The Trial (1993) Reviews

• True to Kafka

  caelx1999-12-06

  Filmed in Prague, this film has some of the best Old World urban scenery ever put on film. "Amadeus" came to mind. The screenplay follows Kafka's novel well in text and feel. Well enough, if fact, that reading the novel will offer little more than this film's relating of the story of Joseph K. and his trial. And that is the best that a film version of a novel can possibly hope for.

• Lifeless and Academic

  howard.schumann2002-11-25

  The Trial, of course, can be interpreted in many different ways, as a personal statement against the struggle of man to hold his own against the forces of the universe, or perhaps as an attack on the inhumane bureaucracy inherent in authoritarian government. `Kafka's novels,' says genre critic Franz Rottensteiner, `move in a circle, and their helpless heroes are caught in the fabric of a world that is ever elusive to them. They are mere cogs in a senseless social machine.' However you interpret it, The Trial is not easy to forget and seems more relevant today than ever. Translating it to film is another story. This version has all the stuff that the Welles version lacks -- superior performances, an expensive production beautifully photographed in Prague, an outstanding screenplay by Harold Pinter, and a faithful, almost literal, adherence to Kafka's novel. The only thing missing is wit, style, a spark of life, and creative energy. With Welles version, the film ends with a powerful impact; this one ends with a resounding thud. Kyle MacLachan, who plays Joseph K. in this version, is best known for his performances as agent Cooper in the TV and movie versions of Twin Peaks. I believe he is a better actor than Anthony Perkins; however, I found his performance to be so emotionally distant that I did not care a whit about happened to him. Supporting performances are outstanding, especially Jason Robards as the Advocate and Anthony Hopkins as the prison chaplain. In spite of my considerable esteem for Mr. Pinter, this film is flat and lifeless and the experience is little different than listening to an audiotape of the novel.

• Faithful to the novel

  EnemyOfTheState2005-10-25

  I am a major fan of any of Franz Kafka's literature. In fact I read everything ever written by Kafka who is the most unique writer in any language. So I was very eager to see The Trial brought to the screen. And I can tell you from this film fan's perspective, this movie was the real deal. Filmed in Kafka's home city of Prague, it shows the world that Kafka knew. Exploring the life and spiraling downfall of Josef K., a young bank executive, it shows a nightmarish world in which a man is destroyed slowly and gradually. It is a timeless story about being entrapped in a horrible bureaucracy in which there is no escape. Josef K is visited by two roguish officers of the court and summoned to a bizarre court. The court comes to regular meetings and he is summoned throughout the story. He goes through the entire proceedings not knowing even what crimes he is being charge with. The bizarre "court" is a cavernous building where families, children, adulterous spouses and bullying thugs inhabit. Everyone inside seems to have a function yet we never see the judges or those who are responsible for the fate of the story's protagonist. In the meantime he continues to live is normal, dull life. But the court continues to rule his life. And the harder he fights the court the more deeply entrenched he becomes. Students of Kafka's literature will recognize the familiar themes: man against an inhumane bureaucracy, the eminant demise of man, the demise of freedom at the expense of rules and regulations, the literal use of metaphores and the ultimate doom of all humanity. Its not your average story but for those who are seeking something different I would heartily recommend it.

• A faithful translation to the screen: fails to give new perspectives to the work though.

  Per_Klingberg2003-04-28

  When a novel is to be translated to the silver screen, the director will immediately face a dilemma. How will he approach the translation? Will he try to be as faithful to the original piece of work as possible, avoid to give his own interpretation of the novel, not risking the wrath of devoted readers? Or will he try to see to what he believes to be the true spirit of the work, and express it in a new way? After all, books and films are different medias and thinking of how much is lost without the author's special language and distinct style - for an example -, shouldn't a director try to make up for that loss by adding something unique for film? I would go for the latter. Otherwise your filmversion of an essential piece of literary work will be just that: a version of an essential book, not an essential film in itself. Of course this can cause a lot of controversy, and there's no doubt that some directors have managed to completely ruin an excellent book when trying to make 'their own' version of it. BUT, look for an example at 'A Clockwork Orange'. Burgess intricate play with language and manipulation of the reader - slowly taking him into Alex's world and way of thinking - simply will not be translated into film. So instead Kubrick used the unique opportunities of film and managed to combine the use of audio and vision to stunning effects. Kubrick managed to make something own out of it, no question about it. And that's what I feel is missing in 'The Trial'. Yes, it is a perfectly well-done job. I couldn't think of a more suitable actor for Josef K than Kyle 'Agent Dale Cooper' MacLachlan: that's EXACTLY the way I envisioned him when reading the novel! Also the settings in Prague provides the movie with beautiful and suitable backgrounds. Though some scenes, for lengths sake, has been cut short it also stays true to the events in the novel and manages to catch some of the atmosphere in the novel. The movie is carried through very competent, the actors are talented and there's a a nice 'Godfather'-esque grainish color on top of it all. No, this isn't a bad movie. On the contrary! But why shouldn't I rather read on the novel myself? Because what is really comes down to is this: if a translation from one media to another is to be successful, it can never be just a translation. It has to stand on it's own legs. And that's where this film fails. We aren't offered any new perspectives or different ideas on Josef K and his torments. Quite simply, it's an enjoyable watch but probably holds appeal mostly to those who don't have the time or interest to read the novel instead. 6/10

• Splendid film, acceptable adaptation

  Vincentiu2007-05-09

  Beautiful film, subtle exploration of Kafka's masterpiece nuances, slices of novel's atmosphere but only an ordinary adaptation. In fact, a film about one of Franz Kafka's texts are an Utopian gesture. The sense of pages, the shadows of characters, the angst, fear or illusions, the magnificent style of one of best writers are crushed by vision of any director or art of actor. And the images are pieces of cold beauty without soul or honesty. For "The Trial" adaptation is always present a trap: the image of Joseph K. as avatar of Kafka. Franz Kafka is only a Kakania's citizen, civil servant in a large empire, with small ambitions and desires, toy of his doubts and hesitations, dreads and lures. Kyle MacLachlan is a correct interpret of character but, the fundamental error is the ambition to be a perfect Joseph K.. So, his acting is barren and empty. Alfred Molina as Titorelli is charming but the interpretation of character is exercise of one type incarnation, the same in many nuances. Same situation for great Jason Robards. The important virtue of film is the presence of Anthony Hopkins and the colors, shadows, illusions and accents gives to parable. It is not example of brilliant art but the science of words sense description. The words- medusa, words- ash, words- sand, words- velvet. In this small text is the crux of novel and film. A splendid film, a acceptable adaptation.