Angelopoulos condensed

Born 1935, Greece

Studied film in Paris early 60s, leftist politically, serious intellectual, poetry lover (Seferis, Cavafy, Eliot, Rilke..)

Themes: Balkan odysseys, bleak wintry non-touristy Greece, borders, family gatherings, the sea, weaving of Greek myths and history, past and present, time as a continuum, problems of personal, national and political identity, theatre/ acting, refugees/ immigrants/ displacement/ exile, conflict-reconciliation, nostalgia, longing, memories,melancholy, strong women, sometimes epic length, early films more directly politically challenging, becoming more existential

Style: Long meditative takes with gliding travelling shots, tableaux like compositions, sparse dialogue, masterful choreography with complex (almost Musical) movements, groups, figures in a larger landscape (people like bugs on wires/ pylons/ trees), transitions in time handled smoothly within same space avoiding flashbacks, understated emotion/ dedramatisation, stretches of “dead time”, empty shots, 3/4 poses, filling vacant spots in frame, Brechtian distancing, deep recessive shots, demands viewer concentration “i don’t make films to please anyone”, distance rather than close-ups,

Regular collaborators: Arvanitis cinematography, Karaindrou music.

Influences: Acknowledges Welles and Mizoguchi (off-screen space), also compared to Antonioni for use of space, buildings, environment

Essential films: The Travelling Players (1975), Landscape in the Mist (1988), Ulysses’ Gaze (1995), Eternity and a Day (1998)

To read: The Last Modernist (ed Andrew Horton), Figures Traced in Light (David Bordwell- one excellent chapter)

His top 10 for Sight and Sound, 2002:

Citizen Kane
Ivan the Terrible
Ordet
8 1/2
Nosferatu
L’Avventura
The Gold Rush
Ugetsu Monogatari
Pickpocket
Persona

I’m not necessarily certain how to feel about Agelopoulos at the moment. Landscape in the Mist is one of the best films of the eighties, and just has this gorgeous, gliding, slightly tragic feel to it. It is just a masterpiece of a film. But, Weeping Meadow was tired, unoriginal, and boring. That film was the definition of reductive realism (if there is one), because every shot was set-up in the exact same way, and executed in the exact same manner. That became extremely tiresome. I’ve only seen those two, so, I’m basically in limbo right now.

I’ll check out the other films you recommend because Landscape… was just an astounding achievement.

Ah, my favourite is Eternity and a Day, which involved me more emotionally than usually the case with him, as you liked Landscape in the Mist perhaps it may suit you. Ulysses’ Gaze is majestic (maybe too slow, long and yes boring for many tastes), and it was another epic The Travelling Players that really put him on the map. I still liked Weeping Meadow, cos i’m into his style, but it did feel a bit of old retreading and relatively minor, and it hasn’t really stayed with me, i can understand your disappointment. I’ve heard better things of his latest Dust of Time. He’s something of a prophet in the wilderness, full of serious integrity, following his own way, unbending to audience wishes, still barely heard of outside the arthouse circuit, some would say pretentious or mannered, but at his best few around today can match him.

Oh and he can be a grumpy old sod; he made his displeasure known when Underground pipped Ulysses’ Gaze for the Cannes Palme d’Or. But then, he was quite right. Those 2 films are very different in style, he’s austere and er Kusturica isn’t!

I was just annoyed by the fact that every shot was set-up like this… master shot (long shot), that will follow the action for about a minute or so, then will stop and slowly zoom forward artificially lengthening the scene. It’s not that I can’t take a, “slow” film, or even a “slow” long film. Yang’s Yi Yi is around the same length, and many would consider it slow, but I could watch that film any day, at any time. It’s nearly 3.30 in the morning here, and if I had the film on my possession I would watch it right now, just to see all those glorious shots through glass. I just found “Weeping Meadow” to be very tedious, because of the camerawork. The story was interesting enough, and very powerful in spots (the first scene immediately grabbed my attention, and I was entranced by the film for about an hour before I even noticed this flaw), but the camera just took me out of the entire experience because every shot was exactly the same.

I will definitely check out Eternity and a Day, and Ulysses’ Gaze because I want to see Harvey Keitel in this film. I know nothing other than Harvey Keitel’s in it, and that has really piqued my interest.

Truth be told there are no films I like more than films with these great, long, meditative takes. Tarr, Tarkovsky, Jansco (as you know), Tsai, Hou, the aforementioned Yang, Jia, etc. all of whom I would rank among my favourite directors.

Why are we the only ones talking about him? I’m so tired of these “who’s your favourite/least favourite actor?” “Armageddon shouldn’t be in the criterion collection” worthless threads. Then when something actually interesting comes up to talk about three people answer it, and then it dies. I might as well go to IMDB’s forums.

Well, there are some fine people on the imdb classic boards, but here too, so hopefully there will be more interest, and anyway it’s not the ideal time of day or night for the thread (certainly for Americans) at the moment. Bruno Ganz befriends a displaced boy in Eternity and a Day; there’s a relationship that attracts more natural viewer involvement, but still i got criticised for having it at our film soc round the same time as Ghatak’s Cloud-Capped Star, which i’d pushed cos i wanted to see it (i already loved E+aD); as both films involved terminal illness i heard a couple of women saying they weren’t going to come to the film soc again, with all this depression! The beauty of the film- at times it felt to me so moving as to be an almost joyous experience- was lost on them and many others.. and Cloud-Capped Star was hated by all but a few! Heathens. (luckily the film soc did well otherwise).

I saw a retrospective of his work two years ago in the late summer and it was one of the finest cinematic experiences I’ve ever encountered. His movies really need to be seen on the big screen – those long uninterrupted scenes are pure magic.
One of my favorite scene is the 10 minute long ‘dancing’ scene in Ulysses’ Gaze (you can watch the part on youtube).

But I can imagine his work is not for the masses. I would really like to know from someone who is Greek – how is Angelopoulos’ reputation in his own homeland?

It was watching a scene in the The Travelling Players, a typical Angelopoulos moment, a group walking along and then they’re in another time, but the same place, i realised how Mizoguchi and especially Ugetsu influenced him; the scene near the end in Ugetsu when Genjuro the potter returns home to an empty home, slow (not even full) circular camera pan, and miraculously Kinuyo Tanaka is there and there’s a fire. Angelopoulos likes camera and choreography for smooth yet still surprising time transitions, not obvious flashbacks or abrupt cutting. In Ulysses’ Gaze there’s a masterful scene with family gatherings through the years, events unfolding in each, Harvey Keitel almost a ghostly observer of his own memories- and as it happens we had the same one in mind, yes the dancing scene, Grey Daisies. Superb choreography indeed!

I really want to see Harvey Keitel in a film like this… I’ve never seen an American actor in such a meditative director’s film.

And if Angelopoulos is, “…a grumpy old sod,” and did get mad that he lost the palm d’or, then I think I will enjoy his films indeed. That seems like something I would do.

This is not the Harvey Keitel of Mean Streets, Pulp Fiction or even The Piano, it’s an Angelopoulised understated wanderer Keitel

That is precisely the reason why I want to see him in the film.

Speaking of American actors in his films, I’m interested to see how Willem Dafoe does as the lead in Angelopoulos’s new film. It premiered at the Berlin International Film Festival last month, and the little I’ve read about the premiere has not been especially positive.

After having seen only Ulysses’ Gaze and Weeping Meadow, I must admit to not being a big fan of his work that I have seen so far. My view of Weeping Meadow exactly mirrors Col. Dax. I found the film a little slow, static, and not particularly well-paced in terms of dramatic events. I love long, slow movies, like those of Tarr and Tarkovsky, too, so slowness per se is not the problem, but I just can’t get that caught up in his films or themes. Ulysses’ Gaze was worthwhile mainly because of Keitel’s very understated, but powerful, performance. Still, this film had a few nice shots and scenes, but, again, no dramatic punch. Maybe it was because I was also watching Z by his earlier compatriot, Costa-Gavras, which was brilliantly paced and seductive throughout.

I will give Angelopolous another chance, as he is certainly a cut above the run-of-the-mill directors, just not as captivating for me as many others. For example, like Col. Dax said, there is no comparison between his style and Edward Yang’s in Yi Yi. I, too, could watch Yi Yi anytime, because it is so much more creative in terms of shots, alignment of characters and scenes, pacing – etc. Angelopolous just feels a little boring, in comparison. I also don’t hold him in the same esteem as Kiarostami, who I also was watching at the same time. What I do like about him, on reflection, are his longer scenes, which sometimes do really work, but a few good scenes do not a great movie make.

Landscape in the Mist is really one of best films of the eighties. It was much, much better that Weeping Meadow, and had a very strong emotive push. I would highly recommend seeing that Bob, it was an extremely good film. The essence of drama, but also extremely understated.

I would be happy to get into the thick of discussion, but sadly (again for the second time tonight) I have not seen any of Angelopolous’ work, I added Ulysses Gaze and Landscape of the Mist to my to-watch queue.

Col. Dax: Landscape in the Mist will be my next Angelopolous film – thanks.

Weeping Meadow is my least favourite of his works. Travelling Players is my favourite of his, and one of my favourite ever, with some incredible shots. The 720 degree shot in the square that shows contested space economically. There is a nice one in Days of 36 in a prison courtyard too. But this is combined with fixed camera shots: a depiction of civil war looking at one section of street particularly memorable.

The way the camera moves through time as well as space is noteworthy: two seamlessly patched tobether 180 degree shots show a woman seeing off her partner at the bottom of some steps, then the camera comes to find her back in her bedroom with her lover.

The mention of Kiarostami was interesting as he uses a couple of similar shots of hills traversed in zig zag. I also love the action happening offscreen in both The Travelling Players and Ulysses gaze, either through the camera staying fixed on a wall or not able to see through the mist.

I’m fairly new to his work and most recently watched Eternity and a Day, Weeping Meadow and Travelling Players (on crappy VHS). I am now obsessed with tracking down everything this man has done. I’m sorry but the Weeping Meadow is one of the most beautiful films ever, both in presentation and theme. I found it haunting and there are images in it I will never forget. Even if it uses the same camera set up relentlessly, it’s one awesome camera set up! The fact that his films are mostly unavailable is a tragedy and with New Yorker Films now defunct it doesn’t look like it will get any better.

Three hours of the exact same shot is not awesome, it’s boring. I appreciate the film, and it is very beautiful, but it was also interminable. I don’t think I could ever watch it again. That’s such an extremely odd choice, I have no idea why he did that. The film has a genuinely moving story, and I’m more than willing to see much more from him, but Weeping Meadow is not a great film. That final shot was astoundingly gorgeous, though, as was the first. Both have stuck with me, which is impressive being that I didn’t really enjoy most of the film.

I’ll be the first one to praise a director like Tarkovsky, Tarr, Hou, Tsai, Jia, Janos, and Angelopoulos if they’re able to make a great film that moves me without manipulating my emotions, but this film is a failure, although, a minor one at that.

i know am late on this thread yet i have to warm things up,haha.
Angelopoulos from the point of Ulysse’s Gaze and post that film has undeniably declined…not because of lack of intellect…his thorough enthusiasm has vanished,primarily and secondly,the themes of his most recent films(which astoundingly alongside Traveling Players are of his most famous???)don’t live up to the expectations of modern crowds…rebellion has ended and Greek landscape isn’t as
before,cinema to be fair has gradually fallen due to the public’s ignorance and the critics’/authoritarians’ repugnance..
and mr. Dax is a bit right mentioning the banality of tracking shots in Weeping Meadow…

i will suggest everyone from this thread and in Auteurs in general to search Megaleksandros,one of the most profound 80’s movies which has been overshadowed (largely because of a certain critical Western majority) by Landscape in the Mist..
besides Megaleksandros,the third part of his first trilogy,The Hunters (Oi Kynigoi) is exceptionally shot if not acted (Vangelis Kazan is another regular on par with Karaindrou and Arvanitis) and i MUST insist on his debut,the ferocious Reconstruction (Anaparastassi).

don’t believe the often too much hype of recent “masterpieces”,even Yi Yi seems as a very soft masterpiece compared to Mahjong by Yang…(and i am saying it because i love Yi Yi as well…)

Oh i’ve heard good things about Reconstruction, and would love to see more of his earlier films but they’re not easy to access. Sorry you didn’t love Eternity and a Day, which i found very beautiful and unusually moving. Ulysses’ Gaze is less emotionally involving but majestic.

i never said i didn’t like Ulysses ;) i also have to re-watch Eternity since i can’t recall much thus i didn’t fully mention it in my response :)
i just feel that it’s a bipolar option for many,to either dismiss or adore Angelopoulos’ style due to their exposure from ONLY the last 3-4 films of his…Melissokomos for instance is a sublime work unknown even in Greece!!!!!!!!!!!

and i can’t believe i’ll admit it…the majority of the public in Greece (and half of the critics as well) despise Angelopoulos….and half of this public percentage hasn’t even seen a film of his,they’ve just heard his films are “slow”…

I saw Eternity and a Day, blurred… I cried all along the movie… it touched me so much, personally, that I still can’t describe it in words. I felt overwhelmed by the beauty of the images, the relationship between the old and the kid, the poetry in every word, the music, the rain and the bus with the classical music band. And the love it emanes. Someone told me that the movie was some kind of a healing process for Angelopoulos, since his mother and his wife died at the same time, and he always felt he never loved them the way they deserved or, at least, he was unable to show it. Well, Eternity and a Day shows it the best way it could. By going further beyond.

Dimitris, i’m not surprised by the Greeks’ reaction, it’s not just a prophet without honour in his own country, it would be the same almost anywhere with uncompromising film-makers in a world dominated by Hollywood, action, rollercoaster entertainment and juvenile comedies etc. But Greeks should be proud.

And i’m touched by your reaction over Eternity and a Day, Ni*no*na. It was so great, even though it was sad, how can i say this without sounding ludicrous and silly, i was filled with something bordering on deep joy. Some might say that’s transcendental.

Yes! That’s exactly how I felt. It’s sad but it’s not, it’s filled with love and beauty… how can this be only sad? Then I believe mixing these two antagonists (sadness-joy) is what makes you feel totally out of everything and totally attached to it at the same time.

Ulysses Gaze didn’t work for me that much on a first viewing. It was beautiful to look at but the dialog came off as contrived and pretentious, mostly I think due to Harvey Keitel’s delivery. I normally like Keitel I just felt he was out of his element. Has anyone seen his latest work with Willem Dafoe?

I think if you are able to acclimate yourself to the extreme slowness and the you’ll have to figure out all the relationships nature of his films, you’ll be rewarded with a completeness of experience that few living directors are able to offer you—Landscape in the Mist, Eternity and a Day, Ulyses’ Gaze, and little seen The Weeping Meadow provide such rich life experiences that you can not forget them once you’ve seen them unless you give up and walk out on them because it’s too slow and you don’t know who’s who and where’s where specifically—if so, read a bare summary before you watch and relax as you fall into the movie’s sense of time, place, and rhythm—watch and listen as closely as you are able now and you’ll be so enriched as the movie slowly progresses that you won’t ever forget it and will love it in sheer gratitude for sharing its profundity of experience with you the moviegoer—that’s what I call the Angelopoulous experience. i have only recently been able to watch his movies in such a manner.

ones has to watch Reconstruction in order to fully comprehend why Angelopoulos followed this route in his career…it’s a shame there hasn’t been an official release of his debut yet,let alone Greek government’s ignorance…
by the way,what’s very terrific and totally alternative with Reconstruction is the diverse elements of the film’s procession,a rite of “castration” it is,unlike any of his other works,many of the same stylistic elements,lesser timeline though (only 100 minutes..)
it’s like watching an early Lang,Hitchcock or Buñuel film,at times quite primitive,nevertheless…equally astonishing..