My Joy

I don't think it's a 'social commentary' or a 'statement of the human condition' - it's a mess of a movie made by a potentially very skilled director who seems to get bored with the (admittedly rather boring) storyline and tarts it up in the last 40 minutes with a whole lot of disjointed events which we are left to piece together ourselves, however we may. Perhaps he couldn't think of a sufficiently clever ending and (just the same way as Picasso got bored with doing half-decent paintings) decided to let the New York Art House Set name it to be a work of intellectual brilliance (just in case it actually was). Worth watching for the Ukrainian scenery and faces and for masterful camera-work - but only once unless you want to learn the style.

Certainly one of the best films of the year, MY JOY depicts the journey of a truck driver through contemporary Russia. The journey is full of detours, some of which take in scenes from the past, from 60 years or so ago, in the time of World War Two. In beautiful, lyrical mise-en-scene, the director shows scenes of brutality, rudeness, corruption and violence; this is a poetical portrayal of ugliness... Whether it is intended as a depiction of the brutality of conditions in contemporary Russia, or whether it is intended more as a general portrait of the human condition is not entirely clear to me, but, whatever it is, this is strong, haunting film-making, skillfully depicting a disjointed world of violence and degradation.

Three main issues = (1) Incredibly irritating to follow unless you know beforehand that the movie is composed of a series of short stories from different time periods. What adds to this problem is that the characters are mostly rough looking bearded Russians sometimes shot in dim light, therefore, it's hard to tell when a new character is being introduced or if it's the same rough looking bearded Russian as before. (2) The short stories themselves aren't really stories but a series of violent occurrences. (3) Since the film is not plot driven it must be making some type of statement or social commentary; unfortunately, that statements been made many times before in better fashion.

Most low reviews are from people claiming they didn't understand the movie, if you didn't understand it, it's your problem man, but giving it a low rate? it's like saying mathematic is a shitty* subject because you can't understand it. ridiculous, these people probably did not like Pulp Fiction, Amores Perros or 21 Grams, which are far more intricate movies. the movie is a Dostoevsky like tale about a man who take a wrong turn and ruins forever his life, showing the miserable and depraved evil that man are capable of. how authoritarian and merciless, and that sometimes the thief or the killer is a better friend than a cop. it also alternates time lines without a hint, which is genius and done in this way to emphasize the movie 'moral'. it's really great if you like depressive art. for me, a sad masterpiece. a movie about how miserable life is. too complicated for some.(IMDb didn't let me write the curses, great.)

First of all, I want to say that the film simply blew me away. This film, Sergei Loznitsa's first feature is not only the best film (and discovery) of the year, but one of the biggest and most important works in cinema of this century.

Before, Loznitsa was a documentary film maker and this effect can be seen in his fiction film. It is not only true and violent, but also very unconventional, different (truly ascetic, and here can be seen influence of Loznitsa's mentor, Robert Bresson), Loznitsa's use of long take is truly remarkable, in Russian cinema, long take has been used very ofter, beginning from Tarkovsky, then Shepitko, Sokurov, Zvyagintsv... but Loznitsa's use is different and unique, he absolutely refuses style (there is no disgusting exploitation of manner, that spoils Zvyagintsev's overrated, stupid and pointless "Vozvrascheniye"), he doesn't have style as a director, the film itself creates its style and language (and trust me, it's much difficult and much remarkable).

And Loznitsa does very bold thing: he destroys notion of deep shot. Yes, Kiarostami shot films with digital camera (as Loznitsa does), but his shot is extremely static and Loznitsa makes very long travelings with hand held camera, what's truly new thing and it also creates a feeling of claustrophobia, of closed circle, of No Exit and it's really conceptual use of primitive cinematic method.

It's extremely difficult film, but it's not art house and it's not the proud film, so called "not for everyone". It IS for everyone, but on the other hand, it should be watched very carefully: consider that you'll be shocked and maybe even depressed but I have one very useful advise: if you decide to watch this TRUE masterpiece, be patient and watch it till the end.

It's really worth it.