Thread: NonRussian films (work in progress)

Originally Posted by "What Is Art? by Leo Tolstoy, 1896

Art begins when one person, with the object of joining another or others to himself in one and the samefeeling, expresses that feeling by certain external indications. To take the simplest example: a boy, having experienced, let us say, fear on encountering a wolf, relates that encounter; and, in order to evoke in others the feeling he has experienced, describes himself, his condition before the encounter, the surroundings, the woods, his own light heartedness, and then the wolf's appearance, its movements, the distance between himself and the wolf, etc. All this, if only the boy, when telling the story, again experiences the feelings he had lived through and infects the hearers and compels them to feel what the narrator had experienced is art. If even the boy had not seen a wolf but had frequently been afraid of one, and if, wishing to evoke in others the fear he had felt, he invented an encounter with a wolf and recounted it so as to make his hearers share the feelings he experienced when he feared the world, that also would be art. And just in the same way it is art if a man, having experienced either the fear of suffering or the attraction of enjoyment (whether in reality or inimagination) expresses these feelings on canvas or in marble so that others are infected by them. And it is also art if a man feels or imagines to himself feelings of delight, gladness, sorrow, despair, courage, or despondency and the transition from one to another of these feelings, and expresses these feelings by sounds so that the hearers are infected by them and experience them as they were experienced by the composer.

Firstly, at Tolstoy's times, there was no cinema. Or, to be more precise, the cinema that existed then already, he didn't consider as art. I think if he could find out that people in the XXth century would make movies like "Children of the Corn", he would turn over in his grave.

But okay, let's talk about his quote. Listen, do you think the boy wants to earn money when he narrates his story?
I even don't think that he wants to frighten the listeners. Well, maybe, sometimes, if he tells such a story to his friends, he does. But I don't think that's what Tolstoy meant, because when you tells a story just to frighten the listeners, you don't feel true fear yourself, and there is no complete sincerity in your story. What the Tolstoy's boy wants, is to share his adventure with others (not to frighten them), or to free himself from his fear, or the both. And he doesn't actually think what happens in hearts of the listeners. He's occupied with his own emotions, and that's right, that's when a true sincere story comes out. A boy would be sincere to the limit. His main goal is to share his experience, his emotions, his fear with others. If he narrates badly, not sincerely, you will feel falsity and will not be imbued with his story, you will not pity him. Even if the story is not true, he should tell it sincerely, and only in this case we'll believe him.

But when a director starts to shot a movie, it's not that simple. Do you really think a script writer always really wants to share with us his fear of some crazy man who deceives and murders people, and that's the true script writer's goal?
However, a film is always made by many people, and many people can't act, think, and respire like one person. It happens rarely even when the film is good. Only a genius director can make many people to act like one person and infect them all with a common idea.
The other main thing is that all those people who are making the movie earn money by doing that. I am sorry, but we can't compare all those people making their money with one boy who really simply wants to tell us a story, even if he only invented it.

Originally Posted by Оля

Firstly, at Tolstoy's times, there was no cinema.

Thank God. I think that's why literature is dead, everyone wants their book turned into a movie.

Apropos of the purpose of art:

Originally Posted by J.D.Salinger

"I know this much, is all," Franny said. "If you are a poet, you do something beautiful. I mean, you're supposed to leave something beautiful after your get off the page and everything. The ones you are talking about don't leave a single, solitary thing beautiful. All that maybe the slightly better ones do is sort of get inside your head and leave something there, but just because they do, just because they know how to leave something, it doesn't have to be a poem, for heaven's sake. It maybe just some kind of terribly fascinating, syntaxy droppings—excuse the expression."

J.D. Salinger, Franny

Originally Posted by Оля

First[s:1uipvpnk]ly[/s:1uipvpnk], at Tolstoy's times, there was no cinema. Or, to be more precise, the cinema that existed then already, he didn't consider it as art.

I even don't think that he wants to frighten the listeners. (I think it should be ... "I don't even think"... but I am not certain as both sound odd to me.)

But I don't think that's what Tolstoy meant, because when you tell[s:1uipvpnk]s[/s:1uipvpnk] a story just to frighten the listeners....

If he narrates badly, not sincerely, you will feel falsity and will not be imbued (okay, I had to look this word up, and it means: influenced as if by dyeing or to inspire, or influence thoroughly "the spirit that imbudes the new constitution" is that what you were going for?) with his story, you will not pity him.

But when a director starts to shoot a movie, it's not that simple. Do you really think a script writer always really wants to share with us his fear of some crazy man who deceives and murders people, and that's the true script writer's goal?
However, a film is always made by many people, and many people can't act, think, and [s:1uipvpnk]respire[/s:1uipvpnk] breathe like one person. It happens rarely even when the film is good. Only a genius director can make many people [s:1uipvpnk]to[/s:1uipvpnk] act like one person and infect them all with a common idea. (Olya, infect- very interesting word choice here! I never would have thought of that!)

Originally Posted by rockzmom

Originally Posted by Оля

First[s:47h7ri0p]ly[/s:47h7ri0p], at Tolstoy's times, there was no cinema.

I meant "firstly" ("first of all").

Originally Posted by rockzmom

Originally Posted by Оля

I even don't think that he wants to frighten the listeners. (I think it should be ... "I don't even think"... but I am not certain as both sound odd to me.)

"I don't think that he even wants to frighten the listeners."
Is this any better?

[quote=Оля]

Originally Posted by rockzmom

Originally Posted by "Оля":2bhzc6gw

First[s:2bhzc6gw]ly[/s:2bhzc6gw], at Tolstoy's times, there was no cinema.

I meant "firstly" ("first of all").[/quote:2bhzc6gw]

I know dearest one... go check out the English thread..

[quote=E-learner]

Originally Posted by rockzmom

Originally Posted by "Оля":3ak1r93n

I even don't think that he wants to frighten the listeners. (I think it should be ... "I don't even think"... but I am not certain as both sound odd to me.)

"I don't think that he even wants to frighten the listeners."
Is this any better?[/quote:3ak1r93n]

Oh yes, much better e-Learner!

I believe, from learning so much since being on this forum, you can even remove the "that" from the sentence. (I now notice how much I use the word "that" in my writing.)

"I don't think even he wants to frighten the listeners" or would it be "I don't think even he wants to frighten his listeners" ???

I really must try not to correct English when my head hurts!

There was said a lot for how the Russian movies (art, theater's acting, music, etc.) are fantastic and incredible with respect to all the foreign arts. I would say a few words about what bores me in the Russian art. There are two things: First one is "totalitarianism" and second one is "aspiration to compassion".

"Totalitarianism" – there is nothing related to our government's ruling of art. To take the simplest example: a person admired some artwork of a master. He thought that this artwork is the best. After that he started to neglect all the other artworks by all the other masters. As a result we have the mainstream in art. This mainstream is polished with each new artwork. But there are now any new waves in the art. The art has become conservative and does not give us any new impressions or feelings. The art is perfect but dead. Period. The art of movie can't be used only in one Stanislavsky's way of human soul. When you are listening to music which is without lyrics or seeing a painting full of sunflowers is the human soul the only thing you are looking for in these artworks? NO. Movie is also an art and can be used for the same purposes as music and paintings: to give new impressions or feelings and these impressions are not obligated to be connected to some human soul.
I love the line:

Originally Posted by rockzmom

"beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

"Aspiration to compassion" – very frequently some people mix two things "love" and "compassions" (or "feeling pity for smth"). If a person suffers a lot you regret of it and feel compassion to that person. The more suffering – the more compassion. After some time you start to think you love this person just for the compassion you feel. Here the simple formula emerges for making your art be loved: Make you main character suffering as much as possible and people will feel compassion and love your character. If people love your character they love your art. IT SUCKS.

Originally Posted by Оля

they provoke catharsis and compassion. That's what I want to feel having watched a movie.

Originally Posted by Оля

I HATE the film "The English Patient" ... in the name of "love". Listen, he gave secret maps to fascists!!! Having got those maps, fascists captured a city...

Maybe it is really bad to sacrifice a city for saving only your beloved. But back to the movie "The cranes are flying": Listen, Veronika betrayed her beloved for nothing. What if Boris would survive and meet Veronika married another man??? It's disgusting. The more disgust is pushed in to the story the more compassion some people feel. I hate this movie. This is the worst Russian movie.

Originally Posted by CoffeeCup

"The cranes are flying"...I hate this movie. This is the worst Russian movie.

CoffeeCup... Please, would you expand on this one? I ask of you the same types of questions I asked Olya. What are the reasons for you not liking this movie as you know how much I did enjoy this film.

I actually agree with you about Veronika's character faults, she was a b@tch for leaving Boris. Yet that was the setup for the rest of the movie and allowed the actors to show how well they can actually act. Watching her torment and inner strugle and how well she portrayed those emotions on the screen, the deepth of her despair, her self loathing at what she had done. Uncle Fyodor's struggle with liking Veronika, yet trying to remain loyal to his on flesh and blood. These actors and the script writing for this movie, IMHO, were right on the money. They were realistic. Now, her jumping ship so quickly... that I did not exactly understand and it might have to do with the translation from Russian to English, yet I let that one slide. Otherwise, the rest of the movie worked and covered a number of taboo issues and did so rather amazingly. Had a film in Russia ever talk about dodging the draft before?

So, now PLEASE let me know your thoughts... was it the story that turned you off? That Veronkia betrayed Boris? Or was it much more than that?

Originally Posted by CoffeeCup

there is nothing related to our government's ruling of art.

This is an excellent point. I tend to forget this. How did it all work back then. Did the government fund everything? Were aspiring actors given training and never had to worry about where their next meal came from? Or what did happen to actors, directors and scriptwriters if the film did poorly in the box office or if leaders were not pleased with the final product? How was a film made if a scriptwriter had a script that he/she wanted to make and it was not say "approved material" was there a black market film business? Forgive me if my questions sound stupid or naive... I just honestly have no frame of reference for this. I only know about the history of American cinema and the big Hollywood studios and contract players and how United Artists all came about.

So, please, help educate me once again.

Originally Posted by CoffeeCup

When you are listening to music which is without lyrics or seeing a painting full of sunflowers is the human soul the only thing you are looking for in these artworks? NO. Movie is also an art and can be used for the same purposes as music and paintings: to give new impressions or feelings and these impressions are not obligated to be connected to some human soul.

There is an oxymoron here: impressions and feelings ARE connected to human soul by their very definition.
Then again, music with lyrics or without touches your soul, not your heels or stomach.

Listen, Veronika betrayed her beloved for nothing. What if Boris would survive and meet Veronika married another man??? It's disgusting. The more disgust is pushed in to the story the more compassion some people feel. I hate this movie. This is the worst Russian movie.

Obviously you never watched this movie carefully. Boris's brother violated her, didn't he? I don't remember the plot very well now, so Rockzmom please tell us if it was so.* The morals at those times were so that a girl could not act in another way in a situation like that. She had to marry him. However, I don't think that the whole film is about compassion for Veronika only. I rather feel compassion for Boris... And for all people who had beloved and lost them in war.

*I've just re-watched that scene. He did.

Originally Posted by rockzmom

So, now PLEASE let me know your thoughts... was it the story that turned you off? That Veronkia betrayed Boris? Or was it much more than that?

Three things make me to dislike this movie.
First: silly and fake idea of the story. This dark spot gives the shadow to the whole movie.
Second: Veronika had no backbone whatsoever.
Third: the plot only aim is mental suffering and compassion. I don't see any difference if there was a maniac physically torturing a chained and strapped victim all the movie long. The only difference is that the victim would wish to escape while Veronica doesn't.

Originally Posted by rockzmom

So, please, help educate me once again.

I am not an expert in the Russian movie history. Everything below is just a common sense.

Originally Posted by rockzmom

Did the government fund everything?

The government did fund everything. Not every movie, but EVERYTHING. The government was the only monopoly which managed money all over the USSR. Of course, there was some selection what a movie to fund what not to fund.

Originally Posted by rockzmom

Were aspiring actors given training and never had to worry about where their next meal came from?

Yes, and not only actors. Everyone was condemned to education and then to work. Even if someone did nothing he had some work and some salary. Of course, if someone did his work better he had better chances to get better work and better salary.

Originally Posted by rockzmom

Or what did happen to actors, directors and scriptwriters if the film did poorly in the box office?

Nothing happened. If the government gave money for a movie and did not get any profit in the box office, the government just covered the expenses by selling more missiles or fight planes to some third world countries.

Originally Posted by rockzmom

... or if leaders were not pleased with the final product?

They were exiled to Siberia (he-he-he).
Actually, you can imagine any big corporation leader disliking the results of his employee.

Originally Posted by rockzmom

How was a film made if a scriptwriter had a script that he/she wanted to make and it was not say "approved material" was there a black market film business?

There was only one monopoly which was able to fund the movie. So the scriptwriter had to correct his script if he really wanted to make the movie.

Coffeecup, your responses were very funny and interesting!

My understanding is that one of the reasons USSR cinema was able to make some artistically outstanding films was that profit-making (appealing to the largest possible audience) was not a factor that they had to worry much about. Economically I think it did not matter much to the director or the actors if the film was seen by 5 million people or 20 million... I think they were just paid a regular salary regardless. But those who were considered outstanding in their field were rewarded with things like nice houses and better consumer goods than what regular people had access to. The result of the lack of commericalism meant that they could focus more on artistic quality and less about creating a block-buster.

My impression (not sure what Russian people think about this) is that from the 1960s and forward there was no serious requirement of ideological content of the film as long as the film did not outright critisize the government. But several USSR films that I have seen have plenty of hints at problems with the government, or they are making political statements that are placed in a sci-fi or historical context (to circumvent censorship.) Large parts of the world, including many capitalist countries had (and still have) restrictions against outright criticism towards the government, so it's not really that unusual.
But nobody would have tried to make an outright government-critical film and they wouldn't have recieved funding for it.

WARNING… Spoil Alert... "The Cranes are Flying" …Spoil Alert…WARNING

I know..."OMG it's a wall of English text...Rockzmom has lost her frickin' mind!"
It will be good practice for y'all. Get yourself a cup of coffee or tea, and relax.

Originally Posted by CoffeeCup

Three things make me to dislike this movie.
First: silly and fake idea of the story.

This response surprises me. The first part of the story, we have the romance of Boris and Veronkia and then Boris signing up to go to war. He leaves his best girl behind and asks her to wait for him. This all seems very plausible to me.

Then we have Veronkia's parents dying in a scenario which seems very possible, so I can buy that one.

Next we have Veronkia getting married to Boris' cousin (Mark) who has always loved her and apparently took advantage of her (raped) and she had no choice but to marry him. What she should have done was ratted him out. Why, I don't know but she didn't. Her decision to marry him is a paradox. Yet, I could still buy this as it was a war time, she just lost her parents, and she was scared and in those days a woman was probably thought of as "dirty" or somehow wrong if that happened to her and she was not mentally all there, blah, blah, blah. And how would she explain not being a virgin any longer to Boris once he came home from the war?

Now, the little boy scene... that was one of the ones I had a little trouble with. The expression in the industry is “jumping the shark” and it means when the plot just gets to absurd. I could see her wanting to end her life after all of this... She hates herself for what she has done, what has happened to her and she has become…but the whole little boy wandering into the street exactly at the same time and her never really looking for his parents. That is a bit much for me to swallow.

Moving on, we have her husband (who we now know is a jerk) possibly two-timing on her and taking her most treasured possession in the world (besides her virginity), which of course was not in the apartment and blown to bits, because she took it with her to the air raid shelter. This (along with seeing him at the party) of course sends her over the edge and back to reality (finally, thank you) and gives her back the backbone you saw was missing...I can see all this happening as well.

I can also see the whole Mark buying his way out of the Army as we now know he is a real slime ball.

I also accept the ending with Uncle Fyodor siding with and taking Veronika over Mark as he really did like her all along and now he has proof his schmuck of a nephew really is a loser. This allows Fyodor to finally take Veronika back into the family.

And there you have it, a fairly realistic story line. If you just take out the little boy scene, the rest of it really does work and is very plausible.
(are ya wavering yet coffeecup?)



Have you ever heard of the Fighting Sullivan Brothers? I don't think the younger generation of Americans have so I am not certain how many foreigners know this story. I only know it because of my dad.
(he still has this poster)


The Sullivan’s were five brothers who all enlisted in the Navy for WWII on the ONE condition that they all serve together. Now normally the Navy separated siblings, but in this case, tragically they did not and all five of them were killed in action.

Now, if you saw a movie with a plot about 5 brothers all enlisting and demanding to serve together and the Navy just turning a blind eye and actually letting them and THEN, and THEN...they all die within 8 days of each other...if you saw that movie without knowing the story line really happened in true life, it would seem pretty fake and silly (kind of jumping the shark), wouldn't it?? And it might just ruin the entire movie for you because it just turned you off and no matter how good everything else was in the film, you could not suspend disbelief and forget that there was a movie screen in front of you.

So that plot compared to Cranes??? Cranes seems pretty resonable, no?
(come on coffeecup, your thinkin' I'm a little right now, ain't cha?)

Originally Posted by CoffeeCup

Second: Veronika had no backbone whatsoever.

What about Anna from, The Lady with the Dog? That was a character without a backbone! Both characters felt guilt about cheating on their man, yet I did not feel anything from Anna's character. Anyway, throughout the film, Veronika has to fight her way to see Boris. There are three times that she does this. She is actually fighting a sea of people, swimming upstream, against the flow to find HER man! As if all odds are against her. It is a foreshadowing of things to come of course. Yet, she never gives up, this chick has moxie, she just loses it for a while.
(come on coffeecup, come on over to the dark side. It's okay, I have cream puffs waiting for ya.)

Originally Posted by CoffeeCup

Third: the plot only aim is mental suffering and compassion. I don't see any difference if there was a maniac physically torturing a chained and strapped victim all the movie long. The only difference is that the victim would wish to escape while Veronica doesn't.

I think there are two times she does want to escape. Once when she tries to kill herself and once when she tries to leave him but Uncle Fyodor stops her. And, IMHO, the plot is also about how people deal with their feelings during difficult times.

Boris chose to enlist in the Army and serve his country even though he was young and could get out of serving while his cousin did just the opposite, he bought his way out. Was Mark against the war on principles? No, he just did not want to fight. Yet Boris, he wanted to serve. These are two very different character traits.

The film also showed a female doctor and made the reference to if she had been born a man (at least in the English subtitles it says that). In any case, it was interesting to me that they showed a female surgeon, Irina. Back then in the U.S., how many films had female surgeons? They were showing only female nurses.

Also, Uncle Fyodor had great depth as a character and the plot surrounding him and how he handled the situation of both his son and his nephew. He had lost his son to the war and now finds out his nephew had paid not to be drafted, would he be thankful or upset? This is a pivotal point. The character could have gone either way.

So this movie is really a study and reflection of human nature and how we as humans (notice I am not saying Russians) deal with life. HOWEVER, this film offers so much more. To me, this film has a depth to it “artistically” and I know that this is a hot topic right now. What is artistic? When I saw this film, I saw so much more than light on transparent celluloid. I saw all the art forms working as one to make magic. And with the exception of the little boy scene, to suspend disbelief. I was brought into their world. They were no longer two dimensional flickering images. They became real to me.

(Game, set, match.)

I'm tired now.

Okay... after that longggg posting...time for some fun! American TV style.

This was on last night and it was one of the best episodic shows I have seen in YEARS! The show is called "Glee" and it is brand new. From start to finish this episode was (as Johanna would say) BRILLIANT!

I found the opening clip (it is cut a little short so you miss the dad's comments) and a clip from towards the end of the show. I have no idea how long they will stay up on Youtube. I also have a link so you can watch the entire episode if you want. As it is only the 4th show in the series, I think you should be able to just watch it without much trouble.

IMPORTANT! NOW if you have NOT seen "Beyoncé - Single Ladies (Put A Ring On It)"
music video, you NEED to watch that FIRST to really appreciate all the humor.

Beyoncé - Single Ladies (Put A Ring On It) - watch first if you have not seen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mVEGfH4s5g

Glee - Single Ladies Opening of the show (quality not so great, but only one up right now)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHTuWtJY1Ww

Glee - Single Ladies (Football Team Dance) 09/23/09
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4U-Qz8yzxVQ

Glee SE0104 full episode
http://www.quicktvonline.com/2009/09/glee-s01e04.html

Originally Posted by rockzmom

Her decision to marry him is a paradox.

Guys, it's not a paradox. It's a paradox only for a modern man who doesn't care a hang that women, and especially innocent girls, can't act and see things the same way as men do; and that there were times when people had different morals. Also, such a man can't understand that if you've just experienced a bombing, are half-conscious, and a man takes you in his arms and carries you somewhere - if you're an innocent girl, all that DOES NOT yet mean to you WHAT he's going to do with you now! ESPECIALLY at those times.

Yet, I could still buy this as it was a war time, she just lost her parents, and she was scared and in those days a woman was probably thought of as "dirty" or somehow wrong if that happened to her and she was not mentally all there, blah, blah, blah. And how would she explain not being a virgin any longer to Boris once he came home from the war?

That's a very good explanation, Rockzmom, and especially the latter; it was actually her main reason, I think.

and her never really looking for his parents.

Oh, Rockzmom, if you only knew how many kids were getting lost then! They just were not able to say where are they from and what is their surname and the parents' names, so how could one look the parents then? Then again, there was no Internet or TV there, so the search would not be something easy. And finally, I think she did try to find his parents; but it is soooo obvious that the director doesn't show that in the film.

Originally Posted by CoffeeCup

If the government gave money for a movie and did not get any profit in the box office, the government just covered the expenses by selling more missiles or fight planes to some third world countries.

You forgot to mention how these "sellings" were occured: USSR gave to some third world countries that equipment, but the money for those deals USSR never got. And modern Russia just canceled majority of this debts. Just guess who was paying in result. (И извини, конечно, Кофечашко, но если ты действительно так считаешь (что Советское правительство наживалось за счёт продажи оружия на странах третьего мира), то ты дурачок, ну а в противном случае ты просто ...)

Originally Posted by Оля

Originally Posted by rockzmom

Her decision to marry him is a paradox.

Guys, it's not a paradox.

Maybe I should have stated a "moral paradox" or an "ethical dilemma?"

Example: the conflict between a moral injunction and a duty that cannot be fulfilled without violating that injunction. For example, take the situation of a parent with children who must be fed (the duty), but cannot afford to do so without stealing, which would be wrong (the injunction). Such a conflict between two maxims is normally resolved through weakening one or the other of them: the need for survival is greater than the need to abide by the law.

In the case of the movie, Veronika has been raped by Mark. She is in love with Boris and is to marry him (the duty), yet she has the shame of what has happened to her (the injucntion). Can she really marry the man that just raped her ? Can she face Boris again knowing he will find out she is no longer a virgin? Can she face Boris' family knowing that she has betrayed Boris and married Mark? Can she face them if she tells them what Mark has done? She is in a no win situation. She has a need for survival.

Originally Posted by Basil77

... Just guess who was paying in result. (И извини, конечно, Кофечашко, но если ты действительно так считаешь (что Советское правительство наживалось за счёт продажи оружия на странах третьего мира), то ты дурачок, ну а в противном случае ты просто ...)

Мне очень жаль, что я задел Ваши чувства, уважаемый Базиль. Я не знал, что на форуме есть люди, которые из своих личных средств финансировали всю советскую военную промышленность, и их может сильно ранить тот факт, что страны, в которых людям нечего есть, до сих пор не выплатили им дивиденды. В следующий раз, когда мне захочется пошутить я буду использовать в качестве объекта шутки только медведей и балалайки. Надеюсь Вы не были руководителем совхоза по разведению медведей или школы обучения медведей игре на балалайках.