Eliezer Shkolnik and his son Urien are both Talmudic researchers and professors in Jerusalem. Eliezer is bitter as his son receives wide acclaim from the Jewish Studies community. He spent most of his life working on a revolutionary take on an European version of the Talmud only to be scooped by an accidental discovery one month before publishing his own work. He toiled in his work alone. His class has one student. His most noteworthy accomplishment is a footnote in an important textbook. The father and son relationship has traveled a long and problematic road. Eliezer covets the Israel Prize above all else and one day, he gets a calls from the Minister of Education congratulating him. It is big news and then Uriel is told by the Ministry that the call was a mistake and he is the real winner. The head of the committee Grossman is an old foe of Eliezer.This movie takes a small world and shows how the people in it treat this world as life and death. The opening sequence with Eliezer and the security guard is very compelling. Eliezer is a quietly bitter old man and that scene sets it all up. The problem is that he's not that charismatic as a character. Urien's struggles are more compelling. It's an intriguing premise but I don't find Eliezer lovable enough.

FOOTNOTE (dir. Joseph Cedar) An unusual father and son morality drama set in the (apparently?) highly competitive world of Israeli Talmudic studies. The father had been engaged in an obscure branch of study, and was scooped by another researcher, and never received his due. His son is also a philologist and seems to have effortlessly reaped acclaim for his classical scholarship. The moral dilemma of the film is that the father has been mistakenly awarded a coveted prize that should have gone to his son. The resolution of this predicament is not terribly clear because many plot issues are not resolved, yet I feel that the father did learn of the error, but nevertheless accepts the award he does not deserve. Results may vary, but after viewing the film, I would recommend a look at the discussion on the IMDb message board for FOOTNOTE to see many interesting interpretations of this absorbing film.

The use of on screen checklists as the start of "Footnte" to establish the identities of the lead characters is a clever and engaging way to get the viewer in the mood for a humorous cinematic experience. The comic devices - the chair shuffling in the fatal meeting of the Israel Prize committee - evinces that sort of cruel but loving satire that made "Spinal Tap" such a rich experience. (If you don't like the comparison, check out the final scene in which Nigel, air guitaring the solo in "Sex Farm" - the song that has taken off on the Japanese charts - is called back on stage and back into the arms of the rejuvenated band)But then the mood of "Footnote" changes, with the spirited and dignified defense by the son of his father's worthiness for recognition. Nobility of spirit is a phrase that comes to mind. The viewer realizes that Cedar is a director and writer of substance. This satisfying realization is enhanced when the father's chief detractor relents in his opposition to the loyal son. And then Cedar once again changes the mood of the film, with the father's critical dismissal of the worth of his son's scholastic achievements. By this time the viewer is in no doubt as to the masterful direction and writing and is speculating on how the characters will work out the dramatic culmination of the film.I was reminded of "Ve'Lakhta Lehe Isha" ("To Take a Wife"), the 2004 film created by Ronit and Shlomi Elkaberz. "Footnore" is a lot more fun, a lot less harrowing but I recalled my "Eureka" moment while watching that film, when I realized it was a retelling of the biblical book of the prophet, Hosea. Had Cedar created a similar cinematic parable? Had Cedar tapped into some rich vein of cultural material to make a point, argue a thesis, establish some view of Israeli society?The expression, "Chekovian" came to mind. I was reminded of Sidney Lumet's 1968 cinematic recreation of "The Seagull". It remains for me the only re-working of the turn of the twentieth century Chekov's dramatic output that has ever really translated the validity of the characters and situations into the mindset of a mid to late twentieth century audience. Cedar has achieved a similar feat, in making the life experiences of modern Israelis intelligible to outsiders.The open ended culmination, the cryptic subtitle, "Professor Shkolnik's Revenge" leaves it open to the viewer to make the same mistake as the people who mixed up father and son when contacting the winner of the Israel Prize. Is the subtitle referring to the father of the son?The richness of the characterization makes the film a lot more satisfying than many of the films that criticize the values of Israeli society. Take for instance, "Lemon Tree", or even "Waltz With Bashir". Cedar gives us much more rounded and human (dare one say less caricatured) characters. But the viewer is left with the feeling that Cedar is saying something of substance about Israelis society. I was wrestling with this question as the film neared (but never fully enunciated) its dramatic climax.Is he saying that the elder generation or Israeli leadership is misguided in the way they govern? Is he saying that the next generation must value what is good in their parents, but seek to rectify the mistakes they have made? The way the film raises such questions marks it as a cinematic experience of great distinction as well as a thoroughly engrossing and satisfying way to spend time with characters of warmth, complexity and genuine decency

If 'Footnote' will win the Oscar for the Best Foreign language film it will certainly by more than a footnote in the history of Israeli cinema, it will be a big event, the first time an Israeli film gets the Oscar. It's just that I do not believe that this will happen (and of course I wish to be wrong), and I also believe that out of the four Israeli films that made it in the final selection of the category in the last five years Footnore is maybe the one that deserves less, as it is simply not as good as the previous three, including director Joseph Cedar's own Beaufort.Just to make clear, Footnote is not a bad film and it has its moments of real beauty. Many of these turn around the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, the words and their meanings, the buildings block of the language and of the Jewish wisdom, and of the sacred text of the Bible. This is probably one of the elements that fascinated the jury of the Academia and made them decide to shortlist the film and include it in the prestigious final selection for the Oscar prize. The film is before all the story of the dramatic relationship between a father and a son who are unable to communicate in and within the terms of real life, but they do communicate and understand each other in codes of words. As with the famous (or infamous) Bible codes stories, the letters and words of the Hebrew language hide a story hidden beyond the first layer of perception available to us, the other mortals. But even if we set aside the element of exoticism that is not that striking for the Israeli or Hebrew knowledgeable viewer we are still left with the exquisite acting of the two lead characters (Shlomo Bar-Aba and Lior Ashkenazi), with strong supporting roles from Aliza Rosen and Micah Lewensohn, and with a mix of styles which is sometimes daring like the description of the career of the son using techniques of 'professional' publicity juxtaposed to the restrained way of presenting the work of the father in the style of commentaries on text. It is in the conflict between the world of ideas and the material world, in the lack of acceptance and integration of the character of the father with the universe dominated by the obsession of the security, showing respect not for the essence but to the superficial ceremonies, it is here that lies much of the ideology that motivates the story in the film.Yet at the end I also felt a feeling of dis-satisfaction. Part resulted maybe not directly from the film itself but my own experience of living in Israel, where religious studies are not and exotic element but one of the key pillars at the foundation of the social and cultural life. There is much to be told about this world which is full of wonders and miracles but also of cheating and demagogy. Cedar's film left me with the feeling that while trying to approach the problematic aspects of this field of life, refused to take any position or insert a critical comment beyond the sin face. Then the openness and the life-like ambiguity which in many other films works wonderfully is taken here in my opinion one or several steps too far. We never know whether the research of the father had any real value, we are left in the dark with the roots of the conflict between the father and the head of the prize Israel jury, and a character like the wife and mother could have been better developed. The strong story of the relation between the son and the father and the son's sacrifice which here goes in different direction than usual remains suspended. 'Footnote' looks well polished but unfinished.