I rented this film to show my younger sister on Christmas break. I remember Russian Ark very fondly, partly because I saw it with my father in a near-empty screening at the now-defunct Madstone Theatres in Arizona in 2003. My father slept through the film, until I woke him up to check out the amazing last five minutes of the film. I will explain why the film being so particularly majestic it's dull that it's the fault of the director Alexander Sokurov.
Alexander insisted on filming the particular scenes so dull, extraneous and perplexing that it lessens the enjoyment of the film. It isn't the dream-like quality that's lulling, but the overlong scenes, particularly the intolerable walk-through of the "red room" and "green room" filled with artworks and another involving a blind spectator, that defies rationale. Alexander does this in order to pad the length of the film to set the record, which indicates his ego is titanic.
If Alexander had cut out at least ten minutes of extraneous scenes out of the script to shorten the "walk-through" path in a single take, it would be tolerable & less dull that might make the film to be a "masterpiece" in achieving artistic merit -- not with the huge cast of self-respecting actors in costumes and technical feats but in terms of respecting the audience that is ready to be patient and attentive.
Alas, because of Alexander's ego, the film is close to being an irredeemingly dull experience that disregards the audience -- the average art-house goer, not snobby film critic -- in testing their tolerance level and putting most to sleep in the theater which is typically a rude response to the film in attitude. I tried my best to stay awake during the most sense-dulling moments in the film that are maddeningly confusing without simple clarification. (like the three men in black suits bantering for more than three minutes -- what was that?) The astounding production and cinematographic quality of the film makes it a worthwhile to endure to the poignancy of the last five minutes.
Roger Ebert and other ostentatious critics who lavished praise on this film only speak of the "ground-breaking" technological and technical achievement. I suspect they experienced momentary boredom throughout the film but they still rave as stereotypically snooty art critics are capable of. They simply award it four stars without considering the slow, excruciatingly *boring* element that pervade the film for the combined ten to 15 minutes imposed by the effectively smug director in megalomania of artistic self-indulgence. He only thinks of reaching the specific length instead of snipping the lame scenes in the script to spare the audience some agony.
I would recommend the movie for its astonishing artistic and technical achievement in spite of self-imposed tedium. It might fit well in Russian history course at colleges in America. For those who would like to see the film but hesitate because of boring element, I suggest fast forwarding using a remote control. Fast forward sparingly.
Alexander is commended for dreaming up the project and perseverance. The production would be impossible to complete with catastrophic loss of money invested if it fails again on the fourth attempt because of technical errors in the first three tries. I give him a point for daring to try it, which I believe will never be repeated not because it's ambitious but it's still improbable to repeat that may only end up in failure and exhaustion of all producing parties involved.
I asked my sister what she thought. She said the film is unique and amazing in some spots. She complained some scenes are lame and confusing in pointlessness and unbearable tedium.
*** out of 4.
If the length is edited ten minutes or more in foresight with some scenes clarified to avoid confusing the audience half-familiar with Russian history (not the scene of Czar Nicholas II and his family, it's perfect as is without exposition & very moving), it would be rightly called a masterpiece.
Alexander insisted on filming the particular scenes so dull, extraneous and perplexing that it lessens the enjoyment of the film. It isn't the dream-like quality that's lulling, but the overlong scenes, particularly the intolerable walk-through of the "red room" and "green room" filled with artworks and another involving a blind spectator, that defies rationale. Alexander does this in order to pad the length of the film to set the record, which indicates his ego is titanic.
If Alexander had cut out at least ten minutes of extraneous scenes out of the script to shorten the "walk-through" path in a single take, it would be tolerable & less dull that might make the film to be a "masterpiece" in achieving artistic merit -- not with the huge cast of self-respecting actors in costumes and technical feats but in terms of respecting the audience that is ready to be patient and attentive.
Alas, because of Alexander's ego, the film is close to being an irredeemingly dull experience that disregards the audience -- the average art-house goer, not snobby film critic -- in testing their tolerance level and putting most to sleep in the theater which is typically a rude response to the film in attitude. I tried my best to stay awake during the most sense-dulling moments in the film that are maddeningly confusing without simple clarification. (like the three men in black suits bantering for more than three minutes -- what was that?) The astounding production and cinematographic quality of the film makes it a worthwhile to endure to the poignancy of the last five minutes.
Roger Ebert and other ostentatious critics who lavished praise on this film only speak of the "ground-breaking" technological and technical achievement. I suspect they experienced momentary boredom throughout the film but they still rave as stereotypically snooty art critics are capable of. They simply award it four stars without considering the slow, excruciatingly *boring* element that pervade the film for the combined ten to 15 minutes imposed by the effectively smug director in megalomania of artistic self-indulgence. He only thinks of reaching the specific length instead of snipping the lame scenes in the script to spare the audience some agony.
I would recommend the movie for its astonishing artistic and technical achievement in spite of self-imposed tedium. It might fit well in Russian history course at colleges in America. For those who would like to see the film but hesitate because of boring element, I suggest fast forwarding using a remote control. Fast forward sparingly.
Alexander is commended for dreaming up the project and perseverance. The production would be impossible to complete with catastrophic loss of money invested if it fails again on the fourth attempt because of technical errors in the first three tries. I give him a point for daring to try it, which I believe will never be repeated not because it's ambitious but it's still improbable to repeat that may only end up in failure and exhaustion of all producing parties involved.
I asked my sister what she thought. She said the film is unique and amazing in some spots. She complained some scenes are lame and confusing in pointlessness and unbearable tedium.
*** out of 4.
If the length is edited ten minutes or more in foresight with some scenes clarified to avoid confusing the audience half-familiar with Russian history (not the scene of Czar Nicholas II and his family, it's perfect as is without exposition & very moving), it would be rightly called a masterpiece.