In terms of perspective we follow the movements and journey of an unknown narrator (voiced by Sokurov himself) as he walks through the museum. Along the way he meets a strange European aristocrat who he engages in conversation. The aristocrat himself has a strange mysterious quality about him. He seems, at times, to appear and simultaneously (after varying conversations) disappear. Also his mood changes at different points, taking mysterious uneasy swings. At times, he appears friendly and happy in his disposition, yet at others he appears agitated, angry and abrasive. Overall though, his behaviour does end up adding to the feeling of a dream like event unfolding, with their inability to control the surreal and at times, antagonistic instances unravelling before them.
Set pieces within the film appear seamless in their choreography. They really do work well, with their timing and the layout of these pieces so concisely executed.
If there were any small faults with the film though they would most likely come from the length of the piece itself. The film itself isn’t to long (around 100 minutes) but it does slump in some points where it is transitioning from one set piece to another. However, that’s not to say this is always the case. In fact, it is during these points that some of the more memorable moments appear. In particular, one that stood out to myself was the camera gliding along a room in which an aristocratic lady was discussing her fear for her children’s safety as revolutionaries are fast approaching. It’s the small moments like this that really stick out in viewing Russian Ark. The set pieces themselves (although interesting) would be visual gimmickry without real substance to pull the audience into the world of the film.
There is something really quite unique here. Alexander Sokurov has managed to create a film that is both a large-scale spectacle and a genuinely intimate look at Russian history. For a film that is so surreal and large in scale it is interesting in how well it was able to catch and focus on small moments between individual characters without having to rely on an 'every man' protagonist. The closest the film comes to this is the unknown narrator, although he never really becomes the primary focus of the film. We see through his eyes yes, but we are not supposed to relate to him on a character level. Instead we are supposed to embrace his perspective. He, like all that we see before us is part of the museum. He is part of the past, a memory of what has been, and in reality, that is what this film was supposed to be. It’s the scars and memories of what once were in the Hermitage of Russia, a recount of memories of what once was for those who do not know this places story.
No comments:
Post a Comment