Jan Svankmajer is one director to imaginatively combine real life images with the inventive use of stop motion animation that produces grotesque and nightmarish images that unnerve the viewer. LUNACY is further proof of this and its influence of Edgar Allen Poe and Marquis De Sade is perfect for the vision of Svankmajer. Its story concerns an innocent young man, travelling home from his mothers funeral who spends some time with a wealthy man, known only as the Marquis (possibly the Marquis De Sade). The young man bears witness to the Marquis' debauched and blasphemous rituals and after some philosophical discussion over the rights and wrongs of man and religion, the young man under the request of the Marquis goes undercover into an insane asylum and falls under the spell of a women who insists that he helps her release the actual warders and doctors who are locked away, as the inmates are running the asylum. The film is a bizarre yet brilliant look at a world gone insane, where fear, punishment and madness is ruling and no one is in charge and whoever is in charge is corrupted by there own absolute power and twisted morality. The stop motion animation interludes add to the grotesque and surreal nature of the film and even offers it to comparisons with the body horror films of David Cronenberg. Overall its an art house horror that provides the viewer an uneasy yet unforgettable journey into insanity.
27 Reviews
Madness, Philosophy and Horror
Eumenides_025 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Jean Berlot is returning home after having attended his mother's funeral. She died in an asylum and Jean fears he's also developing madness too. One day he meets a mysterious Marquis who gives him a ride. This is the beginning of a journey that includes sacrilegious rites, a madhouse where the madmen have taken over, and unique methods to cure madness.
This is Jan Svankmajer's horror movie and it's not only one of his best movie, it's one of the best movies of the millennium so far. In terms of stop-motion animation interaction with the real world, I'd place this on the same level as Alice and Faust. In terms of inventiveness and surreal imagery, it's also one of his strongest.
Svankmajer drew inspiration from the Marquis de Sade and Edgar Allen Poe, and it shows. Horror and unreason pervade the movie. The Marquis, played by Jan Triska, is of course based on the popular perception of de Sade as a libertine who despised God and defended absolute freedom in the pursuit of excesses and pleasures. He turns a madhouse into his personal playground, manipulating the inmates into perverse games and drawing innocent to it.
The scenes in the asylum are terrifying; chaos and dirt abound, naked people destroy the furniture and walk around aimlessly indulging in their weirdest pleasures. At times I was reminded of Wojciech Has' The Hourglass Sanatorium, another great surrealist movie. Poor Jean is caught in the middle of this and tries to retain his sanity as best as he can.
There are many ambiguous things in the movie which will leave the viewer looking for answers that simply don't exist. There are also some amazing shots of moving meat that seem to have no relation with the main story. Just think about hunks of mean, tongues, eyes, bones, moving around as if alive. These little interludes are creepy and amusing in their own way.
This is a great movie and also a parable about our times, in which the director explores two approaches to rule society: through absolute freedom, with the madmen in charge; or through punishment, with peoples's lives controlled by others who think what is best for all. It's pretty clear where Svankmajer's loyalties lie in this matter; as an artist and surrealist, he preaches absolute freedom and this is his panegyric.
This is Jan Svankmajer's horror movie and it's not only one of his best movie, it's one of the best movies of the millennium so far. In terms of stop-motion animation interaction with the real world, I'd place this on the same level as Alice and Faust. In terms of inventiveness and surreal imagery, it's also one of his strongest.
Svankmajer drew inspiration from the Marquis de Sade and Edgar Allen Poe, and it shows. Horror and unreason pervade the movie. The Marquis, played by Jan Triska, is of course based on the popular perception of de Sade as a libertine who despised God and defended absolute freedom in the pursuit of excesses and pleasures. He turns a madhouse into his personal playground, manipulating the inmates into perverse games and drawing innocent to it.
The scenes in the asylum are terrifying; chaos and dirt abound, naked people destroy the furniture and walk around aimlessly indulging in their weirdest pleasures. At times I was reminded of Wojciech Has' The Hourglass Sanatorium, another great surrealist movie. Poor Jean is caught in the middle of this and tries to retain his sanity as best as he can.
There are many ambiguous things in the movie which will leave the viewer looking for answers that simply don't exist. There are also some amazing shots of moving meat that seem to have no relation with the main story. Just think about hunks of mean, tongues, eyes, bones, moving around as if alive. These little interludes are creepy and amusing in their own way.
This is a great movie and also a parable about our times, in which the director explores two approaches to rule society: through absolute freedom, with the madmen in charge; or through punishment, with peoples's lives controlled by others who think what is best for all. It's pretty clear where Svankmajer's loyalties lie in this matter; as an artist and surrealist, he preaches absolute freedom and this is his panegyric.
this sickening satire is among svankmajer's most fiendishly entertaining
framptonhollis4 May 2017
Functioning mainly as a mixture of three demented masters of art (these "heroes" of mine being Edgar Allan Poe, the Marquis de Sade, and Jan Svankmajer), "Lunacy" portrays a world of hopeless depravity. Demented desires are shown to be hidden within those one both extremes of the social spectrum. "Lunacy" is a film that lives up to its title, showcasing a world of idiocy, chaos, and oppression.
In his brilliant introduction, Svankmajer claims that this is a film inspired by the works of both Edgar Allan Poe and the Marquis de Sade. Being a fan of both authors, this only further fueled my fascination with the film. Poe's tortured soul often dominates the more melancholic and moody sections of such a masterwork, as well as largely inspiring the overall story. de Sade's sick spirit shines even brighter as Svankmajer displays the perverted sexual acts and desires performed by a common libertine. His surreal lens not flinching one bit, blasphemous rituals of twisted eroticism are performed in a way both chilling and occasionally amusing. Further mirroring de Sade's unconventional brilliance are the nihilistic philosophical musings of the film's own marquis, a man who refuses to hide his perverted desires, hatred for Mother Nature, and disdain for religion.
While juggling the atmospheres of ever impending doom and inescapable tragedy, "Lunacy" also manages to be one of the funniest movies of the century so far. Without fail, Svankmajer slyly mocks society using both grotesque horror and riotous black humor. Gags fill up Svankmajer's cinematic canvas like his character of the marquis' sperm does the inside of his sexual victims. Here, hilarity comes in many (often absolutely absurdist) forms, from slapstick to social commentary. Densely layered, Svankmajer's film crowds itself with much comic insanity by the second half. Many sequences work as both scenes of sadistic horror and gross out humor, so never be afraid to burst with laughter despite the urge to spray puke all over the movie screen like a hose.
In his brilliant introduction, Svankmajer claims that this is a film inspired by the works of both Edgar Allan Poe and the Marquis de Sade. Being a fan of both authors, this only further fueled my fascination with the film. Poe's tortured soul often dominates the more melancholic and moody sections of such a masterwork, as well as largely inspiring the overall story. de Sade's sick spirit shines even brighter as Svankmajer displays the perverted sexual acts and desires performed by a common libertine. His surreal lens not flinching one bit, blasphemous rituals of twisted eroticism are performed in a way both chilling and occasionally amusing. Further mirroring de Sade's unconventional brilliance are the nihilistic philosophical musings of the film's own marquis, a man who refuses to hide his perverted desires, hatred for Mother Nature, and disdain for religion.
While juggling the atmospheres of ever impending doom and inescapable tragedy, "Lunacy" also manages to be one of the funniest movies of the century so far. Without fail, Svankmajer slyly mocks society using both grotesque horror and riotous black humor. Gags fill up Svankmajer's cinematic canvas like his character of the marquis' sperm does the inside of his sexual victims. Here, hilarity comes in many (often absolutely absurdist) forms, from slapstick to social commentary. Densely layered, Svankmajer's film crowds itself with much comic insanity by the second half. Many sequences work as both scenes of sadistic horror and gross out humor, so never be afraid to burst with laughter despite the urge to spray puke all over the movie screen like a hose.
Classic European cinema
stratonick1 May 2006
I recently saw this film at the Jeonju film festival in Korea. It was by far the best film I saw all weekend. Selini is like a combination of Godard, Herzog and classic Czech animation- the kind of committed and convincing political film making that is increasingly rare these days. In his introduction Svankmajer compares the excesses of extreme reactionary and liberal regimes and argues that we currentlycombine the worst of both worlds in encouraging people to do whatever they want whilst relying on punishment and fear to keep them under control. The plot (based on an Edgar Allen Poe short story) is simple- an innocent traveller bears witness to the lunatics taking over the asylum. But the nightmarish atmosphere of confusion and fear, enhanced by gruesome stop motion animation between scenes, is both compelling, disturbing and extremely effective in communicating the directors ideas. The acting is committed and convincing and the story has, like the decline into madness, a chilling inevitability about it. The film uses this simple story to explore more challenging philosophical concepts. You don't have to be a fan of art-house cinema to understand and enjoy this exciting movie. 9/10
Hammer smashed face
chaos-rampant22 October 2011
A lot of viewers seem to praise Svankmajer for the lunacy of his visual imagination, for the grotesque insides he's willing to lay out. I admit there is stuff worth taking from him, notions I would be interested to engage. But a lot of what he does is so blunt that I mostly want to take a step back, he can be embarrassing to watch, for example here the petulant tirade against god; what kind of god creates only in order to destroy, why doesn't he spare us the pain? Well, precisely the god, meant broadly, the universe that creates again. How selfish, how religiously salvational, exactly the thing he rants against, to think it was all going to last forever!
He favors stark allegories, and this is one of the least subtle he has delivered: distinctions between tyranny and freedom as the ways to govern the world madhouse. We see one, then the other, always with an eye on the world at large, or so it goes.
There is one interesting bit in all this, a clever staging; a tableaux vivant that recreates Delacroix's 'Liberty', where inmates who are ostensibly free to be as creatively mad as they want are marshaled into position as living props. During the stageshow later, one of them actually attacks in a fit of lust the woman portraying liberty. Of course unbound freedom can spawn its own despots, we're meant to take this lesson ambiguously.
It's all wrapped in Poe; 'Premature Burial' as backstory attached to de Sade, a pendulum shot, the main thrust is from 'Doctor Tarr and Professor Fether'. And there is an experimental short woven through the film, typical Svankmajer stuff that he does best about animated slabs of meat trying to enter the narrative, or substituting for insights that can't be articulated there.
But it's never quite as erudite as it would like to be. The final image is unremittingly blunt; modern man as another slab of meat in a long row, a prepackaged exhibit suffocating in his modern cellophane wrap.
I suggest you watch instead The Hourglass Sanatorium, another Eastern European film about a damaged man mingling with madness in an effort to restore in him parts missing - the quest in both is for subconscious images of a parent. But that film unswathed in a dozen different layers, offering on the whole the purely symbolic construct of a graven image, but as a space of metaphysical contemplation on the placement of the soul in the cosmic grind. Here, it's one allegory broken out in so many authoritarian asides.
He favors stark allegories, and this is one of the least subtle he has delivered: distinctions between tyranny and freedom as the ways to govern the world madhouse. We see one, then the other, always with an eye on the world at large, or so it goes.
There is one interesting bit in all this, a clever staging; a tableaux vivant that recreates Delacroix's 'Liberty', where inmates who are ostensibly free to be as creatively mad as they want are marshaled into position as living props. During the stageshow later, one of them actually attacks in a fit of lust the woman portraying liberty. Of course unbound freedom can spawn its own despots, we're meant to take this lesson ambiguously.
It's all wrapped in Poe; 'Premature Burial' as backstory attached to de Sade, a pendulum shot, the main thrust is from 'Doctor Tarr and Professor Fether'. And there is an experimental short woven through the film, typical Svankmajer stuff that he does best about animated slabs of meat trying to enter the narrative, or substituting for insights that can't be articulated there.
But it's never quite as erudite as it would like to be. The final image is unremittingly blunt; modern man as another slab of meat in a long row, a prepackaged exhibit suffocating in his modern cellophane wrap.
I suggest you watch instead The Hourglass Sanatorium, another Eastern European film about a damaged man mingling with madness in an effort to restore in him parts missing - the quest in both is for subconscious images of a parent. But that film unswathed in a dozen different layers, offering on the whole the purely symbolic construct of a graven image, but as a space of metaphysical contemplation on the placement of the soul in the cosmic grind. Here, it's one allegory broken out in so many authoritarian asides.
Jan Svankmajer's Self-Proclaimed 'Horror-Film'...
EVOL66610 February 2010
Warning: Spoilers
In Svankmajer's opening comments before the film-he describes LUNACY as an homage to Edgar Allen Poe and the Marquis de Sade, tackling the idea of the breakdown of a mental-health facility. Specifically-the concepts of corporal punishment in such a setting, versus allowing total freedom amongst the inhabitants. An interesting concept that the director handles in a surreal, yet surprisingly straight-forward manner.
Jean is a mentally disturbed young man, who during his travels back from the funeral of his mother who died in an insane asylum-is befriended (so to speak...) by an older eccentric gentleman who is identified as 'The Marquis'. The Marquis invites Jean back to his home-an invitation that Jean accepts. As the two get to know each other a little better-the Marquis seemingly takes an interest in Jean's mental-plight, and offers him the opportunity to voluntarily spend some time at an institution run by his pal. Again, Jean accepts-but very quickly learns that this particular asylum is not a 'norma'l mental health facility...it turns out that the patients have taken over and locked the doctors and caretakers in the basement. That is until Jean and his gal-pal Charlotte find a way to free them. The 'action' of the film is interspersed with Svankmajer's signature 'meat animations'-anyone familiar with his work knows what I'm talking about.
First off-LUNACY is not a 'horror-film' in any traditional sense. There's no gore, no masked or deformed killer hacking people with axes or chainsaws. The 'horror' in LUNACY is much more subtle. On the surface is the theme that Svankmajer himself spoke of-the extreme differences in treatments and 'therapy' techniques within a mental institution. But beneath the surface-there are subtexts regarding the relative sanity of all people, and the ability for people to be completely manipulated by others. Pretty heady stuff-but in this film, Svankmajer handles the material deftly and the ideas conveyed never feel forced. I have to say that I've seen several of Svankmajer's films-and although I've enjoyed them all to one degree or another-LUNACY is the sharpest of his works in my opinion. There's definitely a bit of 'art-film' aesthetic to this work (as is the case with all of his films...)-but I don't feel that those aspects are too heavy-handed as to alienate potential viewers. I would suggest though that anyone who hasn't seen any of Svankmajer's works maybe start with LITTLE OTIK-a quirky and interesting film that should make a nice introduction into Svankmajer's 'world'. 8.5/10
Jean is a mentally disturbed young man, who during his travels back from the funeral of his mother who died in an insane asylum-is befriended (so to speak...) by an older eccentric gentleman who is identified as 'The Marquis'. The Marquis invites Jean back to his home-an invitation that Jean accepts. As the two get to know each other a little better-the Marquis seemingly takes an interest in Jean's mental-plight, and offers him the opportunity to voluntarily spend some time at an institution run by his pal. Again, Jean accepts-but very quickly learns that this particular asylum is not a 'norma'l mental health facility...it turns out that the patients have taken over and locked the doctors and caretakers in the basement. That is until Jean and his gal-pal Charlotte find a way to free them. The 'action' of the film is interspersed with Svankmajer's signature 'meat animations'-anyone familiar with his work knows what I'm talking about.
First off-LUNACY is not a 'horror-film' in any traditional sense. There's no gore, no masked or deformed killer hacking people with axes or chainsaws. The 'horror' in LUNACY is much more subtle. On the surface is the theme that Svankmajer himself spoke of-the extreme differences in treatments and 'therapy' techniques within a mental institution. But beneath the surface-there are subtexts regarding the relative sanity of all people, and the ability for people to be completely manipulated by others. Pretty heady stuff-but in this film, Svankmajer handles the material deftly and the ideas conveyed never feel forced. I have to say that I've seen several of Svankmajer's films-and although I've enjoyed them all to one degree or another-LUNACY is the sharpest of his works in my opinion. There's definitely a bit of 'art-film' aesthetic to this work (as is the case with all of his films...)-but I don't feel that those aspects are too heavy-handed as to alienate potential viewers. I would suggest though that anyone who hasn't seen any of Svankmajer's works maybe start with LITTLE OTIK-a quirky and interesting film that should make a nice introduction into Svankmajer's 'world'. 8.5/10
Crazy, grotesque, philosophical horror
pavol-hardos27 February 2006
Warning: Spoilers
The Lunatics I attended the Slovak premiere (February 22nd) of Jan Svankmajer's latest cinematic work, the movie called Lunatics (ílení). Jan Svankmajer, the famed surrealist artist/animator/filmmaker is back in full force with a generic horror film with "all the deficiencies the genre entails". Though the movie is mainly live actors it contains the trademark surreal animations you would come to expect from Svankmajer. These animations (crawling flesh, rolling eyeballs, bovine tongues dancing in beer glasses, you name it, it's there) cut in between scenes fulfill the role of visual music and help illustrate the progress of madness on screen.
Svankmajer's intro really says it all; this philosophical horror movie is "an infantile homage to the writings of Edgar Alan Poe" with "a few subversive ideas borrowed from Marquis de Sade". The movie's basic premise concerns the great ideological dispute of how best to run a lunatic asylum on the one hand you have the concept of total freedom and on the other the conservative ideal of discipline and punishment. According to Svankmajer there is a third way that manages to combine all the negative aspects of these two approaches and it is the reality we live in...
The movie starts a bit slowly, the pacing is really uneven and could have used a bit of editing, but then Svankmajer wouldn't have been able to let the Marquis (the impeccable Jan Triska) recite director's favourite "blasphemous" passages from de Sade. Anyway the young hero Berlot suffers from live nightmares (in which lunatic asylum workers try to put him in a straight jacket) that end in destruction of all furniture around him; he befriends the Marquis who pays for the damage in the inn where Berlot spend the night on his way from his mother's funeral. After Berlot witnesses Marquise's libertine ways, sadomasochistic orgies, blasphemies, cataleptic shock and a live burial he is nonplussed enough to be convinced by Marquis that the best way to face his own fears of lunatic asylum is to submit himself to one, run by Marquise's friend Dr. Murlloppe. In the asylum run according to the principles of absolute freedom (patients running around with scissors, bobsledding down the stairs etc) he meets the girl who involuntary took part in Marquise's sex orgies and she tells him that Marquise and Dr. Murlloppe were patients in the asylum as well but led a revolt against the reign of the psychiatrist Dr. Coulmiere (great Slovak actor Martin Huba), who remains trapped in the asylum's basement along with his staff... At this point the movie has griped you and doesn't let go until the predictable but great end. All in all, this is a great horror movie, if by horror you mean a bizarre and surreal grotesque... you will laugh and marvel and think, because this is the type of a movie that allows you to do just that.
9/10.
Svankmajer's intro really says it all; this philosophical horror movie is "an infantile homage to the writings of Edgar Alan Poe" with "a few subversive ideas borrowed from Marquis de Sade". The movie's basic premise concerns the great ideological dispute of how best to run a lunatic asylum on the one hand you have the concept of total freedom and on the other the conservative ideal of discipline and punishment. According to Svankmajer there is a third way that manages to combine all the negative aspects of these two approaches and it is the reality we live in...
The movie starts a bit slowly, the pacing is really uneven and could have used a bit of editing, but then Svankmajer wouldn't have been able to let the Marquis (the impeccable Jan Triska) recite director's favourite "blasphemous" passages from de Sade. Anyway the young hero Berlot suffers from live nightmares (in which lunatic asylum workers try to put him in a straight jacket) that end in destruction of all furniture around him; he befriends the Marquis who pays for the damage in the inn where Berlot spend the night on his way from his mother's funeral. After Berlot witnesses Marquise's libertine ways, sadomasochistic orgies, blasphemies, cataleptic shock and a live burial he is nonplussed enough to be convinced by Marquis that the best way to face his own fears of lunatic asylum is to submit himself to one, run by Marquise's friend Dr. Murlloppe. In the asylum run according to the principles of absolute freedom (patients running around with scissors, bobsledding down the stairs etc) he meets the girl who involuntary took part in Marquise's sex orgies and she tells him that Marquise and Dr. Murlloppe were patients in the asylum as well but led a revolt against the reign of the psychiatrist Dr. Coulmiere (great Slovak actor Martin Huba), who remains trapped in the asylum's basement along with his staff... At this point the movie has griped you and doesn't let go until the predictable but great end. All in all, this is a great horror movie, if by horror you mean a bizarre and surreal grotesque... you will laugh and marvel and think, because this is the type of a movie that allows you to do just that.
9/10.
Might be a bit much
Jeremy_Urquhart28 March 2023
Going into a film directed by Jan Svankmajer had me expecting something strange, given he specialises in combining dark humour/satire, unsettling stop-motion animation, and surreal horror. He's tackled Alice in Wonderland, the story of Faust, and also Little Otik, which out-Eraserheads Eraserhead with its own horrific spin on the terrors of parenthood.
But Lunacy proved more challenging than any of those, and I'm not sure it was quite as good either. It tells the story of a young man who gets mixed up in a strange asylum and an even stranger older man who seems to enjoy psychologically tormenting him. It feels like a way to have a series of bizarre scenes play out within a fairly confined location, and even if each scene can sort of be broken down or maybe even analysed a little, I was at a bit of a loss as to what the entire thing added up to.
At least the bizarre visuals and situations kept things from ever getting too boring, and a good deal of it felt like it was supposed to be overwhelming and inexplicable, but that didn't mean I really loved it. It's clearly creative, and probably means a lot to the director and/or people who are geniuses, but it was a bit much for me personally in the end.
(Also, if anyone hates the idea of seeing pieces of meat move around and interact thanks to the "magic" of stop-motion animation, avoid this film at all costs. It seems to happen here every 5-10 minutes, and is always accompanied by what might be the most annoying piano piece in the world).
But Lunacy proved more challenging than any of those, and I'm not sure it was quite as good either. It tells the story of a young man who gets mixed up in a strange asylum and an even stranger older man who seems to enjoy psychologically tormenting him. It feels like a way to have a series of bizarre scenes play out within a fairly confined location, and even if each scene can sort of be broken down or maybe even analysed a little, I was at a bit of a loss as to what the entire thing added up to.
At least the bizarre visuals and situations kept things from ever getting too boring, and a good deal of it felt like it was supposed to be overwhelming and inexplicable, but that didn't mean I really loved it. It's clearly creative, and probably means a lot to the director and/or people who are geniuses, but it was a bit much for me personally in the end.
(Also, if anyone hates the idea of seeing pieces of meat move around and interact thanks to the "magic" of stop-motion animation, avoid this film at all costs. It seems to happen here every 5-10 minutes, and is always accompanied by what might be the most annoying piano piece in the world).
It's a Mad, Mad, Mad World by Jan Svankmajer
Quinoa198423 August 2008
Jan Svankmajer is a filmmaker who started out in animation, and made dozens of short films, most of them in surrealist settings and modes, and it was only when he got into feature films that he used live-action a lot more. This might explain why when he directs live-action you may not see certain usual things in movies, like with characters talking to the camera when in conversation (not sure if this breaks the 180-degree rule or not), or in a couple of awkward edits or his penchant for close-ups on mouths speaking words. And yet with each passing film I've come across from him- Alice, Faust, Little Otik- he gets a little better each time around. Now with Lunacy, his latest feature, it's by far his most assured and confidently insane direction (and rightfully so for this!) and featuring only minimal stop-motion animation. Thankfull, this animation is with pieces of meat put to piano honky tonk music.
But aside from the direction being stronger, and Svankmajer's actors being better than usual, it's such a thematically rich film that only a surrealist could pull off: one might say 'what does this mean or what's the symbol of the body doing that or that piece of food or the tar and feather or 13 punishments?' Secretly, Svankmajer's response, probably akin to Bunuel, would be 'does it ultimately matter?' In the scope of Lunacy, a film based on works by Poe and Marquis de Sade (what parts are which will only be known to those who've read the specific Poe stories, or are familiar enough with Sade, though I can likely guess the latter's influence in the last fifteen minutes), it's about the simple question: who's sane or not, and what defines sanity? Our protagonist, whom we think is the sanest of all, has recurring nightmares of men coming into his room at night with a straight-jacket ready to take him away and then his super-violent reaction. Is he, perhaps, any less wacko than the Marquis, or his fellow Doctor with the fake beards?
Well... maybe, comparatively, he is saner, but the question still stands amid a matter of degree; towards the end we're faced with the question of sanity in the face of "corporal punishment." Maybe the point is akin to the old George Carlin line about life being a freak-show and being born is just getting a ticket for the ride. Jean (Pavel Liska) is on his way back from his mother's funeral and is "befriended" (very loose quotes) by a Marquis (perfectly cast Jan Triska, definitely one of the creepiest of all screen villains) who by horse and buggy in present day takes him to his castle where Jean witnesses "blasphemous" acts at night with the Marquis and a bunch of naked ladies in a barn with an over-nailed cross. One thing leads to another- including a presumed suffocation by banana- and the Marquis oddly convinces Jean to come to the sanitarium to get some voluntary 'assistance'. Once there, it's a total upside-down cake where the lunatics have taken over, so to speak and literally, as the Marquis and Dr. Murloppe run rough-shod as the real doctors are locked in the basement, tarred and feathered with a bunch of chickens.
So much of this is rich and densely packed material that it kind of goes by simply. Ironic then (or maybe as a good old told-with-a-straight-faced joke) that Svankmajer makes an intro before the film about how "this is not art, art is probably dead anyway" when his film is just that: whacked out film-art to the tune of classic horror, as the genre goes, and as classic satire. This is full-bodied satire throughout, even when the style might suggest otherwise; just watch that super-crazy (however somewhat lucid) scene where the Marquis and doctor stage a reading and a kind of still-life of sorts in recreating a painting with the loonies- how the camera slides along those clapping hands and the Marquis reciting the words so eloquently. It's like a momentary glimpse at the blinding power of empowerment, of everyone in the room including Jean with getting poor Charlotte off the stage. While there are tendencies for it to get nasty (just in those 13 Sadistic punishments, no pun intended), the focus is always clear and powerful... and ultimately very funny.
Did I mention the meat seq-ways? This is just by itself extraordinary work and adds to the confounded but amazing artistry in the project. So much work was put in to tell these little stories of pieces of meat forming together, tongues and eyeballs, meat being tarred and feathered and humping, meat getting pecked at by chickens, etc. The combination of this and the fantastic live-action propel it up to being Svankmajer's best I've seen yet, and by the end we're left with whatever interpretation we want: does the meat represent the people going whatever way they will to form new shapes, or is commentary on what's going on in the story, or is it just eye-popping animation for the hell of the entire theme of lunacy all over the place? Why show any of this dark and despairing philosophical and psychological and physical things? Svankmajer's answer, undoubtedly, would be "why not?" A+
But aside from the direction being stronger, and Svankmajer's actors being better than usual, it's such a thematically rich film that only a surrealist could pull off: one might say 'what does this mean or what's the symbol of the body doing that or that piece of food or the tar and feather or 13 punishments?' Secretly, Svankmajer's response, probably akin to Bunuel, would be 'does it ultimately matter?' In the scope of Lunacy, a film based on works by Poe and Marquis de Sade (what parts are which will only be known to those who've read the specific Poe stories, or are familiar enough with Sade, though I can likely guess the latter's influence in the last fifteen minutes), it's about the simple question: who's sane or not, and what defines sanity? Our protagonist, whom we think is the sanest of all, has recurring nightmares of men coming into his room at night with a straight-jacket ready to take him away and then his super-violent reaction. Is he, perhaps, any less wacko than the Marquis, or his fellow Doctor with the fake beards?
Well... maybe, comparatively, he is saner, but the question still stands amid a matter of degree; towards the end we're faced with the question of sanity in the face of "corporal punishment." Maybe the point is akin to the old George Carlin line about life being a freak-show and being born is just getting a ticket for the ride. Jean (Pavel Liska) is on his way back from his mother's funeral and is "befriended" (very loose quotes) by a Marquis (perfectly cast Jan Triska, definitely one of the creepiest of all screen villains) who by horse and buggy in present day takes him to his castle where Jean witnesses "blasphemous" acts at night with the Marquis and a bunch of naked ladies in a barn with an over-nailed cross. One thing leads to another- including a presumed suffocation by banana- and the Marquis oddly convinces Jean to come to the sanitarium to get some voluntary 'assistance'. Once there, it's a total upside-down cake where the lunatics have taken over, so to speak and literally, as the Marquis and Dr. Murloppe run rough-shod as the real doctors are locked in the basement, tarred and feathered with a bunch of chickens.
So much of this is rich and densely packed material that it kind of goes by simply. Ironic then (or maybe as a good old told-with-a-straight-faced joke) that Svankmajer makes an intro before the film about how "this is not art, art is probably dead anyway" when his film is just that: whacked out film-art to the tune of classic horror, as the genre goes, and as classic satire. This is full-bodied satire throughout, even when the style might suggest otherwise; just watch that super-crazy (however somewhat lucid) scene where the Marquis and doctor stage a reading and a kind of still-life of sorts in recreating a painting with the loonies- how the camera slides along those clapping hands and the Marquis reciting the words so eloquently. It's like a momentary glimpse at the blinding power of empowerment, of everyone in the room including Jean with getting poor Charlotte off the stage. While there are tendencies for it to get nasty (just in those 13 Sadistic punishments, no pun intended), the focus is always clear and powerful... and ultimately very funny.
Did I mention the meat seq-ways? This is just by itself extraordinary work and adds to the confounded but amazing artistry in the project. So much work was put in to tell these little stories of pieces of meat forming together, tongues and eyeballs, meat being tarred and feathered and humping, meat getting pecked at by chickens, etc. The combination of this and the fantastic live-action propel it up to being Svankmajer's best I've seen yet, and by the end we're left with whatever interpretation we want: does the meat represent the people going whatever way they will to form new shapes, or is commentary on what's going on in the story, or is it just eye-popping animation for the hell of the entire theme of lunacy all over the place? Why show any of this dark and despairing philosophical and psychological and physical things? Svankmajer's answer, undoubtedly, would be "why not?" A+
Svankmajer at his least interesting
Carl_Tait22 April 2007
When Jan Svankmajer lets his imagination run wild, get ready. You're in for dark, harrowing films like "Alice" and "Little Otik," or short gems such as "Down to the Cellar" and "Jabberwocky." All of those are excellent films that represent disturbing, surrealistic film-making at its best.
On the other hand, when Svankmajer attempts to make a political statement of any kind, you're advised to leave the room in a hurry. Svankmajer's films in this vein tend to be both adolescent and preachy, presenting straw-man caricatures in repetitious fashion to express his pseudo-brilliant insights.
"Lunacy," unfortunately, is very much this latter type of movie. Cartoonish ideas and characters are stretched paper-thin for an appalling two hours. There are a few moments that briefly hold interest, but these few oases are separated by vast deserts of boredom.
If you found Svankmajer's dreadful, monotonous short film "Et Cetera" brilliant and hilarious, you'll probably love "Lunacy." If you've never seen a Svankmajer film before, please start elsewhere.
On the other hand, when Svankmajer attempts to make a political statement of any kind, you're advised to leave the room in a hurry. Svankmajer's films in this vein tend to be both adolescent and preachy, presenting straw-man caricatures in repetitious fashion to express his pseudo-brilliant insights.
"Lunacy," unfortunately, is very much this latter type of movie. Cartoonish ideas and characters are stretched paper-thin for an appalling two hours. There are a few moments that briefly hold interest, but these few oases are separated by vast deserts of boredom.
If you found Svankmajer's dreadful, monotonous short film "Et Cetera" brilliant and hilarious, you'll probably love "Lunacy." If you've never seen a Svankmajer film before, please start elsewhere.
Choose Your Insanity
Polaris_DiB4 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Edgar Allen Poe. The Marquis de Sade. Jan Svankmajer. If you're familiar with any of those people, and enjoy their work (or even if you don't enjoy it but you still understand what they do), then you are pretty much obligated to see this movie. If you like all those artists, then you've probably already seen it and this review is redundant.
Jan Svankmajer's job in this movie is to take the theme of the lunatics running the asylum to a new extreme--hopefully to the limit, as I wouldn't want to watch what anybody would try to do further. A young man named Jean Berlot has recurring dreams of being stuck in an insane asylum, and unfortunately for him these dreams attract the attention of a mysterious Marquis who's out to help "cure" a new friend. The Marquis, however, has his own, let's call 'em, "extreme philosophies." If the storyline isn't enough, the transitions between scenes are animated with pounds of animal meat.
Jan Svankmajer calls this his horror movie, and once again he shows a large amount of craftiness behind his impressions. The first two acts of the movie are so absurd they're mostly comedic, but the third act is surprisingly disturbing. You'd be surprised which characters you end up caring about and which characters you end up hating. In the end it becomes a question of how to choose your own insanity... because in a world where insanity exists sanity seems to take fifth pier.
One of the more revealing parts of this movie involves its anachronism. The wooden sets are filled with timeless pieces, the gray weather can be representative or give off a feeling of a period piece, and the Marquis and Jean's journey in the coach crosses Bubonic plague-style imagery with freeways. What's more terrifying about this scene when one thinks about it later on is how even outside of the insane asylum there doesn't seem to be any sense of normalcy.
Which is one of the things that is hard about this movie. Jean's delusions and his light obsessiveness makes him an untrustworthy narrator in a world where it seems like every single character harbors some maladjustment. Structurally speaking, it's unproductive to make insane characters populate an insane world without any norm for the audience to build on. For this foundation, Svankmajer seems to rely entirely on the audience, which works amazingly well. Watching this movie, for me, was even more enjoyable while hearing the laughs and moans of the people in the theatre around me. However the real drama in this film seemed to come from my own sense of values and reality desperately trying to find a handhold within the philosophies projected within the narrative. In the end the subjectivity of reality becomes more an issue of choosing one's own insanity.
--PolarisDiB
Jan Svankmajer's job in this movie is to take the theme of the lunatics running the asylum to a new extreme--hopefully to the limit, as I wouldn't want to watch what anybody would try to do further. A young man named Jean Berlot has recurring dreams of being stuck in an insane asylum, and unfortunately for him these dreams attract the attention of a mysterious Marquis who's out to help "cure" a new friend. The Marquis, however, has his own, let's call 'em, "extreme philosophies." If the storyline isn't enough, the transitions between scenes are animated with pounds of animal meat.
Jan Svankmajer calls this his horror movie, and once again he shows a large amount of craftiness behind his impressions. The first two acts of the movie are so absurd they're mostly comedic, but the third act is surprisingly disturbing. You'd be surprised which characters you end up caring about and which characters you end up hating. In the end it becomes a question of how to choose your own insanity... because in a world where insanity exists sanity seems to take fifth pier.
One of the more revealing parts of this movie involves its anachronism. The wooden sets are filled with timeless pieces, the gray weather can be representative or give off a feeling of a period piece, and the Marquis and Jean's journey in the coach crosses Bubonic plague-style imagery with freeways. What's more terrifying about this scene when one thinks about it later on is how even outside of the insane asylum there doesn't seem to be any sense of normalcy.
Which is one of the things that is hard about this movie. Jean's delusions and his light obsessiveness makes him an untrustworthy narrator in a world where it seems like every single character harbors some maladjustment. Structurally speaking, it's unproductive to make insane characters populate an insane world without any norm for the audience to build on. For this foundation, Svankmajer seems to rely entirely on the audience, which works amazingly well. Watching this movie, for me, was even more enjoyable while hearing the laughs and moans of the people in the theatre around me. However the real drama in this film seemed to come from my own sense of values and reality desperately trying to find a handhold within the philosophies projected within the narrative. In the end the subjectivity of reality becomes more an issue of choosing one's own insanity.
--PolarisDiB
There are MUCH better and easier to watch versions of this story, that's for sure!
planktonrules28 March 2015
The films of Jan Svankmajer are NOT for everyone, that's for sure. His stop-motion films are ultra-bizarre and have a strange sensibility that set them apart. Calling them extremely disturbing is not at all an understatement--and "Lunacy" is often very disturbing and really weird.
The film is based on the Poe story "The System of Doctor Tarr and Professor Fether" and is unusual because most of the film is NOT stop-motion. The plot is essentially about a mental hospital in the 19th century where the patients have taken over and locked their tormentors in the basement. However, it takes a VERY long time to get to this plot and has a lot of strange stuff that Poe never intended--such as an overabundance of animated meat...yes, MEAT. Throughout the film, tongues and hunks of meat appear and move about using stop-motion for no discernible reason other than to make the film weird. Additionally, there is a lot of nudity and adult content that clearly make this a film you might not want to show your children, your mother or dead old Father O'Malley (especially because of the very blasphemous scene that takes place in a church-- it would give the old guy a heart attack).
I do not recommend this film unless you like Svankmajer and know what you're getting into by selecting it. Instead, try seeing the recent version "Stonehearst Asylum"--a very intelligently made and satisfying incarnation of the Poe tale.
The film is based on the Poe story "The System of Doctor Tarr and Professor Fether" and is unusual because most of the film is NOT stop-motion. The plot is essentially about a mental hospital in the 19th century where the patients have taken over and locked their tormentors in the basement. However, it takes a VERY long time to get to this plot and has a lot of strange stuff that Poe never intended--such as an overabundance of animated meat...yes, MEAT. Throughout the film, tongues and hunks of meat appear and move about using stop-motion for no discernible reason other than to make the film weird. Additionally, there is a lot of nudity and adult content that clearly make this a film you might not want to show your children, your mother or dead old Father O'Malley (especially because of the very blasphemous scene that takes place in a church-- it would give the old guy a heart attack).
I do not recommend this film unless you like Svankmajer and know what you're getting into by selecting it. Instead, try seeing the recent version "Stonehearst Asylum"--a very intelligently made and satisfying incarnation of the Poe tale.
the art house horror film of the year!!
vieira-adam20 July 2006
I just saw this film at the Montreal fantasia film festival. And this being Svankmajer's most recent film, I jumped for tickets. Absolutely amazing. Something of a political comment, the film show's us to ways of running an insane asylum. I have always loved Jan Svankmajer for his use of macabre animation (using raw meat, bones and eye balls). And it's use in context with 'Lunacy' is chilling. Truly one of the best horror films I've see all year. It's not the sort of horror that is entertaining to watch or bring your girlfriend. But if you love films and your looking for a horror film that will keep you thinking...then find a way to see this film.
A surreal masterpiece
MOscarbradley18 November 2014
"Lunacy" is Jan Svankmajer's homage to Edgar Allan Poe and the Marquis De Sade, (it's full of allusions to "Marat/Sade"), and as he tells us himself, is a horror film and not a work of art. It is certainly the first and I would argue it is also a work of art of quite a high order. It combines live-action with Svankmajer's trade-mark animation in giving us a study of what we might call 'the banality of evil' unlike almost anything else in cinema. It is a film that moves from a barely recognizable present to some kind of past as easily as it does from live-action to animation existing in a kind of no-man's-land between the real and surreal in a manner almost guaranteed to give you the very literal creeps; this is the real thing. Yet there is also something tongue-in-cheek about the horrors Svankmajer inflicts on us. There is a giddy perversity to the picture that to a degree dissipates the director's attack on the institutions he appears to condemn. This is as much a very bizarre celebration of hedonism as it is an attack on the communist regime. There's also an asylum in the film that makes the one at Charenton look like a Wendy House. Perverse, yes but also utterly extraordinary and undoubtedly one of Svankmajer's masterpieces.
Very Effective and Stubborn (GREAT!)
mike-168727 September 2007
After knowing literally nothing about either this film or the director (who I've, since, become very interested in), I must say that this is a fantastic piece of art. Lunacy refuses to be what anyone expects of it: beginning with a B-horror feel, evolving into a very Salo-esquire shock inducing libertine tale, and ending in a profoundly *con*founding take on mental health. This is neither surreal, nor horror, nor pure art film, but a very effective combination of the three that is both accessible and challenging. From its seemingly flat stop motion animation which becomes increasingly effective, to its difficult narrative, this is a shocking movie that transcends the simple desire to shock the viewer and leaves one feeling effected (not affected).
Utter madness
mohamadacma21 July 2020
A patient at a mental institution is having nightmares about two guys coming in with a bag to put on his head. He is scremaing, shouing. Hallucinating. The guy meets than a mad man that invited him to his chariot to give him a ride. He then witness the madness of this person with all his blasphemous rituals, with the help of a tongueless man. The stop motion animations of meat are all over the place. The guy goes to the mental hospital and there he discovers that these two guys he met were inmates. He discovers the harsh treatment done to subdue the body by weakining it. Evert character in the film is mentally ill and has specific characteristics. I don't think these type of films is my cup of tea.
Fantastic film, but...Marat?
johnmuir769 October 2018
Svankmajer impresses as always. His movies are always beautiful, disturbing, and wonderful. The acting ensemble is also impressive..and I cannot imagine a better actor to play the Marquis de Sade. My one criticism, though, is a big one:
The story...there's already a much better version of this story. It's "The Persecution and Assassination of Jean-Paul Marat as Performed by the Inmates of the Asylum of Charenton Under the Direction of the Marquis de Sade". ( Peter Weiss' play from 1963).
Now - I assume Svankmajer is aware of Weiss's play, but maybe he isn't? I don't know. I did highly enjoy Svankmajer's movie.
Part of me thinks he should have just done Weiss's play.
The story...there's already a much better version of this story. It's "The Persecution and Assassination of Jean-Paul Marat as Performed by the Inmates of the Asylum of Charenton Under the Direction of the Marquis de Sade". ( Peter Weiss' play from 1963).
Now - I assume Svankmajer is aware of Weiss's play, but maybe he isn't? I don't know. I did highly enjoy Svankmajer's movie.
Part of me thinks he should have just done Weiss's play.
Bizarre and highly disturbing
Gordon-1131 October 2007
This film is about the sadistic adventures of Marquis de Sade, and also the lunacy of two extreme ways of running a psychiatric asylum.
I have seen Jan Svankmajer's films before, so I knew that this film would be bizarre and disturbing. Still, this film gravely shocked me. From the moving tongues to enucleation, this film was full of revolting and gory scenes. I almost felt sick during the film. I was also surprised to see a blasphemous scene involving a statue of crucifixion, which was shocking especially considering that the Czech Republic is a religious country.
Fortunately, the story was gripping and engaging. It really kept me longing for more to unfold. Marquis' monologue questioning the existence of God was well composed, and gave new arguments (for me anyway) to the never ending debate of His existence. This film is not for the uptight or the light hearted.
I have seen Jan Svankmajer's films before, so I knew that this film would be bizarre and disturbing. Still, this film gravely shocked me. From the moving tongues to enucleation, this film was full of revolting and gory scenes. I almost felt sick during the film. I was also surprised to see a blasphemous scene involving a statue of crucifixion, which was shocking especially considering that the Czech Republic is a religious country.
Fortunately, the story was gripping and engaging. It really kept me longing for more to unfold. Marquis' monologue questioning the existence of God was well composed, and gave new arguments (for me anyway) to the never ending debate of His existence. This film is not for the uptight or the light hearted.
Random and pretentious
grantss30 September 2019
Random and pretentious. Either of these alone would have been bad enough. Together they make this movie atrocious.
Ignore the fact that the movie is "loosely" based on two Edgar Allen Poe short stories. Poe would turn in his grave if he knew that he was somehow being credited with this pile of excrement.
Ignore the fact that the movie is "loosely" based on two Edgar Allen Poe short stories. Poe would turn in his grave if he knew that he was somehow being credited with this pile of excrement.
It's sticky: it captures a feel and a political position
john-reeve-115 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
The film is nice. I suppose that if I was wanting animation I would be disappointed; the crawling meat doesn't really do anything other than serve as a transition. And strictly speaking it isn't much of a gory horror film.
I like the three part structure (at least, as another reviewer outlined the film) and it does a good job of twisting "Don't Look in the Basement;" it captures the same kind of feel. And that is no slam, either -- the film had a kind of low budget 1970s American horror film feel to it, yet it somehow makes that feel something appealing in a way that my body (to use the film's terminology) recalls from watching those kinds of films when I was young in the 1980s.
For me, the movie had a useful feel to it; it also captures an image I agree with. It is hard to say what exactly he might mean when JS talks about our present situation embodying the worst aspects of both the asylum structures during the intro. Maybe it would help to tease them out in writing: on one hand, there is the libertine, who does whatever he wants and seems to take particular joy in blasphemy on the other hand, there is the vicious authoritarian doctor, who feels legitimate in enjoying torturing the inmates even if he ciphers that enjoyment through his medical practice.
Maybe the doctor is a radical application of the libertine, if you can get around the fact that the mechanism which the libertine operates under discounts/deflates/undermines the violence the doctor seems to find so erotic. I can't make that move, and that is where I think the movie leads me: at some point, I am prejudiced towards libertine, if just because that kind of enjoyment makes it difficult to encode the suffering of others as a cipher of my own desire.
That is the problem of the movie for me; I am so stuck in my liberalism, and I can't see how the authoritarian doctor isn't simply a radical, evil libertine: the "truth" of the libertine, if you will. Ther really is a difference between the two; I know that is a fact, if just because their enjoyment is so divergent (one only enjoys foreplay, and the other, only scopic sex). I guess that inability to see the doctor for the pathology he represents IS the problem, both of the film and our situation.
I like the three part structure (at least, as another reviewer outlined the film) and it does a good job of twisting "Don't Look in the Basement;" it captures the same kind of feel. And that is no slam, either -- the film had a kind of low budget 1970s American horror film feel to it, yet it somehow makes that feel something appealing in a way that my body (to use the film's terminology) recalls from watching those kinds of films when I was young in the 1980s.
For me, the movie had a useful feel to it; it also captures an image I agree with. It is hard to say what exactly he might mean when JS talks about our present situation embodying the worst aspects of both the asylum structures during the intro. Maybe it would help to tease them out in writing: on one hand, there is the libertine, who does whatever he wants and seems to take particular joy in blasphemy on the other hand, there is the vicious authoritarian doctor, who feels legitimate in enjoying torturing the inmates even if he ciphers that enjoyment through his medical practice.
Maybe the doctor is a radical application of the libertine, if you can get around the fact that the mechanism which the libertine operates under discounts/deflates/undermines the violence the doctor seems to find so erotic. I can't make that move, and that is where I think the movie leads me: at some point, I am prejudiced towards libertine, if just because that kind of enjoyment makes it difficult to encode the suffering of others as a cipher of my own desire.
That is the problem of the movie for me; I am so stuck in my liberalism, and I can't see how the authoritarian doctor isn't simply a radical, evil libertine: the "truth" of the libertine, if you will. Ther really is a difference between the two; I know that is a fact, if just because their enjoyment is so divergent (one only enjoys foreplay, and the other, only scopic sex). I guess that inability to see the doctor for the pathology he represents IS the problem, both of the film and our situation.
A pal's favorite delivers excellent entertainment.
theskulI429 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Ah, to watch the favorite of a friend. It's almost intimidating, is it not? To view a film that is so beloved by an associate, especially someone whose opinion matters to you, you're almost scared to watch for fear of disliking it. Thankfully, I had so such problem with Lunacy, a film that absolutely exceeded my expectations.
The film documents the exploits of Jean, a man who has a continual nightmare about hospital orderlies taking him away in a straitjacket (he is betrayed by his dress shirt, which slinks across the floor and unlatches the handle), and becomes in a sense sponsored by a man referred only to as the Marquis. Jean goes through a hellish few nights with the Marquis, including a black mass, ritual rape and a live burial before being drafted into "preventive therapy", heading to a mental hospital to test two separate approaches: absolute freedom, and strict lockdown punishment. These scenes are intercut with several extended sequences featuring pieces of processed meat dancing, drinking and generally cavorting around as they wish.
If you're not familiar with Svankmajer, the last sentence perhaps elicited a bit of a puzzled stare, but dancing meat is just par for the course for one of the last real surrealists, as he does stop-motion animation like no one else can. Now I've only seen one of his films, Alice, his solid but forgettable retelling of Alice in Wonderland, but this film has restored my faith in the man, as it managed to continually keep my attention throughout and keep me entertained, no less.
The film is listed as a horror film, but I think that definition does the film a bit of a disservice, as there is as much wicked humor and social criticism that just one genre classification is impossible. Svankmajer's film in its early scenes seem to be taking its aim not at his surrealist contemporary Bunuel's favorite target, organized religion, but at a less judgmental variance on the same theme: the idea and definition of morality, as the Marquis, obviously inspired by the man who shared his namesake, while yes, questioning the existence of God, is more questioning the socially accepted norms of what is "right", as our protagonist vacillates between being offended and defending through offence of another early on and it raises a lot of interesting questions.
Of course, the following scenes make that thesis irrelevant in the way you knew and hoped they would, as we move to our second half, where the film looks at the relative success rates of different manner of mental hospital policy, first where the inmates almost literally run the asylum, and the doctor assists them in their crazy games (there's an amusing sequence where the head doctor assists a patient by adjusting the pillow on the pillar he's currently smashing his head into), and the strict punishment policy, which isn't nearly as fun or nearly as interesting, as the new "real" head of the hospital is a bland buzzkill that has a lot of exposition but little of the fire of anyone else.
In the acting department, Pavel Liska does "damaged goods" quite well, but as his character is much of a troubled wet blanket, he's not given much to stand on. As for Jan Triska, the Marquis early on gives a speech damning the existence of God that is the sort of thing familiar to anyone who has ever seen a film questioning religion, but it manages to be convincing and effective, purely on the strength of Triska's wild-eyed performance (although his shrill, glass-shattering laugh does most certainly grate). The fact that he looks remarkably like my upper-classman Honors English teacher (my all-time favorite) also proved a constant source of entertainment.
All in all, it's not exactly going to make my top 10 of all, but considering my opinion going into the film was "I hope I don't hate it", I have to say that this is definitely a pleasant surprise, and an excellent film. Whew.
{Grade: 8.5/10 / #15 (of 60) of 2005}
The film documents the exploits of Jean, a man who has a continual nightmare about hospital orderlies taking him away in a straitjacket (he is betrayed by his dress shirt, which slinks across the floor and unlatches the handle), and becomes in a sense sponsored by a man referred only to as the Marquis. Jean goes through a hellish few nights with the Marquis, including a black mass, ritual rape and a live burial before being drafted into "preventive therapy", heading to a mental hospital to test two separate approaches: absolute freedom, and strict lockdown punishment. These scenes are intercut with several extended sequences featuring pieces of processed meat dancing, drinking and generally cavorting around as they wish.
If you're not familiar with Svankmajer, the last sentence perhaps elicited a bit of a puzzled stare, but dancing meat is just par for the course for one of the last real surrealists, as he does stop-motion animation like no one else can. Now I've only seen one of his films, Alice, his solid but forgettable retelling of Alice in Wonderland, but this film has restored my faith in the man, as it managed to continually keep my attention throughout and keep me entertained, no less.
The film is listed as a horror film, but I think that definition does the film a bit of a disservice, as there is as much wicked humor and social criticism that just one genre classification is impossible. Svankmajer's film in its early scenes seem to be taking its aim not at his surrealist contemporary Bunuel's favorite target, organized religion, but at a less judgmental variance on the same theme: the idea and definition of morality, as the Marquis, obviously inspired by the man who shared his namesake, while yes, questioning the existence of God, is more questioning the socially accepted norms of what is "right", as our protagonist vacillates between being offended and defending through offence of another early on and it raises a lot of interesting questions.
Of course, the following scenes make that thesis irrelevant in the way you knew and hoped they would, as we move to our second half, where the film looks at the relative success rates of different manner of mental hospital policy, first where the inmates almost literally run the asylum, and the doctor assists them in their crazy games (there's an amusing sequence where the head doctor assists a patient by adjusting the pillow on the pillar he's currently smashing his head into), and the strict punishment policy, which isn't nearly as fun or nearly as interesting, as the new "real" head of the hospital is a bland buzzkill that has a lot of exposition but little of the fire of anyone else.
In the acting department, Pavel Liska does "damaged goods" quite well, but as his character is much of a troubled wet blanket, he's not given much to stand on. As for Jan Triska, the Marquis early on gives a speech damning the existence of God that is the sort of thing familiar to anyone who has ever seen a film questioning religion, but it manages to be convincing and effective, purely on the strength of Triska's wild-eyed performance (although his shrill, glass-shattering laugh does most certainly grate). The fact that he looks remarkably like my upper-classman Honors English teacher (my all-time favorite) also proved a constant source of entertainment.
All in all, it's not exactly going to make my top 10 of all, but considering my opinion going into the film was "I hope I don't hate it", I have to say that this is definitely a pleasant surprise, and an excellent film. Whew.
{Grade: 8.5/10 / #15 (of 60) of 2005}
Highly underrated Masterpiece.
Ray_Akapotasana29 March 2013
This is a very good film. By now I've seen all the films of Svankmajer, including his early shorts and later long movies. It took me some time to really appreciate his longer films since they are somewhat different from his short movies. For me personally his short films still form the basis of his work and come the closest to art. The lack of a storyline and of a conventional structure rank his shorts among the most original in cinematography. His longer films have a more traditional structure with a storyline. For that reason his longer films didn't appeal the same way to me (as his short films does) for a long time. With 'Sílení' this came to an end. The film starts with Svankmajer himself introducing the film in his own personal nihilistic style. The film itself is a mixture of a 'normal film' with actors and on the other hand the inclusion of disturbing stop motion cinema. Svankmajer's most beloved actors, the cut off Tongues (I believe they are Cow's Tongues) are seen many times, often together in a twin pair depicting scenes of disturbance, violence, sex and in general Lunacy which is the name of the film. The actors are very good, especially the person who plays the Marquise (De Sade). But also Anna Geislerová (who plays the unstable Charlotte) and Pavel Nový (Servant Dominic) (who played a main Character in 'Conspirators of Pleasure' as well) are excellent. In 'Sílení' Svankmajer seemed for the first time to have found a convincing form for his longer films. It's very balanced through out and the film has a constant feel of threat over it. Svankmajer himself introduces his film as a horror movie. And in fact it is, but in a nihilist typically Svankmajer kind of way. The horror element is not about visual shocking effects, but much more psychological since it touches deep human fears. In this perspective I place it in the same row as Polanski's great films 'The Tenant' and 'Repulsion'. The sex scenes give the film an erotic element, although in a deranged way; The theme and story are very original. The film has a pleasant weirdness, but is never cheap like many of the director's who are influenced by Svankmajer. This film get's a 9 from me.
This film isn't BAD but Boring
olaha19 December 2006
It starts quite good, but after a while you start to expect more from this film than you are actually getting. Everything becomes unclear and unclear it stays. Czech filmmakers were good 20 or more years ago. But after they transfered to Capitalistic country, here it is, Czech unofficial but well known mentality ... COPYING ... COPYING ... COPYING of everything they consider good, when they see it in another movies or countries or elsewhere. I think that this is a good example of making "art" and "politics" and "horror" and "humor" and "film" and money. And it remains me of the /One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest/, which can not be compared to this film in the way of ART and ACTORS and STORY and POLITICS. I think this film is boring. It could be done better. At least, they tried. Sorry guys. :-( CANOT NOT Recommend
Not an animation
haades-0702720 August 2023
If you happen to like this movie, you owe it to yourself to watch the hourglass sanatorium.
I think there are enough reviews about Lunacy, but I am surprised that no one has mentioned the influences that the hourglass sanitorium must have had on the director (my guess).
Even after reading several reviews, I'm still struggling to figure out what the director at this caliber has tried to accomplish that had not been done before. Don't get me wrong, the film is beautifully done, the plot, performances, animation, ... are all great, but is there anything else that this movie offers that we haven't seen before? Even if it doesn't, it is still a good movie. For instance, anyone who watches the movie would be left with a strong image of Marquis de Sade, better than any performances seen before.
I think there are enough reviews about Lunacy, but I am surprised that no one has mentioned the influences that the hourglass sanitorium must have had on the director (my guess).
Even after reading several reviews, I'm still struggling to figure out what the director at this caliber has tried to accomplish that had not been done before. Don't get me wrong, the film is beautifully done, the plot, performances, animation, ... are all great, but is there anything else that this movie offers that we haven't seen before? Even if it doesn't, it is still a good movie. For instance, anyone who watches the movie would be left with a strong image of Marquis de Sade, better than any performances seen before.
a mesmerising film, but perhaps not as profound as I expected
a11_msp1 February 2008
The film opens with quite an unusual director's speech that invites us to consider what we are going to see as a pamphlet on our society rather than a work of art. So I did - and perhaps this is why the film left me slightly disappointed. As a work of visual art, it is superb, mesmerising and innovative, with little pieces of animation sandwiched between much larger parts played by actors. As far as the message is concerned, however, I was expecting more. Fair enough, the plot itself is quite perplexed and some of its turns will remain a puzzle even by the end of the film. But I kept thinking that if Haneke or, better still, Kieslowski were directing this film, the story would gain that subtlety and depth it was lacking.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
