OVP: Footnote (2011)

Film: Footnote (2011)
Stars: Shlomo Bar-Aba, Lio Ashkenazi, Aliza Rosen, Alma Zack, Micah Lewensohn
Director: Joseph Cedar
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Foreign Language Film-Israel)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

The thing I love about the Foreign Language Film category (or at least, one of the things I love) is the way it introduces me to things that are commonplace in other cultures.  I have to admit that, prior to writing this review, I spent a good chunk of time researching the Israel Prize, so central to this film.  As Landmark Theatres says before most of its showings, "the language of cinema is universal," but in this case, it's also quite informative.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie tells the story of a father named Uriel (played by Ashkenazi) and a son Eliezer (Bar-Aba) who both are professors of Talmudic Studies, but with varying degrees of success.  Uriel has spent most of his career being out chased by rivals and is the low man on the academic totem pole.  Eliezer, on the other hand, has succeeded where his father has failed-becoming wildly known in his field, and receiving laurel after laurel.  The film opens with another of Eliezer's awards ceremonies, and Uriel quite literally being shut out (in a rather telling sign of things to come).

The film takes a turn when Uriel is awarded the prestigious Israel Prize, the highest honor in his field and after decades of work, he finally feels vindicated.  His son continues to find the distance between them unnerving, and things only become more complicated when it is unveiled to his son that it was Eliezer, not Uriel, who should have been called and was the rightful recipient of the award.  Eliezer has a long and protracted argument with his father's bitter rival, Grossman (played very well by Micah Lewensohn, in my favorite of the film's many bit parts), and defends his father, and dictates that under no circumstances should his father ever know that he didn't receive the prize, and that his father should have received the prize years ago.

You know where this is going, or at least, you partially do.  The film continues and Grossman reluctantly agrees to let Uriel get the prize, and Uriel starts getting all of the attention and it goes to his head, before finally discovering that the prize was supposed to go to Eliezer.  But there are things that pop up that you don't expect.  Some of the most telling moments are when the two key men are asked to talk about each other, and what comes forth is both surprising and uncomfortable.  In one telling scene, Eliezer must type up his father's accomplishments and the reasons behind why he deserves the award.  It's most fascinating because he trips over trying to stretch his father's thin résumé into something worthy of the prize.  I love the fact that he keeps trying to stretch the words without lying, and how he slowly realizes that his long defense of his father was due more to paternal pride, rather than that of a colleague he admires.  It is quite obvious as the film progresses that Uriel does not deserve the prize, but everyone is willing to go along with the charade to save face.  I also love the end of the scene where Eliezer tucks away the letters into a book buried in his office.  We don't get to know the why behind his hiding the letters, though one suspects that he is keeping them as consolation to himself in the future about the prize that he knows he won, but that he gave away.

It's a strange contrast to what is going on at the same time in the film, with Uriel taking sharp jabs at his son's work while talking to a reporter.  Uriel clearly has thought that he was the better scholar of the two for a number of years, and since he doesn't have the fame and practice of speaking to the press that his son surely does, Uriel lets a gold mine of family rivalry tidbits slip out during the interview.  This damages their relationship enough that Eliezer tells his mother that the prize was supposed to go to he, not to Uriel, though he (nor she) never tell Uriel that he is not the rightful winner; this revelation is done rather cleverly by Uriel rereading the accomplishments his son wrote and stumbling across a metaphor his son is constantly overusing.  It's a clever scene in a movie filled with them.

Before I get into the caveats (it's a four and not a five star review, after all), I have to first point out another gem I found in the movie, that of when Grossman agrees to Eliezer that he'll go along with the scheme, despite his disdain for Eliezer's father.  His one ultimatum is that Eliezer will never receive the Israel Prize if he refuses to tell his father that he is not the rightful recipient.  It's a telling moment for Eliezer as a character, who up until this point seems to be trying to salvage his relationship far more than earn his many plaudits.  Eliezer, it's obvious in the minutes after this ultimatum, also wants this highest of honors to be bestowed on him, and clearly is not comfortable knowing that his father will have reached the height of his profession, and not the son.  It's a telling moment, as it's one of the first scenes where it's most clear that Eliezer revels in upstaging the father who didn't have enough time for him as a child, and is not comfortable conceding anything to him.

The film is not without flaws, of course, and its biggest one is the way Cedar keeps beating you over the head with the many similarities between father and son.  This is evident with Eliezer's relationship with his slacker son, who shows no interest in following in the family tradition, and his bad mistreatment of his wife.  While this makes for a more well-rounded character study, the film keeps pounding the message that they are similar in temperament and in putting work above all else, when the most interesting aspect of their similarities is that ego that drives them above all else.  The film could have used some more focus on that, rather than making them into exactly the same man, a less interesting argument.

All-in-all, though, I'm a fan.  One of my big pet peeves in film is plot holes (it's the thing I most complain about in other reviews), and since some people may interpret the ending as having some, I do want to address that I don't see the film's unanswered questions as plot holes, but rather questions to ponder as you throw away your popcorn bins.  Is his father having an affair (a secondary story line that gets sidetracked, though not forgotten, as the film blares on)?  What caused Grossman's feud with Uriel?  And does Uriel accept the award that he knows is not his.  On this count, I have to believe that he does, though with a broken heart and a shattered ego.

I'm going to refrain from comparing it to some of its Oscar competition for now (if all goes according to plan, I shall be having a big celebration of 2011 in the next week, and I don't want to spoil anything), but I do want to hear your thoughts-what did you think of Footnote?  As it was a strong contender at Cannes that year, do you think it deserved some of the accolades that went to The Tree of Life, The Kid with a Bike, and Once Upon a Time in Anatolia?  And what do you think the answers to those open-ended questions are?