IMDb रेटिंग
8.1/10
34 हज़ार
आपकी रेटिंग
अपनी भाषा में प्लॉट जोड़ेंIn this luminous tale set in the area around Sarajevo and in Italy, Perhan, an engaging young Romany (gypsy) with telekinetic powers, is seduced by the quick-cash world of petty crime, which... सभी पढ़ेंIn this luminous tale set in the area around Sarajevo and in Italy, Perhan, an engaging young Romany (gypsy) with telekinetic powers, is seduced by the quick-cash world of petty crime, which threatens to destroy him and those he loves.In this luminous tale set in the area around Sarajevo and in Italy, Perhan, an engaging young Romany (gypsy) with telekinetic powers, is seduced by the quick-cash world of petty crime, which threatens to destroy him and those he loves.
- निर्देशक
- लेखक
- स्टार
- पुरस्कार
- 3 जीत और कुल 5 नामांकन
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
'Time of the Gypsies' is a big, full movie.
It is full in the way a magic realism novel is full, with its intergenerational cast of characters; its vivid sense of place, the weather and community life, where private is always public, where joy and tragedy are inextricable; where magic, dream and delusion are indistinguishable.
It is full in the Fellini sense, with its grand, often hallucinatory, set pieces; its profusion of grotesques; its bursting compression of many plots; its general noisiness.
It is one film containing many simultaneous films (a gangster film; a surreal road movie; a romantic comedy; a rites-of-passage; a Christian allegory).
It somehow feels a little thin, like a tapestry of chunks from a massive novel. It is certainly a prime example of retrospective dating - at the time it seemed a masterpiece; over a decade on, it's pastiche Kusturica.
It is full in the way a magic realism novel is full, with its intergenerational cast of characters; its vivid sense of place, the weather and community life, where private is always public, where joy and tragedy are inextricable; where magic, dream and delusion are indistinguishable.
It is full in the Fellini sense, with its grand, often hallucinatory, set pieces; its profusion of grotesques; its bursting compression of many plots; its general noisiness.
It is one film containing many simultaneous films (a gangster film; a surreal road movie; a romantic comedy; a rites-of-passage; a Christian allegory).
It somehow feels a little thin, like a tapestry of chunks from a massive novel. It is certainly a prime example of retrospective dating - at the time it seemed a masterpiece; over a decade on, it's pastiche Kusturica.
This is the kind of movie I cannot forget. Well, to be honest, the reason why I watched it was to see my girlfriend, who suggested to watch it at her's. I wasn't really impressed by the movie and I thought it'd be another of those I'd forget about. And I wouldn't comment on it if there wouldn't be something special to it. I just keep thinking about it again and again, and I get the feeling it wasn't so boring as I thought. That's exactly what I find interesting. There are movies which you think are bad, and forget about them. There are movies where you see they are great and you never forget them. And there are movies which you think they haven't impressed you at all, but after some time you still think about them and you keep remembering them whether you like it or not. And eventually you find that they were quite good just the way they was. And so is this movie. What it wants to tell you is not the story it tells - a story which you may find uninteresting, longish, alien, of no matter to you. This film wants to give you an impression of the Gypsy way of life. And after seeing it and thinking about it, you feel like understanding the Gypsies somewhat more.
In 1933 Spanish poet and theater director Federico Garcia Lorca gave a lecture in Buenos Aires titled "Play and Theory of the Duende" in which he addressed the fiery spirit, the 'duende', behind what makes great performance stir the emotions: "The duende, then, is a power, not a work. It is a struggle, not a thought. I have heard an old maestro of the guitar say, "The duende is not in the throat; the duende climbs up inside you, from the soles of the feet.' Meaning this: it is not a question of ability, but of true, living style, of blood, of the most ancient culture, of spontaneous creation."
So okay, Kusturica has mostly come and gone by now. But for a while he really tapped into a valuable duende. I don't know how much of that translates overseas as anything more than feisty craziness, but for those of us here at least he stirred passions that go back in time. He communicated something of the very fabric of our world.
So yes, a living style. Spontaneous creation. Meaning an exaggerated depiction; but one rooted in a recognizable reality, in ancient culture. Reckless people, who consume their beings with spontaneous love or song; the Balkans, meant broadly as a peoples whose common life and toll under Ottoman rule brought them so close, wrote ourselves into this worldview long before Kusturica. Like Goran Bregovic collected old folk songs into new renditions for these films, Kusturica merely translated into cultural images. But oh so well.
Τhis is why Kusturica really spoke to common people here. He reminded them, yes with so much feisty craziness, about a struggle - not a thought - about a life they instinctively have known from blood; so hard that sometimes it makes the eyes well up with tears of joy. About a woe so deep it can only be expressed with dance or a burning cigarette to the arm. About something inexplicable that turns the soul upside down.
Two paths in life then as I see it, both valuable; we should strive to be either Zorbas or Buddhas. That is to say, to either grasp life till it hurts or dispassionately let go. It's about living life fully in the flow of it, and we either vigorously swim or we observe how it all flows away. Everything else is really half-assed stuff, merely trying to stay afloat. Kusturica made films about Zorbas.
All this is well. But if we have perhaps invested part of ourselves in cinema, the images behind, Kusturica, especially here, is a real joy to behold. There was Tarkovsky, who inspired him so much; his stare was austere like those lean Christs we find in Orthodox icons. With Kusturica, Tarkovsky's camera becomes magical song, embodying with ardor of life the joyous sadness of a world turned upside down - so much in the film is about things askew, a house suspended in the air, a man hanging himself from a bell, the image of an inverted Christ in the end.
So one masterful touch is the cinematic flow. The other is how the flow encompasses an entire life; we have a kid who grows up to see how everything in life breaks, a grownup - as this kid - who has already resigned himself to the fact and is broken himself beyond salvation, a young mother who gives birth and dies like the dead mother who is only hearsay now, a second Perhan who will grow up with only hearsay of that young mother but with a father who came back to him. Fascinating stuff, most importantly because the symbolism is not a full circle, neat, precise, but messy, rugged with life.
This is good stuff. It is just not-important enough - in the academic sense - to be really beautiful, and just incomplete enough to allow ourselves to pour into it.
So okay, Kusturica has mostly come and gone by now. But for a while he really tapped into a valuable duende. I don't know how much of that translates overseas as anything more than feisty craziness, but for those of us here at least he stirred passions that go back in time. He communicated something of the very fabric of our world.
So yes, a living style. Spontaneous creation. Meaning an exaggerated depiction; but one rooted in a recognizable reality, in ancient culture. Reckless people, who consume their beings with spontaneous love or song; the Balkans, meant broadly as a peoples whose common life and toll under Ottoman rule brought them so close, wrote ourselves into this worldview long before Kusturica. Like Goran Bregovic collected old folk songs into new renditions for these films, Kusturica merely translated into cultural images. But oh so well.
Τhis is why Kusturica really spoke to common people here. He reminded them, yes with so much feisty craziness, about a struggle - not a thought - about a life they instinctively have known from blood; so hard that sometimes it makes the eyes well up with tears of joy. About a woe so deep it can only be expressed with dance or a burning cigarette to the arm. About something inexplicable that turns the soul upside down.
Two paths in life then as I see it, both valuable; we should strive to be either Zorbas or Buddhas. That is to say, to either grasp life till it hurts or dispassionately let go. It's about living life fully in the flow of it, and we either vigorously swim or we observe how it all flows away. Everything else is really half-assed stuff, merely trying to stay afloat. Kusturica made films about Zorbas.
All this is well. But if we have perhaps invested part of ourselves in cinema, the images behind, Kusturica, especially here, is a real joy to behold. There was Tarkovsky, who inspired him so much; his stare was austere like those lean Christs we find in Orthodox icons. With Kusturica, Tarkovsky's camera becomes magical song, embodying with ardor of life the joyous sadness of a world turned upside down - so much in the film is about things askew, a house suspended in the air, a man hanging himself from a bell, the image of an inverted Christ in the end.
So one masterful touch is the cinematic flow. The other is how the flow encompasses an entire life; we have a kid who grows up to see how everything in life breaks, a grownup - as this kid - who has already resigned himself to the fact and is broken himself beyond salvation, a young mother who gives birth and dies like the dead mother who is only hearsay now, a second Perhan who will grow up with only hearsay of that young mother but with a father who came back to him. Fascinating stuff, most importantly because the symbolism is not a full circle, neat, precise, but messy, rugged with life.
This is good stuff. It is just not-important enough - in the academic sense - to be really beautiful, and just incomplete enough to allow ourselves to pour into it.
When I see a Kusturica film, I see the magic of Fellini but with a sinister edge. His characters may be crude and immorally incorrect, but interesting enough as an observation piece that represents the madness of life. All this done through an epic journey taken by the young and shy Perhan, who discovers the crudeness of live that alters his whole believes and existence. The film plays like an opera, but without the soap, making it another Kusturica masterpiece that mixes the real with the bizarre.
I'm glad I was bored on a Friday night and decided to browse the foreign film section. I randomly picked Time of the Gypsies, and now it is my favorite. The soundtrack, as well as the movie, is amazing. This film is unique in almost every aspect. It was moving without being too gushy or fake--I highly recommend seeing it. The other commentees have said pretty much everything else about this film in an nicely eloquent way, so I feel I need not elaborate. :)
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाThe first feature to be filmed with its entire dialogue in the Gypsy language, Romany.
- कनेक्शनFeatured in Horrible Reviews: Best Movies I've Seen In 2021 (2022)
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
- How long is Time of the Gypsies?Alexa द्वारा संचालित
विवरण
- रिलीज़ की तारीख़
- कंट्री ऑफ़ ओरिजिन
- भाषाएं
- इस रूप में भी जाना जाता है
- Time of the Gypsies
- फ़िल्माने की जगहें
- Sutka, North Macedonia(most of the film)
- उत्पादन कंपनियां
- IMDbPro पर और कंपनी क्रेडिट देखें
बॉक्स ऑफ़िस
- US और कनाडा में सकल
- $2,80,015
- चलने की अवधि
- 2 घं 22 मि(142 min)
- रंग
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 1.85 : 1
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें