To vlemma tou Odyssea

Major films and movies that I have seen have been primarily service pictures. I say service pictures because any idea being developed is immediately delivered in a reduced state right into the movie-goer's lap. It's a fast philosophy. This is unlike Ulysses' Gaze. I am still impressed by the movie because of its confidence in the viewer. I have read comments complaining about the film's overly long scenes. The scenes are an interaction between your mind and the screen. An image is produced and the director leaves the image for you to contemplate. Images shouldn't be beamed into minds as 10 second clips like Moulin Rouge. So many people explain to me their love of movies as a form of entertainment and escapism. Movies are an art form but like everything in this post-modern age, they cannot exist without the deep intellectual objective view point dividing the subjective experiences. Ulysses' Gaze does not REQUIRE patience it rewards contemplation and understanding.

Story-wise the plot is just as basic as The Wizard of Oz. An individual must journey to find home and a complete soul. I found it as a superb movie with its various allusions to mythology and actual history.

Somebody once said that DW Griffith is to blame for having a wide open horizon, full of possibilities, and settling for melodrama as the blueprint of the movie-going experience.

However, once in a long while, a film comes along that breaks the mold and shows us once again what can be done. Glimpses only, hints at untapped potential. "2001: A Space Odyssey" is one such example. Fellini's "Satyricon" is another. "Solaris" by Tarkovsky. And so is "Ulysses' Gaze". There are more.

I like to be challenged, even as I enjoy some standard Hollywood fare. I like to be shaken up with the promise of a nudge towards enlightenment. I love to feel awakened from my everyday, sleepwalking mode.

Granted, "Ulysses' Gaze" is NOT for everyone. But to dismiss this film as "another one of those art films", to call it bloated, is an exercise in laziness. And to condemn Angelopoulos of arrogance, well, how about considering the terms confidence and conviction instead? I do not pretend to understand "Ulysses' Gaze", the film is so riddled with ambiguities and leaps back and forth into the realm of the subconscious and the surreal. I just allow myself to go with the flow, and regard a world that is so outside of the grid that it is like watching a transmission from another planet, with real people I identify, sharing genuine affection in small gestures. And even though the English dialogue is lacking at times, there is not a single one of those "Hallmark moments" that seems to pervade in contemporary Hollywood fare.

As for the prolonged landscape scenes, they show parts of the world (Albania, Bulgaria) that are as unknown to me as the bottom of the ocean. If just for this alone, I am hypnotized.

To make the effort, to absorb "Ulysses' Gaze", is a small step towards understanding the ruthless, constant plight of the people of that small corner of the world that is the Balkans. Just one small corner. Imagine.

I have to say that "Ulysses' Gaze" is an incredible film, one of a few by which XX century's great cinema should (and will) eventually be regarded.

One of the most beautiful, poetic films ever made. The opening scenes are pure, unbeatable art. Rather than the unwinding of the complex narrative itself, it is the visual power of the images that Angelopoulos offers us that make this work so disturbing and beautiful. You have to watch the film as a series of paintings, poems, installations and performances rather than a conventional movie. The acting is superb, especially Harvey Keitel's performance, one of the best that this great actor has ever delivered. Especially memorable is the scene in which an old woman is taken for a ride to her hometown in Macedonia by Keitel. The woman left Macedonia before the advent of Communism and is now returning to her country for the first time in decades. Since her absence, her place has been transformed in a nightmarish communist city, filled with gray, impersonal, concrete buildings. We see the woman helpless and bewildered in an environment that she no longer recognizes, while Keitel goes away. A powerful metaphor of the fast and tremendous transformations suffered by the Balkans during the 20th century.

This is above all a lesson in history. A poignant monument to the memory and fate of Europe.

With "Ulysses' Gaze", Theo Angelopoulos proves that he is one of the most influential figures in contemporary cinema. This film explores the idea of how people must go through their personal Odyssey to reach their destination with an unbelievable poetic quality. By exploring the idea of this journey, Angelopoulos shows how much he is influenced by the poems of Nobel prize-winning Greek poet George Seferis. The atmosphere of the film is admittedly extraordinary, aided by the terrific cinematography of Giorgos Arvanitis, Angelopoulos' collaborator since "Reconstruction" (1972).

But the incredibly dense philosophical context of the film does not stop there, as Angelopoulos depicts the tumultuous history of twentieth-century Balkans with extreme precision and artistry.

Harvey Keitel gave the best performance of his career, even managing to speak a few sentences in Greek without sounding too awkward. Maia Morgenstern (as symbols for Penelope, Nausikaa, Circe and Calypso in her multiple roles) and Erland Josephson are also quite good, while Thanassis Vengos gives a tragi-comic note to the film, with his performance as the taxi driver.

The fact that I am Greek (and therefore I am familiar with the political situation and able to identify with events better) admittedly played a major part in my interpretation of "Ulysses' Gaze" and non-Balkan viewers may find it difficult to identify with the film. However, the idea of the journey is universal and it is a pity that Angelopoulos is often dismissed by most Greeks as being too "difficult".

I have remarked that most American film critics are voting a lot of European films too low. I think the reason why is that they have difficulties to understand them because they know too little of the European history. I think that this film is an example of it. You have to have a very deep insight in the history of Greece and the Balkan to understand this film. Beside the beautiful cinematography, there is more to look for an understanding. It's a pity that a lot of Americans are knowing so little of history, because so there critics are missing a lot!