I figured out pretty quick that this was going to be the typical "chick flick" type of thing but then it started getting annoying because the two main characters didn't have their typical serendipitous meeting that leads them to their happy ending. But I suppose that wouldn't make a lot of sense, since apparently Russians make fun of that staple in many American movies. It also makes this movie more realistic though, in a sense, because stuff like that doesn't really happen to normal people. It did bother me though in the scene right after Max drops the phone into the river and they walk right past each other and its just kinda like, come on...that level of irony seemed a little crazy.That kind of thing doesn't happen in real life either.
Overall, I'd say this one was OK. It was interesting and entertaining enough but it lacked a certain continuity. I couldn't quite figure out Maxim as a character. He seemed kind of just like a regular guy, but then he ha that weird little hole-in-the-wall apartment and strange friends. I guess the best word I can think of for him would be impulsive. He was always just like go with the flow and went with whatever came at him. Masha was eccentric and fun and also a spontaneous type of person, but in a much more lighthearted way that Maxim seemed to be. Maybe that's because we meet him as his girlfriend leaves him for someone else, though.
Visually there were a couple of things in this ilm that I really enjoyed, in prticular the scene where Maxim's "ex" Miranda was sitting with her fiancee, next to that window with all the water running down it. I loved the distortion of the view there, when Maxim shows up creepily watching her through the water, like he is melting away in her mind and replaced by the solid image of the new guy. I also liked the transitions in this with the radio static and the flashes of different buildings in the city. Also, the scene where Maxim is looking around at everything in the city and takes pictures on the phone at interesting angles. I liked seeing more of his viewpoint, and honestly that seemed like something I would totally do in that city, to the point of running into somebody (I've done this before walking around with my Canon...) so I guess that was something relatable for me individually.
I also liked his random German phrases, which he didn't really get right. He was talking about studying English and German, but I'm pretty sure that wasn't true since he didn't say anything in English for the whole movie. He also said lieblings (favorite) wrong, so that it sounded more like lieben (love) and I kind of wonder if they threw that in there on purpose.
This whole movie makes me think of this song with lyrics written by British author Nick Hornby and performed by Ben Folds.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
The Return
I didn't really 'get' this one. The father came out of nowhere and was totally a jerk most of the time to his sons that he hadn't seen in apparently 12 years. I didn't know what he was supposed to be doing for his business, I almost got suspicious when he went to buy what turned out to be the motor, I thought it might be a dead body he was transporting or something! I was totally suspicious of him from the start. He just seemed like a really scummy guy and I don't know why the mother would have let them go with him, she seemed to make sure to distance herself from him, too.
In retrospect I think the opening "Sunday" scene might have been shown out of sequence, with that diving episode occuring maybe ater everything else that we see in the movie, except for the fact that the other boys make fun of Ivan on "Monday"... I think that might make more sense to be out of order though, because I'm sure the event resulting in the father's fall would be very traumatc for Ivan.
That being said, I was on Ivan's side for most of the movie. I didn't really understand why Andei wanted the father to approve of him so much when he'd been out of their lives for so long. I'd be mad at him, too. And especially once he starts pulling all those mean moves - kicking them out of the car repeatedly, hitting them, forcing them to be subordinate to him - I would be afraid of what he would do. I think the older brother was probably in a really hard position, being between the father and his little brother. He would want to protect his brother, which would involve not getting the father angry, and maybe thats why he was such a suck up, to try and keep the father contented enough so that he would not hurt either of the boys, especially the younger one for being so defiant.
This was another movie where I was waiting for something bad to happen. I thought it would happen to the boys though, with the father's attitude toward them. I thought it was very strange that after the freak accident was when all of a sudden both the boys semmed to care about the father - only in retrospect once he had died. With as nasty as he had been to them, that caught me off-guard. I also thought it odd that they felt the need to take the body all the way back with them (also the absence of blood of any kind on the body - a fall from that height wouldve definitely broken something...) even though they had been talking about hurting him and getting away from him, when they were finally free of him, they felt the need to burden themselves with his dead body.
The whole movie was really creepy, and eerie. I still don't know what kind of shifty thing the father was involved in. did anyone else remember the ammunition box underneath the seat of the boat? That seemed to be his reason for going out to the island at all, and we never learn what is inside of it, because after he digs it up he chases Ivan up the tower from whch he falls and subsequently dies. And we never find out what happens to the boys, either - how do they explain this all to their mom? Yeah so...dad kind of had this freak accident after smacking us around for like 3 days....
I don't know if that's believeable.
In retrospect I think the opening "Sunday" scene might have been shown out of sequence, with that diving episode occuring maybe ater everything else that we see in the movie, except for the fact that the other boys make fun of Ivan on "Monday"... I think that might make more sense to be out of order though, because I'm sure the event resulting in the father's fall would be very traumatc for Ivan.
That being said, I was on Ivan's side for most of the movie. I didn't really understand why Andei wanted the father to approve of him so much when he'd been out of their lives for so long. I'd be mad at him, too. And especially once he starts pulling all those mean moves - kicking them out of the car repeatedly, hitting them, forcing them to be subordinate to him - I would be afraid of what he would do. I think the older brother was probably in a really hard position, being between the father and his little brother. He would want to protect his brother, which would involve not getting the father angry, and maybe thats why he was such a suck up, to try and keep the father contented enough so that he would not hurt either of the boys, especially the younger one for being so defiant.
This was another movie where I was waiting for something bad to happen. I thought it would happen to the boys though, with the father's attitude toward them. I thought it was very strange that after the freak accident was when all of a sudden both the boys semmed to care about the father - only in retrospect once he had died. With as nasty as he had been to them, that caught me off-guard. I also thought it odd that they felt the need to take the body all the way back with them (also the absence of blood of any kind on the body - a fall from that height wouldve definitely broken something...) even though they had been talking about hurting him and getting away from him, when they were finally free of him, they felt the need to burden themselves with his dead body.
The whole movie was really creepy, and eerie. I still don't know what kind of shifty thing the father was involved in. did anyone else remember the ammunition box underneath the seat of the boat? That seemed to be his reason for going out to the island at all, and we never learn what is inside of it, because after he digs it up he chases Ivan up the tower from whch he falls and subsequently dies. And we never find out what happens to the boys, either - how do they explain this all to their mom? Yeah so...dad kind of had this freak accident after smacking us around for like 3 days....
I don't know if that's believeable.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Brother
'Brother' dir. Aleksei Balabanov, 1997
This flm atruck me as similar to something like "The Godfather" but in Russia and with a ton less gore (which I am totally fine with). There's quite a bit of action invovled but in the end nothing is really resolved. I guess now would be a good time to mention that gangster movies aren't my favorite genre, though I have seen a few of them thanks to my brother. I was actually really glad that there wasn't a ton of blood and stuff in this movie, even though it was about the mob.
At first I thought the actor was using his real name, but the last name of the character is just really similar. He seemed like a halfway decent guy, except for the whole shooting nails into people with a sawed-off shotgun thing - cause he would let the innocent people go instead of shooting them too for "knowing too much" or whatever. He also made a point to use his power to help the good people who were being harrassed, like the guy on the bus and his German friend. I think he was more of a believeable person than some of the guys in those Godfather movies. I think the army probably hardened him to the effect of violence and made him good as a mobster. He didn't really show much emotion for most of the movie. I think the music helped him to get away from what was happening to him and provided an escape for his emotion. He was the most excited in the concert scene. It also literally saved his life when the other hitman shot him in the walkman, but it just broke and he was OK. He doesn't seem to like foreigners at all, but having been in the army and in a war, I suppose that would make sense that tha foreigner is seen as an enemy.
I wonder what the mom thought Viktor was really up to in St. Petersburg. She seemed so proud of him, I'm sure she didn't know what he was really up to. If she had, I bet she would have thought better of Danny for going into the army. I didn't really get why she was so disapproving of him. Or the whole opening sequence, either. He just walked through a video set and someone beat him up? It seemed a little random. I guess the significant part of it was that he said he didn't want to be a cop. I wonder if that's because there was so much corruption in this time - but then he goes on instead to be a mobster.
I don't know why his brother would have turned him in, unless it was just a situation to save his own butt - I'm never good at following who's who in these movies. I thought it was weird too how the other gang guy called Viktor a "Tatar" but Danny didn't look Asian at all and yet they were supposed to be brothers. I thought Chechnya was interesting too, because I'd heard about it before but never knew where it was or anything. t's actually a relatively small area near Georgia and I think that its kind of weird that Russia would fight so hard to keep a small area, when bigger pieces like Georgia and Ukraine and all of those "-stan" countries ended up breaking off and becoming independent after the fall of the USSR. Maybe that hadn't quite happened yet, at this point? Or those were territories that had been previously independent and annexed by the USSR, or something? I don't know. It just seems weird to me.
I think that's all I have right now, apologies if it didn't all quite make sense, I'm on some meds for this super cold.
This flm atruck me as similar to something like "The Godfather" but in Russia and with a ton less gore (which I am totally fine with). There's quite a bit of action invovled but in the end nothing is really resolved. I guess now would be a good time to mention that gangster movies aren't my favorite genre, though I have seen a few of them thanks to my brother. I was actually really glad that there wasn't a ton of blood and stuff in this movie, even though it was about the mob.
At first I thought the actor was using his real name, but the last name of the character is just really similar. He seemed like a halfway decent guy, except for the whole shooting nails into people with a sawed-off shotgun thing - cause he would let the innocent people go instead of shooting them too for "knowing too much" or whatever. He also made a point to use his power to help the good people who were being harrassed, like the guy on the bus and his German friend. I think he was more of a believeable person than some of the guys in those Godfather movies. I think the army probably hardened him to the effect of violence and made him good as a mobster. He didn't really show much emotion for most of the movie. I think the music helped him to get away from what was happening to him and provided an escape for his emotion. He was the most excited in the concert scene. It also literally saved his life when the other hitman shot him in the walkman, but it just broke and he was OK. He doesn't seem to like foreigners at all, but having been in the army and in a war, I suppose that would make sense that tha foreigner is seen as an enemy.
I wonder what the mom thought Viktor was really up to in St. Petersburg. She seemed so proud of him, I'm sure she didn't know what he was really up to. If she had, I bet she would have thought better of Danny for going into the army. I didn't really get why she was so disapproving of him. Or the whole opening sequence, either. He just walked through a video set and someone beat him up? It seemed a little random. I guess the significant part of it was that he said he didn't want to be a cop. I wonder if that's because there was so much corruption in this time - but then he goes on instead to be a mobster.
I don't know why his brother would have turned him in, unless it was just a situation to save his own butt - I'm never good at following who's who in these movies. I thought it was weird too how the other gang guy called Viktor a "Tatar" but Danny didn't look Asian at all and yet they were supposed to be brothers. I thought Chechnya was interesting too, because I'd heard about it before but never knew where it was or anything. t's actually a relatively small area near Georgia and I think that its kind of weird that Russia would fight so hard to keep a small area, when bigger pieces like Georgia and Ukraine and all of those "-stan" countries ended up breaking off and becoming independent after the fall of the USSR. Maybe that hadn't quite happened yet, at this point? Or those were territories that had been previously independent and annexed by the USSR, or something? I don't know. It just seems weird to me.
I think that's all I have right now, apologies if it didn't all quite make sense, I'm on some meds for this super cold.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
day eleven - The Thaw
'Ballad of a Soldier' dir. Grigory Chukhrai, 1959.
To be honest, I spent most of this movie just waiting for something bad to happen to the main character Alyosha, just because of the foreboding opening shot. We are told at the beginning that he "never made it home from the war", so I assumed that he was not going to make it home for leave. When the train got attacked (bombed, perhaps?) I was like OK, I bet this is it. That sucks, to get so close and get killed. I thought he would be shown doing something heroic - saving the Ukranian kids - and then he would die as a result of the accident. But he didn't! He made it all the way home but just for a few minutes. Then he couldn;t find his mom, and I thought aw man, she's gonna miss him by like 30 seconds, that sucks! And then she didn't! But you only get to see him for like 3 minutes, that really does suck! So it was a happy, yet sad ending since he did get home, but he had to leave right away.
One thing I didn't get was that everyone seemed to be really respectful of him as a soldier and are willing to help him out and everything, EXCEPT for the scene of the morning after the trainwreck. Then they were all like, get out of our way, you're not good for anything! And that threw me off. The people right around where he lived were more like that to him, and that seemed backwards to me since hose people were more likely to know him personally. It wasn't like, oh hey Alyosha! It was, go away!
I'm not feeling the best today, so this might end up being a bit short. I might come back to it a little later and add something more.
To be honest, I spent most of this movie just waiting for something bad to happen to the main character Alyosha, just because of the foreboding opening shot. We are told at the beginning that he "never made it home from the war", so I assumed that he was not going to make it home for leave. When the train got attacked (bombed, perhaps?) I was like OK, I bet this is it. That sucks, to get so close and get killed. I thought he would be shown doing something heroic - saving the Ukranian kids - and then he would die as a result of the accident. But he didn't! He made it all the way home but just for a few minutes. Then he couldn;t find his mom, and I thought aw man, she's gonna miss him by like 30 seconds, that sucks! And then she didn't! But you only get to see him for like 3 minutes, that really does suck! So it was a happy, yet sad ending since he did get home, but he had to leave right away.
One thing I didn't get was that everyone seemed to be really respectful of him as a soldier and are willing to help him out and everything, EXCEPT for the scene of the morning after the trainwreck. Then they were all like, get out of our way, you're not good for anything! And that threw me off. The people right around where he lived were more like that to him, and that seemed backwards to me since hose people were more likely to know him personally. It wasn't like, oh hey Alyosha! It was, go away!
I'm not feeling the best today, so this might end up being a bit short. I might come back to it a little later and add something more.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
day ten - Seemingly Random
'Mirror' dir. Andrey Tarkovsky, 1974
This was a strange film, not going to lie. But I did enjoy some of the poems in the "voice over". I'm not really sure where to start with it because I feel like there's something to "get at" but at the same time like it can't be fully "solved".
I think the title of 'Mirror' is there because there seem to kind of be two sets of people that re being talked about at the same time. There was some convoluted linearity to it for the first few scenes at least, excludng the one before the opening credits. there was a lot of emphasis placed on things like imagination and dreams, which is represented by the idea of going through a looking glass, similar to the Alice in Wonderland concept. At first I thought that the main voice over was speaking to his mother while going in and out of dreams about her where he sees her as his girlfriend or ex-wife or whatever she is, who she has a son with. At least, that's how I wanted to tie it together.
I thought it was weird how we never see the main person who does the "voice over". I thought maybe that could be explained because if he is the one dreaming for most, or all of the time, it could be the type of thing where you yourself are in the dream and we were percieving it all through his eyes.
I think we might have watched this today because of all the historical footage that was thrown in there in between the scenes witht he actors in them. They also alluded to the fact that it was "wartime", and in the scene when the "voice over" is talking to his mother, the year 1935 was mentioned and thats during the purges...which would explian why the menntioned father left and is no longer in the picture (light bulb moment right there, is what that was).
There were some things that showed up as motifs that I noticed mainly when they recurred right near the end, namely the rush of wind, the bird that landed on the kid and got caught (smashed?) but then was set free in the end, and the book with the religious images in it.
New idea. What if the main voce-over guy was dying and that was what he was thinking about? The end scene we did actually see him, I think, on his deathbed. His life was possibly 'flashing before his eyes', in a sporradic and non-linear fashion?
I'm not really sure, but those are my guesses. The guy in the first scene had been asking the girl about perception, what she thought about it, etc. Maybe it was just trying to show the complexity of a mind?
I'm curious to talk about it tomorrow and see.
This was a strange film, not going to lie. But I did enjoy some of the poems in the "voice over". I'm not really sure where to start with it because I feel like there's something to "get at" but at the same time like it can't be fully "solved".
I think the title of 'Mirror' is there because there seem to kind of be two sets of people that re being talked about at the same time. There was some convoluted linearity to it for the first few scenes at least, excludng the one before the opening credits. there was a lot of emphasis placed on things like imagination and dreams, which is represented by the idea of going through a looking glass, similar to the Alice in Wonderland concept. At first I thought that the main voice over was speaking to his mother while going in and out of dreams about her where he sees her as his girlfriend or ex-wife or whatever she is, who she has a son with. At least, that's how I wanted to tie it together.
I thought it was weird how we never see the main person who does the "voice over". I thought maybe that could be explained because if he is the one dreaming for most, or all of the time, it could be the type of thing where you yourself are in the dream and we were percieving it all through his eyes.
I think we might have watched this today because of all the historical footage that was thrown in there in between the scenes witht he actors in them. They also alluded to the fact that it was "wartime", and in the scene when the "voice over" is talking to his mother, the year 1935 was mentioned and thats during the purges...which would explian why the menntioned father left and is no longer in the picture (light bulb moment right there, is what that was).
There were some things that showed up as motifs that I noticed mainly when they recurred right near the end, namely the rush of wind, the bird that landed on the kid and got caught (smashed?) but then was set free in the end, and the book with the religious images in it.
New idea. What if the main voce-over guy was dying and that was what he was thinking about? The end scene we did actually see him, I think, on his deathbed. His life was possibly 'flashing before his eyes', in a sporradic and non-linear fashion?
I'm not really sure, but those are my guesses. The guy in the first scene had been asking the girl about perception, what she thought about it, etc. Maybe it was just trying to show the complexity of a mind?
I'm curious to talk about it tomorrow and see.
Monday, January 17, 2011
day nine - WWII Era Film
'Ivan the Terrible, Part I' dir. Sergei Eisentstein, 1944.
I was just looking up where Kazan is, and it's really not where I thought it was. I figured it would be much further East since the people portrayed there looked very Asian in comparison to most of the ruling people in the Moscow area. But it's actually much closer to the European side of Russia, just more South toward the border with modern-day Kazakhstan, which I suppose also makes sense. I thought maybe it would not actually be a part of Russia anymore, but instead inside the borders of one of the Eastern European republics that became independant states after the dissolution of the USSR. It's actually surprisingly close to Moscow.
Here is a map of where Kazan is.
Wikipedia exaplins the Tatar people as a 'Turkic' ethnic group and says that today:
Volga Tatars number nearly 8 millions, mostly in Russia and the republics of the former Soviet Union. While the bulk of the population is to be found in Tatarstan (nearly 2 million) and neighbouring regions, significant numbers of Kazan Tatars live in Central Asia, Siberia and the Caucasus. Outside of Tatarstan, urban Tatars usually speak Russian as their first language (in cities such as Moscow, Saint-Petersburg, Nizhniy Novgorod, Tashkent, Almaty, and cities of the Ural and western Siberia) and other languages in a worldwide diaspora.
I was curious about them just becuase I didn't really know about it before. And because I had seen an emblem for "Tartary" on a circus wagon representing Asia and I've been wondering about that ever since. I didn't know that groups like that lived so close to Europe, I guess my mind wants to place them much closer to places like China and Mongolia, but I suppose it would make sense for them to be there since it is relatively close to Turkey, and they are thought of (in the Western perception, anyway) as being in between Asia and Europe. It's interesting to think where the line is drawn between European and Asian peoples. (stupid senior sem, now I am thinking of Orientalism, which I used in my thesis, bah!)
But anyway, thinking about the actual film, it is funny to think that there are Asian-Russians, since we think so much about Russia being part of Europe, especially since much of the population and bigger cities are closer to Europe than to Asia. So, Ivan really did do a lot to incorporate such a huge area into one single governing republic. I'm curious as to how exactly Russia looked right before the advent of the USSR, if all of the smaller 'republics' that it incorporated were independent in between Ivan and communism or they finally became their own countries afterward? I guess I don't know much about that part of the world.
Re-directing myself again...the assignment sheet mentions Eisenstein's interest in Japanese Kabuki theatre.
This short video is a nice explanation of the basics of Kabuki.
Given that information, I can see why the acting style was so overdramatic. It is very similar in style. One thing specifically I noticed about almost all of the actors in the film was that they always seemed like they had to have their eyes open as widely as humanly possible at all times, to make for really dramatic expressions, which I think might be Eisenstein's replacement for the special makeup that simplifies the facial features, making them clearly stand out. There was also a lot of posing, where someone would say something and stare in a 'dramatic pose', which according to Kabuki, helps to define characters.
I find it odd that this mimicking of Japanese style would be accepted in the USSR, especially during WWII, given that the Japanese were allied with Nazi Germany who were causing the USSR so much grief. The one text, however, seems to imply a naievete on behalf of some of Stalin's higher-ups regarding Eisenstein's foreign influences and willingness to take the risk of putting his own opinions and spins on things into his film. I could easily see the parallels between the story being portrayed of Ivan and the figure of Stalin, which probably kept them happy. It was obvious to me that the boyars were meant to represent bourgeoise culture, who are said to want all the power for themselves. I must say, until I read the assignment sheet, I thought that the main boyar who poisoned Ivan's wife was a man. I had no idea.
I think that's all I have for right now.
I was just looking up where Kazan is, and it's really not where I thought it was. I figured it would be much further East since the people portrayed there looked very Asian in comparison to most of the ruling people in the Moscow area. But it's actually much closer to the European side of Russia, just more South toward the border with modern-day Kazakhstan, which I suppose also makes sense. I thought maybe it would not actually be a part of Russia anymore, but instead inside the borders of one of the Eastern European republics that became independant states after the dissolution of the USSR. It's actually surprisingly close to Moscow.
Here is a map of where Kazan is.
Wikipedia exaplins the Tatar people as a 'Turkic' ethnic group and says that today:
Volga Tatars number nearly 8 millions, mostly in Russia and the republics of the former Soviet Union. While the bulk of the population is to be found in Tatarstan (nearly 2 million) and neighbouring regions, significant numbers of Kazan Tatars live in Central Asia, Siberia and the Caucasus. Outside of Tatarstan, urban Tatars usually speak Russian as their first language (in cities such as Moscow, Saint-Petersburg, Nizhniy Novgorod, Tashkent, Almaty, and cities of the Ural and western Siberia) and other languages in a worldwide diaspora.
I was curious about them just becuase I didn't really know about it before. And because I had seen an emblem for "Tartary" on a circus wagon representing Asia and I've been wondering about that ever since. I didn't know that groups like that lived so close to Europe, I guess my mind wants to place them much closer to places like China and Mongolia, but I suppose it would make sense for them to be there since it is relatively close to Turkey, and they are thought of (in the Western perception, anyway) as being in between Asia and Europe. It's interesting to think where the line is drawn between European and Asian peoples. (stupid senior sem, now I am thinking of Orientalism, which I used in my thesis, bah!)
But anyway, thinking about the actual film, it is funny to think that there are Asian-Russians, since we think so much about Russia being part of Europe, especially since much of the population and bigger cities are closer to Europe than to Asia. So, Ivan really did do a lot to incorporate such a huge area into one single governing republic. I'm curious as to how exactly Russia looked right before the advent of the USSR, if all of the smaller 'republics' that it incorporated were independent in between Ivan and communism or they finally became their own countries afterward? I guess I don't know much about that part of the world.
Re-directing myself again...the assignment sheet mentions Eisenstein's interest in Japanese Kabuki theatre.
This short video is a nice explanation of the basics of Kabuki.
Given that information, I can see why the acting style was so overdramatic. It is very similar in style. One thing specifically I noticed about almost all of the actors in the film was that they always seemed like they had to have their eyes open as widely as humanly possible at all times, to make for really dramatic expressions, which I think might be Eisenstein's replacement for the special makeup that simplifies the facial features, making them clearly stand out. There was also a lot of posing, where someone would say something and stare in a 'dramatic pose', which according to Kabuki, helps to define characters.
I find it odd that this mimicking of Japanese style would be accepted in the USSR, especially during WWII, given that the Japanese were allied with Nazi Germany who were causing the USSR so much grief. The one text, however, seems to imply a naievete on behalf of some of Stalin's higher-ups regarding Eisenstein's foreign influences and willingness to take the risk of putting his own opinions and spins on things into his film. I could easily see the parallels between the story being portrayed of Ivan and the figure of Stalin, which probably kept them happy. It was obvious to me that the boyars were meant to represent bourgeoise culture, who are said to want all the power for themselves. I must say, until I read the assignment sheet, I thought that the main boyar who poisoned Ivan's wife was a man. I had no idea.
I think that's all I have for right now.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
day eight - Red Terror in Retrospect
'Burnt by the Sun' dir. Nikita Mikhalkov, 1994.
I find it interesting that this movie is named after a Russian version of an Argentine tango song that was originally written by a Polish composer - which was a popular song in the USSR during the 1930s. I find this to be odd, that something as foreign and 'bourgeois' seeming as a tango number would be permitted to be played on the radio.
I looked it up since it is so significant for this film.
Click here to listen on Youtube
I also made a point to find the full translated lyrics, which on the Internet differ slightly from what the subtitles read in the film.
Click here to read translated lyrics of both Polish and Russian versions
I think it's so interesting trying to translate songs, since it has to be done without changing the melody, so often times phrasing is changed completely just so that it will fit. Both of these seem to have a very similar overall feel, but as you can see, they are very different versions of the same song.
In the subtitles Nadya would sing, "Burnt by the sun" followed by a line about the "crimson sea", which I understood at the end scene where her singing is heard while the camera focuses on Mitya who has killed himself by slitting his wrists in a bathtub, creating a literal 'crimson sea' by allowing himself to bleed. This final image of Mitya specifically in a bathtub goes back to his conversation on the beach with Marusia (the general's wife and also his own love interest) where he discovers her scars from when she tried to slit her own wrists, but explained that it had been unsuccessful because it 'needs to be done in water to keep the blood from coagulating'. I found it ironic that Marusia had tried to commit suicide because Mitya had left her unexpectedly, and Mitya did it in the end because of the guilt he felt for splitting up the family life she had built in his absence. I think the larger blanket meaning of the 'crimson sea' lyric translation, at least as it emotionally affected me, was that during this time the 'red' communist revolutionaries were killing so many people, and the crimson red color is significant because it can represent both the party in control under Stalin as well as the blood that they spilled.
The 'Burnt by the Sun' lyric that doubles as the film's title is translated in the above link as 'weary sun'. I think the parts of the film I was most confused by at first were the odd interludes where a small metaphorical "sun" floats around the house, always seen in conjunction with Mitya. At first, I couldn't figure out what that was supposed to be, because it flashed on screen so quickly. I'm still not entirely sure what its significance was, but clearly it was connected with Mitya, in that he was 'burning' down what the family had by his presence in the house as an agent of the secret police. The most memorable appearance of the small sun was when it cracked the frame of the old photograph, symbolically representing the way things used to be when Mitya had lived there as a child before the revolution. I didn't understand why Mitya had become involved with the secret police; it sounded like he had fled abroad, or had possibly been exiled, maybe because he was an artist? I'm not really sure.
I think Mitya was a very interesting character because it was clear that he cared about Marusia and also seemed to get attached to little Nadya (who, might I say, was really cute) but he was there to destroy their lives by taking away their husband and father on behalf of a government he really didn't seem to believe in. His internal conflict is what drives much of the emotional pull in the movie, and the other major contributor is the innocent child Nadya, who might be the only one who doesn't understand the gravity of the whole situation. All of the adults do a really good job of tricking her so she doesn't suspect anything. Even her father, who at first doesn't seem to believe Mitya when he says that the car will be coming. The whole film does a good job of painting a nice picture of a happy family in the countryside and slowly revealing the hidden issues, and finally building up to the suspense of having it all taken away when the car comes in the end and the general gets beaten up and the innocent lost civilian is shot for having been in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Mitya's suicide in the end is what causes the small metaphorical sun to fade out and die, but 'sun' could have multiple meanings, that the "sons of the revolution" were being "burned" in the terror campaign when Stalin purged his higher officers, and possibly also that Mitya was somehow related to the people in the house, and that he "burned" them by agreeing to turn them in to the government.
Mitya's character in this movie reminds me of a character Wiesler from a great German movie that is similar to this one, in that it is a retrospective drama made recently about an oppressive regime and involves a member of the secret police. Das Leben der Anderen - in English, The Lives of Others - is about an agent who is assigned to spy on a playwright suspected of being anti-government in communist East Germany - ruled by extension by the USSR. I recommend it for people who enjoyed this movie, its excellent and one of my favorite foreign films.
I think that's all I have this time around.
I find it interesting that this movie is named after a Russian version of an Argentine tango song that was originally written by a Polish composer - which was a popular song in the USSR during the 1930s. I find this to be odd, that something as foreign and 'bourgeois' seeming as a tango number would be permitted to be played on the radio.
I looked it up since it is so significant for this film.
Click here to listen on Youtube
I also made a point to find the full translated lyrics, which on the Internet differ slightly from what the subtitles read in the film.
Click here to read translated lyrics of both Polish and Russian versions
I think it's so interesting trying to translate songs, since it has to be done without changing the melody, so often times phrasing is changed completely just so that it will fit. Both of these seem to have a very similar overall feel, but as you can see, they are very different versions of the same song.
In the subtitles Nadya would sing, "Burnt by the sun" followed by a line about the "crimson sea", which I understood at the end scene where her singing is heard while the camera focuses on Mitya who has killed himself by slitting his wrists in a bathtub, creating a literal 'crimson sea' by allowing himself to bleed. This final image of Mitya specifically in a bathtub goes back to his conversation on the beach with Marusia (the general's wife and also his own love interest) where he discovers her scars from when she tried to slit her own wrists, but explained that it had been unsuccessful because it 'needs to be done in water to keep the blood from coagulating'. I found it ironic that Marusia had tried to commit suicide because Mitya had left her unexpectedly, and Mitya did it in the end because of the guilt he felt for splitting up the family life she had built in his absence. I think the larger blanket meaning of the 'crimson sea' lyric translation, at least as it emotionally affected me, was that during this time the 'red' communist revolutionaries were killing so many people, and the crimson red color is significant because it can represent both the party in control under Stalin as well as the blood that they spilled.
The 'Burnt by the Sun' lyric that doubles as the film's title is translated in the above link as 'weary sun'. I think the parts of the film I was most confused by at first were the odd interludes where a small metaphorical "sun" floats around the house, always seen in conjunction with Mitya. At first, I couldn't figure out what that was supposed to be, because it flashed on screen so quickly. I'm still not entirely sure what its significance was, but clearly it was connected with Mitya, in that he was 'burning' down what the family had by his presence in the house as an agent of the secret police. The most memorable appearance of the small sun was when it cracked the frame of the old photograph, symbolically representing the way things used to be when Mitya had lived there as a child before the revolution. I didn't understand why Mitya had become involved with the secret police; it sounded like he had fled abroad, or had possibly been exiled, maybe because he was an artist? I'm not really sure.
I think Mitya was a very interesting character because it was clear that he cared about Marusia and also seemed to get attached to little Nadya (who, might I say, was really cute) but he was there to destroy their lives by taking away their husband and father on behalf of a government he really didn't seem to believe in. His internal conflict is what drives much of the emotional pull in the movie, and the other major contributor is the innocent child Nadya, who might be the only one who doesn't understand the gravity of the whole situation. All of the adults do a really good job of tricking her so she doesn't suspect anything. Even her father, who at first doesn't seem to believe Mitya when he says that the car will be coming. The whole film does a good job of painting a nice picture of a happy family in the countryside and slowly revealing the hidden issues, and finally building up to the suspense of having it all taken away when the car comes in the end and the general gets beaten up and the innocent lost civilian is shot for having been in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Mitya's suicide in the end is what causes the small metaphorical sun to fade out and die, but 'sun' could have multiple meanings, that the "sons of the revolution" were being "burned" in the terror campaign when Stalin purged his higher officers, and possibly also that Mitya was somehow related to the people in the house, and that he "burned" them by agreeing to turn them in to the government.
Mitya's character in this movie reminds me of a character Wiesler from a great German movie that is similar to this one, in that it is a retrospective drama made recently about an oppressive regime and involves a member of the secret police. Das Leben der Anderen - in English, The Lives of Others - is about an agent who is assigned to spy on a playwright suspected of being anti-government in communist East Germany - ruled by extension by the USSR. I recommend it for people who enjoyed this movie, its excellent and one of my favorite foreign films.
I think that's all I have this time around.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
day seven - Soviet Musical
Circus dir. Grigory Alexandrov, 1936
I think my favorite word in the post is likely to be 'ridiculous'. That's exactly how I feel about many of the things in this film, they are just ridiculous. Not only is it a musical, but it is a Soviet musical, and in the socialist realism style, and on top of that it is set in a circus. It's just the perfect blend of completely over-the-top.
To be honest though, I was pretty entertained by it until the ending. The last 10 minutes-ish almost ruined the whole thing because all of a sudden the socialist part smacks you upside the head. I suppose it had to be in there, but they definitely could have been more subtle and artful about it. I could even kind of go with it up through the: "oh, here we love all the children!" thing with the lullaby in all the different languages for the baby (who was defintely not a baby - he was at least 2!), because that was a nice message. Definitely idealism, but still a very good goal to have, rejecting racism and whatnot. I wonder if Russians would have had much exposure to dark-skinned people at that time? Besides the child, I only saw 2 others in the whole movie - one seemed to be a servant to Mary that took care of the baby - maybe someone she brought with her from America? - and the other showed up in the shot where the circus audience was playing 'pass the baby'. I wonder about the reality of racism in that time. It clearly occurred for other nationalities, like Germans - clearly the 'bad guy' here. Of course, this is the era when Hitler and the Nazis were coming to power. I didn't catch that the competing circus master was supposed to be German until I heard him say 'danke schoen' at the train station counter.
I thought it was funny hearing the actors try to speak in English, even the girl who was supposed to be American wasn't very good. I did catch that there were Russian subtitles when she spoke in English though. They seemed to look upon her more favorably than the evil german director though. I thought it was odd that a 'capitalist' and seemingly 'bourgeios' American was OK to be in the USSR. In the beginning she even makes the sign of the cross, and I was surprised that was shown. There was also the guy that looked and acted like Charlie Chaplin, who was on the 'good' side, which also surprised me. I guess all of that was forgivable, because in the end she chooses to stay in Moscow and be in that ridiculous march and become a good Soviet instead of returning to America.
Technically, I really really enjoyed some of the ways the film transitioned from one scene to another. My favorites were the frost on the window that changed to feathers and then melted into the cityscape; as well as the train whistle and audience whistles to cut between the simultaneous events. I also really liked the shot of Mary and Petrovich reflected in the piano and how it was spun around so that it looked like the original image of the two. I think all of these were very artful techniques and I enjoyed them very much.
For being a musical, I didn't feel like there were really that many songs, but maybe that was because they were more a part of the action of the circus, rather than popping up out of nowhere like they seem to in a lot of classical American musicals. There were a few like that, but only a couple. I thought Mary's voice was a bit annoying, especially at first, but I think that was partly the act and probably also due to the age of the film and the equipment they had at the time. I thought it was really good how they framed her changed emotion through her delivery of the circus number at the opening of the film and then again later when she is going to leave and everything has gone wrong for her.
The only thing that really annoyed me about this (other than the super cheesy ending) was the timing of the subtitles. It took a little while to get used to, since the translation didn't always appear at the same time that it was being said, and sometimes it was difficult to tell who was saying what. Overall, I feel like I could follow the basic story, but sometimes that got frustrating.
I think that's all I'vr got for today...
I think my favorite word in the post is likely to be 'ridiculous'. That's exactly how I feel about many of the things in this film, they are just ridiculous. Not only is it a musical, but it is a Soviet musical, and in the socialist realism style, and on top of that it is set in a circus. It's just the perfect blend of completely over-the-top.
To be honest though, I was pretty entertained by it until the ending. The last 10 minutes-ish almost ruined the whole thing because all of a sudden the socialist part smacks you upside the head. I suppose it had to be in there, but they definitely could have been more subtle and artful about it. I could even kind of go with it up through the: "oh, here we love all the children!" thing with the lullaby in all the different languages for the baby (who was defintely not a baby - he was at least 2!), because that was a nice message. Definitely idealism, but still a very good goal to have, rejecting racism and whatnot. I wonder if Russians would have had much exposure to dark-skinned people at that time? Besides the child, I only saw 2 others in the whole movie - one seemed to be a servant to Mary that took care of the baby - maybe someone she brought with her from America? - and the other showed up in the shot where the circus audience was playing 'pass the baby'. I wonder about the reality of racism in that time. It clearly occurred for other nationalities, like Germans - clearly the 'bad guy' here. Of course, this is the era when Hitler and the Nazis were coming to power. I didn't catch that the competing circus master was supposed to be German until I heard him say 'danke schoen' at the train station counter.
I thought it was funny hearing the actors try to speak in English, even the girl who was supposed to be American wasn't very good. I did catch that there were Russian subtitles when she spoke in English though. They seemed to look upon her more favorably than the evil german director though. I thought it was odd that a 'capitalist' and seemingly 'bourgeios' American was OK to be in the USSR. In the beginning she even makes the sign of the cross, and I was surprised that was shown. There was also the guy that looked and acted like Charlie Chaplin, who was on the 'good' side, which also surprised me. I guess all of that was forgivable, because in the end she chooses to stay in Moscow and be in that ridiculous march and become a good Soviet instead of returning to America.
Technically, I really really enjoyed some of the ways the film transitioned from one scene to another. My favorites were the frost on the window that changed to feathers and then melted into the cityscape; as well as the train whistle and audience whistles to cut between the simultaneous events. I also really liked the shot of Mary and Petrovich reflected in the piano and how it was spun around so that it looked like the original image of the two. I think all of these were very artful techniques and I enjoyed them very much.
For being a musical, I didn't feel like there were really that many songs, but maybe that was because they were more a part of the action of the circus, rather than popping up out of nowhere like they seem to in a lot of classical American musicals. There were a few like that, but only a couple. I thought Mary's voice was a bit annoying, especially at first, but I think that was partly the act and probably also due to the age of the film and the equipment they had at the time. I thought it was really good how they framed her changed emotion through her delivery of the circus number at the opening of the film and then again later when she is going to leave and everything has gone wrong for her.
The only thing that really annoyed me about this (other than the super cheesy ending) was the timing of the subtitles. It took a little while to get used to, since the translation didn't always appear at the same time that it was being said, and sometimes it was difficult to tell who was saying what. Overall, I feel like I could follow the basic story, but sometimes that got frustrating.
I think that's all I'vr got for today...
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
day six - The First Soviet Blockbuster
Chapaev dir. Vasilev brothers, 1934.
This film was the first we have seen that has a soundtrack, but I thought it was a bit funny because much of the sound seemed "off", in that it didn't quite match the action. Many times the actors' mouths were not exactly in sync and if there were sounds other than speech happening, it seemed to be only selective sounds; for example when the troops were moving you heard mainly horse-hooves but not the "background noise" that would have been generated by the soldier's feet or the carts moving, etc. It really struck me as odd not to have all of those sounds in there, and it made me wonder if the sound was recorded separately, which I suppose would make sense, as it was a new technology and likely wasn't perfected yet.
I feel like the style of this film was more similar to American styles, with well-rounded, relatable characters as opposed to the mass of people representing the good side in Battleship Potemkin. I think that was probably one of the reasons why it was so popular, it had more depth to it than Potemkin, just because it's not as blatantly propoganda. It still is, but I think the socialist realism style is a bit better at hiding that. I think the focus on individuals made this seem more like a biopic than a propoganda piece, at first glance.
Thinking about socialist realism takes me back to the East German Film class last semester, which I sadly had to audit due to the heavy workload for my senior sem - but for the few class periods I was tere, we discussed this for the DDR (uhh, GDR in English). We watched a film called Die Mรถrder sind unter uns - translated to "The Murderers are Among Us", which was the first film made in East Germany, which ultimately made the point that Nazis were bad. Similarly, I feel like Chapaev serves a similar purpose in putting down the previous regime (the czar, represented by the white army) and sets up hope in the new government and revolution. I came across this again because I realized the notebook I started using for this class had a few German notes in it from last semester and thought it was ironic due to these parallels.
(Socialist realism in German = Sozialisticher Realismus, if you were wondering.)
I liked the involvement of the woman and her importance as a machine gunner in the one of just a few battle scenes that were shown. I don't think that sort of gender equality would have been seen in other countries at this time. My guess is that it goes with the idealist part of the genre though, that in "perfect" communism there would be total gender equality, but the norm probably wasn't the same as what we see in the film. I also liked the younger guy a lot as a character as well. As soon as he left the girl though I figured he was going to die, so that kind of sucked from an audience point of view that the ending was kind of sad. And speaking of the ending, where did those giant explosions come from? Were they perhaps just symbolic? Why wouldn't they have been detonated earlier?
Another character I felt bad for was that bearded guy on the white side whose brother was killed by the mean general. I didn't understand why he made the punishment worse for his brother when he found out they were related. I really thought that that guy was maybe going to switch sides after he found that out, and especially after he betrayed them. I was suprised that he went back to his own general.
Out of all of the characters, I think the general himself was least in focus for me, actually, just because there were so many other interesting people involved. At first he seemed like kind of a jerk, yelling at his men and making threats to them and whatnot. I thought it was interesting that the commisar was the one who ended up "keeping him in line," so to speak. The scene where he figured out that stealing from the peasants wasn't a good idea seemed to be kind of a big deal. I thought that was a little odd, since common sense would say that stealing from your peers is bad. Especially under communism, where everyone is supposed to be the same. Another thing about him was that he had been illiterate and not so well-to-do himself, yet he had now become a successful war general. The "rags to riches" character was probably also a popular selling point to the people. This equality idea meant to make people think that they can be anything...kind of like the American dream in Russia - er, the USSR. But given that the 30's was a scary time to be there, its ironic that this message is being put out at this time. But I suppose, on the heels of the hopeful 20's, the diehards probably wouldn't have given up completely yet.
I think that's all I've got for today.
LIES.
edited to add that i just heard the word "tovarisch" in the Gogol Bordello song I have playing right now. And I can understand that now. Cool :)
(it's this song)
This film was the first we have seen that has a soundtrack, but I thought it was a bit funny because much of the sound seemed "off", in that it didn't quite match the action. Many times the actors' mouths were not exactly in sync and if there were sounds other than speech happening, it seemed to be only selective sounds; for example when the troops were moving you heard mainly horse-hooves but not the "background noise" that would have been generated by the soldier's feet or the carts moving, etc. It really struck me as odd not to have all of those sounds in there, and it made me wonder if the sound was recorded separately, which I suppose would make sense, as it was a new technology and likely wasn't perfected yet.
I feel like the style of this film was more similar to American styles, with well-rounded, relatable characters as opposed to the mass of people representing the good side in Battleship Potemkin. I think that was probably one of the reasons why it was so popular, it had more depth to it than Potemkin, just because it's not as blatantly propoganda. It still is, but I think the socialist realism style is a bit better at hiding that. I think the focus on individuals made this seem more like a biopic than a propoganda piece, at first glance.
Thinking about socialist realism takes me back to the East German Film class last semester, which I sadly had to audit due to the heavy workload for my senior sem - but for the few class periods I was tere, we discussed this for the DDR (uhh, GDR in English). We watched a film called Die Mรถrder sind unter uns - translated to "The Murderers are Among Us", which was the first film made in East Germany, which ultimately made the point that Nazis were bad. Similarly, I feel like Chapaev serves a similar purpose in putting down the previous regime (the czar, represented by the white army) and sets up hope in the new government and revolution. I came across this again because I realized the notebook I started using for this class had a few German notes in it from last semester and thought it was ironic due to these parallels.
(Socialist realism in German = Sozialisticher Realismus, if you were wondering.)
I liked the involvement of the woman and her importance as a machine gunner in the one of just a few battle scenes that were shown. I don't think that sort of gender equality would have been seen in other countries at this time. My guess is that it goes with the idealist part of the genre though, that in "perfect" communism there would be total gender equality, but the norm probably wasn't the same as what we see in the film. I also liked the younger guy a lot as a character as well. As soon as he left the girl though I figured he was going to die, so that kind of sucked from an audience point of view that the ending was kind of sad. And speaking of the ending, where did those giant explosions come from? Were they perhaps just symbolic? Why wouldn't they have been detonated earlier?
Another character I felt bad for was that bearded guy on the white side whose brother was killed by the mean general. I didn't understand why he made the punishment worse for his brother when he found out they were related. I really thought that that guy was maybe going to switch sides after he found that out, and especially after he betrayed them. I was suprised that he went back to his own general.
Out of all of the characters, I think the general himself was least in focus for me, actually, just because there were so many other interesting people involved. At first he seemed like kind of a jerk, yelling at his men and making threats to them and whatnot. I thought it was interesting that the commisar was the one who ended up "keeping him in line," so to speak. The scene where he figured out that stealing from the peasants wasn't a good idea seemed to be kind of a big deal. I thought that was a little odd, since common sense would say that stealing from your peers is bad. Especially under communism, where everyone is supposed to be the same. Another thing about him was that he had been illiterate and not so well-to-do himself, yet he had now become a successful war general. The "rags to riches" character was probably also a popular selling point to the people. This equality idea meant to make people think that they can be anything...kind of like the American dream in Russia - er, the USSR. But given that the 30's was a scary time to be there, its ironic that this message is being put out at this time. But I suppose, on the heels of the hopeful 20's, the diehards probably wouldn't have given up completely yet.
I think that's all I've got for today.
LIES.
edited to add that i just heard the word "tovarisch" in the Gogol Bordello song I have playing right now. And I can understand that now. Cool :)
(it's this song)
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
day five - Soviet Experimentalism
The Man With the Movie Camera, dir. Dziga Vertov, 1929
This film was really very interesting (I wish I had a better word than interesting, it's one of the least interesting words in the English language) and it held my attention well for most of the time, actually. I tried to watch it with a very open mind because of the explanations in the opening titles that it was meant as an experiment with no story or anything. So I tried very hard to look at it mainly in terms of the imagery and experimental techniques.
It seemed to me like Vertov's main visual interests had to do with movement - mechanical things versus living things. He seemed to like to juxtapose contrasting images. For example, in the first part of the film, I felt like I was watching a slidehow of still photographs, because most of the images focused on things that are important for making interesting photography - leading lines, patterns, strong contrasts, uncommon angles, and abstract shapes. Later, once everyone begins to "wake up" those stills are shown once again but with action moving through them, or the objects themselves are shown to be moving parts. I think he was exploring the difference between a still camera (photography) and the movie camera (film).
Vertov seemed to be interested in mechanical things and figuring out how they worked, then playing with them. I liked the scenes where he used overlapping images to make the cameraman look like a giant, and I was very interested in the couple of scenes that used stop-motion animation of the rolling wood pieces and then the walking tripod. I'm curious how those were filmed because I've done a little bit of that with my brother and we took stills on a (crummy) webcam and then put them together for only a few seconds each using computer software (something called monkey jam...worked well for our little projects but may have infected Zach's computer - not reccommended for that reason). I'm not sure how a similar technique could have been employed in the 20's, since film was on reels and needed to be patched together, it must have been a lot of work to even finish those few seconds.
Another thing I really liked was the multiple images at once technique, especially with the building that began to fold in half, it made me think of the dream scene in Inception where the whole city bends in half. Well, like a very early version of that, I guess. The moving streetcars were also interesting to look at in that sort of kaleidoscope mode. Some of the other shots were cool because the footage would be seen, and then the cameraman would be shown filming that scene. I liked seeing how it was done. Those under-the-train shots looked really dangerous!
The mannequin images I found very creepy, and at first I wasn't a big fan of the eyes that flash in and out like subliminal messages, but I think it was meant to symbolize the cameraman's eye looking at the world differently, because there were also repeated images of the cameraman reflected in the lens, and his eye looking through the lens as well. I liked seeing the mechanical bits narrowing down the focus on the lens, call me weird but when I first got my zoom lens on my dSLR camera I watched all the pieces move for like 5 minutes to make sure it all worked, and thought it was super cool.
RANDOM AND KIND OF UNRELATED!!
If you are interested in my brother's stop-motion animation projects, click here.
The top one is him shooting a Barbie out of an air cannon, but the rest are animations. I helped mostly with the Easter one.
I listen to this band called Gogol Bordello, and I've been listening to them the whole time I've been typing this. They call themselves "gypsy punk" and are basically really awesome. 3 of their members are originally from the USSR...look them up if you enjoy different music.
The mention of Odessa so much yesterday and today makes me think of the book I'm reading right now, Everything Is Illuminated, set in and around Odessa, which is also a fantastic movie (I dicovered them backwards). I reccommend them both.
This film was really very interesting (I wish I had a better word than interesting, it's one of the least interesting words in the English language) and it held my attention well for most of the time, actually. I tried to watch it with a very open mind because of the explanations in the opening titles that it was meant as an experiment with no story or anything. So I tried very hard to look at it mainly in terms of the imagery and experimental techniques.
It seemed to me like Vertov's main visual interests had to do with movement - mechanical things versus living things. He seemed to like to juxtapose contrasting images. For example, in the first part of the film, I felt like I was watching a slidehow of still photographs, because most of the images focused on things that are important for making interesting photography - leading lines, patterns, strong contrasts, uncommon angles, and abstract shapes. Later, once everyone begins to "wake up" those stills are shown once again but with action moving through them, or the objects themselves are shown to be moving parts. I think he was exploring the difference between a still camera (photography) and the movie camera (film).
Vertov seemed to be interested in mechanical things and figuring out how they worked, then playing with them. I liked the scenes where he used overlapping images to make the cameraman look like a giant, and I was very interested in the couple of scenes that used stop-motion animation of the rolling wood pieces and then the walking tripod. I'm curious how those were filmed because I've done a little bit of that with my brother and we took stills on a (crummy) webcam and then put them together for only a few seconds each using computer software (something called monkey jam...worked well for our little projects but may have infected Zach's computer - not reccommended for that reason). I'm not sure how a similar technique could have been employed in the 20's, since film was on reels and needed to be patched together, it must have been a lot of work to even finish those few seconds.
Another thing I really liked was the multiple images at once technique, especially with the building that began to fold in half, it made me think of the dream scene in Inception where the whole city bends in half. Well, like a very early version of that, I guess. The moving streetcars were also interesting to look at in that sort of kaleidoscope mode. Some of the other shots were cool because the footage would be seen, and then the cameraman would be shown filming that scene. I liked seeing how it was done. Those under-the-train shots looked really dangerous!
The mannequin images I found very creepy, and at first I wasn't a big fan of the eyes that flash in and out like subliminal messages, but I think it was meant to symbolize the cameraman's eye looking at the world differently, because there were also repeated images of the cameraman reflected in the lens, and his eye looking through the lens as well. I liked seeing the mechanical bits narrowing down the focus on the lens, call me weird but when I first got my zoom lens on my dSLR camera I watched all the pieces move for like 5 minutes to make sure it all worked, and thought it was super cool.
RANDOM AND KIND OF UNRELATED!!
If you are interested in my brother's stop-motion animation projects, click here.
The top one is him shooting a Barbie out of an air cannon, but the rest are animations. I helped mostly with the Easter one.
I listen to this band called Gogol Bordello, and I've been listening to them the whole time I've been typing this. They call themselves "gypsy punk" and are basically really awesome. 3 of their members are originally from the USSR...look them up if you enjoy different music.
The mention of Odessa so much yesterday and today makes me think of the book I'm reading right now, Everything Is Illuminated, set in and around Odessa, which is also a fantastic movie (I dicovered them backwards). I reccommend them both.
Monday, January 10, 2011
day four - Battleship Potemkin
Battleship Potemkin by Sergei Eisenstein, 1925
Overall, I thought that this film was well put together and for the most part, entertaining. I enjoyed the quicker shots that are really more like the editing styles that are often seen today, with the closer shots on people's faces instead of the style of Evgeni Bauer (longer shots in extravagent rooms which make for busy backgrounds). I think this film was more believeable than some of the other silent films we watched on Thursday, especially the first two parts of it. The story was good in showing clearly the buildup of tenstion that led to the revolt. I also really liked the portrayal of what I assumed to be the Captain - the older, moustache-less man - in those couple of scenes. He looked like a hawk or a vulture of something watching the sailors. Later, a lot of the higher officers with moustaches would curl them and grin to indicate their "evil" motives - which made me think of Snidely Whiplash from the old Dudley Do-Right cartoons...they also had a lot of monocles or glasses with chains, so that added to the association with cartoon villians.
The third part seemed rather overdone to me, I felt like this is definitely where the propoganda comes in to the film. It would make sense for passers by to notice the sailor's body on the beach, but then people started coming in droves upon droves! I can't imagine that the reaction would have been quite that dramatic or intense as it was pictured in the film. That is one part where I thought it still went too long, that sooooo many people were freaking out over it and they were shown for a good 5 or 10 minutes straight. I didn't understand at first why all of a sudden there were soldiers all over the place killing people, but I am guessing they were the White army trying to disperse the massive crowd that had gathered in support of the cause of the Reds represented by the dead sailor. That whole scene also seemed todrag on a long time, but they did a good job of capturing how chaotic and terrible a scene like that would be. The little kid getting shot was definitely an emotional event, and I really reacted to it myself.
The ending scene got super annoying with the over-dramatic music that kept getting faster and faster in tempo until it became frantic noise. That part dragged on forever, I just kept thinking, well shoot them already! I was a little confused when all of a sudden they were friends because I didn't see any flag or anything on the other ships to indicate a response to the Potemkin's sgnal of "join us". I thought it was a little weird to end the film at that scene, for some reason it seemed a bit anticlimacric after the previous battle scenes.
A few technical things I was curious about were, for one, the red coloration of the flag. Was that done at the time, or more recently in "retouching"? Clearly it sticks out among the otherwise greyscale colors, and is a big symbol for the new leadership and communism of the Bolsheviks. I thought that the main sailor who died looked a bit like Stalin with that big moustache, and I was curious if maybe that had been done on purpose, especially before he ended up dying. The other technique I thought was really interesting as incorporating "sound effects" into the musical score, for the gunshots and cannons as well as the bugles, whistles and even splashes into the water. I'm not sure if the scoring on the version we watched today was the same as the original, but if so I think it was rather creative.
I think that's all for today...
Overall, I thought that this film was well put together and for the most part, entertaining. I enjoyed the quicker shots that are really more like the editing styles that are often seen today, with the closer shots on people's faces instead of the style of Evgeni Bauer (longer shots in extravagent rooms which make for busy backgrounds). I think this film was more believeable than some of the other silent films we watched on Thursday, especially the first two parts of it. The story was good in showing clearly the buildup of tenstion that led to the revolt. I also really liked the portrayal of what I assumed to be the Captain - the older, moustache-less man - in those couple of scenes. He looked like a hawk or a vulture of something watching the sailors. Later, a lot of the higher officers with moustaches would curl them and grin to indicate their "evil" motives - which made me think of Snidely Whiplash from the old Dudley Do-Right cartoons...they also had a lot of monocles or glasses with chains, so that added to the association with cartoon villians.
The third part seemed rather overdone to me, I felt like this is definitely where the propoganda comes in to the film. It would make sense for passers by to notice the sailor's body on the beach, but then people started coming in droves upon droves! I can't imagine that the reaction would have been quite that dramatic or intense as it was pictured in the film. That is one part where I thought it still went too long, that sooooo many people were freaking out over it and they were shown for a good 5 or 10 minutes straight. I didn't understand at first why all of a sudden there were soldiers all over the place killing people, but I am guessing they were the White army trying to disperse the massive crowd that had gathered in support of the cause of the Reds represented by the dead sailor. That whole scene also seemed todrag on a long time, but they did a good job of capturing how chaotic and terrible a scene like that would be. The little kid getting shot was definitely an emotional event, and I really reacted to it myself.
The ending scene got super annoying with the over-dramatic music that kept getting faster and faster in tempo until it became frantic noise. That part dragged on forever, I just kept thinking, well shoot them already! I was a little confused when all of a sudden they were friends because I didn't see any flag or anything on the other ships to indicate a response to the Potemkin's sgnal of "join us". I thought it was a little weird to end the film at that scene, for some reason it seemed a bit anticlimacric after the previous battle scenes.
A few technical things I was curious about were, for one, the red coloration of the flag. Was that done at the time, or more recently in "retouching"? Clearly it sticks out among the otherwise greyscale colors, and is a big symbol for the new leadership and communism of the Bolsheviks. I thought that the main sailor who died looked a bit like Stalin with that big moustache, and I was curious if maybe that had been done on purpose, especially before he ended up dying. The other technique I thought was really interesting as incorporating "sound effects" into the musical score, for the gunshots and cannons as well as the bugles, whistles and even splashes into the water. I'm not sure if the scoring on the version we watched today was the same as the original, but if so I think it was rather creative.
I think that's all for today...
Thursday, January 6, 2011
day three - silent films
Films directed by Evgeni Bauer - random side note on the name, "Bauer" is German for farmer. It doesn't sound Russian to me. But anyway...
I thought that A Child of the Big City was a bit hard to follow. I got the initial dinner scene where Mary and Viktor meet, but then all of a sudden you are informed that she is ruining him, which I didn't really gather from the action. I don't understand how she could be as selfish as she was, given her own modest background, you would think that she would be very grateful for her new lifestyle and all the things that she had. Or at least I would like to think that. I was taken aback her reaction to the suicide outside her door, which I believe was Viktor, who had given her what she had. It really made her seem inhuman for just ignoring it and stepping over him, almost like choosing not to see him. Unlike her, Viktor tried to be compassionate - his breakdown when he finds her with her new lover is proof that he cares about her. I don't believe that she really cared for him, just the material things and the lifestyle that he was able to give to her. Technically I really liked the use of overlapping images, I don't know what to call it exactly - moving double-exposure? I thought it was really cool that that kind of special effect could be used in such an early film. I also noticed a zooming-in shot at the scene with the dancer at the party, which was probably also innovative at the time.
Of the 3 films, The 1002nd Ruse was my least favorite. I found the old man creepy; I don't know why he would stay with his wife if he was always so suspicious of her. I didn't really understand the woman's motivation for using the "ruses" on her husband that he kept pointing out to her. I guess it was just a little lost on me.
The Dying Swan was, I felt, the most developed film we watched today. I thought of a Poe story almost, with the theme of madness. I thought the artist guy was creepy from the first time I saw him on screen. I figured out he was probably going to kill her in the end, even before the dream sequence. I wondered why that was tinted blue-ish, if that had been done on purpose in the original or if the film had just been damaged with age or something. I also noticed that the dancing scene was tinted pinkish, and wondered about that too. I guess its an example of a very early "thriller". I liked the arms in the dream sequence and then as she was dying, I think the black and white really enhanced the creepiness of that, especially with the sharp contrast that creates and the clear expression in her eyes. I also really liked the music accompaniment to this film, even though it probably wasn't the same as the original score. I felt it really added to the mood.
I like the look of the images in the silent films, I feel like it is just as much a "novelty" today as it was then, because now it's something old and antique and thus interesting. I found myself distracted by things like their dated hair and clothing styles as well as all of the things they had in the background of each scene. It makes me think of my grandmother's high school yearbook from the 40s. I just like the look of that whole era, the first half of the 20th century, when everyone looked like they should be a classy movie star.
I liked watching the very early footage as well from the Lumiere brothers, just as a social experiment. It was funny to see how people reacted to being filmed. I also liked the slightly too fast pace, it made it more fun and almost comical, and reminded me a bit of animation, something like a hyper-real. I can understand how people were so unsure of it at first.
I think that's all I have for today...
I thought that A Child of the Big City was a bit hard to follow. I got the initial dinner scene where Mary and Viktor meet, but then all of a sudden you are informed that she is ruining him, which I didn't really gather from the action. I don't understand how she could be as selfish as she was, given her own modest background, you would think that she would be very grateful for her new lifestyle and all the things that she had. Or at least I would like to think that. I was taken aback her reaction to the suicide outside her door, which I believe was Viktor, who had given her what she had. It really made her seem inhuman for just ignoring it and stepping over him, almost like choosing not to see him. Unlike her, Viktor tried to be compassionate - his breakdown when he finds her with her new lover is proof that he cares about her. I don't believe that she really cared for him, just the material things and the lifestyle that he was able to give to her. Technically I really liked the use of overlapping images, I don't know what to call it exactly - moving double-exposure? I thought it was really cool that that kind of special effect could be used in such an early film. I also noticed a zooming-in shot at the scene with the dancer at the party, which was probably also innovative at the time.
Of the 3 films, The 1002nd Ruse was my least favorite. I found the old man creepy; I don't know why he would stay with his wife if he was always so suspicious of her. I didn't really understand the woman's motivation for using the "ruses" on her husband that he kept pointing out to her. I guess it was just a little lost on me.
The Dying Swan was, I felt, the most developed film we watched today. I thought of a Poe story almost, with the theme of madness. I thought the artist guy was creepy from the first time I saw him on screen. I figured out he was probably going to kill her in the end, even before the dream sequence. I wondered why that was tinted blue-ish, if that had been done on purpose in the original or if the film had just been damaged with age or something. I also noticed that the dancing scene was tinted pinkish, and wondered about that too. I guess its an example of a very early "thriller". I liked the arms in the dream sequence and then as she was dying, I think the black and white really enhanced the creepiness of that, especially with the sharp contrast that creates and the clear expression in her eyes. I also really liked the music accompaniment to this film, even though it probably wasn't the same as the original score. I felt it really added to the mood.
I like the look of the images in the silent films, I feel like it is just as much a "novelty" today as it was then, because now it's something old and antique and thus interesting. I found myself distracted by things like their dated hair and clothing styles as well as all of the things they had in the background of each scene. It makes me think of my grandmother's high school yearbook from the 40s. I just like the look of that whole era, the first half of the 20th century, when everyone looked like they should be a classy movie star.
I liked watching the very early footage as well from the Lumiere brothers, just as a social experiment. It was funny to see how people reacted to being filmed. I also liked the slightly too fast pace, it made it more fun and almost comical, and reminded me a bit of animation, something like a hyper-real. I can understand how people were so unsure of it at first.
I think that's all I have for today...
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
day two - Irony of Fate (part 2)
I enjoyed this movie overall. It got a little slow sometimes when they were singing to each other, especially Nadya because her songs were generally slower. I think if it wasn't a subtitled film those scenes would have annoyed me more, but because I had to read the titles I feel like I absorbed the lyrics better, maybe because if you're just listening sometimes songs can be hard to understand even in English.
I saw the end coming, after it didn't cut off once Zhenya's conversation with his mother was over. But it was cute. I wouldn't have guessed it to end up being a romantic comedy at first, but once Ippolit left and those two started talking I figured it out. Speaking of Ippolit, I was pretty annoyed with him for most of the time. I thought he was kind of a hot head and big jerk, until the scene when both of the guys get thrown out and are left in the cold. I loved his last appearance though, he was hilarious. I thought it was ironic how both he and Zhenya had to be drunk to see some kind of truth.
I really liked how Zhenya was a dynamic character. With Galya he is really shy and awkward and unsure of himself, but with Nadya he is more confident and outgoing. I don't know how much of that had to do with the drinking, because he acted that way even after he stopped acting really drunk. I liked how he seemed clueless too, when Galya is inferring they should spend the night together in the beginning and then later too when he is trying to explain to Nadya how he feels about her. That made him more endearing to me.
The other characters I liked were the scatterbrained friends of both Zhenya and Nadya, both of whom didn't understand that something was up with the couple not being who they thought they were. I hope that sentence made sense. They were both good for comic relief in between some of the weightier scenes where the couple is talking.
I think that's all I've got for today.
I saw the end coming, after it didn't cut off once Zhenya's conversation with his mother was over. But it was cute. I wouldn't have guessed it to end up being a romantic comedy at first, but once Ippolit left and those two started talking I figured it out. Speaking of Ippolit, I was pretty annoyed with him for most of the time. I thought he was kind of a hot head and big jerk, until the scene when both of the guys get thrown out and are left in the cold. I loved his last appearance though, he was hilarious. I thought it was ironic how both he and Zhenya had to be drunk to see some kind of truth.
I really liked how Zhenya was a dynamic character. With Galya he is really shy and awkward and unsure of himself, but with Nadya he is more confident and outgoing. I don't know how much of that had to do with the drinking, because he acted that way even after he stopped acting really drunk. I liked how he seemed clueless too, when Galya is inferring they should spend the night together in the beginning and then later too when he is trying to explain to Nadya how he feels about her. That made him more endearing to me.
The other characters I liked were the scatterbrained friends of both Zhenya and Nadya, both of whom didn't understand that something was up with the couple not being who they thought they were. I hope that sentence made sense. They were both good for comic relief in between some of the weightier scenes where the couple is talking.
I think that's all I've got for today.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
day one - Irony of Fate
This intro is happening mid-blog...I've noticed my thoughts are a bit sporratic so I apologize in advance.
So far I am enjoying this movie, though it seems a bit slower than the types of movies I am used to seeing here, especially comedies. It's more of a dry humor, more like something British. The opening animation actually reminded me a bit of Monty Python (which is funny, since the animator in that group was the only American in it). The general idea is pretty funny, but I got confused when the story seemed to shift to Nadya. I'm wondering if that will end up making more of a connection.
I think it's funny that they could get away with a movie that makes fun of how everything is "the same" in every city in the USSR, when I'm sure that films were regulated by the government. I've seen a few German movies and I know that in East Germany this was the case, and I'm guessing it must have been similar in the USSR.
As a glasses-wearer, I find it odd that it hasn't been a problem that Zhenya hasn't had his glasses since the first 10-ish minutes. Maybe that's adding to his confusion? With his glasses on in the opening he reminded me of the lead man from Weezer. This is how I think...randomly.
I suppose that's really all for now...
So far I am enjoying this movie, though it seems a bit slower than the types of movies I am used to seeing here, especially comedies. It's more of a dry humor, more like something British. The opening animation actually reminded me a bit of Monty Python (which is funny, since the animator in that group was the only American in it). The general idea is pretty funny, but I got confused when the story seemed to shift to Nadya. I'm wondering if that will end up making more of a connection.
I think it's funny that they could get away with a movie that makes fun of how everything is "the same" in every city in the USSR, when I'm sure that films were regulated by the government. I've seen a few German movies and I know that in East Germany this was the case, and I'm guessing it must have been similar in the USSR.
As a glasses-wearer, I find it odd that it hasn't been a problem that Zhenya hasn't had his glasses since the first 10-ish minutes. Maybe that's adding to his confusion? With his glasses on in the opening he reminded me of the lead man from Weezer. This is how I think...randomly.
I suppose that's really all for now...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)