Projectedlight wrote,
This film features the epitome of artificial suspense. I hate it when a film's plot hinges on character stupidity.
I agree with your sentiment, but I believe that what is happening here is different.
mailer666 wrote,
It doesn't mirror reality unless the older guy is a crazed psychopathic mental case that would murder the younger guy if he told him the bad news.
In that case, it would be believable.
The movie does not set up the older guy as someone who would murder everyone around him.
There is no way to know how a person may react to an extreme shock particularly when he is not restrained by being embedded in society. You don't have to be a psychopathic killer to go temporarily berserk on getting the news that your wife and child are dead. (Taking it out on the messenger is a very human tendency.) In a Hollywood movie, this is probably what would happen.
Pavel is put in a situation in which he does not know what to do, and he makes mistakes, but they are mistakes that derive from character and fear, not from stupidity.
Pavel, just out of college, has spent the summer with the older man who has lived a rough existence and who intimidates and frightens him. Pavel has probably never known anyone like that in his life. He has no idea what Sergei might be capable of, and he is afraid of being alone with Sergei after Sergei gets the bad news. Being isolated there with Sergei after he knows what has happened to his family produces a deep, irrational dread.
Anyone in Pavel's situation who thinks at all would be concerned about Sergei's reaction. Most would tell Sergei anyway. Pavel knows that he should and tries to. He leaves the radiogram, but after it blows away, he can't get himself try again. The longer he puts it off the harder it becomes. It seems easier and safer to wait for the ship. Of course, then things become complicated.
The voice on the radio instructs Pavel to tell Sergei and then to stay away from him. The voice is probably right in its assessment of the situation, but Pavel is the one who is there and who will suffer if it is not as simple as just staying away from Sergei.
I find Pavel's behavior well within the range of emotional reactions that a young and inexperienced man might have under those circumstances. Not the most common reaction, but a plausible reaction, and one that I can understand.
I find the movie a very human drama, and true to the way that normal and flawed humans act.
reply
share
activista
12 years ago
Just saw this flick and liked it---didn't know that it was going to be 2 hours long, but by the halfway mark I had become so interested in the drama that it was actually worth watching simply to see how that whole situation between the two men was going to play out. The 2nd half with the young man being forced to survive on his own, while trying to avoid possibly getting offed by the older man, was compelling enough on its own to keep me interested. Plus I love foreign films, and I liked the time-lapse scenes of the Arctic weather changing from day to night and back again.
It was clear that the younger man was a bit intimidated by the older dude, but what I never understood was why the hell didn't he just give the older man the damn message in the first place, which,it seemed, would've have saved both of them a hell of a lot of trouble to begin with. That part didn't make any sense to me--if someone could explain that, I would appreciate it. Other than that, it was a pretty decent drama, if you like realistic films that don't involve things exploding every one and a half seconds to keep your attention focused on it. Also, a real Hollywood ending would have both men found lying dead by their rescuers,having offed each other.
Also, why the hell did the older man go off and try to kill the younger man--that didn't make any sense to me either--I could understand him being mad as hell that Pasha (the cute young thing) hadn't told him in the first place (and yeah, Pasha did shoot at him first,out of fear)but trying to off the only company you have on a deserted island---that just sounds stupid as hell to me. I would like an explanation for that too, if anyone has figured it out yet.
reply
share
SeanJoyce
11 years ago
All of the answers to the questions you posed are literally contained in the post you replied to.
Is there still fallout from the stupid bomb that exploded in your community?
http://jmoneyyourhoney.filmaf.com/owned
reply
share
bootblack987
11 years ago
This movie is a wonderful psychological thriller/drama. It centers on the battle between two different generations and two different types of men.
The movie is about abuse and the many forms it takes. The older character Sergey begins the abuse of the younger man (Pavel) in regards to pretty much everything he does. How long he sleeps, how he spends his time, how he does his job.
Next, we see scenes of physical intimidation. Pavel is quite thing and Sergey is quite sturdy and there are a few scenes where Sergey lunges at Pavel and does other physical actions that imply violence.
And the third stage is the actual physical abuse. By this time, Pavel knows he is alone with no chance of outside help...and Sergey has set the stage of being the dominant alpha male. Sergey hits Pavel upside his head when he Sergey is unhappy about how a minor work task is handled. Sergey physically intimidates Pavel into taking a sauna when it is obvious that Pavel does not want to. Sergey uses some form of branch as a massage or something to swat Pavel's back who not only grimaces, but physically yells from the pain. Sergey continues hitting Pavel regardless.
The physical abuse increases to two scenes where Sergey shoots his gun at Pavel. Pavel runs away and tries to hide, but eventually Sergey comes after him and instead of bringing food to his hungry co-worker, Sergey fires his gun at Pavel, forcing Pavel to escape once more. Sergey never apologizes for any of his actions. Instead, Sergey says thinks like "we have to talk" before shooting at Pavel.
It is very intense and Grigoriy Dobrygin as Pavel does a great job showing how Sergey's abusive and highly inappropriate actions scare him into very exteme actions. An amazing (and scary) movie!!
reply
share
ppllkk
11 years ago
bootblack987 wrote:
It centers on the battle between two different generations and two different types of men.
Yes. They are about 20 years apart in age, and they have had very different lives and very different experiences.
The movie is about abuse and the many forms it takes.
Sergei is Pavel's boss, not his father. Pavel is, at least chronologically, an adult who is working at a job, not a child. From Sergei's point of view, Pavel is an immature, irresponsible, twerpy kid, just out of college, playing video games when he should be working, not taking the measurements as seriously as he should, not taking a gun with him when he goes outside as he had been told to do.Pavel's irresponsibility and immaturity becomes a serious issue when he fails to tell Sergei about his family, or even to tell him that he needs to call the base. When Pavel is initially told about Sergei's family, he is afraid to tell the person that he is talking to that he lied and that Sergei is actually fishing.Of course, Sergei is annoyed by Pavel's attitude, but there is no abuse. (You could call it tough love.) I really don't see how you come up with that.Sergei
may have tried to shoot him once as Pavel runs away; the other shots are clearly into the air. Sergei is angry with Pavel, and he has good reason to be. He's not going to make things easy for Pavel, but he's not abusing him or trying to kill him.
For easy markup in Firefox & Opera, see
http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/42255
reply
share
bootblack987
11 years ago
Sergei is Pavel's boss, not his father.
When did that point come up? I thought the two were co-workers. If Sergey is Pavel’s boss, then it’s even worse that Sergey used psychological abuse, physical intimidation, physical abuse and gunfire in his role of supervisor/boss. Wow!
Pavel's irresponsibility and immaturity becomes a serious issue when he fails to tell Sergei about his family, or even to tell him that he needs to call the base.
Pavel does not share this information with Sergey because of irresponsibility or immaturity, but fear. We see many examples of abuse in different forms. Pavel fears Sergey will become unhinged when he hears about his family, so for his own safety, Pavel keeps the information to himself, hoping others will come to the island before Sergey goes off the deep end.
Of course, Sergei is annoyed by Pavel's attitude, but there is no abuse. (You could call it tough love.) I really don't see how you come up with that.
I don’t know about the places that you work, but I once told a customer, “I’m talking to my supervisor…not you” and I was seriously reprimanded for doing that. Sergey not only goes much farther with his verbal assaults, but physically intimidates Pavel until he cowers, forces Pavel to take a sauna when anyone can see that Pavel does NOT want to (and then gets thrashed in the sauna), Sergey knocks Pavel in the head while doing worktasks. If you can’t see abuse then I am very concerned about what your co-workers are experiencing.
Sergei may have tried to shoot him once as Pavel runs away; the other shots are clearly into the air. Sergei is angry with Pavel, and he has good reason to be. He's not going to make things easy for Pavel, but he's not abusing him or trying to kill him.
The only reason one shoots a gun is to murder or to intimidate. Either action is 100% inappropriate workplace behaviour. ESPECIALLY if Sergey is in a supervisory position. Later, Sergey shoots at Pavel in the abandoned house where Pavel has hidden out of fear of Sergey. To shoot at anyone, co-worker or otherwise is clearly abuse. How anyone can see that otherwise is beyond me.
reply
share
ppllkk
11 years ago
bootblack987 wrote:
When did that point come up?
if you watched the movie thinking that they were just coworkers, then you completely misunderstood the situation. I suggest that you watch the movie again since it is not a subtle point. Sergei has been doing this for something like 20 years. Pavel is right out of college.
Pavel does not share this information with Sergey because of irresponsibility or immaturity, but fear.
Irresponsibility and immaturity and fear.
Pavel fears Sergey will become unhinged when he hears about his family, so for his own safety, Pavel keeps the information to himself, hoping others will come to the island before Sergey goes off the deep end.
It is easy to understand why Pavel is reluctant to tell him, but he really has to, and it is a sign of serious immaturity and irresponsibility that he does not do so. He does not even tell Sergei to call the base. The person at the base, who has known Sergei for years, told Pavel to tell Sergei and then to stay away from him.
If you can't see abuse then I am very concerned about what your co-workers are experiencing.
Sergei is not a supervisor in an office or a department store. They are north of the Arctic Circle, and in an inherently dangerous situation where irresponsibility may result in death. Sergei is responsible for Pavel's safety, and Pavel is difficult to get through to.
The only reason one shoots a gun is to murder or to intimidate.
Sergei's first reaction may have been to shoot Pavel. After that, he is clearly just trying to scare.
Either action is 100% inappropriate workplace behaviour.
You do not seem to understand that this is not a normal "workplace." Very few people would even call it a "workplace." Sergei is not trying to abuse or intimidate Pavel; he is trying to get him to grow up. Apparently they look like the same thing to you but they are not.After Sergei is finally told about his family, he is upset and angry, and I find his behavior entirely understandable. He seems to have lived most of his adult life under extremely difficult and dangerous physical condition, and it has toughened him. He is not an office manager in a
city.You completely misunderstand Sergei's character and his actions as you are interpreting them in terms of your own past. If Sergei was treating a child that way, I would agree with you, but he isn't. I think tough love is a good description.
For easy markup in Firefox & Opera, see
http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/42255ve
reply
share
ppllkk
11 years ago
bootblack987 might be interested in how the director sees the film that he wrote and made.
Alexei Popogrebsky: To me it's not the story of a dual relationship, it's a triangle, about a complete failure in the relationship between man and time and nature. The boy goes there for this romanticism, to come back and put all the pictures on Facebook, or tweet how cool he is. People keep asking how he can be such an unbelievable idiot, but it means they're in denial, because he's us, completely. He's not just typical of a generation, he's typical of any of us. Here we're jammed with everything that's completely unessential. Once you're there you get this almost cleansing effect. And you get down to very essential feelings. There was a man who'd been living at the station for 40 years in such conditions, and he told me over time you get completely disinterested in the other person, strangely enough; you stop talking. They wouldn't even drink together, and that for a Russian man is really something. It happens very naturally- it's part of the psychology of the people on these stations. It's not about going crazy; there are parts of us we don't usually experience in this life that come out.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/8895/1/alexei-popogrebsky-how- i-ended-this-summer
What do you think this film says about the Russian man, young and old?The characters in the film are very much Russian and there are a lot of particular nuances about them which reflects their background. However, I feel that at its core, the story could happen in any culture, provided you have two very different people facing each other in isolation from the rest of the world. And the clash of ethos between old-school manual work - of actually physically dealing with the elements - and the modern automated, computer-assisted, remotely-controlled approach can be witnessed in many areas of life and cultures. filmjuice.com/dvdblu-ray.htmlfilmjuice.com/dvdblu-ray.html
Is Pavel's fear of Sergei simply a result of him not knowing how to deal with somebody who's interpersonal skills have eroded through such extensive time alone, or does it say something more universal, about inter-generational relationships, about the sense of entitlement and complacency of today's post-Soviet youth versus the more serious, controlled work ethic of Sergei?All of the above. We really have two very different people, from different times and different generations and particularly from completely different sets of life experiences. For one of them, the back story had been there for many years, in fact Sergei Puskepalis, and I found this out only after choosing the location, lived in that very region for nine years when he was a kid. Pavel, who just came for the summer from the big city, he's us, he's the Twitter guy, the consumer of experience. It seems nowadays that we don't trust that we've had this or that experience unless we Tweet about it. So it's all those things, not just that the older one is from a Soviet background, they could be Brazilians, or Brits, anybody, obviously the nuances would have to be adjusted, but the core of the story is how one relates to circumstances.The thriller/genre elements seem to reveal themselves very organically as the film progresses, was it a difficult balance, deciding how far to push those elements of the story?The challenge here was to incorporate genre elements without using clich'd genre tools. There are so many instances that with sound, editing and framing those elements present themselves, which the audience loves, the game of cat-and-mouse, but we tried to avoid that as much as possible. Without spoiling the film for those readers that haven't seen it, the only time we gave ourselves the freedom to play with those elements was in the scene in the abandoned station, which I thought was necessary as it played with Pavel's perspective of what was happening, he thinks he's being chased by Sergei and as a product of the big city, where he's seen all those types of films, he projects those fears onto his circumstances.cinephile-uk.com/2011/04/interview-alexei-popogrebsky.html
Italics above added.
For easy markup in Firefox & Opera, see
http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/42255
reply
share
bootblack987
11 years ago
Thanks for this article. I really like the director. Not sure about the part about Pavel imagining Sergey chasing him. If someone shoots a gun at me on two different occassions, my response won't be a simple, "hey, what's up dude?" :-)
reply
share
ppllkk
11 years ago
bootblack987 wrote:
Not sure about the part about Pavel imagining Sergey chasing him.
What Popogrebsky said was:
I thought was necessary as it played with Pavel's perspective of what was happening, he thinks he's being chased by Sergei and as a product of the big city, where he's seen all those types of films, he projects those fears onto his circumstances.[Emphasis added]
What Popogrebsky is saying is that Sergei is
not chasing Pavel, but Pavel
thinks that he
is.You think the Pavel has very good reasons to believe that. Popogrebsky thinks that Pavel is not evaluating the situation objectively because of his background.
For easy markup in Firefox & Opera, see
http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/42255
reply
share
silvertip
11 years ago
bootblack987 wrote:
Not sure about the part about Pavel imagining Sergey chasing him.
The reason Sergey is shooting in Pavel's direction at the abandoned station is the fact that Pavel, who is carefully walking backwards to leave the station, unintentionally steps on a glass vacuum lamp. The lamp bursts with a loud plop, sounding like a gunshot. Sergey instinctively responds with an answering shot, without even properly aiming.
reply
share
ppllkk
11 years ago
silvertip wrote:
The reason Sergey is shooting in Pavel's direction at the abandoned station is the fact that Pavel, who is carefully walking backwards to leave the station, unintentionally steps on a glass vacuum lamp.
You are absolutely right. I did not understand that the first time that I saw it. We see the vacuum tube near Pasha's foot in earlier shots, but not as his foot comes down on it. Just his foot and bits of glass.
For easy markup in Firefox & Opera, see
http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/42255
reply
share
g-maltezos
10 years ago
bootblack987
to those saying no plot.. i say you are loosing the hole point, most works of arts are usually misunderstood..
It is at least unfair to say that the plot starts and ends with pacha receiving the news from radio and that he decides to tell sergey way after.. the movie is taking action in an isolated island. It is expected that communication with outer world and speech in general will be minimal.. The incident most people describe as plot is floating in an ocean of feelings and reactions... i mean it has only 2 actors and the point is exactly to see the emotions and reactions of the guys working far isolated for years
in reply to mr bootblack.. of course Sergey would not react as your supervisor in work being in the city center... The guy is working there isolated for years... Also you cant use the same criteria u have at your working conditions to judge his actions whether being bad or having a bad purpose.. In my eyes sergey is a good man that in order to survive has turned this silence into his nature... he disciplined himself to work in this regime, and it must ve been hard to get used to it. Thats why he is so absolute.. i guess that after some time this became his routine and sergey started to like being alone..
When pacha comes he doesn't realize that measurements and honesty are importand.. you see autonomous job positions request trustful people who it is sure that they will be there to have the work done and not lay back or mess with the central offices sending false metrics..
So this was Sergeys way to make him understand quickly the importance of making the steps on time.. and that he shouldnt lie to his co worker.. he has this old fashioned pain and gain way of telling but none of his actions was for bad purpose. Actually he is kind of protecting the kid.. where we argue is his manners of doing so..
At the moment he seeks for pachha and shoots him i m confused.. i can think of 2 things.. maybe he thought for a possible danger, e.g bear which is obviously less likely case to be.. or he was just showing off to the kid.. i dont thing he would shoot if he saw him..
Finally i guess that Paccha has not delivered the message not so much from fear of sergeys reaction but mostly from compassion! every time he had a chance sergey was talking about his family with joy.. of course he also feared a little, but that was not the main reason of his silence..
I speak like they are real people cause the characters reactions seem so realistic..
reply
share