Forwarded recent discussion on FRAMEWORKS, the Experimental Film
Discussion List
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <[log in to unmask]>

Date:    Tue, 18 Feb 2003 20:23:36 -0700
From:    Alexander Soifer <[log in to unmask]>

Dear Jon:

I enjoyed reading your no-make-up review of Sokurov's "Russian Ark"
("Russkii Kovcheg"). It is fresh and informative in its harshness. I
have not met Sokurov, and have not yet seen this film. But I have seen
(and have on video) most of his features and documentaries, read his
writings, and published a review of his 1998 full-length documentary
"The Knot" (which he post-facto renamed "Dialogs with Solzhenitsyn" --
strange, for Sokurov does not disagree with a single pronouncement of
his hero: Solzhenitsyn).

I was quite impressed by some of Sokurov's works. His first feature
"Lonely Voice of Man" ("Odinokii Golos Cheloveka", 1978) was fresh and
original. He used there all film stock he could get , buy, steal, b&w,
color? One may think this was an intent. I was very impressed by his
"Save and Preserve" ("Spasi I Sokhrani", 1989), a Caucasus-set version
of "Madam Bovary", by far exceeding anything once-new-waver Chabrol
was able to put together?

You write: "he is for me unbearably pretentious and, perhaps like
Greenaway, seems to regard himself as god's gift to the world. " This
is not such a rarity among creators -- and is OK with me if it does
not hinder their art. But following your review, I went on an
excursion of Sokurov's own homepage, and read there is disbelief:

"The World is uncommonly lucky that Alexander Sokurov exists. His
films are as moral as they are visual. [snip] And now the World is
even more lucky, for Sokurov aimed his lens at Hermitage"

Guess, who writes this? Some editor-for-hire? Nope: Martin Scorsese.

I will take your description of this film, as I have seen it yet:

"Russian Ark is a continuous long hand-held? shot ? in which the
camera enters the Hermitage in St. Petersburg, and continues for about
90 minutes ?
Sokurov apparently did, and in the work he (apparently his voice) is
in continuous voice-over conversation with him, making presumably
serious commentary about the nature and quality of Russian culture"

I am at a loss why Sokurov chose Hermitage for a conversation about
Russian culture. Hermitage, built by a foreign architect (its main
part, "Winter Palace", is by Francesco Bartolomeo Rastrelli), is a
major depository of primarily Western Art. You wanna see Rembrant,
Hermitage is a great place (some 26 top works). You're interested in
Impressionists -- half of the great Schchukin's collection is there.
You've got to see early Matisse and Picasso -- Hermitage is a place.
But Russian there are only Russian tsars (who too were more German
than Russians, starting with the once German Princess Katherine the
Great; once German Princess Maria Feodorovna, Katherine's
daughter-in-law, et al.)

The Russian Museum of St. Petersburg and Tretiakov Gallery in Moscow
would have provided a backdrop of real Russian Art, from grat early
icons to Chagall?

At the European Academy Awards, Sokurov and his German cameraman
Tillman Buttner were nominated for best director and best operator. I
have no idea why Sokurov was so outraged by that: maybe because the
film was not nominated in best film category? Be it as it may, he
demanded the film's withdrawal from the competition, and when was
refused, resigned his seat at the European Academy?

I think Sokurov is a man of great talent. But sometimes it seems to me
as if he competes, especially with Tarkovsky. Tarkovsky's films a-were
typically slow-paced (and it works well for him), so Sokurov appears
to try and beat Tarkovsky for the world record of slowest rhythm.
Tarkovsky was proud of using just 30 takes in his masterpiece
"Nostalgia". So here we may have witnessed an attempt to outdo
Tarkovsky by the single-take "Russian Ark"? I would have preferred to
see Sokurov "compete" with the art of cinema rather than with any
other filmmaker?

Best wishes,

      Alexander Soifer
      [log in to unmask]


Date:    Tue, 18 Feb 2003 22:51:35 -0500
From:    Matt Teichman <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Alexander Sokurov
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

>I was quite impressed by some of Sokurov's works. His first feature
>"Lonely Voice of Man" ("Odinokii Golos Cheloveka", 1978) was fresh and
>original. He used there all film stock he could get , buy, steal, b&w,
>color?

I find Sok's tendency to mix filmstocks a tad clumsy, especially in SECOND
CIRCLE (and another whose title I don't recall; it may be LONELY VOICE OF
MAN), almost yielding a kind of student film effect.  Of course, what's so
baffling about this technical amateurishness is that his other films are
such dazzling feats of film orchestration.

Date:    Tue, 18 Feb 2003 22:52:28 -0500
From:    konrad <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Alexander Sokurov
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, Alexander Soifer wrote:

>  At the European Academy Awards, Sokurov and his German cameraman
>  Tillman Buttner were nominated for best director and best operator. I
>  have no idea why Sokurov was so outraged by that: maybe because the
>  film was not nominated in best film category? Be it as it may, he
>  demanded the film's withdrawal from the competition, and when was
>  refused, resigned his seat at the European Academy?
>
>  I think Sokurov is a man of great talent. But sometimes it seems to me
>  as if he competes, especially with Tarkovsky. Tarkovsky's films a-were
>  typically slow-paced (and it works well for him), so Sokurov appears
>  to try and beat Tarkovsky for the world record of slowest rhythm.
>  Tarkovsky was proud of using just 30 takes in his masterpiece

When i read the letter on his site that was referenced, it's
pretty clear that he was angry that the film was nominated
for a special category because of the long take.  He went
out of his way to denigrate the German cameraman, and he
thought that the Germans were trying to pidgeonhole his film
for the technical prowess of the German cinematographer,
instead of rightfully acknowledging that this was a
production directed by the Author, Sokurov himself, who
managed to salvage the numerous errors of the overtaxed
steadycam 'operator' with heroics of multinational post
production.  The letter read like a pompous hissy fit.

Having only seen a few Sokurov VIDEOS, which i thought were
very interesting, i suspect you're right that he is stillin
the shadow of Tarkovsky, whose films actually invent their
own time instead of take it.

I'd be curious to know what you think of this other thing i
mentioned earlier, Gololyod, if you get a chance to see it.
It comes across as 'flashy' in some way, but i think it has
a lot of integrity also in a sense of trying to invent it's
own sense of the instant, a present that is continually
falling apart (Moscow now) almost thumbing its nose at that
monumental, historical time invented by forefather
Tarkovsky.  The press on that film brags the opposite: 1000
cuts in a 70 minute film. When i watched it, though, i
really thought that it was trying erase the idea of the cut
and shot altogether, i.e. do away with Eisenstein AND
Tarkovsky in one stroke.


konrad

^Z


Date:    Tue, 18 Feb 2003 23:35:15 -0800
From:    Mark Toscano <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Russian Ark / single take film
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

So I've been trying to figure out why RUSSIAN ARK is
touted (by press and promo material) as being the
first ever single-take feature and so on, when Mike
Figgis did the same thing with TIMECODE a couple of
years.  Very different films, of course, but Figgis's
film is one, uninterrupted take, plus it's done
simultaneously on four cameras.

Anyway, just thought I'd throw that out there -

mark toscano

p.s. plus Bela Tarr's made-for-TV MACBETH was an
opening prelude of about 4 minutes, followed by a
condensed version of the play in a single take at
about 65 minutes in length.