We said above that there is some kind of mild psychological transformation with some of the characters in the film. But, in cause that transformation to be valid at aesthetic aspect, that transformation has to be well motivated. As more drastic the transformation is, as more intensive the motivation should be. And the motivation here is just another gray element among the whole grayness of the film. It just doesn’t seem convincing. There is nothing to suspense the disbelief. Both at the motivation and conditions for the Taip’s deception and at the travesty and homosexuality of the Šakir and Ridzu. There are no preconditions or situations strong and convincing enough to provoke or assume such a drastic turbulence within the psychological profiles of these characters.
All this weaknesses can’t be justified with the usual interpretings about the polysemantics of the film language, with symbols or allegories etc. Because…
2. About the semantics
If we want to make a research on the secondary or deeper meanings of the film, we’d have to make things clear with the primary ones first. Because, we cannot talk about a subtext if there is not a text existing – in real. So, consequently, whenever the text itself isn’t properly and sufficiently defined, any secondary or deeper extracted meaning just can’t be accepted as valid.
Talking about semantics is always a difficult task because the relativity of the nature of art and its codes, and it brings a great deal of responsibility upon one’s shoulders. But, not even close to the responsibility of the one who creates it. So, we are going to hold on (for a moment only) to just some of the meanings which are definable here, and some of the consequences they may bring to the aesthetic quality of the deed.
As first we will mention what we’re not going to mention:
For example, we are not going to discuss what meanings or submeanings can be extracted considering the fact that in one of the latest Macedonian films, there is almost impossible to hear the Macedonian language. That fact, along with a great number of scenes in the film (the scenes of the city and the “urban” landscapes) just doesn’t match at all with the chronotop, but on contrary, they are ruining the chronotopic configuration of the deed, and they make it – inconvincible and undefined. But, in cause to avoid some unclear areas (politics, for example), we’re going to stop right here with this matter. So, we will – briefly – repeat and summarize that there are only a few elements which can be analyzed by the aspect of semantics of the deed, but they aren’t motivated enough, nor produced good enough at the aspect of media, to deserve any deeper analysis.
For example, if we say that this film is an artistic criticism regarding the actual time and life here; or some kind of announcing some of the painful problems at this interesting, but also very strange times at this region especially, we have to find a real solid grounds for it in the very material existence of the deed. And that just cannot be found in “Gipsy Magic”. The monotonous tempo of the events and the situations – without any deeper meanings or at least accenting of some elements of the fabula – just don’t allow any concrete, and above all, no really valid conclusions about the film.
3. And something about the author’s consistence
Stole Popov is one of ours most famous and maybe one of our best film directors, judging by his creative work – until this particular film. Just for the benefit of reminding, we’ll mention some of his previous films: “The red horse” (1981), “Happy New ’49” (1986), “Tattooing” (1991).
And here pops up the question we just can’t avoid: How comes, an author of that reputation can allow such a fail – like this last film he made?
May be that’s where the answer is: in the personal poetics of the author, implanted in his work in whole: that strong thread of naturalistic influences that can be found in great amount in his earlier work. That poetics which he remains consistent to, is present in this latest film of his. But, maybe the wish for something more or better, or something else, drove him in extreme, and it resulted with this large number of negativities and the poor aesthetic quality of the film. Who would know?
That consistence to something, that consistence which goes to extreme, goes quite far globally in the world. There are many examples through the history of scientists, artists and philosophers with the same incline to it: almost without an exception, they all ended up in a blind street which goes to nowhere. It happened with Freud, Darwin, the Russian formalism, the structuralism, etc., etc. And maybe just for our comfort, we’ll notice that in most cases, that wasn’t permanent state of mind, and many of the mentioned above, in their following stages, did make revision and corrections on their previous work.
So, what were the exact reasons of the author, and what was his motivation to make this kind of a film? If the blame isn’t on the extremely inclined naturalistic provenience, what other reasons can carry it? Maybe it’s not much unreal if we look up those reasons in the tendency – a sellable film to be made for the Western World; especially, when our latest (and ex) history proved that right. Well, nice then. Only, on the West, however – sometimes – that film should be also – a good film.
4. Something like summary
The most important thing we mustn’t forget, is the fact that here, this kind of a phenomena is widely present in our cultural (and art) living. That’s why we consider all this have been said – that is needed to be said. Not only because of “Gipsy…”
And, about “Gipsy…” we can say only: Gipsy – yes. Magic – no.
Because, as we concluded, the magic cannot emerge out in a film like this. Because, the magic is in the aesthetic and artistic gains, in the warmth and pleasure in them, and in the suspense of a highly artistic done deed. The magic is in all art characteristics and elements of the deed, in the consistence and the coherence of the deed and its components. There is no magic in Taip’s deception, nor in the false deaths of his family. And maybe we would find it even there, if there was just a little of it in the author’s and artistic performances of the film.
So, at the end, the answer to the title of this text is:
It’s not there.