Russian Ark (2002)

As a piece of art I'd give it a 9, as entertainment I'd give it a 7. This is a slow-moving piece that is composed of one very long shot. Watching it you'll mostly ponder how they coordinated so many scenes in so many rooms - which take place across multiple time periods - and performed it so seamlessly without any cuts. At its worse it can be a bit boring, but at its best its positively dream-like and provides a visceral experience rarely felt in film. It's certainly one I won't forget.It's one long dreamy walk through the Saint Petersburg palace across different time periods. You'll either learn something about Russian history, or you'll learn the beauty of Russian stubbornness.

As a disclaimer, I have already seen Russian Ark numerous times; it happens to be somewhat of a favorite of mine. Multiple viewings have not made this film any less impressive than it was the first time. It is done in a single, uninterrupted shot. Elaborate ballroom scenes, precisely timed entrances, poetic pans of the camera that end up exactly where they need to be, and the massive amount of planning that must have gone into this illustrates the skill of Alexander Sokurov and his crew. The intricacies of the technical aspects are matched in the plot, too. For Russian history buffs, Russian Ark is a delight; one is on the edge of their seat, dissecting each scene to discern (before the narrator and "the European" discuss it) what is being seen or heard. Many highlights appear: the Greats-both Peter and Catherine-Mikhail Glinka, the last Tsar, Pushkin, WWII in the Soviet Era. The film appears as a whole representation of Russian culture and its containment in the Hermitage. It is important that this ark of Russian culture is explored by a European outsider, especially one who scrutinizes Russia so closely. The culture is examined by the "Marquis" as a European veneer is attempted to be scraped off, and the issue of Russia's history being ambivalently European and also not-quite-European is discussed. The narrator, when questioned as to the Russian authenticity of arts or music or confronted with vaguely Russophobic leading questions, only ever seems to simply confirm that "they are Russian". The degree to which the country's history is tinged with European or Asiatic influence is never acknowledged, because regardless of how much that might be the country is still characteristically different. Perhaps this is why it is so puzzling, and why Sokurov represents it as an ark to keep "sailing forever", never to be discovered in truth.

A film in one take! Of course let's not forget Murnau and "The Last Laugh" made 75 years before. It is a technical feat to be sure but it runs out of steam not too long into the film. We figure the trick out early on and visually, the film just seems to ramble. It feels at times like a guided tour of a huge museum where there so much great art the mind simply turns off. Trying to fit a plot of sorts into such a project is hard enough as it is, but an uninteresting story line... I enjoy long takes - please don't get me wrong on that issue - but we have been spoiled by some virtuoso directors who can use them and cut brilliantly as well. Bravo for the technique but one viewing was more than enough.Curtis Stotlar

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