← Back to Reviews
in
Durak
WHY'D I WATCH IT?
Durak, or "The Fool", is one of those rare movies with a core message which it manages to consistently expand up from title to the final shot. Before the major (or superficial) conflict of the movie, the collapsing building, is ever presented to us, we're exposed two families; one in which a drug addict brutally attacks his starving family members over a money dispute only to have the cops ignore his crimes due to their financial dependence on him, and another in which our protagonist is lectured by his mother at dinner, complaining endlessly about her do-gooder son's construction aspirations and pointing to her husband's reluctance to steal as evidence of failure. In this way, both Main Guy and his dad are "fools", moralizing in the face of cold and uncaring circumstances, unperturbed by their simple desire to do the right thing.
Personally, I would have to note the size of this woman. They are all sitting at a table eating only bread and soup and this gargantuan bitch takes up half the table. I can very much see she takes for herself, whether that was a deliberate idea the movie was trying to convey or not. Simply put, she's a reprehensible human being, and this is after we've already seen a drunk junkie beat the **** out of his wife.
After we've lamented on the fact that times are tough and Main Guy and Main Guy's Dad are decent despite all disincentives, Main Guy receives the call alerting him to the collapsing building.
Roughly half of the movie is dedicated to Main Guy gently trying to persuade the local authorities to evacuate the 800+ people in the building. Given it's not his professional field of expertise, everyone is drunk and would rather celebrate the Mayor's birthday, and his direct leads are defacto guilty of the exact mismanagement which caused the building to be in such a state to begin with, everyone in administration is resistant to the information. To make matters worse, relocating the people within a reasonable amount of time would nearly double the current deficit, because of course the entire administrative board is disgustingly corrupt. Nepotism is on full-display, bribes are casually acknowledged, and much dirty laundry is aired to the effect of what each member has done to secure their comparably luxurious lifestyle, albeit under the direct thumb of still more corrupt bureaucrats so far up the chain it goes offscreen.
Eventually, we're left with this:
And here we have what might be the most decisive summary our economic issues I've ever seen in a movie; Socialism would just spread the poverty around, not solve it, while our current remedy is damaged by politicians "washing each others' hands", handing down crumbs from a ladder of less and less accountable authorities so that poverty and wealth consolidates regardless of merit.
And Durak subtlely, but well conveys that merit is out of the question here when the tacitly corrupt politicians frankly dehumanize the tenants of the collapsing building, degrading them for their squalid lives and referring to themselves as "normal". The patent irony is that these ******** are morally condescending to people they're in no way above. Their evil manifests differently only due to their socioeconomic circumstances, they still steal, they still kill, they still get wasted like the paupers in the concrete slums, they just wear suits and wear a veil of legitimacy when they do it.
There's no noble proletariat caught under the boot of the insufferable bourgeoisie, there's only mere human fallibility, scrambling to satisfy it's wants and urges at the expense of all the "nobodies".
It's a very compelling message the movie sends, it's more introspective than raw political critique. That said, I feel the movie falls down in a small handful of ways.
Firstly, I felt far too much time was spent dealing with the administrative people. I didn't expect so much of the movie to be spent away from the collapsing building in question, and not even directly talking about the collapsing building.
There are also two or three scenes in the movie that seem to exist for no other reason than to just hold a shot on our main character much much MUCH longer than it has any business being. It reminds me of Kara No Kyoukai when it does that. One scene is literally just two continuous shots of Main Guy walking, profile, down the street as music plays. You couldn't have interlaced some establishing shots? Give us a peek at the awful neighborhood? Wrecked cars? Dying street lights? Trash in the street? In no way can I believe that that wouldn't have been objectively better than what you chose to show on screen.
Finally we get a montage of Main Guy running through the building alerting the tenants to the imminent structural threat, leaving behind his family, under a reliable threat of death by his employers, and with zero credibility that what he says is true... only for him to get absolutely mobbed upon exiting because he only appears to be wasting their time. CREDITS.
No resolution. Does the building collapse? Do 800+ people die? Probably. It doesn't pay to be a fool.
Needless to say, painfully bleak and realistic as it may be, it's an extremely dissatisfying ending. If the guy had died in the collapse trying to save everyone, or everyone died except him, or he saved one single person, there would be some semblance of hope in the movie. Futility would still be a significant theme, but nothing says "give up" like curbing stomping the only good guy in the movie (apart from the Dad who's revealed to be a fatalist by the end) and undoing all of his efforts to be a selfless person.
It's as Jewish Guy in Enemy at the Gates said, "There is no 'New Man'. Man will always be Man."
Final Verdict: [Good]
Durak
Drama / Russian / 2014
WHY'D I WATCH IT?
I don't remember what about it appealed to me, but some aspect of what I read or watched about it persuaded me to put it high-up on my watchlist.
WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*
WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*
"We live like animals and we die like animals
because we are nobodies to each other."
because we are nobodies to each other."
Durak, or "The Fool", is one of those rare movies with a core message which it manages to consistently expand up from title to the final shot. Before the major (or superficial) conflict of the movie, the collapsing building, is ever presented to us, we're exposed two families; one in which a drug addict brutally attacks his starving family members over a money dispute only to have the cops ignore his crimes due to their financial dependence on him, and another in which our protagonist is lectured by his mother at dinner, complaining endlessly about her do-gooder son's construction aspirations and pointing to her husband's reluctance to steal as evidence of failure. In this way, both Main Guy and his dad are "fools", moralizing in the face of cold and uncaring circumstances, unperturbed by their simple desire to do the right thing.
Personally, I would have to note the size of this woman. They are all sitting at a table eating only bread and soup and this gargantuan bitch takes up half the table. I can very much see she takes for herself, whether that was a deliberate idea the movie was trying to convey or not. Simply put, she's a reprehensible human being, and this is after we've already seen a drunk junkie beat the **** out of his wife.
After we've lamented on the fact that times are tough and Main Guy and Main Guy's Dad are decent despite all disincentives, Main Guy receives the call alerting him to the collapsing building.
Roughly half of the movie is dedicated to Main Guy gently trying to persuade the local authorities to evacuate the 800+ people in the building. Given it's not his professional field of expertise, everyone is drunk and would rather celebrate the Mayor's birthday, and his direct leads are defacto guilty of the exact mismanagement which caused the building to be in such a state to begin with, everyone in administration is resistant to the information. To make matters worse, relocating the people within a reasonable amount of time would nearly double the current deficit, because of course the entire administrative board is disgustingly corrupt. Nepotism is on full-display, bribes are casually acknowledged, and much dirty laundry is aired to the effect of what each member has done to secure their comparably luxurious lifestyle, albeit under the direct thumb of still more corrupt bureaucrats so far up the chain it goes offscreen.
Eventually, we're left with this:
When did you start worrying about the people? Only when 800 of them might perish at once? Were you worried about them when they were dying one by one? When you took a piece for yourself out of every line in the budget? The roads are ****, one pot-hole on top of another, accidents every day. The people drinking themselves to death, killing each other, because there are no decent jobs here and the wages wouldn't suit a beggar. Kids are wasting their lives shooting up in basements. The schools are a mess; teachers and doctors can't afford to buy food. Old people and the disabled are better off dying. [...] There's not enough of the good life to go around. Divide it evenly, and nobody will get anything. Everyone will be equally poor.
And Durak subtlely, but well conveys that merit is out of the question here when the tacitly corrupt politicians frankly dehumanize the tenants of the collapsing building, degrading them for their squalid lives and referring to themselves as "normal". The patent irony is that these ******** are morally condescending to people they're in no way above. Their evil manifests differently only due to their socioeconomic circumstances, they still steal, they still kill, they still get wasted like the paupers in the concrete slums, they just wear suits and wear a veil of legitimacy when they do it.
There's no noble proletariat caught under the boot of the insufferable bourgeoisie, there's only mere human fallibility, scrambling to satisfy it's wants and urges at the expense of all the "nobodies".
It's a very compelling message the movie sends, it's more introspective than raw political critique. That said, I feel the movie falls down in a small handful of ways.
Firstly, I felt far too much time was spent dealing with the administrative people. I didn't expect so much of the movie to be spent away from the collapsing building in question, and not even directly talking about the collapsing building.
There are also two or three scenes in the movie that seem to exist for no other reason than to just hold a shot on our main character much much MUCH longer than it has any business being. It reminds me of Kara No Kyoukai when it does that. One scene is literally just two continuous shots of Main Guy walking, profile, down the street as music plays. You couldn't have interlaced some establishing shots? Give us a peek at the awful neighborhood? Wrecked cars? Dying street lights? Trash in the street? In no way can I believe that that wouldn't have been objectively better than what you chose to show on screen.
Finally we get a montage of Main Guy running through the building alerting the tenants to the imminent structural threat, leaving behind his family, under a reliable threat of death by his employers, and with zero credibility that what he says is true... only for him to get absolutely mobbed upon exiting because he only appears to be wasting their time. CREDITS.
No resolution. Does the building collapse? Do 800+ people die? Probably. It doesn't pay to be a fool.
Needless to say, painfully bleak and realistic as it may be, it's an extremely dissatisfying ending. If the guy had died in the collapse trying to save everyone, or everyone died except him, or he saved one single person, there would be some semblance of hope in the movie. Futility would still be a significant theme, but nothing says "give up" like curbing stomping the only good guy in the movie (apart from the Dad who's revealed to be a fatalist by the end) and undoing all of his efforts to be a selfless person.
It's as Jewish Guy in Enemy at the Gates said, "There is no 'New Man'. Man will always be Man."