MovieChat Forums > Ostrov (2006) Discussion > Ostrov of the dark ages

Ostrov of the dark ages


Ostrov of the dark ages

Although the core of the story takes place in 1976, there is no doubt
the movie addresses the moral decay of the post-Soviet era. In each of
its main five episodes it deals respectively with the sins plaguing the
contemporary Russian society: Murder (abortion episode), Greed (widow
episode), Pride (disabled boy episode), Envy (father Filaret episode),
and Sloth (Father Iov episode). This structural simplicity was
intentionally created to appeal to the majority of viewers ignorant of
even the basics of modern ethics. Unfortunately, it also means that
those who are familiar with writers like Dostoyevsky will find the
story stale and predictable.

Not only are the sins clearly identified it is also suggested how to
deal with them: an honest thorough prayer. God plays an important role
in the movie with about a 1/3 of its 112 running minutes being devoted
to dialogues about Jesus, monologues about Jesus, and prayers involving
him. It is probably impossible to find another motion picture in the
entire history of movie-making which can match its repetitive, blunt
and pointless religious submission. This insidious propaganda of the
Orthodox church masqueraded as "spiritual masterpiece" is an insult to
anyone who is blessed with having a secular, or even non-Christian,
worldview.

So, the movie links the apparently low moral standards in the society
to the lost connection with God. The rediscovery of spirituality is
presented as the ultimate cure for the morally sick country. This is a
message the authors tried so hard to make but at a closer examination
they failed miserably. The only reason why the characters were
"improved" after seeing Mamonov was their fear of God's retribution.
And that's precisely the point: the Russian society does not need
spiritual awakening it needs a coercive fatherly figure with a whip.
The point unintended but beautifully illustrated by the film.

This brings me to my last point: what the success of the film really
shows is the utter lack of HUMANISM in the Russian cultural landscape
with each individual being treated simply as a subject of some
authority. Until it's changed Ostrov of "spirituality" could well be
Ostrov Gulag with equal success – it was shown that punitive systems
work well on Russians and thus make humanism irrelevant as far as moral
standards are concerned. Those late 20th century's attempts to
introduce honest secular humanism to the masses as exemplified in
"Prisoner of the Mountains" (Kavkazskiy plennik) or "East-West"
(Vostok-Zapad) seem long gone.

In summary, the movie is scary as its success demonstrates what some
feared 15 years ago – the post-communist ideological vacuum being
inevitably filled up with the coercive and deceiving poison of the
Russian Orthodox Christianity. The church's millennium of the unique
know-how on repression of individualism is an ironic cure for the
society that has just shrugged off almost a century of another coercive
and murderous regime. The country seems to be in another relapse to
dark ages. This time it will probably stay there for good.

reply

You're obviously a frustrated humanist who finds that for once, here's a well made film that doesn't promote your ideology. How sad. I hardly find anything repressive here, on the contrary people are being freed of their own inner weaknesses through some very pointed lessons. I would very much like for Fr. Anatoli to pay you a visit some day.

reply

Thanks for such a deep and professional analysis. I just tried to summarize your notes and what it came to: It is a scary movie because of insulting propaganda of the poisonous Russian Orthodox Church, while Russia, its history and its present are the dark side of Ostrov Gulag.
Could this be called a mission of the article or your intention was different?
Unfortunately despite the professional approach the conclusions have nearly nothing to do with the movie itself and the art of cinema in general. They are mainly political and not constructive. You blame everything not belonging to your confession but you have forgotten to offer something instead. Blaming style seems very familiar - like reading communist newspapers of the 20s. Are there more sins on top of 5 you have identified in the beginning?

reply

I'd love to comment on your remarks, but they are too vague, not containing anything specific.

Regarding the *blame*. I have no idea what you are talking about. Do you mean the *critical attitude* to the movie and its sucess as an examplification of what's been happening to Russia? If yes, this is the entire point of my review - to give some evaluation. Unfortunately, in this case the review is negative. I dont think there's any connection to blaming of any sort, neither there is any to communist newspapers, politics and so on.

reply

this film is not historic or political involve , it's much simple if you understand. but some people like you can't understand simple things like life .you need modern ethics...what is this modern ethics for you and who wrote that ??? people like you i think...[excuse my english]

reply

Sure, I can't understand life, can't relate to other people, can't feel compassion, blah, blah, blah.

I wonder if it's the symptom of weak-mindedness to ignore every point made and instead to launch a personal attack on a writer. I guess, there's a point for every person where personal bigotry overrides one's reason. It seems as if most people posting here dont even remember what the word reason means.

If you want to make an objection or a point about anything specific I've written be my guest and MAKE IT. Otherwise, you are just making a fool of yourself!

reply

"I wonder if it's the symptom of weak-mindedness..."

Strange comment for someone who accuses others of ad hominem arguments fairly quickly.

"I guess, there's a point for every person where personal bigotry overrides one's reason. It seems as if most people posting here dont even remember what the word reason means."

You said it. Try including yourself in that group.

"If you want to make an objection or a point about anything specific I've written be my guest and MAKE IT. Otherwise, you are just making a fool of yourself!"

That's a pretty strong, and wholly unfair, jab at someone who is not writing in their first language. He/she even apologized for their relatively poor command of the Queen's english. Very poor sportsmanship: shame on you for it!

reply

Lack of reason is not the same as lack of language. I never attacked his language skills.

Did I tell you before that you take things out of the context? So I repeat it again here.

reply

Just saying that a little politeness and understanding to people that may be having a hard time expressing themselves is a common courtesy. We should all remember that.

reply

Your complete disdain for all things Christian is obvious in your "review". Thank you for convincing me to see this movie.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

What a wonderful film/on so many levels..a truly inspirational film..one that translates meaningfully in all societies...and then to read your mean and creepy anger-filled comment---so sad.

Ignorant of modern ethics?...the ethics that slaughter millions of kids or maybe those modern ethics that prescribe that euthanasia as a humane alternative to life. Or how about the modern ethics of debased and temporal sexuality based on the purely physical? I could go on about your precious modern ethics and how its false premises have debased humanity...God spare us any more of it.

And then your troubling description of Orthodoxy as a "coercive and deceiving poison"? You seem to be wrestling with loads of personal demons --no Church has experienced such vicious attacks from secularism and Islam as the Orthodox Christians who have managed to survive through the millennia...That could only happen with the grace of the Lord overseeing His world...and the many individuals within it---the LIBERATING Christian faith allows the individual a direct relationship with the Lord...AND BREAKS THE CHAINS OF DEBASED VULGAR DARKNESS.

reply

And here I thought I was just enjoying a good story for what it was, a good story. Go figure, huh?






"I left everything, and everyone. But no one, no one has ever left me."

reply

I don't see this film as a vindication of Orthodoxy, as the main character is a bit of a rebel, cum holy fool, which is slightly outside the mainstream.

---
It's not "sci-fi", it's SF!

reply

He's not a rebel, but full of the Holy Spirit, that's why he knows exactly what to do and doesn't care about people's opinions. Holy Orthodox Tradition recognizes such Saints who act in seemingly irrational ways as fools for Christ.

reply

clearly not a movie for you. after reading your reivew, I can envision you leading torch wielding mobs towards churches during the revolution. We know what filled that vacuum.

reply