its more of a technical marvel than anything, and sure taught me a thing or two about russian semi-history. surely the same could be said about anything though, in that if you take out the key ingredients (films happen to be cinematography, script, plot, actors, lighting, sound, editing") your left with nothing.
I’m slightly confused; are you saying that Russian Ark does not have a plot, actors, lighting, etc. or that it does, but a film requires something beyond these elements? Russian Ark happens to one of my favourite films, I found it an exceptionally moving experience, not just of the marvels of cinema (and we must not forget what a role Russia played in birthing this art form) but also of, for want of a better expression, unity — throughout the film we see Russia through turbulent times and transformations, but in the end (of the film) it is the beauty of people coming together in art, both in dance in the film and the film itself, that moved me.
I found a lot to like about RUSSIAN ARK, but couldn’t stop myself from wondering about that ending. The film seems to show a degree of nostalgia for a period of Russian history at least as bloodthirsty and oppressive as any in history. I’m sure repeat viewings will reveal more, but there’s something about the director’s films that makes me less enthusiastic about those repeat viewings.
For me, the film has no discernable plot, bad lighting, poor sound, no performances, etc…and suffers because it can’t be framed well with a steady cam and no editing. I agree it was a bold attempt, I just think it fell way short. If I want to learn history I’d prefer a good doco… I guess if a Cossack had been given a handicam 100 odd years ago and walk around for 3 hours, Russian Ark could pass as one? It’s one film I struggle to see why it’s so highly rated. I was bored, and I have a taste for slow European arty films.
It’s dull as a rock. Never to watch again. I’m sure the director’s intentions are there, but I don’t see anyone being engage other than art freaks or people who drink lots and lots of coffee on Sundays while reading the times. Sorry to stereotype.
I didn’t find it boring or gimmicky at all, but rather an eye-catching triumph of technology and choreography. (Much more polished than when Hitchcock tried for the same effect in Rope.) Then again, I never realized it was considered artsy, freakish or dull to enjoy the Sunday Times over coffee. I even do the crossword. Talk about pretentious!
play nice boys! I would read the Times over Sunday coffee if I was a Pom! …. but I wouldn’t do the crossword (inability)….
and Rope was a movie! Russian Ark is pretentious…
I wasn’t fighting – not my style a’tall. Truth be told, I was having a laugh at myself for being so easily pigeonholed. Yeah, Rope was a movie, but, in trying to duplicate a stage play by seeming seamless, was it any less an experiment for its time? (And not a Pom here; I meant the New York Times.)
You are not alone in championing Russian Ark Tom….. it’s just a film that missed me I’m afraid. Rope is a tad stagey, but hard to avoid really… and the performances are engaging, I like Farley Granger particularly. Hitchcock was thinking outside the square with that one…and Welles Touch Of Evil has that long take sequence at the start…. but the gimmick was made to work for them… to me RA doesn’t get beyond the gimmick.
Fully understood, Musycks. And we certainly and respectfully can agree to disagree. I really wouldn’t want a world full of people who think as I do, anyway. Shudder.
For me, the film has no discernable plot, bad lighting, poor sound, no performances, etc…and suffers because it can’t be framed well with a steady cam and no editing. I agree it was a bold attempt, I just think it fell way short. If I want to learn history I’d prefer a good doco
I haven’t seen Russian Ark since it came out, but this comment strikes me as somewhat missing the point. It is not a conventional narrative film so why criticize it for things it never sets out to do? The framing is bad? It was shot entirely on a Steadicam, so obviously the cinematography is less about strict composition of two-dimensional space and more about the three-dimensional exploration of space by moving a camera through it…
I watched the film again a couple of months ago and still remember quite a few beautifully composed shots, obviously the camera moving amongst the dancers at the end comes instantly to mind, but also when Catherine the Great is walking through the snow, and when the Stranger is moving through the coronation ceremony (?). One must remember that photography is about the static image, cinema is about the moving image, thus a shot is not composed around static objects; take for example the opening to your more favoured A Clockwork Orange — neither is the composition a close-up or a long-shot, but a moving image.
Well, it seemed to be claiming to be a feature film, by a talented director., so I was lured into going along on that basis. I don’t need narrative to be formal or linear to enjoy great stylish visuals…… but the cumulative effect of eschewing that, as well as the other central planks I mentioned , that a cinema experience relies on, left me scratching my head as to what the fuss was about? It may have been an experimental success, but technique is useless without substance, so it was a cinematic failure.
I don’t know if I want to get into this fight, but I think Russian Ark deserves credit for what it is: a l-o-n-g single take (that makes the one in Rope look like a blink of a Hitchcockian eye), a great view of the Hermitage – which was what was intended, and a good tour-de-force of Russian history. The Hermitage has some of the greatest examples of Russian art – which you can see in the glide by. My wife saw the museum many years ago (when St. Petersburg was Leningrad) and was completely bowled over by the power of the Russian paintings. We saw the film in a movie theatre and were captivated – it vividly brought back many features of the Hermitage to her.
Russian history is not a pretty sight, and there are many references to it in the film, paintings depicted, and its characters. Russian Ark was done as a wonderful promotion for the great collection of Russian art at the Hermitage – the choreography, characterization, and long takes were Sokurov’s flight of fantasy. It either works for you or doesn’t. I don’t think he was trying to make a feature film, like his, say Mother & Son, which I think we can all agree, if you have seen it, is a work of art. I liked Russian Ark, NOT as a ‘feature film’, but as a very imaginative travelogue. Imagine Sokurov in the Louvre!
fair enough Bob… I’ll accept it as a big travel advert for the Hermitage! :) …. just not as an engaging, vivid piece of cinema. As for history, it didn’t really inform me on that level either, and I’m a sucker for well delivered credible history films. It is a tricksy snapshot of a place and moment in time, but I like a feature film to be multi dimensional.
I found the whole thing rather like a play. It’s very much like a stage production and I admire it for that. Everyone had one shot to get it right. They had to all get everything together and make it happen in the same take. Imagine the rehearsal for that. It is a beautiful film, though much of that beauty can be attributed to the Hermitage I guess. Anyway you shoot that place it will look great.
As for cinematography, script, plot, actors, lighting, sound, editing and a coherant score from a film…if you take those out of any film and you’re left with, not a film. Regardless, this film still has all of that…except for editing of course and I suppose a coherent score could be argued.
But yes, Russian Ark is really a stage production, a stage event, for me, and a great one at that.
While I agree that it is a good film, the “Making Of” special feature is just as interesting. It seems to me that a special feature which rivals the film screams “gimmick”.
MUSYCKS:-
I’m confused as to why you started this topic. You’ve posed your original post as a question, but your response to every response (all of which have valid points to make) seems to be along the lines of “yeah, I see you point, but the film is still rubbish”. It seems as though you don’t see anyone’s point, and it baffles me as to why you would seek outside opinion, presumedly to sway you, if you are so utterly resolute and immovable on your position?
As for discounting the film as a film… I’m not sure how anyone can aptly respond to this because it seems as though you’ve assembled some arbitrary criteria for what should or should not be considered a “real film” without the forum or the filmmaker’s knowledge. If you could please forward me this criteria I would appreciate it for future discerning of what are “real films” and what aren’t, it may save me some money at the video store.
As for Russian Ark being a stage production, I quite disagree; the camera’s eye plays a huge role in the film (so much so as to make it a character itself) which is something the stage lacks. Bergman makes an excellent point when he says that cinema is like music, the stage is like literature.
True, we only see what our camera man sees but having him there as our invisible guide seems almost like a Tennessee Williams play, maybe The Glass Menagerie…except that narrator is remembering…hmm. I’m sure there are better examples of invisible stage narrators out there, I just can’t think of them at the moment.
I guess what I was thinking of was all the staging, blocking, rehearsing, preparations for just one performance (although they probably screwed a good few up too) is like the theatre. Not that this could ever be performed. Perhaps a film with a stage sensibility? Ah, I give up. I can’t come up with the proper descriptive words.
And determining if something is a “real film” is probably not a good road to go down. Nothing good can come from that.
I enjoy it. I think it’s a great cinematic experiment that works, much like Woody Allen’s ZELIG.
Paul R… I don’t think I’m alone in attributing those elements as being a key to cinema, so I assume you’re being facetious. I appreciate all the things it is, an organisational triumph, a bold experiment, etc…. I just think as it was passed off as a brilliant feature film, and I fell for the marketing hype, it failed to pay off. The reason it failed for me is because it lacked substantial levels of all the elements I mentioned. I get that people love it, call it a play, call it an advertisement… but I’m amused such pretentious tosh is touted as cinema.
and cinema is not like music… music is like music… and it can be one element in a film.
I feel like I would’ve loved this film had it not been for the European who I found annoying beyond all hell, I understand the use of his character and his important placement within the film, but every time he showed up I wanted someone to smack him. If the film had simply been voyeuristic shots of the Hermitage and the royalty that resided there it would’ve held my interest, even if that somewhat defeats the purpose of the film. I was hoping the last ten minutes would save it for me, by I remained more bemused than anything else. I guess I was hoping for Last Year at Marienbad for the new millenium having gone in knowing nothing about the film except the blurbs the DVD cover offered.
Dylan :-
Ah yes, I see what you mean about the similarities of theatre blocking and Russian Ark.
Musycks :-
You don’t even know how deflated I felt when I got to the end of your post. Here you were making such reasonable points, only to end with “I’m amused such pretentious tosh is touted as cinema.” It is clear that you really aren’t interested in discussion and only have one statement to make, that is, the film Russian Ark does not qualify as cinema on your terms, whatever they might be. Well, hey, Hitchcock is actually carrot in my terms, so we can agree to that yes?
In defending Bergman I will say that perhaps you misunderstood his point. Cinema is like music in the way that theatre is like literature. Bergman writes, and I agree, that experiencing cinema or music is a passive experience, while experiencing literature or theatre is an active experience, in that: a play exists only as a stageplay, that is, written word, and must be actively performed to be communicated, just as a book must be actively read to be communicated. Music and film are both passive art forms, that is, one can put on a film or put on a piece of music and sit as idly or as enraptured as one wishes, and regardless the work will continue moving. While one can argue that sitting and watching a play is a passive experience, the performance does not constitute the play itself (we would never say that a West End performance of MacBeth was the same thing as a high school performance of the same play). The play exists only as text on a page.
I might add that refraining from cutting is still editing, just as refraining from choosing is, in itself, a choice. Else we might discount Jim Jarmusch, Andrei Tarkovsky, Michael Haneke, and, well, half the filmmakers on this site because, by The Musycks Filmmaker Index™, they’re use of longer takes and thus less editing makes the lesser filmmakers for lacking “substantial levels” of one of the key elements of cinema.
I thought it was one of the most overwhelming experiences I’ve had in a cinema in the last decade or so, though I was lucky enough to see it only a few weeks after returning from a honeymoon in St Petersburg (complete with not just a trip to the Hermitage but a cover-to-cover read of two hefty books about Russian history and culture) at a preview screening with an illuminating introduction by Ian Christie that tipped me off in advance about several key things to look out for.
I think it’s pretty pointless tackling the film without a fairly solid knowledge of the last three centuries of Russian history – as with most of Andrzej Wajda’s historical films, it’s clear that Alexander Sokurov’s target audience is primarily well-educated Russians (specifically St Petersburgers) like himself, and anyone who doesn’t fit that description has to do some prior homework in order to get much out of the film. Even relatively well known aspects of Russian history like the last days of the Romanov dynasty aren’t signposted especially obviously: Sokurov’s never been one to spoonfeed.
As for the character of Custine, I got the impression that he was meant to be annoying – as one of the key themes of the film is the way Russia has long been straddling the Europe/Asia divide, and its pretensions to be seen as ‘European’ (expressed not least through the city of St Petersburg itself, which many Russians regard with suspicion because of its origins as an artificial creation through which Peter the Great wanted to cement cultural ties between Europe and Russia). Accordingly, Russia cosies up to characters like Custine, only to be belittled and patronised in return – and that’s a microcosm of a fair chunk of Russian history in itself. I certainly get the impression that a fair number of Russian viewers would be asking “why are we wasting time with this guy?” – and, by extension, wondering why Russia is bothering with Europe when it’s quite capable of standing on its own feet.
But I’m not sure whether there’s any value in arguing whether RUSSIAN ARK is “cinema” or not, because the simple fact is that it wouldn’t work in any other medium: to me, it’s a lot closer to “cinema” than, say, a pedestrian literary adaptation. It’s not a viable stage production, because the action unfolds at specific times in specific locations, so the audience would have to be where the camera is throughout. And the primary reason for the lack of cutting is that Sokurov wanted to encapsulate three centuries of history in a single take – something so insanely ambitious that I’m amazed he even got the chance to attempt it, let alone pull it off. That final sequence in particular, with the ballroom scene followed by that riveting track into the mist-shrouded Neva river, is one of my indelible cinematic memories of recent years.
Paul… agreed, editing is making choices, but when the gimmick overwhelms the content, you’re in trouble. You mention Haneke.. editing is so crucial to his vision, he’ll challenge you and push you as a viewer by avoiding pedestrian and obvious cutting. His films are superb and I’m yet to be let down by him. Thanks for clarifying the Bergman quote.
Michael B… thanks for the breakdown. I love history, but deep Russian history I’m yet to do. What books would you recommend?
I’m sure you’re right that a trip to the Hermiatge and devouring a couple of thousand pages of history, and a primer by an expert would enhance the experience, but I didn’t have those advantages! hence that last shot has not the same resonance for me.
Christopher… I love Zelig, but as cinema the two films are a long way apart for me. If it was trying to be a historical epic, it doesn’t come up to the mark. Line it up against Ran, or Barry Lyndon or Lawrence Of Arabia, even Von Sternbergs ‘The Scarlet Empress’ and the game is up.
is it cinema? YES!
“If it was trying to be a historical epic, it doesn’t come up to the mark. Line it up against Ran, or Barry Lyndon or Lawrence Of Arabia, even Von Sternbergs ‘The Scarlet Empress’ and the game is up.”
Yes, but it’s not – it’s an utterly different type of film. The films you cite are all dramatic narrative features set against a particular historical backdrop (and often a fairly sketchy one: you won’t learn much about Japanese history from RAN, for instance), whereas this is a meditation on Russian history itself. Everything about it, very much including the location, is geared towards that specific aim, and trying to approach it as a conventional narrative feature is a guaranteed recipe for frustration, bafflement and boredom.
What’s wrong with you people? Russian Ark is among my favorite movies.
There was a lot going on besides the technical virtuosity. The movie was about the interplay between lived life, and encroaching history. About death, and how the beautiful things in the world are always slipping away, and can only exist again in partial fragments, caught on strips of celluloid.
I mean he’s riffing off Tarkovsky and Kieslowski, but he does a very good riff. He’s a lot more direct about it too.
Michael… fair point… a meditation I’ll accept… but your priming was important for you to get a return on your viewing. I don’t think that should be the prerequisite for watching. That film coud not touch the depths of a Tarkovsky, sorry. Cinema? okay…. just dull and pretentious cinema.
…….. keep swingin’ guys! :)
Musycks
Seeing it on the front page of the library section has bought back repressed memories!… years ago I bought the hype, sadly, and went to see it with high hopes. After a bum numbing period of time I left bemused and confused, I remember asking my friend at the time, if you take out cinematography, script, plot, actors, lighting, sound, editing and a coherant score from a film, what’s left? ……only hot air.