I began with my scratch paper optimistically. Anticipatorily, 30 seconds into the film I wrote, "Takes a few minutes to get used to, but once you get acclimated you are in for a treat." Pfft. Boy was I wrong. Though I did lose the seasickness, I couldn't shake the oppressive "what's around the corner" feeling I get when I watch horror flicks like Alien. There is this cramped feeling like in a dream in which you cannot see the edges no matter how you turn your head. You just know there is so much just beyond your field of vision, yet you can't quite catch it. There is this overpowering tunnel vision feeling, as if you are watching the entire thing through a telescope. You see, to shoot the film in one take, they had to take great pains to HIDE most of the museum. They couldn't show much of the most probably spectacular ceiling because of the hidden lights up there, and they had to move slowly and show little of the periphery to allow a significant buffer zone necessary for the 8 people behind the camera as well as the hundreds of extras and crew.
The movie as a whole is extremely egotistical and pretentious. Though the Hermitage Museum commissioned the project to display the museum, the movie missed the grandeur just to display Sokurov's "film the whole thing in one shot" device. It's amazing to me that they could claim that their goal was to show the historic building when they went to such pains to hide so much of it.
There are several moments in which the camera stops between rooms and waits, apparently for the new room to be set up. Each grand scene seems to have a dark empty room designated as a buffer zone for this purpose. And we are to believe that the entire film is precise. Well, they couldn't fool me. I know it was more difficult than it appears, but if I can understand the magic behind the trick, the spell, no matter how difficult, is ruined.
The plot, what little there is of it, seems to be a pretext to allow the film to be shot in one take. It has a similar feel to the device in Memento, yet it is not effective at all. In fact, the device gets in the way of the point of this film, while in Memento, the device became a tool critical to the story. The events in Russian Ark seem very contrived. Example: The disembodied voice seems to be the cameraman wandering aimlessly around the building. He joins a group going up a stair and asks the audience why he is using the back stair, as if we made the choice instead of him.
For all the talk commentator Jens Meurer makes of precise timing, the whole thing seems very improvised. A "Whose Line is it Now" cast could have shot the film. But at least with them there would be some laughs. That said, don't bother watching the film as intended. Watch it with Jens Meurer's commentary. It is by listening to his commentary that you can appreciate the difficulty it was to shoot this mess. It's far more interesting than the film alone.
As a tour through the museum, this film is very poor: sacrificing the feel of the museum for the sake of Sokurov's egotistical one-shot device. As a story it's too muddled, clearly a pretext to give explanation to the hook. Like a pizza delivery in a porn-flick, the story is too thin and obvious. As a historic documentary, many of the events are of no interest to anyone except the museum director and the film-makers. It is otherwise of little use as a historic documentary because the genuine historic events are not clear unless you already know Russian history. I give it two stars on those details.
I will add one star on the astounding accomplishment of shooting the entire thing in one take. And astounding it is. But I refuse more because this gimmick is precisely the root cause of the rest of the film's mediocrity.
The movie as a whole is extremely egotistical and pretentious. Though the Hermitage Museum commissioned the project to display the museum, the movie missed the grandeur just to display Sokurov's "film the whole thing in one shot" device. It's amazing to me that they could claim that their goal was to show the historic building when they went to such pains to hide so much of it.
There are several moments in which the camera stops between rooms and waits, apparently for the new room to be set up. Each grand scene seems to have a dark empty room designated as a buffer zone for this purpose. And we are to believe that the entire film is precise. Well, they couldn't fool me. I know it was more difficult than it appears, but if I can understand the magic behind the trick, the spell, no matter how difficult, is ruined.
The plot, what little there is of it, seems to be a pretext to allow the film to be shot in one take. It has a similar feel to the device in Memento, yet it is not effective at all. In fact, the device gets in the way of the point of this film, while in Memento, the device became a tool critical to the story. The events in Russian Ark seem very contrived. Example: The disembodied voice seems to be the cameraman wandering aimlessly around the building. He joins a group going up a stair and asks the audience why he is using the back stair, as if we made the choice instead of him.
For all the talk commentator Jens Meurer makes of precise timing, the whole thing seems very improvised. A "Whose Line is it Now" cast could have shot the film. But at least with them there would be some laughs. That said, don't bother watching the film as intended. Watch it with Jens Meurer's commentary. It is by listening to his commentary that you can appreciate the difficulty it was to shoot this mess. It's far more interesting than the film alone.
As a tour through the museum, this film is very poor: sacrificing the feel of the museum for the sake of Sokurov's egotistical one-shot device. As a story it's too muddled, clearly a pretext to give explanation to the hook. Like a pizza delivery in a porn-flick, the story is too thin and obvious. As a historic documentary, many of the events are of no interest to anyone except the museum director and the film-makers. It is otherwise of little use as a historic documentary because the genuine historic events are not clear unless you already know Russian history. I give it two stars on those details.
I will add one star on the astounding accomplishment of shooting the entire thing in one take. And astounding it is. But I refuse more because this gimmick is precisely the root cause of the rest of the film's mediocrity.