Watching this movie it's easy to understand why old European art films suffered from lack of wide audience, and why majority of people nowadays don't remember them and don't even try to give them a chance.
In fact, this is not a bad movie. Compared to similar ones from the same decade it is not too long, the director didn't expand it by endless long scenes that don't contribute to the plot or the visual beauty, and this makes it easier to watch. (Tarkovsky, who was a real genius, used to make movies almost twice longer than Budapesti Mesék and with more control in editing most of them would only benefit not by cutting scenes out but making them shorter and would become more acceptable to average audience. Another genius Mallick often filled his masterpieces with details that were often not directly related to the plot, but not too long and always mesmerizing – without them the plot would lose nothing, but the movie would lose magic. Ioseliani had long scenes that showed nothing important, they were boring and repelled audience who disliked slow movies, but were at least really beautiful.) Szabo's movie was made long after Hungarian unsuccessful revolution, and almost a decade after Prague Spring, the last time when Soviet army practiced reminding Iron Curtain countries what are they allowed to do and think. This distance made authors a bit more relaxed, but still careful. Hungarian movie makers have frequently tested the limits in making questions about socialism, its benefits and consequences. While Czech, Polish or Eastern German authors, if daring to express any criticism, usually blamed local authorities and their character deviations for temporary malfunctions of the best possible system, in Hungary, as long as not openly inviting to dispose socialism and Soviet leadership, authors were rather free to show the problems and sometimes real tragedies appearing in and because of soviet-type socialism. Even Szabo's earlier movie Szermelesfilm presented modern Hungarian history as a tragedy, German (nazi) occupation and Soviet termination of '56 revolution had the same impacts and results, and there was no real difference for average people if they decided to stay in Hungary or to live in western capitalistic countries.
As well as many art movies, especially European from 60's and 70's, Budapesti Mesék is based on symbols. Whole movie uses a tram as a symbol of looking for something better, for better future, and this could be interpreted as a pro-socialist and pro-maxis attitude unless you look the other way, that people from all over the country were leaving their homes because their today life was so hard and unbearable so they had to seek better life in some almost mythical town" (could be compared to expectations of people searching for El Dorado or Shangri La). Again, along the journey the only way to advance, to avoid traps, to handle the problems and to remove barriers was being together, in a group with strong cohesion – collectivism as forced by communist theoreticians; however, along this journey we can clearly see that this collectivism lacks humanity, ignores privacy and individuality to the level of either expelling or physically removing the ones that (with or without real reason) seemed not to be completely devoted to common aim.
The problem of the movie isn't the more than just few implausibilities. Art movies, similar to fantasy ones, don't have to be completely logical, realistic and plausible. Just the opposite, distraction from pure realism makes the point stronger. Unfortunately, using all characters only as symbols (we don't even know most of their names) makes them less interesting, and there is not a single one that makes us want to follow, to know more about him, because there is nothing about him that we are supposed to know – each of them is reduced for his temporary appearance as a symbol. We can maybe consider the tram to be the leading character of the movie as sometimes other objects (a coat, a coin, a weapon etc) can be, or the most important role is given to the town, river, country; but people who appear in roles supporting to a knife, restaurant or a car don't have to be puppets that only fill the stage (just remember Himmel über Berlin or Sous le ciel de Paris where humans live in the city, not diminishing its major role, but adding themselves as the treasure of the hero).
Not ignoring these objections I can still recommend Budapesti mesék to art movie admirers. Personally, I had better time watching it than spending time with Antonioni, Godard or Fassbinder. But these are just my personal preferences. Watch and make your own attitude.
In fact, this is not a bad movie. Compared to similar ones from the same decade it is not too long, the director didn't expand it by endless long scenes that don't contribute to the plot or the visual beauty, and this makes it easier to watch. (Tarkovsky, who was a real genius, used to make movies almost twice longer than Budapesti Mesék and with more control in editing most of them would only benefit not by cutting scenes out but making them shorter and would become more acceptable to average audience. Another genius Mallick often filled his masterpieces with details that were often not directly related to the plot, but not too long and always mesmerizing – without them the plot would lose nothing, but the movie would lose magic. Ioseliani had long scenes that showed nothing important, they were boring and repelled audience who disliked slow movies, but were at least really beautiful.) Szabo's movie was made long after Hungarian unsuccessful revolution, and almost a decade after Prague Spring, the last time when Soviet army practiced reminding Iron Curtain countries what are they allowed to do and think. This distance made authors a bit more relaxed, but still careful. Hungarian movie makers have frequently tested the limits in making questions about socialism, its benefits and consequences. While Czech, Polish or Eastern German authors, if daring to express any criticism, usually blamed local authorities and their character deviations for temporary malfunctions of the best possible system, in Hungary, as long as not openly inviting to dispose socialism and Soviet leadership, authors were rather free to show the problems and sometimes real tragedies appearing in and because of soviet-type socialism. Even Szabo's earlier movie Szermelesfilm presented modern Hungarian history as a tragedy, German (nazi) occupation and Soviet termination of '56 revolution had the same impacts and results, and there was no real difference for average people if they decided to stay in Hungary or to live in western capitalistic countries.
As well as many art movies, especially European from 60's and 70's, Budapesti Mesék is based on symbols. Whole movie uses a tram as a symbol of looking for something better, for better future, and this could be interpreted as a pro-socialist and pro-maxis attitude unless you look the other way, that people from all over the country were leaving their homes because their today life was so hard and unbearable so they had to seek better life in some almost mythical town" (could be compared to expectations of people searching for El Dorado or Shangri La). Again, along the journey the only way to advance, to avoid traps, to handle the problems and to remove barriers was being together, in a group with strong cohesion – collectivism as forced by communist theoreticians; however, along this journey we can clearly see that this collectivism lacks humanity, ignores privacy and individuality to the level of either expelling or physically removing the ones that (with or without real reason) seemed not to be completely devoted to common aim.
The problem of the movie isn't the more than just few implausibilities. Art movies, similar to fantasy ones, don't have to be completely logical, realistic and plausible. Just the opposite, distraction from pure realism makes the point stronger. Unfortunately, using all characters only as symbols (we don't even know most of their names) makes them less interesting, and there is not a single one that makes us want to follow, to know more about him, because there is nothing about him that we are supposed to know – each of them is reduced for his temporary appearance as a symbol. We can maybe consider the tram to be the leading character of the movie as sometimes other objects (a coat, a coin, a weapon etc) can be, or the most important role is given to the town, river, country; but people who appear in roles supporting to a knife, restaurant or a car don't have to be puppets that only fill the stage (just remember Himmel über Berlin or Sous le ciel de Paris where humans live in the city, not diminishing its major role, but adding themselves as the treasure of the hero).
Not ignoring these objections I can still recommend Budapesti mesék to art movie admirers. Personally, I had better time watching it than spending time with Antonioni, Godard or Fassbinder. But these are just my personal preferences. Watch and make your own attitude.
