User Reviews

'It's a pity you're not here with me. You would understand everything. Look. The sea is all around. We are destined to sail forever. To live forever'- quotes the narrator of the story. To live forever was this movie mission, and for the most part, it kinda does. A 90-minute Russian film shot using only a Steadicam and over 2,000 actors inside a Russian history museum in one complete, continuous, uninterrupted take is indeed, going to stand out! However, there were a few mistakes on the camera that was noticeable, such as children looking at the camera or people tripping down the stairs. I guess, the director didn't notice or he really didn't feel for film editing. Still, the enormity of their accomplishment is even more striking when one realizes that the 33-rooms museum only granted one day for director Alexander Sokurov to shoot the film. After three false starts, he completed it just in time. That's pretty impressed. Set entirely within a dream-like world, the film tells the story of an unseen narrator (Voiced by Alexander Sokurov) and a foreign nobleman from the 19th century named Marquis de Custine (Sergey Dreyden) checking out the artifact artwork within the St. Petersburg's Hermitage Museum complex. As they talk, about the relics within the museum; each new room holds 300 years of recreated Russian history, allow them, to witness key events with key people play out in front of them, across different times within Russia past. This achievement was made possible by over 4,500 cast in many different lavish period outfit & historic costumes. It took four years of practice to get the film choreographic right. For that hard work ethic, we can only be thankful. The fruit of all, their labor is a delicate exploration of the nature of history and its effect on a national consciousness. Without spoiling the movie, too much, I found the movie to be, beautifully shot by Cinematographer Tilman Büttner. I love, how the steadicam camera floats, glides and even waltzes its way through all the film's commotion, spotlighting various moments of action and people seemingly at random as if a trance. As much, as I would have love to see, the historic events play out in order. The non-linear, improvisational 'structure' of the film thus acts as an evocation of the disarray of a nation's past, as if somebody is looking back only through nostalgic goggles at Imperial Russia. Trying really hard to remember, the good thing about Russia's Golden Age, but also trying really hard to ignore everything that wasn't good about their history, such as anything before Peter the Great or the time, the country was rebranded as the Soviet Union. Clearly, the movie had some troubles, talking about certain events like World War 2 or the Russian Revolution. It felt like, it was trying too hard to steer away from conflict. Some viewers might hate the film, due to that reason. I can understand; why certain audience members felt the movie was somewhat dull or boring. Without conflict, you don't have, much of a story. Despite the narrative's sluggishness, the movie does try to have somewhat of a story-arch with Marquis de Custine. I like his character development. At first, the Marquis' attitude toward Russia was mostly negative. He found the country to be, a bit too savage and full of uncreative actors. He felt like they were trying too hard of a carbon copy of other European countries at the time & incapable of something ingenuity. By the end of the film, he became, much more aware to Russia dusha and start to warm up to the idea of Russia having their own culture. As much as certain critics might find the character, unlikeable. His real life-couther part was a little harsher about Russia than this one. The movie got nearly nothing right about the character. The real-life Custine really hate autocracy, and everything about Tsarism. Another thing is that he wasn't a womanizer, but an open, practicing homosexual. I really found it odd, that he was chosen to be, one of the film's narrative voice. Still, I love the actor that play him. He remind me, so much of Christoph Waltz in the way, he speaks and moves. I also love the smart dialogue that seem to follow him, but it's clear, that the sound was added, way after filming was done. You can clearly see it, in the voice dubbing. The dialogue doesn't really match with the character's mouth movement at times. Another problem is that, it's really hard to figure out, who is speaking, and what they're trying to say. While, intriguing, some of the dialogue and artwork use are so vague, that it doesn't make, much sense. Then, there are plenty of artwork that doesn't get explain. Maybe, the film was a bit too artsy in the art-house department for me, because I really didn't get some of what the film was trying to say. Despite that, the climatic ending was very clear, but somewhat predictable. The whole movie, then, can be seen as a fight against the complex of inferiority of the Russian artist. At least, that is what I got from it. Anyways, the music and set pieces that follow the narrative, were great. Overall: I love the elegant dream like historic reenactments in this film. It was a somber watch, worth checking out. It's a very trippy film.

ussian Ark (Russkiy Kovcheg) is one of those films more notable for the technical expertise it exhibits (or preens of) than any real artistic merit. It reminds one of Mike Figgis's 2000 film Timecode, wherein that whole film was supposedly done in four separate single takes, in real time. That claim was debunked by a simple watching of the film, and the film itself was notable for being a screenplay disaster. The four stories, which occupied one fourth of the whole screen the whole time, had volume turned up on one section while the others were backgrounded, and then switched, which made it difficult for the viewer to even stick with whatever tale he preferred. Technically, the film was a mess, and, as there was no real story, just a gimmick, the film bombed critically and financially. Russian Ark, made in 2002 by the infamously somnolent director Alexander Sokurov, has a similar gimmick. While not following four separate stories, it is claimed to have been shot in one continuous take, directly onto a High Definition portable hard drive. It also claims that it was shot over one day, and in real time. While not a technical film expert, I did notice several scenes where the camera passed over black spots, making it the perfect place for an edit to occur, so I tend to believe that the claim of its 87 minute single Steadicam shot are overblown, if not outright false, even though the filmmakers have stated that the completed, unedited film, was done on a fourth attempt by cinematographer Tilman Büttner. It could very well just be a slicker version of Alfed Hitchcock's more clumsy attempts in Rope.

But, even if wrong, the film is still all style and little substance. Like Timecode, it has an execrable screenplay. Here is its sum narrative: an unnamed an unseen protagonist (voiced by Sokurov, and viewed from his eyes as the camera) wakes up on a winter day and is astonished to be in the 19th Century. He wanders into Peter the Great's Winter Palace in Saint Petersburg- which later became the Russian State Hermitage Museum, that nation's answer to The Louvre and The Metropolitan Museum Of Art. Whether this is a dream or a vision of the afterlife is unclear. The narrator has two companions- another unseen unnamed one, whose voice is heard, and a seen one- a French Marquis (possibly the Marquis de Custine, according to the film information extraneous to the actual narrative) who speaks Russian. He is played by Sergei Dreiden, and helps guide the two unseen travelers through the three dozen grand rooms of the museum. There, we see time flow back and forth from Peter the Great through Catherine the Great through the day before the deaths of the Romanovs through the siege on Leningrad, in World War Two, and back. Other Russian notables, like Alexander Pushkin, have cameos.

There is also the feeling, watching the film, and even more so, listening the prattling on about the film in its DVD commentary with producer Jens Meurer, that Sokurov was trying so hard to make a film that was a masterpiece, as well as film history, that he forgot to master a good film. OK, Russian Ark is not bad, and I'll likely rewatch it, as a curio, but that's it. One wonders what a real filmic master of the little moments, like Yasujiro Ozu, or a master of depth like Akira Kurosawa, or a master of ecstatic truths, like Werner Herzog, would have done with a project like this.

In a sense, Russian Ark may indeed, in its better moments, achieve some Russian cultural relevance, but artistically it is pedestrian. Still, I would say see it once, if for the history and achievement- it's sort of like reading bad James Joyce. At least then you'll always be able to say, 'Ah, yes, I've seen Russian Ark,' when that pretentious pal of yours asks that at the next party. That neither of you will be able to say much else with zest says all you need to know of this film.

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.

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.