As a part of the STIFF’s educational program Dean Durić held a workshop on film review & criticism for 10 selected students. Throughout this week some of the best student film reviews will be published on our web.
“The film has a naturalistic streak. It questions characters and their harsh survival and heritage. It assesses if the younger generation is ready to take up its own burden, as well as the burden of keeping themselves alive and continuing the lifeline. “
written by Marin Kolić
Translation :Virna Car
In the cycle Silence – Part One we had a chance to see three movies – two short films and one documentary. One of the more interesting films in this cycle was Echo by the Polish author Marcino Filipowitz who tackles the problem of a father and son relationship.
Echo is a simple film, which is to be expected of a short film. It reminds us of nature as our initial starting point which we, in today’s world, forgot about. The focal point is the father/son relationship which is brutal and can be seen as an initiation process. The father is sadistic, rough and patriarchal and it can be said that he represents the pillar of today’s society or, on a larger scale, today’s society as a whole. We can all agree that we exist on our own and that we can only help ourselves. As soon as we accept that, we can be painlessly assimilated and accepted into the society. On the opposite side we have a plump, clumsy and insecure son who would, in a much tamer society, also be on the outskirts of civilization where his existence would be threatened as well. The father tries to teach the boy how to survive in nature but in a very cruel and nonconventional way – which is very traumatic for the boy. The nature when the father is in the scenes is very tame and dreamy – it almost reminds of nature documentaries. When the boy is shown, the nature turns ugly. The father is not afraid of the swamp filled with lotuses and marsh that could almost drown you while you’re swimming. The moments of the storm, within the tent, makes us think about all the places where we really, truly safe. We are dislocated from nature that we only seemingly tamed turning our civilization into a ticking time-bomb of false securities, corrupted values and conventions we do not question anymore.
The film has a naturalistic streak. It questions characters and their harsh survival and heritage. It assesses if the younger generation is ready to take up its own burden, as well as the burden of keeping themselves alive and continuing the lifeline. Is it possible to go back to nature and not perceive nature as a diabolical and wicked place or is it too late? Is there no return because nature strived to erase all known paths as much as we strived to tame nature? This motive is well-incorporated into the story although there are several inconsistencies mostly due to the short duration of the film. This is an endless topic that can be endlessly contemplated on.
Categories: Film Critics Workshop 2014