Thread: NonRussian films (work in progress)

Originally Posted by rockzmom

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!

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]

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.

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

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?

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.

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. 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"?

Originally Posted by Оля

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

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.

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/

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 =)

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.

Originally Posted by Оля

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.

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

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...

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 ). 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. 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! 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! --- 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.

Originally Posted by Оля

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!

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."

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.

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].

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.

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

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

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....

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.

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.