Um Olhar a Cada Dia

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.

Justly famous for being one of the last remaining directors still doing extraordinary cinema, in this film Angelopoulos celebrates the end of Communism in Eastern Europe, while, at the same time, looking with touching sensitivity into the lives of people molded by recent (and less recent) History. Some of the scenes related to History have already become classic, but, personally, I was more impressed by the description of the way this History affected individuals and families. Although the media has covered so amply the tragic events in the Balkans and (to a lesser extent) the external aspects of people's life, very little has been said about more human aspects which, after all, will keep affecting them for many, many years to come. In my opinion, this film offers the most complete, convincing and respectful take on the affected people's emotions, memories and relations among the (few) films, documentaries and books touching on the theme.

The scale is epic both geographically and chronologically and since Angelopoulos manages to move easily between dream and reality (one of the biggest problems facing cinema directors), the personal stories are nicely interwoven with History. Angelopoulos' characteristic long takes, in this instance serve more than giving the film a poetic atmosphere. It is necessary for his goal of looking carefully on individuals' lives and describe their joys and sorrows.

In terms of execution, there were some flaws (especially in technicalities of directing of actors) but, frankly, I don't mind that, if the alternative is perfectly executed films but lacking interesting ideas.

Greek filmmaker A travels back to his native country to show his most recent film after 35 years in America. However the religious groups protest and he is forced to abandon his plans. However he then decides to begin a search for the first pieces of film ever shot in Greece that remain unprocessed. His quest takes him across changing countries, bounders and war torn cities.

Personal films always run the risk of being too personal and losing the audience. Ulysses' Gaze runs that line very close and crosses it at times. The basic plot sees A travel across many borders and meeting many people. However the meaning of the film seems to be more about one man's obsession damaging the rest of his life and film as a means of recording history. This makes it a bit more difficult but the theme of obsession is well shown and it's A's quest that gripped me for the most part.

The direction is great – beautiful scenery, wonderful mesmeric tracking shots and long takes make for a great visual experience. However working in several languages takes it's toll and much of the english narration is weak and clumsy. That said he still paints some great pictures and the themes are mostly well developed. The scene where dialogue is played out in a misty screen for 4 minutes is great – while the huge Lenin statue is mesmerising.

However the english is weak and other flaws creep in. The use of the same woman to play several characters is an art movie cliché and just annoyed me as it seemed to serve no purpose. Keitel is not very good. He looks distracted at times – like the fact that he doesn't understand the language affected his ability to relate to those speaking it. His english dialogue is clumsily written but he does well for many key scenes.

Overall this didn't deserve to beat Underground as it is too long, has scenes that don't work and dialogue that is clumsy rather than poetic. However it still has masterful themes and visuals that make it worth watching despite the running time.

I think this is the good movie and that Angelopoulos was right on target when he showed his disappointment for not winning the Golden Palm during the 1995 Cannes Film Festival.

Not that the "Underground" was a bad movie. But the Gaze is better. The Gaze touches the source of the problem in the Balkan region. Balkans is a very beautiful region with wonderful landscapes and people with long history. There is where the problem is. There is too much history in the Balkans. Too many cultures, too many religions and too many political conflicts. The lost innocence of the Balkans, which the hero, the director "A" is looking for throughout the movie, is offered to the viewer through the movie's wonderful cinematography. There you see the best of Northern Greece, Macedonia, Albania, Serbia, Bulgaria and Romania. Many cities have different names in different languages. Many people fight with each other too. What remains in the end is the bitter-sweat taste of a region where virtue and malice go hand in hand.

One final remark. I agree with many critics who pointed out that the movie has some technical flaws, including its extremely slow pacing. Yes the movie could have been faster a.s.o. But hey, have you ever seen a better "glance" of the lost innocence of the Balkans?

People who have visited or lived in this region can surely appreciate this motion picture even more.

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!