jeeap
I'm not a big fan of Sokurov. Not even a small one. But I couldn't get away from the screen this time. I was glued to that. There's no real story in it, just a picture hypnotising you. The voice of main character behind the camera is so low you barely hear what he is saying, if at all. And it doesn't matter. The dialogs seem redundant and random, and the main message is obscure. Somehow it feels right.
Lee Eisenberg
Aleksandr Sokurov's "Russkiy kovcheg" ("Russian Ark" in English) is not like anything that you've seen. Consisting of one continuous shot, it focuses on Russia's history from Peter the Great to the period right before the revolution. The grand ball towards the end is probably the most famous scene, but I found the most interesting scene to be the one where the Shah's representatives apologize for the death of Aleksandr Griboyedov. This glimpse into the czar's foreign relations - in this case those with Persia - are but a thread in the fabric of this mystifying piece of work.It's not a great movie. It seems overwrought at times, and it would've been interesting to see them continue up to the present (the only clue is something about the siege of Leningrad). But even so, this is an impressive movie. I recommend at least trying it.
cstotlar-1
A film in one take! Of course let's not forget Murnau and "The Last Laugh" made 75 years before. It is a technical feat to be sure but it runs out of steam not too long into the film. We figure the trick out early on and visually, the film just seems to ramble. It feels at times like a guided tour of a huge museum where there so much great art the mind simply turns off. Trying to fit a plot of sorts into such a project is hard enough as it is, but an uninteresting story line... I enjoy long takes - please don't get me wrong on that issue - but we have been spoiled by some virtuoso directors who can use them and cut brilliantly as well. Bravo for the technique but one viewing was more than enough.Curtis Stotlar
DinosaurAct86
While Russian Ark is, without dispute, an utterly beautiful, albeit non-linear romp through two centuries of Russian history, I would hardly call it rapturous or even moving. It narrows its lens entirely on the "majesty" of the bourgeoisie. Both of the 'spectators' (European and Russian) are endlessly fixated on nobility. At some points they speak of revolution, but fail to highlight the revolutionaries themselves. We see tiny glimpses of the minor, wondrous moments in life, but the film fails to truly underscore these as its focus and instead plays out like a love letter to Russian monarchy. How can Sokurov, who made Mother and Son (a truly moving film) sink to such a level? I found myself both aching for and disappointed by the film's ending by the time it rolled around (which was completely spoiled in the trailer, by the way).Had the film not been made with such tact, I doubt it would have received much critical acclaim. The choreography alone is a major feat. The film's continuous shot is also impressive and cleverly designed to be relatively unnoticed--no cuts in a 90-minute film is a true landmark indeed, even if done in lesser hands--but as the Russian spectator's final monologue fades out across the gray, misty sea, so does any chance of the film having any resonance.I say all of this with sadness, since I wanted desperately for it to be something more than it was. Anything more would have been preferable. I highly doubt Russian Ark will be a journey worth revisiting, should I ever bother to do so. It is as visually pleasing as the many vases on display at the Russian Hermitage--and just as vacant.
AD
