BoardChiri
Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay
Odelecol
Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.
Dana
An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.
hou-3
The first time I watched this film I was mesmerised by the sheer daring of the technique. When I watched it for the second time I picked up rather more of the content while remaining lost in admiration for the brilliant execution. I find it an absolutely captivating experience, and a profound reflection on Russian history and culture. The long final scene on the stairs is almost too moving, in the light of Russian history in the 20th c. Dreiden, Sokurov and Buettner deserve the highest praise and while this film is not to all tastes, for me it is one of the greats. Terrific playing by the orchestra under Gergiev's baton. In an age of meretricious film-making, this is a beacon of inspiration
samanthamarciafarmer
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.
adriennenoracarter
Sokurov's Russian Ark begins with a narrator waking up in the Hermitage, not knowing what time period he has stumbled into. He soon runs into a mysterious man dressed in black—the only person throughout the movie who notices the narrator. The narrator calls the mysterious man the 'European' throughout most of the movie. The film is the two wandering through the Hermitage; as they wander through the hermitage, they also wander through Russian history: they run into characters such as Peter the Great, Katherine the Great—they see scenes from WWII, and dance through a grand state ball. Russian Ark is an extremely beautiful work. It is filmed in one continuous shot—the audience never sees the narrators, as the camera lens serves as his eyes. By the middle of the film, the viewer has forgotten the camera is there and is nearly seeing the Hermitage through their own eyes, through the several different periods of history the characters explore. The name of the movie, Russian Ark, tells the audience a lot about what it is about to see. The Hermitage serves as an ark for Russian history—the ending scene where the narrator is surrounded by the ocean tells us as much. The Hermitage has survived so much and will continue to preserve Russian—and a lot of European—history through the storms of time. The move back to great pride in Russian history shows that the Soviet period is truly over and Russia is moving on to a new period of Russian nationalism.
museumofdave
Many people who consider this film do not mention that it offers a rare opportunity to experience the magnificence of The Hermitage, instead of treating the historical monument as if it was a Hollywood set against which some sort of easy-to-follow plot were the point of the film, a film which they find boring because, I suppose, no one gets murdered and nothing blows up in stereo sound and, anyway there are subtitles to be read. The film is a complex experiment, and even if one ignores the strange dual commentary of a contemporary visitor following around the ancient French guide, it is dazzling merely to follow the camera's eye from darkness into light, from behind stage to a dazzling recreation of early stagecraft as perhaps it might have been experienced by Catharine The Great, drifting perhaps into the art galleries as they are peopled with tourists today, peeping at the immense collection of Rembrandt paintings--how often do most of us get a chance to do that? And I did not find that waiting for an hour to experience a stunning, colorful recreation of the Czarist court in the grand ballroom was onerous in any way--I've waited longer in a dentists office with worse results. If one does not bring conventional expectations to this film, this is an unforgettable journey back into time--to say nothing of the technical achievement of making a film featuring dozens of rooms with hundreds of actors--and no cuts! Astounding!
