Russian Ark

Bud_Clay · May 28, 2003, 04:42:39 AM

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..

ono · May 28, 2003, 05:07:19 AM

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).

MacGuffin · July 24, 2003, 09:11:05 PM

Release date: Sept. 09

AK · July 24, 2003, 11:42:12 PM

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.

Bud_Clay · July 25, 2003, 05:43:58 PM

Quote from: Ma©Guffin

Release date: Sept. 09

I fucking can't wait. Fuck yes.

ono · July 25, 2003, 06:48:54 PM

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

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:

Bud_Clay · July 25, 2003, 07:09:24 PM

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.

AK · July 26, 2003, 12:21:43 AM

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

yeah right!

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....

Ghostboy · July 26, 2003, 02:54:16 AM

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.

MacGuffin · August 07, 2003, 09:15:48 PM

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.

foray · October 02, 2004, 07:03:24 PM

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.