Natvris khe (1976)

Director:

Tengiz Abuladze

Writers:

Tengiz Abuladze (writer)
Revaz Inanishvili (writer)

Release Date:

11 August 1978 (East Germany)

Genre:

Drama

Awards:

1 win

Cast

Lika Kavjaradze	...	Marita
Soso Jachvliani	...	Gedya
Zaza Kolelishvili	...	Shete
Kote Daushvili	...	Tsitsikore
Sofiko Chiaureli	...	Pupala
Kakhi Kavsadze	...	Rebel Iorami
Erosi Mandjgaladze	...	Mumbula
Otar Megvinetukhutsesi	...	Ertaozi
Ramaz Chkhikvadze	...	Priester Okhrokhine
Giorgi Gegechkori	...	Chachika
Sesilia Takaishvili	...	Maradia
Giorgi Khobua	...	Batula
Givi Berikashvili	...	Padgula
Djemal Gaganidze	...	Tagria
Boris Tsipuria	...	Qoria

Also Known As:

Древо желания (Soviet Union: Russian title)
Drevo zhelaniya (Soviet Union: Russian title)
The Tree of Desire (literal English title)
The Wishing Tree

Runtime:

107 min

Country:

Georgia | Soviet Union

Language:

Georgian

Color:

Color

Sound Mix:

Mono

Certification:

Argentina:13 | Finland:K-12

Company:

Qartuli Pilmi

Movie Connections:

Featured in Djen prischjol (2004)

Tengiz Abuladze.A few statements

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Reading various reviews by buffs, moviegoers or cinema critics, I've noticed one prevailing and disturbing trend—the fact that directors like Tarkovsky, Visconti and Tengiz Abuladze are most often underrated and have a very bad reputation. This touches one of the profoundest things in aesthetics. In empirical terms, it is about the directors that use a slow pace; authors, that is, of mainly slow—paced films. The slow pace (as in Tarkovski, Sokurov and Tengiz Abuladze) is the one that details. That deepens. But, on the other hand,is this slow—pace approach (only) an option? It certainly depends—as there are various factors involved—the content, the subject, the style and tone, the aims, the atmosphere, the requirements of a certain story, the optics, etc.—above all, the adequacy .Yet the real subtext is very valid always—the whole may be found within the piece, but it takes some time, an artistically determined time,a certain measure (and hence pace) to know even the piece. The cognition isn't instantaneous. A certain period is needed to get, to understand a thing. Tarkovsky, Sokurov, Visconti, Antonioni, Tengiz Abuladze never use more than it is really needed; nor do they shorten, arbitrarily, the period. A very good example of such adequacy is one of Kurosawa's last films—the dream film. To know the things that Tarkovsky, Antonioni, Sokurov ,Kurosawa, Antonioni set themselves up to understand and seize—to reach this gist—it is not enough for the mind to jump aimlessly—as in the MTV—style of montage or cutting. It is wholly inappropriate to ask them (often contemptuously) to give up their montage, when it is the only one ever that can best serve their subjects and the contents of their movies. On the other hand yet, this is artistic knowledge, one of the highest forms of human fulfillment—so one cannot establish a priori an algebra of montage rules—the time will be used according to the ad hoc needs of the subject and of the content.

In the '40s,'50s,'60s,in several waves, film critics and movie buffs approached the question of the movie's language, semantics, syntax. Several theories were proposed. On the other hand, the bleak assessments didn't lack—many talked about how few the really important authors are, etc..In my view, the opposite statement is the truest one; I cannot help but wonder of how many are the fine directors –those who, throughout a long and fruitful career—or sometimes only sporadically—managed to give a cinematographic shape to their creativity. There are not so few those who succeeded in creating languages able to express their creativity and their world-view.

This stream of uncensored creativity

What is the cinema's aim?Of expressing through an original and suited language, art, style and adequacy an artistic creativity. It is an equation; thereof several terms must be considered when dealing with its aesthetic analysis.

Where from does it take its richness? From a careful balance of elements.