Somewhere in the remote region, the war ends. In the midst of ruined cities and houses in the streets, in rural hamlets, everywhere where people still live, are children who have lost their homes and parents. Abandoned, hungry, and in rags, defenseless and humiliated, they wander through the world. Hunger drives them. Little streams of orphans merge into a river which rushes forward and submerges everything in its path. The children do not know any feeling; they know only the world of their enemies. They fight, steal, struggle for a mouthful of food, and violence is merely a means to get it. A gang led by Cahoun finds a refuge in an abandoned castle and encounters an old composer who has voluntarily retired into solitude from a world of hatred, treason, and crime. How can they find a common ground, how can they become mutual friends? The castle becomes their hiding place but possibly it will also be their first home which they may organize and must defend. But even for this, the price will be very high.
To this simple story, the journalist, writer, poet, scriptwriter, movie director, and film theoretician Béla Balázs applied many years of experience. He and the director Géza Radványi created a work which opened a new postwar chapter in Hungarian film. Surprisingly, this film has not lost any of its impact over the years, especially on a profound philosophical level. That is to say, it is not merely a movie about war; it is not important in what location and in what period of time it takes place. It is a story outside of time about the joyless fate of children who pay dearly for the cruel war games of adults.
At the time it was premiered, the movie was enthusiastically received by the critics. The main roles were taken by streetwise boys of a children's group who created their roles improvisationally in close contact with a few professional actors, and in the children's acting their own fresh experience of war's turmoil appears to be reflected. At the same time, their performance fits admirably into the mosaic of a very complex movie language. Balázs's influence revealed itself, above all, in the introductory sequences: an air raid on an amusement park, seen in a montage of dramatic situations evoking the last spasms of war, where, undoubtedly, we discern the influence of classical Soviet cinematography. Shooting, the boy's escape, the locomotive's wheels, the shadows of soldiers with submachine guns, the sound of a whistle—the images are linked together in abrupt sequences in which varying shots and expressive sharp sounds are emphasized. A perfectly planned screenplay avoided all elements of sentimentality, time-worn stereotypes of wronged children, romanticism and cheap simplification. The authors succeeded in bridging the perilous dramatic abyss of the metamorphosis of a children's community. Their telling of the story (the scene of pillaging, the assault on the castle, etc) independently introduced some neorealist elements which, at that time, were being propagated in Italy by De Sica, Rossellini, and other film artists. The rebukes of contemporary critics, who called attention to "formalism for its own sake" have been forgotten. The masterly art of cameraman Barnabás Hegyi gives vitality to the poetic images. His angle shots of the children, his composition of scenes in the castle interior, are a living document of the times, and underline the atmosphere and the characters of the protagonists. The success of the picture was also enhanced by the musical art of composer Dénes Buday who, in tense situations, inserted the theme of the Marseilaise into the movie's structure, as a motive of community unification, as an expression of friendship and the possibility of understanding.
Valahol Europaban is the first significant postwar Hungarian film. It originated in a relaxed atmosphere, replete with joy and euphoria, and it includes these elements in order to demonstrate the strength of humanism, tolerance, and friendship. It represents a general condemnation of war anywhere in the world, in any form.
这个电影完美阐述了老实男人在感情市场是不吃香的
呃好难看，尤其现代戏枯燥乏味，情怀也并不真挚，致敬也流于表面，难受
剧本太无聊了甚至腐朽。有创新的稚嫩想法，没有落实的坚决信念，最后回归放荡的本性任其一生。理所当然地仗着他人的爱意和奉献而“过得幸福”，拾起来才华就可以一帆风顺，家庭和人生的失职则可以弃之不顾。洋次郎是带资进组吗（笑）
蹩脚的时代错误感因为山田洋次本人而变得可以原谅甚至更显珍贵，老爷子的片真的能去电影院看一部就一定要去看！
要拍巴斯特·基顿式的金点子（其实被伍迪·艾伦拍成了《开罗紫玫瑰》），不要陈腐的推拉长镜头——不知道这其中有几分是山田本人在副导演时期的执着，也实在想不到还有哪个导演比他更适合、也更有资格给松竹百年献礼。其实感觉山田近几年（乃至大半个电影生涯）拍的都是同一部电影，新作也即是把《电影天地》和《家族之苦》做了嫁接，其实“电影拯救人生”的主题稍有些生硬了（回避了家庭中长久存在的问题），电影之神的降临也并不赐福于女性。喜欢的还是过去的部分，片场涌现许多生动的细节，把北川景子拍出了一种昭和女优的优雅气质。新冠疫情下的电影院困境，也还是第一次在电影里看到如此直给的呼吁，而这出自一个几近鲐背之年的导演，对电影的拳拳之心天地可鉴。人物有没有生命力，故事有没有真情感，无论什么年代的观众，都可以一眼洞穿的。
前面平淡琐碎无趣，后面催泪弹。以及竟然跟自己之前一个想法撞梗了
为了梦而创造的真实，就是电影呀#第3000部#
在歌颂堕落混蛋即是男性魅力，女性以终生宽容忍让为美德的导演自传回忆电影里，电影之神最终降临并恩赐一场多重文本消弭一处无上完满的银幕之梦，人生善终，无悔恶棍的梦想赌上的是身边众人的幸福。那是巴斯特基顿，伍迪艾伦，也是山田洋次共享的梦境，有的成了泛黄废稿，有的载入影史熠熠生辉。作为新冠时代耄耋之年的导演回首青春，献礼电影的情怀之作，温情和呼吁虽真挚动人，电影本身已和真正cinema千差万别，徒有廉价感怀元素展陈。北川景子饰演的昭和映画女神从东京物语的黑白画框徐徐抬眸落向镜头正中，向着寂寥萧条的暮色影厅走来，眼泪不可能不潸然而下，落泪并不为电影剧本过时的价值倒退和美化刻板性别角色范式的企图，热爱电影之人，无论何时听到旧时语言都会勾动乡愁，正如穿越造梦的老套故事，搬到任何文化和时代背景都能打动观众。
如果真的有才华且热爱电影，我想不会那么轻易放弃电影的吧！另外剧本在伍迪艾伦的《开罗紫玫瑰》早就用过了，也没有那么惊艳了。还有这个世界上真的有如此卑微的爱吗？如果真的有，那我不会对这样的女人有任何同情的。真的有点失望……甚至这个老人除去年轻时当场记和初次做导演的紧张外，他对爱情的混账和家庭的满不负责以及友情的不屑都让我觉得电影之神不眷顾他是理所应当。
山田洋次和大林宣彦之间可能隔了一百个电影之神
4新冠疫情下的电影院困境，也还是第一次在电影里看到如此直给的呼吁，90岁的电影之神山田洋次对电影的拳拳之心天地可鉴。
松竹百年就拍了个这？男人的迷影情结为啥总要老婆来承受你的中二自私？一句“你幸福，她就一定幸福”奠定了这部电影东亚直男普信电影的基调。
从默片时代的基顿到无敌《开罗紫玫瑰》，再到“电影之神”的剧本，当银幕与现实生活形成互文，看电影看到死，打破边界是多少影迷的终极梦想。根本没有电影之神，有的只是每一个迷影的人。
还记得曾经那个为梦想而热血沸腾的自己吗？
就算是山田洋次也無法買帳，劇情老套，人設迂腐，芝居がクサイ。拍電影也沒講好，愛情線也沒講好。喜歡的就只有救濟映畫館和暗示松竹經典作。幾乎是本片僅有的兩個正常人：Lily和志尊淳。
去掉情怀就好平庸啊。被电影难看到还被两性部分的内核表达暴躁到。
沉迷于自我感动的导演让人只想把基顿的福尔摩斯二世再看一遍。景子演得不错，声音非常有韵味，永野太像小遥了，日本人喜欢的演员几乎都是一个模版。
故事没什么说服力，但结尾还是好感动，世界上唯电影与爱不可辜负。泽田研二居然老得完全认不出来了，田中裕子的老公啊！
比起「開羅紫玫瑰」水平差了很多，但是很難忍心對關於cinema的電影打差評，永遠都會被感動哭的吧。
剧本家。编剧。
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
