Trilogy: The Weeping Meadow

Theodoros Angelopoulos - 2004
Very long takes, time passes. Yet there is ellpisis here; in a continuous, deep, long space and time, space and time are compressed into this (wide as possible) frame. As the camera moves, nearly always in a continous smooth direction throughout the shot (track, no zooms), we could be passing across more time and space than is 'realistic'. If cinema can't do this, then what is the point in cinema?
The shots are often long, but when necessary, in rooms or if someone approaches a camera, there's no real problem with getting close. It is really more a matter of respect, not intruding on someone's space, feeling the false need to 'intensify' emotions. As with the pretty much direct addresses to camera, storytelling, what is happening is that we are shown, allowed to see, witness to a history; it is our task, and perhaps responsibility, to choose whether to listen or not.
The use of a high angle is again near constant, but not in a formalist way; it just gives us the best look at the environment, those huge horizontals, smoke rising, we would usually call desolate; but they live there. In this mis-en-scene people move, pass each other, it is complex, but again, not 'deliberately' so. It is also very beautiful, in an ugly way. Often there are still figures in the centre; not statues, but people standing. These people are small, in sober clothes; yet they aren't ants, they shuffle, they look. Angelopoulos shows huge sympathy, but never emphasises. How?
Their is constant tragedy here, if that makes sense in this kind of world, but woven in with that wide history. An exciting cinema for me.

Ulysses' Gaze

Theo Angelopoulos, Greek auteur, 1995
huge long takes, very slow pans
often horizontal, moving space created
really stunning how long the takes are. Long shots, small characters
Perhaps becomes a little closer as the piece moves on
often other characters fade to background, Keitel, along with one other vertical marker, wears a dark shading to distract
in these mammoth takes, history presents itself on the screen
dream like order of logic
often (early, especially) sound/ image disjunct
some sensational individual scenes/ shots; the new years party, the opening sequence
individual images stare out; mocking spectacular
script is slightly eerie, as though all they can do is repeat movie lines
questions of if cinema can continue after politics/ how it remembers
with these incredible images, shot in the slightly theatrical style
though the camera, though it follows the leads' walk through history, also comes free on occassion
the sequences don't always connect up to each other all that smoothly, ends up a bit of a non-narrative pile-up
but some individual sequences to take the breath away, eye of a master

Dogtooth

This strange, entertaining and shocking film is a recent release.
The central story of the gated-children is at times very funny. Especially with the use of word games and visual imagery. However, the film is smart enough to not just let us laugh at what, on paper, does indeed seem like a form of terror. We can become uncomfortable at our own laughter, and our laughter can lead us to question what we are seeing. This kind of 'look again'/ 'double take' is key to the film; the subversion of language makes us often suspect things of the characters, leads us into a state of constant uncertainty. The sheer lighting adds to a slightly washed out feel of the piece.
Is this film about simulacrum and capitalsim? About corruption? About falsity? Or about all. It certaintly requires thought from the audience, even of the speed of the piece does not allow too much of this withing the ninety minutes itself.
The acting is excellent, though we are still slightly uncertain about the uses of violence. They are extremely shocking and starightforward within the context of the film, which takes away much of the dreamy atmosphere? How much does the film earn itself its violence? Nearly completely, but perhaps not quite. A few more follow up scenes on the consequences and the natue of the violence might have made the intrusions, though doubtless powerful, a little less aberrant.
Indeed, a few extra scenes, maybe twenty minutes, may have done this film some good. Not that we didn't enjoy the ending; it may have left most of the audience restless, but it was a smart way of exploring the issues, if not satisfying for the classic movie experience. But this film wasn't trying to tick all the traditional boxes.
A film at times fun, at times horrifying, and nearly always entertaining. Largely avoids being overly 'kooky', and instead is a fascinating comment. Recommended.