The Island

This was a very interesting movie to say the least. While the cinematography was amazing, the plot was a little fuzzy. I had trouble following what was going on most of the time. After Anatoly shot the captain of his ship to save his own life, I felt the guilt he had for his actions seemed to drag on throughout the rest of the film. There was no other side plot or characters that lighted the mood. It was actually a bit depressing to watch. While I pitied for Anotoly, I also felt like he should have moved on with his life. Nobody should have to suffer 30 years of guilt for a past mistake. The phrase "what's done is done"echoed through my mind as I watched the plot unfold. It is unwise to waste energy on a past mistake that is unfixable. It is completely out of one's control.

I feel like the main theme the director wanted the audience to recognize while watching the film is recognize it's spiritual message. Towards the end of the film, I felt the cross had a symbolic message that represented Anatoly finally finding peace as Jesus did when he died on the cross for our sins. His repentance had finally paid off, even though on many levels, I found it very unnecessary. I just think 30 years is a bit of a stretch to feel bad about anything, but thats just my opinion. Overall, I thought it was a very interesting film. The cinematography was outstanding, but I thought it overshadowed the plot.

Legend No. 17

This has been my favorite movie we have watched this month by far. While I still really liked "Burnt by the Sun" and "Brother," this film is in a league of its own. The plot had action, drama, and it made you think about yourself as a person and not just the main characters. It made you relate to past situations where you never gave up on yourself to reach your ultimate goals. Personally, I love movies like this. I'm a very competitive person and I'm an athlete at Carthage, so this type of genre is right up my alley.

After reflecting on the film, I really admired Tarasov as a coach. When he was running practice, he used some unorthodox training techniques that didn't seem like your typical hockey drills. I'm not a hockey expert by any means, but when a coach orders a player to stand in a hockey goal so his teammates can pelt him with pucks, I don't think that is textbook hockey coaching. Also, I don't think giving piggy back rides up and down hills is very common either while training. Nevertheless, Tarasov constantly said throughout the film that he didn't care what people thought of him. He was going to do what he felt would put his team in a winning situation. Another aspect about Tarazov's coaching is that is was not always meant to make his players physically stronger. I liked that he used certain tactics that targeted each players mental attitude towards hockey and life itself. An example of this is when Tarasov's new national team played a game and did not mesh well. When he put them out on the ice to skate in a circle and told players from previous teams to stop in their tracks, everyone would crash into each other. This was a lesson that was meant to teach the players that they were no longer individuals from other teams. They were on one national team.

Another part of the film that was interesting was the way it depicted the Soviet Union. It almost seemed like it was the protagonist while the Canadians were the enemy. This was strange to me because when I saw the movie "Miracle," I wanted nothing more than the Russians to lose (even though I already knew the outcome of the game). My point is, this film succeeded in wanting me to cheer for the Russians. I felt connected to Valeri, his journey throughout his life, and the obstacles he had to overcome. The Canadians in this film were portrayed as being very animalistic. They would check players for fun and did not wear helmets when they played. Hell, I would be terrified if I had to go up against a team like that on the ice. It's a good thing I don't play hockey. In conclusion, I loved this movie from start to finish and I hope professor Isham has another one of these gems up his sleeve for tomorrow.

Piter FM

I felt like we were on a hot streak with the movie choices lately. Unfortunately, that streak ended today with Piter FM. I felt like I was watching a cheap, foreign attempt at an American chick flick. The plot was very dry and nothing really happened throughout the whole movie. It was basically about two people who broke up with the people they were currently with so they could date each other, that's it. When I say that's all that happened, I really mean that. There wasn't a side plot or anything else that spiced up the main plot. That is the reason why this film was boring to me.

Despite the uninteresting plot, I felt the movie had a lot of great shots featuring St. Petersburg. This is the only part of the movie that actually kept my attention. After watching, "Brother,"it was fun to compare St. Petersburg in this film to the early 90s. One aspect I noticed was the city in Piter FM seemed livelier than in Brother. This is understandable due to the high crime rate in the 90s. I wouldn't want to roam the streets during that time period without a means of protection on me.

Another aspect about the city in the film that was different in "Brother" was that it seemed more populated and had an increase in technology. I know this it is a no brainer that the technology has enhanced in 15 years, but there is a correlation to this and the population increase. When technology advances, crime tends to decrease, thus increasing the population in areas that were previously designated as dangerous.

Overall, the movie was fair in my book. The most interesting "character" in my opinion was the city itself. It came to life in this movie with all of its busy activity. Hopefully, the movie tomorrow will have a more active plot.

The Return

I really liked today's film. I have never watched a movie with such an unpredictable plot. For starters, the title, "The Return," gave away the surprise of what the movie was about. Obviously, something from the past was about to return to the present. In this case, it was Andrey and Ivan's father. Despite the cinematography being amazing, I was confused with a few aspects about the film.

 The first thing that caught my attention was why the father came back in the first place. In the film, he says it was because the boys' mother said she wanted him around again. However, this seemed a little fishy to me. When Andrey and Ivan arrived at their home to discover their father was there, the mother seemed very nervous anxious with his arrival. She was outside on the porch smoking a cigarette. This is a common thing for people to do when they feel uncomfortable in certain situations because the nicotine calms the nerves. If the mother was expecting the biological father of her children, I would think she would have reacted to the situation differently.

Another aspect that was unsettling was the way the father went about things throughout the film. He seemed like a man with a suspicious past and was hiding something from his family. This could explain why he disappeared for 12 years without a trace. This is the reason why I feel like he showed up out of nowhere to be with his family. Something may have gone wrong in his current life and he felt like his only option was to go back to his old life. What is completely unfair to Andrey and Ivan is the way he treats them upon his arrival. He acts as if he had been there all along and he feels there is no other way to react to his sudden appearance than to accept him. Personally, I felt this was completely bogus. I also didn't like the way he treated his sons. I could tell they were used to their mother's parenting style and not their father's. He was very ruthless in the way he conducted Andrey and Ivan.

What surprised me the most was the way the film ended. I knew that the father was "caring" for his sons in his own way, but I didn't see his untimely death coming at all. This is the plot twist that made the film very interesting. I thought, "what now?" I doubt that I'm far off from what the boys were thinking as well. While I enjoyed watching this film, it left so many questions unanswered. For example, where did the father come from and why did he return to his family after so many years? What was in the package the father picked up? What ended up happening to Andrey and Ivan after they could't return their father's body home? In a way, the father's body sinking to the bottom of the lake has ironic symbolism. He threatened to the boys that he might not come back for another 12 years after their fishing trip. Well, now he's never coming back because he's dead. This is a bittersweet end to the movie. While the boys ended up losing their father, they gained their old lives back. Overall, I enjoyed the film and I am looking forward to the movie tomorrow.

Brother

This was an awesome movie to say the least. I really like to watch mobster movies so I felt right at home with this one. It has been an interesting journey watching movies in Russian Cinema that have depicted the peak of the Soviet Union, to the beginning of the Thaw. This movie captures the essence of the complete demise of socialist realism. There is no propaganda in this film that would make you think about communism or equality among the public. I really felt like I was watching a movie that was made in the U.S. This is very significant because this means that the director's in Russia at the time were beginning to embody the ideas of west a bit more than a few years earlier. While this is definitely a mobster movie, it didn't scream, "The Godfather" to me. The closest genre I can relate this film to is a western. Danila reminded me of a vigilante who was out to save his brother at all costs. With his military background, the feat seemed like a walk in the park to him. His actions seemed almost effortless and without failure. Everything went according to plan, which happens in most western movies. The protagonist always saves the girl, but in this case, the person that needed saving was Danila's older brother, Viktor.

One interesting aspect to Danila's character is that he is always listening his walkman. At first I wasn't sure why, but as the movie continued, It seemed to me that the Walkman had symbolic meaning. Danila's life has had its ups and downs and it doesn't seem like he has had a lot of control with its outcome. To me, the Walkman is something that is constant in his life. He can control the songs at will and it gives him a chance to take his mind off of things. After his Walkman was destroyed, I noticed the theme of the movie shifted. It wasn't Danila who needed saving anymore, it was his brother. It was at this moment where we saw Danila finally take matters into his own hands and take control of the situation. 

As for the time period in which the film took place, there was a considerable difference between the 80s and the 90s. St. Petersburg had become a hotbed for crime whereas ten years earlier, people seemed to be content by their new freedom of expressing opinions in public. Now, their actions seemed to have taken a turn for the worst. While many people did not turn to crime as a result of the Thaw, many took advantage of  the western ideologies that were pouring into Russia and translated them into crime without thinking about the consequences. I thought this movie did a great job portraying this and I am looking forward to continuing this historic journey through Russian Cinema on Monday. 

Little Vera

I really don't know where to begin to describe how I feel about this film. It was truly one of the most depressing things I have ever seen on the big screen. The entire plot was one big cluster of negative emotions and hatred amongst everyone in the movie. Vera, the main character seemed to have it the worst out of anyone. She was constantly being bombarded with one tragic event after another. I really felt for her. Her life was spinning out of control and when things seemed like they couldn't get much worse, the universe gave her a slap in the face and piled on more heartbreak. Honestly, I felt a bit depressed after sitting through this one.

Now that I have gotten that off my chest, I want to talk a little about the historical significance of the film. It takes place during the fall of the Soviet Union and there are noticeable differences between this film and the others we have seen. The younger generation is way more outspoken in comparison to a few years earlier and they are beginning to experiment with cultural norms, such as music preferences, social interactions, and relationships. Teenagers are no longer constricted to the old ways of the old regime and are more open minded.

When we look at Vera, she seems like a very independent person. The way she dresses and her hairstyle suggest she is not someone who conforms to the way people want her to look and that she will do what she wants, when she wants. Unfortunately, this way of thinking does not always pan out for her. She tends to hangout with the wrong crowd and she keeps more untrustworthy people closer to her than loved ones. I understand that a lot of the things she went through in the movie were out of her control, such as her parents telling her they didn't want her and discovering she will not pursue a college degree with her best friend. However, there were a few things that she could have avoided, like not being such a flirt with bad guys and cutting down on her drinking habits. This was a main theme in the movie as well. Alcoholism is not a joke and we saw that firsthand when Vera's dad stabbed her boyfriend with a knife while drunk. The bottom line is, every family has their own issues, but putting the blame game on each other is not the way to resolve any problem. I do have sympathy for Vera and her family because I think it is a real shame that they felt the need to act in such a hostile way towards each other. In the end, it really didn't solve anything. It just resulted in Vera attempting suicide.

Moscow Does Not Believe in Tears

Well, I prayed and Professor Isham delivered. I am very happy we were able to watch another entertainment/comedic movie. It's not that I don't appreciate the socialist propaganda directors have incorporated in the films we have watched, I just feel more comfortable watching movies with distinct plots that do not try to shove underlying ideologies down my throat. I think we can all agree that the historic value of movies such as "Chapaev" and "Mother" is great. They just lack that entertainment factor that people long for nowadays. I found this especially apparent after reading the assigned homework in "A History of Russian Cinema." During the "Thaw," that's all people wanted to see when watching films.

One of the things that made this movie interesting was the time period that it was portraying. The film was set during the "Thaw" in Russia in the mid 1950s. Stalin had recently passed away and there was a shift in the air regarding the way people perceived life. The socialist regime was starting to become a thing in the past and the younger generation was beginning to become more outspoken. An example of this is depicted in the first few scenes of the movie where Katerina has friends over for dinner. She meets an older gentleman who had a very reserved personality and did not seem very personable. He was almost bland in a way. This is the way people were during Stalin's reign. They were told what to do and had little to no authority in their everyday lives. As the movie continued, the personalities of Katerina, Lyuda, and Antonina portrayed an obvious contrast to the "old ways" of doing things.

Another part of the movie that was very entertaining was the timeline of the film. I like that it was split into two parts. One, where we see the main characters as young women looking for love and the other portraying them as adults. After watching the first part, I wasn't exactly sure what the future might hold for the women. At first, it seemed to me that Lyuda might be the first one to find happiness after she met the famous hockey player, Sergei Gurin. It was obvious that he genuinely like her from the beginning even though Lyuda felt he was lying because she thought he could have any girl he wanted. It was unfortunate to see that their relationship fell through in the first few scenes of part 2. As for Katerina's relationship, I really don't know what to say. I mean, who meets a complete stranger on the train and creates a relationship out of it under a week? Well, this was mainly due to the persistence of Gosha. He was so blunt and meaningful in his way of doing things, it was almost contagious. I really liked him as a character. He definitely grew on me as the film went on. I'm happy that things worked put between Katerina and Gosha. I guess when you know you've found the one, the time you have known each other becomes an afterthought.

Ballad of a Soldier

I really enjoyed "Ballad of a Soldier." It was different than the other war related movies we have seen in class so far. This was mainly due to the fact that the director didn't shove themes of socialist realism down our throats the whole time. I feel like this is why I liked this movie so much. The plot was a breath of fresh air as well. The actors portrayed in the film seemed very innocent with their intentions and did not have much of an edge to them. I liked the subtleness of this aspect and it made me genuinely invested in the characters. I was interested to find out how their stories were going to unfold. 

One feature of the film that stuck out to me was that the war was not the main focus in the story. However, the war revolved around the plot. This is different in comparison to a movie such as "Chapaev." I was a little surprised by this because the first few scenes depicted Alyosha fighting on the front lines. I figured the whole story would take place on the battle field and in the barracks. Nevertheless, I am happy it didn't. It is a nice change of pace to see a soldier out of his element  on leave and see how he reacts to civilian life. 

Another aspect of the film I thought was interesting was how people helped contribute to the war without being a soldier on the front lines. It was very common for women to take up masculine jobs during WWII because all of the men were off fighting in the war. One example of this is when Alyosha goes home to his village to see his mother. Unsurprisingly, there were no men in sight and all of the women were busy working in the fields. It was actually a bit eerie to see this. I can understand why the women swarmed Alyosha bombarding him with questions about their loved ones because God only knows if the men were alive and well or dead. 

In terms of propaganda, I didn't feel like this movie delivered as well as others, such as "Burnt by the Sun" or "Circus." I know that this was a war movie so obviously there is some propaganda simply through the Russian army being a main focus, but there wasn't anything that jumped out at me that made me think, wow, this is what Russian ideology is all about. I felt this film suggested more of a love story/entertainment theme. I enjoyed the watching the journey Alyosha and Shura had getting to know each other as they travelled together. There were times during the film where I laughed and others where I felt very sad for the unfortunate situation Alyosha was in. While it was apparent he had a life altering time meeting Shura trying to get home to see his mother, it also cost him precious time with the woman he loves most of all. This is the entertainment factor the movie had that made me want to keep watching. Overall, I really enjoyed it and hopefully we can watch more movies like this.

Mirror

This was probably the most interesting movie I have ever seen in terms of plots. While it was very difficult to follow along, this film had a definite plot as opposed to "Man with a Movie Camera." The director, Andre Tarkovsky, once said to understand the essence of the movie, don't view it thinking as an adult, try to think as a child. While it was challenging, I took this to heart and honestly tried to deviate away from thinking logically with this film and tried to view it with an open mind, not anticipating anything, and taking in each scene one at a time. I felt like if I tried to string each scene together, I would become more confused with what was going on. However, after reflecting on the movie, I really can't explain the plot even if I wanted to.

One thing that did jump out at me was that there was a supernatural feel to the film. There was one scene where a young boy was left home alone and then all of a sudden, two women were at his dinner table with cups of tea.  After a short conversation, the vanished leaving the contestation of their cups on the table. This seemed like a joint theme with children in the film. I have watched some shows on TV about ghosts and it seems like a common pattern for apparitions to appear before children and not in front of adults. I could be wrong if this was the case in the movie, but a few scenes reminded me of that.

Another part of this film that made it confusing was its wide use of symbolism. I was able to pick up on certain things such as the side clips that Tarkovsky incorporated in the film. For example, one of them scenes that suck out was the one where the woman was in a room washing her hair with mud covered all over the walls. I wasn't exactly sure what the meaning behind it was, but it was a very eerie scene.

After watching "Mirror," one thing that I questioned was the reason behind the woman living in the middle of nowhere with small children and no husband. This was never answered and it was a bit unsettling because the audience never understood the intentions of what seemed to be the main character in the film. Overall, this film really made me think. It was definitely unlike any other movie I have ever seen, that's for sure.

Ivan the Terrible

This was an interesting film to watch, mainly because of the time period it was shot. As we all know, World War II was at it's peak and I can only imagine how difficult it was for Sergei Eisenstein to find the materials and people necessary to create such a film. At first, I wasn't expecting very much from the sets or the actors given the circumstances, but to my surprise, Eisenstein found a way and created what seemed like a different world. What first caught my eye were the detailed sets and costumes used throughout the film. They really helped set the tone of the time period and the dramatic events that took place in part 1. 

Another technique that Eisenstein used with his actors was the way he directed them throughout the film. Their style of acting seemed was very exaggerated, yet it wasn't overpowering. I know that Eisenstein was a fan of kabuki theater, which is a very exaggerated form of acting in Japan. He must have been influenced by this to create a hybrid style of acting for this film. I enjoyed it very much. 

As for the plot of the film, I immediately recognized aspects of socialist realism incorporated from the beginning. The main one that jumped out was the fact that once Ivan was crowned tsar, his first decree was to unite the country's city-states to create a unified Russia. He also said that if any opposed, they would be taken by force. This is just an example of history repeating itself. Ivan the Terrible lived during the 1600s and is a predecessor to Stalin. Yet, they have similar ideologies. 

I don't believe that Ivan is a bad person for wanting to create a stronger, more unified Russia. I just feel like he went about it the wrong way. I do understand there is a ton of politics between Moscow and the other city-states. This is morally the right way too handle the situation, but I think Ivan wanted to use the faster route and take them by force so he could see his vision for the future of Russia come true while he was still in power.

Overall, I liked the film very much and I appreciate Eisentein's efforts in creating it. He was very fortunate to have such great actors and crew members at his disposal during such a hard time in history.

Burnt By the Sun

This has to be one of my favorite movies we have watched so far. I don't have anything against silent or black and white films, but I felt this movie had a really great plot and it was interesting to see how it unfolded. I also like the characters in the film. Each one had a purpose and made it very enjoyable to watch. For example, Kotov had a very similar personality to Chapaev. They were both very proud individuals who believed in the cause and wanted nothing more than to promote Russian ideologies. However, like everything in Russian cinema, there are underlying themes and symbols that have to do with communist propaganda.

Immediately, I noticed the director's use of the Russian landscape in the first few scenes, depicting the beautiful motherland. Another thing I noticed right away were the farmers hard at work in the fields and the Russian tanks that came out of nowhere. I felt this scene had a correlation to the worker and the collective farm woman statue. The tanks were symbolic towards the hammer while the farmers represented the sickle.

Another symbol that I felt was very strange in the film was the small orb that was floating around in a few scenes. At first, it seemed like something out of a science fiction movie, but the more I thought about it, I realized that it was symbolic towards Kotov being "burned by the sun." The orb was actually a small sun that was almost on the hunt for Kotov. Wherever it went, death seemed to follow. This held true with both Kotov and Mitya. The title of the movie, "Burnt by the Sun" is very fitting for the plot. While it is also a title for a very popular tune in Russia in the 1930s, the "sun" in this case is supposed to represent Stalin. When someone thinks of the sun, the most common thought is that it is a celestial body in which all the planets revolve around. In Russia during this time period, Stalin was viewed no differently. He was the "sun" that everyone revolved around. He was the supreme leader that controlled everything. Once Stalin felt Kotov was a threat to his power, Kotov became helpless very quickly. Stalin set his confidants out to find him to attest to his "crimes."

In the movie, we don't see what happened to Kotov after Stalin's agents arrested him. However, he was later shot and killed after confessing for charges against him. What I found ironic about how this situation went down was the fact that Young Pioneer children had just come to Kotov's house to praise him as a hero in the Revolution and the Civil War before the agents came for him. Kotov even sent the Pioneers on their way after leading them in an oath of loyalty towards Stalin. It just seemed very unfair.

Overall, I thought this was a fantastic movie. I did some research and it turns out it received an academy award for best foreign language film. I'm not surprised at all. I feel like the movie was made to give the audience a sense of what Russia was like under the Stalin's regime. While it had propaganda, it was more for history's sake. I think that is why it had such an impact with the international audience. I hope we watch more movies like this in class.

Circus

I really liked this film and it did a good job promoting socialist realism in Russia for its time. The cinematography was also good. I felt like I could have been watching a modern movie with the techniques used, such as the camera angles and length of each scene. At first, I thought this movie was just going to be a story about a woman from America who makes travels to Russia and becomes famous. However, there were a lot of underlying themes to the film that were solely there for propaganda purposes.

For example, the first one I noticed was that Marion had a son that was racially mixed. This was a reason why she fled the America in the first place. When Von Kneishitz discovers her son, he is very judgmental and says she can never integrate into white society with her child. He then proceeds to show him to the audience at a performance in hopes of getting a nasty reply. The fact everyone was very accepting of Marion and her son son suggested the socialist way of thinking; everyone is the same.

Another theme I thought was important was the way Marion's way of thinking was progressively changing throughout the movie. The longer she stayed in Russia, the more she began to feel comfortable there. She knew that she could have a good life in Russia with her son and she wouldn't be persecuted for her past. This was apparent towards the end of the movie when Marion, Petrovich, and Raya march in a Russian parade. I think the audience must have loved this scene because it depicted an American choosing Russian ideologies over the U.S.'s way of thinking.

After reflecting on the film, I think the directors did a bad job representing Americans the way they really are. The first time we see Americans in a group is in the beginning of the film. They are formed as an angry mob chasing Marion out of the circus grounds where she works and onto a train. The only thing this does is make the American public seem like antagonists and a problem in society. Despite this, I felt the plot was good in terms of Russian cinema. It's a great film to support Russian propaganda during its time period, but it's probably not a movie I would watch on a lazy Sunday.

Chapaev

And so, the transition between silent films and sound films has begun. To be honest, it was a bit weird to watch a movie with sound today. I still felt like an inter-title card was going to pop up any second. Nonetheless, I enjoyed the movie today. I can see why it was considered a blockbuster in Russia during the time of its release. It had a great plot that depicted the Russian Civil War between the red army, lead by General Vasily Ivanovich Chapaev, and the white army, lead by Colonel Borozdin. The reason behind the film's success is the fact that it was a great example of Socialist Realism, which was Russia's form of government during Stalin's reign.

In terms of technique, I felt the Vasilev brothers did a good job with the sound effects used in the film. There were many fight scenes that required clear sounds of gunshots and cannons going off for the audience to feel like they were on location. The audio of the actors was also quite clear for a movie that was made in the 30s. Despite the fact I don't know a lick of Russian, I noticed that the character's sentences were not getting jumbled together and I could here the pronunciation of each word that was said.

There were a few scenes that could have been in silent format. For example, most of the scenes where Chapeav was conversing with his confidants could have been silent because the reactions of the characters would have been just as effective from an audience standpoint with or without sound. However, there were some scenes that needed sound. One scene that I felt was powerful due to audio was the end of the movie when soldiers were blown away by artillery fire. The loud "boom" from each shell going off drove the point home that the enemy was defeated in a massive way. This scene stuck with me for a few minutes after the ending credits due to hearing that impressive display of fire power.

Overall, I liked the movie. I can't really say anything negative about it plot wise. I think the Vasilev brothers did a good job directing and executed well with each scene. Now, it's on to the next one...

The Man with a Movie Camera

This was one of the most bizarre movies I have ever seen. After it ended, I asked myself, "What the heck did I just watch?" I thought for the first few minutes that I was watching the opening credits of the film due to the fast transitions between clips. Well, it turned out that was how Vertov intended the movie to be viewed by his audience. It was definitely a surprise to me and the more I thought about it, I realized the title didn't have a hidden meaning behind it. It literally consists of a bunch of random events strung together. So, one must assume a man must have gone around and shot these scenes with his movie camera.

Despite the fact that there wasn't a plot, Dziga Vertov still succeeded with this movie for two reasons. The first being that Vertov used this film to express that cinema is an art form. His use of filming random events is almost poetic in a way. People today are always on the go and don't have time to appreciate the things that are around them on a day to day basis. While the clips of the hustle and bustle of the cities and people living their daily lives may seem boring or pointless, I feel like Vertov's reason behind it was to make us take a step back and appreciate life more. His vision for stringing scenes together is very unique and each one serves a purpose.

The second reason this film is a success is due the unique camera angles and locations that were used when jumping from scene to scene. It begs the question, how did the man with the movie camera get access to such places? I mean, there are some scenes where it looks like the clips were shot on tops of buildings, inside other people's cars, and in offices where people are working. He also shot people attending a funeral and a woman giving child birth. Even though I had no idea what was going on in the film, I kept wondering to myself, who is this guy and how does he have access to all of these places?

Overall, this movie was definitely a unique experience to watch. It was the first time I have watched a film without a plot. I didn't think that was possible, but Dziga Vertov proved me wrong. The art of the cinematography is the star in this film.

Mother

Well, now that I have a few silent films under my belt, I feel like I have a pretty good idea about what to look out for in terms of cinematography techniques. After watching "Mother," I noticed a few attributes to the film that were different than the previous three. For example, the acting was more advanced. The actors were not perplexed about exaggerating their body movements throughout the film to make sure the audience had an idea on what the mood of the scene was. On the contrary, I felt as if I was watching a play on screen with no sound. Now, I know what you must be thinking. Isn't that what a movie is? A play on the big screen? Well, technically yes, but the way the director in "Mother" used the set with the entering and exiting of characters gave the film a "play" feel. The dramatic acting only added to the whole package.

Another thing that was interesting I noticed about the film is that it was obvious that Bauer did not direct this movie. Bauer is notorious for using intricate sets with a lot of detail to create an aesthetically pleasing scene for the audience. This was prevalent in "Child of the Big City" in all of the party scenes. In "Mother" I could tell the geometry of the camera shot and the lighting were the main selling points to create a successful scene. This subtle, yet affective approach set the mood rather than using a background that was in sight. I thought this was very clever because it creates a more natural mood to each scene. Our ability to perceive something can be manipulated through this technique whereas when you look at something directly, your perception is dictated by the pattern or object in front of you. This was apparent with the old man in the opening credits. Yes, he was scary looking, but the light and camera angle enhanced this feeling. The light was dimmed except for the scowling look on his face. The camera angle was focused on him from the floor looking up at his face, which made him feel intimidating. 

Overall, "Mother" is definitely not one of my favorite silent films that we have watched so far. That prize is still up for grabs. While it had better acting in terms of balancing exaggerating body movements, it was still pretty hard to follow. I also didn't like that fact that the director reused scenes. I'm not exactly sure the reason behind this, but it felt a bit cheap to me. Maybe, the film had a low budget, I don't know. I do hope that the next film we watch has a better plot though. We'll just have to wait and see.

Silent Film Review

Today marked the first time I watched a full silent movie from start to finish. This type of cinematography is very different compared to any other movie I have ever scene. This is mainly due to the unique qualities that are incorporated in silent films. For example, it was a nice change of pace to focus on the body movement of the actors to understand their emotions in each scene rather than listening to their dialogue. You could anticipate what the actor was feeling or what their lines were going to read. An advantage through this type of cinematography is that the audience has to pay attention to what is going on to understand the full performance of each actor. Their nonverbal cues speak volumes as opposed to the dialogue the audience reads during each scene. However, this can create some challenges for directors. They have to map the scene almost perfectly to convey what they want the audience to feel in the moment. Lighting and ambiance of the scene also have to depict what the mood.

For example, in "The Dying Swan," when the scientist was trying to illustrate death through Gizella's dance, the director used shadows and camera angles very efficiently to create a beautiful and peaceful, yet sad and disturbing mood. While the scientist was trying to draw the end of Gizella's dance in what he perceived to be her purest form, the lighting gave off a dark vibe due to the fact that she was dead. On the other hand, the position of the camera portrayed her body in a way that was peaceful. I also noticed the irony of Gizella's character because she is a mute girl in a silent movie. It is common in Russian cinematography to have small bits of humor for the audience'e amusement. Overall, I felt the tactics the directors used in the film helped enhance the point the was trying to be made to the audience. However, I extremely disliked the plots of each film. Each short film had very negative plot sequences that any decent human being would not be apart of. Let's hope the mood is a bit more cheerful in tomorrow's movie.

Irony of Fate Part 2

Irony of Fate part 2 answered many questions that were left off in part 1. One of them being how Ippolit handled the situation that was unfolding in front of him. In the movie, Ippolit is a stern character who is meant to symbolize reliability and sturdiness in Nadya's life. These qualities also have a correlation on how communism has an impact on the public in Russia. The government's job is to make all of the public's decisions for them. Due to Nadya's age, she needed that sort of figure in her life, otherwise her chances of finding another significant other would have dramatically decreased. The fact that Nadya did find a man completely opposite of Ippolit in Zhenya is very ironic to the classic ideologies in Russia. The humor used in the movie is meant to capture this idea.

The second question part 2 answered was whether or not Zhenya and Nadya would end up together. While the ending of the movie was ironic, it also showed similarities to the endings of many American movies. In a typical American movie plot, a situation occurs where the protagonist feels as if he has done something horribly wrong that diminishes any chance of there being a future with his significant other. But, he always gets the girl in the end, whether he has to peruse her or she comes to her senses and returns back. I also want to shed light on how Zhenya's mother reacted to Nadya with her son. She called Zhenya a "womanizer," which implies she does not initially approve of the woman in Zhenya's life. The matriarchs of families in Russia are the unspoken heads of their households and their opinions are very important. Even after Zhenya dated Galya for a year, his mother still had mixed feelings about her. By incorporating this into the film, the directors give the audience a sense of what the balance of power is like in a typical Russian family.

Overall, I enjoyed the film. I have never watched a Russian movie before so it was interesting to see what Russian humor and a plot process is like. I am looking forward to the next film tomorrow.

Irony of Fate Part 1

Irony of Fate, a Russian made film made in 1975, depicts the mishap between two people who are in the wrong place at the wrong time. What is interesting about the opening credits is the emphasis on how all apartment buildings in Russia look the same. They are almost identical in every city all over the country. This was the most common means of living for the public as well. Even today, it isn't common for someone to own a single home. During the time period in which the movie was made, Communism was the form of government. The idea in this society is that everyone must earn the same amount regardless of profession and that everyone must have the same beliefs.

The film is set during the holiday season. Since it was looked down upon to celebrate Christmas, New Year's Day served as a prelude holiday. People would decorate trees in there homes and share presents, but they made an effort to show these gestures did not have symbolic meaning to the birth of Christ. As the plot of the film begins to unfold, we first see two of the main characters, Zhenya and Galya, decorating their New Years tree in Zhenya's apartment. Zhenya is featured as the protagonist in the film due to his upbeat attitude and willingness to always do the right thing. When he asks Galya to settle down with him, she accepts. In response, Zhenya goes to a bathhouse to celebrate the good news with his friends where he proceeds to get incredibly drunk on vodka and beer. Two of the friends remain sober enough to remember that either Zhenya or their friend Pavlik needs to board a plane to Leningrad from Moscow. By accident, they put the wrong person on the plane. When Zhenya wakes up from his drunken coma on the plane, he gets in a taxi and goes to what he thinks is his apartment in Moscow. When he arrives at his address, to my disbelief, he is able to use his apartment key to gain entry into someone else's home. What is also interesting is that the furniture is very similar to that of his apartment in Moscow. I feel the directors are poking fun at the Communist way of thinking here. The ideology in Russia at the time is that everyone should be equal and that the government makes all the decisions for the public. A few moments later, we are introduced to the second protagonist in the film, and woman named Nadya who is the homeowner.

There is also lot of irony in the way the plot is beginning to unfold. The fact that the Russians built simliar style apartment buildings with the same street names in different cities in an effort to equalize the country is exactly the reason why Zhenya is in this predicament in the first place. When he finally begins to sober up, he realizes the severity of the situation. He is in danger of ruining his relationship with Galya, while Nadya is in danger of being accused of cheating on her boyfriend, Ippolit, for having a strange man in her apartment. Unfortunately, both parties receive the short end of the stick and lose their significant other over this horrible mishap.

My prediction for part 2 of the movie is that Zhenya and Nadya will become close to one another as the night goes on. Nadya has already staged Zhenya as Ippolit to her girlfriends and the two seem to be hitting it off despite the grim circumstances. Honestly, I'm surprised she didn't kick him to the curb the second she lost Ippolit due to his personal issues with his friends getting too drunk and putting him on a plane to Leningrad. But who knows, time will tell...