Russian Ark

You know how some films have long takes that can last for minutes (like Rope), or others that appear to be edit free but really aren’t (like Birdman)?  How about an entire ninety min picture done in a single take for real without trickery?  And not a stripped down thing where it all takes place in one room or with minimal camera movements like you’re watching a play, but a full blown production.  Well a crazy sonuvabitch named Aleksandr Sokurov did just that back in December 2001.  And I guess he felt it wasn’t enough of a challenge already so he went for an epic period piece as well.

As the title implies this is a Russian production and takes place entirely in The Hermitage, the famous gargantuan sprawling art museum (2^nd largest in the world) in St. Petersburg.  The story is about a man who is either dreaming or he’s died and wanders through the endless wings of the museum encountering Russian historical figures like Peter the Great, Catherine the Great and Nicholas (Romanov) II.  This covers from about the late 1600’s to the early 1900’s.  We never see the narrator whose pov we’re using but he meets a travel companion early on, a French aristocrat who is referred to as the European.  Everyone can see and hear the European but the European is the only one that can see and hear the narrator.  That may sound confusing but it’s not at all when you’re watching it.

The two take in many paintings, philosophize about art and a little about life and overall enjoy the collection and various individuals they run into along the way.  They see part of a stage play in a small theater, converse with a woman about van Dyck, sneak through a grand formal ceremony where Russia is hosting Persia and crash a ball where everyone is having a blast doing the latest waltz.  It’s like those Night at the Museum movies where the place has come to life only it’s not incredibly asinine.

The movie works just on this simple abstract story idea level.  I wanna be clear about that because it gets overshadowed by its impressive technical achievements.  I think even if this were shot in a traditional fashion it would still be very engaging and a great piece.

However, half the film really is about the gimmick of one solitary take.  This is the central premise out of which the project grew.  The story came later and was tailored to be relatively modest so the filmmakers could focus enough attention on how to pull off such a feat.  And it took years of planning and a customized steadicam rig and an immense understanding of filmmaking to undertake. 

Sokurov and co only had one day to shoot because that’s all The Hermitage would allow.  So they had to install sets, props and lighting overnight, get all the actors into costume and makeup (over 1,000 in period dress!) and then break it all down.  They managed to get the magic take on the fourth try.  Each time before that they made it less than twenty minutes.  Cameraman/cinematographer Tilman Buttner (Run Lola Run, Downfall, Hanna, Hitman: Agent 47, Metallica: Live in Concert) was suffering from such extreme exhaustion and pain by the last stretch he almost gave up but got an adrenaline boost when he saw the finale ballroom sequence play out before him with hundreds of people dancing and socializing while the orchestra plays the Mikhail Glinka Mazurka.  He fuckin’ powered through and made it to the end.

The Hermitage is a metaphorical ark that houses the finest Russian (and some non-Russian) art.  Anything within its walls, as well as the gorgeous architecture of the museum itself, is to be preserved for future generations even if there’s a catastrophic flood, you know like in that bible doohickey.  As it turns out though the museum ends up being a literal ark as well (I promise that’s not a spoiler), which is pretty silly but at the same time kinda fitting for this dream we sweep through.

This is probably the most Russian-y movie ever (I honestly don’t know if I’ve seen another Russian picture).  It’s serious at times, lighthearted at times, elegant yet disciplined and arty as hell.  But it’s also about one-upmanship (you have a ten min long take?  I have a ninety min long take!), technical prowess, pride and a statement on Russian culture.  One of the most interesting aspects is how critical the European is of Russia and the narrator doesn’t like it.  Sokurov is saying these things about his own country but he uses an outsider to convey them.

Actual shot from the movie and not a
cast photo after they've wrapped

I was expecting this to be pure gimmick with little to no substance but the film turned out to be a very special viewing experience.  Visually the movie is stunning with jaw dropping attention to detail and floating majestic camera work.  It’s clear that this is meant to be seen on a big screen which unfortunately I was not able to do.  That didn’t diminish its effect on me though.

As much as I want to recommend this guy to everyone I come across I know it’s gonna turn a lot of folks off.  Yes it’s pretentious, yes it’s arty, yes it’s an abstract concept, yes it’s pretty damn Terrence Malick-y.  But I’d still say give it a shot.  It’s an amazing journey.

Stan & Ollie

Stan & Ollie is a weird movie.  There are several reasons for this but the biggest might be how dead on Steve Coogan (Night at the Museums) and John C. Reilly (The River Wild) play the famous comedians.  I really forgot I was watching two actors pretending to be other people and fully accepted what was presented to me without hesitation.

And their charm sucks you in immediately.  The picture starts with the team in their dressing room just bullshitting about ex-wives, how much trouble they’ve caused them and having a few laughs.  Then they get up and take the lengthy walk to the soundstage where they’re getting ready to film the dance scene in Way Out West (which this movie fetishizes the shit out of and ends up showcasing three fucking times throughout, I’ll never understand some fans obsession with it).  Along the way Ollie tries to get Stan to come with him on a trip to Tijuana and Stan makes cracks like “I’m never marrying again.  I’m just gonna find a woman I don’t like and buy her a house.”  You know, real slice of life type shit.

This shot from the dressing room to the set is done in one very long take, or it appears to be, either way it’s impressive as hell.  The backlot is bustling with activity as everyone’s either hauling props, scurrying off to shoot or taking a break in between scenes.  The camera keeps moving from behind Stan and Ollie to the side and in front and all around.  And it’s so elegantly done with the boys playfully chatting away and giving their hellos to passersby that it looks effortless when you know it must’ve been a goddamn nightmare to get right.  If this first seven or eight minutes were it, just a short, it would be incredible and even magical how the filmmakers were able to recreate such a specific mood and actually nail the characters.

However, some people thought there was a full fledged movie here.  And that’s probably the next weirdest thing, there’s no story.  At the end of their career in the early fifties Laurel and Hardy embark on a UK tour putting on live comedy shows.  At first the theaters are only half full but by the end they’re selling out several thousand seat venues.  The thing is they don’t have to overcome some challenge to rise to a high level of notoriety and acclaim again.  It happens because the boys do some extra publicity for the media, word of mouth eventually gets around and once folks find out about the shows they want in.

The bit of story that’s wedged in is fabricated and that’s another weird part.  The film shows animosity between Laurel and Hardy over a film Ollie made without Stan in the late 30’s due to their contracts ending at different times with producer/studio owner Hal Roach.  In real life I don’t know if there were hard feelings over that or the other couple of pictures Hardy did without his partner (although later in the late 40’s) but there was no fight in public where they called each other terrible things and threw shit across the room.  I know the protagonists-fight-before-the-climax cliché is in every single thing that’s released nowadays but come on, the fucking Laurel and Hardy biopic too?  If they had scaled it back to where the pair only had a few brief cross words I could accept it more, but the confrontation is so serious and mean that it feels totally out of place in an otherwise lighthearted movie.

Pretty much everything else that happens is true though from what I understand.  And when I say “everything else” I mean the team goes on a tour, it’s a success and they end their career on a high note.  There’s really nothing to tell.  And it’s not like Stan and Ollie led fascinating lives off camera but the filmmakers fucked up and focused on the wrong era.  They were comic geniuses and amazing performers but they were not interesting in real life, like at all.  Between films Ollie was either golfing or betting on the ponies most of the time and when Stan wasn’t in the editing room essentially re-directing the movie (because he would more or less direct during filming) he was constantly working on gags for the next project and writing scripts.

The final weird aspect I wanna point out is the film itself is a comedy.  Going into this I didn’t realize that.  There are bits like the boys hauling a heavy trunk up a flight of stairs only for it to slide all the way down to the bottom like in their short The Music Box, and Stan and Ollie’s wives are like a comedy team unto themselves with Ida Laurel’s (Nina Arianda (Midnight in Paris)) thick Russian accent and misunderstanding of words or phrases and Lucille Hardy’s (Shirley Henderson (Trainspotting)) quick wit.  Again, Laurel and Hardy used silly wife characters in many of their pictures.  This stuff is cute but not laugh out loud funny.  Sure, ridiculous exaggerated characters were a staple of their films but it goes to show you can’t simply recreate gags and assume they will automatically be funny.

This film isn’t for everyone.  If you’re unfamiliar with the comedy team this isn’t going to get you into them.  A better introduction would be to watch the pictures they made (start with the 30’s shorts).  This movie is pretty much only for die hard Laurel and Hardy fans (and if you couldn’t tell already I might be one of those).  There isn’t an intriguing story or characters that you can latch onto even if you otherwise don’t care who these two guys were.  I mean look, Reilly and Coogan are remarkable but if you don’t know where they’re working from it’s probably gonna be lost on you.  I have to admit this actually isn’t a great film but there are great things in it.  The 100% sixty plus crowd I saw it with seemed to enjoy it.

And seeing Reilly in a huge fat suit and tons of prosthetic makeup and believing that that’s really Oliver Hardy and it doesn’t look creepy as shit ok maybe in a few spots when he turns his head too far or opens his mouth too wide and he got the soft southern accent down and the inflection Coogan gives when he speaks that’s instantly recognizable as Stan Laurel and the rhythm of his speech and his child-like facial expressions and the comedy timing of the two guys, well, it’s an extraordinary achievement.  Just don’t expect a plot of any kind.