Landscape In The Mist
The film was quite fine. The children were wonderful — so serious, so purposeful. Only toward the end, from the motorcycle gathering and the scene in the gay club onward, did Angelopoulos seem to run out of fuel. But how to end this? It is as if he’d done the opposite of painting himself into a corner — he’d painted himself into infinity: there could be no exactly right place to leave these children. And so he left them with that single tree in a field in what might be “Germany.”
But you are in for even greater experiences if this is your first look at Angelopoulos. See THE WEEPING MEADOW and ETERNITY AND A DAY.
ULYSSES’ GAZE is more difficult and wants even more patience than you’ve already given him, but drop a few white crosses or drink a pot of coffee and watch that too.
Theo Angelopoulos may be the greatest living director, a master of the long take and choreography. His slow pacing and seriousness count against his being better known and appreciated; he’s an uncompromising prophet in the wilderness.
Acknowledged influences; Mizoguchi and Welles. His use of space and architecture has been compared to Antonioni.
There are references to Greek history in his work (e.g The Travelling Players), the odyssey or journey is common to his films, wandering, refugees, the sea, processions, family gatherings, (the choreography, slow movements even relate to musicals), memories, fluid time changes, (a group will sometimes move from one shot to another in the same place with a jump in time), leftist politics, poetry, bleak wintry Greece contrasting with the sunny tourist image.
Eternity and a Day deservedly won at Cannes, i found it very moving, which is not always the case with Angelopoulos, and Ulysses’ Caze is a great masterpiece too. He was (rightly) annoyed it lost out to Underground for the 1995 Palme d’Or
The music of Eleni Karaindrou and the cinematography of Arvanitis, Angelopoulos regulars, are magnificent
I would recommend David Bordwell’s book Figures Traced in Light, which devotes a detailed chapter to him, and also the book of collected essays The Last Modernist. .
Angelopoulos’ top 10 for Sight and Sound poll 2002:
Citizen Kane (Welles)
Ivan the Terrible (Eisenstein)
Ordet (Dreyer)
8 1/2 (Fellini)
Nosferatu (Murnau)
L’Avventura (Antonioni)
The Gold Rush (Chaplin)
Ugetsu Monogatari (Mizoguchi)
Pickpocket (Bresson)
Persona (Bergman)
nothing since 1966
I watched the film on netflix last night. It certainly had several great scenes and beautiful cinematography, but towards the end it became a bit sentimental at times I felt. Maybe I should try to watch it all at once without interruption, and I’d have a better feel for the film, but I felt certain scenes relied way too much on the score. Just my two cents.
It’s amazing how different people can view groups of films. The Seventh Seal is I would say my fourth favorite film of all time.
Landscape in the Mist I hated. I felt like the children were being used and abused by the director to make the world seem unqualifyingly harsh and horrible in kind of manipulative way. I couldn’t help but feel like the director was giving off a tone of self importance with the way he presented images such as the raped girl bleeding, the horse dying, the hand coming out of the water as if these images on their own are important enough to warrent profundity even though they aren’t really connected to any kind of specific reality.
Wow. I forgot I even created this thread. I haven’t revisited this film since then and now remembering things about it, I don’t think I feel the same about it.
So since the approximately two years ago when you posted it what has changed?
A highly vague and “I really didn’t want to understand the film” remark up above (as “subjective” as it may be) because Landscape in the Mist is amongst the 200 Greek masterpieces I’ve watched period and if seen as an allegory, the struggle of the two siblings can be seen as a plague of the immigrant “journeys” and the deficiency of childhood in a monstrous adult world. Yes, that’s a fine argument to begin with.
As far as I’m aware of, Angelopoulos constantly manipulates his actors / actresses and that’s not inherently such a bad thing (Bresson ravishes them all the time but Bresson is a fucking saint because he brings in the fucking religiousness?), Tania Palaiologou, the lead actress of this film even played a cameo part in Ulysses Gaze and he’s even casted several familiar faces from previous films, so manipulation is pretty much a pointless comment above.
Yup, the world is harsh and bleak and a ruthless culture of “the herd” in many places where the distinction of the West’s “shining” light (in the face of Germany as a checkpoint for the kids’ "salvation) and Greece’s and the rest of the Balkan’s “servitude” is filled with moody strangers and desperate youths. Why should there be “self-importance” in a post-rape image? Things like this happen and we don’t have to perform subtle sceneries to limit their importance.
Why can’t the hand be connected to any past-present reality? It can be a symbolic death of the antique “stereotypes” in which Greece has been identified with all along, ever since its proclamation from the “major nations” as a land of tourist carelessness and sleek meadows of fresh air and “beauty”. Just like the horse which is a parallel to nature’s finale and not just in Greece but in the whole spectrum of Balkan territorial environment (of then but also nowadays!!!), the same line is drawn with the hand’s eruption to the sky’s glory and eternity, in a way, a metamorphosis of the new generation’s adventurous scopes, ambitions, perhaps exultations on behalf of the children, the generation of questionmarks, of parental rejection (the father figure is always present in the form of the “peculiar” masculine encounters but never in the flesh), of the epitome of antiquity and onto a fresh, liberal, “infant”-like start, stretching the hand to the death of old customs and the rebirth of a contemporary attitude.
Aye, one has to be aware of the political-social background of anything before “emotionally” judging works of art like almost everything of Angelopoulos films are, one has to inspect history and culture and shouldn’t criticize as vaguely and foolishly as that comment above.
I’m actually glad I don’t and won’t rank my favorite films, I prefer to list them in alphabetical order, at least the 5-star ones ;)
P.S.: Tommy, I hope that what made you change your mind for this Angelopoulos hasn’t changed you from exploring the bulk of his other masterpieces up until Ulysses (you know me Kenji how I feel about the latest of his)
if seen as an allegory, the struggle of the two siblings can be seen as a plague of the immigrant “journeys” and the deficiency of childhood in a monstrous adult world. Yes, that’s a fine argument to begin with.
It is a fine argument, just not presented in a way I was too keen on.
As far as I’m aware of, Angelopoulos constantly manipulates his actors / actresses and that’s not inherently such a bad thing (Bresson ravishes them all the time but Bresson is a fucking saint because he brings in the fucking religiousness?), Tania Palaiologou, the lead actress of this film even played a cameo part in Ulysses Gaze and he’s even casted several familiar faces from previous films, so manipulation is pretty much a pointless comment above.
Just to clarify, I wasn’t saying he was manipulating the actors / actresses, but rather using them to manipulate the audience.
Yup, the world is harsh and bleak and a ruthless culture of “the herd” in many places where the distinction of the West’s “shining” light (in the face of Germany as a checkpoint for the kids’ "salvation) and Greece’s and the rest of the Balkan’s “servitude” is filled with moody strangers and desperate youths.
Yes, it’s harsh and bleak and ruthless, but it’s not all that. I guess I need a tinge of optimism.
Why should there be “self-importance” in a post-rape image? Things like this happen and we don’t have to perform subtle sceneries to limit their importance.
It’s not the sceneries that limit the importance, but that endow it with importance. That’s how it works for me at least.
Why can’t the hand be connected to any past-present reality? It can be a symbolic death of the antique “stereotypes” in which Greece has been identified with all along, ever since its proclamation from the “major nations” as a land of tourist carelessness and sleek meadows of fresh air and “beauty”. Just like the horse which is a parallel to nature’s finale and not just in Greece but in the whole spectrum of Balkan territorial environment (of then but also nowadays!!!), the same line is drawn with the hand’s eruption to the sky’s glory and eternity, in a way, a metamorphosis of the new generation’s adventurous scopes, ambitions, perhaps exultations on behalf of the children, the generation of questionmarks, of parental rejection (the father figure is always present in the form of the “peculiar” masculine encounters but never in the flesh), of the epitome of antiquity and onto a fresh, liberal, “infant”-like start, stretching the hand to the death of old customs and the rebirth of a contemporary attitude.
It could be, and that’s great if that’s what it was to you. I didn’t find anything like that in it.
Aye, one has to be aware of the political-social background of anything before “emotionally” judging works of art like almost everything of Angelopoulos films are, one has to inspect history and culture and shouldn’t criticize as vaguely and foolishly as that comment above.
That would be nice, and in this case I really didn’t. I wouldn’t really know where to start or where to end though. So maybe in your eyes my opinion isn’t as valid. It’s not even as valid in my own eyes. But the OP said “I guess the purpose of the post is to see how everyone else feel about the film.” so that’s just what I was trying to be honest about.
“but rather using them to manipulate the audience.”
Bresson does exactly the same thing.
“I didn’t find anything like that in it.”
….but you hardly analyzed anything in your negative review, so it’s obvious you didn’t find anything in it since you didn’t bother to research it. There is a difference between being eloquent about a work of art and between rejecting it without even knowing WHY and WHAT we’re watching.
“I wouldn’t really know where to start or where to end though.”
There is NO END to knowledge. None, zilch, nil. Knowledge is vast and far beyond skyscrapers.
“I guess I need a tinge of optimism.”
An allegorical reality doesn’t have any optimism when it critiques the socio-financial “landscape” of a country which has to be seen THAT WAY in the eyes of a privileged foreigner. It’s the only way to appreciate that kind of allegory, to realize the drought, the sterility, the fragility of this valley, of that meadow, of this cavern, of that filthy avenue…
Beauty is dead once Angelopoulos presents a reality which others have ravished, just like they ravish Youth in the film.
I still think that this is one of the better films I’ve seen. I think what I come to realize so far is that I’m going to have those reawakening instances where I see what can really be done with the cinema. I wouldn’t say that if I watched it now for the first time I wouldn’t have that same feeling, but I think it wouldn’t be as great in the way of what I’ve been exposed to since.
I’m not staying away from Angelopoulos. I’ve seen one other and I’m still interested in seeing more. I just dont want to restrict my exposure to Greek cinema solely his work. I’m just looking for something else is all. I’d like to see more by Koundouros. I’ve only seen Young Aphrodites.
For what it’s worth, Landscape in the Mist is as excellent as Seventh Seal and SHOULD be classified as masterful as Bergman’s film for future generations…
…but that will not happen ‘cause that’s how the academic elites work they way through a “canon”.
Anyhow, it’s great to see you’re willing to push the boundaries of film-watching more but haste not, Angelopoulos is a juicy way to start whatever the case may be (I can link you however to SurrealMoviez’s Greek film catalogue, haha) since you can discover through his films many exemplary acting / screen-writing / musical / cinematographic figures.
….AND it will be brilliant if others comment on the film and not only in an “emotional” level!
People find Angelopoulos an entirely “emotional” director? I’ve heard Dimitris speak about sentimentality in his later films but I hardly think his merit should come from that only.
Angelopoulos functions (At least as I have seen in his earlier films) on an intellectual playing field rather than a sentimental one. Alexander the Great is one of the greatest summations of film art I’ve ever seen and Angelopoulos didn’t need to rely on sentimentality to get his point across. The second to last shot has no dialogue but creates a perfect encapsulation of tyrants on an intellectual level. I found the sequence in question to be a bold move and it doesn’t need to be explained on an emotional level. Everything is immediately understood.
If people took the time to do some research maybe they would be able to understand it that much better. It isn’t hard nor is immensely time consuming. I find it odd that people have a hard time understanding Angelopoulos and readily accept other directors with other countries seeping with culture(I’m talking to you Bergman,Bresson, Fellini and Tarkovsky fans.).
Oh, I like this film much more than The Seventh Seal. Landscape in the Mist was my first Angelopoulos, and still my favorite with very high regard to the others I’ve seen.
For myself, I don’t need a tinge of optimism in my films. Human nature doesn’t always allow for optimism. The world is cruel, and oftentimes for the young. Yet, as ultimately fruitless as these children’s quest is, if you’re looking for optimism it’s easily found in their undaunted determinism to improve their lives, to find their father, no matter what horrific events befall them. They never stop—endlessly running after that tree in the haze, that unreachable goal.
There is a beauty in helplessness—in that it’s what we all ultimately face. But hope is always there, and is the driving force of this film.
C’mon, goddammit, let’s get into a conversation.
This film needs to be understood as part of a trilogy(with Voyage To Cythera and The Beekeeper), as following on almost directly from his previous trilogy(historical trilogy). The children find themselves in a nation that has been fragmented, divided, and slowly losing its sense of collective identity. As a consequence, the kids have no real identity to hang on to, and search for their father in order to get one(symbolic absence). It’s a society where people only connect briefly and then depart shortly after, leaving them alone(think of the opening sequence with the train, how the kids try to reach out, hang on momentarily, only to be left alone, with sounds of the train echoing in the distance. It’s both a metaphor for their entire journey and sets up the narrative structure of the film)
Here is something i posted on another Mubi thread about the film; ways of trying to think about what it’s possibly doing:
“As for your point about his characters lacking obvious ‘psychologization’, that’s true, but it’s also quite strange when you consider that, in a movie such as Landscape In The Mist, he clearly wants us to emotionally relate/identify with the characters and their journey, yet we have to fil in the blanks ourselves. He isn’t Antonioni in this regard. he doesn’t want us to just observe the characters in their environment with cool detachment. at least not in Landscape In The Mist anyway. The coming of age/maturity allegory is the most popular interpretation of the film, but it’s also the most problematic. if that’s the case, what’ is Angelopoulos saying about children today, Greek or otherwise? That they are rootless? This is one possible explanation. Think of the disconnected hand pulled out of the water for a minute. Is it significant that all the kids—including Oresti, the young adult—are witnessing this seemingly random event? Is the hand disconnected from a statue analogous to children disconnected from a wider integrated culture? Is this a statement about cultural fragmentation? About the breakdown of traditional community? I personally believe that on some level it is, but there is more.
The ‘maturity’ angle is interesting too, esp when you consider that the boy, who was previously shy and lacking in confidence, becomes all assertive at the end, while the young girl recedes into the background."
East vs West: “east dreaming of the west’ observation. i don’t think it’s a coincidence that their ‘father’ is supposedly in Germany, a country that generally represents prosperity to the east as the business hub of Western Europe. Germany is the ‘landscape in the mist’, the promised land. And Greeks, despite their overt patriotism, have often felt that life is indeed better ‘elsewhere’, and this movie, to some degree, can be read as an extension of that.”
Also, think of the ending for a second, where the kids supposedly ‘cross the border’. There is no Greek/German border, so this border is obviously metaphorical, or arguably metaphysical.(Angelopoulos says it’s metaphysical). But Theo also says the children don’t die because we only hear one shot, yet the sequence feels extraordinarily dreamlike, like something out of a poem or a children’s story. And they finally see the ‘magical tree’ that the little boy tries to see in the film strip earlier on in the film.
What does this mean? A tree is a symbol of hope yes? But to what end, in the context of this film? How are we meant to interpret this ending exactly?
I’m not sure it’s such a downbeat ending.
Bresson does exactly the same thing.
That’s true. I just wanted to clarify what I was saying. However I find the way that Bresson manipulates has more basis.
….but you hardly analyzed anything in your negative review, so it’s obvious you didn’t find anything in it since you didn’t bother to research it. There is a difference between being eloquent about a work of art and between rejecting it without even knowing WHY and WHAT we’re watching.
That’s true, but no one called on me to do that. The OP just asked how I feel about it. That was my honest answer. Maybe I’d feel differently about it if I did some research.
There is NO END to knowledge. None, zilch, nil. Knowledge is vast and far beyond skyscrapers.
There’s no end to what can potentially be known, but there is limits to what an individual person can learn. There are only so many hours in a day and so many years in our lives. We have to be selective about what we endeavor to learn and what the source is, otherwise we will sit at our computers surfing the internet casually filling our minds with pages and pages of worthless comments and die not having found any useful information that we can put into action.
An allegorical reality doesn’t have any optimism when it critiques the socio-financial “landscape” of a country which has to be seen THAT WAY in the eyes of a privileged foreigner. It’s the only way to appreciate that kind of allegory, to realize the drought, the sterility, the fragility of this valley, of that meadow, of this cavern, of that filthy avenue…
Beauty is dead once Angelopoulos presents a reality which others have ravished, just like they ravish Youth in the film.
That’s just an opinion.
Also what is there to appreciate if there is no beauty? For me beauty exists where there is truth. If there is no beauty there is no truth.
Yet, as ultimately fruitless as these children’s quest is, if you’re looking for optimism it’s easily found in their undaunted determinism to improve their lives, to find their father, no matter what horrific events befall them. They never stop—endlessly running after that tree in the haze, that unreachable goal.
I don’t find much optimism unless there is at least a thread of hope to hang on to. Even if it’s a thread.
EDIT: Let me specify more what I mean here. If there is a world presented where there are characters who are seeking or striving towards something good and they believe there is reason to hope, but we as an audience are told by the film that there is no reason to hope for them, then that is not optimistic. That is very pessimistic. We as an audience also need to have a sense of the possibility of hope in order for it to be optimistic.
“However I find the way that Bresson manipulates has more basis.”
There is no favorable reasoning for any kind of manipulation. Angelopoulos’ talent is up there with Bresson’s even if both torture their actors / actresses. Irregardless how one “feels” for any of their outcomes / actions within the respective films.
“We have to be selective about what we endeavor to learn and what the source is, otherwise we will sit at our computers surfing the internet casually filling our minds with pages and pages of worthless comments and die not having found any useful information that we can put into action.”
Being selective to each and one culture / knowledge. Your reasoning just now is precisely why my country is merely known through 5 ancient fucked up names and nothing more but aggressive financial / political massacres from the Big Countries of this dastardly reckless earth….
Nothing is worthless when you enter that world of endlessness and learn how to divide stuff. Max from our own MUBI community suggested me listen to his music blog and frankly, I’ll take his music blog 1000 times than getting “acquainted” with what MTV wants me to be fed with ;) See, there is a difference with everything and nothing’s impossible, we just have to open our horizons more and integrate ourselves with cultures, like I have done many times to the American for instance, albeit because we live in an American world.
“For me beauty exists where there is truth. If there is no beauty there is no truth.”
Kant and Bruno and Averroes and even Hypatia and Stuart Mill would disagree with you. Beauty isn’t truth, Truth(s) exist in nature, in fluidity, in free-spirited pathos, beauty exists in imperfection (which has been often called as ugliness) and if that beauty has been distorted by dreams of antique perversion (native culture) and dreams of “foreign” totality (Western culture), then that beauty is as grim as it gets because it has been ravished and it has to be shown no strings attached. Live in this country for a while or even better, get accustomed with history, with information about it and you’ll perfectly understand what Angelopoulos shows, the same way you have to comprehend the universality of a Sembene or a Mizoguchi. It is exactly the same thing with the many masters of cinema and all arts.
The OP OBVIOUSLY requests about your emotions but if we were to stick with one OP question, we wouldn’t have been able to converse more and express larger possibilities and infinite dialectic proportions. We don’t remain in one singular question, that’s the magic of ABUNDANT knowledge.
There is no favorable reasoning for any kind of manipulation. Angelopoulos’ talent is up there with Bresson’s even if both torture their actors / actresses. Irregardless how one “feels” for any of their outcomes / actions within the respective films.
Ok, so I thought we clarified this, but I guess not. I’m not talking at all about how the director treats their actors. I’m talking about how a director treats their characters.
Also, not to be too anal, but you have picked on me for misspelling at times before, I want to point out that “irregardless” is not an actual English word. It seems to be a mutation of the word “regardless”.
Being selective to each and one culture / knowledge. Your reasoning just now is precisely why my country is merely known through 5 ancient fucked up names and nothing more but aggressive financial / political massacres from the Big Countries of this dastardly reckless earth….
Nothing is worthless when you enter that world of endlessness and learn how to divide stuff. Max from our own MUBI community suggested me listen to his music blog and frankly, I’ll take his music blog 1000 times than getting “acquainted” with what MTV wants me to be fed with ;) See, there is a difference with everything and nothing’s impossible, we just have to open our horizons more and integrate ourselves with cultures, like I have done many times to the American for instance, albeit because we live in an American world.
What do you mean by “learn how to divide stuff”? It seems like this is exactly what I was saying. MTV is in the same category of as the “pages and pages of worthless comments” on the internet I was referring to. We are all making judgement calls here. You are making judgement calls about what to learn as well.
Kant and Bruno and Averroes and even Hypatia and Stuart Mill would disagree with you. Beauty isn’t truth, Truth(s) exist in nature, in fluidity, in free-spirited pathos, beauty exists in imperfection (which has been often called as ugliness) and if that beauty has been distorted by dreams of antique perversion (native culture) and dreams of “foreign” totality (Western culture), then that beauty is as grim as it gets because it has been ravished and it has to be shown no strings attached. Live in this country for a while or even better, get accustomed with history, with information about it and you’ll perfectly understand what Angelopoulos shows, the same way you have to comprehend the universality of a Sembene or a Mizoguchi. It is exactly the same thing with the many masters of cinema and all arts.
I’m not exactly sure what you are saying here. Grim beauty is still beauty, and grim truth has a grim beauty. You seem to be contradicting yourself because earlier you say Angelopoulos shows a world where beauty is dead. Now you are saying it’s not dead but grim. That’s a very different scenario in my mind.
The OP OBVIOUSLY requests about your emotions but if we were to stick with one OP question, we wouldn’t have been able to converse more and express larger possibilities and infinite dialectic proportions. We don’t remain in one singular question, that’s the magic of ABUNDANT knowledge.
I’m not asking us to stick to the OP question, but I’m saying different questions have different answers. Don’t take my answer to his question as an answer to a question you had not even asked yet.
“I’m talking about how a director treats their characters.”
Bresson treats Mouchette the same way Angelopoulos treats Voula. Torturing an individual to portray someone / something is a crucial addition to the role.
“You are making judgement calls about what to learn as well.”
However, not a single Greek MASTERPIECE led you to this new world of knowledge I was talking about. There still remains a difference.
“Grim beauty is still beauty, and grim truth has a grim beauty.”
I’m not that difficult to comprehend, please don’t insinuate otherwise or insinuate anything again about my arguments as I haven’t done so about yours. No, grimness comes from ugliness and beauty is derived from many places but it can’t be the same as death or grimness. Something CAN contain beauty or tenderness or feelings but it’s not beautiful as a whole.
Aye, I am allowed to reverse words and possibilities. Repetitive criticism = boredom and typical “emotional” exasperation and I’m tired of that sort of criticism.
“but I’m saying different questions have different answers.”
That logic is the problem with most academic approaches in Art these days. No, 1 + 1 doesn’t equal 2 all the fucking time. One question can have a trillion responsive variations and as many possible labyrinths and detours as it can handle! If we were to be straightforward most of the times in our lives, logic would consume our research and thus our research will form itself in “familiar” junctions without the need to expand and to adore and to mingle more and more and more and more.
(p.s.: thanks on that misspelled word but it’s completely irrelevant since it’s not a general cinematic argument here but an argument on a film but I doubt I can make anyone change their minds on masterpieces I admire, which is why I’ve stopped promoting Greek cinema here and anywhere else)
Bresson treats Mouchette the same way Angelopoulos treats Voula. Torturing an individual to portray someone / something is a crucial addition to the role.
Well honestly Mouchette is probably my least favorite Bresson film. Maybe you’ve helped me identify part of why that is.
However, not a single Greek MASTERPIECE led you to this new world of knowledge I was talking about. There still remains a difference.
You told me I earlier needed to do research outside of these “masterpieces” and not just let the works stand on their own. Now are you saying my research for one masterpiece should be by seeking other masterpieces? (and by masterpieces I assume you mean films?)
I’m not that difficult to comprehend, please don’t insinuate otherwise or insinuate anything again about my arguments as I haven’t done so about yours.
It’s not insinuation. I think I’m being pretty clear. I’m being honest here. Truely there are many times when I don’t comprehend you. Do you want me to lie and pretend that I do? If you ever don’t understand what I’m trying to communicate I would hope you would let me know. There’s nothing to be offended by. Some times communication isn’t always perfect. That’s why it’s a good thing that we are having a back and forth dialogue here.
No, grimness comes from ugliness and beauty is derived from many places but it can’t be the same as death or grimness. Something CAN contain beauty or tenderness or feelings but it’s not beautiful as a whole.
Nothing about that statement seems to go against my statement “Grim beauty is still beauty, and grim truth has a grim beauty”
Aye, I am allowed to reverse words and possibilities. Repetitive criticism = boredom and typical “emotional” exasperation and I’m tired of that sort of criticism.
That’s fine. I never said you shouldn’t be.
That logic is the problem with most academic approaches in Art these days. No, 1 + 1 doesn’t equal 2 all the fucking time. One question can have a trillion responsive variations and as many possible labyrinths and detours as it can handle! If we were to be straightforward most of the times in our lives, logic would consume our research and thus our research will form itself in “familiar” junctions without the need to expand and to adore and to mingle more and more and more and more.
Exactly. I said different questions have different answers. But I never said that different questions don’t have many answers.
(p.s.: thanks on that misspelled word but it’s completely irrelevant since it’s not a general cinematic argument here but an argument on a film but I doubt I can make anyone change their minds on masterpieces I admire, which is why I’ve stopped promoting Greek cinema here and anywhere else)
I know it’s irrelevant, but I’m just anal about a few selective things I feel compelled to point out. What exactly is your purpose in this thread and discussion then if not to promote Greek cinema?
^ My purpose is to vanquish negativity.
“Truely there are many times when I don’t comprehend you.”
That’s because you neither try nor make any attempts to do so. Which is why I’m constantly annoyed discussing with you and I’m even more annoyed by you keep polluting this thread with nonsense.
“That’s fine. I never said you shouldn’t be.”
You did imply I changed “notions” though just because I changed the word dead with grim. Fine and “different scenario” are totally different arguments on your behalf.
“Nothing about that statement seems to go against my statement “Grim beauty is still beauty, and grim truth has a grim beauty”
It does. You’re criticizing the morbidness of the scenes and shots. You’re criticizing that which in you isn’t an aesthetically “pleasing” ideal of beauty but you can’t realize that something positive WILL flourish BEYOND the film, perhaps years after the finale, in an imaginary “reality”, or should I say, a welcoming “future” outcome for the later generations and the children of these two children. Suffering must be shown in a way to disrobe the audience’s garments and debunk the shields of aestheticism.
“and not just let the works stand on their own.”
If you can’t embrace the “small” (thus far) masterful abundance that’s been provided to you, how can you ever delve deeper? It’s easy to select from a French cinematography or a Russian novels catalogue but you can’t do that with anything Greek BUT the fucking ancient bullshit and I sincerely doubt the ones who care about those ancient bullshit whether they actually research them or not.
You made 1-2 spelling mistakes in other instances but I didn’t feel “compelled” to point that out, as it happened with other, more familiar users around here in other similarly constructed threads.
“I said different questions have different answers.”
You didn’t say anything about variations to the OP question, you just HAD to answer it in the same vein as answering any typical OP question which is a problem in itself. In a recent thread I created about art through politics, I was perfectly glad that my intention in answering my OP question in a non-typical format was a major success! My original question was answered in so many different arguments, I lost control and that’s how OP questions should be answered: without a stereotypical q & a reciprocation but in a philosophical/theoretical point of view. You don’t answer with a yes or no in Art, that’s “medieval”. It’s like saying emotion is the first priority in a film, to “affect” you.
If you want to reply to me again, do so on my wall, we keep hijacking the thread of a contemporary CLASSIC, so it’s preferable to keep this in private.
I’m posting here even though you asked me to write on your wall for a few reasons. One, the length and format of this response is too long to fit on a wall post. Two, I’d like this conversation to be open to anyone else who would like to comment. Three, because this is an open forum and my posts are not going against the forum guidelines. If you’d like to take the first step of responding on my wall however though, I will move my responses to wall posts as well.
That’s because you neither try nor make any attempts to do so. Which is why I’m constantly annoyed discussing with you and I’m even more annoyed by you keep polluting this thread with nonsense.
Well, I’m annoyed at you for saying that I don’t try or make any attempts because that’s exactly what I’m doing. If I wasn’t trying I wouldn’t even be engaging in this conversation.
You did imply I changed “notions” though just because I changed the word dead with grim. Fine and “different scenario” are totally different arguments on your behalf.
Is that what you were doing? How was I supposed to know you were using the word “dead” and “grim” to mean the same thing? They have different meanings. This may be why I can’t comprehend you sometimes. Please do not “reverse words” if that’s what you mean by it.
If you can’t embrace the “small” (thus far) masterful abundance that’s been provided to you, how can you ever delve deeper? It’s easy to select from a French cinematography or a Russian novels catalogue but you can’t do that with anything Greek BUT the fucking ancient bullshit and I sincerely doubt the ones who care about those ancient bullshit whether they actually research them or not.
What do you mean by embracing it? I watched it. I gave it some thought. I’m here talking about it. What else do you want me to do? Pretend that my initial reaction was to appreciate it when I really didn’t? If my honest initial reaction to it is to find fault with it, then then I wouldn’t be able to embrace it without going deeper.
You made 1-2 spelling mistakes in other instances but I didn’t feel “compelled” to point that out, as it happened with other, more familiar users around here in other similarly constructed threads.
I make spelling mistakes all the time. But “irregardless” is just a particular made up word that people use that bugs me. You may remember when I was pointing out the misuse of the word "penultimate’ before. I also get bugged when people say “for all intensive purposes” instead of “for all intents and purposes”. There are just a few particular things that bug me. Sorry, I’m quirky like that.
You didn’t say anything about variations to the OP question, you just HAD to answer it in the same vein as answering any typical OP question which is a problem in itself. In a recent thread I created about art through politics, I was perfectly glad that my intention in answering my OP question in a non-typical format was a major success! My original question was answered in so many different arguments, I lost control and that’s how OP questions should be answered: without a stereotypical q & a reciprocation but in a philosophical/theoretical point of view. You don’t answer with a yes or no in Art, that’s “medieval”. It’s like saying emotion is the first priority in a film, to “affect” you.
I don’t understand why you always talk about renouncing emotional responses as if it is somehow desireable or even possible to do so.
Gods index finger is broken in this film.
Tommy
Ever since I seriously became involved in watching and making films, I’ve always read somewhere about a filmmaker named Theodoros Angelopoulos. It wasn’t until recently that I came across one of his films. And this was probably one of the greatest accidents that has ever happened because I never really went to looked up any of his films or tried to find them. I came across Landscape In The Mist at the library as I watched it, I was just in awe for practically the entire film. And to tell you the truth, i haven’t watched a film that has affected me in this way since the first time I saw The Seventh Seal when I was 14. Of course I have a similar respect for every film that I’ve watched until now, but now it resembles that same feeling that I had the first time since I watched The Seventh Seal. It feel like a kind of reawakening to film, it’s a new way to look at things. I always think about how criterion should release this film or that film but what do I really care what they release. They’ll release whatever the hell they want to, but it seems that this film truly needs a proper release since it’s gone out of print and I’m not too sure how long it has been like this.
It’s films like these that really deserve to be seen. I guess the purpose of the post is to see how everyone else feel about the film.