Forgive me Paul Urkijo, but I ran into angry without having any reference of yours. I didn’t know about his five Goya nominations and hadn’t seen them either Remembrance. I thought that angry would be a kind of “Asterix in Baskonia”. My fault. I would like to Asterix look like this movie.
angry it’s a very special film because they don’t make films about medieval history or mythology. Much less Basque mythology and early medieval history. If Al-Andalus has already been treated little in homeland cinematography, the Christian kingdoms of the time have suffered even worse luck. And it’s already something, because only one film has been made of Visigothic Hispania, and it was in full maelstrom of Francoist propaganda cinema: Amaya. We have a pending account with one of the most cinematic periods that have passed through the peninsula.
Al-Ándalus and the cinema: Portrait of Andalusian Spain through the films
angry it couldn’t go wrong because Urkijo loves what he is telling. He loves the story he is telling, he loves the language of his characters and the overwhelming natural settings of his homeland. If something dazzles a angry it is its technical section (the five Goya nominations are well-deserved). The photography, the scenography and, above all, the special effects are not Goya’s meat… it’s that they would have shone just as well at the Oscars. With the exception of a couple of moments (oh, that snake), you don’t see the computer footprint at any time. Thank God (or rather, Mari) that they took it seriously that it doesn’t look like a video game.
By the way, indent: There is a cliché when dealing with the European Middle Ages that I have never understood, and that is that it seems that no one ever takes a bath. Whether it’s a king or a beggar, they always put it on you with a dirty face and completely tangled hair. I really don’t understand why.
Back to the movie, Urkijo is not always right in his decisions. There is one thing that doesn’t work for me Irati: The good and the bad. There is a flaw at the level of the script and that is that neither of them is particularly developed. The good is bland and the bad is too bad. Hitchcock said that a film is only as good as the story’s antagonist, because the more developed and complex it is, the greater the conflict it creates. And this is not seen in angry The protagonist is a random hero who just gets on with it and the villain is a very bad book villain. There are no double readings in either, no contradictions, no shadow in the good and no hint of light in the bad.
When the protagonists are not particularly well developed in the libretto, the best tool the director can count on is the charisma of the performers he chooses to embody them. It works for him with the character that gives the film its name, then Edurne Azkárate gives him an “I don’t know what” he didn’t have on paper. However Eneko Sagardoy it is not able to make you not take your eyes off it. However, her presence is justified by the close-up of her ass, things being what they are. The Lumières invented cinema for Urkijo to shoot this moment. yes sir Wherever they are, the two French brothers will be smiling knowing the good use that has been made of their invention. I believe
ending A special film, which deals with a subject that is almost never seen on screen (to say never), whose song of neopaganism in the face of Christianity will connect with a significant part of the viewers, whose visual invoice is of the best what’s up for these and you won’t see anything like it for a long time.
Unfortunately.