Personally, I found this film to be amazing. I can't wait to see Daywatch. It does upset me a little that Hollywood is doing the third segment in the trilogy, because Nightwatch had such a unique feel, and if Hollywood would change directors, I feel it'd be a bad mistake.
I loved the crazy scene where the man is about to get hit by the car, but then the car simply does a flip over him. I find that in films like Die Hard 4, the overdrawn, ridiculous action sequences are always what make the film.
In the first battle scene, between the forces of Light and the forces of Dark, the actors almost seemed to be performing in a Capital One commercial. They were overacting rather oddly and it struck me as very strange; however, as I watched the film, I either stopped noticing it, or it stopped happening. Either way the style the director uses is great. I love the spastic shots, almost a montage on crack. Its simply amazing.
This film is something unique, in its own genre, and I love that it's not like any other film I've ever seen. The only one it even slightly resembles is Matrix, and that's due to the sunglasses during night and the fight scenes.
Awesome film.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Monday, January 28, 2008
Russian Ark
Hmm.... I'm not sure I can come up with something intelligent to say due to the fact that I was extremely tired and have to admit to falling asleep during parts of the film. I wish I had been more awake, because I'm sure it was at least semi-worthwhile, but I was a sleepy head.
I know, I'm a bad student. I will say that from what I saw, it seemed a bit too focused on minute details for me. The character, Marquis de Custine, was rather odd. Everytime I would wake up in between nodding off, he seemed to be speaking with a woman about art. It was odd, cause it happened multiple times.
I think it would have helped if I was more aware of Russian history. When the film showed the figures from Russian history that I knew, such as Czar Nicholas, the last Russian czar, I was interested. I was able to stay awake during those points. So I feel a better background in the characters being shown and the time periods portrayed would have been useful.
Sorry Isham.
I know, I'm a bad student. I will say that from what I saw, it seemed a bit too focused on minute details for me. The character, Marquis de Custine, was rather odd. Everytime I would wake up in between nodding off, he seemed to be speaking with a woman about art. It was odd, cause it happened multiple times.
I think it would have helped if I was more aware of Russian history. When the film showed the figures from Russian history that I knew, such as Czar Nicholas, the last Russian czar, I was interested. I was able to stay awake during those points. So I feel a better background in the characters being shown and the time periods portrayed would have been useful.
Sorry Isham.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
I love this movie!
I was in Professor Isham's Heritage class, so this was my second time viewing the film. During the second viewing it was interesting to watch the action play out, knowing what the ending was. For me, the moment when the Father is desperately crawling up the side of the lighthouse is absolutely heart-stopping. When he fell the first time, I just kind of gaped at the screen, but the second time I lost it. It's a very sad, moving movie, and I think it's a great work of film.
Zyvaginstev uses many Tarkovsky-esque techniques. From the one Tarkovsky film we watched, I was able to recognize similarities between the two directors. The book that Ivan finds the picture of his father hidden within, curiously resembles a book that the little boy in Mirror looked through, especially the light, what looked like tissue paper, that separate the pages. Also, Zyvaginstev plays with different shots of water dripping and of the dying embers of a fire, both of which are used in Mirror. In the end of Mirror, the camera starts moving farther back into the trees, giving the viewer the feeling of walking backwards, and at the end of The Return, an almost identical shot is repeated.
Despite all the similarities, The Return has a few of its own unique flairs. One interesting aspect of the film was the fact that the father would say something, or do an action, and it would be repeated by Andrey at the end of the film, after his death. For the majority of the movie, Ivan seems to be superior to Andrey, despite the fact that Andrey is the older one. Ivan is easily able to convince Andrey into doing things he may not have otherwise done. Once their father dies, however, Andrey steps up and becomes the one who keeps them going, directing Ivan in the necessary steps that they must do to get home. Andrey mimicking lines that the father said or actions that the father did puts Andrey in the shoes of the paternal role, and he maintains that for the brief amount of film left. For instance, once Andrey decides they need to move their father, he comes up with a plan to use evergreen branches. His lines "get the axe" and "with our little hands" are both lines that the father said in an earlier portion of the film, and the evergreen branches were used to help the father get the car out of the mud. I believe Andrey even repeats a line about Ivan taking his shoes off that was said to Ivan by the father previously.
Andrey's conversion into a character similar to his father may also simply show how much Andrey was fascinated by his father. The two different reactions of the boys towards the return of their dad is fascinating to watch. Andrey almost seems to worship the very words that come from his mouth, and maybe this could explain yet another reason why the director decided to utilize that technique.
I apologize if I wrote a bit too much, but I love this film. It's a masterpiece and I hope to watch it many more times, even if it makes me cry.
Zyvaginstev uses many Tarkovsky-esque techniques. From the one Tarkovsky film we watched, I was able to recognize similarities between the two directors. The book that Ivan finds the picture of his father hidden within, curiously resembles a book that the little boy in Mirror looked through, especially the light, what looked like tissue paper, that separate the pages. Also, Zyvaginstev plays with different shots of water dripping and of the dying embers of a fire, both of which are used in Mirror. In the end of Mirror, the camera starts moving farther back into the trees, giving the viewer the feeling of walking backwards, and at the end of The Return, an almost identical shot is repeated.
Despite all the similarities, The Return has a few of its own unique flairs. One interesting aspect of the film was the fact that the father would say something, or do an action, and it would be repeated by Andrey at the end of the film, after his death. For the majority of the movie, Ivan seems to be superior to Andrey, despite the fact that Andrey is the older one. Ivan is easily able to convince Andrey into doing things he may not have otherwise done. Once their father dies, however, Andrey steps up and becomes the one who keeps them going, directing Ivan in the necessary steps that they must do to get home. Andrey mimicking lines that the father said or actions that the father did puts Andrey in the shoes of the paternal role, and he maintains that for the brief amount of film left. For instance, once Andrey decides they need to move their father, he comes up with a plan to use evergreen branches. His lines "get the axe" and "with our little hands" are both lines that the father said in an earlier portion of the film, and the evergreen branches were used to help the father get the car out of the mud. I believe Andrey even repeats a line about Ivan taking his shoes off that was said to Ivan by the father previously.
Andrey's conversion into a character similar to his father may also simply show how much Andrey was fascinated by his father. The two different reactions of the boys towards the return of their dad is fascinating to watch. Andrey almost seems to worship the very words that come from his mouth, and maybe this could explain yet another reason why the director decided to utilize that technique.
I apologize if I wrote a bit too much, but I love this film. It's a masterpiece and I hope to watch it many more times, even if it makes me cry.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Yay for morality!
Surprisingly, since Mirror there have been very few films in the class that I enjoyed thoroughly. I had begun to despair that the rest of the films would be just as gritty as Little Vera or just as frustrating as The Commissar. What came as even more of a surprise, however, was that the film Brother revived my hope in Russian cinema. Who would have guessed that a Russian mob flick would do the trick. I felt that it was slightly gritty as well, but also filled with characters who had depth and were overall, despite all their actions, remembered as good people.
Aleksei Balabanov, the director of Brother, created a film with one of the most interesting protagonists that I have seen in quite awhile. The most interesting aspect of Danila, the main character, is his incredible ability to care for people he doesn't even know, but then kill the next minute. It was odd, because during the entire movie I rooted for Danila. I wanted for him to succeed, and I even began to feel attached to his character. Perhaps its because I watched Batman Begins last night, but I felt that when he killed it was almost for vengeance. He did strike me as a comic book character, but only because he had this odd way of helping others out. When he shot people, I think I realized in the back of my mind that I shouldn't justify his actions, but it seemed like everytime he was forced to, in order to save his brother.
The mercy he shows to multiple people in the film seems to make the viewer know that he's not a bad guy, and that he's killing out of necessity.
The other character who kept surprising me was Danila's lover, Sveta. At the end of the movie, when she decided to stay with her husband rather than leave him for Danila, I was shocked. However it served as just another example of someone in the movie who makes many mistakes (she does cheat on her husband) but in the end his or her good deed is what's remembered.
It was intersting that despite the fact that Danila lived in a town where crimes were rampant and the mob was continously on the rise, he was able to maintain some of his values, while on the other side of the spectrum, Vera's boyfriend in Little Vera grows up in a city that isn't half as bad, and yet maintains no values. Perhaps the hope for the future was able to help Danila maintain his decent guy status.
Aleksei Balabanov, the director of Brother, created a film with one of the most interesting protagonists that I have seen in quite awhile. The most interesting aspect of Danila, the main character, is his incredible ability to care for people he doesn't even know, but then kill the next minute. It was odd, because during the entire movie I rooted for Danila. I wanted for him to succeed, and I even began to feel attached to his character. Perhaps its because I watched Batman Begins last night, but I felt that when he killed it was almost for vengeance. He did strike me as a comic book character, but only because he had this odd way of helping others out. When he shot people, I think I realized in the back of my mind that I shouldn't justify his actions, but it seemed like everytime he was forced to, in order to save his brother.
The mercy he shows to multiple people in the film seems to make the viewer know that he's not a bad guy, and that he's killing out of necessity.
The other character who kept surprising me was Danila's lover, Sveta. At the end of the movie, when she decided to stay with her husband rather than leave him for Danila, I was shocked. However it served as just another example of someone in the movie who makes many mistakes (she does cheat on her husband) but in the end his or her good deed is what's remembered.
It was intersting that despite the fact that Danila lived in a town where crimes were rampant and the mob was continously on the rise, he was able to maintain some of his values, while on the other side of the spectrum, Vera's boyfriend in Little Vera grows up in a city that isn't half as bad, and yet maintains no values. Perhaps the hope for the future was able to help Danila maintain his decent guy status.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Hmmm...
Through the excerpt from Russian Cinema in our Time, I learned what the name Little Vera actually means. Its literal translation is little faith, and this seems to be a fitting description of the film. All the people in the film live in this miserable existence. I'm hesitant to say that it is completely devoid of happiness, but I struggle to find an instance when the characters are truly happy.
The film did leave me a little cold. I felt that it was a bit too depressing to watch, with incident of suffering on practicaly every inch of film, but I think perhaps that that helped show a stark reality.
One of the most intersting realities that it portrayed was Vera's father's alcoholism. It was shown in a garrish light. There wasn't any drinking in the film that was glorified or sophisticated. Each time people in the film drank they either hurt those they loved or became utterly depressed. In the previous films that we have watched, drunkiness leads to revelry and fun times. In Moscow Does Not Believe in Tears, drinking has a negative influence on the characters, but it is also shown along with happy times as well.
This film pulls no punches, but tells it as it sees it. A dismal future for the Soviet Union was all I could see from the film. It almost foreshadows the decaying of the communism within Russia. The only time any communist subject is mentioned is when Vera and her lover, Sergei, are lying on the beach, and Vera tells Sergei that they have in common that they're comrades. Its the only mention of governmental ideas in the entire film. Just as the Soviet government is slipping into the background of their minds, it was slipping into the background of the country's focus as well.
The film did leave me a little cold. I felt that it was a bit too depressing to watch, with incident of suffering on practicaly every inch of film, but I think perhaps that that helped show a stark reality.
One of the most intersting realities that it portrayed was Vera's father's alcoholism. It was shown in a garrish light. There wasn't any drinking in the film that was glorified or sophisticated. Each time people in the film drank they either hurt those they loved or became utterly depressed. In the previous films that we have watched, drunkiness leads to revelry and fun times. In Moscow Does Not Believe in Tears, drinking has a negative influence on the characters, but it is also shown along with happy times as well.
This film pulls no punches, but tells it as it sees it. A dismal future for the Soviet Union was all I could see from the film. It almost foreshadows the decaying of the communism within Russia. The only time any communist subject is mentioned is when Vera and her lover, Sergei, are lying on the beach, and Vera tells Sergei that they have in common that they're comrades. Its the only mention of governmental ideas in the entire film. Just as the Soviet government is slipping into the background of their minds, it was slipping into the background of the country's focus as well.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
The Commissar
The problems the Soviet Union might have had with the film The Commissar seemed rather apparent throughout the film. One of the more obvious reasons I felt it was kept out of the public eye was the Jewish situation. The Jewish family within the film may have caused a bit of a stir in the first place, due to the fact that Jewish sentiment at the time was a bit unsteady. Also, their suffering almost seemed to be caused by the Civil War, a time which was supposedly waged to end the people's suffering. Quite ironic.
The Commissar seemed to present a side of the Civil War that was not seen in films like Chapaev. In the film, the war was stripped of all its heroic trappings and left at what it was, a war.
However, I felt that the most controversial part of the film lay in the main character, Commissar Vavilova. For starters, she gets pregnant, and although when asked where her husband is, she claims he is dead, the film seems to imply that there never was a husband. It is highly unlikely that the Soviet Union desired one of its representatives to get pregnant out of wedlock, although not for religious reasons most likely. The act was probably looked down upon because it put her out of commision for serving the Red Army. She was no longer helping the Communist machine, but hindering it.
For me, Vavilova gave a terrible vibe, that truly made me dislike her. This might have been a cause for the censorship. She isn't an admirable heroe, and the film shows, yet again, the not so beautiful possiblities of a situation.
In the expert from "Kinoglasnost: Soviet Cinema in Our Time", it was mentioned that Vavilova grew as a woman through her experience in Yefim's family, learning from his wife. I think the situation stands otherwise. Vavilova seems to love her baby as time goes on, she begins to wear dresses, performs house chores, but the ending of the film simply smashes any thought that she had been converted into a differnt woman. She leaves her child. She goes against every motherly instinct and abandons her child to go fight for the cause.
Perhaps the director thought that this would help his movie get on screen. The commissar realizes her purpose and goes to help the Red Army. But for me it felt like she had betrayed what mattered. It made me despise her character, and it didn't instill any love for her within me due to her loyalty to Russia. It might have been that the people who decided to shelve this film felt the same discomfort with Vavilova and decided that she wasn't the kind of person that should represent their government.
The Commissar seemed to present a side of the Civil War that was not seen in films like Chapaev. In the film, the war was stripped of all its heroic trappings and left at what it was, a war.
However, I felt that the most controversial part of the film lay in the main character, Commissar Vavilova. For starters, she gets pregnant, and although when asked where her husband is, she claims he is dead, the film seems to imply that there never was a husband. It is highly unlikely that the Soviet Union desired one of its representatives to get pregnant out of wedlock, although not for religious reasons most likely. The act was probably looked down upon because it put her out of commision for serving the Red Army. She was no longer helping the Communist machine, but hindering it.
For me, Vavilova gave a terrible vibe, that truly made me dislike her. This might have been a cause for the censorship. She isn't an admirable heroe, and the film shows, yet again, the not so beautiful possiblities of a situation.
In the expert from "Kinoglasnost: Soviet Cinema in Our Time", it was mentioned that Vavilova grew as a woman through her experience in Yefim's family, learning from his wife. I think the situation stands otherwise. Vavilova seems to love her baby as time goes on, she begins to wear dresses, performs house chores, but the ending of the film simply smashes any thought that she had been converted into a differnt woman. She leaves her child. She goes against every motherly instinct and abandons her child to go fight for the cause.
Perhaps the director thought that this would help his movie get on screen. The commissar realizes her purpose and goes to help the Red Army. But for me it felt like she had betrayed what mattered. It made me despise her character, and it didn't instill any love for her within me due to her loyalty to Russia. It might have been that the people who decided to shelve this film felt the same discomfort with Vavilova and decided that she wasn't the kind of person that should represent their government.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Goldilocks and the Three Bears
The three girls in Moscow Does Not Believe in Tears could almost represent three different prespectives of how to view the whole love search concept, kind of like the three bowls of porridge in Goldilocks and the Three Bears.
Katerina is the sensible girl, she's curious about love but she doesn't really want to search too hard. I think her inexperience is a significant player in her story. She hadn't played the game very much at all when she meets Rudolph, and falling for him fast, she ends up getting hurt the worst out of all the girls. She was kind of like the bowl of porridge that was too cold. She'd been sitting out of the game for a bit too long to jump into a relationship with an experience player.
Lyudmila is the crazy one. From my observations about Katerina, it would seem that Lyudmila would fare better in her situation with Gurin. She's played the field, flirted with her fair share of men. But I think her over-experience hurts her in the same way as Katerina's inexperience. She didn't look at love in the right way. For her, it was a game, a way to settle down with a rich man who could support her, not a meaningful relationship. She's a bowl of porridge that's too hot. She's hot out the fire, and not really thinking too clearly.
Antonina on the other hand gets it just right. She doesn't play the field a lot, but she goes with a sensible man who isn't necessarily the apple of all her friend's eyes, but works for her. She doesn't need glamour or money to make her happy in her relationship and her faring in love turns out to be the best experience of all the girls.
The sensible guy theory continues even further once Katerina meets Gosha. He is a down to earth kind of guy, not very rich, but humble and interesting in Katerinas' eyes, which is all that counts. Katerina found her perfect bowl of porridge.
What a terrible analogy!
Katerina is the sensible girl, she's curious about love but she doesn't really want to search too hard. I think her inexperience is a significant player in her story. She hadn't played the game very much at all when she meets Rudolph, and falling for him fast, she ends up getting hurt the worst out of all the girls. She was kind of like the bowl of porridge that was too cold. She'd been sitting out of the game for a bit too long to jump into a relationship with an experience player.
Lyudmila is the crazy one. From my observations about Katerina, it would seem that Lyudmila would fare better in her situation with Gurin. She's played the field, flirted with her fair share of men. But I think her over-experience hurts her in the same way as Katerina's inexperience. She didn't look at love in the right way. For her, it was a game, a way to settle down with a rich man who could support her, not a meaningful relationship. She's a bowl of porridge that's too hot. She's hot out the fire, and not really thinking too clearly.
Antonina on the other hand gets it just right. She doesn't play the field a lot, but she goes with a sensible man who isn't necessarily the apple of all her friend's eyes, but works for her. She doesn't need glamour or money to make her happy in her relationship and her faring in love turns out to be the best experience of all the girls.
The sensible guy theory continues even further once Katerina meets Gosha. He is a down to earth kind of guy, not very rich, but humble and interesting in Katerinas' eyes, which is all that counts. Katerina found her perfect bowl of porridge.
What a terrible analogy!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
