CHARLATAN

Czech Republic/Poland, 2020. 125 minutes, Colour.
Ivan Trojan, Joseph Trojan, Juraj Loj.
Directed by Agnieszka Holland.

It is a wonder that there have not been more films with this title. Whether the subject of the film actually deserved it is over for the audience to become involved in his life, his career, his behaviour.

This is an arresting and complex film from Poland and the Czech Republic. It has been directed by the veteran Agnieszka Holland, who has made many striking films over four decades and more, sometimes in Poland and in Europe, as this one, quite a number in the United States ranging from The Secret Garden to. The Third Miracle Her film prior to this one was Mr Jones with James Norton, set in the 1930s, a Briton visiting the Soviet Union, critical of it, the complexities of the Stalinist government, sympathetic American connections and the fate of Mr Jones after he has visited Moscow as Well Is the Ukraine and exposed some of the cover lies from the government about famine.

This film is also broad in scope and focuses on a significant man in Czech history, Jan Mikolasek.

The film opens with the death of the President of the Republic in 1958 and moves to the office of Mikosalek, noting the vast number of people queued outside his office, each with a bottle of urine which will be examined for diagnoses indications and treatment suggested. Mikolasek has a powerful reputation with crowds coming for consultation.

It soon emerges that government officials, despite his treating a number of them, not only have suspicions of him but also want to get rid of him. As he proclaims, he is not a doctor. However, in the 1930s he passed examinations so that he can operate as a consultant for healing. In fact, he is a herbalist who has a strong faith, who has developed a talent for diagnosis through urine examination.

We notice that the colour photography is exceedingly muted, emphasis on dark and shadow, highlighting the drabness of life in the Republic during the Communist regime of the 1950s.

But when the film goes into numerous flashbacks, the colour is bright, from war sequences in World War I with the young Jan ordered to be part of an execution squad, is sprayed with the blood of a man who refuses, who tries to kill himself but only wounds his shoulder. The colour is there in the postwar world where he works for his father in a garden, appreciating his knowledge of herbs, and visiting a woman who is considered a faith-healer who tests him, approves of his capacities, trains him.

There is also colour in the flashbacks to the 1930s, a period of success in clients and healing, and also, perhaps surprisingly, colour in the sequences of the Nazi occupation of Czechoslovakia. He is under suspicion, especially after the massacre at Lidice. He is also tested by Nazi officials who approve of his capacities.

There is also another level in the storytelling, his advertising in the 1930s for an assistant, a rather brash young man applying and asserting himself and getting the job, having to learn on the job. Perhaps the audience is rather surprised when it emerges that Mikolasek has a homosexual orientation and, the young assistant at first unwillingly, begins a very long affair, professional assistant and companion.

However, the last part of the film shows the government officials arresting both men, incarceration, interrogations, court proceedings.

The portrait of Jan Mikolasek is quite complex, a good man in terms of his faith in himself and his gifts for healing, but who bears some malice, faithful to his assistant – until some personal complications during the final trials.

Well worth seeing.

1. The title? Fake? Faith healer? As a label? Authenticity?

2. A true story, Czechoslovakia? World War I, the 1920s and 30s, the Nazi occupation, post-war Republic, the Communist regime, the 1950s? The musical score?

3. The colour photography, the 1950s, muted, dark perspectives? Brighter colour in the flashbacks? Even in the Third Reich? The drab Czech Communist era of the 50s? The government, the Republic, politicians, informants, the police, the law, harshness, administration of justice?

4. Jan Mikolasek’s story, his being an enigma, admirable, yet self-centred, healing-centred, his gifts? Betrayals and his personal relationships?

5. 1958, his age, Frantisek as his assistant? The death of the president? The lines of people in the village queueing to get help, their bottles of urine for analysis? Their gratitude? His role as a healer and declaring he was not a doctor?

6. The focus on urine, looking at the bottles in the light, observation, diagnosis? Leading to remedies? The tea, the various herbal ingredients? His being registered during the 1930s? Frantisek and his support? Work at his desk? The buildup to the arrest? His staying, Frantisek staying and not escaping?

7. The flashbacks, the revelation of his story, the cumulative effect, understanding him but his still remaining an enigma, the good and the bad, his penance before the crucifix,

8. World War I, young man, the orders for execution, the soldier refusing, the blood spattering Jan, his shooting, his attempt to kill himself, his being wounded in the shoulder,
saved?

9. His family, working in the gardens, his knowledge of plants and herbs? The gift? His sister, the gangrene, applying the herbs after mixing them, her leg being saved?

10. The lady in the village, as a healer, her work with her husband, the lines of people to consult her? Her herbal knowledge? Jan, interested, his father forbidding him, locking the door, Jan taking the axe, leaving home?

11. The woman and her demands on him, his return, the diagnosis, that the man would die on Tuesday, the truth? Working with the lady, his education, the focus on urine, identification of diseases and conditions, help and the cures? Her death, no bequest – and the scene where he bashed the cats in the bag and she disapproved?

12. His career, the clients, the urine tests, the advertisement assisting, Frantisek applying, sure of himself, insisting, his being accepted, slow typing, reading and getting knowledge?

13. The homosexual issue, Jan and his tempting to kiss Frantisek, the refusal, then the consent? The law of the time, concealing sexual orientation? Frantisek and his wife, care for her, his mother? The developing relationship, long affair, companions and partners? The years passing, the sexual bonding? The issue of his wife’s pregnancy, Jan self-centred, offering the tea to abort the child? The screenplay leaving the question whether Frantisek gave his wife the tea or not?

14. The Third Reich, the accusations, Jan and his support of the resistance? The Nazi connections, the SS coming to Jan’s office, the father who had pleaded for his daughter now SS, brutally bashing Jan? The officials and the tests, Jan and his correct diagnoses? Continuing his work? The realities of Czechoslovakia, the massacre at Lidice because of Heydrich?

15. After the war, the response, thousands of people, acquiring wealth, artworks, important clients? The significance of politicians, even the president and ministers?

16. Jan in jail, the harsh treatment, the cell, the torture, the cold, lying flat, and is visible, walking in the grounds? Attacking the barber and his being bashed?

17. The lawyer, appointed, Jan’s refusal, the interviews, the lawyer’s investigation and finding that there were fake cases? Decisions about the court case? Frantisek not saying anything?

18. The court sequences, those present, Frantisek saying nothing, Jan and his exoneration himself because of the locked room? The consequences for Frantisek’s guilt? His admission? His mother calling out?

19. Believing the court, holding hands, going to death?

20. The visit to the past, an enigmatic character, doing good even in the name of God, yet very flawed?