The Russian Language Film Thread [Archive]

Beau

10-10-2010, 02:34 AM

Good thread. Ripped straight from a time when I had... time. No. I will make time. Yes. Make it. I have things I want to watch. The last movie with Russians in it, I believe, was Lopushansky's Ugly Swans, which I mostly disliked. I find the whole idea that superior intelligence needs to be shown as a serious, dry, passionless, and expressionless endeavor to be ridiculous and kitschy. The film runs into an interesting problem, which is: how do you manage to portray intelligence beyond the human? Since the people writing the script and filming the scenes are human, they can't very well accurately portray intelligence that exceeds them, except by skirting the issue, suggesting it, or allowing the film to be "smarter" than them and think beyond the artist(s), which is what Kubrick and Clarke came up with for 2001. Lopushansky decides to have the superior intelligences actually talk and reason on-screen, except he really doesn't. So it's a clever trick. In the film, there's these alien mentors who have collected a group of bright kids in order to introduce them to the ways of really boring-looking superior intelligence, which apparently requires everyone to don Matrix trenchcoats, because they look more intellectual that way. Anyways, these kids, these students, do most of the talking, while the alien mentors retain their mystery. This means we can get a taste of superior intelligence, but it is only the superior intelligence managed by the apprenticed children, who are not yet up to par with the aliens, but are at least up to par with a really intelligent adult, which is a doable portrayal for the script-writer and the filmmaker. It's one approach to an interesting problem. But the kitschy presentation zaps a lot of the mystery from the alien mentors as well as from the premise, and the taste we get of superior intelligence falls victim to a very dull anti-intellectual dichotomy, where the smarter the person, the further removed from human feeling, except the movie finally wants to have it both ways and ultimately reveals itself as a tortured paean to intellectual bravery and the need for intellectual freedom, as demonstrated by these kids learning from their alien mentors. But we've seen the effects of their superior intelligence. Not an increased level of awareness, nor intellectual passion, nor effervescent engagement with the problems of the world, nor even some sort of spiritual tranquility. Just laborious solemnity. Which might mean it's also working as a double-edged criticism of the mentality of the alien mentors, who are also flawed, but all I see is a return to the dull dichotomy, where the intellectual pursuits of the mentors make them a bit empty inside, which is an overdone premise that can only be refreshed by actually analyzing the conflict with more rigor and depth, but all I saw was a superficial portrayal. I will admit that the film is mostly concerned with the human protagonist's more interesting internal fight, having to analyze the situation in order to pick which side he wants to fight for and find what to believe in, so maybe if I concentrate on him and forget everything else I would be better off. It's just that Lopushansky already made Visitor to a Museum, which has a similarly interesting protagonist aided by an even more interesting and evocative nightmare world, so why bother with Ugly Swans? Maybe the point is contained in the title: the kids are like ugly swans, boring in their youth because they're only just learning this intellectual superiority and still carry some of the bad habits they learned during their previous more human upbringing. Which is a great idea, but there's no reason to think the kids have to unshackle themselves from their constant severity and dullness, because their mentors aren't exactly versions of Welles' Falstaff.

Dukefrukem

10-10-2010, 03:20 AM

I like Night Watch?

Derek

10-10-2010, 07:52 AM

I like Night Watch?

Are you asking us to tell you? If so, you don't because Night Watch is a shitty movie.

endingcredits

10-10-2010, 02:42 PM

Ignoring the comedies, IMDB's top 10 (1000 votes or more)
1. Come and See
2. Andrei Rublev
3. Stalker
4. My Name Is Ivan
5. Ballad of a Soldier
6. Battleship Potemkin
7. Dersu Uzala
8. The Cranes Are Flying
9. Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors
10 Solaris

I've seen the ones in bold above. Over the long weekend, I hope to watch some of the others. Any recommendations on which to check out first?

Dukefrukem

10-10-2010, 02:45 PM

Are you asking us to tell you? If so, you don't because Night Watch is a shitty movie.

It's the only Russian movie I can recall. (and Day Watch)

Beau

10-10-2010, 07:48 PM

I've seen the ones in bold above. Over the long weekend, I hope to watch some of the others. Any recommendations on which to check out first?

I've seen Dersu and Shadows. I vastly prefer Shadows. But it depends on your sensibilities. Dersu plays it rather straight. It looks like an epic, it moves like one, there's male bonding, there's a noble savage archetype, there's a woe-be-progress subtext (or not even sub), there's maybe some attempt to do what Renoir did much better in Boudu, which is to suggest that the noblest character (Boudu in Boudu, Dersu in Dersu) is actually a flawed human being in his own right, but for the most part I thought the film was rather simple in that regard. Shadows has its share of simple ideas and emotions, but it's so endlessly iconoclastic and visceral about it, that those simple ideas and emotions are propelled into spiritually cleansing (and emotionally tortuous) heights, so that they're not simple anymore, because now they seem rebellious, boundary breaking, a way to defeat the void, but the void is so awful, so awful, will we be able to defeat the void? That's Shadows.

Beau

10-10-2010, 07:51 PM

It's the only Russian movie I can recall. (and Day Watch)

Day Watch is okay. But watch more movies with Russians in it. At least watch Kin-Dza-Dza if it must be an irreverent fantasy-sci-fi-drama-what-the-fuck-am-i-watching Russian movie.

Melville

10-10-2010, 08:56 PM

I've seen the ones in bold above. Over the long weekend, I hope to watch some of the others. Any recommendations on which to check out first?
Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors. It's deliriously explosive like nothing else.

Qrazy

10-10-2010, 08:58 PM

I've seen the ones in bold above. Over the long weekend, I hope to watch some of the others. Any recommendations on which to check out first?

7, 8, 9 you should check out first. Ballad of a Soldier can wait until after those. The Cranes are Flying and Ballad of a Soldier are similar in many ways but personally I find Kalatozov's film much more successful than Ballad. If only because Kalatozov is a much more formally interesting filmmaker. Shadows is Parajanov's best imo and a very beautiful film. I don't much care for The Color of Pomegranates personally. The mise-en-scene in that one is much too static for my taste.

Dersu Uzala is a wonderful film but it's directed by Kurosawa so while much of it does occur in Russian it's not a Russian film in the strictest sense of the term. It's also vastly superior to the mediocre Boudu. Basically I completely disagree with everything Beau said above (except his praise of Shadows). It's in no way trying to be an epic except that it isn't a short film and similar to some epics perhaps it's primarily composed of beautiful long shots. But for the most part it's a small character film about the relationship between Dersu and Captain Vladimir. The film's purpose is ever clear but that I think is a strength of Kurosawa's filmmaking, not a weakness. He lays out his message clearly, but this does not make his ideas simple. There are a number of remarkable sequences within the film. Without giving too much away one near an ice-covered lake, another with a tiger, another with a raft, and the final one at the very end of the film. Dersu Uzala is perhaps the most in touch with the relationship between man and nature of any film I've ever seen.

Qrazy

10-10-2010, 08:59 PM

Are you asking us to tell you? If so, you don't because Night Watch is a shitty movie.

Agreed. Terrible film.

Qrazy

10-10-2010, 09:01 PM

Also what Russian film thread would be complete without my recommendation of Aleksei German's entire filmography.

# 1967 - Sedmoy sputnik (The Seventh Companion)
# 1971 - Proverka na dorogakh (Trial on the Road)
# 1976 - Dvadtsat dney bez voyny (Twenty Days Without War)
# 1984 - Moy drug Ivan Lapshin (My Friend Ivan Lapshin)
# 1998 - Khrustalyov, mashinu! (Khrustalyov, My Car!)

# 2011?? - Istoriya Arkanarskoy rezni (History of the Arkanar massacre)

Qrazy

10-10-2010, 09:07 PM

Oh and Sokurov:

1. Days of Eclipse
2. The Second Circle
3. Russian Ark

4. Father and Son
5. Mother and Son

---

Petrov:

1. Dream of a Ridiculous Man
2. The Cow
3. The Old man and the Sea
4. My Love
5. Mermaid

Norstein:

1. Hedgehog in the Fog
2. Tale of Tales
3. The fox and the Hare
4. Heron and the Crane
5. The Battle of Kerzhenets

Qrazy

10-10-2010, 09:08 PM

Kozintsev's King Lear is obviously great but his Don Quixote is quite engaging as well.

Melville

10-10-2010, 09:20 PM

Anyone seen the Russian Hamlet? Seems like a combination that cannot fail.

Beau

10-10-2010, 09:26 PM

Dersu Uzala is a wonderful film but it's directed by Kurosawa so while much of it does occur in Russian it's not a Russian film in the strictest sense of the term. It's also vastly superior to the mediocre Boudu. Basically I completely disagree with everything Beau said above (except his praise of Shadows). It's in no way trying to be an epic except that it isn't a short film and similar to some epics perhaps it's primarily composed of beautiful long shots. But for the most part it's a small character film about the relationship between Dersu and Captain Vladimir. The film's purpose is ever clear but that I think is a strength of Kurosawa's filmmaking, not a weakness. He lays out his message clearly, but this does not make his ideas simple. There are a number of remarkable sequences within the film. Without giving too much away one near an ice-covered lake, another with a tiger, another with a raft, and the final one at the very end of the film. Dersu Uzala is perhaps the most in touch with the relationship between man and nature of any film I've ever seen.

You're right, it doesn't have an epic's battles, or an epic's social scope, or everything that makes epics epic, so that was a bad way of putting it. I was comparing it visually to Shadows, which I found more visually adventurous , while Dersu is beautiful but comparatively tame, close to the traditional epic's long-shot obsession -- man and his environment, man and lots of other men too filling the frame -- so that's where my epic blunder came from. Kurosawa fills the frame better than most, though, so the wide screen is put to good effect. My claim of simplicity was directed primarily towards the relationship between the two men, which I didn't find particularly compelling, as opposed to the, perhaps more farcical, more shallow (in that the characters in Boudu are comic caricatures -- the Dersu characters are closer in tone to the characters in Grand Illusion, as long as we're going with Renoir), but more complex play, in my opinion, going on in Boudu, where there's nobody to really admire, and the rich character's good intentions are in fact self-serving, despite some altruism mixed in there, but his self-serving nature doesn't allow him to see that his way of helping Boudu is futile, sabotaging any altruism he might have been attempting, and Boudu is ungrateful, but also refreshing, revolutionary, but hugely self-absorbed, even dangerously so, with no care for what others think of him or because of him, which is what makes him refreshing, but also what makes him rather inconsiderate. There's no real adjective I can pin on anyone in Boudu, because they're textured caricatures, so maybe not really caricatures at all. For all the warmth, for all their non-caricatured (but Dersu is sort of a caricature to me) and heartfelt existence, I didn't get much from the central friendship in Dersu, despite charting some very, very similar territory to what I said above regarding Boudu. Man and nature, though. I'd have to see it again. It was impressive, but I'm not sure it has the spiritual, emotional display of that theme that I get from, say, Tarkovsky or Weerasethakul.

soitgoes...

10-10-2010, 11:03 PM

Anyone seen the Russian Hamlet? Seems like a combination that cannot fail.
I've had this on my HD for well over a year now, and I haven't gotten around to it. I had a dream of watching it, and all the English language versions within a short while. I made it through the Branagh and the Ethan Hawke contemporary version before losing interest in my quest.

Dukefrukem

10-10-2010, 11:05 PM

Agreed. Terrible film.

Why do you think it's so bad?

soitgoes...

10-10-2010, 11:06 PM

Petrov:

1. Dream of a Ridiculous Man
2. The Cow
3. The Old man and the Sea
4. My Love
5. Mermaid
I'd go with (the top three are so close it quality that they might as well be interchangeable):

1. The Old Man and the Sea
2. Dream of a Ridiculous Man
3. My Love
4. The Cow

Same as the Russian Hamlet, I'm had Mermaid for awhile, and inexplicably haven't watched it.

Qrazy

10-10-2010, 11:16 PM

You're right, it doesn't have an epic's battles, or an epic's social scope, or everything that makes epics epic, so that was a bad way of putting it. I was comparing it visually to Shadows, which I found more visually adventurous , while Dersu is beautiful but comparatively tame, close to the traditional epic's long-shot obsession -- man and his environment, man and lots of other men too filling the frame -- so that's where my epic blunder came from. Kurosawa fills the frame better than most, though, so the wide screen is put to good effect. My claim of simplicity was directed primarily towards the relationship between the two men, which I didn't find particularly compelling, as opposed to the, perhaps more farcical, more shallow (in that the characters in Boudu are comic caricatures -- the Dersu characters are closer in tone to the characters in Grand Illusion, as long as we're going with Renoir), but more complex play, in my opinion, going on in Boudu, where there's nobody to really admire, and the rich character's good intentions are in fact self-serving, despite some altruism mixed in there, but his self-serving nature doesn't allow him to see that his way of helping Boudu is futile, sabotaging any altruism he might have been attempting, and Boudu is ungrateful, but also refreshing, revolutionary, but hugely self-absorbed, even dangerously so, with no care for what others think of him or because of him, which is what makes him refreshing, but also what makes him rather inconsiderate. There's no real adjective I can pin on anyone in Boudu, because they're textured caricatures, so maybe not really caricatures at all. For all the warmth, for all their non-caricatured (but Dersu is sort of a caricature to me) and heartfelt existence, I didn't get much from the central friendship in Dersu, despite charting some very, very similar territory to what I said above regarding Boudu. Man and nature, though. I'd have to see it again. It was impressive, but I'm not sure it has the spiritual, emotional display of that theme that I get from, say, Tarkovsky or Weerasethakul.

Personally I just haven't been very impressed by Renoir outside of his two much lauded masterpieces (and I'm right there with everyone else on the love of those). But I did enjoy Boudu more than I have a number of his other works. I've only seen Boonmee from Weerasethakul which had a number of compelling moments but never really came together for me fully. I found it much too meandering and perhaps I'd also call it too static at times. When it's at it's best the atmosphere can be a hypnotic but I didn't get a striking sense of the relationship between man and nature from the film. At least not a relationship I really connect or agree with. I found the film more interesting and cumulatively effective from a meta-cinematic perspective. I'd agree with you when it comes to Tarkovsky but I think he and Kurosawa approach the relationship between man and nature from very different perspectives both here and elsewhere.

Qrazy

10-10-2010, 11:17 PM

Why do you think it's so bad?

Well maybe not terrible within the grand scheme of things I just found it poor. Have to run but I'll try to respond more fully later.

Beau

10-10-2010, 11:58 PM

I haven't seen Boonmee yet, so I was going by Syndromes and a Century, Blissfully Yours, and his short film A Letter to Uncle Boonmee. What we find spiritually and emotionally affecting is not something we can categorize or pinpoint, but I always feel Weerasethakul's environments are alive and mysterious (this also counts for his urban environments, like the city hospital in Syndromes). Blissfully Yours is more obviously about nature, but I feel his aesthetic is more interesting in the other two I mentioned, even though, in those, his portrayal of nature is always hinged around the outskirts of human constructions (rural hospital, rural town, etc), so there's no sense of getting lost in nature (which there is in Blissfully, but he hadn't really broached his later style at that point). But I still feel it: the trees visible from the window, the two women by the river, the trees swaying at dusk in Letter, even the trees at nighttime in Phantoms of Nabua. His style does seem to be about meandering, but it's also never really meandering, only meandering in terms of plot, but always strictly immersed in the style, in the atmosphere, in the rhythm, like a camera finding the people it wants to portray, finding them living in the environment its exploring, so it's not really meandering, or if it is, that's the story, the story of traveling around the hospital, around the town, finding human beings living within their surroundings, be it artificial or natural. So Weerasethakul is always about the environment, about man and nature, or about man and the city: the oppressive hospital hallways channeling humans here and there, forcing them to bump into each other, or preventing them from bumping into each other, nature liberating them, but also allowing them to hide, to reserve their anxieties and fears, to shield themselves from their cohorts amidst vast nature (that's mostly in Blissfully, where some of the most emotional character moments seem to happen in private, emotional moments that seem connected to relationships to others, but which are not shared with these others, as the characters instead depart into nature, or into their contemplation of nature, or into their existence amidst nature, to wallow in their pain without communicating it, except to the camera and to the canopy above them -- even though there's also a lot of bonding in that film, bonding between characters, so there's a bit of both, nature allowing for the bonding, because it's so open, so unrestricted, but also as a stage where private pain remains private, personal).

Yxklyx

10-11-2010, 12:52 AM

Anyone seen the Russian Hamlet? Seems like a combination that cannot fail.

While I loved Grigori Kozintsev's King Lear I can't say the same for his Hamlet. I think this is the one which has many scenes of people just walking around a dark castle.

Derek

10-11-2010, 03:32 AM

Kosintsev's Hamlet is great - masterfully filmed even if it does contain a lot of people walking around a castle. Almost as good as Last Year at Marienbad and Russian Ark in the people-walking-around-the-interiors-of-large-buildings-for-most-of-the-running-time sub-sub-genre.

soitgoes...

10-11-2010, 03:37 AM

people-walking-around-the-interiors-of-large-buildings-for-most-of-the-running-time sub-sub-genre.
My favorite sub-sub-genre.

B-side

10-11-2010, 03:51 AM

My favorite sub-sub-genre.

I'm a fan as well.:D

Qrazy

10-11-2010, 03:54 AM

Ditto.

Beau

10-11-2010, 06:35 AM

I like Bartas' The House, myself. Anything that works with a strong 'every house is a world' motif is bound to catch my interest.

B-side

10-11-2010, 06:37 AM

Stop reminding me that I need to watch some Bartas, Beau. Geez.

Qrazy

10-12-2010, 03:48 AM

I like Bartas' The House, myself. Anything that works with a strong 'every house is a world' motif is bound to catch my interest.

Have you seen Ucho? It's Czech, quite good and touches a bit upon that motif itself. It's sort of like Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf meets The Trial.

Izzy Black

10-12-2010, 04:08 AM

Personally I just haven't been very impressed by Renoir outside of his two much lauded masterpieces (and I'm right there with everyone else on the love of those).

There will be blood! Get him Beau. (Although I am painfully and reluctantly inclined to agree, but without any real decided certainty as to my thoughts.)

Izzy Black

10-12-2010, 04:09 AM

I like Bartas' The House, myself. Anything that works with a strong 'every house is a world' motif is bound to catch my interest.

The House is special. Bartas has one of the strongest and most economical resumes out there, I think. Have you seen all his films?

Qrazy

10-12-2010, 04:12 AM

There will be blood! Get him Beau. (Although I am painfully and reluctantly inclined to agree, but without any real decided certainty as to my thoughts.)

Granted I still have a lot to see but Boudu, La Bete Humaine, The Lower Depths and Partie de Campagne didn't really do it for me. All had elements I admired. Like Ford he's a consummate craftsmen. His films are nearly always formally strong but in all four of those there were a number of major things which rubbed me the wrong way.

endingcredits

10-12-2010, 04:14 AM

Dersu had a sort of dynamic naturalness, capturing simultaneously the essence of man's desire to unite with nature and the jubilation of brotherhood. I really enjoyed it.

Izzy Black

10-12-2010, 04:23 AM

Beau

10-12-2010, 05:57 AM

Have you seen Ucho? It's Czech, quite good and touches a bit upon that motif itself. It's sort of like Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf meets The Trial.

I'll place that neatly into my "KG destruction" bin. Three days left.

Beau

10-12-2010, 05:58 AM

The House is special. Bartas has one of the strongest and most economical resumes out there, I think. Have you seen all his films?

I haven't. This must be fixed! To the bin!

Beau

10-12-2010, 06:27 AM

I'm sometimes even skeptical of Rules of the Game. I'm just not sure what I'm supposed to love about it, but I get the sense that there's something there (namely that I'm missing). I almost wonder if a non-thematic analysis of Renoir would do him more justice - insofar as he truly is experimenting with form in ways it never had been prior. It might be more interesting to interpret him along the lines of Eisenstein. That's at least groundwork for an approach to him that I can get behind, but I'm not sure how far to, or to what extent to go with it.

I personally prefer Renoir's earlier, pre-Grand Illusion (inclusively) work to his later work, namely because it expresses this above tension to break free of a clearly defined convention of cinema through cinematic harmony, novelty, poetry, and genius. I'm actually quite fond of The Bitch if any of you have seen it.

I haven't yet, but I have it... right here. The earlier Renoir movies are rougher, but very interesting, perhaps more flawed, but La Partie de Campagne and Le Crime de Monsieur Lange have sequences in them that surpass a lot of what's in Rules, except neither of them manage to concoct anything close to Rules' forty-something minute dinner party, because their sequences are just that, isolated moments, and not a continuous dance that builds and builds upon itself. I can't exactly explain what it is that ties me so much to that movie, but basically, and this is surely what is typically said about Renoir, so I might not be adding anything interesting, yet here it goes: he's doing two things in particular, with space and time (and timing, like a dance, a series of beats), bodies in space, intertwining through it, which relates thematically to the social issues, since he has these social issues occur inside spaces which are explored and revolutionized through the dance (building and printing works in Lange, house in Boudu, prison in Grand Illusion, house in Rules, etc), so anyways, the two things he's doing are, on the one hand, having the camera fly around, or observe through long takes, but most importantly, observe into a distance, since it's deep focus photography and you can see the foreground and the background, which is perfect for the second thing, which is having the characters dance, but it's a very exaggerated dance, a lot of gesturing, since Renoir studied French gesturing before even getting into movies, as preparation. That much is well-known, but what it creates for me is a very dynamic sense of space and movement, and what I feel is happening is that Renoir is so obsessed with this movement, and this is especially true in Rules, that the story becomes about movement, movement for the sake of moving, and the characters seem to be self-consciously moving, or rather, moving too much, in order to interact, to play, to communicate. And the film is so obsessed with geography, with the placement of things and people, where everyone is -- in the kitchen, outside in the house, in the parlor room -- that I start to get a strong feeling for what is around a given scene, what is around the given image on the frame, what is around the frame, since the camera has traveled the space around the frame, or shown the characters dancing in that space, and sometimes the camera will leave a space and then find it from a new angle, again reinforcing our sense of space and geography, and since I'm immersed in the scene, what is around the characters is also what's around me, so part of the joy is aesthetic, emotional and even profound in the way human movement can be, but human movement heavily contextualized, because it's always movement surrounded by this geography that the film has established for us, a surrounding space that we know hosts even more movement, which somehow increases the perceived movement we see on the frame, not because that movement on the frame goes faster, but because we see it as a small particular movement inside the larger movement that describes the entire space of the drama, the entire house, as if each particular dance happening in each particular room were a cog in the immense machinery that is the whole house, where dozens of characters play and dance and try to make love. And all of this remits back to the characters, because their movements often interact and collide with the movement that surrounds them, and, for example, the fact that the film has so established the hectic movement happening inside the house is precisely what makes Octave's almost private moment (almost because Christine is there too) outside the house so affecting, because his loneliness, or our perception of his loneliness, is increased by the juxtaposition between his solitary figure in the outdoor quiet, and the hubbub we can still feel resonating inside of us after the fun and games we saw happen inside the chateau. Most of this, again, is primarily true of the dinner party in Rules, which is surely where Renoir's secret, if he has a secret, must necessarily reside.

Qrazy

10-12-2010, 05:23 PM

I haven't. This must be fixed! To the bin!

You best be grabbing those unseen Aleksei German films!

baby doll

10-12-2010, 07:53 PM

Beau

10-12-2010, 08:19 PM

You best be grabbing those unseen Aleksei German films!

That too!

Beau

10-12-2010, 08:20 PM

Don't over-analyze things. It's just a funny movie with kick-ass mise en scÃ¨ne.

Now, now, is Israfel's really the post to quote here?

baby doll

10-12-2010, 08:48 PM

Now, now, is Israfel's really the post to quote here?Well, he's the one who asked, but... I think you know what I'm going to say. Okay, I'll say it anyway: I don't think Renoir had a secret; there's no inexpressible je ne sais quoi that makes La RÃ¨gle du jeu not just a masterpiece, which it obviously is (like I said, it's masterful as storytelling, Renoir's mise en scÃ¨ne is extraordinary, and above all, it's really, really funny), but The Greatest Film of All Time, because the very idea of The Greatest Film of All Time is stupid. There are historical reasons why certain films get promoted above others, and perhaps ideological reasons as well. (To take a perfectly random example, if The Godfather were made in Eastern Europe, no one would ever have heard of it.) So when Israfel says that he isn't sure why he's "supposed" to love it, I can't help but think of those people who watch Citizen Kane expecting it to be The Greatest Film Ever Made, and then either conclude that it's overrated, or piously conclude that, even if it's not their "favorite" film, it's clearly the "greatest" movie because of the accepted historical/ideological reasons they learned about in Sunday school (deep focus, unusual structure, Welles having total artistic control, Bazin and Andrew Sarris liked it, etc.).

soitgoes...

10-12-2010, 09:20 PM

Away with all this French talk! This thread is about the glorious Soviets... I mean, Russians! And a Lithuanian! And apparently a Thai? WTF is going on in here?

Qrazy

10-12-2010, 09:59 PM

are historical reasons why certain films get promoted above others, and perhaps ideological reasons as well. (To take a perfectly random example, if The Godfather were made in Eastern Europe, no one would ever have heard of it.)

False.

baby doll

10-12-2010, 11:23 PM

False.C'mon... You don't think that American hegemony is the single biggest factor determining which films are admitted to the canon? Don't get me wrong, I think The Godfather is a terrific film. But it had to be heavily promoted and made widely available before it could become a classic, whereas Red Psalm (a film made in Hungary about the same time) is not a movie that many people in the west have seen, much less heard of. If you look at the IMDb list of the most popular films among English speakers, it's overwhelmingly slanted towards American studio pictures that were well-promoted and consequently became big commercial hits.

Izzy Black

10-12-2010, 11:36 PM

I haven't yet, but I have it... right here. The earlier Renoir movies are rougher, but very interesting, perhaps more flawed, but La Partie de Campagne and Le Crime de Monsieur Lange have sequences in them that surpass a lot of what's in Rules, except neither of them manage to concoct anything close to Rules' forty-something minute dinner party, because their sequences are just that, isolated moments, and not a continuous dance that builds and builds upon itself. I can't exactly explain what it is that ties me so much to that movie, but basically, and this is surely what is typically said about Renoir, so I might not be adding anything interesting, yet here it goes: he's doing two things in particular, with space and time (and timing, like a dance, a series of beats), bodies in space, intertwining through it, which relates thematically to the social issues, since he has these social issues occur inside spaces which are explored and revolutionized through the dance (building and printing works in Lange, house in Boudu, prison in Grand Illusion, house in Rules, etc), so anyways, the two things he's doing are, on the one hand, having the camera fly around, or observe through long takes, but most importantly, observe into a distance, since it's deep focus photography and you can see the foreground and the background, which is perfect for the second thing, which is having the characters dance, but it's a very exaggerated dance, a lot of gesturing, since Renoir studied French gesturing before even getting into movies, as preparation.

(...)

Yes, but part of my concern is that I don't think there's much conversation between the form and the thematic in Renoir. In general, my sensibilities agree with your cinematic analysis, and much of it resonates in a very similar way to me, but then I have the tendency to think that I should go further in the interpretation; that is, make the assumption that Renoir isn't very interested in the theme at all - at least - not in any real political, philosophical, or meaningful sense, but only peripherally as it relates to evocation (i.e. Eisensteinian).

Octave's almost private moment (almost because Christine is there too) outside the house so affecting, because his loneliness, or our perception of his loneliness, is increased by the juxtaposition between his solitary figure in the outdoor quiet, and the hubbub we can still feel resonating inside of us after the fun and games we saw happen inside the chateau. Most of this, again, is primarily true of the dinner party in Rules, which is surely where Renoir's secret, if he has a secret, must necessarily reside.

I can see this working effectively. I admire Renoir for just this quality. The ability to evoke character and inner-emotion cinematically. It set the stage for the New Wave and the Italians to do very similar things, but also to imbue such an aesthetic with personal auteuristic statements and interests. Renoir doesn't seem to be operating much in this way. The question is how much I am fascinated by this. That is, if historical appreciation for his admitted genius in this endeavor alone is sufficient for high artistic praise or admiration.

Izzy Black

10-12-2010, 11:40 PM

Don't over-analyze things. It's just a funny movie with kick-ass mise en scÃ¨ne.

Well, it's moderately funny, but I agree with the latter statement. I don't think I'm commiting the crime of over analysis by wondering if there's something more going on in his film, since, after all, the film as it stands (funny with kick ass mise en scene!) leaves much to be desired.

Izzy Black

10-12-2010, 11:43 PM

Well, he's the one who asked, but... I think you know what I'm going to say. Okay, I'll say it anyway: I don't think Renoir had a secret; there's no inexpressible je ne sais quoi that makes La RÃ¨gle du jeu not just a masterpiece, which it obviously is (like I said, it's masterful as storytelling, Renoir's mise en scÃ¨ne is extraordinary, and above all, it's really, really funny), but The Greatest Film of All Time, because the very idea of The Greatest Film of All Time is stupid.

But it's not obviously a masterpiece to me. It's also not "really, really, funny" to me, and the storytelling is pretty good, but the story itself, not so much. That's clearly the issue here. It's that I respect an audience member such as yourself so highly that I am admitting to myself that I might be missing something important here, since the film qua masterpiece, I see not.

Izzy Black

10-12-2010, 11:44 PM

C'mon... You don't think that American hegemony is the single biggest factor determining which films are admitted to the canon? Don't get me wrong, I think The Godfather is a terrific film. But it had to be heavily promoted and made widely available before it could become a classic, whereas Red Psalm (a film made in Hungary about the same time) is not a movie that many people in the west have seen, much less heard of. If you look at the IMDb list of the most popular films among English speakers, it's overwhelmingly slanted towards American studio pictures that were well-promoted and consequently became big commercial hits.

Don't think any of us here refer to AFI and IMDB as the cannon. I look to academic criticism personally. That cannon favors Red Psalm quite highly. (I wouldn't have even seen Red Psalm if it weren't for an American article I read on the director.)

Derek

10-12-2010, 11:46 PM

Away with all this French talk! This thread is about the glorious Soviets... I mean, Russians! And a Lithuanian! And apparently a Thai? WTF is going on in here?

Such an insult before never have I heard!

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_bzQchKv0KQA/SVIOXpsvrUI/AAAAAAAAA3Q/7gb9Dc4IShU/s400/Chevalier+Love+Me+Tonight.jpg

baby doll

10-12-2010, 11:54 PM

Well, it's moderately funny, but I agree with the latter statement. I don't think I'm commiting the crime of over analysis by wondering if there's something more going on in his film, since, after all, the film as it stands (funny with kick ass mise en scene!) leaves much to be desired.Obviously there are films with more laughs per minute, but I can't think of many at this level of sophistication or ambition. Anyway, what more could you possibly want from a film? Would Renoir's staging of actors really be more impressive if you could some how tie it to a theme? Look at it from the simplest, most practical angle: If you walk into a room, you're going to look for the most comfortable place to sit or stand. So when Robert goes to see his mistress early in the film, you can tell from his relaxed body language, the way he leans against the cabinet, that he's very familiar with this space and he's comfortable being there. It's not rocket science.

baby doll

10-13-2010, 12:02 AM

Don't think any of us here refer to AFI and IMDB as the cannon. I look to academic criticism personally. That cannon favors Red Psalm quite highly. (I wouldn't have even seen Red Psalm if it weren't for an American article I read on the director.)Let's not segregate academia from the general audience, because even academics have to hear about a movie somehow.

Anyway, my point is very simple: The Godfather is considered a classic by many people (both within academia and without), but if the film hadn't been well promoted by the studio that produced it, and had it not been made widely available, it wouldn't have the reputation that it does today.

Izzy Black

10-13-2010, 12:02 AM

Obviously there are films with more laughs per minute, but I can't think of many at this level of sophistication or ambition. Anyway, what more could you possibly want from a film? Would Renoir's staging of actors really be more impressive if you could some how tie to a theme? Look at it from the simplest, most practical angle: If you walk into a room, you're going to look for the most comfortable place to sit or stand. So when Robert goes to see his mistress early in the film, you can tell from his relaxed body language, the way he leans he cabinet, that he's very familiar with this space and he's comfortable being there. It's not rocket science.

I get what you're saying, but it just sounds like a variation on the false distinction of art/entertainment argument. It's a sophisticated comedy, OK - but is it a crime to say that I look for more in a film than sophistication and humor? It's a perfectly effective film, but if it's reducible to what you say it is (which I actually I'm not so sure that it is, given it's attention elsewhere), then I am not inclined to call it a masterpiece, or even an especially great film.

Izzy Black

10-13-2010, 12:05 AM

Let's not segregate academia from the general audience, because even academics have to hear about a movie somehow.

Anyway, my point is very simple: The Godfather is considered a classic by many people (both within academia and without), but if the film hadn't been well promoted by the studio that produced it, and had it not been made widely available, it wouldn't have the reputation that it does today.

Satantango wasn't well promoted by any studios, but academics sought it out, and it's well-loved. That goes for the majority of obscure European cinema. There's not a one-to-one correlation between popularity or studio backing and canonizing/critical praise. Most cannons scoff popular cinema. The point about access is relevant, but it only takes a collection of academics or critics that is considered an authority to canonize a film.

baby doll

10-13-2010, 12:13 AM

Satantango wasn't well promoted by any studios, but academics sought it out, and it's well-loved. That goes for the majority of obscure European cinema. There's not a one-to-one correlation between popularity or studio backing and canonizing/critical praise. Most cannons scoff popular cinema. The point about access is relevant, but it only takes a collection of academics or critics that is considered an authority to canonize a film.And before Susan Sontag could champion Damnation, she had to see it at a festival, which means that a programming committee had to select it to be shown. If not, none of us today would know who BÃ©la Tarr is.

baby doll

10-13-2010, 12:23 AM

I get what you're saying, but it just sounds like a variation on the false distinction of art/entertainment argument. It's a sophisticated comedy, OK - but is it a crime to say that I look for more in a film than sophistication and humor? It's a perfectly effective film, but if it's reducible to what you say it is (which I actually I'm not so sure that it is, given it's attention elsewhere), then I am not inclined to call it a masterpiece, or even an especially great film.Why are you tryin' to breaking my balls? Just look at this film--I mean, really look at it. On a macro-structural level, this thing is so tightly organized, it runs like a fuckin' Swiss watch. And on a moment-to-moment basis, pay attention to how Renoir, through his mise en scÃ¨ne, directs our gaze to what's most important in the shot without a lot of close-ups or camera movement or edits. This guy's no jagoff; he really know how to choreograph movement in da fuckin' frame. It's a thing of beauty is what it is.

Izzy Black

10-13-2010, 12:30 AM

And before Susan Sontag could champion Damnation, she had to see it at a festival, which means that a programming committee had to select it to be shown. If not, none of us today would know who BÃ©la Tarr is.

Thought it was Satantango she championed in the "The Decay of Cinema" op-ed piece she wrote. In any case, that's right, but not sure what your point is.

Izzy Black

10-13-2010, 12:32 AM

Why are you tryin' to breaking my balls? Just look at this film--I mean, really look at it. On a macro-structural level, this thing is so tightly organized, it runs like a fuckin' Swiss watch. And on a moment-to-moment basis, pay attention to how Renoir, through his mise en scÃ¨ne, directs our gaze to what's most important in the shot without a lot of close-ups or camera movement or edits. This guy's no jagoff; he really know how to choreograph movement in da fuckin' frame. It's a thing of beauty is what it is.

I feel like it's my balls that are getting busted here. I kindly suggest that my criticism of Renoir might be mistaken, and you're freaking out on me for not seeing his genius to begin with.

soitgoes...

10-13-2010, 12:35 AM

Let's not segregate academia from the general audience, because even academics have to hear about a movie somehow.

Anyway, my point is very simple: The Godfather is considered a classic by many people (both within academia and without), but if the film hadn't been well promoted by the studio that produced it, and had it not been made widely available, it wouldn't have the reputation that it does today.
Of course people are going to gravitate towards The Godfather over Red Psalm. One is easily accessible, both in availability
and in watchability. Do you think that with the same amount of backing and promotion people would go for the film about a 19th century Hungarian farm labor strike (Now with singing!) over a film about a New York City crime family that is also made in a language that is one of the largest in the world?

baby doll

10-13-2010, 12:39 AM

Thought it was Santantango she championed in the "The Decay of Cinema" op-ed piece she wrote. In any case, that's right, but not sure what your point is.Well, originally my point was that the established canon, even within academia, is heavily slanted towards American films because so much American cinema is so easily accessible. It's all well and good that two Hungarians, a couple of Czechs, a handful of Russians, one or two Ukrainians, and recently several Romanians have managed to have their work recognized in the west, but when you get down to it, there's still so much we don't know about Eastern European cinema. And when it comes to lists like the Sight & Sound poll, which are voted on by experts (i.e., commercial filmmakers and mainstream reviewers, plus a few festival programmers and academics), they're still heavily slanted towards the US, western Europe, and Japan.

soitgoes...

10-13-2010, 12:47 AM

The idea of film canons is always going to be flawed. One will never be able to watch all the films necessary to create the proper knowledge. A film canon, regardless of who makes it, will always be limited to what they have seen. I can make a film canon with a heavy bias towards Eastern European film, but chances are in watching all of those films I'd be neglecting Bollywood films or something.

Izzy Black

10-13-2010, 12:53 AM

Well, originally my point was that the established canon, even within academia, is heavily slanted towards American films because so much American cinema is so easily accessible. It's all well and good that two Hungarians, a couple of Czechs, a handful of Russians, one or two Ukrainians, and recently several Romanians have managed to have their work recognized in the west, but when you get down to it, there's still so much we don't know about Eastern European cinema. And when it comes to lists like the Sight & Sound poll, which are voted on by experts (i.e., commercial filmmakers and mainstream reviewers, plus a few festival programmers and academics), they're still heavily slanted towards the US, western Europe, and Japan.

There's a lot we don't know, but critics are working on it. It's true that there's not as much financial backing in Eastern Europe, so not only is marketing and exposure bad, there's less cinema out there. It's simply harder to make a film in Lithuania than it is in the US. But that doesn't mean The Godfather, were it made in Eastern Europe, wouldn't be as respected as it is if it were made in the US. It's possible, but it's also just as possible that a film made in Europe will attract the attention of academics more than a film made in the mass-produced consumerist engine that is Hollywood. I'm just sure how useful it is to talk of an American bias when a majority of the directors voted in S&S polls and sensesofcinema's Great Director list are non-American.

baby doll

10-13-2010, 12:53 AM

Of course people are going to gravitate towards The Godfather over Red Psalm. One is easily accessible, both in availability
and in watchability. Do you think that with the same amount of backing and promotion people would go for the film about a 19th century Hungarian farm labor strike (Now with singing!) over a film about a New York City crime family that is also made in a language that is one of the largest in the world?Let's take another example: I don't think The Secret in Their Eyes is a particularly great film, but here's a Hollywood-style film from a part of the world whose cinematic output has been largely ignored. It won an Academy Award, so a lot of people have heard of it, and it's really no better or worse than something like Inception, which I think is number five on the IMDb list right now. The Secret in Their Eyes isn't even in the top 250, even though it seems like precisely the sort of film that would be on that list--if not in the top five, then somewhere in the top two hundred. Why the disparity between this film and Inception? Well, one had a million dollar ad campaign and opened on 3000 screens.

Izzy Black

10-13-2010, 12:55 AM

baby doll

10-13-2010, 12:59 AM

There's a lot we don't know, but critics are working on it. It's true that there's not as much financial backing in Eastern Europe, so not only is marketing and exposure bad, there's less cinema out there. It's simply harder to make a film in Lithuania than it is in the US. But that doesn't mean The Godfather, were it made in Eastern Europe, wouldn't be as respected as it is if it were made in the US. It's possible, but it's also just as possible that a film made in Europe will attract the attention of academics more than a film made in the mass-produced consumerist engine that is Hollywood. I'm just sure how useful it is to talk of an American bias when a majority of the directors voted in S&S polls and sensesofcinema's Great Director list are non-American.I'm Canadian, but when I go to the multiplex in Halifax, almost every movie playing there is an American productions. When I was living in Korea, it was about half-and-half. It's true that there are fewer movies being made in Eastern Europe, and the US does have one of the richest national cinemas in the world, second only to France. But my larger point is that a director from the US is not only more likely to be recognized as a great filmmaker, but will be recognized more widely than one from anywhere else in the world simply because American cinema is so pervasive around the world.

Derek

10-13-2010, 01:01 AM

And before Susan Sontag could champion Damnation, she had to see it at a festival, which means that a programming committee had to select it to be shown. If not, none of us today would know who BÃ©la Tarr is.

And if BÃ©la Tarr made all of his films and locked the original prints away in his closet, we also wouldn't know who he is!

Izzy Black

10-13-2010, 01:02 AM

OK. I'll just say I disagree.

baby doll

10-13-2010, 01:04 AM

I don't see that film being the topic of academic discussion. Believe it or not, cinephiles seek out films, they don't just tally up whatever is a hit with the masses.

Anyways, none of this really affects my original point. I'm not sure I consider this a very interesting discussion so I'll just defer the point.Well, look at the discussion in The Social Network thread. It's not the biggest hit ever, but it did have a fairly wide release, so that's the film everyone's talking about because more people have seen it than, for instance, Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives or the six films that Hong Sang-soo directed this month. It's not a level playing field is all I'm saying.

baby doll

10-13-2010, 01:09 AM

I feel like it's my balls that are getting busted here. I kindly suggest that my criticism of Renoir might be mistaken, and you're freaking out on me for not seeing his genius to begin with.If your criticism of Renoir is that he's not interested in theme, that may or may not be accurate, but why is theme so important to a filmmaker's greatness? Personally, I'm more interested in narrative structure and narration--you know, the actual moment-to-moment unfolding of a story in time.

Derek

10-13-2010, 01:30 AM

If your criticism of Renoir is that he's not interested in theme, that may or may not be accurate, but why is theme so important to a filmmaker's greatness? Personally, I'm more interested in narrative structure and narration--you know, the actual moment-to-moment unfolding of a story in time.

Why is a film's narrative structure inherently more important than theme, especially when the two are often intertwined? I won't dispute you if you quote Bordwell or Deleuze, but I'm wondering, personally, why you are often so quick to dismiss theme even when it is directly expressed through the narrative structure and formal elements, both of you which you tend to be interested in. Surely, you must know how ridiculous it is for someone to say not to look at Rules of the Game too deep and simply enjoy the funny, when it's one of the most thoroughly discussed films out there.

soitgoes...

10-13-2010, 01:37 AM

Well, one had a million dollar ad campaign and opened on 3000 screens....and Leonardo DiCaprio, one of the biggest stars in the world. The other film has Ricardo DarÃ*n, the biggest star in Argentina? Maybe?

If both films opened the same day, with the same ad campaign, and on the same amount of screens (even worldwide, you could even throwaway American box office receipts), Inception would destroy it and the other studio would be well on its way to being out of business. The only way that scenario would work is if all film history and people's preconceptions of it disappeared completely. You forget that film is first a business, and then maybe regarded art. We might want to think it opposite, but that's definitely not the case.

baby doll

10-13-2010, 01:44 AM

Why is a film's narrative structure inherently more important than theme, especially when the two are often intertwined? I won't dispute you if you quote Bordwell or Deleuze, but I'm wondering, personally, why you are often so quick to dismiss theme even when it is directly expressed through the narrative structure and formal elements, both of you which you tend to be interested in. Surely, you must know how ridiculous it is for someone to say not to look at Rules of the Game too deep and simply enjoy the funny, when it's one of the most thoroughly discussed films out there.If the theme of the film is just its message (i.e., "I saw this movie called Liar Liar, but the message is that you shouldn't lie"), then a good theme doesn't necessarily make a good movie, and there are no really original or profound themes.

But if you're talking about an interpretation (i.e., the birds in The Birds represent cold war anxieties, or some other zeitgeist explanation), then you're reducing the film to the level of the daily crossword puzzle. You can interpret a film without ever having to watch it (Slavoj Å½iÅ¾ek has even admitted that he sometimes doesn't watch the movies he interprets), and no one can tell you you're wrong, because that's your interpretation that Steve Carrell's character in The 40-Year-Old Virgin is a repressed homosexual, or that Steve Carrell's character in The Office is a repressed homosexual, or that Steve Carrell's character in Evan Almighty is a repressed homosexual.

baby doll

10-13-2010, 02:00 AM

...and Leonardo DiCaprio, one of the biggest stars in the world. The other film has Ricardo DarÃ*n, the biggest star in Argentina? Maybe?

If both films opened the same day, with the same ad campaign, and on the same amount of screens (even worldwide, you could even throwaway American box office receipts), Inception would destroy it and the other studio would be well on its way to being out of business. The only way that scenario would work is if all film history and people's preconceptions of it disappeared completely. You forget that film is first a business, and then maybe regarded art. We might want to think it opposite, but that's definitely not the case.I'm not forgetting that film is a business; that's precisely my point that the business end leads the artistic part. What I'm saying is that for a film to be regarded as a classic, people have to see it, and if people are going to see it, they have to know about it. So how to people find out about films? The people who read Susan Sontag can find out about long-take Hungarian cinema, but most filmgoers just follow the hype. And for a film like The Godfather to be regarded as a classic by the general public, a lot of money has to be spent promoting it. I mean, I never heard about Citizen Kane until the AFI poll in 1998, which was a big publicity stunt for Ted Turner, who owns the RKO back-catalogue.

soitgoes...

10-13-2010, 02:20 AM

I'm not forgetting that film is a business; that's precisely my point that the business end leads the artistic part. What I'm saying is that for a film to be regarded as a classic, people have to see it, and if people are going to see it, they have to know about it. So how to people find out about films? The people who read Susan Sontag can find out about long-take Hungarian cinema, but most filmgoers just follow the hype. And for a film like The Godfather to be regarded as a classic by the general public, a lot of money has to be spent promoting it. I mean, I never heard about Citizen Kane until the AFI poll in 1998, which was a big publicity stunt for Ted Turner, who owns the RKO back-catalogue.I'm not disagreeing that people need to see the films in order for them to be regarded as classics. That was the point of my first post. There is no way for one to have the breadth of knowledge to compile a "complete" film canon. None. Shortcuts are needed. Building off of previous lists etc. Citizen Kane has been on the top of Sight & Sound's top lists for 50 years. The French have been gushing over it since they first got to see it after WWII, so it isn't as if the AFI lists are pulling a nothing film out of the past to make more money. Turner also owns(ed?) about half of the American film back-catalogue, so I'm not sure what the point of bringing him up might be. Whatever they chose there was going to be a good chance it would be one of "his" films. As with your Hungarian long-take film scenario, it won't ever be popular with anyone but A)Hungarians and B)Super film enthusiasts. Tomorrow Time magazine can hail Red Psalm the greatest film ever, giving it a front cover spread, and a ten page article by all the great critics explaining why it needs to be seen, and outside of a small bump in DVD sales/rentals most people would be all WTF? It's a 19th century Hungarian farm labor strike film (Now with singing!).

Beau

10-13-2010, 02:21 AM

Yes, but part of my concern is that I don't think there's much conversation between the form and the thematic in Renoir. In general, my sensibilities agree with your cinematic analysis, and much of it resonates in a very similar way to me, but then I have the tendency to think that I should go further in the interpretation; that is, make the assumption that Renoir isn't very interested in the theme at all - at least - not in any real political, philosophical, or meaningful sense, but only peripherally as it relates to evocation (i.e. Eisensteinian).

Well, I'm not sure what kind of 'theme' you're looking for, and I'm not sure I'm very interested in looking for it myself. If the film is concerned with an essential aspect of human experience -- and how people respond to, move around, and behave inside of a house, a closed space, any kind of space, seems like a worthwhile and quite important human experience -- and explores this formally, increasing the humanity of the characters through the form and the aesthetic, so that each viewing unveils new mysteries in its human characters, new expressions, new depths, well, that's the 'theme', that movement, how the space makes the movement unfold. This is not just the form, but also what the film has to say about how people live and do things, and yes, also what it has to say about class interaction, and about that point in history -- about boundaries, social and personal, constantly broached during the playful movement -- and this is a 'theme', I suppose, but it's intertwined quite tightly with the human concern, with how these people exist, and also, how that group of actors coexisted -- Bazin would say none of the actors really fit their parts, which added to the charm -- and tried to channel that "dancing next to a volcano" zeitgeist they were feeling in 1939, and their effort to channel all these feelings, their personal dialogue with their characters, led to all that movement, which multiplies, and finds compartments inside of the house, and collides with other movement, and so on and so forth, and this constant effort by the characters to do something -- they're moving just to move, they're moving because if they stop moving then they'd die, or so they think, except the movement ends up being deadly as well, so maybe there's no escape, as indeed there wasn't, though Renoir could only intuit that at the time -- to feel alive through movement that, more and more, seems detached from any sensible cause, a senseless movement that multiplies itself until a gunshot stops it in its tracks, only for it to begin again with an apology (cue shadows leaving to play another game, another day), well, that's my 'theme', politically, philosophically, narratively, and it seems important to me, and Renoir was conveying all of it in a way that's very much his own.

Qrazy

10-13-2010, 02:42 AM

C'mon... You don't think that American hegemony is the single biggest factor determining which films are admitted to the canon? Don't get me wrong, I think The Godfather is a terrific film. But it had to be heavily promoted and made widely available before it could become a classic, whereas Red Psalm (a film made in Hungary about the same time) is not a movie that many people in the west have seen, much less heard of. If you look at the IMDb list of the most popular films among English speakers, it's overwhelmingly slanted towards American studio pictures that were well-promoted and consequently became big commercial hits.

Well as Israfel points out it depends what we're viewing as canon here. But there are plenty of foreign films which are 'heard of' in America. The Godfather certainly wouldn't be at the top of AFI's list if it had been made in Hungary but it would still be a widely seen (depending on the audience) and incredibly respected work if it were exactly the same film but made in a different country.

Qrazy

10-13-2010, 02:52 AM

Well, look at the discussion in The Social Network thread. It's not the biggest hit ever, but it did have a fairly wide release, so that's the film everyone's talking about because more people have seen it than, for instance, Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives or the six films that Hong Sang-soo directed this month. It's not a level playing field is all I'm saying.

That has as much to do with arthouse vs. mainstream cinema as it has to do with foreign cinema. Also a number of us have posted about Boonmee. Also Boonmee hasn't seen much of a release yet. Also this is the Russian language film thread. So we could start talking about that underseen stuff (at least the Russian stuff) right now.

soitgoes...

10-13-2010, 02:55 AM

So we could start talking about that underseen stuff (at least the Russian stuff) right now.
Pudovkin's Mother is good. Interestingly enough it is about a near 19th century Russian peasant labor strike.

Qrazy

10-13-2010, 03:01 AM

In relation to The Rules of the Game I haven't seen it recently enough to get into much detail, but I will say that I find the last third of the film absolutely masterful. For me the first two thirds of the film serve as a prelude to that magnificent third act culminating with the accident. In order to dissect the nuances and themes expressed in that moment I'd have to rewatch the film, but speaking plainly I simply remember being incredibly emotionally affected by the beauty of that moment. The potent expression of the transience of life in that particular instant and how that related to all the meaningless games and nonsense of the upper class. Rules was one of the earliest films to examine the intricacies of intersecting lives and class relations. But I don't think it need only be appreciated from a historical perspective. It genuinely moved me on an aesthetic, intellectual and tonal level which is all I really ask of any piece of art in order to approve it's excellence.

Qrazy

10-13-2010, 03:05 AM

Pudovkin's Mother is good. Interestingly enough it is about a near 19th century Russian peasant labor strike.

Nice, I'll try to get to it sooner rather than later. Still haven't seen anything from Puddy.

soitgoes...

10-13-2010, 03:14 AM

Nice, I'll try to get to it sooner rather than later. Still haven't seen anything from Puddy.
From what I can tell for silent Soviet directors:

Vertov>Kalatozov>Eisenstein>Dovzhenko>Pudovkin

I still need to see more silents from Barnet, Kozintsev and Trauberg, and I need to see something by Room.

Qrazy

12-15-2010, 07:47 PM

Bump.

First page re-recs...

King Lear
Kin Dza Dza
The Cranes are Flying
My Friend Ivan Lapshin (but also all of Aleksei German's films)
Days of Eclipse

Winston*

12-15-2010, 08:21 PM

King Lear

Would like to see this. Russian Hamlet is definitely the best Shakespeare movie I've seen.

endingcredits

12-15-2010, 08:49 PM

I just queued King Lear, Kin Dza Dza and The Cranes are Flying from KG.

Derek

12-15-2010, 09:13 PM

Would like to see this. Russian Hamlet is definitely the best Shakespeare movie I've seen.

Yeah, Russian Hamlet is damn good. I've heard great things about Russian King Lear too, and from those less sympathetic to the Russian cause than Qrazy.

endingcredits

12-31-2010, 07:35 PM

I've been busy, but, as promised, here are some quick thoughts on Kin-Dza-Dza.
As a science fiction film, Kin-Dza-Dza succeeds where most movies of the genre fail for me: it creates a truly unique 'alien world' and immediately transports the viewer into this world without being so utterly alien that it loses its ability to reflect the world we inhabit socially and psychologically. While downright hilarious at times, it's a serious and very capable satire of environmental determinism set in a post-Malthusian crises society which, though technologically advanced, remain socially and linguistically primitive. Their communications system, based upon the ability to communicate rapidly using telepathy, despite differences such as a limited lexicon comprised of the words "koo" and "kyu" and widespread paranoia that everyone is mentally lying to avert having their mind read, is not too far off from the current situation in modern mobile communication, where we twitter and text large volumes of codswallop to one another with near zero lag between sender and receiver.

Not to mention the best hat ever in movie
http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz192/endingcredits1/vlcsnap-2010-12-18-16h15m15s239.png?t=1293826932