by Shubhajit Lahiri
If film noirs are known for their cynicism, nihilism, and stylized photography and chiaroscuro, Italian Neorealism for disarming simplicity, stark realism and lyrical storytelling, and French Nouvelle Vague for avant-garde style, cheeky reversal of genre conventions and formalist approach to cinema, Czech New Wave shall always be remembered for the array of searing political satires (oftentimes in the garb of absurdism) it engendered. Despite probably not being as influential and seminal as the other three movements, it was every bit as audacious and fascinating. And Milos Forman, along with his legendary peers like Jiri Menzel, Jan Nemec, Jaromil Jires, Vera Chytilova et al, was one of the most towering figures in the political and artistic time capsule that this essential period of film history represents.
The Firemen’s Ball, released in 1967, was quite an event in the career of Forman, who had become a darling of the Czech New Wave with the delectable comedies Black Peter and Loves of a Blonde, and who would later become a darling of Hollywood what with his One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest and Amadeus. It was his first film made in colour; but more importantly, it was his last movie in his native Czechoslovakia before he headed for America just in time before the Prague Spring invasion. The movie, like so many other works belonging to that movement, got banned in the country for its “seditious” and “anti-nationalistic” content, and nearly represented a catastrophe for the director when its initial producer Carlo Ponti withdrew his patronage.
Arguably the crowning achievement of Forman’s career, the movie is about a disastrous ball hosted by a group of rotund and comically clumsy middle-aged firemen in honour of their old, senile retired chief who is not expected to be alive for long. They plan to host a beauty contest with the winner getting to present a memorabilia – a small axe – as a gift to their former chief. But, what follows, is a series of unplanned, chaotic occurrences exemplifying Murphy’s immortal law, viz. if there’s even an iota of a chance of things going wrong, they most certainly will. The movie takes a sharp turn in its finale, and ends on a note of poignancy and deeply affecting melancholia.
The crisp length, absurdist content, seriocomic tone and the plethora of hilarious gags belie the movie’s immense artistic worth and its trenchant socio-political commentary. It is a brilliant, anarchic, genre-bending classic whose comic timings would leave everyone laughing out loud, but whose subversive humour and satirical insights into a society closeted behind Iron Curtain would not escape even those unaware of the then political turmoil surrounding the country. Filled with searing ironies, trenchant wit and dark humour – this incredible piece of work still retains its ability to elicit belly laughter and the taste of bile in equal measures. Though politically charged and a scathing critique on the mediocrity of petit bourgeois, the infectious humour succeeded in overriding them all.
The actors employed were mostly non-professionals with a good proportion of them being repeated from Forman’s previous films. The ensemble cast did a fabulous job in bringing forth the farcical events that ensue over the course of the evening with remarkable economy of motions and expressions – a twitch here and a glance there did the job effectively. Despite the chaotic proceedings, there was a method to the madness that followed on screen, and consequently this remarkable movie, that succeeded in working at various levels (in terms of genre, emotions, observations and politics) owes a lot to its screenwriter Ivan Passer, a long-time friend of Forman and a noted filmmaker in his own right.
To cut a long story short and sum up my deep love for this wonderful classic, the fact that Forman could infuse even the boisterous and burlesque proceedings with a few moments of pathos and subtle (yet acerbic) observations, made the movie both a zeitgeist of the turbulent period it represents today and a pleasure to watch. And, along with a similarly subversive and unforgettable socio-political satire by Jiri Menzel and another personal favourite of mine, Closely Watched Trains, it forms a cornerstone of the Czech New Wave movement and in turn the medium of expression in the cinema.
How The Fireman’s Ball made the Top 100:
No. 4 Bill Riley
No. 6 Shubhajit Lahiri
No. 51 Maurizio Roca
No. 55 Pedro Silva
No. 58 Jason Marshall
Tremendous essay!
Though this one didn’t make my ballot, it was scratching at the door to get in. The subtle nature of the comedy, the realistic quality of the performances and Forman’s eye all add to make this a true work of comic art.
Shubhajit really got it all here on the page. Wonderfully written and expertly informed…
Shubhajit I can tell just by reading this how much you love the film. Nice job summarizing its merits. I do well like the film, but had not seen it in years and thus had not even considered this for the countdown. I guess I didn’t remember it being as funny as this, but you have encouraged me to re-watch it within this context.
Regarding Czech-New Wave, I was actually very close to voting Daisies into my top 60. It didn’t quite make though as I felt like even though it was funny, it was somewhat at my expense! It has far too much to say regarding feminism and political undercurrents that I didn’t feel the comedic angle was as much the main intent. I place it somewhere between 60-100 as the absurdity in Daisies is funny. But again I think it’s actually at MY expense. Haha.
My own favorite of the Czech New wave films is ‘Closely Watched Trains’, which you point out at the end. The real accomplishment in ‘The Fireman’s Ball’ is the effective employment on non-professionals. You have written a brilliant short essay that brings it all together.
Context matters. I wonder whether many Americans would see this as a subversive film, and if any do I’d suspect most would be angry at a perceived disrespect for bourgeois values. Yet a Leninist-type society (among others) seems to demand reverence for all institutions, and for its rulers this picture’s irreverence would seem all too subversive. I suppose the authorities reacted to this the same way self-appointed American moral guardians reacted to products from “Pre-Code” Hollywood. Leaving aside the analogies and political implications, Fireman’s Ball is a pretty funny movie in a manner that could be called humanistic and misanthropic with equal justice. Shubhajit, you sum up its virtues and its place in history with enviable brevity here.
An interesting thought here Samuel. What would many American’s see, or think of this film? I’d think a recent rundown of how Cronenberg’s new Cosmopolis is faring would go a long way in describing how it’d go over. First, there would be the trouble of getting people to actually see it, then how many would just see how it moves, and not how it thinks (or, better yet, ‘talks’) as the way in which to engage it (then eventually trash it). Cosmopolis, when derided—and it has been quite a bit—is often for its slow overly ‘talkie’ nature, or the fact that it finds itself predominately playing out inside of a limousine for the 80-85% of the films running time. What is actually being said is often just given the benefit of the doubt of being ‘intellectual’ or ‘seemingly interesting’ but not often is it met on its own terms or discussed within its subversive content (and perhaps how interesting or urgent it is being said). I’ve humorously seen the film lambasted with a ‘D+’ from a Chicago critic because it ‘lacked message’ or ‘point’, which made me wonder what film this man saw as Cosmopolis is many things, but over all else it is a BIG message film with a point that it keeps building in making. It also ends with the virtual exclamation point on this point which should make it even more obvious for an audience.
Either way, it’s great that political discussion is becoming a virtual everyday occurrence in the threads. Who have thunk that it’d take ‘comedy’ to do this? I guess comedy is a normal genre for political subversion, but so is Horror and all anyone wanted to do back then was bitch about gore content and whether or not a film should actual fall into the genre.
As one who read the book I’m stoked to see the movie, which seems to have taken a correct approach to the material, though it strikes me that Fireman’s Ball would look more like a pop movie to most of the Cosmopolis critics, whether they liked either one or not.
You read the book Samuel? Nice. I don’t think anyone else can make that claim. I’d be most interested in your response to the film.
On another note I am leaving the house now for the Film Forum. I see there are three people who have not been responded to on the Diary – you, John Greco, and Jaimie Grijalba. I will get to those later tonight when I return. My apologies for the delay.
Now back to THE FIREMAN’S BALL!!!
I can. It’s amazing how closely Cronenberg chooses to follow the book because it’s one that is remarkably un-cinematic. That’s one of the points I suppose, his deep respect for literature, the book, and Delillo that he’d adapt it this closely (and his overall feelings [I’d suppose] on the importance of the commentary as to what is happening to our world the last several years). It’s the most subversive thing you’ll see from a major director, funded from a studio in a good long time.
Oh and I know for a fact Bob Clark has read the book as well. We’ve discussed a few times here before.
I’d ask about whether certain scenes from the novel make it into the picture but I don’t want anything spoiled yet. But jamie’s enthusiasm counts for more than the dismissals I’ve read in the papers so far, so I’m looking forward more now than I was yesterday.
But on topic! I liked Fireman’s Ball in a a kind of smirky way and I tend to like it better as I think back after my first viewing, which was only a couple of months ago. Not on my list but probably on a top 100.
Re Cosmopolis. Cinema IS about movement. Just another arsehole talking a lot from the back seat of a limousine is not my idea of a good movie. Some books should just keep away from movies, but then people would have to read?
We’ll call this the ‘D’Ambra switheroo’. As in one sentence he posits a subjective stance as fact (‘Cinema IS about movement’, when in fact it is and it isn’t in equal degree totally depending on things like context, message, etc), then aligns it well enough with his opinion (‘…is not my idea of a good movie’) to smooth it all over, hoping desperately that our brains have connect the two. Great, you may not like the film (once you see it, but more on that later), but who cares? We all have tastes on art but they shouldn’t be given attached to such trivialities (like me saying, “I’d like Rothko, I just hate the color red though”).
I don’t know this for a fact, but I can say with a pretty decent punchers chance that Tony hasn’t seen the film yet but will continue to deride it while not. Yes, some books should be kept away from the movies (though, thankfully this one wasn’t), but opinions should not be made when one has ‘kept away’ from a movie.
Pull another Bud lite… or is it way past your bed-time?
Tony for a guy that comes swinging into a thread all hard as you so often do you shouldn’t be that surprised that many of us aren’t impressed with three and a half.
I mean, jesus, at some point you have to realize others don’t take to bullying right? Right?!
Kiarostami’s Ten, anyone? If that worked, so can Cosmopolis.
Bourgeois values and Stalinism are equally oppressive. America is not Nirvana. I am still waiting for a director with balls to do justice to the novels of Kundera.
Do Australians speak English because I think you got lost in translation ol’ chum. This isn’t what Samuel is saying.
I speak the Queen’s English, old son. Run out and find me a four-year-old child. Reminds of when I worked for Chemical Bank. Yet another arsehole from NYC sent me a telex asking me what our “lingua-franca” was…
Tony was a banker?! There’s a surprise.
Never mind Kundera, let’s have a film of Skvorecky. The Cowards would be a riot.
I thought Kaufman handled “Unbearable Lightness” as well as anybody else could’ve. Yeah, maybe in his hands it was a bit heavy on the eroticism, but with a book like that the best you’re going to do in even an epic feature running time is make something that compliments the book’s stream-of-consciousness, poetic form rather than match it exactly.
How many people here have seen “Cosmopolis” so far? It’s getting an insanely limited release, it seems, which is mind boggling for something from a major director, starring a matinee idol who’s hot in the tabloid presses and about major political themes at the height of both the campaign season and the American festival circuit. I’m frankly shocked this wasn’t given a prestige debut at the New York Film Festival.
Anyway. I’ve seen it twice so far, and I’ll be seeing it again once more before it leaves Lincoln Center. For me, it’s easily the best thing that Cronenberg’s done since “Crash”, and in many ways stylistically a successor to the abstract, monologue-heavy “Stereo” and “Crimes of the Future” that he started out his career with.
Well, ‘Cosmopolis’ has yet to open here in the hinterlands. Also, since one of the themes of the book seems to be about the infinitesimal vs. the infinite I don’t care how slow the limousine crawls across Manhattan. It’s a metaphor. And the fate of that priceless Rothko Eric Packer wants is dropped, left in limbo. That’s ellipsis. I can’t wait to see this film.
Shub, I’m embarrassed to admit I’ve never seen ‘The Firemen’s Ball’ but I will now.
To cut a long story short and sum up my deep love for this wonderful classic, the fact that Forman could infuse even the boisterous and burlesque proceedings with a few moments of pathos and subtle (yet acerbic) observations, made the movie both a zeitgeist of the turbulent period it represents today and a pleasure to watch.
And that is the bottom line for cinephiles! Yes, this is absolutely a subversive thrust to this acerbic satire of overnment bureaucracy, applied subtly, but still the object of scorn by the communist Czech government. The petty fireman mirror their counterparts in all our communities, and the film is a study of communal narcissism. You have once again imparted your unique ability to size up a work with remarkable economy, which provides readers with a no-nonsence and concise appraisal. Your great love and appreciation of this Czech New Wave classic is hereby seconded, Shubhajit! It’s certainly between this and LOVES OF A BLONDE for Forman’s greatest work.
Dennis, Jon, Frank, Samuel & Sam: thanks a lot for the appreciation for my humble take on this fascinating film. I’m very fond of a number of Czech New Wave films, and Firemen’s Ball would be right up there as not just one of my favourites from that lot, but also (from an objective standpoint) as one of the greatest achievements of that movement. It was a synthesis of all the archetypal traits that the best from the movement loved resorting to (of course, generically speaking) – politically charged commentary masked under seeming light-heartedness, subversive humour, searing wit, allegorical storyline, dollops of absurdism and comical plot devices, apolitical protagonists, and a very strong content of humanism, among others. Just to repeat, I’m of course being very generic here.
By the way, I noticed above that adaptations of Milan Kundera’s novels were being discussed. Without going into comparisons with the marvelous source novel, Jaromil Jires’ adaptation of The Joke was a wonderful movie in my opinion. I’d strongly recommend it those who haven’t watched it yet (irrespective of whether or not he/she has read the book). As for Unbearable Lightness of Being, unfortunately I haven’t watched the movie yet. And speaking of Czech authors, I recently read Bohumil Hrabal’s I Served the King of England, and quite fell in love with it – I could easily appreciate why he was such a favourite of Menzel (in fact, Menzel did more than a decent job at adapting that novel for the screen).
Forgive my late comment here, but this is a really fine and informative essay. I am chagrined that I have not see THE FIREMAN’S BALL, as I have been an enthusiastic follower of all Forman’s subsequent work in America. Definitely one I need to add to the Netflix queue.
Thanks Pat. Not that I don’t like his works in the US, but I’ve been far more fascinated by Forman’s works in his native Czechoslovakia than in America. Just my opinion though.