In fact, the title of this film in Arabic means “blessing”, and in the context of Sufi teachings, “baraka” means “breath of life”. This meaning should refer to the painting by Godfrey Reggio “Povaccatsi”, whose name roughly translates as “the witchcraft of life”. And compared to this far from the best tape of Reggio, the film of Ron Fricke, his former colleague, seems inevitably secondary.
The same blessing is given by Buddhist monks, as well as other clergy in various denominations, directly to the Creator God, expressed through the Sun, closed by the Moon. The camera approaches the back of the monk’s head, and the subsequent images seem to become his stream of consciousness, caused by communication with the Creator and the final plan for the back of the monk’s head in the darkness of night.
We see how nature and people living in the tribal system are transformed by the onslaught of civilization, which put the production of goods on the stream. A man in a car on freeways and on an escalator rhymes with chickens tagged and sent down the assembly line (the film's most eerie image), as well as photos hung on the wall of former Nazi death camps where the killing of people was meticulously planned. This “brave, new world” is already like barracks, where humanity strictly fulfills a certain supreme plan to destroy itself and the surrounding nature.
Baraka is one of the most beautiful documentaries in the history of cinema. In particular, this is why a full restoration of the painting was carried out in 2008. The 1992 film looks like it was shot yesterday. The quality of the image gives a full opportunity to enjoy the amazing beauty of nature, fabulous architecture and technological progress of mankind. “Baraka” was shot in 24 countries, and if you try to count all the locations, they will be much more than a hundred.
In addition, Baraka is not just a fascinating spectacle for travel enthusiasts or fans of virtuoso editing and outstanding camera work, but also a kind of philosophical essay that makes the viewer think about the destructive essence of man and his place in the world. The very word "baraka" in translation from Arabic into Russian means "blessing", "grace", "heavenly gift", and in Sufism, and at all - "breath of life".
The director, cameraman and one of the screenwriters of this extraordinary film was Ron Fricke, who had previously collaborated with the discoverer of this genre of cinema director Godfrey Reggio on the famous film Koyaaniskatsi. Chances are, had it not been for Koyaaniskatsi, where Fricke was a cameraman and one of the writers, there would not have been Baraki. And to some extent, Baraku can be called secondary. However, in my opinion, such paintings, where the most important thing depends on the visual image, should be directed by the operators themselves. In addition, Ron Fricke to create this film almost himself made a special camera and all kinds of software for shooting amazing, time-stretched shots. By the way, more recently, the American Society of Cinematographers in honor of its 100th anniversary compiled a list of the hundred most iconic films for the film industry, in which “Baraka” turned out to be.
In addition, it is necessary to mention our great compatriot, Dzigu Vertov and his documentary work “The Man with a Cinema Camera”, which is very highly valued in the West and often included in various lists of outstanding films, and which, of course, influenced the work of Godfrey Reggio himself. Dziga Vertov and his brother, cameraman Mikhail Kaufman were among the first who in the 20s of the last century tried to capture on film the surrounding reality without the use of script, actors and scenery – to catch life itself by surprise. Create a film symphony.
Ron Fricke was able to create an unusually fascinating film, despite the fact that it does not contain a single word. It's just music, it's an image. Moreover, the way Fricke rhymes some shots with each other (for example, the work of factories, conveyors, poultry farms with an endless crowd of subway passengers or yellow New York taxis), makes you stick to the screen for the entire hour and a half of timekeeping.
9 out of 10
There are no words in this movie. At all. Only the music and songs of different tribes living in remote corners of our world. This film reminds me a lot of Jan Arthus-Bertrand’s film The Man. The atmosphere, I guess. But there's one difference. Which, of course, is my purely subjective opinion. “Man” is aimed at telling a story about absolutely different people who each have their own life. Baraka shows all our similarities. The move with the absence of words is unusual, but understandable. On one site in the comments, I read the phrase “My own thoughts are voiceovers.” It is. During viewing, new thoughts appear, which are replaced by one another.
Concept.
Yeah, it's a concept. I believe that in documentaries it is the concept, not the plot for the most part. We are shown landscapes and the lives of people in very distant countries, accompanied by music reminiscent of some Indian motifs and motifs of different tribes.
What thoughts come to mind while watching? Everyone's different, I guess. I thought about how different we are as people, but at the same time how similar we are no matter where we live or what we do. I thought about how beautiful our planet is. In the moments when the various tribes were shown, I thought about how they lived away from progress and civilization. Do you know how far human achievement has gone? There was an accelerated shot of how many people were going through the same transition, and I thought people were like ants, the city was like an anthill. And I also got the idea that we think of these countries as being in remote places, but they're probably also thinking of us.
I think everyone should watch , if only to relax and just think.
7 out of 10
This film has little, but everything has advantages. I think they should go ahead!
quality picture (the director did not stint on high-quality equipment and other delights)
It is a great musical accompaniment.
I'm sorry, but I couldn't get any more, alas. I still don’t understand, the main idea of the film is the world 20 years ago. Is it rich and poor? The beauty of our planet? Religion in different parts of the world?
The director took on an overwhelming burden, and could not cope with it. The decision to throw everything into the film was not the worst. And the worst part about it is that it is supposedly about “peace”, and I did not know that the world consists only of representatives of the Mongoloid race and African tribes. No preconceived attitude towards either, but it is a shame to realize that someone (read – the author of the film) is closed. And how to show Europe and Europeans, Russia with its boundless beauty and life in its hinterland, or original Tuvans, whose culture deserves to be known to the world. Where are the Kazakhs and Kazakhstan? Where is half the world? and in these countries there is something to see and learn.
And it turns out that the headline is promising, and the content is pictures that have been blurry for years, and reflect nothing but life in Asia and Africa, for the most part. I am sorry that I spent an hour and a half on this masterpiece.
2 out of 10
The world through the eyes of twenty years ago. A world that is in the past.
No way. The world hasn't changed that much. We can say that is practically the same . In the film, you can see where you have been. Has something changed?
It has changed a lot:
The view of the operator has changed. The quality of the film has changed, yeah, now they shoot straight to the number. The musical accompaniment has changed. The pace of the narrative has changed. The expected amount of information per second has changed.
The audience changed and the operator changed.
But the world is still the same. Human life is too small and insignificant compared to the world. Like sparks, life somewhere flares up, sweeps and fades, and flares up somewhere else.
A long time ago we visited the museum of Alphonse Mucha - here are the paintings of the great artist who once lived, worked, and he is no longer there. After they came out, I thought: “Oh, man, it’s great that today we are going to the concert Depeche Mode, that we can still see how our favorite music is created live, and in 50 or maybe 20 years people will not see it again.”
The world is worth seeing. Yes, and if there were no man, you think, what sense in the world, the beauty of which no one will see, will not admire the greatness?
The film showed only a small slice of its time, telling more about the audience 24 years ago than about the world.
Director Ron Fricke once worked as a cameraman on the filming of Godfrey Reggio’s documentary Koyaaniscatsi, released in 1983. His new work “Baraka” is difficult not to begin to identify with “Koyaaniskatsi”. All the same shots, all the same demonstration of the streams of people rushing to work and on urgent business, the ugly attitude of man to nature, clouds flying over the mountains, panoramic landscapes, the formation of waves, rock paintings and everything else in the same spirit. In Baraka, the geography of filming is extensive. The filmmakers visited twenty-four countries and spent a lot of time shooting and editing the film. Of course, before watching “Barak”, it is advisable to familiarize yourself with Godfrey Reggio’s painting “Koyaaniskatsi”. Reggio is a man who can’t help but make you treat him with respect. He left at the age of fourteen in a monastery. And after spending there, as a monk, the next fourteen years in prayer and silence, he returned and, having plunged into creativity, he was excited by the idea of making a film in a new style.
The time difference between the two films is ten years. Naturally, the picture in the work of Ron Fricke is better and more powerful in terms of color reproduction, but this is not the point. There are differences between Koyaaniskatsi and Baraka, but not so significant. Basically, the theme featured in Frick's film presents a person as well as Reggio's work. Namely, as the main one on planet Earth. Racing along the roads and day and night, cars in parallel with a sound effect resembling breathing, as it were, show a non-stop movement through which the metropolis seems to come to life, forcing the viewer to start comparing it with a huge, invisible and not capable of attacking monster. People whose abundance and minting from the height of a multi-storey house resembles an anthill. In other episodes, urban homeless people wrap themselves in rags in an attempt to keep warm. All this alternates with episodes in which prayers, rites and ritual dances of African tribes are performed. Everything looks very beautiful.
We can say that Baraka is nothing more than a continuation of the concept of Koyaaniskatsi, which, in turn, is the first part of the trilogy of Katsi. Baraki has a sequel called Samsara.
I recently watched a short cartoon titled “MAN” uploaded on Youtube lasting 3 minutes and 36 seconds. There before our eyes is shown walking in time and space, in a T-shirt with the inscription "Welcome" and a hanging belly, self-satisfied and holy believe in his superiority over the world around him. As a result, he is on top of a giant pile of garbage, and aliens fly from the sky, which from the local landscape at once spoils the mood.
Why did I talk about this cartoon? The fact is that it is permeated with pessimism and aversion to human civilization, the side through which, in fact, the ceremonial picture of a high level of welfare is created, presented as the property of all people, but in reality - the prerogative of only that small group that has a position in society, money, power or connections - the so-called elite. The rest survive as best they can, depending on where fate has thrown them.
And then I watch the movie Baraka, and again I feel this pessimism, and again this disgust at the other side of human civilization, only for an hour and thirty-six minutes! Beautiful, stylish, professional - such epithets without any doubt can be awarded this film, but what can not be done is to experience some joy, positive from watching. On the contrary, the feeling of devastation, hopelessness, meaninglessness of being grows with every minute you see. And at the end of the movie, you wonder, why did I look at all this? ! . .
I've seen "House" before. The Story of a Journey, a 2009 film directed by Jan Arthus-Bertrand, whose ideas in the main echo Baraka, touching, in short, the social and environmental problems of modern society, and in aggregate. But if there are more landscapes, beautiful views, that is, a look from a height in every sense, then Baraka is almost entirely devoted to the unsightly side of life: catastrophic poverty, the transformation of people into biorobots, performing some kind of work demanded by society, often mechanical and not requiring intelligence - whether it is the assembly of chips or the production of cigars, and trading their own body. As a result, the sediment after the film remains very unpleasant.
I can’t call Home easy, but Baraka is even more oppressive and heavy. And most importantly, the film does not answer the question: how do we deal with this? Like many creators, the filmmakers, pointing a finger at a pile of shit, consider their mission accomplished. At least there is a voice in Home that offers a point of view that one can agree with or disagree with, but at least it is present in the film! If the thesis is that there are too many of us, we consume and throw away too much, we need ecological production. What does Baraka really offer us? Protracted static plans? (It’s a beautiful move – think for yourself!) Or maybe a return to the jungle, to loincloths, cats, hats from feathers of birds of paradise - to primitive joy? (Well, even if, hypothetically, everyone runs into the jungle – the latter will simply be cut for firewood, and the whole beast will be eaten – well, then almost all of us will die of hunger, and those who do not die will become terribly brutal from such scenarios.) Or perhaps an appeal to Buddhism, to the experience of India? (India, by the way.) My mother’s friend, a travel lover, a person who is cheerful, incredibly energetic, unpretentious, flexible, able to adapt to both a cultural trip and wild camping conditions, recently visited India. As she said later, there was a time when she was crying. If you know her personally, it will be clear that this is an extraordinary case for her. So if you want to punch through the complaints, find pictures of appalling poverty - India is at your service!
And while the golden billion enjoys, if not wealth and luxury, then at least a well-off, socially protected life, enjoys ample opportunities for their own development and growth, the achievements of science and technology - all those benefits ultimately created by the hands of the poor - the latter barely make ends meet. Why should we be the first to invent and implement expensive robots powered by electricity when there are, roughly speaking, a billion Chinese, a billion Indians, a hungry population of other poor Third World countries, who will do what they say for pennies? Why think about the squalid pictures of the life of cattle, why care about the environment, if wealthy people live and relax in other places, and in extreme cases – will hold their nose and step over, as all white people usually do?
How do we deal with these issues from a humanistic perspective? Many questions that arise in the course of viewing "Barak" leaves unanswered, offering instead of them the already mentioned protracted static plans: landscapes, buildings, people. And people looking at you as if waiting: come up with something! But there is no one to think about all this: “losers”, “losers” have no time to think – they live and work in a semi-automatic mode, and the “golden billion” do not need to think – they are already doing well. So it turns out that all the hope, paradoxically, for a monkey hovering in a hot spring from the beginning of the film, which in turn looks at the sky with hope - can it come down to us? ! . .
If you consider all three of the works I described – the films “Barack”, “House” and the cartoon “MAN” – at this point in time, I would advise you to watch “Barack” last. Despite high-quality, professional work, she leaves a heavy, oppressive impression of hopelessness. This film is dedicated to the extremely complex problems of mankind, to which history has so far given only one answer - war. A war for resources, a war for a better life, a war for life itself. Despite talk of tolerance and equality, racism and nationalism have not disappeared from modern life. Suffice it to recall how the terrorist attacks in France shook the entire civilized world, while exactly the same terrorist attacks in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Tunisia, etc. for most are dry statistics. Because countries’ own self-interest is much more important than concern for some mythical common good. And in this grief of the poor, the weak, the defeated.
However, since the 1992 film, I can’t help but discount it. And if you haven't seen House yet. Date with the Planet: Start with Baraki. You may like this movie more than I do.
Amazing movie. From the very first minutes, the viewer is waiting for a complete immersion in the beauty, ambiguity, inconsistency of landscapes and video sketches that the director and his team shot in 24 countries. Some of what you see is amazing, something makes you think and rethink your views on this or that aspect of human life, another landscape motivates you to immediately pack your suitcases and drive to the place of shooting, in order to witness this beauty with your own eyes, in real time, so to speak. Sometimes you get thrilled by the fact that they show the place where you have already been, but which you could not solve and where you dream of returning. So it was with me when they showed Varanasi, a mystical city, imbued with secrets as much as the clothes are soaked with the sweet smell of the dead burned on the gatas.
Unfortunately, although the work of the crew was titanic, it is a pity that decent material about one of my favorite cities on the planet, Hong Kong, is not enough. Hong Kong has changed a lot since the 90s, the airport was moved from the city center to the outskirts, the incomprehensible Kowloon demolished and built a park in its place. I am sorry that I could not visit Hong Kong of the 90s and it is a pity that in Barak the image of this unusual city of those years could not be fully revealed, only scraps of images, visual hints.
But that’s just one flaw, and I understand it’s very, very subjective. The rest of the film is great. And chic, by the way, not only impeccable camera work and excellent installation, but also the very idea - the lack of verbal context.
To all those who have not seen the film for some reason, I have a big request – be sure to watch this minimaster!
“Baraka” is a movie you don’t want to talk about; you want to keep quiet about it. Silence and look as expressive and frighteningly piercing as its heroes. For some reason it seems as if there is no truth in words, but only a lie - and the thought spoken sounds stupid and vulgar. There are no words in Barak, but they are not necessary, everything is clear and without them - however, I am already lying here: in fact, almost everything is unclear in this film, but at the same time for some reason it seems self-evident and clear. It’s a strange feeling – you seem to fall out of reality, reality turns over, becomes wild and alien – and metaphors and images are seen in everything. Conveyor-people-conveyor-people-frames change each other, and you involuntarily succumb to the feeling of your own meaninglessness and absolute powerlessness. And then you think, going out into the air - what the hell, because everything is wrong!
The director is drawing a fairy tale. It shows life - and it is both absolutely, amazingly truthful and fascinating, deceptively fabulous. Women in the temple, silently and animatedly opening their mouths to slow painful music, long and static looking at you from the screen children – all this is only an illusion, but the illusion is powerful and through. You don’t know what’s true or what’s true or what to do next. “Baraka” – the film is absolutely ambiguous and so unlike most others, that watching it, you are completely lost: what is it? what did the author want to say? Life and death, time and infinity, prosperity and poverty are firmly intertwined here, galloping past, leaving a strange tart taste of misunderstanding on the tongue. Misunderstanding of the film, the world, himself.
Life is beautiful. It's even more beautiful without people.
Modern cinema rarely makes you think about our planet, nature, people, the importance of preserving life on Earth. However, Ron Fricke’s film “Barack” is an exception.
In my opinion, “Baraka” is a kind of opposite film, which demonstrates all the facets of the modern world, conveys the contrast between developed civilization and wildlife, the creepy corridors of Auschwitz and the tranquility of Buddhist temples, the differences of cultures, traditions, customs among people in different countries, their attitude to religion, the world, themselves. Perhaps the authors set themselves the task not only to convey the beauty and diversity of life, but also to remind the audience of the need to preserve what subsequent generations may not see: the wonders of nature, some of which are in danger of disappearing forever from the face of the earth, preserved only in the memory of descendants, or change beyond recognition; fascinating, and sometimes rather strange rituals and rites of wild tribes. “Baraka” urges you to stop, to reconsider your views on life, to remember the need to live in harmony with the world around you.
At the same time, “Baraka” is a comparison film, a comparison film. It conveys the commonality of everything existing on the planet, the inseparability and interconnection of all living things. The film does not say a word, but each frame speaks for itself: juxtaposition of the noisy turmoil of the metropolis and its inhabitants with rushing ants, the flow of cars with a huge waterfall, and one of the most unpleasant moments of the film – chickens on the conveyor belt. In my opinion, this moment is also a kind of analogy with the way of our whole life, the eternal movement into the unknown.
In general, the whole film seemed to me at the same time simple and complex. There are almost no special effects in it, so we see Life as it is, people who are a kind of personification of ourselves. At the same time, it is difficult to call Baraku a film at all, it is rather the embodiment of the whole world and each of us individually.
I recommend reading “Do you know that...” and adding a paragraph
- Did you know that this film is literally the first eco-documentary? Think of it as 1992.
The film is not standard, not entirely documentary. He looked like a book in one breath, he delights and catches up with fear. Civilization with society or a single natural system? Who's stronger? The answer is obvious. Nature will prevail, and while humanity is not about to compromise with the planet as a whole, it is increasingly digging a hole for itself. This is perfectly shown in the film, it gives the desire to fly away from here, from the four walls, to the vast expanses and breathe freely. Outside society.
I advise you to watch the film alone, without company, without talking, without food, without light and external stimuli. Your company will be the characters of the film, the conversation will be replaced by music from the film, food will replace the plot, light is not needed - this is an extra irritant. Enjoy this masterpiece alone. First. The first masterpiece in the eco-sphere.
The first and very important thing to note about this tape is not “cinema” in the accepted sense of the word. Baraku can be seen as an experiment of fine art, as the authors’ desire to capture scenes of the surrounding world in an exceptional form in which they will never appear before the eyes of another person, as video journalism and a kind of report on the expedition. However, I believe that it should not be regarded at all as something rational or aimed at hidden meanings. Barak should not be evaluated and analyzed. It needs to be contemplated. David Lynch periodically says in his interviews that his film does not carry any original ideas, and the only true meanings and interpretations are those that the viewer himself “gives birth” when watching. Baraka is a perfect example of this fundamental view of video art.
The second (directly following from the first) - when watching this movie, you should focus not on the actual video series and music, but on your feelings and emotions when watching. Ron Fricke mercilessly hits the apple of aesthetic feelings. Flocks of flamingos over the mirror water surface, smoking volcanoes and snow-capped mountain peaks perfectly harmonize with massive crowds of passers-by in Asian metropolises and ritual dances of peoples hidden from civilization. Add to this religious shrines of all religions of the world, prehistoric archaeological finds, personnel of large-scale production, recycling, deforestation and abandoned landfills of machinery. There is everything that impresses a person and that terrifies him. The authors demonstrate an abstract picture of the whole world, holding before the viewer images of all its conventional corners, regardless of their formal significance (from mountains to ants, from noisy capitals to secluded cells), which simply cannot but make you feel like a drop in the ocean.
The third and perhaps the key. "Baraka" is made perfectly in terms of technique and aesthetics. Not only does the “what” make this video series so heartfelt and addictive, but the “how” it’s made. 1992, and the team of creators already in full use of "time-lapse" and "slow-motion" techniques, not just for their availability, but giving the film its own atmosphere. For some, it can be an interesting socially and environmentally oriented film, for others – just an interesting and incredibly high-quality look into the past (it becomes scary if you realize how many things have been shot catastrophically in the 23 years after recording). Every picture is perfect and undeniable. It is hard to imagine how much patience and patience it took the team to shoot and mount everything like this. Sound direction also does not allow you to pass by. Fascinating music along with sound experiments of voiceover of different frames “not native” sound, as well as simply incredible recording quality gives the tape even greater depth.
“Baraka” is a real meditation, a visual meditation that allows you to feel the world and in some sense realize yourself in it. Someone advises to include subtitles to watch it more interesting. Nope! Do not include any subtitles or read any descriptions. It doesn’t matter where or how it was taken. It's shot on this planet, and if the author could, I'm sure he would have shot a number of shots in space and on other planets. It’s about nothing and everything at the same time. Watch and feel "Baraka." Feel yourself.
To begin with, in my indiscreet opinion, Baraka is an unconditional masterpiece of cinema, an inimitable author’s work and one of my favorite films.
Immediately I want to cancel that this is not just a specific film, but much more than an ordinary documentary. Wikipedia is more of a philosophical essay, in which there are more questions than statements and moralization. And artistic means - a brilliant union of cinematography and music, perfectly do without a verbal component. Such a manner does not enclose the viewer in the framework of the author’s statement, but allows you to find more, ask yourself many times the main questions and perhaps, over time, even get different answers, who knows. Why words, when we know how easily they can limit, kill brilliant work.
The name to remember is Ron Fricke, the film’s cameraman and director. Behind him is a recognizable manner, a handwriting that sets his films apart from other things. Barak was preceded by the grandiose picture of Godfrey Reggio - Koyaaniskatsi 1982 (another block of its kind), as well as the short film Chronos, 1985. These two works developed the same creative method that was later applied here. Both of these films are mandatory for those who, having a contemplative nature, were lucky to understand Barack. I will not dwell on them in detail, I will only say that Koyaaniskatsi asks the same questions in many ways, only with slightly different accents, and the concept of Chronos is best reflected in the title.
The film was shot with a large-format camera (65 mm), and in 2007 it underwent a unique procedure of restoration and digitization. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baraka_(film) The result is phenomenal. I can assure you that the picture is simply ecstatic. In short, I did not spare money for my native burrow. In addition, the disc contains a film about the shooting.
The soundtrack is worthy of the highest appreciation. I am sure that everyone who saw the film remembered a fragment that begins with a loaded cart drawn by stunted donkeys, and in which the famous song Dead Can Dance – The Host of Seraphim sounds.
The leading intonation of the film can be denoted by the word “sacred”. That's what the creators say. The need for spiritual food, along with other human needs, is inherent in us as a species. As expressed in different cultures, it mutates, grows and fades. Where is the line between the “old” and the “new”? What goes away and what stays? Eternal questions. That there is life after all. But not just that.
The movie is definitely not for everyone. Of course, to understand it, you need to dive into it, leave with your head. But it has incredible magnetism and beauty. Spiritually enriching. The film is an attempt to grope, to catch something paramount. It's brilliant. If you are not a contemplative nature, do not take it, or at best you will fall asleep. If this is yours, the film will be remembered for a lifetime.
Baraka. A documentary film filmed in twenty-four countries of the world, six earthly continents and reflected in an innumerable number of celestial bodies. There is no dialogue and no narrative.
The only and main actor here is Planet Earth. It rotates in front of the viewer in time and space at a speed of twenty-four frames per second, and every second is free to soar here with the dance of its own mood.
In one instant, the camera freezes on the edge of the morning beam in the stone frame of the half-decayed Tanzanian monastery, in another, with frames of the absurd mishmash of the metropolis, erases the usual concepts of “speed”.
Only in “Barack” the look of a monkey sitting in a hot pond is equal to all the depths of cold space, and the dances of the Aborigines are synchronized with the movements of the forest, black ceases to be black, and white is revealed by a fan of rainbows. Easily and unobtrusively by the hand lead us from the altar to the mosque and from the cross to the moon. The yellow rose of the poet and the astrolabe of the geographer, the yawn of the baby and the blindness of the old man, the shadow of the dust and the eternity of love.
9 out of 10
The word "Baraka" in Arabic means "blessing", and guided by Sufi teachings - "breath of life". Both of them fit into the theme of the film.
Barak's film is something unusual. The point is not that there are no actors, words, actions — familiar to our perception of things for cinema. All the strangeness of this work in his sense. After all, there is often a film that, one might say, reproaches the viewer with the meaninglessness of his life and even its parasitism.
Trying to describe some footage from the film would be stupid and unworthy. But with the greatest confidence I can afford, I declare that it is necessary to watch unconditionally.
The whole essence of this visual narrative is expressed by the general meaning of comparing how people run like flies on a white shining refinement and how majestic, inimitable nature is in all its interaction and coherence. Man is shown to be great, great in his insignificance, when he tries to create something that can challenge this indisputable genius of all living things. And all his attempts are very thoughtful and combed with taste, but imbued with excessive selfishness and therefore do not fit into the holistic harmony of the surrounding landscape.
Directed by Ron Fricke, this is not the first time such a picture is shot (before that there were pictures of Chronos (1985) and Sacred Site (1986), and even earlier – in Koyaniskazzi), and the skill of the transfer is honed in an inconceivable way. The image draws into a narrative that is incomparably more informative than any other film with actors and dialogue. Music conveys a mood, in some moments, so vivid that you instantly realize the depth of your decay and lowness before nature. Every moment, every frame works on this idea and the harmonic integrity of this film, once again confirms its status of genius and the highest form of art.
This film will touch your innermost heartbeat and make you think about the nature of your actions.