Russian Ark (2002)

The Worst Film Ever

Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

There is something truly special about this film. Specifically, there is a singular aspect regarding the production that can be reasonably singled out as a particularly unique approach to film-making. This facet of the film may or may not already be known to you, the reader, either way I will address it after a brief summary of the film. The plot can be expressed in an inherently concise manner because it is exceptionally simple. The action unfolds from a first person perspective of an individual who is seemingly dreaming. Although, the film does not make it explicitly clear whether or not the man, who is the proxy for the audience, is dreaming; it certainly appears to be the case because the film can undoubtedly be described as being dream- like. The film progresses with our character moving through the Russian State Hermitage Museum in St. Petersberg. For a majority of the journey through the beautifully elaborate building, the character is guided by a french aristocrat from the 19th century, who is seemingly viewing the museum for the first him himself. Along the way, from room to room, the two encounter numerous historical Russian figures which are adorned in the elaborate clothing of their time period, as well as people from the modern era. Sometimes the people can see them, but more often than not they can't. It seems that time is jumbled up and squeezed together as the two walk through the building. One room will contain a historical diplomatic ceremony, and another will have people from the 21st century looking at historical artwork. This is essentially the whole plot of the film; however, it's execution is what makes the whole affair terribly interesting. The entire hour and thirty-nine minute film is a shot in a single take. In other words, the camera starts rolling at the beginning of the film and it doesn't cut until the end. It was likely a very easy job for the editor. The way in which the film is shot absolutely emphasizes the dream-like quality of it. The word hypnotic comes to mind when I try to describe the effect of the camera floating from one room to another. It's as though the viewer is having an out of body experience. You feel as though you are being pulled through a mirage of stretched out time/ memory. To further clarify, the film has a unique look because the image is uncompressed. It was honestly a little jarring at first as the image has a quality to it that makes it appear slightly warped. It is worth mentioning the absurd amount of preparation that must have been required to pull the film off. I believe I read that there was a team of around 4,500 people that helped with the production both in front and behind the camera. The amount of work put into the mise-en- scene must have been exhaustive. Once the camera is rolling, then all everybody has to do is perform perfectly without fault, or else you have to start from the beginning. It surpasses imagination the amount of coordination that was required to pull it off. That was my primary reason for viewing the film. Simply, the technical feat of it; however, I was not prepared to be utterly ensnared in the ballet of it all. I would recommend the film to anyone that wants to be mesmerized for a while.

The unseen narrator wakes up to find people in costume clothing. It's his POV. They move through the Hermitage in St. Petersburg. He learns that he embodies a 19th century French aristocrat. As the narrator and his avatar moves through the palace, they encounter various Russian characters.It's most notable for being one continuous take and having such an impressive place as the Hermitage to film it in. It's a magnificent feat but that doesn't make it a good movie. It's an experiment at best. The disembodied feel makes this like a backstage pass to a grand stage play. That would have been more exciting than this. This movie is interesting for awhile but it's very monotonous. The floaty camera moves don't change. The movie just keeps going and going. However the setting is quite impressive and the movie works on a travelogue level.

I expected something very different from this, even watching it a second time I was kind of taken aback by it being just, as a friend put it, "two guys wandering around a mostly sparsely populated museum." As such I don't think I know any film quite like it and I admire it for that. To this end I think the seamlessness is far more than a gimmick and works great, there is a "stream of consciousness"-ness about how the camera just floats about, sometimes lingering on some painting or whatever while the people carry on with their business. This goes again in the dialogue which is just uninterrupted and uncensored thoughts. I don't think any films look quite like Sokurov's visually either, particularly there's some fisheye lens thing going on to dizzying, dreamlike effect (also to be found in Faust). I am not sure how to express this, but I love how unconcerned the film seems about the stuff in it making narrative sense or having to be there, like, I feel like you could take away any given sequence without loss of coherence and yet I'm glad everything is there. The ending is my favorite part I think; everything from the ball onwards and especially the part with the people leaving the castle I find ludicrously impressive and well-choreographed.I feel like there is something inherently symbolical/psychological about walking in and out of these rooms where different things happen. They don't all have different and obvious meanings but it struck me in particular when they walked into the war room. Perhaps more banally there is a meta level to Russian Ark as our Russian narrator doubles as the spectator i.e. us ("Has all this been staged for me? Am I expected to play a role?").To its disadvantage, there is some awkward nationalism in it in the shape of the Russian pointing out all great things Russian, but we do get the European shitting on Russia constantly as a counterweight. However, it is a nice touch when he unites with the Russians in the final dance, as Russia and Europe come together.

"Russian Ark" is an incredible movie and there is nothing like it. Think about it--director Aleksandr Sokurov made this movie in one day and in one long continuous take!!! Apparently, he'd have access to the Hermitage for one day only, so for months he coordinated all the thousands of extras, costumers, cameramen, etc.! I just couldn't believe it as I sat and watched!! The film begins with a haughty French nobleman from the 19th century finding himself magically transported to the Hermitage palace in St. Petersburg, Russia. And, magically, he finds himself able to understand and speak Russian!! At first, he sounds very dismissive of the palace and seems to think it's nothing but a second-rate Russian copy of a European palace and art gallery. At the same time, he marvels that he gets to catch glimpses of the likes of Peter the Great and Catherine the Great--both who lived there. However, as the film progresses, the nobleman's demeanor changes and he marvels at the history, artworks and style--culminating with an incredibly sumptuous grand ball--the final one that occurred here in 1913.This film is a glimpse at Russian history and art. However, it is NOT linear--and bounces about from the distant to not so distant pass and vice-versa. As such, it's a great history lesson--provided you can follow what is happening. As an ex-world history teacher, I had no trouble--but most non-Russians might want to brush up on Russian history from the mid 17th century to the present before they watch! Regardless, it is a one of a kind and breathtaking film. How the production was made and financed is something I'd like to know more about--as it is a magnificent and extremely strange film.