention and analysis.
Question 1: Why do people get married? Why do they consider it possible to have children, keeping in mind an escape route?
Father of The Artist.
This film is a masterpiece, a true flower of art, whatever raw reality it is talking about, whatever mud and soil was the ground it grew upon. It is about how a human being discovers a talent in herself, develops it, and becomes an artist. And this happens in the process of searching and creating, understanding the world and oneself in this world.
There's no Father at all in the film, there is a place, a cell in space which must be filled with, but it is empty. This emptiness calls, requires to be filled, and not with something, but with real person, an instance. I was even going to call my review "Not the Father of the Artist", but then I realized - such a title is already an independent review, it describes the film as a whole.
Question 2: How is life without a father?
"Lighter than Air".
A story with this title, written by the Russian writer Kuprin, tells about a Circus acrobat who invented a new, rather simple and at the same time very sophisticated number. He was thrown into the air, holding weights in both hands, and just at the moment when his flight almost reached its highest point, he got rid of the weights and, starting to fly again from this peak, "took off again." The film we are talking about shows the human who tries to fly "keeping weights in her hands". Entire first half of the film is about that. That weight does not allow her to live a full life, sometimes - to breathe. This puts pressure on the mind, leads to a sense of injustice. It is bad when a person does not have a father, but it is probably no worse than when father exists somewhere, but is not present in life. Briefly: to have a parent, but feel like an orphan. It bothers Margarita permanently, and she tries to restore balance in life, the relationship of the child with the father, to meet him at least.
This doesn't work.
Question 3: What is the priority, life or art?
The only answer why her attempts were unfortunate, the only excuse that is not mentioned directly in the film, but which is guessed from the narrative, is that the father is an artist and all his thoughts, all his time is devoted to art, so he is not up to family worries. People say: in order to achieve some success one has to sacrifice something. We won't analyze all the different situations, when it is needed or not, but doubt creeps in, is it love for art, or for yourself? We all sometimes try to avoid unwanted communication, but mostly it does not apply to relationships with children. Is it such a great distraction from work, art, to talk to your own daughter or son from time to time? So, what is the priority, life or art? Or ego?
Question 4: Do we really need our parents?
Don't carry that weight.
Second part of the film is an elegant, artistic attempt to answer the unsolvable questions that arose in the first part. I, as probably many viewers, watching the film, being pretty much discouraged at the beginning by what was happening, tense from a hopeless situation, now suddenly felt some relief.
Weight is gotten rid off.
It appears that after all, there is not much needed to be a father.
Make friends, share life knowledge, and spare a little time. You don't need to be a hero, just be beside your child once in a while. It appears that parenthood should and could be, just normal, ordinary human behavior."
Is the film too personal?
Yes, and no. Yes, because the author worked with her own, personal, too private material. But at the same time, the problem is far from isolated. Margarita has a big advantage as a movie director unlike many ordinary people, to dig in the situation, to analyze, to figure out and understand. Not only for herself, but for many people living in the same situation. It is a real social issue, a big and popular one - to be abandoned by living parent(s).
Going further, this is not only about fugitive parents and abandoned children. As parents, we need to think about relationships in the family constantly or at least occasionally. The subject is worth our attention, and it is much more important than many other things that make up our lives.
Congratulations to all of us. Documentary cinema received another master, talented, deep and fearless, who expanded the genre boundaries, moved the frontier to unexplored areas.
Oleg Lipchenko, artist, illustrator.
