I have some very bad news. Cinema, it seems, is dangerously close to it's technical barriers. Once, directors like Hitchcock could put audiences in a state of panic with a 10 second scene of Janet Leigh stabbed in the shower by Anthony Perkins. Today, however, a director can blow the planet and we will barely blink, let alone, panick (and as far as 'Psycho' goes, well the shower scene can be aired on 'Nickelodeon' and no one will be shocked).
The big studios are in a constant battle of elaborating the final product with lavish computer graphics and special effects but no matter how awe inspiring their next movie will be, technically-wise, we'll always applaud for a while, than cry for something better. The pleasing of our rising threshold is always a losing battle.
Some directors tried to push the envelope, Mike Figgis did a movie called "Timecode" that depicts four different scenes simultaneously (The screen is divided to four screens the whole movie) the result- complete disaster.A German director made a film that is aided with odor emitting devices in relevant scenes. Enter your 'stinker' reference here (as Dave Barry would say).
Russian ark (which is the movie I review, in case you forgot) pushes that envelope by being shot in one single take, 96 minutes of continuous filming of the Hermitage museum and all the elaborate scenes that take place in it.
Logistically it's a nightmare, considering that the movie is embedded with massive dancing scenes, containing hundreds of participants and is confined to one location.
I wish I could elaborate on the plot but I can't because the entire movie revolves around a man that is accompanied to a European nobleman (an English term meaning: Weirdo) and visits the vast museum and, well get caught up with the old Russia. I think that's what happened there.
The film has some disturbing flaws, it's overly narrated, it dwells too long on certain art exhibits and in certain parts, it's outright incomprehensible. The movie's biggest shortcoming, though, is the fact that editing and cutting, the conventional tools that were "courageously" discarded, turn out to be the missing ingredient in the stew. They are the corner stone of the cinematic narrative and once they are out the door, so is the film's pace and the viewer's chance to get caught up in it.
The only notable pluses of the film is the wonderful depiction of 18th century Europe and the enchanting music that makes the dancing scenes a true delight, than, and only than, the movie is not only appreciated for it's boldness but rather enjoyed.
Call me old fashioned but I think that's what movies are meant to do in the first place. Make us enjoy. In order to achieve greatness, the director must harness the tools we hone today to create something new rather than disregarding these tools altogether.
6 out of 10 in my FilmOmeter.
The big studios are in a constant battle of elaborating the final product with lavish computer graphics and special effects but no matter how awe inspiring their next movie will be, technically-wise, we'll always applaud for a while, than cry for something better. The pleasing of our rising threshold is always a losing battle.
Some directors tried to push the envelope, Mike Figgis did a movie called "Timecode" that depicts four different scenes simultaneously (The screen is divided to four screens the whole movie) the result- complete disaster.A German director made a film that is aided with odor emitting devices in relevant scenes. Enter your 'stinker' reference here (as Dave Barry would say).
Russian ark (which is the movie I review, in case you forgot) pushes that envelope by being shot in one single take, 96 minutes of continuous filming of the Hermitage museum and all the elaborate scenes that take place in it.
Logistically it's a nightmare, considering that the movie is embedded with massive dancing scenes, containing hundreds of participants and is confined to one location.
I wish I could elaborate on the plot but I can't because the entire movie revolves around a man that is accompanied to a European nobleman (an English term meaning: Weirdo) and visits the vast museum and, well get caught up with the old Russia. I think that's what happened there.
The film has some disturbing flaws, it's overly narrated, it dwells too long on certain art exhibits and in certain parts, it's outright incomprehensible. The movie's biggest shortcoming, though, is the fact that editing and cutting, the conventional tools that were "courageously" discarded, turn out to be the missing ingredient in the stew. They are the corner stone of the cinematic narrative and once they are out the door, so is the film's pace and the viewer's chance to get caught up in it.
The only notable pluses of the film is the wonderful depiction of 18th century Europe and the enchanting music that makes the dancing scenes a true delight, than, and only than, the movie is not only appreciated for it's boldness but rather enjoyed.
Call me old fashioned but I think that's what movies are meant to do in the first place. Make us enjoy. In order to achieve greatness, the director must harness the tools we hone today to create something new rather than disregarding these tools altogether.
6 out of 10 in my FilmOmeter.