Greek film director Theo Angelopoulos's 1972 film, Days Of '36 (Μερες του '36, or Meres Tou '36), is the least of the several films of his that I've seen. It is also, by over a decade and a half, the earliest of the films of his I've so far seen, and, at an hour and 45 minutes, by a good margin, the shortest as well. It clearly comes across as an 'early' work in the artists' canon, because, especially when comparing it to later works, one can clearly see the artist making decisions here and being unsure of their potential success. In many ways, the film most reminds me of the first film of Werner Herzog, Signs Of Life (save the Angelopoulos film is in color, not black and white). That film was set in the Greek Islands, and was also not dependent upon a talky screenplay. There are large portions of this often wordless film that could have worked quite well in the silent era. And when the mostly anonymous characters do speak, they speak in the way that the satiric characters from the best plays of Samuel Beckett do- in riddles and whispered asides that mean little at the moment of their utterance, but which may have great meaning in retrospect.
What propels the film to its success (limited as it is) are the aforementioned technical aspects of it, which differ substantially from the later films of Angelopoulos to which I am used to. There are not as many long takes that follow characters in and out of chronology, and the unobtrusive music, as mentioned, is quite a change from the electric, vivacious, and enriching scores Angelopoulos would later deploy in concert with Eleni Karaindrou. This film is considered part of a historical trilogy of films that Angelopoulos made early in his career. The other two installments are The Travelling Players and The Hunters, and only the former film is available on DVD at the moment, so I will watch it to see if it is a continuation of the themes and techniques this film brings, or if it was the beginning of a bridge to the later masterpieces that Angelopoulos would make. Yet, on its own merits, Days Of '36 deserves an audience, if not for the story it tells, nor how it is told, then for its wide variety of technical virtues that amply display the skills of a master of an art form, even very early on in his career. That even a 'failure' as this film is, on some levels, can boast such virtues, says much about how the difference between great artists and their great works of art vs. those of lesser artists is not really a difference of degree, but of kind, itself. That fact has rarely been better illustrated for the human eye. Thanks, Theo.
What propels the film to its success (limited as it is) are the aforementioned technical aspects of it, which differ substantially from the later films of Angelopoulos to which I am used to. There are not as many long takes that follow characters in and out of chronology, and the unobtrusive music, as mentioned, is quite a change from the electric, vivacious, and enriching scores Angelopoulos would later deploy in concert with Eleni Karaindrou. This film is considered part of a historical trilogy of films that Angelopoulos made early in his career. The other two installments are The Travelling Players and The Hunters, and only the former film is available on DVD at the moment, so I will watch it to see if it is a continuation of the themes and techniques this film brings, or if it was the beginning of a bridge to the later masterpieces that Angelopoulos would make. Yet, on its own merits, Days Of '36 deserves an audience, if not for the story it tells, nor how it is told, then for its wide variety of technical virtues that amply display the skills of a master of an art form, even very early on in his career. That even a 'failure' as this film is, on some levels, can boast such virtues, says much about how the difference between great artists and their great works of art vs. those of lesser artists is not really a difference of degree, but of kind, itself. That fact has rarely been better illustrated for the human eye. Thanks, Theo.