As the name of the film implies, it is very poetic. There is hardly any plot, instead, it is carried by the major characters' emotions, manifesting themselves in depictions of a beautiful landscape largely untouched by civilisation and the film's music, which is at the same time sublime and calming.
Slowly, yet inevitably, outward reality is permeated by the characters' inner sensations, the secluded landscape devoid of human presence metaphorically representing the characters' constant and persistent departure from reality into an inner unreal and irrational world where feelings and emotions are substituted for reason, the regulating force of the rational world, abandoned by the protagonists.
Yet the calming removal from outward reality turns out to be just momentary and illusive. Reality, allegorised by the female protagonist's deceived husband, stalks its prey, eager to destroy the fleeting quietude of the unstable and unreal metaphorical space.
Unfortunately, being rather a rational than poetic person, I cannot help but to additionally interpret the film in a rational way. Interpreted in rational terms, there is a major flaw at the core of the film. In order to avoid any spoilers, it will suffice to say that the female character's child as well as male protagonists have to suffer for the woman's adultery.
This is a very misogynous perception, which used to be typical for the pre-1960s society. Prior to the feminist movement in the 1960s onward, patriarchal societies around the globe aimed at presenting the world in male terms, reducing women to mere objects who have to obey and to behave in accord with the patriarchal norms and regulations. Obviously, this perception neglects female desires and aspirations, which have to be sacrificed in order to maintain the patriarchal status quo.
Thus, an incredible amount of films was produced prior to 1960s, whose aim it was to present the alleged horrendous consequences of female behaviour that deviated from the norms as set by patriarchal society. In most cases, already a mere consideration of abandoning the husband sufficed to cause havoc in the family, damaging the children and husband alike. I have not, however, seen any recent films communicating this flawed, archaic, and anti-feminist message, and, therefore, hoped that this kind of anti-feminist films has gone for good.
Unfortunately, this film has proved me wrong. The female protagonist appears insecure, unable to make decisions for herself and to abandon her family to start her life anew. Instead, she is persistently dragged away by her lover, eventually resigning to her fate. At a closer look her lover appears as an alter ego of her husband, yet another representative of the male society, eager to protect and to own the female, without making any attempts at understanding the female nature.
At one point in the film one of the protagonists says, "Don't think. Contemplation just makes things worse." This may be a guideline to watching this film - don't think about it. Let yourself be carried away by its poetic qualities. Don't try to interpret the film in rational terms, it was not meant to be interpreted in such a way by the director. A rational interpretation would violate the film's poetic nature and inevitably ruin the experience
Slowly, yet inevitably, outward reality is permeated by the characters' inner sensations, the secluded landscape devoid of human presence metaphorically representing the characters' constant and persistent departure from reality into an inner unreal and irrational world where feelings and emotions are substituted for reason, the regulating force of the rational world, abandoned by the protagonists.
Yet the calming removal from outward reality turns out to be just momentary and illusive. Reality, allegorised by the female protagonist's deceived husband, stalks its prey, eager to destroy the fleeting quietude of the unstable and unreal metaphorical space.
Unfortunately, being rather a rational than poetic person, I cannot help but to additionally interpret the film in a rational way. Interpreted in rational terms, there is a major flaw at the core of the film. In order to avoid any spoilers, it will suffice to say that the female character's child as well as male protagonists have to suffer for the woman's adultery.
This is a very misogynous perception, which used to be typical for the pre-1960s society. Prior to the feminist movement in the 1960s onward, patriarchal societies around the globe aimed at presenting the world in male terms, reducing women to mere objects who have to obey and to behave in accord with the patriarchal norms and regulations. Obviously, this perception neglects female desires and aspirations, which have to be sacrificed in order to maintain the patriarchal status quo.
Thus, an incredible amount of films was produced prior to 1960s, whose aim it was to present the alleged horrendous consequences of female behaviour that deviated from the norms as set by patriarchal society. In most cases, already a mere consideration of abandoning the husband sufficed to cause havoc in the family, damaging the children and husband alike. I have not, however, seen any recent films communicating this flawed, archaic, and anti-feminist message, and, therefore, hoped that this kind of anti-feminist films has gone for good.
Unfortunately, this film has proved me wrong. The female protagonist appears insecure, unable to make decisions for herself and to abandon her family to start her life anew. Instead, she is persistently dragged away by her lover, eventually resigning to her fate. At a closer look her lover appears as an alter ego of her husband, yet another representative of the male society, eager to protect and to own the female, without making any attempts at understanding the female nature.
At one point in the film one of the protagonists says, "Don't think. Contemplation just makes things worse." This may be a guideline to watching this film - don't think about it. Let yourself be carried away by its poetic qualities. Don't try to interpret the film in rational terms, it was not meant to be interpreted in such a way by the director. A rational interpretation would violate the film's poetic nature and inevitably ruin the experience