If you’re looking for narrative economy, Aleksandre Koberidze is not the filmmaker for you. What Do We See When We Look at the Sky? is Koberidze’s second feature as a director (he’s also the credited writer), and it clocks in at 2.5 hours, about 50 minutes shorter than his previous feature. There is a version of this film that is much shorter, one that doesn’t have a part one and part two, but clearly, that is not in Koberidze’s style. His style is languid, and you either have to accept his pacing and grow to enjoy the film for what it is or fight against it and end up dissatisfied.
I allowed his pacing to engulf me and that made all the difference in how I viewed the film. Many of my favourite moments, long sequences usually involving the children, were highlights for me. But had I been viewing the film purely in keeping the narrative on track I would’ve said needed to be cut. And it would’ve been a shame because they were beautifully shot and they captured a type of magic whole real in a film about magic realism.
The film’s premise is a young man (Giorgi) and a woman (Lisa) meet serendipitously and feel a spark. When they meet again by chance, they decide not to leave it up to fate anymore but to schedule a meeting at the cafe the next evening. However, fate/someone else has something else up their sleeve. Lisa is warned about a curse, but she only hears that she will wake up unrecognizable. Due to an interruption, she’s unable to hear the last warning about the curse – that Giorgi will also be changed.
A layer I really liked about this curse is the completeness of it. It didn’t just take away their appearance, it also took away the knowledge and hard-earned skills in both of their passions (medicine for her and football for him). This makes the curse more devastating than others because it’s multi-targeted. As a result, after neither recognized the other when they showed up at the café with their new faces, both are drawn to linger in the area, seeking employment at or around the café, in hopes they will see their missed connection. Never realizing they see each other every day. The tragedy is if they had a “normal date,” that initial spark could have just as easily died as bloom. They might be “soulmates” but not enough to recognize and be drawn to each other by their own means when in these new forms. But they each hold onto the idea of each other and that magical connection because it’s the last “pure” thing they can hold onto – the curse gave the moment more weight.
Giorgi is a footballer, which is perfect because sports are filled with traditions and superstitions, both of which are hard to change/break. This is highlighted in the film when the café owner wants to get people to watch the football World Cup at his café but everybody, even the dogs, have places they always go to watch the games. Even if they don’t remember the origin of the tradition. It’s why they’re so hard to break because they are so ingrained. Curses can become ingrained too.
The ending got a little muddled, mostly due to the explanation of the ending. This could be an example of “lost in translation,” but I think it was intentionally unclear, the narrator was vague on purpose. If that was the case, it would’ve been better to have cut all dialogue after the cinema scene.