The Sacrifice (Offret)

Made in 1986, this is the final film by Andrei Tarkovsky. It was made whilst he was dying of cancer and died shortly after the making. This was filmed outside of the Soviet Union, in Sweden, home to one of his most admired directors, Bergman. 

The film takes place hours before a nuclear catastrophic event -- World War III. The protagonist is relaxing in a field with his son refered to as "Little man", joking around with him, and also venting his philosophical qualms (the lack of spirituality in modern manking) as the child plays in the grass. Those not familiar with Tarkovsky's films would find it slow, boring, and difficult. 

What is strange, is there's this working class man -- the 'friend' -- and the university professor (the main character) discussing Nietzsche and other modern philosophers, whilst the working class guy randomly circles around on his bike, as if in a lucid dream.

The man makes a prayer to God, saying he'll leave (sacrifice) all he has if the war ends/never happens. Perhaps it was all a dream? One of the real disasters in the film was a major camera breakdown, resulting in one very important shot going to waste. If you pick up the DVD, you'll get another disc with a documentary on Tarkovsky, and the filming of The Sacrifice.

Whilst preferring the atmospheric nature of Tarkovsky's post-apocalyptic Stalker I found The Sacrifice stunningly beautiful. There are extremely long shots in the film, one being over nine minutes. The use of imagery is varied against a rural Swedish setting, but a careful eye is required to notice the shifting from colour to black and white -- a style Tarkovsky had used in other films. The natural flowing of the character's placement on set, the stories the post-man has, the way the family interacts, and isolates itself from each other -- it all flows into a gorgeous work of art, with such careful symbolism throughout.

Tarkovsky is not a very accessible "entertaining" film-maker (he claimed that films set out to entertain insult him); some viewers claim his work makes a great demand on the viewer's attention span, but surely there are other ways to depict disaster other than explosions?

This film allows us to see into the soul of Tarkovsky. The music from Bach, Japanese flute, Swedish traditional songs, and the essential rich philosophical dialogue is just as unforgettable as the imagery. Tarkovsky's work on the screen seemed such a natural, beautiful form of art and for that, unlike many others that found The Sacrifice upsetting and left the cinema in '86 with tears, I'm upset because there will be no one like Tarkovsky.

The Sun (Сóлнце) - A. Sokurov

Russian film, Japanese history. Director - Alexander Sokurov, who is best known for his epic Russian Ark -- a film done in 1 take, 1 shot, which would highlight him as slightly more adventurous than most directors we know today. The film is set during the final days of WW2, and is part of a series of films that centre around political figures -- the others being Hitler and Lenin. The Sun's political figure is Japanese Emperor Shōwa Hirohito.

I don't know much about Hirohito, or why he talks really weirdly in this (even when talking Japanese) -- as if his tongue's too big for his mouth, which is intriguing. Perhaps a type of etiquette? The film epitomizes character study. The directory himself claimed not to be interested with politics and what you'd be taught from, say, the History Channel, and so those subjects are partially ignored. Hirohito's in a bunker (as they all are), yet in the Imperial Palace, which is quite cozy, rather than claustrophobic hell. He reminisces not so much on the past, but on his and the future of Japan -- or lack of it. 

It's a film that requires a lot of input from the viewer, introspection on this level is better suited to novels, but Sokurov's work will appeal to (and impress) certain audiences. Refraining from spoiling the plot -- or giving you a history lesson -- this is a film about what the man was or might of been feeling at the time (and throughout his life), his responsibilities, and his reflection on possible war crime accusations, which lead to awkward meetings to dictate peace terms with an American commander. Therefore, this is a film so many viewers will be either bored with, and perhaps bitterly disappointed that they weren't getting a historical romp or a heavy political showing.

Issei Ogata is the best Japanese actor I've seen -- especially in a role like this. What makes this role even more impressive in scale and to accomplish from Ogata's perspective is the fact that this wasn't screened in Japan due to right-wing extremists getting angry over the portrayal of Hirohito, yet Ogata and the other actors still had the guts to work with Russian director (and cinematographer) Sokurov to make this wonderful exploration of a 'human being' in an incredible situation. To think we as individuals, governments, uniting bodies and every country in the world fear atomic warfare -- this was the Emperor of a country watching his world burn before his eyes -- something even the Emperor, who was considered a deity in Japan -- a God amongst men -- couldn't control, or perhaps even understand; little of us can.

The Island (Остров) -- Pavel Lungin

the version I have

The first time I watched this film, I thought it was going to be full of overly orthodox religious Christian themes, and was a film made solely for religious audiences. I'm not saying that's not the case, but there are elements of this film that I had ignored.

The themes present in religious elements in the film such as faith, redemption, and grief are present in humanity in general, monks are just used as characters. As the film progresses, it becomes more accessible to even atheists, allowing us to empathise with the main character, appreciate the solace, and the surrounding island scenery.

The Island is an obvious title, and I bet it also refers to the monk being an island of his own. Taking place on a remote northern Russian island, holding a monastery full of monks, the protagonist being one himself, his peers are wearing robes and being the typical robed Holy guys, he's covered in coal, being called a joker, pulling pranks, and is fairly eccentric with members of the community coming to see him.

The reason he's a monk is at the start, he's serving in WW2 in the north and gets into a confrontation with the Nazis, and loses his friend. Without spoiling it, he blames himself, so becomes a monk. Throughout the feel you sometimes wonder if he really wanted to become a monk, because he's an individualist, even criticizing and mocking the way they pray, their manners, etc.

The film even contains some laugh out loud humour (from the eccentric monk clashing with the others), but it never breaks away from the desolate feel of the place. The basic piano loop music works really well, giving the film a genuine feel for the ground it's covering.

Not much light in that part of the world after all... but a fair amount in this film. I hail this as a great film, rather than a Church-goers best friend.

Александра

This is a Russian film from 2007 directed by Alexsandr Sokurov. It is set during the Second Chechen War.

A old woman visits her grandson who she hasn't seen for 7 years at his camp. He's an officer, and is still doing his duties, but gets to talk to her here and there. She is quite a strong woman (but not irritating), and visits the nearby village, talks to the soldiers, and basically just has a wander around the area.

This is a very delicate film. Many people won't enjoy it, and will just see it as a woman wandering around a military camp, and that's it. You don't need to know the history or politics behind the war; the director has claimed the film isn't about that. I agree, I felt that's not the perspective you're given. This film isn't what you'd expect from a war film -- I don't know if it is one. There's no action, it doesn't deal with the extreme hardships of war, it doesn't show the mental and physical strain... Unless you want to think deep it doesn't show much.

I enjoyed it. I liked the woman's attitude, I thought there was great cinematography in places, the musical score worked really well. There wasn't an obvious contrast between a war going on and the relationship with her grandson, why does there need to be? I did feel that a lot of the things we are so nurtured with when it comes to seeing war in film won't be found here and can imagine reviewers calling this 'pretentious'.

We always think we know what's going on in war, we think we know what happens, and we've had a lot of that fed to us via newspapers and film. That's what makes this "war film" completely original. An atmosphere that is completely devoid of human comfort with someone's grandmother walking around talking to the soldiers and talking with the locals living in the war-torn country make this film seem so honest.

Возвращение

The Return is a Russian film from 2003 directed by Andrey Zvyagintsev.

2 boys haven't seen their father for 12 years. He turns up one day and takes them on a trip, and then to an island. I thought the acting was very good, especially from the younger child. As far as cinematography goes, this film doesn't let you down. Considering the setting of this film though, it would probably be difficult not to exploit the beautiful scenery.

After watching, I will admit I was disappointed. Of course the speculation is all about the father figure, and online there are these cheap takes on it. After reading some of the better thoughts about it, I think the best explanation I've seen for this is that the father was a political prisoner.

Without thinking about this film, and being told that "you didn't understand it, therefore you won't get it" it's a very average experience, and is fairly nostalgic of some film you'd see on T.V and enjoy up to a certain point. Once it's finished, you'll realise it is a weak film, one you'll forget about, unless you want to speculate about things online. Something major happens, and the outcome doesn't fit -- which I'll admit does offer speculation. However, you know the ending is going to be predictable, and for something that did have good elements to it seems a waste.

Sadly the boy who played the older of the brothers drowned shortly after shooting the film...

Биҳишт фақат барои мурдагон

To Get to Heaven, First You Have To Die

Film directed in 2006 by some director. Don't even know why I'm bothering to blog about this. It's Russian/Tajik.

Very sparse. Very bleak. No enjoyment. Nothing to appreciate. Very slow. Not much dialogue. Even the 'action' scene was dull. The thing is, it's meant to be.

(When I say "apparently" its because the back of the case says it, or some description of the film on a website)
Back of the case it calls itself a "less-is-more" film. The main actor/protagonist was fairly good. Gets naked in the film. Probably regrets doing so now. Is married from a young age (19?). We don't get to see his wife. Apparently impotent. Doctor again, apparently, says there's nothing wrong with him. Goes to 'the city'. The city seemed like a barren wasteland to me: buses to warehouses out in more rural environments. You don't get to know it's a city at all.. There weren't any tumbleweeds because then the film might of had some atmospheric depth.

Wanders around aimlessly with this "big, wide eyes" look - I'll give the descriptions that. He tries to touch peoples hands on the bus -- very subtly, nothing clichéd or totally perverse (slowly sneaking his hand over to a woman's on a railing). I'll also agree with the case/descriptions "country boy naivete" mainly because the character was lifeless, as were all of them, and the whole film. Actually, I don't see how having large eyes and keeping them open for a shot and wandering around after anonymous woman connotes to "country boy". I think all these negative aspects of the film is why people claim to appreciate it, or are supposed to appreciate it.

There was no real character development, the woman which this article claims he was in love with he saw twice and did nothing to express any sort of emotion with (pointless shagging scene at the end when he's in his jacket. About the only message the films give you). The film had no real atmosphere to it. Or culture. It was very unbelievable, and didn't offer itself anything to be taken hypothetically. The woman who he meets -- they don't even converse. That's not emphasised enough either to make a valid point or plot. Turns out she has a husband, and the guy is somewhat forced into breaking into houses and such with him. Even those events seemed dull and boring, and Mr. Criminal didn't have any impact on the audience.

I could go on. I could find more synonyms for boring, sparse, and dull, but then I'd be just like this film. If critics and the Cannes festival want to say "less-is-more", it just confirms they're pretentious. This film isn't even dull in a good way, but that's what makes it good, apparently.