Notes on Roger Ebert's review


Roger Ebert's review of this film, as referenced in the external reviews section of the film's page at IMDB, contains, I will argue, two mistakes that disturb the meaning of the film.

Ebert writes, "We gather that Eka was French, moved to Georgia with her Soviet husband, was a committed communist." Eka was not French; the dialogue of the film disproves the theory. This misconception stands in the way of one of the more interesting subtexts of the film: While the family is not French and has no French background that we know of, France and everything French is still a beacon in their lives, or at least in the lives of Eka and her late husband. The French literature on their bookshelves is the tangible evidence of their dedication to the ideas of liberty, equality and brotherhood that they attribute to France, a dedication evident also in many other aspects of cultural relations between France and the Russian/Soviet region. It is interesting to think of how this relates to the Soviet system that Eka lived under and apparently supported - while based on similar concepts in theory, it sacrificed liberty at an early point. When Eka makes up a story about her son's whereabouts toward the end of the film, she places him in America, calling it a land of opportunity, thereby arguably reminding us of another beacon of liberty.

Ebert writes, "She determines to go to Paris to visit her son, takes along the other two, finds them missing from their hotel room, and mutters, "Those two are leading me on."" I don't believe this is what she says; I think the English translation must have been flawed. What she says is simply, "These two are supposed to be taking care of me?" She then goes out on her own. If interpreted as quoted by Ebert, the sentence would seem to lead to the crucial misconception that Eka at that point knows she is being lied to, which is not the case.

Apart from that, I agree with Ebert about the sublime acting and direction of the film, but rather disagree with him when he says the story is conventional or unengaging, but that's a whole other topic.

Peter Brandt Nielsen : : Danish contributors: http://www.topica.com/lists/imdb-dk/

reply

Thank you for clarifying this for me. I was very affected by this movie, specially the ensemble acting. Since I'm taking care of my 92 year old mother and at times I find myself not telling her everything that would make her sad.

I Paris, I was surprised at the translation too. I do speak French, and that was mis-translated.

reply

PBN, good observation, indeed! What can one say about another American film critic, albeit a famous one!? Although I agree with your first comment on Ebert's reading too much (and wrongly) into the background story of this film, I think that the English translation of Eka's line that you mention actually makes sense, but it should not be associated with the knowledge of Otar's death. Or maybe it should, as a sort of Eka's premonition?

reply

you are wrong, those two are leading me on is what she says. and yes, she knows that otar's dead, she just doesn't want to acknowledge it.

my vote history:
http://imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=27424531

reply