Hey folks, Harry here. Both of the films to be discussed here will be showing here at Sitges, where I am, and I'm dying to see them. Wish y'all could be here, if not check your local festivals to see if these two will be playing there. Here ya go...
Hello Harry/Moriarty,
Thanks for posting my review of Bowling for Columbine. Here are a couple more films from the Vancouver Film festival. Spider and Russian Ark. If you can only read one a film told with only one 90 minute shot!
FILMS FOR FILMLOVERs
SPIDER by David Cronenberg.
I'm not too familiar with Cronenberg's work. My memories of The Fly are faint, and the only other film I've seen is Existenz. But I get a feeling this film isn't typical of Cronenberg. In Spider, he exercises remarkable restraint. I wouldn't be surprised if this film is shown in film schools for the next ten years.
This is not to say that Spider is an incredible, jaw-dropping spectacle. Rather, it is the complete opposite - a methodical, meticulously-crafted (one might consider minimalistic) gem of a film. Nothing about the film feels superfluous, and everything that it does, it does well. You'd be hard pressed to find anything wrong with this movie. Of course, you'd also have a hard time pointing out anything about the film that was particularly innovative or overly ambitious.
To use an analogy - Some people can go to a modern art gallery, and examine a painting for several minutes. But for other people, it literally feels like watching paint dry (also an accurate description of the film's opening credits). It's pure agony. And then of course, there are the people in between.
I liked it, if that counts for anything (I know, it doesn't; it doesn't). What Cronenberg has done here is taken a relative simple story, and told it masterfully. The film stars Ralph Fiennes as a schizophrenic released from an asylum in East London. He goes on to live in a halfway house where, slowly, his repressed memories come back to haunt him. With Fiennes, the audience is able peice together his character's chilling past.
To say anything else about the story is to effectively ruin it. Just take my word for it - Everything comes together in the end, and flawlessly to boot.
I can go on and on about the cinematography in this film (very purposeful, very beautiful), but it's the performances that are first rate. Ralph Fiennes was so good, he actually made me semi-interested in seeing Red Dragon. I could watch JUST HIM, as this character, in a room, talking to himself for hours and hours. And Miranda Richardson made a mockery of me - much to my embarassment, I hadn't clued in that she had plays TWO main characters in the film, until well after the film was over (in hindsight, its pretty obvious, but it is still a testament to her skill as an actor).
But, as I warned earlier, I heard numerous complaints regarding the pace of the film. While I enjoyed its methodical nature, which allowed me to soak in the film's nuances and subtleties, some of my friends found it laborious. If you are a casual filmgoer - An X-men here, a Happy Gilmore there - you'll probably hate this movie. Sorry. But if you have some kind of invested interest in filmmaking, I more than recommend it, particularly to the many incompotent hacks working as directors today (Yeah, yeah; cheap shot).
And I almost forgot to mention: Hugh Jackman, more commonly known as Leopold, of Kate & Leopold, was in attendance for the screening of Spider. Fans should be delighted to hear that he has grown his hair and sideburns quite long, and had them coiffed in a most strange and otherworldly fashion.
On the completely opposite end of the spectrum ...
THE RUSSIAN ARK by Alexander Sokurov.
Now, here an insane, over-the-top-idea that a second year film student would come up with.
"Let's make a 90 minute film, ALL IN ONE SHOT."
Now, that would be something. A jaw-dropper for sure. Well, Jimmy I'm afraid that the Russians have bested us again. They have done it. They have created a film using ONLY ONE SHOT.
One digital camera.
One 96 minute MOVING shot.
For an EPIC PERIOD peice.
And let's not forget the CAST OF THREE THOUSAND.
Did I mention the film is actually good?
Take a minute to fathom the difficultly of doing something like this.
Now, you're probably thinking, "Who the hell would pay for such an insane, potentially disastrous endeavour?" Well, Russians. Or to be more precise, the St. Petersburg Hermitage museum. You see, this film is meant to serve educational purposes; providing the viewer with a brief history of Russia. The film is set in the museum, travelling through 33 rooms (two kiometres!) which serve as settings for different times and events in Russian history, in which the museum played a crucial role in. We're talking Catherine the Great; Nicholas the II; Hordes of art from all over the Western World; The whole nine yards.
Now your probably imagining something lame, like the Antique Road Show, or your uncle's half-assed Civil War Re-Enactment, or even worse, The Blair Witch Project. Well let me tell you something, mister. Not only is this THE GREATEST TECHNICAL ACHIEVEMENT IN FILM since Jurassic Park broke out the CG dinosaurs, but it is also the most entertaining, most imaginative educational film ... EVER. I hesitate to call it 'educational' because it has a story; a narrative, and is a film in its own right. This will likely be a classic, for either of these accomplishments. It is at least as good as Charles and Ray Eames' classic short, Powers of Ten, and certainly puts those first ten minutes of Snake Eyes to shame.
That they actually put forth the effort to infuse this endeavour with a semblance of story and character should be commended. The two main characters are spirits who explore an 'ark' of Russian history. One spirit, 19th C French diplomat Marquis de Custine, is played charismatically by Sergey Dreiden. De Custine leads the second spirit, voiced by the director Sokurov, around the museum. We watch the history of Russia unfold through the second spirit's eyes, and together the two spirits observe and discuss Russia's cultural anxiety, artistic triumphs and historical failures. It is a showcase of Russian history, but also an informal analysis.
There are moments in the film that are simply inspired, such as when de Custine leads a blind woman in the gallery with the sound of his voice (while those around her think she's talking to thin air). Or when de Custine and the camera weave in between rows of hundreds of Russian dignitaries awaiting the arrival of a Persian diplomat.
The performances are very good, from Sergey Dreiden to Catherine the Great to the extra in the far left corner. Dreiden is on-camera more than half the time, and he doesn't break a sweat. Authentic, from beginning to end.
The extras - oh, God bless those extras. I can imagine one of them, inadvertently looking into the camera, and the director screaming. "You fool! We have to shoot it all over again! I kill you!" At the end of the film, the camera navigates through ALL three thousand extras. Now that's balls.
And the camera man. God bless this man. Thank you for not tripping or losing your balance. I brought up the Blair Witch because, unlike the Blair Witch, the camera work moves exquisitely, expertly framing the action; moving from tight close-ups to wide shots of hallways; zooming-in, zooming out without ever casting a poor view.
And thank God for all the incredible costumes and artwork, not to mention the sheer splendor of the Hermitage Museum itself. Although its only one shot, it doesn't feel like it. And when you remember it is one shot, your mind is successfully boggled.
The film is not perfect, of course. There are moments when its obvious that voices have been dubbed over (it would be difficult to hide microphones in rooms which the camera moves EVERYWHERE). And there is a chance the content simply won't engage you. Maybe you just hate history, and that's that. Maybe you like to watch things get blown up or something. To each his own.
But man! There's an integrity that is evident; when a group of fearless people take a concept, believe in it, and take it to its absolute, furthest extreme. I think its safe to say it will be a while before anyone does anything like this, at this caliber. And it pains me to know that this will probably never see the light of day in America.
Just remember: I liked it. And so did Martin Scorcese (he's thanked in the credits). So if you are ever skimming the movie listings in the paper and its playing, or see it in a video store, check it out.
Oh, the preparations! The coordination! The logistics! A 90 minute moving shot!
-- Defacer
