NonRussian films (work in progress)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rockzmom

Quote:

---

His antics earned him the ire of some traditional educators and parents, who believed that Karlsson might incite young children to disobey authority and mistrust and fear babysitters. The books were accordingly banned in some libraries and schools in North America.

---

Gotta love censorship. Ya know, the poor kids might disobey authority and fear their babysitters...oh my! :o

---

Yeah, that's very silly!
Well, Pippi herself was probably an Anarchist (she refused to go to school and to move to an orphanage even though she had no parents... There was also an argument by people with extreme socialist views that Pippi was promoting capitalism, since a lot of the plot was focussed on her sack of gold coins which she refuses to share with others.. Plus she is violating Health and Safety regulations when she's climbing around in trees and on rooftops!!

But all of this is what made her cool! I think Pippi turned several generations of kids into semi-anarchists... The author was well known for being a Social Democrat though and she often spoke on 1 May and similar. She was practically a cult figure in Sweden and she had a lot of public influence which she didn't hesitate to use. She was tremendously rich but she kept living in a state allocated flat until she died a few years ago.. Pippi and Karlsson were only two out of hundreds of characters. She was a real genius of childrens' litterature.

Perhaps somebody remembers this film which was made by a Russian director I think?
Astrid Lindgren wrote this book too.
[video:1pwv33ho]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAMK56brdls[/video:1pwv33ho]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johanna

Perhaps somebody remembers this film which was made by a Russian director I think?
Astrid Lindgren wrote this book too.

---

I remember when it was aired in the Soviet Union in late 1980s, but I didn't watch it (well, maybe a part of one of the episodes). I haven't read the book either.
You might be interested to know that there was a Soviet film about Kalle as well. There was also a film about Rasmus, but for the life of me, I can't recall if it was a Soviet film or a dubbed foreign production.

... as the topic of what is a "war" film seems to still be a bit of a mystery and it has spilled over to another thread, I want to bring some of the posts back over to this one so if someone comes here, they have the chance to read parts of the posts and understand what is meant when we are talking about "war" film as a genre.

If anyone still has questions or comments about this, please chime in!

And to most of you who I believe currently follow both threads, please forgive me for these double posting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Оля

...Also, I'd like to say some words about Russian Great Patriotic War films...

Mostly, foreigners who saw some of those films say they are too "depressive". That's what I hate.

But....... What do you want a film about war to be???? A comedy? A romance? A detective? I don't understand people who don't like to see war on the screen, who feel boring or "depressive" seeing that, and who don't want to watch things which can "upset" them; who don't want to weep over anything but a milksoppy love story or a lapdog's or a kitten's death! They don't want to understand that there were real people who lived and died at war, and it did not look like an adventure, or like a story about one person, or two persons, a man and a woman, where people around didn't matter.
I HATE the film "The English Patient" where the main character is presented like a big hero who accomplishes "feats" in the name of "love". Listen, he gave secret maps to fascists!!! Having got those maps, fascists captured a city, took many prisoners, tortured people, cut off their fingers!!!...
The only opinion about that film I came across on the internet was "this is a great film about true love"... F*ck it!!!!! It looks like western viewers really have no idea about true feats. A true feat is to save a thousand people and not one person, even if that one is your beloved and those thousand are nobodies to you.
Moreover, the hero in "The English Patient" sacrificed a thousand of human lives for only a chance of saving the woman. That makes his action even more disgusting. Why do people like this film? For me, it's just a beautiful snivel in a beautiful wrapping.

Here are some Russian forceful war films I'd recommend to watch:

Проверка на дорогах
Офицеры
Летят журавли
Баллада о солдате
Восхождение (very forceful)
Судьба человека
А зори здесь тихие
Расскажи мне о себе (the only one which is not very famous, but it touched me a lot)
Иваново детство

Also (famous films, too; not quite "war" films, but also about the subject)
Дом, в котором я живу
Военно-полевой роман
Белорусский вокзал
20 дней без войны

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rockzmom

...Olya made a wonderful posting about "war' movies and I also commented on them in the BIG catch all movie thread. I want to throw this out to everyone and see what you all think. Of the few "war" movies I have watched, to me they are "dramas" set in a "war time" not a film about a "war" or a film which 90% of it is with soldiers and takes place on a battle field.

SO, using the example of "The Cranes are Flying" I would never consider this a "war" film and if I am looking for a film to watch off of this list, I would probably skip over this film because, well... as Olya has correctly stated, I would not want to watch a movie which would upset me too much (unless I really was in the mood). On the flip side, if I were a real war buff and selected this film because I saw it was a "war" film on the list, I would probably be disappointed.

That leaves us in a dilemma. How can we categorize these films so people will "want" to watch them and not be mislead and also stay true to "Russians" and how they view and know the films?

Right now, Johanna only has one category for each film. On the BIG movie thread, I have more than one for some of them. Once again using the example of "The Cranes are Flying," I have this one listed as (Drama/Romance/War), how does this sit with all of you? Johanna, how would you feel about having more than one category for some of the films?

Does anyone else have a better or other solution to this? :unknown:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Оля

...But, you know... it's not something political about the western and Russian ideas of WWII movies. It's just another human point of view. In Russian cinema, it's always a story about people, about a human nature, a war drama. In American/Western cinema, it's always an action movie, an adventure, where facts and events are more important than people. I don't like it, and I find it wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rockzmom

Of the few "war" movies I have watched, to me they are "dramas" set in a "war time" not a film about a "war" or a film which 90% of it is with soldiers and takes place on a battle field.

SO, using the example of "The Cranes are Flying" I would never consider this a "war" film

---

I have already said that before, in other thread, and have said that just in this very post above, and I don't know why, but I'd like to repeat it again. :D Russian WWII films are dramas, not action movies, so let's call them "war dramas" henceforth and unto ages of ages.

---

Okay, has anyone here seen "The English Patient"? :crazy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Оля

Okay, has anyone here seen "The English Patient"? :crazy:

---

hehehee... Amazingly, I have not. That year I was prego and going out to the movies was not high on my list. I have always wanted to see it, yet for some reason I just never got around to it. ALSO, I did not know what the storyline was about until your posting!

So, this film, it won 9 Oscars (Best Actress in a Supporting Role, Best Art Direction-Set Decoration, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Director, Best Film Editing, Best Music, Original Dramatic Score, Best Picture, Best Sound) and another 41 awards.

I do find it interesting after reading your comments that it did NOT win the Oscar for Best Screenplay (Sling Blade did).

So Olya, let me ask you this (and I ask with sincerity) ... story line aside... what about the rest of the movie? The things that it won Oscars for, did you find those at all to help the film have any redeeming value or was the storyline so upsetting for you that it would not matter how good everything else was, it was too distracting for you?

The reason I ask, I know that there are times when even one piece of dialogue (maybe it is not right for the character or would not have been said at the time the story took place), one wrong continuity, or some other little distraction... can ruin an otherwise fantastic film for people. So if this is the case, if the story line itself (or the main character) was such a distraction for you, even with the rest of the film being the cream of the crop, 50 awards, is it a film you would never recommend on any level?

Just wondering, 'cus ya know, I am the curious type when it comes to this stuff. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rockzmom

So Olya, let me ask you this (and I ask with sincerity) ... story line aside... what about the rest of the movie? The things that it won Oscars for, did you find those at all to help the film have any redeeming value or was the storyline so upsetting for you that it would not matter how good everything else was, it was too distracting for you?

The reason I ask, I know that there are times when even one piece of dialogue (maybe it is not right for the character or would not have been said at the time the story took place), one wrong continuity, or some other little distraction... can ruin an otherwise fantastic film for people. So if this is the case, if the story line itself (or the main character) was such a distraction for you, even with the rest of the film being the cream of the crop, 50 awards, is it a film you would never recommend on any level?

Just wondering, 'cus ya know, I am the curious type when it comes to this stuff. :)

---

To be honest, I don't remember the film very well, and I don't remember the whole plot in details, even. But I remember very well all my impressions about this film. I can tell you that I didn't like the acting AT ALL (I don't remember supporting roles, though). The story line told us that the man and the woman loved... no, LOVED each other. I didn't see that at all. I only saw vain attempts to imitate love. All those "love" things in the film were boring to me.
I must add, however, that we Russian viewers are used to a very high level of acting we saw in our films (I think many Russians even don't realize that). So an acting which won Oscar could look just very pale and even just bad from Russian dainty point of view. To be quite honest, I see really good acting (in my opinion) in foreign films very rarely. At best, acting in foreign films is just "okay" to me.
P.S. If you are interested, the only foreing actor who convinced me that he can play not worse, and even better than some Russian actors, was Alan Rickman.

I don't know if this has been posted but it's a list of all the Russian films that have been translated into English on subtitry.ru (subtitles.ru). The movies are listed in Russian.

http://subtitry.ru/subtitles/native/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Оля

To be quite honest, I see really good acting (in my opinion) in foreign films very rarely. At best, acting in foreign films is just "okay" to me.

---

Оля, +500 от меня =)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BappaBa

Оля, +500 от меня =)

---

Ну слава богу, я не одна, а то я иногда думаю - вдруг это у меня какая-нибудь ксенофобия вперемешку с оголтелым патрио-национализмом. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Оля

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BappaBa

Оля, +500 от меня =)

---

Ну слава богу, я не одна, а то я иногда думаю - вдруг это у меня какая-нибудь ксенофобия в перемешку с оголтелым патрио-национализмом. :D

---

Ты знаешь, последний пример: пару дней назад посмотрел Taxi Driver, столько про этот фильм читал и слышал разговоров... Чуть ли не одна из самых лучших ролей Де Ниро. Абсолютно бестолковый фильм, имхо, а Де Ниро, вообще, одинаковый в любом фильме. Имхо, опять же... =)

Just so there is NO misunderstanding... the following comes under the definition of HUMOR :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Оля actually meant to

...umm, to be quite honest, umm, I think all non-Russian actors and non-Russian films, umm, well SUCK. Yes, the screenplays, the cinematography, the special effects, the soundtracks, costumes, editing, even the animals (your Lassie can't even begin to compare to our Sharik)... it all just frankly can't hold a candle to the good old USSR films. Those my friends were AMAZING actors and PHENOMENAL stories.

Well of course I do make an exception for anything with Alan Rickman (even Die Hard).... Oh and umm, I better not forget ...Rockzmom's daughters too...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Оля actually meant to

...umm, to be quite honest, umm, I think all non-Russian actors and non-Russian films, umm, well SUCK.

---

Well, actually, to be honest, I don't think so. I really like and even love some foreign films. As for Alan Rickman and "Die Hard", I don't think his acting in that film is something special. First of all, I meant his role in "The Perfume".
But! Okay, to make things a bit clearer. What is the main thing in Russian cinema (which actually comes from Russian theatre): as Stanislavsky said, "жизнь человеческого духа" (don't know how this classical phrase sounds in English; my attempt is, "the human soul's life"). No any screenplay, costumes, landscape views, soundtracks, or any other thing that could help if actors play badly. Human is THE MAIN. That's all. How, tell me please, can special effects be more important than the human soul's life? They can't.
The western cinema... is just different. The main thing is a plot. Action. Special effects, maybe. If the worst comes to the worst, a popcorn. It doesn't mean that all Western cinema SUCK. It's just that when I watch a good Western / American film, I... get pleasure of another kind. I enjoy the plot (like in "Catch Me If You Can"), or a geniusly created atmosphere (like in "Vertigo") and good acting (yes, it does happen in those films, too :D ). But, then again, they very rarely touch my soul deeply , make me cry. The one I can recall right now is "The Pianist" (a war film, again...). Also, there are a lot of American movies which I find senseless (it's not just "I find", really; it's just alien to us Russians, mostly, at least; well, let's rather say "to Russian art", it's fairer). There are a lot of "horror movies" which only make a viewer to feel horror, and nothing more. I've just watched one of such, "White Single Female". A lot of murders. I pity no one. It's not because I am hard-hearted, it's just because the director's goal was other. Just to frighten. What should I learn from this film? I learned nothing. Probably someone tells me, "You should learn that there are crazy people in the world one should be careful with". Sorry, but for me, it's not the art's goal (and cinema, for me, should be [close to] art). And the film I mentioned is not the worst movie of that kind at all. There are much worse ones.
I also can say that movies of that sort can only provoke fear, disgust, ...well, also prudence in life, maybe. :D They really can only "upset" a viewer and nothing more. But those war dramas I've spoken so much already before, even if they "upset", they provoke catharsis and compassion. That's what I want to feel having watched a movie. Not disgust or fear. Don't give me special effects, leave them for kids, or for cartoons. Give me true feelings, make me better, so that I could watch a movie and say "I must become kinder", "I want to love people", or ask myself, "What am I living for?", or something. So, what I mean - I, too, like Rockzmom, don't want to watch movies that just upset me, show me some loathsome picture and nothing more.

As for movies about "crazy people", I want to tell you something. In МХАТ (Moscow Art Theatre School), students have to make exercises called "etudes" (to show, to play someone/something, to show a short dumb scene from its/his/her life where some event happens). First, it should be a thing (a ball, a table, a photocamera, whatever). Then an animal. Then a human. But every its/his/her action should be "inwardly reasonable". That is, if you are a cupboard, you can't just be swinging your doors hither and thither, without any reason, just so. You should have some inward reason. For instance, "I'm swinging my doors because I want more dishes to stay into me, so I want to tell people in this way to put more dishes into me, meaning come on guys, here, bring the plates in here, quickly". But bad students usually, showing some "swinging cupboard" say: "It's swinging its doors because it's crazy". So, what I mean. I mean that in all those movies where acts some crazy-person-who-murders-everyone-just-because-he's-crazy, the director tells us viewers, "There is no inward reason. He just is crazy. He just was unhappy in childhood. Watch this movie, there is a lot of blood, you'll like it". No, sorry, your etude is bad. I want to pity someone, even if you don't show me blood.

Thanks Sperk for the subtitle link!

Olya (and others) there are some Vietnam (war) films that you might enjoy - they are a good insight into American views of the world, I think, and some of them are VERY good in my opinion. The people in the film are common people who get caught up in a political war and have their lives messed up. I don't think the film directors much agree with the objectives of that war, so it's definitely no glorification of this very tragic war. The films do not show the point of view of the Vietnamese of course, just the American experience. However I have been in Vietnam and they are very proud there of their "victory" (as they see it).

The Youtube display functionality seems to be broken! :sad: Shame! I love linking to Youtube as you might have noticed!

"THE DEER HUNTER" tribute (with it's famous theme sonata, Cavatina)
[video:2iy6wriw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3s5LjyFl18[/video:2iy6wriw]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3s5LjyFl18

DEER HUNTER: A super crazy review from American radio! :shock: --- Is this normal US radio?!?
[video:2iy6wriw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnUfwEr1PF4[/video:2iy6wriw]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnUfwEr1PF4

FULL METAL JACKET:
[video:2iy6wriw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSQ2WRoqOCA[/video:2iy6wriw]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSQ2WRoqOCA

GOOD MORNING VIETNAM:
[video:2iy6wriw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgvY4dlAiGU[/video:2iy6wriw]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgvY4dlAiGU

HAIR - the classic hippie musical:
[video:2iy6wriw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhNrqc6yvTU[/video:2iy6wriw]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhNrqc6yvTU
.

So basically Оля what you do is watch horror movies and American blockbusters, find them bad for some reason (poor acting or whatever comes to mind) or, to the best, entertaining, and then you go on about "foreign films" and "western cinema" -- are you serious?
Would you find it fair if I picked some Russian pop band and, based on this, went on criticizing popular Russian music?
In other words, I think you should call things by their name. Hollywoodian cinema is not "foreign films". And you should not judge a whole genre by the worse movies which belong to it. There are actually some good horror movies, why don't you watch Jack Clayton's "The Innocents" (1961) for example? I've watched it a dozen times and the little boy's verses still make me chill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Оля

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rockzmom

So Olya, let me ask you this (and I ask with sincerity) ... story line aside... what about the rest of the movie? The things that it won Oscars for, did you find those at all to help the film have any redeeming value or was the storyline so upsetting for you that it would not matter how good everything else was, it was too distracting for you?

The reason I ask, I know that there are times when even one piece of dialogue (maybe it is not right for the character or would not have been said at the time the story took place), one wrong continuity, or some other little distraction... can ruin an otherwise fantastic film for people. So if this is the case, if the story line itself (or the main character) was such a distraction for you, even with the rest of the film being the cream of the crop, 50 awards, is it a film you would never recommend on any level?

Just wondering, 'cus ya know, I am the curious type when it comes to this stuff. :)

---

To be honest, I don't remember the film very well, and I don't remember the whole plot in details, even. But I remember very well all my impressions about this film. I can tell you that I didn't like the acting AT ALL (I don't remember supporting roles, though). The story line told us that the man and the woman loved... no, LOVED each other. I didn't see that at all. I only saw vain attempts to imitate love. All those "love" things in the film were boring to me.
I must add, however, that we Russian viewers are used to a very high level of acting we saw in our films (I think many Russians even don't realize that). So an acting which won Oscar could look just very pale and even just bad from Russian dainty point of view. To be quite honest, I see really good acting (in my opinion) in foreign films very rarely. At best, acting in foreign films is just "okay" to me.
P.S. If you are interested, the only foreing actor who convinced me that he can play not worse, and even better than some Russian actors, was Alan Rickman.

---

Olya! I have now watched "The English Patient" and I must admit... YOU ARE CORRECT! :thanks:

This movie is not so great. I had not missed much by not watching it all these years. I could have happily not watched it my entire life and been just fine. I do belive that the awards the film won for, were valid. The "artistic" part of the movie was very nice and the music that went with it was lovely; however.... the acting and script, for me, were just so-so. And, if you had not told me in advance what it was about, I would have been lost and would have had to rewatch the entire thing to understand it and I'm not certain it was worth doing so.

Maybe back 13 years ago, it was a BIG gottcha ending, but it just did not do that for me. In all honesty, if he loved her that much, he would have fought harder for her. He could have carried her (she only had a broken ankle) or explained more to the people what had happened and why he needed help.

The only scene that really got me was the one with Kip detonating the bomb and the tanks driving over the bridge.

Also, I was retelling your posting to my daughter about how a man killed all these people to rescue his one love, and she finished your sentence for you by saying "Oh and of course, we think that is oh, so romantic. We don't care about all the other people who had wives."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zubr

So basically Оля what you do is watch horror movies and American blockbusters, find them bad for some reason (poor acting or whatever comes to mind) or, to the best, entertaining, and then you go on about "foreign films" and "western cinema" -- are you serious?

---

Zubr, please read my post more carefully - I didn't say that all western cinema is bad. I wrote quite the opposite.

Quote:

---

Would you find it fair if I picked some Russian pop band and, based on this, went on criticizing popular Russian music?

---

Well, you know, basically, even good pop music doesn't have the same value as,... say, more serious music. I am not a very musical person, so I'd prefer not to talk much about music. However, even if I do admit that there is really good pop misic, I will never say that it touchs me as much as [let's write here "the music I really love", because the question is too extensive].

Quote:

---

And you should not judge a whole genre by the worse movies which belong to it.

---

As far as I understand, the film I mentioned, "White Single Female" does not belong to the the worst movies of that genre at all. Then again, I, too, don't think so. My point actually was that I don't see any "high" sense even in good horror movies, generally. I'm not talking about genius films, like "Vertigo", because genius things are genius things.

Quote:

---

I've watched it a dozen times and the little boy's verses still make me chill.

---

I haven't seen this film, probably I'll watch it. But you obviously missed my point. As I said, chill is not the first thing I want to feel when watching a movie. What I meant, is that in the most of foreign movies, I feel lack of something what would touch my best feelings deeply in my heart. Sorry for my slobbery English here, can't express it better.

P.S. You are French, so I suppose you know the film "Deux Hommes Dans La Ville"?.. That's a film which excited me a lot, for example.

All...

I think it goes back to an older posting I wrote. What is the purpose of cinema or any art form? Is it to entertain, to teach, to unite?

Each art has its own purpose and each person has their own unique experience that they bring to the art and will take away from the art.

Is a Peanuts cartoon any less worthy than a Degas? Should Scooby Doo be looked down upon because it is in the same genre as Film, Film, Film? Should we never make a horror film like Texas Chainsaw Massacre because all it does is scare people and has no redeeming value? There are many people out there who watch movies just to enjoy them. They watch them purely for the fun of them, the entertainment. They don't care about the inept scripts, inaccurate settings or any other of the millions of things which are technically wrong with the film. They are there simply to enjoy and have an hour or so to escape. And I admit to this... upon occassion you can find me reading trashy novels or watching "stupid worthless" tv shows :yahoo:

But then again, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rockzmom

upon occassion you can find me reading trashy novels or watching "stupid worthless" tv shows

---

Ditto (=me too). Every now and then something populistic and very simplified is all you have mental energy for... There is definitely room for such entertainment.

HOWEVER -- When I look around me I think there is a bit too much of the type of culture that appeals to the lowest common denominator. One of the good things about "state TV" is that it tries to educate people and raise the intellectual level in the country. Watching without commercials is much nicer. I grew up with such a regime and I don't regret it although certain phenomenons got a "cool" status as "forbidden fruit", like TV commercials and certain types of programming - how silly that seems now.

It's sad in a way that there are people who spend half their time in front of the TV / video but don't know anything about art, litterature, theatre, political issues or history.... But they could tell you the colour of the underwear of the contestants in Big Brother or the names of Victoria Beckhams kids...

I'm in two minds about it --- in extreme moments I think all junk entertainment should be banned... But the next day I find myself reading the Daily Mail or watching "Britain's got talent" (but I draw the line at Big Brother!!!)

I think the internet and broadband is changing everything though, and things will never go back to how they were. Because of the internet there is complete freedom of choice - People can watch more or less whatever they want, whenever they want.... so you can choose to widen your horizons or indulge in unlimited amounts of junk....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rockzmom

In all honesty, if he loved her that much, he would have fought harder for her. He could have carried her (she only had a broken ankle) or explained more to the people what had happened and why he needed help.

---

Yes! That's exactly what I think and what I was thinking when watching the movie! Why didn't he carry her, I couldn't understand that! Leaving her in that cave was just sheer lunacy. I think if I were in a similar situation, even I, a woman - I would never leave my man there; I would drag him, after all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rockzmom

All...

I think it goes back to an older posting I wrote. What is the purpose of cinema or any art form? Is it to entertain, to teach, to unite?

Each art has its own purpose and each person has their own unique experience that they bring to the art and will take away from the art.

---

Art should elevate, ennoble man. It's well-known. That's its goal. That's not quite true that each art has its own purpose. The general purpose is common. Art should provoke best feelings. That's the way it was in all epochs. The ancient Greeks went to the theatre in order to experience the catharsis. People never created artworks for provoking hate, fear, or disgust.

Another question is if cinema should be art or not. For me, it should.
As for stupid TV shows and stupid/bad movies – I watch them sometimes, too. Everyone watches them, one way or another. But why can't I say that some disposable one-time film I've watched is worse than other film, a good one? Why should we start politically correct talking like "but why are films made for?" There are films made for making money and watched for killing time, but those films are not art, that's all. Let's call things by their right names.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

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!)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rockzmom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Оля

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

---

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rockzmom

Quote:

---

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]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rockzmom

Quote:

---

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]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rockzmom

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Оля

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

---

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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. :)

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rockzmom

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

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

Quote:

---

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)
http://cds033.dc1.hwcdn.net/m5v9i3d8...sposter_sm.jpg

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?)

Quote:

---

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.)

Quote:

---

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. http://i444.photobucket.com/albums/q...miley-yawn.gif

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! :yahoo:

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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. :D

---

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 ...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Оля

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.