My eyes briefly widened with excitement before scrunching into squint skepticism after reading the brief synopsis in this year’s Film Festival guide for the spy-thriller, Little Rose. The reason for the sudden change in my facial feature was that Jan Kidawa-Blonski‘s tale of espionage was being compared to the Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck 2006 Oscar winning film, The Lives of Others. A bold comparison.
Both films take place in the past under oppressive regimes, both feature writers under suspicion of treason, spies reexamining their own moral codes, and clichéd secret meetings in the park. The main differences between the two is that The Lives of Others contained characters developed enough for me to care about what happens to them, a musical score devoid of smooth, jazzed-up Kenny G. saxophone numbers one might hear while watching a soft-core porno, and it lived up to the reputation of being a taut thriller. As for Little Rose…
It would be lazy, but not at all unfair, to just write this film off as yet another paint-by-numbers period piece spy drama. It would also be lazy to just call the film a failure by simply comparing it to one of the best films of the 21st Century, as I just did in the opening paragraph. So for the sake of not being lazy or unfair, but in the interest of keeping this review as concise as possible, I will now give a list of 3 reasons as to why this film was not a total failure. I will also achieve this feat without comparing it to any vastly superior works within the spy genre.
Reason 1: This may be somewhat of a juvenile reason, but it’s a legitimate one nonetheless: Magdalena Boczarska…or should I say Magdalena Boczarska’s breasts. I’m all for nudity in film, especially when it’s a beautiful actress, but Boczarska’s top comes off so frequently that I wouldn’t be surprised to learn in some behind-the-scenes DVD commentary that her removal of garments were all improvised and that the actress was not only making a profound statement about subjective and objective nakedness, but was simultaneously seizing the opportunity to cunningly defy the sinister wardrobe department for making her wear uncomfortable and itchy attire throughout the shoot.
Reason 2: Visually, whether intentional or a result of watching the film on a DVD screener, every scene contained washed-out colors. In most films this would be a negative distraction, but as odd as it were, here it served the film nicely. Perhaps this was because at times when the film’s fictional action would intercut with non-fictional black and white footage, the washed-out and blandness of the narrative made it feel more real. Even daylight scenes were shot as if Mr. Camera (not the actual name of the cinematographer) forgot to remove his sunglasses before rolling his film. Again, I’m not completely sure I know why I dug this visual tone so much, but I did.
Reason 3: It’s better than any of the Spy Kids films.
My recommendation: go ahead and see this film if you’re dying to see a spy movie on the big screen, just don’t expect The Lives of Others revisited.
Showtimes for Little Rose:
Tue, Jul 26 – 6:00pm (Castro Theatre)
Tue, Aug 2 – 6:30pm (Roda Theatre – Berkeley)
Sat, Aug 6 – 6:20pm (Oshman Family JCC – Palo Alto)
Sun, Aug 7 – 6:20pm (Rafael Film Center – San Rafael)
You Jewish never acclaim anything what is Polish even would be the best an thousand times surpas your sick “creativity”. You trying to tell everybody that this film is shity worth but the truth is that this is one of the the best of the espionage film made.