El Greco

This was a big thing when it came out, fellow Greek readers will attest to that. It was aggressively promoted as both 'expensive' and 'prestigious', it seems a rare thing for Greek cinema. The story went that the filmmaker had to mortgage his own house to finance his vision, proof of bold artistic merit. The movie played theatrically for what seemed like endless months - to make back its partly government-subsidized budget the rumor goes, since little interest materialized abroad. Schools planned 'educational' trips to the cinema, probably for the same reason.

How small it seems now. You can see loftier production values on TV, and probably much better acting and a less grating parade of profundities.

What really offends though is the spirit behind the work. It's not that it is dull and completely without insight about its own craft. It is both these things, but that's a simple incompetence. I mean, here is a film about a man of extraordinary vision who wanted to paint with light, and the 'inspirational' film about him is wholly ordinary, as lush and spiritual as perfume. What poor use of Aris Stavrou, who once liked to puzzle (next to Nikos Nikolaidis) about texture and light.

It's that Smaragdis hoped to capture a bit of Greek soul (not necessarily historical 'truth') and journey with it abroad, a noble aim. Capture us as we dream ourselves to be, feisty and passionate Zorbas, made pensive by centuries of hardship - a bit like Kusturica did for the neighboring Yugoslavs.

The film is set in those centuries of foreign rule, Italian and Ottoman elsewhere. There was no Rennaisance allowed in those times, it would be good to note, no lofty national art as they could develop in the salons of Western Europe. Our painting was religious. Our theater was song and dance, from Thrace to Crete. The collective soul had to pour that way, which is why they still persist and resonate so strongly in these parts - as elsewhere in the former empire.

You will know it's all phony by watching the scene of proud Cretans dancing after a skirmish with the Italians. You'd think, if there was a bit of ancient Greek song rising from the earth, it would be in that scene. If you are ever in the region, go to a Cretan wedding or folk fest, in fact anywhere in rural Greece during times of celebration. Then watch the posturing in the film. Dismal.

If you want to know a bit about these things, to see actual Balkan spirit, seek out a man called Sergei Parajanov. He was Armenian who made films under Soviet rule, but it is the same soul he captured.

This film is the biggest production of Greek movie history.It cost 10,5 mil$ and was directed by a Cretan director, who wanted to tell the story of the biggest Cretan painter, and one of the greatest painters of all time, El Greco. The passion ,the film was made off, is profound and you can spot it all over the screen.The music by Vangelis is superb,cinematography makes the film to look like a live painting, performances are great and extremely vivid, sets and costumes are glorious.The movie was filmed at three countries, Greece, Italy, and Spain, which where the countries El Greco lived and created his masterpieces.If you know the work of Greco, this film is a grate opportunity to learn a lot about his life and where his passion came from.

The tag line of this movie is "Can darkness overcome light?"

Honestly i was expecting something much better. El Greco is one of the most important painters of Renaissance so, a film about his life should stress that importance. Instead ,we see a poorly written ,poorly acted film whose main focus is the costumes and the scenery. Almost all the actors have a terrible accent, which is understandable for their characters as they are Greeks/Spaniards/Italians etc. But then we have an El Greco, a Greek person mind you, who has a perfect British accent! Casting was poorly done and i'd rather see a Greek actor play El Greco. All in all, the film is watchable, but with all the money put into it, you'd expect something much, much better.

Just as this film has a lot of elements that can easily make it aspire to greatness, it is not without visible flaws and weak moments. Nonetheless in the end, it rises above its own flaws, leaving a very positive after-taste. I just feel sad I did not see this film earlier in the theaters, and only managed to see it recently on DVD. At the same time, I feel sad this film didn't take it one step further and become what it was so close to achieving.

For people waiting to explore the artist's character in-depth, understand his passions or his motivation, or admire a kaleidoscope that unlocks the artist's mind to the viewer, disappointment awaits in the corner, because this film does not explore those elements to a satisfactory level.

Nonetheless, the film does not really boast any of that, to start with. The story of it is staged early and very deliberately in the scheme of a broader conflict between light and darkness, and the portrayal of the artist is shown almost entirely through that prism. And it delivers this very well.

Right from the start, an intense scene puts us right in the proper atmosphere, and then the movie continues with a narrative that eventually carries us out seamlessly back into the initial scene, adding context, and appropriately coloring the characters in the meantime.

Costumes are fitting, although their quality ranges, and sometimes poor costume quality sneaks in. But not something that detracts from the bigger picture.

The music is great, of course, and adds a lot of value to the film.

The scenes are seamless and tie well with each other and the narrative that goes on in the background. The scenery is also attractive and adds a lot of character.

The actual script seems to have a lot of weak points (though that is not uncommon in Greek productions, and with this one it is still miles ahead of others).

The first serious issue of the script is the mix of languages. It probably started as a good idea, trying to portray linguistic differentiation, but soon enough, poor accents, weak dialogue (perhaps cut down even further so as not to linguistically challenge the actors) happens almost the entire time and detracts from the film.

The second issue is the dialogues themselves. The actors are great, and perfectly capable of portraying a lot more than the dialogues allow them to say. This is a shame.

The script's saving grace is the English narrative, which is respectable, and the ability of the actors (and the director, sometimes) who manage to convey with emotion what the script's words aren't adequate to show.

The film is otherwise well-laid out, despite some lighting issues (some scenes feel far too bright), and sound issues (audio ranges too wildly between near-whisper and wild shouting and banging).

I didn't have to try to overlook the shortcomings of this film in order to enjoy it. I certainly enjoyed watching it, and was glad I did, despite all the shortcomings.

Oscar nomination? Heh, perhaps not. But definitely a respectable, enjoyable film with some good moments, that is certainly worth watching.

The screenplay is at times good, the sets and costumes passable, the story is good and nearer to the truth than most biopics -it even attempts to wove social and philosophical themes into the life of a gifted artist and his relationship with the man who admired him but could not become him.

But, the photography is standard fare -as if it were made for television. The cinematographer fails miserably to grasp the opportunity afforded by telling the life of a painter in authoring with light and shadow and colors. It seems they did nothing but use textbook light and print what was in the camera without any of the care that makes Spielberg's cinematographers worth applauding.

The direction is honest but it falls into the trap of directing actors in what to do and how to do it, instead of allowing them to breathe their own life into the film, for themselves. The actors, most of the time are the slaves of the cinematographer as puppets in ever-changing dramatic photographs.

Nick Ashdon portrayed the main character as well as he was allowed by a limp and insecure director -unfortunately watching Nick Ashdon as El Greco was an exercise in trying to remember that I was not watching Joseph Fiennes in Shakespeare in Love.

Juan Diego Botto as Niño de Guevara must have, in rehearsals, given director Smaragdis an expression from a certain camera angle that the director liked a lot, so he must have asked Botto to keep repeating it throughout the movie.

There are some really bizarre moments of editing that make you wonder whether the director was interfering in the editor's work without the skill to do so, or whether the editor sneaked-in a few cuts that the director missed before the release. Then again they might have both been trying to make a dramatic statement but the efforts bore no fruit.

This film is a genuinely honest effort by a genuine Greek director and crew to make a labor of love in telling the story and the soul of a great man. I urge you to watch it with this in mind. Because otherwise you will watch a film where the director, despite his passion, just didn't have what it takes.