El castillo

A land surveyor,K.,is invited to the Castle to do some work for the Count,but when he arrives at the Village,he finds that nobody is expecting him.K.'s attempts to get into the Castle are as unsuccessful as his attempt to settle into the local village.He is greeted by a compact reluctance from the villagers,who with a systematic inefficiency prevent him from any prospects of even approaching the castle.The harder the stubborn K.,tries,the farther he moves from his goals.The impenetrable,seemingly haphazard but strangulating bureaucracy of the castle hinders the clarification of his social and existential situation.K. remains what he was on the day of his arrival:a stranger who is barely tolerated...Haneke's film version of Kafka's famous unfinished novel is an unusually faithful and highly successful literary adaptation.Kafka is,with his absurd,pessimistic yet still very realistic idea of the world,a sort of soulmate of Haneke's.

Unfinished works give rise to conjecture. How would Kafka intend to end this novel? Did he get tired of it? Did he avoid concocting an ending? K, a professional surveyor, arrives in a village during a winter storm. He is summoned by a Count whose castle overlooks that village. As might be expected in any Kafka story, K will not find the earl or perform any specific work. The castle of the title is not what you would expect, it is certainly not what the disappointed K expected to see, it is not even an old fortress or a new mansion, but a shady complex of countless small buildings close to each other. Swarms of crows circulate around the tower. It is clear that K's presence in the village is the result of a bureaucratic error. A surveyor had actually been requested by the Count some time ago, but the order had been canceled long before. Only Kafka would be able to explain why K does not leave the village - and only he would know how (or if) he intended to finish this unfinished masterpiece.

This is an extremely unusual adaptation of an unfinished novel. The breaks in Kafka's manuscript are actually left in the movie. This is surrealism to the max!

I'm crazy about Kafka. THE TRIAL is my favorite by Welles, and Juracek's homage Joseph KILLIAN is brilliant as well. So the thought of Haneke directing The Castle seemed like a promising idea. And he gets some of it right. The story is very faithful... obviously certain omissions are necessary, but the gist of it is there, and the scenes generally play out as they do in the novel. The long scenes juxtaposed with abrupt time cuts do a good job of evoking the unusual rhythms of Kafka. And Haneke knows better than to try to make K. an entirely sympathetic character. But it doesn't feel quite right. I have mixed feelings about the aesthetic. The drab palette is appropriate, but I couldn't help thinking that black and white would have suited the material better. And the voice-over felt entirely unnecessary to me. The novel is told in the third person voice, but it feels first person. Having some narrator chime in every few minutes didn't add anything. And it just didn't seem absurd enough. Perhaps it's a book that doesn't condense well, because you don't get the sense of K.'s epic, labyrinthine struggle. But it's a good effort.

Kafka's novel doesn't have much of a story. A movie that tries to tell this strange, deceptive and repetitive tale is bound to frustrate and annoy its audience. As this is a very famous piece of literature, three state-sponsored TV stations from Austra, Germany and France decided to give it another try, as part of the obligations from their - in the mid 1990s still officially relevant - educational mandate.

Haneke's film remains close to the source material, while still staying somewhat watchable, for most of the time. That's not a small achievement. This is a deliberate literary adaptation, a not too obtrusive narrator adds the sound of Kafka's writing, which is an essential feature. The color scheme that's mostly close to black and white, but not everywhere, is an interesting decision. The art direction is okay. The cast is of course top-notch. The storyline is what it is, not great, not annoying, and there is most certainly no deep hidden meaning to discover.

Kafka himself didn't have access to some divine wisdoms and truths. He described a worldview, a sentiment, created a melody that was very influential in the 1950s to 1970s. Haneke's film does the best it can to bring it to the small screen.

Kafka didn't know how to finish his novel. It's been said that he was considering to just kill K. Off. But that would have been a boring cheat, Kafka accepting his own defeat. Therefore his novel stayed "fragmentary" and was published as such two years after his death. This film ends EXACTLY like his script - not the printed book - ends. It's a surprising and funny moment.

Today, of course, the logical ending seems to be obvious: If everything is lies within lies, people pretending to be from the castle are most likely not from the castle. So when K. Finally gets a coach "to the castle" - he ends up in another village. Fixed it. Once you know the melody, it's easy to do a Kafka. 6/10.