Somewhere in the remote region, the war ends. In the midst of ruined cities and houses in the streets, in rural hamlets, everywhere where people still live, are children who have lost their homes and parents. Abandoned, hungry, and in rags, defenseless and humiliated, they wander through the world. Hunger drives them. Little streams of orphans merge into a river which rushes forward and submerges everything in its path. The children do not know any feeling; they know only the world of their enemies. They fight, steal, struggle for a mouthful of food, and violence is merely a means to get it. A gang led by Cahoun finds a refuge in an abandoned castle and encounters an old composer who has voluntarily retired into solitude from a world of hatred, treason, and crime. How can they find a common ground, how can they become mutual friends? The castle becomes their hiding place but possibly it will also be their first home which they may organize and must defend. But even for this, the price will be very high.
To this simple story, the journalist, writer, poet, scriptwriter, movie director, and film theoretician Béla Balázs applied many years of experience. He and the director Géza Radványi created a work which opened a new postwar chapter in Hungarian film. Surprisingly, this film has not lost any of its impact over the years, especially on a profound philosophical level. That is to say, it is not merely a movie about war; it is not important in what location and in what period of time it takes place. It is a story outside of time about the joyless fate of children who pay dearly for the cruel war games of adults.
At the time it was premiered, the movie was enthusiastically received by the critics. The main roles were taken by streetwise boys of a children's group who created their roles improvisationally in close contact with a few professional actors, and in the children's acting their own fresh experience of war's turmoil appears to be reflected. At the same time, their performance fits admirably into the mosaic of a very complex movie language. Balázs's influence revealed itself, above all, in the introductory sequences: an air raid on an amusement park, seen in a montage of dramatic situations evoking the last spasms of war, where, undoubtedly, we discern the influence of classical Soviet cinematography. Shooting, the boy's escape, the locomotive's wheels, the shadows of soldiers with submachine guns, the sound of a whistle—the images are linked together in abrupt sequences in which varying shots and expressive sharp sounds are emphasized. A perfectly planned screenplay avoided all elements of sentimentality, time-worn stereotypes of wronged children, romanticism and cheap simplification. The authors succeeded in bridging the perilous dramatic abyss of the metamorphosis of a children's community. Their telling of the story (the scene of pillaging, the assault on the castle, etc) independently introduced some neorealist elements which, at that time, were being propagated in Italy by De Sica, Rossellini, and other film artists. The rebukes of contemporary critics, who called attention to "formalism for its own sake" have been forgotten. The masterly art of cameraman Barnabás Hegyi gives vitality to the poetic images. His angle shots of the children, his composition of scenes in the castle interior, are a living document of the times, and underline the atmosphere and the characters of the protagonists. The success of the picture was also enhanced by the musical art of composer Dénes Buday who, in tense situations, inserted the theme of the Marseilaise into the movie's structure, as a motive of community unification, as an expression of friendship and the possibility of understanding.
Valahol Europaban is the first significant postwar Hungarian film. It originated in a relaxed atmosphere, replete with joy and euphoria, and it includes these elements in order to demonstrate the strength of humanism, tolerance, and friendship. It represents a general condemnation of war anywhere in the world, in any form.
洪常秀的电影已然成为我的标尺，每年的相遇又重逢都在丈量着我迷影的长度。
都在夸洪金的恩爱，但我对他俩实在羡慕不来；我要赞美李慧英的카리스마！教训一身爹味的权海骁那里实在太搞笑。
我好像看懂了，又好像没有。但可以肯定的是我不喜欢。
太沉闷了，台词太密集了，我跟不上节奏。全片黑白，最后有了色彩，还是有色彩看起来舒服很多。太文艺太诗意，对我来说难以get。
文艺界的精英和普通人，人与人之间的客套话太多，应该立即停止！洪尚秀再也无法用结构使故事变得轻松有趣了，我还是去期待滨口龙介吧！如果看电影是为了消磨时间，这部电影压缩到47分钟我都嫌多。
一边梳理媒介变迁一边阐释艺术家特质，开始只觉“通俗易懂”，愈看愈发现真相不可知，直到最后，银幕内外的人们都在与自己灵魂的分身对望，而那难以启齿的爱也终于连接了影像与现实，妙笔不要太多哦。
另外，这么高对比度把亮部几乎完全过曝抹白有什么特别的用意吗？过曝的是这些惺惺作态的文化人本质还是其所期望的人设？
看完预告片的我：被预告片里突然的笑声震住了。这是种怎样的魔法！
第一部洪常秀。怎么讲，这大概不是让陌生观众来认识他的那张名片，且我对片外花边没有很多了解也并不怎么care，但黑白转彩色那一瞬真的有冲击到我，电影是什么呢，电影可以只是表现爱意的介质。p.s.敏姐，太 美 了。
22/6/24：洪导为了敏喜再也不猥琐了！不惜打破结构的彩色片尾随便怎么理解，我希望洪导的电影一直保持独立的恬静下去。
流动感很强的一部。在故事缓慢的水流里，洪轻巧展示了人与人靠近时产生的不同波纹。(Dennis在intro时说这部里有金敏喜迄今最爱的scene。我想不用怀疑，找到了
完全镜像反应导演的情况让人想很多但没什么意义；如果那个小女孩是即性的就牛了
2022-06-02
从来不让人失望…布努埃尔=20世纪，洪常秀=21世纪。
不觉得像女版《引见》，小说家和每个人都认识，所以更应该算把暗涌引流到水面。也比《引见》更好懂，对话一如既往地典中典，这次“自愿”“浪费才华”的“成年人”有两个，回声放大的感觉就特别鲜明；而且甚至巧思无限地挪用到老洪本人对金敏喜的回声。从未出镜的丈夫是洪尚秀，狂饭小说家也是洪尚秀，只不过小说家拍完电影陷入激烈共鸣后的空虚，而洪尚秀始终拥有金敏喜。
洪尚秀每年一部《我老婆最美》，这次更是令人发指的把自己拍的小短片直接放到电影结尾了！
字幕结束后那一场戏，顿然阴冷，想起早期的他。
(米酒好喝吗？喝了头痛吗？)
不知道是不是因为过于自然了反倒显得虚，依然不太能接受洪尚秀式尬聊，人物和环境脱离，就算掏心掏肺也让我觉得有所保留，无法接近。小说家的创作焦虑，因为把微小的事写得很夸张而产生自我怀疑，借由不断与一些认识或不认识的人相遇来倾诉，文本看不出亮点，所以电影到底需不需要情节呢？
没看过之前电影的我只能以无聊来评价，没有任何故事性
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
