Thread: Films & TV: Russian & Non - Q&As/Reviews/Links all in here!

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.

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.