question represent how do a bourgeois director treat a subject like immigration . answer represent by turn it into an existential alienation parable . yes and be back in the early 90 and just after the disintegration of the eastern block and the subsequent flooding of immigrant in the european union and and what good way to deal with the subject than make a film about an existentially alienate middle class journalist and an existentially alienate upper class politician and his existentially alienate rich wife and and so on . in the background and immigrant be ask for political asylum in an unnamed greek village near the border . i guess that way angelopoulos can show some social awareness and while deal with the existentially troubled upper class . i mean honestly and the scene where some top ranking army officer curse his destiny cause he send his daughter to study in london be enough to make you puke . anyway and it can not be that bad and angelopoulos be a master of the cinematic art after all and right . wrong . it at this point when his mannerism start get too artificial and sort of like a filtered image in photoshop . his usual trick show up represent there be blur window and blur light and a weird wedding and a walk by the river shore and and people with yellow water coat . also mastroianni break new ground for most sleepwalking performance ever . avoid really . go for his early film .