I often search in Google Maps the village where my grandpa came from, deep in rural Poland. I look at the few houses and try to imagine which one was his. Then I go to the nearest town and look for the Jewish cemetery, or what's left of it. Is his family there? Did somebody bury the ashes? "Ida" is personal.
Every shot a picture. Literally. I feel that space is similar to Lucrecia Martel's treatment in "The Headless Woman", where anything left out speaks volumes. Some reviewers note that this virtuosity can act as a distraction. Instead of losing yourself in the movie, we react to shots as they formally are, parts of an art piece. When we watch Welles flex his genius muscles in "Kane", we marvel at the inventiveness but we are not taken out of the enchantment. But given the current state of cinema we are perhaps happy enough to have something pretty to look at. Hey, at least Pawlikowski took the time to try! The photographic aspect alone deserves a re-watch.
Not to speak about the big issue that shall not be discussed in Poland, the treatment of Jews not by the Nazis but by neighbors. I'm not going to write about it here. I know, they know, we know. It was done everywhere, also in the "advanced" countries in the West. I must say though, that I find Ida's situation depressing. If she doesn't have children, her line will have dissapeared from history, and the Nazis would have won. Maybe that's the point of the movie.
Should you watch "Ida"? Yes. Is it boring? Only if you don't engage with it.
No comments:
Post a Comment