The Measure of a Man (2015)

Sadly Over-hyped

a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

A very fine movie about life in the modern global economy. First the hero is cheated by a so-called training business center when he finds out there's no chance of his being hired for what he was trained in and the business knew it (see Trump and his so-called university -- but what do we expect from an illiterate egomaniac?). The hero who is barely hanging on to middle class life by his fingernails is constantly humiliated or badgered by experts who are "trying" to help. He winds up with a job at a box store in security where he sees people/customers humiliated, long term clerks fired for minor infractions caught on CCTV (that's the object, the co. -- a Walmart copycat -- is trying to trim down the staff and goes after long-term employees, one of whom commits suicide on the store premises). The hero also has a son with multiple sclerosis who has to pass inspection in order to qualify for college. This is what the social/economic net boils down to. The director is telling the truth ...

This is a movie wherein much is put in by film judges and critics that is simply not there. Those who find "stuff" name off basically the usual pretentious leftist pablum. No better example than Prize of the Ecumenical Jury - Special Mention drivel "For its prophetical stance on the world of work and its sharp reflection on our tacit complicity in the inhumane logics of merchandising." Say what??? No, I'm not interested in prices going up just to fund some clerk's druggy son or because somebody needs a DVD fix. And I'll exercise my own freedom when it comes to loyalty points. To nominate this film for the Krzysztof Kieslowski Award is a travesty on that great director's work. This is a movie only a Bernie Sanders could like.

Is it art to simply show ordinary life as it really is, without any metaphors, generalizations, attempts of explanation, or dramatizations? I argue: no. To see the so-called real life one does not need the cinema or the literature; it is enough just to live it, or read about other real lives in the newspaper. Or at most, see a documentary, on less accessible aspects of it. In any case one does not need an artist on the other side of the medium to depict it, a mere "reporter" is enough. From "art" one, I believe rightfully, expects more.That is why "The measure of a man", the last product from mostly French speaking film world that shows the raw and often banal reality, is simply boring, with its long, and at best, trivial, and at worst, painful scenes, of a decent person down on his luck. In fact we never even learn much about the main protagonist, except that he has been laid off some time ago from his job, that he has an invalid child at home, and that he pretty stoically deals with everything unpleasant that happens to him. Naturally we feel sympathy, and blame the impersonal forces of society for his troubles. The film makes some valid points about the absurd sides of search for work today, with all of its time-wasting unemployment services, "insightful" CV writing instructions, distressing Skype interviews, etc. These are all true and worth knowing about, but unfortunately the film does not add anything beyond what is quite generally known to almost any adult in western society. There is simply not enough dramatic material in these for a feature film. The result: boredom and detachment. Every single scene is stretched beyond its conceivable dramatic function, so that the whole film soon becomes as engaging as waiting in the doctor's office for a check up. There was a hope of a dramatic upturn when the main character finally found a job as a security guard in a supermarket. It does not quite happen, but the film does become slightly more interesting with its depiction of the depressing distribution of wealth in today's France (or almost any other modern country): too many people are ready to risk major humiliation for ridiculously petty sums. This itself offers a plenty of material for some other filmmaker to work with. The present one, unfortunately again does not feel he needs to move beyond several long scenes, which all seem to say the same depressing thing, without offering any salvation. I understand that this may exactly be the point, but I doubt that anybody needs such a long exposure to get it. Vincent Lindon, the single professional actor in the film indeed feels real and believable, but not obviously any more so than all other non-professional supporting actors. Nevertheless, for the present reviewer Lindon's acting was the strongest side of this otherwise rather thin film. Which just goes to say that films should, in spite of recent trends, be left to professionals.

I walked out of this film after about forty minutes, so take my comments accordingly.This film is well directed, acted, and shot. It effectively portrays the hell its very sympathetic protagonist is going through. It's a story worth telling. The actors are superb.It's just way too slow. Every scene that I saw (and after 40 minutes, I believe that I had seen a total of about six of them--at least, that's what it felt like)was about three times as long as it had to be. The scene made its point, and then just kept going. And going. And going.I get it: The protagonist, a good and decent man, is being abused by. . . well, just about everyone. I got it after the first 30 seconds of the first scene. All he can do is take his next punch and keep on keeping on.The first thing I did when I got home was check the total running time for this film: 91 minutes. In other words, about the minimum acceptable length for a feature. And that's almost always the case with films that move this slowly: The writer (invariably also the director) doesn't have enough ideas or story to sustain a feature. So he just stretches every scene long past the point it should be stretched.What you end up with is a painfully slow, paper-thin film.