A film that was decided by Czech courts. To him, who stood in the way, the communist Kriegel was sure to be a positive figure | Culture

Frantiek Kriegel was the only one of the Slovak politicians brought to Moscow in August 1968 who did not succumb to pressure and did not sign the protocol legitimizing the invasion of the Varavsk Treaty troops.

He foolishly risked his freedom and apparently his life. Thanks to this event, his name became a symbol of bravery, and the award given by the Charter 77 Foundation for services in the fight for human rights and the freedom of the people is named after him. Despite this fact, Frantik Kriegel was generally said to be surprising.

The film Mu, which was still on the way promises to add to Kriegel’s name a plastic personal career, but again only in the film, the situation worsened in 1968. Thanks to the positive performance of Tom Tpfer in the title role and Zuzana Maurryov in the role of Kriegel’s mistress Riva, the character of the hero of the Moscow one emerges from the historical fog and shows himself as a hunter made of flesh and blood.

The film presents him, among other things, in his profession as a lurer, which is undoubtedly Nadas’ comprehensible area, not his rather obscure political function as chairman of the National Front. It also indicates the complexity of his personality. The fact that someone is fat does not necessarily mean that he is always a nice person. His key characteristic is his faithfulness to every day and his commitment, which does not change, does not hide as in the case of other politicians in that situation.

In Mui, which stood in the way of a well-deserved and not superficial oblivion, Kriegel decided not to draw a portrait. But the film (certainly in its final form) does not even aspire to that. The subject of his capture is the anatomy of the whole hardened single representative of an occupied country with an arrogant superpower. Kriegl’s unshakable character is a mirror of the whole thing and the unflattering changes of the other actors. This, of course, carries with it the aspect that those characters (who, unlike Kriegel, go through development) are sometimes interesting from a dramatic point of view, especially for the future Slovak president Gustvo Husk.

Deputies fight for power

The action of the film started shortly before the invasion, when the Soviet government tries to try to become Slovak communists and cause a revolution in this is one of the strongest parts of the film, only the characters of the second class are on the scene. First, however, it is a chilling foreshadowing of the future tragedy, when this character will be the leader of the lie. The shapeless panoptical trinity of Biak, Indra, Kolder is remarkably similar here. And as their counterpart (!), Gustv Husk takes up the role of Adrian Jastraban (who in the past portrayed Alexander Dubek in a similar way), the deputy chairman of the government with a remarkable and monstrous ability to maneuver. In the meantime, however, she was brought up to the humiliating portion of the collaborators

The forced deportation of a hundred top Slovak officials to Moscow and the subsequent assassination of President Ludvko Svoboda (and Gustvo Huska) there accelerates the political and personal drama of the residents. I believe it is possible to draw compelling and non-schematic portraits of the main actors.

Alois vehlk perfectly presents the controversial personality of President Svoboda, on the one hand, he combines bravery with conformity, on the other hand, a slightly different mix of courage and apprehension, as in the case of Daniel Heriban in the role of Dubek (the Slovak actor bohuel died shortly before the premiere of the film at the age of only 43). The material personality of Josef Smrkovska’s time is described by Pemysl Bure and is excellently portrayed by Adrian Jastraban as Husk, who goes from a position of defiant resistance to the invasion to another run in the course of a day.

No mistakes

Remember the retrospective flashes in the film, reminding of his paradoxical past of political struggle in the 1950s and the fact that in the end he turns into a somewhat plastic and well-explained character, not the average hero of Frantiek Kriegel. In one of the retrospective scenes, the one behind Husk enters the prison to tell his friend that he will soon be released, but his own past does not enter the story.

Moreover, Kriegel’s personality is worthy of attention not only because of his state, but also because few people were responsible for the rise of communism, especially Frantiek Kriegel, co-founder and deputy commander of the People’s Militia in 1949. This fundamental contradiction in the film is only slightly hinted at by a question in the interview conducted with Kriegel by the reporter (and at the same time his relative) in the name of Zuzana Kajnarov.

Tom Tpfer can reflect Kriegel’s sense of co-responsibility into his reaction, but it is a very effective miniature for the insider. The overall impression is made far more by Kriegl’s self-confident declaration that he was always and under all circumstances talking about democracy. I wonder if Kriegl’s personality (as well as the characters, including Husk’s) would have developed better on the basis of Ivan Fly’s unbridled story and under his direction.

It doesn’t change a lot that Mu, who stood in the way is a film that tries to truthfully capture one of the decisive moments of Czech and Slovak history. And to show the mechanisms of power, which do not change that much (same as Russian nature). The idea that this film could perhaps be somehow revived by the younger generations about it is really the most illusory, for it is a drama where two parties of communists stand against each other, while one declares the other as right-wing, only to be unmasked. Which on the one hand is actually time.