1. About the structure
As first, we are going to define some aspects about the term of a structure, which in this text, we are going to accept it in some other way then usual. In this text, the term structure will cover not just the phenomena and features which belong under the methodology of a structuralism as literary science branch, but quite wider and more complex: besides the pure structural elements like the theme and the motives of the deed, the actants and the functions they have, etc., here, we’ll place the elements of the chronotop too, and also the elements of the textual solutions – both from aspect of the narration and of the style. And in the same context, the intertextual constellation of the deed. And all that quite briefly, because we aren’t going to abuse the space given to us here and we are going to skip detail analysis, so we’ll jump straight to the concrete conclusions which results from them.
As first, the theme: very unhappily chosen, we’ll say. Especially because it seems to come very late in opposite to one big and maybe too much exploited theme at the whole worldwide film production. Anyhow, that wouldn’t have been anything negative, if the film would bring something new: some new way of expression, some new incline to the theme or different aspect of the author towards it, or at least new manner in the presentation of the same. But, unfortunately, that didn’t happen with this film. Because, there is nothing else this film brings but the interesting plot in the script itself: false deaths of the most members of the Taip’s family (Taip is the main character who wants with this deceptions to make his dreams of living in India – his dreamland – become true), and maybe only the potentials of the cast. Indeed, nothing lucid, inventive and new, even when it was really expected by an author with that reputation and so solid creative background. That brings this film to the looks of a “good, old”, but worn out “Dèjа vu”.
The very textual structuring of the fabula is almost invisible, or it doesn’t exist at all; the chronotop is flat, with no enigma in its dynamics. We can say that in “Gipsy Magic”: syjet = fabula, namely that there is no difference between them, and they are in congruence. So, we can conclude that the author’s cultivation over the basic text – doesn’t exist. And the only enigma in the film is – why it doesn’t exist?
Now, while we are still at the authors proceedings over the basic text, we can pay some attention to the other – media-specific – procedures: photography, montage, directing, etc. So far there were a lot discussions about the problems at laboratory processing of the film, so we we’ll skip it because of the lack of space, and because it isn’t proper to only repeat one’s already published conclusions. We are going to look up – briefly – at the directing, acting, art direction and editing:
As we already have mentioned, and as it is well known and worldwide accepted, the directing covers the main number of the procedures needed for the film can be made. Among them, there is the general structuring over the material of the film text – starting at the very scenario and the preconditions it brings, all way to the final cut of the film. So, we brought up our thoughts about the fabula above; about the casting we said that the actors were well casted, but unfortunately, how good, they couldn’t do nothing much to the film in whole. Because, we must say, the actor’s cast did their best even there where wasn’t any preconditions to do well. Before the others, we mean about the actors Katina Ivanova (Remzija), Toni Mihajlovski (Kojak), the young and prospectively good Arna Šijak (Ramiza), and maybe Bajram Severdžan, Goran Dodevski (Shakir), and Anthony Zaky (Ridzu). The acting performance of Miki Manojlović is average, but professional; although, at some moments his act is stereotypical, as this role and scenario are bringing to this actor.
Art direction is quite well done, although it diverts a little aside from the concrete chronotop of the film at some parts. Anyhow, quite professional, we would say.
Unfortunately, when we talk about the editing, that’s quite different: Not a few, but a lot great film makers and authors said that the editing is the very essence of the filmmaking. It should be the skeleton of the art expression of the film. We can’t say that is so with “Gypsy Magic”: the finished film seems like a working copy at its early stage. Superficial and shallow, with no film effects or tricks, it is poorly made; it brings a monotone narrating, with no dynamics of events (presenting the facts only and nothing else). And if it’s intentional as author’s procedure, then we can talk about a badly chosen motivation (by the opinion of the author of this text). But, we’ll get back to it little later.
What about the characters in this film? We can directly say that there is no real and complex presenting or building the real and alive characters: they are mostly and only types as characters. Presented quite black&white (or gray, if it is more precise), with none of them cannot be found psychological development within the story, excluding maybe with the Taip’s son Šakir, and maybe with the Indian UN-doctor Ridzu; but, at this point we are reaching to already mentioned issue of the motivation.