Intense negative reviews like some listed here reminds me of something I learned in advanced literature classes, analysis of art pieces often reveals as much about the critic, as it does about the work. The critic may reveal their own political bias, cultural education or lack of it, and their personality, assuming they are discussing that of the artist.
As for this film, I would not hesitate to suggest many will not like it:
!st not being made in Hollywood, 2nd subtitled, 3rd no car crashes, 4th it is not so action/special effects driven that acting ability or plot are minor components.
Beyond these major deficiencies which will alienate the majority of American viewers, I would suspect the viewers who truly enjoy this film will be mostly limited to those with an interest in the 18th Century or Russian history, art history or cinematography. While not a small group, it measures in the tens of thousands, rather than tens of millions. I do think that too much is being made of the "one take," not that it isn't a logistics phenomena, it isn't an end in itself, it is a technique to tell this story. But I will leave film criticism behind and offer two thoughts on the film.
Russian Ark is similar to one of my favorite recent films, the Dreamers, in that it is heavy with reference and allusion to contemporary social & cultural events and other artistic works. If you are someone with an interest in the 18th Century, Russian history, art history or cinematography, educating yourself on these references will give added depth and enjoyment to the film.
After I finished watching Russian Ark, I saw the tittle somewhere in the credits (I am one who believes credits should always be at the end of a film) and I asked myself, what was the significance of the tittle? My reflection was this, the Ark was a shelter for a remnant of humans and animals to escape a natural cataclysm and so perpetuate animal life afterward. I propose this metaphor is being used for the Hermitage, a shelter for Russian architecture and culture to escape the political cataclysm of the Communist era and so perpetuate Russian heritage afterward.
As for this film, I would not hesitate to suggest many will not like it:
!st not being made in Hollywood, 2nd subtitled, 3rd no car crashes, 4th it is not so action/special effects driven that acting ability or plot are minor components.
Beyond these major deficiencies which will alienate the majority of American viewers, I would suspect the viewers who truly enjoy this film will be mostly limited to those with an interest in the 18th Century or Russian history, art history or cinematography. While not a small group, it measures in the tens of thousands, rather than tens of millions. I do think that too much is being made of the "one take," not that it isn't a logistics phenomena, it isn't an end in itself, it is a technique to tell this story. But I will leave film criticism behind and offer two thoughts on the film.
Russian Ark is similar to one of my favorite recent films, the Dreamers, in that it is heavy with reference and allusion to contemporary social & cultural events and other artistic works. If you are someone with an interest in the 18th Century, Russian history, art history or cinematography, educating yourself on these references will give added depth and enjoyment to the film.
After I finished watching Russian Ark, I saw the tittle somewhere in the credits (I am one who believes credits should always be at the end of a film) and I asked myself, what was the significance of the tittle? My reflection was this, the Ark was a shelter for a remnant of humans and animals to escape a natural cataclysm and so perpetuate animal life afterward. I propose this metaphor is being used for the Hermitage, a shelter for Russian architecture and culture to escape the political cataclysm of the Communist era and so perpetuate Russian heritage afterward.