MovieChat Forums > Hearat Shulayim (2011) Discussion > My 2¢

My 2¢

posted 12 years ago by calbruin2
19 replies | jump to latest

At first, I liked the movie. Then I loved it.

There are a couple of loose ends, as mentioned elsewhere on this message board, the woman Uriel saw his father Eliezer chatting with was never identified.

Second, who stole Uriel's clothes. That was such a random occurrence, was that all just to get Uriel in a disguise suitable enough to stumble upon his father's private conversation with another woman who is not his mother?

The movie would be better if the academic subject were Mathematics. Son's mathematical works out shines the father's. Peer discovers and publishes a mathematical proof before the Eliezer completes his proof.

But I realize the father's philologistic skills were necessary for his discovering the fact about the award letter's composers. Perhaps, math would not have worked so well.

[–] chuck-526 12 years ago

EDIT: Oops, retracted, (see post by "sgt-sgt" below).

Second, who stole Uriel's clothes. That was such a random occurrence, was that all just to get Uriel in a disguise suitable enough to stumble upon his father's private conversation with another woman who is not his mother?

Yep, I watched it twice and I never figured this out either.

But someone posted elsewhere on this board an answer that seems to make perfect sense once you hear it: Eliezer absent-mindedly took Uriel's bag. The assistant did indeed call the right number; Eliezer didn't even have a cellphone. But after fumbling through the bag to find the source of the ringing, he answered as "Professor Shkolnik" ...that's where the mistaken identity happened.

Note every other time we see Eliezer carrying something, he has only one bag (the plastic one with the flowered print). He has the brown leather tote only that one part of one day.

Also note we see the conversation on the phone _twice_, once somewhat abbreviated but the second time in excruciating detail. The point was hammered home that no first name nor other identifying information was ever asked or given.

(There are still a couple loose ends: What was Eliezer doing at the gym in the first place? And how did he know right away which button to press to accept the call even though he had almost no experience with cellphones? ...but these loose ends are much smaller than the one they replace.)

[–] sidney76 12 years ago

With all due respect, the explanation of an "absent-minded taking" of the son's gym bag makes no sense. As noted, why would he be in the athletic facility? Why would he pick up a bag? As sad as it is, it appears to make more sense that in an an act of spite/anger/jealousy, Eliezer took the clothes and items and threw them out or the like. Obviously, he harbors much ill will toward Uriel. That is the more likely explanation. It is an unfortunate scene because it is so unclear.

[–] chuck-526 12 years ago

EDIT: Oops, retracted, (see post by "sgt-sgt" below).

Well to each his own. It's indeed true that what our stereotype of an "absent-minded professor" does fails to "make sense" _to_us_. If we asked that all of Eliezer's actions "make sense" to us, there are a whole lot of things in the movie (not just the gym bag) that aren't acceptable.

Given my difficulties getting inside Eliezer's head, I tend to look elsewhere for interpretation. To me the best indicator in this particular case is consistency with other scenes in the movie (apparent puzzlement at where the ringing noise is coming from, no evidence of having a cellphone in any other scene, report from the other end of the conversation of how the mixup of people occurred, seeing the phone answering scene twice, still having the brown bag in the courtyard scene, etc.)

[–] bertdockx 12 years ago

But if the phone isn't his, if he doesn't even have a cell phone of his own, then he must know that the pone call isn't for him, no? He can't be THAT absent-minded, can he?

[–] chuck-526 12 years ago

EDIT: Oops, retracted, (see post by "sgt-sgt" below).

He can't be THAT absent-minded, can he?

In a reasonable world and going by our usual stereotype of the "absent-minded professor", most likely not. But in the context of this movie where Eliezer is _extremely_ "absent-minded" (so much so some called him "autistic"), most definitely yes.

[–] bertdockx 12 years ago

Maybe the whole point is, that the father knew from the beginning that the prize wasn't for him, but for his son... Bloody hell, I didn't think of that before, but I'm guessing now that it's in fact pretty obvious.

[–] rainbowTVP 12 years ago

No. It was pretty clear that he was just putting the clues together at the end.

[–] sgt-sgt 11 years ago

That would have been a nice explanation indeed.

However, when Eliezer talks on the cellphone we can clearly see the label on the back of the phone. The label says "Eliezer Shkolnik".

[–] chuck-526 11 years ago

Obvious to someone that can read Hebrew printing, but not at all obvious to us poor English-only slobs. But with some help from Google Translate I see that you are correct.

Interestingly, that prominent label is _not_ on the back of the phone in most of the scene. It suddenly appears in just that one closeup shot. I wonder if it was always there, or if that one shot was added later...

[–] pacekissa 11 years ago

I was wondering what it said on the back of that cell phone!

[–] room102 10 years ago

Adding to sgt-sgt's comment, to anyone interested:
The label on the cellphone lists a name (Eliezer Shkolnik) and a street address (Alfasi 21 Jerusalem, an address which actually exists).

Visit The Plasma Pool: http://PlasmaPool.50webs.com/

[–] chuck-526 11 years ago

After rewatching the DVD several times and reading several reviews, I have different suggested answers--

who stole Uriel's clothes.

Nobody (including us viewers) knows.

That was such a random occurrence,

More likely, as "sidney76" said, it was "an act of spite/anger/jealousy" ...except by some unknown person, not by Eliezer. Uriel wasn't the nicest guy in the gym. His screaming "yes" when he scored the winning point a minute before made me flinch. Although it would be more likely in Jr. High School, it's not unbelievable to me that in a public place some adult decided "I'll fix him!".

was that all just to get Uriel in a disguise suitable enough to stumble upon his father's private conversation with another woman who is not his mother?

I don't believe so. I believe it was intended a) to show us more clearly that there were quite a few people that disliked Uriel and b) to be "funny". I believe it didn't turn out fo fulfill its intentions very well, and the bottom line is there's just plain _no_ good reason for it to be there.

Some reviews in listing the "weak" plot points list exactly the same two things you identify as "loose ends".

[–] lubin-freddy 11 years ago

The movie would be better if the academic subject were Mathematics.

Two reasons why not.

(1) Ceder is making a career of presenting sections of Israeli society, which he knows well (for better, and more often, for worse), that seldom, if at all, appear in Israeli films. Such with Ha'hesder and Medurat ha'shevet. So it's natural that he again would look to an interesting but unknown sub-culture.

(2) Uriel's dilemma reminds one of the kind of issues the Talmud itself presents, with the Rabbis taking moral sides. So it makes more sense than if the subject was Mathematics.

People hungry for the voice of god
Hear lunatics and liars

[–] calbruin2 11 years ago

Re: (1) implies that mathematics is unknown subculture. Really? Too whom? Not necessarily to David Lodge fans.

Re: (2) The dilemma still holds whether Linguists Award, Abel Prize, or some essay contest.

More to the point, the movie has philologists as characters, I -- stress "I" would prefer if the characters were mathematicians.

N.B. the plot twist, such as I am calling depends upon the phrasing in the award letter not the subject matter of the award. Being a philologist makes his recognizing the unique phrasing more plausible to believe, but that is no different from an observant detective noticing something curious about how an apparent suicide letter was written.

I could imagine some one else wishing the characters were archaeologists or to be consistent with the more Talmudic subculture, were strictly theologians.

[–] lubin-freddy 11 years ago

I never said that mathematics is an unknown, only that Ceder was interested in another particular sub-culture. I'm not arguing with your post, only showing another possible way of viewing it.

People hungry for the voice of god
Hear lunatics and liars

[–] calbruin2 11 years ago

Just for clarification, I made an error.

I forgot my negation.

I meant to write, Re: (1) implies that mathematics is a known subculture. . . .

Point meaning, I think many are unfamiliar with mathematics/mathematicians, hence negative portrayals such as in "Good Will Hunting" and "A Beautiful Mind", "Pi" and the like where the focus and false association that mathematicians are crazy, mad people.

Sorry for my mistake.

[–] Denise_Harrison 11 years ago

I believe the scene early on where Eliezer is trying to regain entry to the ceremony for his son, when he is questioned by the security guard, is supposed to lead us to believe his mind is confused enough that doesn't know some of the answers to the questions of the security guard, not that he's being belligerent. So, that is supposed to set the stage for some confusion on his part throughout (taking a bag not his, answering a phone not his, etc.), enough confusion to lead us to understand the events that led up to (and during) the phone call so he did believe he had won the award.

[–] pacekissa 11 years ago

He wasn't answering the guard at the start of the movie not because he didn't know the answers but because he felt insulted.

[–] caiaumm 11 years ago

And he simply refused to say it out loud that the event was in honor of his son