Schaste moe (2010) Online

Certainly one of the best films of the year, MY JOY depicts the journey of a truck driver through contemporary Russia. The journey is full of detours, some of which take in scenes from the past, from 60 years or so ago, in the time of World War Two. In beautiful, lyrical mise-en-scene, the director shows scenes of brutality, rudeness, corruption and violence; this is a poetical portrayal of ugliness... Whether it is intended as a depiction of the brutality of conditions in contemporary Russia, or whether it is intended more as a general portrait of the human condition is not entirely clear to me, but, whatever it is, this is strong, haunting film-making, skillfully depicting a disjointed world of violence and degradation.

Extra warning: absolutely contains spoilers.

I've only watched once (so far), and I'll admit that it took some serious concentration to follow. And I'm not without questions.

But.

For all the reviewers who said that it was simply a bunch of unrelated, disconnected short stories about violence, you didn't watch carefully enough. There IS a main character. The scenes support the story of this main character throughout the whole movie (only if you WATCH the whole thing, of course), all the way to the end.

Our truck driving friend gives a lift to some random old man... a man who has lost his name (and his bride) in the war. We see the old man's story. And our truck driving friend has no idea that he will become just like this old man.

Our truck driving friend runs out of diesel and ends up getting set upon by three men who are desperate... one of whom is mute. Our truck driving friend has no idea that he will become just like this man who is mute.

And, contrary to one reviewer's perception that this all happens 'in a few days', we see a sudden shift from summer or fall to winter. It's our truck driving friend who is lying there in the woman's house, unmoving. It is he whom she takes advantage of physically, while he's unconscious.

It is he who becomes imprisoned. He who stumbles out of prison when another inmate breaks out.

He who waits by the side of the highway, finally to be picked up by a very talkative driver. And he who snaps at the end.

I had no idea what I was getting myself into when I started watching this movie. After one viewing, I'm looking forward to owning it and delving deep into its layers, unraveling it as best I can to learn more and to answer some of the questions I still have: what was the time period of the teacher and his young son? And is the son, orphaned and left sitting on the bench at his house, also the same old man who saves our truck driving friend from freezing by taking him home on his horse-drawn sleigh? I have no problem with not having all of the answers at the end of my watch. A movie of this magnitude is certainly worth repeated viewings. If you feel the same way, I recommend this movie to you.

First of all, I want to say that the film simply blew me away. This film, Sergei Loznitsa's first feature is not only the best film (and discovery) of the year, but one of the biggest and most important works in cinema of this century.

Before, Loznitsa was a documentary film maker and this effect can be seen in his fiction film. It is not only true and violent, but also very unconventional, different (truly ascetic, and here can be seen influence of Loznitsa's mentor, Robert Bresson), Loznitsa's use of long take is truly remarkable, in Russian cinema, long take has been used very ofter, beginning from Tarkovsky, then Shepitko, Sokurov, Zvyagintsv... but Loznitsa's use is different and unique, he absolutely refuses style (there is no disgusting exploitation of manner, that spoils Zvyagintsev's overrated, stupid and pointless "Vozvrascheniye"), he doesn't have style as a director, the film itself creates its style and language (and trust me, it's much difficult and much remarkable).

And Loznitsa does very bold thing: he destroys notion of deep shot. Yes, Kiarostami shot films with digital camera (as Loznitsa does), but his shot is extremely static and Loznitsa makes very long travelings with hand held camera, what's truly new thing and it also creates a feeling of claustrophobia, of closed circle, of No Exit and it's really conceptual use of primitive cinematic method.

It's extremely difficult film, but it's not art house and it's not the proud film, so called "not for everyone". It IS for everyone, but on the other hand, it should be watched very carefully: consider that you'll be shocked and maybe even depressed but I have one very useful advise: if you decide to watch this TRUE masterpiece, be patient and watch it till the end.

It's really worth it.

Most low reviews are from people claiming they didn't understand the movie, if you didn't understand it, it's your problem man, but giving it a low rate? it's like saying mathematic is a shitty* subject because you can't understand it. ridiculous, these people probably did not like Pulp Fiction, Amores Perros or 21 Grams, which are far more intricate movies. the movie is a Dostoevsky like tale about a man who take a wrong turn and ruins forever his life, showing the miserable and depraved evil that man are capable of. how authoritarian and merciless, and that sometimes the thief or the killer is a better friend than a cop. it also alternates time lines without a hint, which is genius and done in this way to emphasize the movie 'moral'. it's really great if you like depressive art. for me, a sad masterpiece. a movie about how miserable life is. too complicated for some.(IMDb didn't let me write the curses, great.)

While I saw this film, I couldn't help but thinking: 'Hm, where have I seen that before?' 'My Joy' is a series of short stories - some related, some not - about men taking advantage of another, which is presented as a somewhat natural, inescapable state of affairs. It all ends with an amok shoot-out. That would be the exact formula of 'Brigands, Chapter VII' (1996) by the late Otar Iosselani, minus the earlier film's dry humor. After having had the chance to see it again, I would venture to say that the stylistic and narrative similarities are far too many to be coincidental. Losnitza also leans quite heavily on Tarkovsky in terms of photography and Sokurov in terms of montage; all in all, very little is original.

'My Joy' may be stylistically appreciated as some sort of homage to the aforementioned authors, but its subject matter would appear rather a summary of common clichés than a depiction of (rural) life in Ukraine or Russia. If you have traveled in the region, you will be familiar with the horror stories depicted in this film - corrupt roadside police, hookers and theft everywhere -, but also with the fact that these bear little resemblance to reality nowadays. 'My Joy' therefore appears to be made for the consideration of those who adhere to these stereotypes, rather than those who have a genuine interest in the region.

I would also agree with those who criticize the story's arguably most shocking incident, namely the execution of a hospitable teacher by two marauding Red Army soldiers after his comment that the German Army might build a better Ukraine. While it's not altogether clear if that is the reason - the execution takes place the following morning, and the soldiers loot the place immediately afterward -, I think it's not acceptable for a German production - made with German tax payer's money - to include such a statement. I wouldn't go as far as calling this propaganda, though - rather a tasteless attempt to grab the viewer's attention. If you want to get an idea about what the German Army did to the Soviet Union, and why the statement in question is so controversial, watch 'Come and See' (1985).

In short, 'My Joy' is not a complete disaster, one may acknowledge its adaptation of classic features in Russian cinema. But more noticeably, it is a questionable mixture of clichés severely lacking in originality.

This film opens with a compelling scene involving a trucker in the countryside. It then follows on with the camera placed in front of the truck picking snapshots of people and their daily struggles along the road. More importantly we see a population subsisting in moral darkness. There is even a scene or two reminiscent of a Haneke wannabe.

Unfortunately the director plunges in this moral darkness he himself has created by revisiting history. When the film comes back to present day it falters and when it does that a second time in the rural home of a teacher it never comes back. The film loses any direction and becomes a collage of arbitrary violence. And most unfortunately this part is way longer then the rest of the movie! The director who apparently aims to lay the blame of current Ukrainian problems into Soviet era does not even stop short of a Nazi praise in the character of a teacher who blatantly hints God loving Nazis could have created a better Ukraine. This is where the film will find its place in history as a showcase of the rise of the extreme right in Europe! This is where free speech cunningly turns into hate speech and the propaganda goes totally out of control.

Mind blowing for sure if that was the intention of the director! This film can be watched as a case study.

Regardless of the good casting, acting and camera work, I left at 2/3 of the running time. Same did 20 others before me. Yet, no real exodus was at hand. I left roughly 750 viewers behind, and I did see no restless moves of potential followers. Am I wrong??

The story began as advertised with a truck driver who has a long journey before him. He has to deal with a lot of people underway, all with no good intentions whatsoever. At first that seemed to be the intended framework for this movie: a series of adventures in different areas as building blocks, having the truck driver and his journey as binding element.

However, I got lost after 1 hour. New stories appeared with new people. The common denominator of showing people with bad intentions stayed the main theme throughout, but the connecting truck driver was missing. That got me confused. I am prepared to accept that I may have missed something essential.

Aforementioned main theme was depressing. Maybe there was a happy ending, or some moral to tie it all together. If so I missed it, due to my leaving early. So be it.

Three main issues = (1) Incredibly irritating to follow unless you know beforehand that the movie is composed of a series of short stories from different time periods. What adds to this problem is that the characters are mostly rough looking bearded Russians sometimes shot in dim light, therefore, it's hard to tell when a new character is being introduced or if it's the same rough looking bearded Russian as before. (2) The short stories themselves aren't really stories but a series of violent occurrences. (3) Since the film is not plot driven it must be making some type of statement or social commentary; unfortunately, that statements been made many times before in better fashion.

My Joy is a combination of several stories, centered on a period of the life of a truck driver, who looses his way in the road and comes to some events that ruin his life, leaving him as an insane and mindless man. It is a dark and cold movie, artfully made, concentrating on the wickedness of the people in a society, esp. wickedness which comes from abusing the power mostly among police forces and army men. It also portrays a society in which most people don't care to others and only seek their own interests. We see different periods of times, past and present, and different characters that are woven to each other beautifully. In whole, a very good yet cynical, sad and dark film about human's evil and violence.

I don't think it's a 'social commentary' or a 'statement of the human condition' - it's a mess of a movie made by a potentially very skilled director who seems to get bored with the (admittedly rather boring) storyline and tarts it up in the last 40 minutes with a whole lot of disjointed events which we are left to piece together ourselves, however we may. Perhaps he couldn't think of a sufficiently clever ending and (just the same way as Picasso got bored with doing half-decent paintings) decided to let the New York Art House Set name it to be a work of intellectual brilliance (just in case it actually was). Worth watching for the Ukrainian scenery and faces and for masterful camera-work - but only once unless you want to learn the style.

No Sergei Loznitsa...it was my joy. In his first fictional feature Loznitsa captures in a Kafka-esque adventure the joys (few they may be) and ills of post-Communist society. It is scathing, funny, horrifying, insightful and everything in between. The writing is impeccable and never dips off or drags for a moment. I watched this film when it was first released and there was no doubt I would watch any and everything Loznitsa would make.

This is a rich, beautiful, sad film. A really brilliant take on Putin's Russia. As for the critics who think it's a "mess" or doesn't have much to say, "POOH" to them. Again I have to say this: just because you don't understand something doesn't make it a bad work of art. I've noticed a lot of people on this website really lash out at films they don't understand. It doesn't make you look smart, believe me. I don't know if I fully understand what this movie is saying, not being from the Ukraine, but that just makes me want to re-watch this beautifully made film. It obviously isn't for people who need constant action or a Hollywood ending, but I think the world will survive without another film like that.