So near the end of this film the phone rings and when someone answers, the film switches to a long flashback sequence; it's not the same phone call. Then when that character makes a phone call, the flashback ends at that point; again it's not the same phone call. Does that tricky flashback structure add anything to the movie for you, or is it there just as a puzzle to throw us off track?
shareI didn't notice any flashback; I saw the (near)-ending as a Vertigo-type twist. Did I miss something? I can't wait to see the film again, which I thought superb, despite possibly misunderstanding it!
shareI think you missed that there was a flashback but you're not alone. It's raining and daylight outside when the phone rings, but when Robert answers the phone, it's Vera, it's dark outside and no longer raining. Then when Vera is sobbing Robert goes to make a phone call but because it's Alex talking on the phone, we know the flashback is over. Confusing, so why structure it that way?
shareYeah, at first I actually thought that Vera wasn't really dead, that they pulled some kind of trick on Alex and didn't really kill her but gave her some kind of sleeping stuff.
Yeah, at first I actually thought that Vera wasn't really dead, that they pulled some kind of trick on Alex and didn't really kill her but gave her some kind of sleeping stuff.
Hm. I didn't find it that confusing. The entire movie uses many long takes and wide portrait esque shots, it focuses very much on flow. Having a flashback designed like that just flowed together better, it seems. No unnecessary cuts.
Though, if it confused you and threw you off, it kind of does ruin the flow :/
Some people need leading by the hand; they cannot understand having to work things out for themselves.
shareYes it is a twist, a very unusual twist for Russian movies, but people really have to watch the movie with less than a half of an eye open not to see that it is a flashback. Even if people aren't completely concentrated on the movie, how can somebody miss Vera's writing on the pregnancy test (the paper that Alex had in his hand when he came to Robert!), or her conversation with Robert when she tells him that she is pregnant; after all, this all happens in the town and not in that lonely house far from village that Vera spent her last days; also, Kir notices that Vera is with Robert, and this is the scene that he was talking to his father about when they were driving to meet Mark... almost every scene is connected to the rest of the movie, how can people miss these bindings?
share"... almost every scene is connected to the rest of the movie, how can people miss these binding?"
I'm assuming that is a rhetorical question.
Exactly. However, when I read some of these comments, maybe I should be more careful, some of forum participants might misunderstand this either.
shareWell, you're dealing with Merkins here for the most part. They do tend to like having their hands held when it comes to the hard parts, like reading the subtitles and eating popcorn simultaneously.
shareWhat do you think, how would they handle recent Lynch movies, e.g. Mulholland Drive (not to mention Lost Highway...)? Or Slaughterhouse-Five, El laberinto del fauno, Number 23, or ("zucker kommt zu letzt") Jacob's Ladder and Memento?
shareYou'll get a better idea by checking the ratings here. I'm not a big fan of Lynch - most Lynch, anyway - but I loved Pan's Labyrinth and I greatly admired Jacob's Ladder. By the same token I really didn't like Memento but I thought Inception was very well done and a remarkable film. Not #4 in the top 250 though.
All in all, I have to say that the two films which had the most profound effect on me in the last year were this one and its predecessor, The Return. Two remarkable films that produced a very powerful emotional response.
Some Lynches movies (especially Lost Highway) are too pretentious, but (for me) he still hasn't lost credits earned by Elephant Man, Twin Peaks (serial) and Blue Velvet.
I haven't seen Inception so far, and as for #4 rating I wouldn't consider it worth mentioning, let alone analyzing or taking care of. Blockbusters get too many votes in too short time, and too many of these votes are given by fans who would give 10 for the recording of communal workers official meeting in Pietermaritzburg, only if their idol appeared there for a second. It takes few years for ordinary audience to give (more or less) objective, neutral marks and put the movie on the position that would be closer to its real value. (Unfortunatelly, too many old and non-American movies will never gain enough votes to be given any chance to fulfil the criteria for the top 250.)
As for Russians, they have indeed made a significant quality increase in their cinematography; I remember unusual and beautiful Vremya zhatvi (Harvest time) as something typical for the part of the world it came from - the mood, the (very low) speed, great photography and treatment of details (in photos and movie in general). But, not surprising, the only reviewer that gave rather bad mark and comment was the only voice from USA. On the other hand, another great Russian movie Gruz 200 also didn't impress American voters (though, because of its rhytm and violence I'd expect it would).
A film's popularity is always going to be subjective and I don't see anything wrong with that except when, as you say, people just give it points because their hero/heroine is in it. Just look at all the Batman nonsense and then all the vampire rubbish.
And there are way too many pretentious directors, in my opinion. The French especially had a long period when they were so far up themselves you could see their eye colour by looking in their mouths, and people like Jean-Luc Godard bored the tits off me with their arrogant nonsense.
But that's me; I'm sure there are a great many who would disagree and I don't have a problem with that. What a boring world it would be if we all liked the same films, actors and directors.
Exactly, if there were not so much rubbish all around, we wouldn't be able to recognize and enjoy the shine of the diamonds.
Talking about pretentious, I usually have Italian directors on my mind - Fellini in the first place; but among the French ones I would agree with your opinion about Godard. However, there are some new directors in both countries that make their cinematography be among the most interesting in last two decades (the place that was, in my heart, reserved for Sweden or Czechoslovakia in 70's and 80's). Tornatore seems the most promising among them.
And, back to the beginning, I haven't said that the movie getting best marks in first weeks is always overrated, I only wanted to say that we have to wait at least four or five years till those which will stay near the top will be separated from those which will slowly sink.
Antonioni was the boy who finished it off for me with Red Desert, where he painted half a town (Ravenna) red. Although I really liked Passengers with Jack Nicholson his last piece, Eros, was a disaster.
I'm not so up-to-date with European directors as I'd like to be because I can't get to my local library any longer so I miss out on a lot. I'm a big fan of Jean-Phillippe Jeunet though, with or without Caro, and I loved Micmacs which I saw last week.
For the rest I like Ceylan (and I recall you do too) and I'm very keen on the Iranian directors and Aki Kaurismäki, who seems to be doing less each year.
No argument about the early marking. There are films which grow and grow every time I watch them, Blade Runner being a notable example. It wasn't much liked by the general population 28 years ago but has grown constantly. I do believe that its current 8.3 is still underrated. I gave it nine because I never ever give a ten.