Angelo

Angelo is a film that only sporadically allows us get close to the characters. At the same time, it never receives their gaze, as it follows them with neutral shots throughout its runtime. This is most apparent during dialogues, which basically are not handled by means of standard cuts from one speaker to the other. We look in only one direction. Instead of being drawn into the picture by the shots/counter-shots, we remain in the position of impartial observers. This observational style, with which Schleinzer previously worked in Michael, underscores the central theme of human objectification. Angelo is exhibited at first. He later begins to appear on his own, but he portrays a learned role that is not a reflection of his true identity, but rather of the distorted (stereotypical) ideas about African culture held by white people (who, through this “colonisation of the mind”, by subordinating foreign elements to their own ways of representation, assert their dominance – therefore, the protagonist’s gaining of independence is the worst sin that he can commit). Depersonalised static shots à la tableaux vivants (contemporary fine art also associates natural lighting and a well-considered choice of colours of the environment and costumes) make the film difficult to access, but, at the same time, the distinctively elliptical narrative with a large number of hints that retroactively give meaning to certain scenes, forces us to fully engage with it. From these two opposing movements that the film requires from the viewer, a special dynamic arises, due to which, together with subversive anachronisms in the mise-en-scène, strict division into chapters and very cynical pointing scenes, Angelo is not a boring film despite its slow pace, but rather a very stimulating work that entices the viewer to watch it again. 90% (2019-03-25)