By Chlotrudis Independent Film Society
Rating: 3.8 cats
Director: Joseph Cedar
Starring: Albert Iluz | Alma Zack | Lior Ashkenazi | Shlomo Bar-Aba | Yuval Scharf
Original language title: Hearat Shulayim
Country: israel
Year: 2012
Running time: 103
IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1445520/
Chris says: “An Israeli father and son, both well-versed scholars in Talmudic studies, experience conflict when one is mistakenly awarded a prestigious annual prize that was actually meant for the other. The mistaken winner, however, is unaware of the mistake. It’s a neat premise and to his credit, director/writer Joseph Cedar centers the film on it and gets considerable mileage out of drama (and comedy) inherent in knowledge the audience and certain characters possess that other characters do not. But the manic editing and even more frenzied score feel like distractions rather than compliments and the film ends before the central conflict is resolved–a daring, different choice, which is not the same as a satisfying one (even on its intended intellectual level). 2.5 cats”
Bruce says: “Eliezal (Shlomo Bar-Aba) and Uriel Shkolnik (Lior Ashkenazi) are father and son, both Talmud scholars. The father is taciturn; the son, demonstrative, self-promoting and highly competitive. They share a house with their wives and Uriel’s children. Eliezal and his wife sleep in separate rooms and do not speak. When at home Eliezal wears giant headphones to block out family conversation. Uriel’s wife believes that he is faithful to her out of fear. Uriel and his father did not get along. Reminiscing, Uriel says, ‘When I hugged him it was the smell of a stranger.’ No correction has been made to the formula. Uriel and his son Josh are barely civil to one another. One might expect that greater warmth exists outside the home. A brief glimpse at a meeting of university scholars proves that false. The men are petty, self-centered and irrational.
“When Eliezal is notified that he will be the recipient of the Israel Prize he is pleased that his thirty years of research is finally recognized. He is also surprised since Grossman (Micah Lewensohn), the department head, is his bitter rival. It turns out that an administrative error explains the phone call bearing the good news to Eliezal. His son is supposed to be the actual recipient of the award.
“When Uriel is told of the error he attempts to convince the committee that the error should not be corrected because his father deserves the prize. Grossman punishes Uriel by forcing him to write a fake recommendation for his father with the additional stipulation that Uriel will never receive the prize. Uriel acquiesces spitting ‘You don’t seek truth, you seek honors,’ in Grossman’s face. Later, Eliezal examines the judges’ documentation and develops suspicions regarding its authenticity. When his father and he subsequently argue Uriel regrets his decision to let the prize go to his father.
“The film opens with Uriel making an acceptance speech during which he tells a story about his father. As a child Uriel had to fill out a form that asked his father’s profession. His mother said ‘senior lecturer,’ someone else suggested ‘Talmud scholar,’ but his father said ‘No, I’m a teacher.’ Later we learn that Eliezal views himself a philologist and, in fact, disdains his teaching activities. He critiques one student’s thesis by saying her ‘correct things aren’t new’ and her ‘new things aren’t correct.’
“FOOTNOTE is an unusually unsatisfying film. Since we never really learn the truth of what transpires during the brouhaha over the mistaken honors, we never truly understand the motivations of the characters. It would seem screenwriter/director Cedar is making a statement about Israel itself rather than concentrating on logically arranging the details of his story. (I concur that his editing and sound effects are more in keeping with a political thriller than a tale of mistaken scholarly honors.) At the Israel Museum where the awards are given and at the University where the Shkolniks work security guards wield Uzis and scholars are handled with irreverence. The people in the film are not happy, loving or generous in spirit. Strange that a profession of truthseeking is portrayed as one without a collective soul.
“The Israel Prize, divided into four categories, is the country’s highest honor and includes a considerable monetary component. Recipients receive their honors from the President, Prime Minister, the Knesset head, and the president of the Supreme Court. The United States has no comparable awards, unless you count Neil Diamond at the Kennedy Center. Such cultural differences are fascinating if not illuminating. 3 cats”
Toni says: “Better late than never, I actually thought the film was quite excellent…so far I have been quite impressed with the Oscar nominees for Best film from the last year that I have seen so far: BULLHEAD (so so good), A SEPARATION, and now FOOTNOTE.
“I loved the tone of the film…not quite a black comedy but a bit bleaker that it had been advertised as being…maybe it was that I identified with the character of the father but the film really worked for me…great pacing and interesting technique in the shots…I am sure many with disagree on the ending choice (but I will not say anything about it accept that I clapped at the end of the film and was not alone in this 🙂 )… 5 Notations”
Peter H. says: “I also saw FOOTNOTE and, although I liked it overall, I lean more toward Bruce’s take on this film. I thought there were was some significant contrivance. Why would the Israeli Prize Committee call the son into that meeting instead of the father who had been wronged by their error? By overpassing the father, the committee placed the son into a difficult situation which was both unprofessional and unethical of a committee that prided itself on integrity. If the wrong man had been notified of winning an award, would not that committee start rectifying such an egregious error by informing him first? Especially if he were the father of the intended winner? The father’s rival who was the chairman of the committee and who had previously won the prize after the father’s 30 years work, made this seem all the more a film set-up to me. Of course, this contrivance is what fomented and fermented the rest of the film.
“I thought the ending of the film certainly imbalanced this father/son rivalry by making the curmudgeon of a father rather despicable for ultimately accepting this award after learning the truth. His son had sacrificed any future possibility of winning the prize by insisting his father be given the tribute, despite his difficulty trying to laud his father enough while writing the judgment consideration. The journalist’s distortions in the news article further inflamed the son’s conflict, but he stuck to his decision. I thought the ending much too harsh given its backdrop of a humorous tone and threw all the sympathy to the son.
“Incidentally, I gathered that the son was hoping his mother could/would intervene somehow by only telling her. Apparently, she didn’t make any difference and that made her character rather feckless. I mistakenly had thought she’d ultimately be the mediator. 2.5 cats”
Paul E. says: “Interesting to see such varied takes on the film. I thought the film was brilliant, in the 4.5-5 cats range. It was an unusual take on the dysfunctional family, which I think is somewhat shopworn subject matter.
“It did a good job of balancing lighter humor with nasty undertones and was tightly edited. In particular, I liked the sequence with the father’s interview intercut with the son’s recommendation letters. The sound design was also surprisingly well done for a film of this type. Also some creative framing choices by the DP.
“I liked the ending – though a bit abrupt, the film had had its emotional climax and ‘made its point’ so to speak so didn’t need to linger and tidy everything up.”