Reviews

The first thing we notice about The Tuner is that it is in black and white, similar to The Ascent. But unlike Shepitko's film, Tuner takes place in a modern age. At any rate, we see cash registers and can ballpark the film around the 1980's. This seems to be hidden from the viewer intentionally, to make the film "timeless". The attempt is not without success, and I admire director Muratova's ambition in creating a "timeless", film set in the present. Still, I can't help but think the real reason may have been due to a low budget.

Somehow the plot of the film never grabbed me. There wasn't a moment at which I felt the story had started. This may be intentional, to present a story that is not plot-driven, but there was no event that I would say characterized the movie. At the same time, I would not say that the film was slow. While 151 minutes might be a bit more than needed, there wasn't a single moment when I felt bored.

I would like to think that this was due to the characters. None of them felt quite right, which fits in perfectly given how they proceed to trick each other. An adult woman, Liuba, is played by someone who pretends to be her date - admittedly his behavior should have given him away. Her friend, Anna, is similarly swindled by a piano tuner, Andrei, and so the plot continues until Andrei and his girlfriend Lina scam both women. In the minor characters, we see two twins with the strangest manners, mirroring the main characters, and women who timidly approach others like mice. I found myself constantly wondering what they would do next. I chuckled at the scene where Andrei flawlessly plays the piano while clearly just looking at his partner's breasts. As despicable as he is, he had his cartoonish charm. Lina's obsession with abortions I fount considerably less charming, but perhaps that was just me.

Again, while there was no single moment in the film, I would say its message on the duplicity of human nature stayed with me. I was not sure what stories and introductions were true, and which weren't. It was a fun, and humorously dark, fairy tale. I would not recommend it for those who love adventure and action in a film, but it was a good break from my usual staple.

Burnt by the Sun is a fantastically made film, focusing on the injustices of Stalin. It details the arrest of a Russian Civil War veteran, Sergei Petrovich Kotov.

At 135 minutes, some will say that the movie runs long but I disagree. While the plot does not really begin until the second half, the extra time is not wasted on viewers. We see much of Kotov, his family, and are made that much more sad when his fate is revealed.

The characters are all incredibly interesting and well-developed. We learn much about Kotov, Nadya, and Mitya. The latter is especially interesting. We can see immediately that there is something wrong with Mitya and do not trust him. Then, when he and Kotov pretend to be friends around Nadya, we begin to feel he is not that bad of a character, and that the movie might end well (I did, at least). But finally, when he kills the lost farmer and salutes the image of Stalin (one of my favorite moments), we realize Mitya is gone.

However, given everything that the film does to show cruelty, I was surprised by how tame it made certain scenes. The lost farmer is shot off screen, as is Kotov death. At first glance, this seems unnecessary. Why not show their deaths in full force? In the end though, I think the director made the right decision. There are some scenes that, no matter how powerful they are, will not live up to people's expectations. It was better to leave these moments off-screen so that the audience can imagine them as they see fit. It seems like these scenes are only revealed to the viewer when there was no other choice (like the balloon carrying the image of Stalin). This way, the movie tells as much of the story as it has to and leaves the rest to the audience. I enjoyed it.

Ascent was an incredibly weak film for me. It tells a good story but is dragged down by horrible pacing. At the end, the experience I got out of the movie was barely worth the time invested into it.

I'm not trying to say that the message of the movie is boring - it's not. The world is clearly fascinated by the story of Judas. But the film drags on much longer than it has to. The opening scene, while well-shot, brought nothing to the story. It could have just as easily started when the two soldiers stumble into Demchikha's house. The scene where the inspector is interrogating Sotnikov also takes too long. The inspector is steely and unyielding, but that much is established in the first four minutes of his screen time. Later on, Demchikha begs to be spared twice as she is being walked off to the execution grounds. These parts of the story, and others, were unnecessary.

Meanwhile, there are parts of the story I would expand. When the soldiers stumbled in Demchikha's house, we saw a great deal of the innocence they're fighting for. I wish the movie had spent more time there with Demchikha and her children before they were caught. It's not that I wanted the movie to be over sooner, but I felt it expanded certain points unnecessarily at the expense of others.

This got so bad, I felt like the main plot was being spoon-fed to me. I understand it's a Judas story. Why did the woman in the final scene stop Rybak to call him Judas? From the moment the two soldiers are locked up, we see it is about Judas. It couldn't have been more obvious if the Germans had paid him 30 pieces of silver.

All of this takes away from some otherwise fantastic work. The fact that the film is shot in black and white is genius, bringing the viewer back to WWII. The hanging scene was almost perfect, with Sotnikov looking into the little boy's eyes before dying. And the ending scene was iconic. Rybak looks like a fat worm as he tries to stick his head through his belt before giving up. This all makes for a wonderful movie that everyone should see, but only if they bring a book and three bags of popcorn.

One thing I just did not understand was the inspector. His entire character bugged me. In that hat and coat, he looked more like a newspaper salesman than anyone associated with the military. But the strangest part was how he acted. He is supposed to be the villain and is quite a good one but there are a handful of scenes where he breaks. He seems genuinely sad that these people are about to die. This I understand - he is being humanized. What I don't understand is why he doesn't do anything about it. I kept expecting him to let someone go. Surely he has the authority. At least Demchikha, with three kids. Who would insist they kill her? He seems to want to do something about it. But then he doesn't and just walk away looking very sad.

It's immediately clear why White Sun of the Desert has earned a place in history as one of the best Russian films of all time. It is an excellent blend of comedy, drama, and action.

The film opens up with a contrasting set of scenes between the main character's homeland and the desert he is currently in. In a matter of seconds, we understand why Sukhov is frustrated at his situation, and sympathize with him when he screams how badly he wants to leave. Excellent camera-work helps convey this. Indeed, when we are in the desert with Sukhov, time seems to pass more slowly. When he finds Sayid, we pause with Sukhov before giving him water, and even more until digging him up. Meanwhile, as soon as Sukhov is dreaming, music picks up and we feel his happiness. Along with music, there is excellent lighting, which really comes out as Sukhov is talking to the museum curator. The camera does a fine job capturing scenes under the sun, and views actors from perfect angles.

What I loved was that the film never took itself too seriously. When Vereschagin. refuses to eat his caviar, he looks more like a child than the famous Vereschagin. He's much more real afterwords, having shown us both noble and amusingly silly parts of his character. At the same time, this does not mean he cannot be admired; his final fight is one of strongest moments in the adventure, and we cannot help but cheer for him.

Perhaps my favorite part of this movie is its ending. There is the sadness of Vereschagin's death, true, and we aren't sure if Sukhov makes it back home, but the overall feeling is still happy, and hopeful. The audience is encouraged to believe that whatever happens to Sukhov, he has already won. I preferred this much more than the blatantly sad ending of Ivan's Childhood, or the uncertain finale of Commissasar. It is the film's strongest suit; Sukhov might very well die before getting to see Katerina again, but it would only be a death in the literal sense. In the more noble figurative sense, he is already triumphant, and will live on forever in the minds of the people he saved. The movie is a must-see because it achieves this level of nobility in its main character, while maintaining an action-plot and comical side-characters.

Commissar boasts the best soundtrack of any movie I have seen so far, and the cinematography is wonderful. It has come a long way since earlier Soviet films in which the camera is frantically switching back and forth. Specifically, the shots at the start of the film present a detailed scenery, while at the end, we see more focused views, like when the horses are pulling supplies.

But my favorite feature of the film has to be the ambiguous ending. We aren't told if Klavdia survives and comes back to her child, or of its fate. This is a twist from similar movies. In Ivan's childhood, we find out that Ivan is dead at the end of the film. In Ballad of a Soldier, we know our soldier is already dead. That's not to say we don't feel for these characters, but there's little left to the viewer. All the information is given to us in the film - we aren't asked, "Do you believe Alexei survives and returns home after the war?" He doesn't. That automatically sets the tone for the rest of the film. With Commissar, we can ask ourselves, "Is this a hopeful film, or a darker one?" It's true that it has its share of conflict, but we can choose to believe the characters are happy at the end if we want. We do still know what ultimately happens historically, but the characters can be separate from that.

Where the movie is flawed for me is in its simplistic setup. A woman needs to rely on people she is hesitant to trust and ends up trusting them. That's a great plot line, but for 60 minutes, not 103 minutes. As I watched the movie, I couldn't help but feel it could have done more with its time. In Ballad of a Soldier, there are multiple stages to the journey, each different. In Cranes Are Flying, the story is about Veronika, but switches to very distinct scenes of Boris, as well as focusing on the characters' lives before, during, and after the war. Here, we see Klavdia at the village, and that's about it. Yes, we see the village before and after the conflict, and Klavdia before and after she gives birth, but it could have been better still. We could have seen Klavdia's soldiers trying to make do without her. Or a view of the White Army. The film is solid and stands on its own, but it feels like more could have been made.

I am inclined to say I enjoyed the movie, though it was far from perfect. Did we need a narrator? His presence at the start of the movie hinted at a fairy tale. Not only was this not the case, but by the time he appeared again – at the end of the film – I had forgotten he was there and jumped, thinking, "Oh, that's right, there's a narrator here." I'm also not sure I agree with the film's message, or if I even find it realistic enough to be believable. We see Gusev's teacher happily give his life for science and then see his apprentice happily follow the same path. I wish we had gotten a longer bout of skepticism than the two minutes of screen time given to Gusev's father. I found myself completely agreeing with him. Do we need these atoms right now? Wouldn't it be better if science first researched a safe way to observe them? This made Gusev's character harder to relate to for me. Does he not value his own life, or does he place greater value on continuing Sintsov's experiments? Past that, the film was likable. I found it somewhat saddening that the science it described was presented more accurately than our own. I can't remember the last time I watched a movie that depicted the risks of carrying out new experiments. It's sad that our current movies tend to focus on the action and progress brought about by science and not on the risks it carries. Despite Gusev's willingness to give up his life, I found the movie more believable for how it handled the science. I was also pleased with how most researchers (aside from Gusev, who, again was wholly devoted to his work) were presented outside of their labs. The scenes of them eating dinner and living at home humanized them, and made the film more real. In the end, I enjoyed Nine Days In One Year, but no thanks to Gusev's presence, and I do think it can do without the half-hearted narration.

As someone who doesn't watch musicals (I cannot even stand watching Disney movies with younger members of my family), I found Circus quite enjoyable. The music was as well-done as I could ever expect it to be, the acting was wonderful, and the plot drew me in. To be fair, that's not to say the movie is perfect. The plot was interesting, but still quite thin (a flaw many movies still suffer from today) and a lot of the characters embody fairly basic archetypes. Perhaps worst of all, the song at the end goes on for so long, it costs the movie credibility – we can no longer ignore that it is propaganda. But as a whole, it stands firm. The acting is fantastic, and the plot is overall interesting. Although it is described as a comedy, the film shouldn't be taken lightly; the initial scene where Marion removes her wig after the show shocks the audience as being immediately human. The ending is heatwarmingly sweet, and surprisingly progressive for the time period. While it is a good movie, the ending song reminds us that it is in the end still propaganda. Comparing it to earlier Soviet propaganda films is interesting. October for instance was a celebration of the revolution, reminding audiences of how much it took to happen. By comparison, Circus celebrates how wonderful Soviet Russia is. One film commemorates the revolution that happened while the other attempts to convince us that it was worthwhile. They are two different films from two different time periods, outlining two different goals of the rulers at the time.

While I can understand why Arsenal is considered historic, it has not aged well. The scenes at the beginning of the film are confusing - we expect the film to be about the mother, only to find out she has relatively little to do with the film. By the time the main protagonist (Timosh) is established, a good chunk of the movie has passed. The acting is usually superb but drops when it should be at its strongest. It is hard to take the scene with the laughing gas seriously given how obviously the man is just acting. He doesn't move his arms or his body, and seems to only fall to the ground when he's taken off and put back on his glasses a certain number of times. Thankfully, scenes at the end of the movie redeem this level of acting. I'm also not sure what genre the director was going for. The military scenes suggested it to be an action movie, but besides those, I didn't see anything exciting. The movie then tries to be dramatic when one of the characters is about to shoot another in the back of the head, but can't manage. This had to be my favorite scene simply due to its originality. Even then, during the final few moments, when Timosh is being shot at, I couldn't take the movie seriously. His inability to die only reminded me of the final scene from V for Vendetta, and I found myself comparing him to a Ukranian V, with much less impressive equipment. This was the defining moment where the audience has to admit the movie is just too distant from modern audiences to be relatable. Everything it tries to do has already been re-done with better filming, special effects, and actors. It falls flat.

October is a masterfully done film, covering the history of the October Revolution. While it is still technically a silent film, its sound track attempts to sync up with the events on the screen, adding gunshots and yells where appropriate. In that sense, the film is not too different from modern day action movies, provided the audience can ignore the black/white. It is definitely much more advanced than the Dying Swan and Man With A Movie Camera. The actual film itself is a fascinating piece of history, as the title suggests. It was funded by the Soviet government in honor of the 10th anniversary of the 1917 October Revolution. That said, one can gripe about historical accuracy. The ruling class is often portrayed as completely corrupt and sluggish, while the revolutionaries as noble and just. Statues reassemble themselves and soldiers fighting for the "evil" side join the revolutionaries with pride and are welcomed with open arms. Despite this, it does show the revolution as it was portrayed to the Soviet public at the time. The scene of Lenin leading the revolutionaries has in fact become how most people imagine the moment to have happened. An interesting note is that the film did not enjoy commercial success during its time but has gone on to become a symbol of both Eisenstein's ability and the bringing of a historical epic to cinema. Since then however, it has been accepted as one of the best films of the time period. Looking at it now, I can't see why it ever wasn't viewed as a masterpiece.

The Extraordinary Adventurese of Mr. West in the Land of the Bolsheviks is an amusing film, provided viewers are looking for rough comedy. The jokes are never intellectual, though they aren't expected to be. The film chronicles the trip of American Mr. West to Russia, which he believes to be filled with barbaric Bolshevik clothed in fur. Along with him is his cowboy friend Jeddie, who betrays just as much of a misunderstanding of American culture by the Soviet film makers as a misunderstanding of Soviet culture by the Americans in the movie.

The two have barely arrived when the foolish Mr. West has his briefcase stolen. A group of criminals decides to take advantage of him by playing on his fear of Russian savages. By dressing up as Mr. West's fears, they terrify him and then pretend to rescue him. Along the way, he is swindled out of hundreds if not thousands of dollars. During this time, Jeddie is portrayed as useless, not bothering to save his friend. Not unpredictably, Mr. West is saved by the Soviet police. As he finally gets to tour the city, he sees it is beautiful and the American portrayal of the USSR is wrong. He calls his wife and tells her to hang a photo of Lenin in his study and burn his false magazines.

While this isn't a deep film, it represents an important moment in film literature, being the first Soviet movie to be openly anti- American. It shows us what the Soviets thought of Americans and how they were trying to portray them. What laughs the film does accomplish are not done crudely, but certainly can't be called intellectual either. It's a fun ride that teaches the audience a lot about both cultures.