Among all the films I've ever seen, Sokurov's go deepest into my heart.
One has to prepare some motivation, not expectation, for his films since very often his works offer you things much more abstract than expectations. While willingly sacrificing dialogue as the most important means of information, he guides you into the circumstances by recreating the interactive association with camera, letting you feel his neverland of eternal humanity.
Abstruse as it is, "Father and Son" is a rare curiosa out of simplicity and aesthetics, exquisite yet resplendent.
With the early death of the mother, the father and the son supported each other in a way so intimate and absolute that they were sometimes like brothers or even lovers. The son was a symbol of his mother to the father. The father was the whole world to the son. Life for them was tranquil in a isolated world full of love. Poverty, romance, friendship, truth, communication...all the outside forces were reduced to setoffs when touching the edge of their territory.
The plot is simple. The furnishings are as sparse as in a stage play. All aspects are deliberately limited by Sokurov. Obviously he wanted no distraction for the magic visual expression I already got obsessed with in "Mother and Son".
The scenes at home are mostly still while the outdoor images are distorted. The dimly twilights through out the film hardly suggest any time but drown me in a illusion. The ancient dressing style of the son's girlfriend even tear up time and space much wider. There is no alternation of days and nights. There are only words and emotions. It's fairytale. It's fantasized. And Sokurov never wanted to convince us otherwise.
Though having watched it twice, I still cannot make out certain words are said by which one of them. The father and the son had so similar voices especially in impatient dialogues. That didn't really matter since most lines could actually be exchanged at all.
The father smiled constantly in the film. While his smile disturbed some people who referred it to awkward acting, it carried me into a trance where I thought: "provided with a son to whom I gave so much love suddenly realized the two of us had to be parted, how many substantial reactions would I give in front of his frustration?" The father's smile was the best compromise between his overwhelming love and his son's realistic future. Fortunately, the smile got more and more natural and confident. In the end, they still achieved an fairytale ending.
Putting things to a certain extreme is to look better into their realistic forms. The love between the father and son was far beyond our mundane definition for this word. That's why we feel they were like brothers or lovers at one time or another. We can't even generalize it.
I don't know what's the big idea of others who hate this film. Is it just because it's boring and recondite or is it because they cannot accept a kind of love which is so complicated, heavenly and absolute? I rather believe the answer is the former one, otherwise it's just so disappointing.
As Sokurov said, "In a cruel world, nothing can be accepted but a homo-erotic view." He said it in an interview when someone related this film to a homo-erotic interpretation. I don't think he has any problem with homosexuality and I don't think he particularly meant "this view" in a universal way. I think he was just doubting people's imagination and courage.
In an uninspiring world, nothing extreme or heavenly can be accepted but a self-satisfying view. Those who don't like this film just don't dare to.
One has to prepare some motivation, not expectation, for his films since very often his works offer you things much more abstract than expectations. While willingly sacrificing dialogue as the most important means of information, he guides you into the circumstances by recreating the interactive association with camera, letting you feel his neverland of eternal humanity.
Abstruse as it is, "Father and Son" is a rare curiosa out of simplicity and aesthetics, exquisite yet resplendent.
With the early death of the mother, the father and the son supported each other in a way so intimate and absolute that they were sometimes like brothers or even lovers. The son was a symbol of his mother to the father. The father was the whole world to the son. Life for them was tranquil in a isolated world full of love. Poverty, romance, friendship, truth, communication...all the outside forces were reduced to setoffs when touching the edge of their territory.
The plot is simple. The furnishings are as sparse as in a stage play. All aspects are deliberately limited by Sokurov. Obviously he wanted no distraction for the magic visual expression I already got obsessed with in "Mother and Son".
The scenes at home are mostly still while the outdoor images are distorted. The dimly twilights through out the film hardly suggest any time but drown me in a illusion. The ancient dressing style of the son's girlfriend even tear up time and space much wider. There is no alternation of days and nights. There are only words and emotions. It's fairytale. It's fantasized. And Sokurov never wanted to convince us otherwise.
Though having watched it twice, I still cannot make out certain words are said by which one of them. The father and the son had so similar voices especially in impatient dialogues. That didn't really matter since most lines could actually be exchanged at all.
The father smiled constantly in the film. While his smile disturbed some people who referred it to awkward acting, it carried me into a trance where I thought: "provided with a son to whom I gave so much love suddenly realized the two of us had to be parted, how many substantial reactions would I give in front of his frustration?" The father's smile was the best compromise between his overwhelming love and his son's realistic future. Fortunately, the smile got more and more natural and confident. In the end, they still achieved an fairytale ending.
Putting things to a certain extreme is to look better into their realistic forms. The love between the father and son was far beyond our mundane definition for this word. That's why we feel they were like brothers or lovers at one time or another. We can't even generalize it.
I don't know what's the big idea of others who hate this film. Is it just because it's boring and recondite or is it because they cannot accept a kind of love which is so complicated, heavenly and absolute? I rather believe the answer is the former one, otherwise it's just so disappointing.
As Sokurov said, "In a cruel world, nothing can be accepted but a homo-erotic view." He said it in an interview when someone related this film to a homo-erotic interpretation. I don't think he has any problem with homosexuality and I don't think he particularly meant "this view" in a universal way. I think he was just doubting people's imagination and courage.
In an uninspiring world, nothing extreme or heavenly can be accepted but a self-satisfying view. Those who don't like this film just don't dare to.