Okay - I'm a USAian, and not particularly ashamed of it. I like my movies with characters I can care about, a story that interests me, filmed in a visually pleasing fashion.
The B&W photography was okay - some good scenery, some solid storytelling, but several shots either poorly framed, or in such close-up that it was hard to tell what was being shown - or why.
The characters were, I'm afraid, little more than cardboard cutouts - the young girl who showed much skin, even more indecision about the boy who she fascinated, and a remarkable lack of background or depth. The love/lust-crazed adult shepherd and his paramour, the wife of an absent fisherman - the story they told can be seen in almost any cheap neighborhood bar almost every week - and seeing the couple in the bar will give you more insight into why they're doing this dance than this movie will.
The older, bullying boy remained a cipher. The crutch-using leader, the other shepherds, the rest of the fisher-folk village - either didn't get enough screen time to fill out their characters, or too much screen time for the set-dressing they were. The primitive instruments and folk dances were interesting, but took away from the story rather than adding to it - the right television commercials would have fit in better with the story.
A side note to European filmmakers - symbology is representative. Symbols can be a marvelous way to enhance storytelling, but they are never, in themselves, the story.
I'll give it a 4 for visual interest and the bit of dramatic tension that was achieved, and remain mystified as to why anyone would consider this masterful film-making. I guess I'm just a Philistine.
