Apart from the scene near the end with the band playing and the people dancing, I couldn't stand this film. Sure I understood that the guy was trying to do something interesting, but it was badly acted (was there acting?) and just too odd to enjoy.
shareWow, I dind't even find that part interesting! I think that was the LONGEST 90 minute movie ever. Now I know why movies aren't done in one continuous shot, it's BORING!
shareI thought it was very cool actually.. Then again I enjoy art and history. Which to be honest you need to appreciate the movie.
Did you ever notice that people who believe in creationism look realy un-evolved? - Bill Hicks
[deleted]
I've seen Doctor Shivago, and I like art. I'll check out Russian history, even take a stroll through the Hermitage and see whats up. Your gonna make a 90 minute movie in 'one breath'? Sounds cool, I'm on board! Ohhhhh wait, the key word is 'BORED'! Whats with that narrator?? You know they had to choreograph the movements to great detail, but why not make the dialoge interesting? Interesting novelty item at fast forward speeds. Technically well done, but...Ive seen one too many giant wigs, zzzzzzzzzz.
"I dont remember any of it. Did I see it?"
[deleted]
This movie WAS slow, and it had no story worth unraveling. Its pretty much a trip through a huge museum that has added 'sorta interactive' actors and hinged its transitions through different departments with a drugged sounding narrator and some other strange guy in a fright wig and a long coat. This movie can be appreciated for its effort and steadicam work, but not for its pacing or memorable dialoge.
"I dont remember any of it. Did I see it?"
Boring?! Your opinion I suppose, just know that there are several people like myself that enjoyed the pace of this film very much. By the time the ending sequence was taking place I didn't even want to leave. I love this movie.
shareWhy do so many people reject film that are not strictly narrative?
----------------------
http://mulhollandcinelog.wordpress.com/
Probably because these films lack narrative
---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.
Actually, I found that it had quite a subtle, nuanced story, but it was *very* Russian. Take, for example the scene with people coming up the stairs: you're aware that that was Pushkin, right and what his interaction with his wife was about? Or the spy later in the same scene- you know why he was there, correct?
The subtlety comes in the little things- in the room with Nicholas, Alexandra, OTMA and prince Alexei. See the sailor by Alexei? He's a subtle but important part of their history; The fact that Catherine the great appears twice, and speaks with a different (and better) Russian accent later in the movie, same as she would after have lived there for so many years, and lost much of her German accent...
The scene with the former director of The Hermitage making his own coffin during the siege of Leningrad- look at what's in the room with him... or the current and 2 former directors all having a casual conversation about the museum, when both former directors are dead. Didn't that strike you a a touch surreal?
Even the "strange guy in a fright wig" has important connotations: Look up The Marquis de Custine, who he actually was. He makes the comment that he didn't know how to speak Russian when he was alive...
Finally the symbology: The Marquis cannot leave the ballroom at the end because there's nowhere for him to go- he's as much a part of Russia's faded past as anything in that museum, so he must stay- there's no other place for him any more. He realizes that and the little nods show it.
Unfortunately for most, this movie almost requires that you understand the Russian language, the Russian people, and Russian culture. Not understanding them leaves you with this movie being a hollow gimmick of the long-shot; understanding those things, you can see the art in all the little segments, the tired failing of the old Russian monarchy, and the sadness of an empire doomed to die.
I found it truly amazing.
..Joe
Well said Joe!
shareThank you, Joe for filling in many details of things I was barely aware of while watching the film. I do have one disagreement: I loved the film from beginning to end and my knowledge of Russian history and culture is quite limited.
shareThe acting is there in the movie, the actors are acting in this movie but the conventional way, with one story and several stories in parallel.
In this movie these two character doesn't have a story in the movie, they're there in this (my goodness, I have words to describe this museum) huge work of art, we don't know why and they also don't know why and they see The History, The Russian History in front their eyes, Catherine, The Great, The Romanov, that meeting with Xá. Anyway the movie isn't based in a true story of those characters, but they were true in the past. You see the vision of different poeple about painting, sculpture, music their own opinions about on art froms.
This movie is about art and it's an art for itself.
I watched this movie the first time more or less three years ago in class and I lost the beginning of the movie, I was so happy to see a movie in one shot and even knowing Hitchcock movie, "Rope" that I also watched this one in class I was fascinated.
Well, I mean I hope I had answered your question.
Roberta Trevisan
"Film lovers are sick people"
"Till The Angels Say Amen"
I found this film more fascinating than boring, but I found myself more fascinated by the use of the continuous take -- which was amazing -- than by what was actually taking place. I know Russian history (and art) fairly well, so it isn't as if the material was beyond me; it's just that I found myself more absorbed in the process than the product. This may have been intentional, or coincidental.
There, daddy, do I get a gold star?
The thing for me is why did Sokurov feel he had to do everything in one LONG take. Apparently, process was very important for him. Not sure why. Perhaps he thought the exposition of Russian history in that format enabled a viewer to s see how the past frames the present and future? All in all, I found it to be a great film on Russia's history.
shareMy take is that he tried to single out a certain definition for the Hermitage, not only as a great work of art and holding itself a huge amount of gorgeous pieces, but also as a special place in the hearts of Russians, like when trying to visit it in a single visit/run through all the galleries , and grasping as much as possible from what you see & feel, lurking behind the shadows. Probably the alternative would have been a 5 hours film (with cuts though :-)
shareThis is what gets me, too. It's like an etude that is phenomenally difficult, but with no discernible melody to engage a listener. Entirely about self-indulgence as an artist to perform this grand etude of cinema. I'm sufficiently impressed by the technical and choreographic feat. But the result is a film that feels ungrounded, just a sort of wander through space and time.
Maybe that is the desired effect. Fine, art is about intent. Narrative still has its place.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I would have an opinion on this movie had I stayed awake to have watched it.
It's OK, Claude... it's me... Dad...
-Ken Park
Maybe those that dislike this film were watching the wrong genre? there's always going to be other kind of films for you.
As for me, I have been a russophile for many years, I love the culture and thought this film was succesful involving me in the story. There are some parts that are pure perfection, such as Catherine walking over the snow, the ball, the Persian visit..
waste of time this thing
so many movies, so little time