O Estudante

Yet another bleak, cynical Russian take on the modern world and its moral conditions (Leviathan, etc). Here, Russian director Kirill Serebrennikov and German playwright Marius Von Mayenburg re-tread the age old argument that pits Christianity against the modern worlds view on human morality. Made in a somewhat trendy, dismal style, with too many shaky hand held shots and some overbearing music - these movie makers, as with so many others over the decades, seem to think they have reached an informed conclusion so, able to convince us all of their superior intellectual standpoint. They have both chosen to overlook the fact that vast numbers who went before them, have concluded that it's an unwinnable topic that leaves more questions than answers – in fact, many who set out to fight against and disprove the wisdom of Christ's word, converted over to it.

They use many of the Bibles strongest passages to substantiate their subservient arguments but the language presented on both sides of their viewpoint tends to suggest that perhaps: The Wisdom of Man is Less than the Foolishness of God. Their protagonist is portrayed as a psychotic who quotes almost verbatim Bible scriptures but, he is ultimately shown to be as crippled as the cripple he tries to heal, then harms. This character offers no real basis to mount a genuine argument. As another reviewer has already stated: Laughable.

Set in a current (surprisingly undisciplined) Russian school, many of the usual hooks are put-out to appeal to our basic instincts: Sexual freedoms (with lashings of nudity and sexual situations) ~ Anti Semitism (with the biology-sex-ed teacher being both anti-Christian and Jewish, in fact - her character simply allows for situations of associated Christian based hatred, to be easily introduced within the ideals of the modern world) ~ Next, there's the headmistress and the teacher of religious studies - both shown to be perhaps out of touch (as one might expect). These movie makers have perfectly armed themselves with so many manipulative character devises to support their biased point of view. It's too easy to mount an argument by designing characters to serve an already formed view.

If the topic leans your way it could appeal - otherwise, stay away.

Venya is a teenager with attitude, he is cared for by a single mother who works three jobs to keep body and soul together. Then one day she gets a call from his school saying he is refusing to take part in mixed swimming lessons. She imagines all the reasons why a teenage boy may not want to do such an activity but never thought that it would be against his political convictions. However, he insists that he is religiously motivated and his stance finds traction in the school principle.

As he realises that religion is power so he sets out to control those around him by becoming a sort of walking, talking Bible. The passages he quotes are very subjective and selective but when delivered with absolute conviction seem to carry more weight and their implicit truth appears loaded with spiritual and moral currency. His Nemesis in this is a forward thinking science and biology teacher but he knows he has God on his side.

Now this is taken from the play by Marius von Mayenburg who is German and the original Russian title was '(M)uchenik' which is a play on Russian words in that muchenik is 'martyr' and 'uchenik' is student – and as such is a brilliant title, but would not work in English – hence 'The Student'. The issues of religious control and the like are hot and controversial topics with parallels to way more than Christianity and as such the film has had its critics.

The acting, directing and cinematography are all excellent and the plot is both compelling and urgent for a film that runs just shy of two hours it really does not waste any time – in Russian with good sub titles this is a film that will divide opinion and I think that is no bad thing – so recommended to those who like to have to think about their cinema.

Nowadays Russian cinema is more political than ever. And its political word is not shy, it frankly declares war against either bureaucratic or societal corruption (or both), as we can see in Leviathan, Durak, and this film. But the most dangerous enemy in this war, is the scope of the enemy. If you define the whole corrupt society as something to destroy, who will be your allies in this war? No one, for sure. You're as lonely as Don Quixote in his delusions.

Actually, the idea of "the Holy Bible in a human's body" as a character is striking, strengthened by the undeniable references. The viewers are forced to observe how religious fundamentalism can threaten the society, especially when the people around cannot see the big picture, cannot imagine what will come next and feed the beast naively as if donating to the church.

But as I mentioned above, despite the power of its criticism this movie too is unfortunately flawed with the problem of being incapable of providing solution, like similar others. The film rightfully asks: "This religious fundamentalism is poisoning us! What is the antidote to it?" But the answer is perfectly oxymoronical: "We need idealist individuals, but hopeless at the same time due to their loneliness..."

So, according to me it's clear that these "pessimist-idealist" characters represent the directors themselves. They can foresee what's coming, they want to do something, but when they look around they realize that they don't have anyone to cooperate with. So, disappointed with this loneliness, they get critical of the society much more than the problems the society is experiencing. So, contradictorily, what we as the viewers have in the end is not a motivation for action, but a reflection of the pessimism of the director dictating us to sit and smile cynically at the inevitable self-destruction of the society.

The plot revolves around religious interpretation validity, but just out the shell.However, religion issues are a mere devise to show the detrimental progress of the mind of a boy traumatized for the absence of a father. That father longing, becomes the Father, and the Son religious metaphor that is at the same time took literally by the main character. The boy that is treated as a devote religious man, is never taken seriously as the boy that needs urgently a shrink to disclose the only reason for being ill minded. The pain of Growing without a father and the mother as the remaining culprit, no matter how she cares. The Bible as a textbook. And the Bible as the metaphor of the lacking lessons that a father could had given to his son. Divorce is the apple eaten by the new Adams and Eves of the 21th century.

There are several issues touched upon in this film; some of them very complex, and others, rather simple. First of all, there are no protagonists in this film. All the characters are flawed to some degree; some are extremely flawed. Also, there is no clear delineation between what is right or what is wrong. If you are religious, you will believe in one set of outcomes; if you are agnostic or atheistic, you will believe in other outcomes. Does God exist? Thomas Tafero wrote about this issue in his book (Amazon.com) called The Defense, where he had to defend his atheistic beliefs against six religious leaders of different faiths to receive his PHD (very good reading I might add). Aside from the religious aspect, there are the sexual overtones of the film, and finally the persecution of innocent teachers by school administrators who constantly take the word of students over the teachers (I had this experience at Jimei University in China, when one of the administrators believed six students who lived in the same dorm who cheated on their final paper. I had to eventually pass them after giving them all an F). I never thought I would see the day when Soviet schools would be so permissive. The film is interesting to see the current state of Russian education.