Notturno

Though the fim begins with an introductory text on the modern history of the Middle-East, it focuses on specific scenes and people at the seeming end to the current phase of the conflicts. Some scenes depict the mundane day to day existence of the wars, while in others people are trying to reconcile what they have experienced through art. There is also an element of the environment in how the wars effect nature itself. Though sad in essence, the visuals of the film are stunning and immersive.

Nice images without context. These could have been observed anywhere, with or without a war or other threats around. Did I not have similar problems with Fire At Sea / Fuocoammare at Berlinale 2016?? My first thoughts at the time were that I saw nothing new and revolutionary. Other attendees made me doubt, however. The reactions of people around me forced me to re-think what impact such a documentary can have on the average viewer, apparently on them. What did I miss??

I've seen many documentaries around the same topic in 2016/2017, which causes a certain distance and some feeling that all this should be common knowledge already. Still, images like this seem to impress people. Maybe it showcases the term "impressionistic" I see in many reviews, something that I did not understand when explained at school, and still goes above my head nowadays. Viewers knowledgeable about the context seem able to connect the dots when letting these images pass by. I wonder how it would be received by someone who was not told beforehand what the central topic of conversation was.

Some of the images (1/3 as I mentioned before) can be understood without context, like the women mourning in a prison cell, the soldiers jogging/marching at dawn, soldiers surveying the environment from a shelter, stage players practicing their lines (quoting clear texts about the sorry state of their country), school children explaining their drawings, and so on. Those parts really were memorable. The other 2/3 went past me.

I sat it out through the end, but still do not understand the value of this documentary (if any). Maybe I just don't like kaleidoscopic movies, presenting a series of images/scenes that are not related to each other, not telling a story but merely painting an image where we are pressured to connect the dots and understand what the filmmakers try to convey. It is lost on me, in any case. Another explanation can be that I saw so many documentaries (part of IDFA, Movies That Matter, and other festivals) that are so much more illuminating and compelling, that this one in comparison does very little to pique my interest. It tells nothing new, and just repeats the obvious in a slightly different way but not adding any value. Leaves us with the nice images.

This movie sucks it's so boring. I could've done a better documentary with my android phone.

I don't know Rosi's work as a cameraman, but can imagine some directors like long takes in wide angle, especially when content is not the main thing. So this is documentary 'art' ? Three years of film-making and I see material that's general, could be anywhere, even an LA backwater. Certainly better on a big screen, but watch out if you have a comfortable chair too, as you might sleep and miss most of it.

There are some scenes in this world that are just sitting still, awaiting for a person with a camera at hand to arrive and film, and the war-stricken fields and streets of Syria, Lebanon and Iraq undeniably fall into that category. Fortunately Gianfranco Rosi resolved to be that person with his skillfully placed cameram just letting those streets and fields tell the tale.

The film consists of several parallel sotries of people, remnants, survivors and soldiers moving simultaneously along. We are shown a boy maybe of 10 years try to survive by working dawn to dusk for mere five dollars, a group of women-soldiers guarding the borders who might just be some college student party-goers if they had more share of luck when born, a mental health ward of a hospital with a doctor and a crew of mentally-shaken patients and a group of kids with fallen parents living a life not identical to ours.

But the film- or the scenes- doesn't show these people as victims to be pitied or sympathized, but as alive and sentient humans trying their best to maintain thier poise and outplay thier unfortunate circumstances and that is the most moving part of this film.

the other very bold and stroking aspect of Rosi's work is how gorgeous and stunning it looks. The landscape shots are plenty and here and there are vistas so catchy that reminds us of this region's old glories. I had the chance to watch this work on silver screen and I think it it best served that way.