180: Man of Iron

For some reason I seem to always be seeing Andrzej Wajda’s films in the wrong order.  I saw his Ashes and Diamonds (1958), which I enjoyed, before remembering that it is the third installment in what Criterion calls his “Three War Films” Trilogy.  While I’m under the impression that Wajda’s A Generation (1955) and Kanal (1957) are grouped with Ashes in what could be defined as a loose trilogy, I still feel I should have seen them first.  Though characters and plots in the film I did see might not have been directly affected by their counterparts in the earlier films, I believe the pictures are grouped together because of the thematic development that takes place throughout the progression of all three movies.

This same thematic development is the case with the work of many directors, and thus it can be beneficial from a film-going standpoint to experience their canon chronologically.  Though this approach to studying a director’s work can be valuable, it is rarely even a passing thought when beginning to explore any specific filmmaker.  This is only natural as few people are going to pick up Kubrick’s Killer’s Kiss (1955) before being introduced to his later masterpieces.  Still, I can’t help but wonder what it would have been like to digest a director like Scorsese chronologically.  While seeing his films in the order that I did certainly didn’t detract from their brilliance, reading through Roger Ebert’s book on the master director, seeing what he had to say about each offering upon its initial release, opened my eyes to the development of his commentary on the so-called Madonna/Whore complex that is central to each of his best movies.

I reference all of this as a preface to saying that I’ve done it again.  I saw Wajda’s Man of Iron (1981) before viewing its thematic prequel Man of Marble (1977), and perhaps I’m worse off for it.  Ashes and Diamonds stood alone as a good film, and though I was not familiar with the context in which it took place I related to its characters, needing not to have seen the movies which preceded it.  Man of Iron was a more difficult film to digest.  I don’t believe that any element of Man of Marble directly affects the later film, but perhaps I needed to be thematically primed to take this picture on. 

As the story of a violent and disruptive labor strike, and the men and women that have long suffered as a result of an oppressive system, Man of Iron didn’t exactly break new ground for me as a viewer.  Though it is specific to events which took place in Wajda’s native Poland and thus likely more relevant there, it pales in comparison for an American viewer to a film which it seems to beg comparison, On the Waterfront (1954).  Playing Wajda’s one-note labor striking lead, Jerzy Radziwilowics would seem flat here compared to any actor, let alone Brando.  Structurally, I was much more interested in the frame story of the strung out reporter trying to get an interview with the reclusive rebel.

I’m never a fan of criticism which pans films because they are “too long.” 
No film is too long if it fills its runtime with content worthy of its audience.  Films can only be “too long for their material,” which I’m afraid Man of Iron is.  At 152 minutes the experiences of these characters seems drawn out for the sake of inducing apathy rather than the dramatic building of tension.

Grade: 1.5 Hats Off