The breathtaking story of a man gifted with exceptional abilities set against the background of the events of the totalitarian fifties.
As a person who has a strong belief in science, the idea of a biographical film that revolves around a man capable of diagnosing a patient from their urine, knowing only their sex and age, well, it feels absolutely preposterous. The premise alone is enough to draw an audience in, to find out whether this man was, in fact, a charlatan (i.e. a con artist), or whether he was actually knowledgeable enough to be able to detect the effects of disease and ill health on a vial of urine (not unlike what lab testing does for us today).
The third film to come from director Agnieszka Holland in the last four years (after Mr. Jones and Spoor), Charlatan brings an apparent shift towards a more mainstream Hollywood atmosphere and formula. Whilst the story and persons involved are distinctly central European, Charlatan falls in a similar vein of film genre to that of Radioactive and The Current War; happily dancing along the line of glorifying the main character to superhero status, while throwing in the odd controversial issue here and there to keep things interesting.
Charlatan is the story of Jan Mikolášek, a herbalist who literally made a living by diagnosing people by looking at their urine. Whether this was actually true or not, is not something that is ultimately covered by the film. There is no definitive answer from Marek Epstein's script. While it is certainly used as the main drawcard, the film places more significance on his apparent homosexuality (unverified), his manipulative survival instincts, and the political landscapes that he has had to navigate to provide services to as many people as he has.
If one were to take a leap of faith and believe the unverified facts that the screenplay puts forward, Charlatan is a deeply intriguing film, about a truly gifted man who simply made enemies with the wrong people.
With that perspective of ignoring historical accuracy, and looking at the film from a purely narrative standpoint, the only real downside to the film comes from its non-linear direction, with the majority of the film taking place in extensive flashbacks. The current-day storyline is short and serves as nothing more than a narrative device for explaining the various jumps through time as we learn about how Mikolášek got to where he is.
From a cinematography side of things, the film is well shot, in a traditional style that fits in with the period in which the film is based, but also uses clearly defined colour palettes to separate the two timelines; the present day in dreary greys and shadows, whereas the highlights of Mikolášek's life are treated as such, with plenty of light, and bright colours.
While Charlatan brings the topic of alternative healing to the forefront, Epstein (pun not intended) attempts to balance the scales of karma by shining light on the more self-serving and manipulative facets of Mikolášek's character (if it was indeed accurate). Intentionally cruel to his family, dividing a marriage and forcing abortions to prevent attention from being taken away from him, there is a narcissistic trend that makes you hate the man, despite being in awe of his talents.
An interesting story, as are most stories of discovery in early science and medicine, but one that could have benefited from a more linear storyline, and more explanations for events (such as the kittens...). The intrigue of the first act sets a standard that the remainder of the film is unable to live up to, and you are left sitting there in your seat, wondering where the satisfying end of the film was.
A tale of manipulation, illegal homosexual activity, uncontrolled medicinal treatments, and political unrest, Charlatan is certainly better than average with respect to content, but with so much emphasis placed on the side plots, the structure and accuracy leave you wanting more.
Charlatan is in cinemas from November 12, 2020