Russian Ark

I could easily tell that this was a copy off of Tarkovsky. Mirror gave me motion sickness at the end of it. This film gave me motion sickness halfway through it. The filming was similar. It was more like cameraman was dreaming therefore it was thrown around a bit, which caused me to get nauseated.
I did recognize the focus on hands. That theme was also viewed in Mirror. The elements were present; water in the form of snow, the plants. There was also the sense of being lost in time. There seemed to be a time line but it would be tossed back and forth between current times and past times. It also had an eerie feel to it. In Mirror, the eeriness came from the fact that the mother seemed to age but the children stayed young. In Russian Ark, the eeriness came from the fact that we weren't sure what this traveling was suppose to mean. It could have been his mind forming a dream before he died so that the transition was easier for him. The only reason I'm led to believe this is because at the very end he finds that doorway that leads to the water. It's almost as if he had been on a quest the entire time trying to find this passageway into a new realm.

The Return. . .Not of the King but the Father

There were definitely "visual quotes" in this film from Tarkovsky. The elements were clearly apparent. The kids and father end up on an island with no other people. The island was sandy but had many trees. They spent most of their time on the beach. Throughout the film, there were long scenic shots of birds, wind, water, fire, trees, and fields of long grass. The shot that I believe to be the most like Tarkovsky is the last scene where the camera where it pans toward the water and then slowly pulls aways into the trees. This reminded me of the last scene in Mirror where he's following the mother with the kids and then pulls back into the trees. The Return, at this moment, has the same distancing feeling like Mirror.
I also enjoyed the characters facial expressions and the the close up shots of them. Throughout the movie, Ivan constantly looks mad. He has the same facial expression on his face and you know how he's feeling. I found that Andrey had more of a worried expression on his face. The boat scene when the kids are bringing their dead father back is my favorite scene for this. Even though Ivan should seem guilty for the death of his father, he still looks angry. Andrey, on the other hand, carries a worried and sad expression on his face. There isn't very much smiling from the kids seen throughout the movie. I think the most smiling you see is at the very end when they are showing the photos that had been taken. That's the only time you actually see them smiling for a long period of time. Otherwise it is just short glimpses of smiles and then the kids are back to their original expression.
I thought that there was good foreshadowing in this movie. The best one that sticks out in my mind is when Ivan is told he has to clean the dishes because he's the last one done eating. He gets angry and throws his father's bowl into the lake and it sinks. At the end when they finally get back to mainland, Ivan is the last to get out of the boat and the father ends up slowly sinking just like the bowl. There was also the scene with Ivan fishing earlier in the morning by himself. He had caught a couple of fish and ended up letting them go but the one they had caught the night before had been eaten. I think this is similar to how the two boys survived the trip to the island and the father did not. Also, Ivan's fear of heights at the beginning can make one believe that he won't jump at the end. He was too terrified even if he was mad at his father. If there was water there before and he wouldn't jump, why would he jump when there was no water?

Commisar

This movie had millions of questions floating through my head. First, I wondered whether or not the family where Vavilova was staying would accept her when they found out she was pregnant. When Maria realized that she was I was happy to see how her attitude toward her changed and how she was being nice but very blunt with her about children. Then I wondered what was going to happen to her when she was having the baby. Those memories/visions were a bit scary. Also, when the children were playing and they attacked the oldest I was afraid she might really get hurt. They seemed so violent toward her. I'm amazed she made it out without bleeding. Then at the end when they were in the bomb shelter, I was wondering if they would make it. The dancing led me to believe that they would survive. Dancing, to me, is just something that symbolizes being free and happy. As long as they weren't afraid of what was going to happen everything would turn out fine. Then when Vavilova decided to leave her baby behind, I wondered what was going to happen to him and why did she just now decide to go back and fight. So many questions that kept me wondering what was going to happen next.
Vavilova's childbirth gave her memories/visions. I believed this to be how she would explain childbirth to someone if they ever asked her what it was like. I know that women nowadays will give a whole variety of answers so I figure that's what the flashbacks were for. She knew nothing else so she thought of trying to push a canon through sand. I imagine that would be very hard and that it would put a lot of stress on the body. I really liked this scene for that reason. I think very few women today would say that giving birth is like trying to push a canon through the sand.

No Crying Here, Moscow Does Not Believe in Tears

I really enjoyed this film. It seemed more down to earth and easier to relate too. I also enjoyed how it showed the changes in Russia from the Thaw to the era of Stagnation. Foreign names were less heard of in the era of Stagnation, there were more vehicles on the road, and it seemed like everyone was busy. Although movies tend to over exaggerate how things were actually, there still had to be some truth to what was happening around this time period. It also seemed that there were still very few men around. The scene where Katerina is talking to the lady at the matchmaker's place, expressed that there were two women to every forty-year-old man. Whether or not that statistic is true, it still gets the point across that there were more women.
There is one thing I must draw attention to and that is Rudolph's character. I was very upset when he left Katerina and about some of the things he said to her. He said that her getting pregnant was her own fault. How can a woman get pregnant by herself? That's just impossible. I've heard this line from several movies and every time I hear it it aggravates me. I think he was an irresponsible dolt. I did not like him at all. He deserved it when Katerina said that he couldn't see her daughter. After all, she got herself pregnant so he couldn't possibly claim her as his daughter. He wasn't even there while she was growing up. I'm so glad that Katerina met Gosha and fell in love with him so she didn't get back with Rudolph. Gosha seemed to be a better man, even if he did come on strong at the beginning. He just seemed to know that they were going to end up together. Too bad that doesn't happen in real life all the time.

Kidnapping Caucasian Style

Wow after a whole week of sad and/or depressing films, I wasn't sure what to think of this film. It had the same Russian style of comedy where it seems like it's trying to be serious but at the same time funny. I don't understand the Russians idea of comedy. It just doesn't seem funny to me.
There were some similarites to Irony of Fate. There was a woman that more than one man liked, Nadya in Irony of Fate and Nina in Kidnapping Caucasian Style. They like to make fun of drinking. They show how drinking leads to bad incidents like getting put on a plane they weren't suppose to be on or getting thrown in an asylum. Also, the characters keep to one area in the town that they are in. They have a simple setting.
Kidnapping Caucasian Style had more characters in it. There were the three kidnappers that reminded me of Laurel and Hardy. They also had more comedic songs like the one Nina sings about the bears.
Overall, I think it was a decent comedy. As I said before, I wasn't really ready for a comedy after all the sad/depressing films and especially after Mirror. I'm beginning to think that Russian comedy is similar to British comedy. You have to have a particular taste for it.

Mirror, Mirror On the Wall. . .

This was an amazing film. Although I may not understand what was going on, I loved the artistic side to this film. The poetry throughout the movie were actual poems written by Andrey Tarkovsky's father, Arseny Tarkovsky. There were also beautiful scenic shots. I also believe there was a lot of symbolism. Water seemed to show up in almost every scene, whether it be in the form of rain, milk, or just plain water. Water is usually seen as purification but in Mirror it seemed like he was trying to say that no one can be cleansed or purified when this world around us is so filthy. My favorite scene of this is when the man is pouring the water over a woman's head. She swooshes her hair around in the water and then pulls it out but the walls behind her are black and dirty looking. Water falls over the walls but it does not clean it off. Also in this part if you look closely as the camera pans across the wall you can see a face. At first I thought it was a person's but then I realized it looked like a cat's. Earlier in the movie, there was a black cat drinking the spilled milk of the children and later on there's another grey and white cat. Spilled milk also appears several times. "Don't cry over spilled milk." Although no one is actually seen crying over the milk, there are times when the characters have been crying or will start crying after the milk scenes.
As for how the film was put together, I began to notice that something in one scene would appear the next scene. The art book showed itself several times and appeared to be a transition. The wind also was a reoccurring transition. So were the mirrors. All of these I have come to realize are from the poem "And This I Dreamt, And This I Dream" by Tarkovsky's father:

And this I dreamt, and this I dream,
And some time this I will dream again,
And all will be repeated, all be re-embodied,
You will dream everything I have seen in dream.

To one side from ourselves, to one side from the world
Wave follows wave to break on the shore,
On each wave is a star, a person, a bird,
Dreams, reality, death - on wave after wave.

No need for a date: I was, I am, and I will be,
Life is a wonder of wonders, and to wonder
I dedicate myself, on my knees, like an orphan,
Alone - among mirrors - fenced in by reflections:
Cities and seas, iridescent, intensified.
A mother in tears takes a child on her lap.

The wind rolled across the fields and the trees like a wave. There were waves of water pouring down the walls in a few scenes. These were all around times when someone or something died., like when the mother was killing the rooster. Waves of water were coming off the walls behind her.
There was also a bird that the little red-headed boy caught and that the narrator had on his bed.
There were mirrors surrounding the narrator and his wife when they were talking about what they should do with their son, Ignat.
I also realized that certain scenes when referring to past or newsreels were in black and white while most of the rest was in color.
I really enjoyed this film and would watch it again if it hadn't made me so nauseous the first time. I believe the panning shots were a little too fast since there was so much going on in the background.

Ballad of a Soldier

This film showed the war through the radio more than it showed it in action. The only part of the war we see is at the very beginning where Alyosha takes out two tanks. Otherwise news of the war is only heard through the radio at every train station he receives water from. The focus of the film seemed to be more on the individuals that were waiting at home trying to go on with their lives as the war was going on. All the women listened intently for news of their husbands or sons while they worked the fields or in factories. They struggled but continued to hope they would one day see their families together once again.
There was no propaganda in this film unlike the other Socialist Realist films. It was more of a general view for anyone that went through the war or any other war. The men went off to fight on the front lines while the women were at home worrying and trying to survive. Any mother who's son went off to fight would wish to see them again and if they did they would not want them to leave. This was shown with the confrontation of Alyosha and his mother. He only got to see her and let her know that he was still alive but he had to leave to continue fighting. She didn't want to let him go for fear she would never see him again. The other mothers also questioned Alyosha about whether or not he had heard of their sons or when the war was going to end. This probably did happen because every mother would be worried about their child.
Shura and Alyosha covered another universal part: husbands and lovers. A married woman would loose her husband when war came because he would have to go fight along with the younger men. Even young lovers would loose one another. When Pavlov told Alyosha to bring his wife the soap, he had no idea that she would be with someone else. She may have believed that she would never see him again so she found someone else that would be there to take care of her. This was quite possibly something that happened often especially if the wife had not heard from her husband. Then there was poor Shura who did not have a lover or husband. She probably would not have had one either after the war. As said in class, many Russian men (about 13.71%) were killed during World War II.

Ivan the Terrible

I think that this film can be seen as one of Eisenstein's. The sound could throw someone off but I still think that it is evident. Eisenstein likes to use montage. In Ivan the Terrible Part 1, he did a lot of montages with expressions on the faces of people. Even in the beginning of the movie when Ivan was being coronated he had clips of people, the cross on the crown, and the priest. Also another of Eisenstein's favorite filming techniques is to show a picture of something for too long. The scene where Ivan takes over Kazan is apparent with the smoke and Kurbsky holding the flag up. Eisenstein decided to show billowing smoke on the screen for a long time even after we could already figure out that they had burned Kazan to the ground. I think the only difference in the films was the fact that he actually centered around one character. He didn't do that in Battleship Potemkin. I think that this film needed to have sound though. There was too much going on to be able to understand it without sound.
I also noticed that he used black for the one that went against Ivan and white for the innocent again. The characters of his film had very pale skin and dark eyeliner. It made the eyes stand out of the face more. And they had crazy hair. I mainly noticed Ivan's beard and one of the Boyars' beard as well. Also, they rarely moved around and when they did it was more rigid like a puppet. When Ivan is performing his deathbed scene, he fumbles around the room like he can't keep his legs under himself. He looked puppet like. I think those characteristics Eisenstein borrowed from Kabuki theatre.
As for Ivan the Terrible being a leader, I don't really know if he was that great. He seemed to be extremely power hungry. He wanted to control all of Russia and not just part of it. I could understand that bringing the Russian cities together as one would make them stronger, but in the beginning after his coronation I just saw him as power hungry. I also thought he was not a very sure leader. He would let others say what he should do and automatically go to the idea he heard first. Then when someone would propose another idea he would yell at them and tell them not to go against the Tsar. He seemed to be easily influenced. His Anastasia was dead and Alexi Basmanov comes in with his son and tells Ivan he should build an iron ring of men around him.
Ivan automatically thinks this is a wonderful idea but when his advisor says it might not be he yells at him. He barely knew Basmanov. He did seem to have a good ability to get the people of Moscow to like him. He seemed to be able to persuade them to accept him. When the people are rioting and they bust in on the dinner, Ivan listens to them and tells them things they want to hear. The only ones he couldn't persuade were the Boyars and that was because he was taking their power away from them and they didn't like that idea.

Red As a Lobster from Being Burnt by the Sun

I have to say that this film did not capture my interest. It had too many open ends, such as that floating fireball. I was quite confused with the fireball that was floating around throughout the movie. I'm assuming that it is suppose to be the sun that goes around burning the people it follows, but from my point of view the only character it was after was Dmitri. I didn't really see the need for this fireball. It just made the movie more confusing. I'm not sure what they were thinking when they created that part for the movie. Also, what was did Sergei Petrovich Kotov do that made him so great? Yes he did save the peoples' wheat crops from being destroyed but they never said what he did during the Revolution that made anyone that saw him open their eyes wide and drop their jaw. I didn't get what was so great about him as a character. From what I got, he separated two people that loved one another and acted like a sweetheart to his daughter. I just didn't find him to be the greatest person. Does anyone know what he actually did? Also,
Overall, I think that the character I understood the most was Dmitri. At first I didn't really know where he came from but then the stories were told about him and he grew as a character. I found him most interesting. He seemed like he was the bad guy but toward Marrusia and Nadya he seemed very caring. I guess that could have all been part of an act too. I think he pretended Marrusia was his wife and Nadya was his daughter. Or he could have just been nice so that they would accept him into the house and not worry about what was happening to Kotov as they left the house in the end. I could definitely tell that he did not like the job he was doing. At the beginning we saw him empty his gun, put it to his head and pull the trigger. At the end he ends up killing himself by slitting his wrists like what Marrusia did when he left her and didn't write back. I wonder if he was thinking of her as he died slowly singing "Burnt by the Sun."

Let's All Go to the Circus

I must say that this movie was good. Right before the movie ended I was going to say I didn't see very much propaganda, which seemed to be a favorite of Socialist Realism. But the last few minutes that were thrown in were all propaganda. The part where Raya's father tells Marion that they love children, I knew that the propaganda was starting especially since we had seen the pictures of Stalin with the children. The movie would have been fine without that part at the end. Then again, it probably wouldn't have passed if it didn't have some propaganda in there.
I found that there were some subtle little details that describe the characters. In Marion's room, there was a fishbowl that was also standing as a lamp. I thought this showed Marion's life. She was stuck with Von Kneishitz and she couldn't leave him because he would let everyone know she had a black man's child. He was the fishbowl that kept her from swimming in the world freely. So the funny thing is that when I saw Von Kneishitz when he was talking to Raya before the show, I thought he looked like Dracula. And then he threw his cape over his shoulder and disappeared. I think that definitely lets the audience know that he is an evil character.

Chapaev

I think one of the main reasons this film succeeded was because it made more sense. Even though the people already knew how the story was going to end, it is always enjoyable to go and see what led up to that specific ending.There was a storyline with characters that the people could relate to. You actually got to learn about Chapaev, Furmanov, Petka, Anka, and even Colonel Borozdin. I also think the fact that there was a woman helping in the fight would have appealed to women to go and see the film. Battleship Potemkin only had male characters. That could have caused less women to go to the showing of it. But Chapaev had Anka be a heroine of the story. She was a woman that was complemented and accepted for being able to shot well. The romance between Petka and Anka gave it a little more emotion. People could connect better with them and they wanted them to be together.
The sound in the film made it more interesting. You could hear the guns firing. That creates more excitement for viewers. Also I think the singing added an extra effect. When Petka would start singing by himself you could notice the individual but eventually all the others would join in with him and you could see the singing bonding them together making them stronger as a group. This was similar to what Eisenstein tried portraying in Battleship Potemkin but it was not as strong. Also the singing brought certain characters together. When Chapaev is up working on the maps of the battle, Petka wakes to his singing. He asks Chapaev if he had slept and he says he does and continues to sing. Then Petka starts singing with him and when the song is done, Chapaev yells at Petka to go back to bed. You can see that he cares about people. He is more human than the characters of Battleship Potemkin.
This film could also have made it because there was actual fighting between the Reds and Whites. I know someone mentioned that they had wanted to see a fight in Battleship Potemkin. There was no actual fighting. There were poor people running in terror and dying for just waving to the ship off the coast. In Chapaev, there was fighting. If a movie is based on a war, then there should be battle scenes. It just makes sense.

Amazing Superimposing!

Although Man With the Movie Camera had no storyline, I really enjoyed it. The music caught me from the beginning. I found myself bouncing up and down to the beat and then it would go dark and seem more menacing and then I would go back to bouncing again. Whoever did the music to the film did an excellent job. It kept me interested throughout. I especially enjoyed the introduction music. The screen is completely dark and silent. Then someone turns on a radio and tries tuning into a station that carries static. Still the screen remains dark. Finally images appear of people sleeping and the song is more calming. Then the sunlight shines and the streets fill with people and the song turns happy and bouncy.
I also enjoyed the creativity in this film. I loved the superimposed camera man on top of the buildings setting up his filming equipment. I also noticed several of the shots with three to four different images overlapping each other. My favorite had to be the scene with the crowds of people. If you didn't look close enough you wouldn't have even noticed there were four images on the screen all moving. In fact, I think that it was purposely held for just those few extra seconds to show that there indeed were several shots overlapping. Then there were the fast flipped pictures. It reminded me of the Animorphs books with the pictures in the bottom corner that you flipped through quickly to watch them transform into an animal. This definitely was something new in Russian Cinema.

You Sunk My Battleship Potemkin

There is definitely a great difference between this silent film and the silent films we have watched thus far. The actors moved more quickly and did not stay in one place for long. The scenes were shorter than those in the others. The focus of the film was also more on the people and their reactions to what was happening around them. I believe the scene where they showed Vakulinchuk in the tent and all the people from Odessa were crowded around it shows a good example of this. When several of the people came up to the tent you could see the pity and sadness on their faces. The way they moved toward the camera covered up most of the people in the background because they wanted to show the individuals reactions to the camera and not have the people in the background distract from this. You can feel the sadness that they are feeling for a man they didn't even know.
I also have to comment on the music. I think it fit very well into the movie. I especially enjoyed when the people of Odessa were marching down the stairs. The music was actually a march and the rhythm fit very nicely with the way everyone was walking.
I found this piece to be easier to follow. I think this was because there wasn't much to it. The men were on a ship, they were being fed rotten meat with maggots crawling all over it(disgusting!), and they decided to take over and continue fighting in the war. It reminded me of Mister Roberts, an American film from 1955. Although Mister Roberts was a comedic film, I noticed that many of the scenes from Battleship Potemkin reminded me of that movie. The scene where the men are running down the stairs to get into line when all called together held similarities between both movies. I am sure that there are many other navy films that share that same similarity.

"The Dying Swan. She dances. That is death."

A strange conclusion especially for me who loves to dance and does not fear death. I have to say that quote really made me think a bit. I don't fear dancing so could dancing possibly be able to show death even though dancing in itself is usually lively? I guess in a way it could. The way Gizella performed was quite beautiful and the steps in themselves created that desire of the swan to continue with life even though it was wounded. But as all things must, in the end the beautiful swan died.
The Dying Swan I believe to be the best of the three silent films we watched today. A Child of the Big City had no storyline at all. The music did not go along with the feelings that were being portrayed in the movie either. At first it almost reminded me of the play "My Fair Lady." Two rich gentlemen go out and find a young woman to change her. Except for the fact that no one is being taught phonetics and it is not a comedy. In fact, it is more of a tragic romance. Not really a movie in my opinion either because there was no plot line. Then there was didn't have much of a plot line either. The music once again was bad. I didn't realize it was it was suppose to be comedic either until the very end. She must have just wanted to mess with her husband's head so that he wouldn't worry about what she was doing in her room. Still, I did not find it very interesting. The Dying Swan, however, had a plot line. The music fit. Therefore it made a better movie than the two earlier ones.

"We go to the bathhouse on January 31. . .It's a tradition."

Irony of Fate has a simple plot that is constantly mentioned throughout the film. Zhenya from Moscow goes to the bathhouse with his buddies every year and this year they drink to the marriage of Zhenya to his girl, Galya. Unfortunately they all get so drunk that forget who was suppose to get on a plane to Leningrad and poor Zhenya is sent off to Leningrad in place of his pal, Pavil. Upon arriving in the airport, Zhenya has no idea that he has just been on a plane ride to Leningrad and gets into a taxi to go home. Strangely enough, there is a 25 Third Builders' Street apartment and he lets himself in, undresses, and falls asleep on the same style bed that he has in his apartment back in Moscow. Nadya, the owner of the apartment, comes home and does not realize a strange man is sleeping in her bed until she has already started readying herself for her date that night for the New Year. When she finds him she beats on him, tugs on him and finally pours a pot of water on his face. Then her date, Ippolit, shows up and believes that Nadya is cheating on him.

Talk about bad timing on the part of Zhenya. I felt sorry for him. He drank with his buddies even though he normally never drinks, they throw him on a plane and he is so confused that he does not realize what is happening to him. His character is comical but in a sense that most Americans are not use to. At the same time you laugh at him you also pity him for his bad luck. In some sense though most people can relate to Zhenya. At some point in life you end up in the wrong place at the wrong time. Although many are not as lucky as him in coming into an apartment of an understanding and beautiful woman.

The comical aspect of this film seems more serious than the comedies we are accustomed to here in the United States. Did anyone else get that feeling? It was as if the writers were trying to say that this could happen to someone if they did not pay attention to what was around them. The introduction cartoon may have had something to do with it. The takeover of the identical white apartment buildings was portrayed as being terrifying. Then the voiceover on the movie said that every town had the same names for the streets. They also joked about how their ancestors who had tried coming up with different designs for buildings. They saw it as silly.

Although the story was quite predictable, everyone knew that Nadya and Zhenya would get together in the end, it was very comical. And there were several different types of shots that most have rarely if ever seen. The parts with the either Zhenya or Nadya playing guitar were different from shots that I have seen in other movies. The songs did tell stories about their lives though. I found that some of the lyrics pertained to exactly what was happening to them. The others I believed to have been from their past. The music was used to tell about the characters without them telling it themselves.

Overall, a very good movie.