Charlatan

The biographical film Sarlatan is good, it is worth seeing because it describes the life and destiny of an interesting and controversial character. The life of the main character is totally atypical and includes both good and evil. On the one hand he was completely dedicated to the work of a healer, treating 200 people a day of all kinds of diseases, on the other hand he was a sadomasochist, with accents of madness when torturing and killing animals or when self-mutilating or with accents of murderer when he proposes to the man he lived with to kill his unborn child... A person with extraordinary abilities but also with an obvious mental and emotional imbalance. It bothered me that the film did not show clearly what was the situation of the character towards the end of his life, namely the fact that he was sentenced to 5 years in prison and not killed and that after his release he did not deal with healing.

A very rich story about a dedicated man with an extraordinary gift and his own shadows. Very well played, the film takes us through three different regimes, each of which are suspicious about the protagonist's methods. Both gentle and cruel, he dedicates his life to healing others, until his perhaps greatest barrier threatens to put an end to his career. Moving and touching across several different layers. Very worthwhile to watch

Agnieszka Holland has been one of Poland's leading directors for the past few decades. Although she has no particular style, the movies of hers that I've seen were worth seeing. This now includes 2020's "Sarlatán" (sorry, IMDb no longer allows diacritics on consonants, so I can't write the title properly).

The movie tells the true story of Jan Mikolasek, a Czech doctor in the early 20th century whose unorthodox methods caused controversy. When the Nazis occupied Czechoslovakia, they forced him to use his methods for them. Later on, the country's Soviet-backed government prosecuted him (his sexual relations with men probably contributed to this).

More than anything, the movie shows a part of history that most people have probably never heard of; I don't know how many people in Czechia and Slovakia know about Mikolasek, and in particular his sexual orientation. All in all, this is a movie that you should check out (can I say "Czech out"?).

Great art direction. Interesting story, but I felt it missed on a few things worth exploring. Great cinematography. Weak chemistry between the leads. Feels like an HBO TV movie, which is not necessarily a bad thing. 6* out of 10*

Agnieszka Holland is active as a (female) director since halfway the 70's and has produced a very diverse oeuvre. Because there is no real masterpiece in the oeuvre I think she hasn't got the attention she deserves.

Also "Charlatan" is no masterpiece, but it is a very good movie nevertheless. The cinematography is at times very beautiful, but that is not the real attraction of the movie. The real attraction of the movie is that it has a very compex main character in a very complex society, but the movie does not try to explan everything. It is up to the spectator to think about a lot of quenstions after the movie has finished. Benath some of the questions I had after viewing the movie.

The film is a biopic about Jan Mikolasek (1889 - 1973, played by Ivan Trajon (at older age) and his son Josef Trojan (at younger age)). Jan Mikolasek diagnosis people by looking at a bottle of their urine and treats them with extracts of herbs. When later in the film Mikolasek also turns out to be a clairvoyant, the term "charlatan" seems more then justified. Despite its title the film hoewever does not give a clear answer to this question. There are some indications about questianable merchandising (empty bottles to urinate in) around the practice of Mikolasek but on average he is portrayed as a man driven to help his patients and not as a charlatan.

Mikolasek is prosecuted by the communist Czech government. The film is unclear about the motives of the government. The prosecutor calls Mikolasek mockingly a urine oracle, but as we saw before this was in all probability not the case.

The film makes clear that the prosecution is only possible after some former patients of Mikolasek are no longer on positions of power. That is however only about eliminating an obstacle and does not give a cleu about the motives behind the prosecution. Was it the homosexuality of Mikolasek? At one point in the film is remarked that this is against the law, but (again) the film does not provide definite answers.

As dedicated Mitosalek is to his patients, so selfish and blunt he sometimes is to his loved ones. Especially against his assistent and lover Frantisek Palko (Juraj Loj) he is two times real cruel and villainous. Flashbacks to his past agian provide some clues about this inconsistency in his peronality but not the full answer.

One thing is in my opinion not entirely logic. The film is told in flash backs originating from the interrogation during the proces. At other points in the film however, the impression is created that the proces is just a show proces with conclusions already drawn. But why having serious interrogations in a show proces?