Freedom is a state that is hard to reach. People try to be in this state throughout their lives. Sometimes they manage it, sometimes not. Often, the state structure forces individuals to exist in a difficult situation.
During the period of Soviet Union, citizens were in an information vacuum and thought that everything coming from Europe was bad and unacceptable. The state turned a blind eye to people. They lived in a country where gospel and music of free country were banned. They prayed silently, under the stairs or in the corner of the room.
Rezo Gigineishvili's film "Hostages" (2017) is an unremarkable product. It is a triteness of the topic that has been repeated several times, sometimes in the theater and sometimes published as a book. This movie didn't bring anything new to the public, it didn't give the audience anything that they haven't heard or read before. At first, the audience may think that "Hostages" is a screen adaptation of Dato Turashvili's book "Jeans Generation" but, in fact, it is not so. The storyline goes beyond the book or at least it is a distorted version of it.
The film is completely based on a well-known story and does not consider the director’s any interpretation. Rezo Gigineishvili’s individualism is not visible. If you don't read the director written in the credits, you won't even understand who the film belongs to. Almost nothing was thought about – neither the story, nor the actors' clothes. He gathered the top actors of that period and tried to create a normal film at their expense, but it didn't work out. This is not the actors’ fault but the incoherence of the narration.
The film is actually over in the first 50 minutes, the rest of the shots serve more to stretch the timeline and have no value. Even the court trial is filmed quickly, unprofessionally. Actions are truncated and one gets the feeling that everything from the wedding to the release of the woman from prison took place in at most three days and does not necessarily cover a long period of time. The pace of the narration is too fast and it all indicates the carelessness of the screenwriter. No one knows what the director wanted to say with this film, but it's clear that he was not able to say anything.
Everyone knows how people lived during the Soviet Union, what problems they had, what they were happy about. There was no need to repeat this topic again. Or if he wanted to go back to the past, at least the director could have made a better product.
Now no one will start arguing whether the terrorists were the "Airplane boys" or heroes. Society perceives them as it wants. If we go back, we may even consider their lives from several perspectives. "Airplane Boys" fled for a normal life. They thought they could get away from the hustle and bustle, swim peacefully in the sea, no one would stop them from listening to the Beatles, and they wouldn't get wounded in the street for wearing jeans or better clothes. They were growing up and could no longer hear every second what bad conditions they were living in. No one had a chance to breathe. They ran away not because they didn't want to live with their parents, but because they no longer needed the Soviet Union and were punished only so that no one else would try to do the same. They were shot to teach the intelligence of others, and at the trial people were forced to say what the state wanted to hear at the time.
In order to make the film worthwhile at least, the director tries to load it with symbols. For example, a pigeon, a gun, an airplane. A pigeon as a symbol of peace. But, unfortunately, peace and freedom were two words that did not exist in that period, and hopefully the audience will never have to go back.
Where does the film start? From the planning of the plane hijacking and ends when the plane lands again in Tbilisi. It is interesting, was the weather really bad in Batumi or did they specially make the pilot change the destination? Why do they start to look like terrorists? They make decisions without thinking. They should have stopped when they realized that they were returning to Tbilisi. Incorrect decisions brought heavy consequences, which remained like a black spot in history.
The audience may cry not because the film is good, but because the period in which they lived hurts. People of that time used to deceive themselves. Some of them thought that they lived in a good environment. At that time, it was considered normal for people to be arrested indiscriminately, to listen to each other, and some of them, because of their position, looked down on others. Time has passed, and the government has changed, but even now, even in the 21th century, there are still such officials with whom you cannot talk, sit down with and hold a discussion.
This situation is similar to Marco Ferreri's film "L’Audience," which is not about escaping from the existing reality, but about the search for the meaning of life. Its main character, Amedeo, an officer on leave, goes to Rome so that he can talk to the Pope. He says he has something to say to him and no one else can say it. The man wants the Pope to have a personal audience at any cost. Thus he begins a process in the Vatican bureaucracy that connects Amedeo with various characters and paradoxical situations. Lack of communication is a major problem of all times. It is interesting what would have happened if Amedeo had been admitted to the Pope, he might really have had something to say. What would have happened then, if the official of that time had talked to the "Airplane boys" and had not stormed the plane, the communication might have brought positive results.
The title of the film has two meanings. It is interesting, who the director thought of as hostages – people who were on the plane or people who lived under shackles during the Soviet Union? Their life was like captivity, and the only difference between that period and the prison was that they could walk outside for a longer time.
"Hostages" is a populist film made on a current topic. The director was well aware of the reactions that would follow the film. He didn't even try to shoot something new. It just chose a certain topic and didn't digitize it very well. He didn't think much about the arrangement of the shots, nor about the musical arrangement, nor about the idea. He left everything as it was. Neither the year 2017 should be written on the mentioned film. It is equal to the films of the time of the Soviet Union.
Barbare Kalaijishvili
