there is a certain depth and a certain shallowness in this movie. i am going to speak about the first.
the little boy chasing his master is not supposed to be getting something explicit, as somebody commented here. the very fact that he has a nervous breakdown in the middle of the story, is enough teaching. As consequence, he tries his own path and is very bold in doing so. Although the story will not allow him to follow this type of courage yet, he does try. This is one of the most important things for him. Saying that I CAN DO IT.
the second thing the boy does get, although the average spectator does not seem to see this, is that the experience is not refused to him by his master. the master constantly taunts him, denies him, etc. as the boy says, but this is just a very select and appropriate way that this great master treats his maybe even greater apprentice. his art is no ordinary school, it's also a way of living, of understanding your place in society, etc. Although this seems very romantic and select, it's the way he does it, and not by being practical, sociable, etc.
the things that are not said or done are the most important. that's why a lot of people don't get this film at all. it's not for everybody. you must be a little rebel and also you must have already followed your rebellion a little in order to get the film.
the boy will also get a full image of his master by the end of the film, a master with many weaknesses, except his talent and spiritual endurance.
the ending has a very special atmosphere. it is a sentimental ending. the dead master teaches the living one a very nice lesson, through his living wife and children. the living one gets to teach the young apprentice a lesson, although still not very explicit (there is only one glaze into the apprentice eyes). it is the first time the master is not singing for money or in order not to get killed, and it is still not for such reasons as pleasure or love. it's a very special reason, or reasons. I see it as a duty.. art becomes a duty for those who are masters. it's not just money or entertainment or ordinary love. it's a duty to God, to true love, to life and to innocence.
i really like the way characters keep to their course in this classical movie, have some kind of modesty in them and are not very informed about the future. the mother sends the boy to the troubadour master, because she knows he can teach him things she cannot. the master itself does not control the situation very well, almost dies or is in the danger to die many times and always keeps this side of him in which he himself is an appearance. The boy is the most risk assuming character, more appropriate to his age, and manages to do well in very difficult situations, like a hero, but without really knowing where he heads to. He admits that in front of a woman who asks him why he made all this long journey. He sincerely admits 'I don't know'.
the director himself portrays beautifully a lot of situations and traditions in which life or beauty surpasses logic and when he himself would admit the same thing as the boy: 'I don't know'
the little boy chasing his master is not supposed to be getting something explicit, as somebody commented here. the very fact that he has a nervous breakdown in the middle of the story, is enough teaching. As consequence, he tries his own path and is very bold in doing so. Although the story will not allow him to follow this type of courage yet, he does try. This is one of the most important things for him. Saying that I CAN DO IT.
the second thing the boy does get, although the average spectator does not seem to see this, is that the experience is not refused to him by his master. the master constantly taunts him, denies him, etc. as the boy says, but this is just a very select and appropriate way that this great master treats his maybe even greater apprentice. his art is no ordinary school, it's also a way of living, of understanding your place in society, etc. Although this seems very romantic and select, it's the way he does it, and not by being practical, sociable, etc.
the things that are not said or done are the most important. that's why a lot of people don't get this film at all. it's not for everybody. you must be a little rebel and also you must have already followed your rebellion a little in order to get the film.
the boy will also get a full image of his master by the end of the film, a master with many weaknesses, except his talent and spiritual endurance.
the ending has a very special atmosphere. it is a sentimental ending. the dead master teaches the living one a very nice lesson, through his living wife and children. the living one gets to teach the young apprentice a lesson, although still not very explicit (there is only one glaze into the apprentice eyes). it is the first time the master is not singing for money or in order not to get killed, and it is still not for such reasons as pleasure or love. it's a very special reason, or reasons. I see it as a duty.. art becomes a duty for those who are masters. it's not just money or entertainment or ordinary love. it's a duty to God, to true love, to life and to innocence.
i really like the way characters keep to their course in this classical movie, have some kind of modesty in them and are not very informed about the future. the mother sends the boy to the troubadour master, because she knows he can teach him things she cannot. the master itself does not control the situation very well, almost dies or is in the danger to die many times and always keeps this side of him in which he himself is an appearance. The boy is the most risk assuming character, more appropriate to his age, and manages to do well in very difficult situations, like a hero, but without really knowing where he heads to. He admits that in front of a woman who asks him why he made all this long journey. He sincerely admits 'I don't know'.
the director himself portrays beautifully a lot of situations and traditions in which life or beauty surpasses logic and when he himself would admit the same thing as the boy: 'I don't know'