Two Prosecutors & Dossier 137 — eerie portraits of lives crushed under absolute power

A succession of similar scenes, in which the protagonist is seen waiting in a hard, straight-backed chair, in dreary brown rooms ruled over by dreary brown bureaucrats, is amongst the most telling leitmotifs of Sergei Lozintsa's Cannes competition entry Two Prosecutors.
You can wait all you want, but in the end, Godot will keep you waiting.
The film is set in 1938, 'at the height of Stalinist terror,' and is about a newly-appointed idealistic prosecutor who receives a prisoner's letter written in blood, protesting his innocence. From then on, we see Kornev (Alexander Kuznetsov) attempting in all earnestness to try and meet the prisoner, who is at first only a number in a cell. The bloody weals on his body shock the young law graduate, and he sets out to meet the senior prosecutor, in the hope that the latter's intervention will help rectify matters.
Loznitsa is in familiar territory, having given us glimpses into the labyrinthine workings of Russia and his native Ukraine in his earlier work.
'Two Prosectors' doesn't deviate from bleakness, but is possibly his most accessible film in the manner in which he depicts a system, locked and loaded against the less powerful. If you are below in the pecking order, there you will remain, so do not go about getting ideas above your station.
The tussle between the two prosecutors, on either side of the spectrum, one just beginning his journey, the other on top, could well have been the subject of a Kafka novel.
Nothing is stated. Open hostility can be combated, but there's nothing you can do with a perfectly calibrated official disdain that keeps you waiting endlessly, without granting you a meeting.
Adapted from political activist and gulag survivor Georgy Demidov's 1969 book, the brooding, atmospheric 'Two Prosecutors' will put you in mind of Kafka and Solzhenitsyn, and so many others who wrote movingly about a ruthless regime where human rights were turned into a joke. When Kornev requests a meeting with the prison warden, the guard can't believe it, and when he informs the man guarding a higher gate, they both burst out laughing. Some random person asking to be let into their sanctum, where they are the masters of the skeletal inmates who keep dropping dead of overwork? Preposterous.
The thing with Kornev is that he just doesn't learn. He does, finally, get to meet with the USSR's top prosecutor (Vytautas Kaniuonis). But the reception is cold, and as he recounts the story of the prisoner and his quest, it gets colder still, and the consequence is chilling.
What makes the well-performed 'Two Prosecutors' such a compelling watch is that it may speak of a bygone era, but with rising authoritarianism in so many parts of the world, it feels even more sharply relevant.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. 'Dossier 137', a police procedural deftly directed by Dominik Moll, has a thematic similarity with 'Two Prosecutors' in the way it shows how traditional power structures are kept in place by every single stakeholder. Those who rock the boat are considered trouble-mongers, not the actual perpetrators themselves.
The French movie, also in competition, unfolds as a series of interrogations interspersed with bursts of action in Paris and the countryside. When a young man is shot and badly injured during a demonstration that turns violent, conscientious police officer Stephanie ( Lea Drucker) starts to investigate. She finds many troubling facts and a cover-up: as it is, she is part of a much-reviled group tasked to keep an eye on internal affairs, and in this instance, she finds, through a video of the incident, that her colleagues were directly involved.
What follows is hard to watch as the complicit cops show that they are masters at deflection and active lying. Stephanie's superior takes her up on a fact she believes the former kept deliberately hidden: that she belongs to the same town as the victim, and that that makes her biased. Racism is at work here too, in the shape of a black cleaner who displays the weary cynicism of the oppressed. When you know you aren't going to win, what's the point of making a noise and calling attention to yourself?
May as well watch cat videos, the way an old lady does in the movie, to keep the darkness at bay.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Time of India

7 hours ago

• Time of India

Cannes Lions 2025: Roars of success or whispers of doubt?

On Saturday morning, KV Sridhar , popularly known as Pops in the advertising world, posted on LinkedIn a poster: ' Cannes is the new Goafest .' IYKYK. However, the sub-text in Sridhar's message merely celebrated India's continued success on the global stage, noting the country's impressive haul of 32 Lions at Cannes 2025. Sridhar was not alone in his reflections. Naresh Gupta , co-founder, Bang in the Middle, was more direct. Questioning the legitimacy of some wins, Gupta's post on social media said, 'Cannes is over and some Lions have roared, or have they?' He specifically called out campaigns that won big but whose real-world impact or even existence appeared questionable. The campaigns under his scrutiny included FCB India's Grand Prix-winning Lucky Yatra for Indian Railways, which he alleged, barely ran; Talented's Silver-winning Nature Shapes Britannia, whose sustainability impact he questioned; and Havas's Gold-winning Ink of Democracy for TOI. This isn't the first time winners at Cannes Lions have faced scrutiny. In fact, during this year's edition, Cannes Lions itself is investigating São Paulo-based DM9, a 2025 Creative Data Grand Prix winner, for allegedly submitting a doctored case study video for their "Efficient Way to Pay" campaign. This global precedent, involving falsified testimonials and misattributed content, highlights a systemic vulnerability. Oversight or Calculated Risk? So, where did Indian agencies possibly falter? Was it an innocent oversight, or something more calculated? Or could this be an attempt to outsmart global juries who may not fully understand the nuances of the Indian market? Gupta didn't mince words. 'This isn't a case of oversight from the agencies; it's a well-thought-through strategy,' he asserted. Gupta pointed out that this practice isn't new. 'It has been happening for a while. People notice, conversations happen, and then it fades until the next time.' Speaking about FCB India's Lucky Yatra campaign, Gupta didn't hold back. According to him, the campaign is a 'scam.' 'It never really happened,' he said. 'The idea may have been pitched, someone may have given it a name, but it was discontinued almost as soon as it began. I don't even think it was fully executed. Yet, somehow, it won a Grand Prix.' But reports in sections of media highlight that the campaign ran for three months and was stopped, ironically a day before Cannes Lions, after it generated an extremely poor response. (ETBrandEquity has reached out to FCB India for their comments and the story will be updated once we hear back from them.) Gupta further pointed out that many of these entries are crafted specifically to win international awards, tailored to appeal to global juries. 'It's all about gloss, polish, and creating the kind of activity that tends to win more awards,' he commented. 'Just look at FCB winning a Gold for PR. That's when you know things have been packaged very cleverly.' Pops shared a perspective on the increased scrutiny that follows major wins in the advertising industry. According to him, success naturally draws attention, and rather than focusing solely on what went wrong, it's more productive to think about how to improve going forward. 'If you have big ambitions and are 'greedy' for awards, then you need to do a lot of groundwork carefully and honestly,' he advised. He highlighted the problem of exaggerated claims in award entries, referencing recent controversies. 'It's completely unbelievable to say that one print ad, published for a single day in just two cities, changed voter turnout across the entire country. That's not how deeply rooted behaviour changes. These kinds of claims might seem harmless when made in the excitement of writing a case study, but if you win with a false story, it will eventually come back to bite you. These things should be sorted out much earlier in the process.' Pops explained that great campaigns rely on two essential elements: the core creative idea and the execution. While the idea itself may be brilliant, the results and impact depend on factors like budget, client support, and media reach, which are not always within the creative team's control. A truly breakthrough campaign, he stressed, requires full collaboration across teams and stakeholders. Another campaign facing criticism was the Nature Shapes Britannia campaign. The premise that four billboards could "save the world" raised eyebrows. According to experts, had it won in categories like Outdoor or Craft, it might have been more defensible. But winning in Sustainability? That's where credibility began to erode. In a joint statement, Britannia and Talented acknowledged the recent criticism, emphasising, "At Britannia, we always value insights from experts, and constructive criticism is crucial in helping us grow and align better with the values we wish to uphold." They agreed that the company is "at the nascent stage of its sustainability journey." The campaign's intent, the statement read, "was to share with our consumers that we are taking deliberate, albeit small steps toward a more sustainable future. While we understand that we are far from being a benchmark in sustainability, our goal is to be transparent about our progress and inspire collective action." Regarding the sustainability report , Britannia explained that the document evaluated in the recent discussion was their statutory Annual Report. They urged attention to their Sustainability Report, published last year, which provides a detailed explanation for observed increases in numbers. This increase, they noted, correlates with an expansion of their operations and an extended reporting boundary. Britannia reiterated their commitment to continuous improvement: "Each year, as our operations scale, we strive to be more mindful of the resources we use and the impact we create. Sustainability is not a destination but a journey, and we are dedicated to making meaningful strides along the way." A System Under Scrutiny According to Gupta, the responsibility lies squarely with the jury and the organisers. 'If they started to look at these submissions more carefully and deeply, this wouldn't happen. They don't do their due diligence. Someone on the jury from South America won't know what happened in India. They will only know what's been submitted, and the submission can sound absolutely perfect,' he stated. Gupta believes that without a proper vetting mechanism in place, these issues will keep recurring. Pops offered a contrasting but related perspective. He noted that it's primarily the fault of the agency to construct a false narrative. Juries, to some extent, rely on the information provided in the case study. He said, "If a case study claims a huge impact for a campaign, that's a compelling narrative for any jury. The jury relies on what's presented. While organisers might check after a Grand Prix win, ultimately, it's the agency's responsibility to be truthful." Another industry leader observed that juries often evaluate entries based on the strength of the creative idea, without thoroughly validating the claimed impact. 'I don't blame creative ambition entirely,' he said. 'A significant part of the problem is the pressure that agencies and global holding companies put on teams. There's often a push to inflate a small idea into something larger just to win awards. It might lead to a trophy in the short term, but over time, it undermines the credibility of the entire industry.'

The Hindu

a day ago

• The Hindu

Anurag Kashyap's ‘Kennedy' impresses at NYIFF, fuels call for Indian theatrical release

Anurag Kashyap's Kennedy continues its strong run on the festival circuit, drawing a standing ovation and sold-out screenings at the 2025 New York Indian Film Festival (NYIFF). The neo-noir thriller, headlined by Rahul Bhat, has been steadily building momentum since its Cannes premiere, where it received a nine-minute ovation. At NYIFF, the film's first screening sold out in just 40 seconds, prompting organisers to add another show. Bhat, who plays the titular role of a sleepless ex-cop operating within a corrupt system, has been nominated for Best Actor. 'I'm truly honoured to be nominated for Best Actor at NYIFF,' he said. 'The love Kennedy has received across the world is incredibly humbling.' Kashyap is also in the running for Best Director. The film, produced by Ranjan Singh and Kabir Ahuja under Good Bad Films and Zee Studios, features Sunny Leone in a supporting role alongside Mohit Takalkar, Abhilash Thapliyal, Megha Burman, Karishma Modi, and Jeniffer Piccinato. Following the NYIFF screening, Kashyap and Bhat participated in a Q&A session where audience members praised the film's storytelling, music, and performances. One viewer called it 'a masterpiece in Hindi cinema' and questioned why it hasn't seen a theatrical release in India. Despite its international acclaim, Kennedy remains unreleased in Indian cinemas, which has been a point of frustration for many fans. With growing demand on social media and at festival screenings, the pressure is mounting for a domestic release.

Hindustan Times

a day ago

• Hindustan Times

Radhika Apte on the influence of international recognition on Indian audience: Regular public doesn't care

Radhika Apte-starrer Sister Midnight released in India last month after making waves internationally, which includes a nod at BAFTA awards and a screening at Cannes Film Festival. The film had a limited release in India and managed to garner good reviews, but the box office collections weren't as impressive. Radhika Apte(Photo: Instagram) Ask her if international acclaim impacts a film's performance in India and Radhika Apte shrugs it off saying, 'The regular public, I don't know how much of them care about what Cannes or BAFTA is. And rightly so. They don't need to care about anything they don't want to care about. I don't think they would perceive a film in a certain way due to it.' However, she adds that the industry does get influenced by it: 'The film fraternity or certain people who watch world cinema or are interested in international cinema, would definitely experience an impact. But the audiences of the regional or Hindi language, they might not actually know much.' The Indian promotions of the film marked Radhika's first work commitment post embracing motherhood. Ask her how is it different from her pre-motherhood work life and she says, 'In the pre-period, I had so much time and I could make myself available at any point. But the post journey has been hard because I have not been able to attend everything. I couldn't attend Cannes, the New York and LA promotions because I have a very small baby and I didn't want to travel all the time. That's the only difference actually. Otherwise, there has not been any other change.' She is also quite proud of the work she has done in the film: 'It's a story about a small-town misfit who becomes an accident outlaw. It's one of the rare times when I've been really thrown out of my comfort zone. Normally, I approach a character with intellectual dissecting. But here we quite de-intellectualised the whole process. It's more about instinct than thoughts and it was fantastic to work like that,' she ends.