From: wojdylo@maths.uwa.oz.au (INFIDEL)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Movies
Date: 6 Oct 1992 07:40:10 GMT
Organization: The University of Westrn Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: madvax.maths.uwa.oz.au


Films of XSU.

I liked Kuznetsov (sp?) 's  film of "King Lear" as well as "Hamlet"
with Smoktunovski in the lead role (I'm not sure who directed that).
The black and white photography in these two films, especially the
former, is outstanding; in "King Lear", virtually every second or third
scene change gives a photograph which could be printed and framed as an
example of a good B+W photo.  That's also the film's drawback --- the
photography's so good, it's distracting.

I liked "Dersu Uzala", directed by A. Kurosawa. It's also the only film I can
remember off hand which uses back-lighting  extensively; backlighting is
too serene for the Hollywood look.  The use of colour in the landscape
cinematography is second to none; lens defect colours are exploited
beautifully.

"Come and See" was a powerful anti-war film of the mid-80's (directed by
Klimov?). The depth of the violence is three or so levels more shocking
than "Silence of the Lambs"; because the director doesn't make
compromises with "market forces".

Getting away from Mosfilm,  I'd argue that Georgia's Paradjanov is the best
anti-naturalism film-maker working these last few years, beats Greenaway
hands down.  Two of his best films are "Legend of Surami Fortress" and
"Ashik Kerib" (sp?), the latter being dedicated to the memory of A.
Tarkovsky.  Magnificent, luscious, "Baroque", abstract color composition.

Another excellent Georgian filmmaker is Shenglaya (sp?); his film about
a composer who goes to the countryside in search of inspiration and who
ends up accidentally bringing about the slaughter of a village is
beautiful and tragic. It's the best example of light tone colour 
cinematography that I know of, alongside  "The Conformist" (Bertolucci I
think) and another film by another filmmaker of the Bertolucci school 
whose title escapes me at the moment (the filmmaker's initials are A.A.).

As for the half-dozen Soviet new-wave films that I've seen, I don't
find any of them memorable. (I haven't seen Konchalovsky's film.)


mns6569@ritvax.isc.rit.edu writes:

>I've just seen Konchalovsky's movie "The inner circle". 
>Thought I might add my 2 cents to the Russian/American movies discussion.
>This one was very "russian'-like to me. It was slow, dark, very 'russian'
>in theme, even enployed a good number of russian actors. 
>Unlike most Soviet movies, however, it was NOT boring, NOT shot by an inept
>cameraman with 1 camera, and somehow the director managed to almost make 
>the soviet contingent of actors ACT.

This description fits most films anywhere. Why not concentrate on the
films that show a particular school in the best light?



>Now, in my humble opinion, soviet actors can do a lot of things. Sign
>petitions, sign autographs, etc, but most of them can not ACT! 

Most actors anywhere cannot act. Now watch Smoktunovski. 


>They deliver
>their lines like Levitan used to on the May Day parade. You start seeing it
>after about 2-3 years of watching non-soviet movies. Then you see one, and
>you get shocked. The actors are full of self-importance, or else, 
>Stanislavsky's methods just tell them: "Do not talk like normal people do".

1) Stanislavski was a stage actor, not a film actor.  He was absolutely
right .

2) If you want naturalism, don't watch most Soviet films. Watch
"Crocodile Dundee" or something.  It happens that some people actually
think that naturalism is sludge.

As for the self-importance part, the Italian director Pier Paolo
Pasolini wrote that in his films, only the most important events in the
characters' lives are portrayed, so the words uttered by the actors are
actually meaningful to the characters. Watching a film in which the
words are actually meaningful is a bit of a shock, isn't it.

Then again, some people think that nothing has meaning these days.



>Watch any soviet movie. The line "I'm going to the bathroom" is delivered
>with almost Shakesperian "Poor Yorik" overtones. 

It's possible that the words, "I need to shit", are the most telling in
a person's life. Some filmmakers find value in words which others scoff
at.



>That, plus very low quality of camera work, plus lack of interesting subjects
>or total inability of directors to keep the film going in a cirtain direction
>(like latest Riazanov's offerings) are the reasons I don't like Soviet movies.
>As I said in the beginning, I command Konchalovsky for managing to create
>pseudo-russian lighting and camera work, and at the same time still keep
>the standard high. And even more so, for his ability to make russians ACT, ie
>deliver their lines in half-way normal voices. I'd be curious to see this
>movie dubbed in Russian and listen to dubbers Levitan-like voices delivering
>the same lines.

I've seen several Soviet New Wave films in which the characters speak
completely naturally. A couple were even about punks in Moscow. 

BTW, how come I've seen all these Soviet films --- despite residing in
far-off Down Under --- and you seem to have missed out ?


>Also, I think this movie demonstrates the difference between russian and
>american actors. See the movie and deside which once you like better.

Maybe the Soviet New Wave really is as bad as I think it is.

Then again, Hollywood in the 80's/90's has been awful as well.


>Mike.S

John Wojdylo
Perth, Western Australia



Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet