MovieChat Forums > Russkiy kovcheg (2003) Discussion > Idealization of the past

Idealization of the past

posted 21 years ago by humus_sexual_eagle
10 replies | jump to latest

In my opinion, the only thing this movie does is IDEALIZING the history of Russia before 1917. It only shows how everything was so RICH, BEAUTIFUL, and COLORFUL before the revolution of 1917. If it was SO glorious why did the revolution happenned? And if pictures is such a good indicator of the mood of the times, as the film tries to tell as, this movie indicates that the only thing Russians seem to do now is idealizing the past instead of concentating on present problems.

In summary, this movie is Russian's culture escape from reality at it's BEST. And history this movie is NOT!

[–] andrewwilson 21 years ago

I don't think the film ever claimed to be a balanced view of the past.

As for eveything being "so RICH, BEAUTIFUL, and COLORFUL before the revolution of 1917", for those that lived in the palace at the time, life would have been like that. The revolution happened BECAUSE life in the palace was so good, while most of the rest of the population were living as peasants.

The aristocracy lost touch. Just the same reason as any other revolution, in my opinion.

[–] White_Phosphorus 21 years ago

While I agree that you cannot really show the suffering of the peasants while spending your entire time in the palace, why did the Russian view USSR as something so terrible that it was unmentionable? To him the old Russia was ideal, and the destruction of the society that we witnessed in the movie was a national catastrophe. He even tried to forget the large role that USSR played in the destruction of Hitler in WWII by not letting Marquis warp into the 40s.

[–] aaronclawrence 18 years ago

The Russians I have spoken to, don't regard the USSR as a terrible thing. For the most part it functioned reasonably well, if inefficiently, after Stalin died and the really bad stuff stopped. Towards the end it seemed like things were pretty reasonable for the average person. And things certainly got MUCH worse in the immediate aftermath of removing communism and central control.

--
V: A revolution without dancing is a revolution not worth having!

[–] Redisca 17 years ago

Towards the end it seemed like things were pretty reasonable for the average person.

I don't see what's reasonable about empty store shelves, spending months in nightly check-ins to buy a mundane piece of furniture, out-of-control censorship, crumbling infrastructure, having to bribe everybody all the time for life's most basic necessities, diffusion of responsibility, and other such charming characteristics of the USSR in the 1980's. Perhaps it's reasonable in comparison to North Korea.

[–] Headfog 21 years ago

I don't think it was much idealised at all. It's a given that the art, music, architecture, clothing etc is beautiful - because it is - but it's also shallow, as repeatedly inferred by the Stranger. The idealist, perhaps naive, modern Russian is reactionary to the Stranger's bitter commentary.

Towards the end someone mentions that the ballroom is filled with "the prime of Russia's officers" or something to that effect. All the officers are young beautiful dolls. It's clearly no wonder they fell apart to the armed starving masses. It's an empty facade. You won't find reference to the peasantry and poor because everyone within the Palace is positively closed off in their own pristine world.

[–] chuck-526 10 years ago

Given the tableau near the beginning that seems to be an unhappy monarch taking out his displeasure physically on the messenger, the visual allusion in the basement to the torture device the Catherine Wheel, and all the European's comments about many of the Tsars being "tyrants", about Peter the Great even ordering the execution of his own son, much of the art being an "imitation" of Europe or even an import, hiring of many non-Russian architects, whole orchestras being imported because Russians couldn't possibly play like that, and in general the constant subtle dissing of what he was seeing, it doesn't seem like "idealizing" to me.

[–] wearyourlove 9 years ago

But Sokurov aligns us with the narrator, not the European, who is depicted as haughty, supercilious, and overly cynical. He may uncover truths about the Russian national character, but the film positions him in opposition to the more ambivalent and sanguine narrator. Moreover, the European eventually succumbs to the lavish pleasures of this pre-Revolution Russia by choosing to stay behind.

I think there's little doubt Sokurov is idealizing the past here. Not for nothing has Russian Ark been called a "radical piece of conservative art" (Vishnevetsky). It is true that the film acknowledges the tenuousness and myopia of the Imperial order, its inability to last on a foundation it assisted in destroying, but I'm not convinced it gives it a critical enough look.

[–] FedRev 9 years ago

I think there's little doubt Sokurov is idealizing the past here. Not for nothing has Russian Ark been called a "radical piece of conservative art" (Vishnevetsky). It is true that the film acknowledges the tenuousness and myopia of the Imperial order, its inability to last on a foundation it assisted in destroying, but I'm not convinced it gives it a critical enough look.

Exactly right. In the documentary The Story of Film, Sokurov talks about how he intended the film to be about the last gasp of Russia's beautiful history before those darn communists came and ruined everything. Of course he doesn't use those exact words, but that's what he means. And it's sickening on two levels. For one thing, that view completely overlooks just how horrible it was for the average Russian citizen during the Czarist times, and two, the idea that all artistic and cultural endeavors were stamped out during communism is totally false. Hell, all one has to do is look at films like Battleship Potemkin and Man with a Movie Camera to realize that art was alive and well, and that society itself wasn't as dark an miserable as people like Sokurov would want you to believe.

A voice made of ink... and rage.

[–] Naughty-God 7 years ago

I think that was the point!

The film did a good job of capturing the bliss and disengagement from reality that most of the Russian Aristocracy enjoyed during their heyday before the rise of the Bolsheviks, but to be fair it did delve into the Stalin era with the bombardment of Leningrad during WWII.

[–] BourbonKing (5612) 3 years ago

For me the live-action the narrator is witnessing is basically the people in the paintings and artwork on display at the Armitage, which also includes artefacts affected by the Revolution and World War 2. So the scenes that depict splendour and grandeur are just a reflection of the period pieces and artefacts.

I do agree that this not an accurate depiction of Russian History, but I don't think that this was its intention either.