Footnote

I saw Footnote, written and directed by Joseph Cedar, yesterday at the discount theater here in Buffalo. It's well worth tracking down. 

In thirty years of disciplined study, Eliezer Shkolnik (Shlomo Bar-Aba) demonstrated that there is a missing version of the Talmud from the Middle Ages. He proved that the old commentaries are based on an unknown version. As his son Uriel (Lior Ashkenazi) states, probably only four or five people on earth understand his work. It is the height of philologic achievement. In the month before he publishes, another researcher stumbles upon this missing Talmud in an Italian library, and by the time Eliezer can publish, his story is old news.

Eliezer languishes in academic obscurity for another 20 years, at least. His son Uriel, meanwhile, becomes a famous professor, the author of popular books. Father and son have almost nothing to do with each other. They are two men locked in ego-bruising battles with each other, and with the world. Glimpses into their marriages show us that each is some piece of work. Eliezer is cold, perhaps mean, and Uriel could be called charming, but preening and needy might be more accurate.

Finally, and totally unexpectedly, Eliezer is recognized. Not just recognized: he is awarded the Israel Prize! At his moment of triumph after being ignored for so long, Eliezer is anything but magnanimous. Interviewed upon the news of his Prize, he seethes with resentment. He lectures. He is probably right. The academic world has abandoned the lonely pursuit of disciplines like philology for the rock star treatment it gets from writing books about the history of marital relations and other "folklore." Eliezer instructs: on one side is a man studying potsherds-- measuring them, cataloging them, dating them; on the other, a man who sees the potsherds are all roughly the same color, and declares them a pot. The reporter asks for clarification, and Eliezer says, to be perfectly clear, and to ensure his contempt is understood, "The pot is a fiction."

The cinematic technique is refreshing. The story revolves around two scholars, and the cut techniques mimic switching between images on microfilm on a library projector, and the film is divided into titled sections something like chapters. Minor details, but they contribute to the movie by marking it as a movie, rather than as a play. The plot is stagey, which can be a weakness in this type of story. Footnote benefits from these and other movie touches, like the soundtrack and certain closeups. The locations are also good, with outdoors shooting that always adds to the appeal of movies, but is often left out when sets alone will suffice.

Something happens. Uriel looks for his father. Eliezer is having a drink with a few of his closest friends, fellow denizens of the library, with such a look of pride that we can be sure he didn't intend to be seen by his son, with whom he certainly does not share such moments. The only hint I will give is that the characters stay true to themselves. I asked myself as I watched, what that would mean, and I found the movie's answering ending extraordinary. Footnote leaves us with some questions we answer for ourselves, including the best one, 'And then what happened?' There is a woman, for example, who is never identified. Yet we know who she is. The characters in Footnote are people-- as near as possible to living, breathing men and women. It gives us a plot involving complex motives and unexplained acts, and it leaves us to form our own opinions about the characters-- a seldom-used technique, you must admit. It starts with all of the conventions of a feel good father son reunion movie, and ends with something different, with a father and son who do not transform, as the convention demands, although something happens between them.