Kafka (1991)

Boring

Best movie ever!

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

It's 1919 Prague. Kafka (Jeremy Irons) is an insignificant insurance worker under the thumb of his arrogant manager Burgel (Joel Grey). His co-worker friend Edward Raban is murdered for a picture of Doctor Murnau (Ian Holm). Inspector Grubach investigates. Kafka gets Raban's promotion. Co-worker Gabriela (Theresa Russell) brings him into an underground group battling a secret controlling organization.It's Steven Soderbergh's next film after his breakout indie 'Sex, Lies, and Videotape'. It certainly shows a maturity of filmmaking. The black and white cinematography looks terrific. It doesn't hurt to have the great Jeremy Irons. I also feel like the movie misses the mark slightly. I want Kafka to be in a web of unknowable bureaucracy with no way out and no reason for his predicament. The movie kind of gives a reason and that takes it down a notch.

Despite the excellent black-and-white cinematography (which is seen for all but 15 minutes of this film), I canned this movie from my collection because the story was almost incomprehensible. It also was too depressing, too gloomy.This really is more of a horror film than anything else with a few uncomfortable scenes as people are being killed and/or used as guinea pigs in experiments. I would think this would not appeal to most people who aren't in some form of counseling or therapy (or should be!). Yet, that wonderful film-noir photography with great lights and shadows, made it intriguing to view.....once.

There's no question that Soderbergh wanted to make a film noir and found in Lem Dobbs' script the ideal vehicle (when I first saw it, someone in line claimed that Soderbergh hailed Dobb's screenplay as the best he had ever read). The struggle many have with the script is that it requires a degree of understanding about Kafka, his life, his work, as well as elements of world history from 1919 (the film's time period) to 1991 (the years of the film's release, shortly--ironically--after the Velvet Revolution).In 1991, I was at a loss, yet so in awe of the film's daring visual style that I wanted to know more. I read the works of Kafka, studied his biography, even visited Prague. Today I feel I have a better understanding of the film ... and yet I am no better off for it. It seems unfair that a film requires such additional research for one to enjoy it (like the bibliography at the beginning of Pasolini's SALO). The only function movies like this serve is to enable dreary intellectuals to peer down their noses at movie fans and chastise of for "not getting it."That said, KAFKA is a riveting piece of filmmaking. Don't try to understand it or even think you have to. Just take in the rich cinematography, the powerfully understated acting and some of the quirky dialogue. It's one of those films that you find yourself enjoying without really understanding why.

Early Steven Soderbergh film is full of grand ideas and thoughtful reflection combined with fear and doubt of the world at large. A nice mix when attempting to portray a writer. This film owes elements to NOSFERATU(1922) and even makes frequent references to Murnau and Orlac, DRACULA(1931), FRANKENSTEIN(1931), BRAZIL & NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR(1984). However, it's not quite in the same league as those. The film is a bit too predictable. Excellent performance by Jeremy irons in the lead.