room102 I'm usually harsh on our local filmmaking, but this is truly an excellent film, one of the top 10 Israeli movies I've seen. A simple low-key drama about the tension between a father and son - two professors in the same field of studies.This movie is a prime example of a fantastic storytelling: Excellent direction, score, editing and writing, combined with a performance of the lead actor. This is how your take a simple story and turn it into a fantastic experience.who is well known as a comedian and does a fantastic job here in a dramatic roleI enjoyed the movie even more on the second viewing. Shlomo Baraba is well known as a comedian and I had a hard time getting used to seeing him in a dramatic role. This time I didn't have that problem. He was excellent and does a fantastic job in this dramatic role.What I was missing is a dramatic scene by the wife: When she goes to his bed (why are they not sleeping together? Is she mad at him? We're not told), the scene was crying for a dramatic speech by the wife, something in the "Oscar speech" material - and we didn't get it, which is fine for the story, but too bad for the movie as it seems like a missed opportunity.

drew-288-135826 Footnote, one of the five nominees for Best Foreign Language films at the Oscars earlier this year, boasts two extraordinary performances. And it's absolutely vital that those two performances are pitch perfect, because the key to the film's drama and tension lies in those particular characters.The premise is fairly straightforward. A father and son are both philogy professors at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Eliezer Shkolnik is an old school researcher who believes findings are only valid if research is conducted in the proper scientific method, while his son, Uriel, follows the more modern philosophy. Eliezer loathes the popularity and acceptance of the current methods, and is so stubborn he even refuses to cancel one of his classes even though only one student is signed.Having background on research methods or philology is not necessary however, when it comes to following along the movie. Shlomo Bar'aba and Lior Ashkenazi, as Eliezer and Uriel respectively, both make sure to humanize their characters and portray their conflicting ideals by showcasing conflicting personalities as wells.The plot gets really interesting when Eliezer finds out he has been voted the winner of the Israel Prize, forcing him to rethink how he feels his colleagues, and the field in general. However, Uriel soon gets a phone call that will shake things up even more.Unfortunately, Footnote does not deliver a satisfying conclusion, at least not a memorable one. The tension is slowly built up really well as the film cuts deeper into the plot, yet when the time comes for a huge clash, the film ends up kinds of just floating around not knowing the right time to fade out. However, the meat of the film is too good to be ignored, as both Bar'aba and Ashkenazi deliver performances you won't soon forget.

peter henderson The use of on screen checklists as the start of "Footnte" to establish the identities of the lead characters is a clever and engaging way to get the viewer in the mood for a humorous cinematic experience. The comic devices - the chair shuffling in the fatal meeting of the Israel Prize committee - evinces that sort of cruel but loving satire that made "Spinal Tap" such a rich experience. (If you don't like the comparison, check out the final scene in which Nigel, air guitaring the solo in "Sex Farm" - the song that has taken off on the Japanese charts - is called back on stage and back into the arms of the rejuvenated band)But then the mood of "Footnote" changes, with the spirited and dignified defense by the son of his father's worthiness for recognition. Nobility of spirit is a phrase that comes to mind. The viewer realizes that Cedar is a director and writer of substance. This satisfying realization is enhanced when the father's chief detractor relents in his opposition to the loyal son. And then Cedar once again changes the mood of the film, with the father's critical dismissal of the worth of his son's scholastic achievements. By this time the viewer is in no doubt as to the masterful direction and writing and is speculating on how the characters will work out the dramatic culmination of the film.I was reminded of "Ve'Lakhta Lehe Isha" ("To Take a Wife"), the 2004 film created by Ronit and Shlomi Elkaberz. "Footnore" is a lot more fun, a lot less harrowing but I recalled my "Eureka" moment while watching that film, when I realized it was a retelling of the biblical book of the prophet, Hosea. Had Cedar created a similar cinematic parable? Had Cedar tapped into some rich vein of cultural material to make a point, argue a thesis, establish some view of Israeli society?The expression, "Chekovian" came to mind. I was reminded of Sidney Lumet's 1968 cinematic recreation of "The Seagull". It remains for me the only re-working of the turn of the twentieth century Chekov's dramatic output that has ever really translated the validity of the characters and situations into the mindset of a mid to late twentieth century audience. Cedar has achieved a similar feat, in making the life experiences of modern Israelis intelligible to outsiders.The open ended culmination, the cryptic subtitle, "Professor Shkolnik's Revenge" leaves it open to the viewer to make the same mistake as the people who mixed up father and son when contacting the winner of the Israel Prize. Is the subtitle referring to the father of the son?The richness of the characterization makes the film a lot more satisfying than many of the films that criticize the values of Israeli society. Take for instance, "Lemon Tree", or even "Waltz With Bashir". Cedar gives us much more rounded and human (dare one say less caricatured) characters. But the viewer is left with the feeling that Cedar is saying something of substance about Israelis society. I was wrestling with this question as the film neared (but never fully enunciated) its dramatic climax.Is he saying that the elder generation or Israeli leadership is misguided in the way they govern? Is he saying that the next generation must value what is good in their parents, but seek to rectify the mistakes they have made? The way the film raises such questions marks it as a cinematic experience of great distinction as well as a thoroughly engrossing and satisfying way to spend time with characters of warmth, complexity and genuine decency

David Ferguson Greetings again from the darkness. In the United States, we typically get limited access to the films of Israel. In recent years, there have been two that I like very much: The Band's Visit, and Waltz for Bashir. Written and directed by Joseph Cedar, Footnote was nominated for the Best Foreign Language Academy Award. It's a very creative and insightful story utilizing slight comedic elements to show the destructive forces of petty professional jealousy within a family.Most parents wish for true happiness for their children. If the professional success of their offspring far exceeds their own ... it is a reason to swell with parental pride. But what happens when father and son choose similar paths? What happens when animosity builds as the father's life work (30 years of research) is deemed unnecessary and irrelevant? What happens when the son becomes publicly revered and adored for his populist writing? Well, in the case of father Eliezer (Shlomo Bar-Aba) and son Uriel (Lior Ashkenazi), we get strained relations and a thesis on the pitfalls of pride and ego.All of that is sufficiently fascinating for a story, but here we get an even more severe test of human nature. The father is erroneously informed that he has won the prestigious Israel Award, providing vindication and meaning to his work and well, his being. See, the award was supposed to go to the other Professor Shkolnik ... yes, his son. This much is shown in the trailer, but the true guts of this story is what happens after this mistake.There are a few tremendous scenes in the film, but two really jumped out for me. In an early scene, the son is receiving yet another reward and he is attempting to provide some credit for his father's inspiration. However, the words seem to add credence to the irrelevancy instead. The best part? The camera never leaves the face of the father and he sits quietly listening in immeasurable pain. The other scene takes place in a beyond cramped meeting room for the Award committee to discuss the mistake with Uriel. The manner it is filmed and the choreography more than make up for the fact that the group of brilliant people never thought to find a more suitable meeting place.The score of the film is one that I would appreciate more without having the film playing. The music is wonderful, but often distracting to the moment. It is interesting to note how it changes along with the posture and walking pace of Eliezer after he is informed of his award. One need not be an academic researcher or writer to understand the damaged relationship between father and son ... and how it has impacted wives, mothers and sons. That's a story that is painful in any language.