Xixax Film Forum

Starts tomorrow at one of my local independent theaters. I've been wanting to see this film ever since I heard about it. Here's a review:

"A visually hypotizing cinematic feat, Russian Ark is Alexsandr Sokurov's spellbinding ode to St.Petersburg's State Hermitage Museum in Russia. Shot in one fluid 90 minute take using High Definition video cameras, the photography floats and careens through the lavish corridors of the museum, examining its architectural details while following a dreamlike plot. A cast of 867 actors, thousands of extras and three live orchestras supply the action of the film. Through the sheer determination of the director, or possibly a miracle, the first-ever single screen, single-take full-length feature was created."

Pretty fucking incredible, huh? I can't imagine it not being just absolutely amazing.

It opens in Dallas in May; I've been looking forward to it for a long time as well.

I read that John Bailey, the DP of the Anniversary Party (among others), watched it at Toronto and said that he thinks they could have done it  with super16mm. I can't figure it out. They would have to have a custom built mag, since the biggest ones now hold approx. twenty minutes of film...they'd need approximately seven times that. The camera would have to be dollied around, since no one could carry that.

Ah, I love perplexing problems like that (when they involve filmmaking). In any case, I can't wait to see it.

Quote from: Ghostboyhe thinks they could have done it  with super16mm.

that would be ungodly great. an entire 90 minute shot on super 16! as cool as that would be i think it would be even more fun to try and invent ways to cut the shots on dark settings so you can change mags. Like in "ROPE". Wasn't that film like only 3 mags? I only remember about 3 cuts that ran into a chair or something of the like.

Quote from: GhostboyAh, I love perplexing problems like that (when they involve filmmaking). In any case, I can't wait to see it.

i agree very much.. i love trying to figure out creative solutions to barriers rather than using CGI as a cheap way out as almost all films do nowadays...

Yeah, I think that was the first film to ever do anything like that. I think there were more than three, but only two or three were actually noticeable. That was a really fun movie.

i think rope has something like a little over 10 cuts. a mag only held about 8 minutes back then.

i saw russian ark (it was released heer in mtl a few weeks ago),if i may, ill give my opinion on the film

please stop reading if you dont want to know what i thought of the film, contains no spoilers

i thought it was very interesting and had a rather "hipnotic" atmosphere, but was ultimately pretty boring. but a good kind of boring, if youre in the mood for it. it had some good parts, and some not so good parts. i think you should all see it though.

Quote from: cecil b. dementedhad a rather "hipnotic" atmosphere

It's hip AND hypnotic: hipnotic! Awesome!

I hear that it drags a bit now and then, but the very end more than makes up for it. Can you imagine how much it would have sucked it you were one of those 1000 extras and you did something like look at the camera or trip, right at the very end of the take? I'd have been more than mortified.

On the official site, there are some nice behind the scenes photos. I bet everyone felt sorry for the camera operator.

They had one day to shoot it and the first two takes were unsucsessfull.. The third is the movie.

Incredible. What a wonderful film.. I saw it twice it was that good...

I really wish there was a soundtrack release.

Quote from: 82They had one day to shoot it and the first two takes were unsucsessfull.. The third is the movie.

I can't even imagine that kind of stress... I'm really anxious for a dvd release with packed special features. They need to include those first 2 takes with the slip ups on the dvd.

Before I see it, (which I will), can somebody tell me if the camera work is sort of like I am Cuba?

Quote from: Duck SauceBefore I see it, (which I will), can somebody tell me if the camera work is sort of like I am Cuba?

the only thing it has in common with I Am Cuba is the long tracking shots.. while I Am Cuba has many long tracking shots it still has many more obscure camera angles and such than Russian Ark. Not to say either one is better than the other. i think that's the only thing they have in common.

Russian Ark proved to be a great film experiment.  All of its faults are forgiven by it's ambition.  of course, they ran into problems of lighting, dialogue, and uncomfortable 'silences', but i still really enjoyed this film.  there was some kind of underlying magic and mystery to it that is hard to explain.  everyone should watch it on the big screen (if they're lucky enough to have it playing in their city).

Quote from: dufresneAll of its faults are forgiven by it's ambition.  of course, they ran into problems of lighting, dialogue, and uncomfortable 'silences', but i still really enjoyed this film.

Really? I didn't even notice any of that. The only thing I noticed was occasional little distruptions of the camera's movement. That's all.

Quote from: Bill Maplewood
Really? I didn't even notice any of that. The only thing I noticed was occasional little distruptions of the camera's movement. That's all.

yeah, basically, some rooms were very dimly lit.  overexposure caused by the flood of natural light coming through the windows.  also a lot of scenes where the light was reflecting off the glass that protects some of the paintings.  i was really amazed how the steadi-cam operator was always good about not filming his reflection.

I finally saw it yesterday; it really is amazing, even if it's hard to get involved in the 'story' if you don't know much about Russian history. The photography is just...I guess mind blowing is an appropriate term. I too was constantly amazed at the lack of reflection...and also just the overall perfection of it all. So many incredbile compositions...all in that one shot. The photography reminded me a lot Barry Lyndon, actually...I would say that this ranks with that as one a strikingly acccurate period piece.

Anyone seen Sokurov's Mother and Son? A very different film than Russian Ark, but one of my favorites. It's very, very beautiful, but definitely in Tarkovsky/Angelopolous territory, i.e., not one to see when you're sleepy at all. You need to be alert enough to just gorge yourself on the beautiful, really ravishing, images.

Quote from: godardianAnyone seen Sokurov's Mother and Son? A very different film than Russian Ark, but one of my favorites. It's very, very beautiful, but definitely in Tarkovsky/Angelopolous territory, i.e., not one to see when you're sleepy at all. You need to be alert enough to just gorge yourself on the beautiful, really ravishing, images.

i think i've attempted watching Tarkovsky's "Andrei Rublev" about 3 times.  "Solaris" twice....in fact i've never gotten through a tarkovsky film ever without falling asleep.  its terrible of me, i wish i could maintain a better attention span.

i'l definitely have to be checking out Mother & Son, however..

This was probably one of the worst films I've ever seen.  Good concept.  Bad, bad, BAD execution.  When you have serious intellectual types who want to see a good film about Russian art and history falling asleep during the film (as I did for a few minutes, about 30 minutes in), you know you've failed.  I want to see Timecode, or even Rope, after having sat through this.  No more of this pretentious garbage.

I just don't get how so many critics (and there were a lot of them, even in local publications here), who can drool over this waste of celluloid and lure people to buying tickets to this snooze-fest.  I can still remember the scathing comments from many who couldn't believe how they'd been duped by formerly reputable sources who all praised this film to high-heaven.  And Ebert, Ebert, Ebert, you let me down for once.  Though that's to be expected.  Usually his rave reviews are justifyable, but I can't conceive of him missing by this much.  Yeah.  Think I'm pissed?  Basically, I am, at having wasted $7.  I went to this thing, expecting to see something new and exciting; something different than the dreck usually playing at multiplexes this time of year.  All I got was philosophical babble.

Something else I wrote elsewhere: One take means nothing if you don't do anything meaningful with it. And there was nothing of substance here, and only little of amusement. In a review I wrote, I mentioned how there should have been more concentration on the art itself, and on educating people about Russian art and history, and less attempt at philosophical babble. I admire sound philosophy in film, but it was totally lacking here. I admire the filmmaker's taking a chance to do something original, but he should have picked more interesting subject matter, and gotten a better script. The dialogue was so banal and trite and mind-numbingly dull. And well, when you can't stand listening to what's being said on the screen, you lose attention faster than in the worst of silent films (not knocking silent films or anything either; there are plenty of great ones, all more bearable than Russian Ark).

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedigitalbits.com%2Farticles%2Fmiscgfx%2Fcovers3%2Frussianarkdvd.jpg&hash=c1362028892346abd8760aa693c2518baf55a8c8)

Release date: Sept. 09

Quote from: OnomatopoeiaThis was probably one of the worst films I've ever seen.  Good concept.  Bad, bad, BAD execution.

.....(not knocking silent films or anything either; there are plenty of great ones, all more bearable than Russian Ark).

Sad that you think that....Sokurov is fabulous...I got the pleasure to watch him discussing about his work last year (Russina Ark in special) and how he handled to make this movie....so great

And I just watched Taurus....well, who didn't enjoyed too much Russian ARk for its exectuion should see this one at least....a Master Piece.

Quote from: Ma©Guffin(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedigitalbits.com%2Farticles%2Fmiscgfx%2Fcovers3%2Frussianarkdvd.jpg&hash=c1362028892346abd8760aa693c2518baf55a8c8)

Release date: Sept. 09

I fucking can't wait.  Fuck yes.

Now people can be bored to tears in the privacy of their own homes!  :-D

Quote from: AKSad that you think that....Sokurov is fabulous...I got the pleasure to watch him discussing about his work last year (Russina Ark in special) and how he handled to make this movie....so great

And I just watched Taurus....well, who didn't enjoyed too much Russian ARk for its exectuion should see this one at least....a Master Piece.

Heh, it's not sad at all that I think that.  I still don't see this alleged "fabulousness" of Sokurov.  I still think it's 90 minutes of nails against a chalkboard; an exercise in style (one silly cinematic technique) with no substance.  But different strokes for different folks.  Que sera sera.  Oh blah dee, oh blah dah... life goes on.  Brah!  Nah, nah, nah, nah, life goes on...

:corky:

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.selfadvocacy.com%2Fimages%2Fchris_burke4.jpg&hash=c01974c5bd4785e22e911caa577a0e8eb3389308)

Quote from: OnomatopoeiaNow people can be bored to tears in the privacy of their own homes!  :- I still think it's 90 minutes of nails against a chalkboard; an exercise in style (one silly cinematic technique) with no substance.

No substance?  Did you even see it?  Not every film needs a plot you can smell a mile away.  It was an idea executed very intelligently.  I don't want to ruin anything for anyone who hasn't seen it yet but christ man, just relax next time you go see a movie like this.  It's beautiful.

QuoteNow people can be bored to tears in the privacy of their own homes!  :-D

yeah right! :roll:

QuoteHeh, it's not sad at all that I think that.  I still don't see this alleged "fabulousness" of Sokurov.  I still think it's 90 minutes of nails against a chalkboard; an exercise in style (one silly cinematic technique) with no substance.

Silly cinematic technique? So you must think Max Ophus ,Scorsese and PTA are silly.... they use that a lot, ,right?

And as far as know....it's not a camera recording anything....no substance? well, I found a lot of things to be told in that movie....

I'm looking forward to owning it, but it'll definitely lose a lot on the small screen.

It's definitely not for everyone, but if it clicks with you, its amazing.

Wellspring Media is about to release one of the most talked about films from Cannes; Russian Ark comes to DVD this fall.

Alexander Sokurov's cinematic tour-de-force follows a modern filmmaker who magically finds himself transported to the 18th century. There, he embarks on a time-traveling journey through 300 years of Russian history. He meets a cynical French diplomat from the 19th century and the men become accomplices in an extraordinary adventure through Russia's turbulent past-ending in the present day.

The fascinating thing about a 300 year historical film is that it is shot entirely as a one shot, one take film. No editing has been done to the films single camera take allowing the film to be completed in only one day of shooting. The audio will be presented in the original Russian Dolby Digital 5.1 with optional English subtitles. Extras include a making of featurette, interviews, a commentary and weblinks. The DVD will be priced at $29.95 and released on September 9th.

Just saw this on DVD. The most surprising thing is not that they pulled the technicalities off, but that they managed to make it emotionally moving. I enjoyed immensely the tension and curiosity between the 2 main characters. I am also glad that they decided to digitally manipulate some atmospheric scenes. The audio commentary by Barbara Creed, art historian, was dry & annoying because she said obvious things like "as you now realise, this film is being done in one take" plus she got it wrong when she said it was the 1st film to do this. The Making Of is a bit disappointing as they didn't get into other technicalities involved, other than the custom-made camera equipment and how they moved around the building. I think this film is a triumph.

f.