Reviews

I've read other users' review and noticed that the director could make some of the audience convinced of the seriousness of this film and make them think of "real" situation of contemporary Russian society. That may be one of main intentions of the director. But I think I's better to look back the whole story and to remember many ambiguous points intentionally left by the author. This film is not so simple as it seems to be. I tell you why.

First, the title of the film: everyone who studied Russian literature knows that "Krotkaya" is the same title of F.Dostoevsky's famous novella, and every true lover of author's cinema knows that novella was already made into a film by Robert Bresson. So I,not being too informed of this film, expected that its is Loznitsa's new adaptation of Dostoevsky's story. We can soon realize that it is not. There's nothing in common with that. This is probably the entrance for audience to go into a play with the author.

Second, this film seems full of stereotyped "uncivilized" and "anti-human" images of Russia. Those who are only funs of art-house cinema, not too interested in Russian literature and without deep knowledge of Russian language and habits, probably will take them as "realistic" details. So they will also think that there's really such "Siberian" prison camp near the station named "Otradnoe"(which means "joyful").By the way, there isn't such a prison town in Siberia, as far as I searched on Russian "Wikipedia". Then we enter the second stage of the game. The place is not "real" in any way. When heroine asks an old man the way to the office where she is allegedly be able to address her complaint to the authorities, he tells her a complicated way with streets' names with Lenin, Marx and Dzerzhinsky(Felix Dserzhinsky was the first leader of Soviet secret police). On the wall of that office we can see a portrait of Stalin. It will be impossible in contemporary Russia for such office for defending citizen''s human rights.Well, anti-humanistic nature of contemporary Russia is "symbolized" in such a way?

"Stalinist" theme was orchestrated even before heroine's arrival to the prison town, when she was in the train. Two war veterans sing "The song of 3 tank drivers" form Stalinist film "Traktoristy"(1939) . It's not the single case of reference to old Soviet and Russian cinema. The town which gradually began to look unrealistic and the neighbouring forest with a kitsch house where costume party is held, provide clear reference to one of Kafka-like films of "perestroika" period "Zero city"(1988). And the following violent rape scene within prison car is a reference to "Khrustalyov, mashinu!"(1998) by Alexei German. So the third and the last layer of the game with audience is that of pure association, of cultural memory of Soviet period. This layer also includes the music for celebration, formulas of patriotic speech, etc.

As a whole, "Krotkaya" betrays expectations of those who got into the first and second layers of the film and want to find in it any reference to "concrete" situation within or outside Russia. No one of its characters talks about other countries or areas, except Russian Federation,, as the film turns out to be that of cultural memory and association of Soviet and of Russia. I think It's a very unique film with an unique concept, but a little too long for that kind of a game.

To make long story short, I don't understand what really matters in this film. The plot is rather simple, a lazy jobless middle-aged man living in Los Angels gets in trouble only because his name is identical to the another man who looks a millionaire but in fact lives by the money of the foundation that he represents. The plot may become interesting if the main characters have more concrete biography and have a will to live their life in such so that it would become better than the total wasting of time. But what the authors made of the plot is the contrary. No one of the characters has a will to live otherwise, that is, they want to live only as lazy dogs with no positive or creative purpose. Their sense of justice and sense of duty is lower than average , their desire to have a lot of money without working is not motivated by any thought-out view of the world, and as a result they look very flat and boring people. Here the simple plot is played by very boring people and authors' effort to make simple boring story look interesting resulted in an empty demonstration of cheep and disconnected images (visions of daydreams of the main character). Sorry, but I feel no sympathy for dose lazy and healthy guys only playing but not living.

I noticed that many reviewers associated this film with "Blade Runner" and "I,Robot". Some similarity in the image of the future and of the robots really exists here. But in fact it's not important at all for this film. The concept and the story of this film are far original than the visual effects. The title "Automata" means mechanical dolls mainly made for fun, to entertain the privileged in Europe when democratic system was unimaginable. "Robot" is neologism made by the Czech writer Karel Capek in his play "R.U.R."'(1920), where artificial human-like machines are use all over the world as universal and cheap labor forces. In the play (and in all the films with "robots" borrowing its concept from Capek's play) "robots" are like slaves, tend to overthrow the human control,want to be free, so their violence against human makes a dramatic turning point in those films. By removing all "scientific" details, their plot will not so much different from that of Eisenstein's "Strike" (or Griffith's "The Birth of Nation" if seen from "masters' point of view"). In "Automata" the plot develops in other context; those "automata" don't look like slaves. They rather look like products of awkward and unsuccessful human attempt to make "human-like" machines, as automata before 20-th century. They are not revolutionaries, they have no reason for that, if humans don't interfere their "natural" evolution. They can live without destroying the decaying city where Jacq Vaucan and other characters must live unwillingly to avoid radiation. Violence is made by humans. Many audience maybe don't have sympathy for Jacq who shows compassion for Cleo, but probably have more sympathy for Cleo.Designs of "automata" are (most likely, intentionally) old-fashioned, awkward but somehow reminding hand-maid dolls. Human hands made them with soul, so they received it from human and began to live a real life. Have you ever seen any films with similar concept of "automata". I have. It's "Ghost in the Shell 2" by Oshii Mamoru. While Oshii's film was still partly following plot of a detective hunting "rebel" androids like "Blade Runner", this film is almost completely free from human-centered plot. The last shot of sea is, of course, not real. It's a metaphor of LIFE.

This is probably one of the most underestimated art-house film on IMDb. It left me a great impression when I watched first time in the theater, at the time of its release. Then I watched it again on rental DVD about 10 years ago,and again today. My personal rating of "Walker" became higher every time I saw it.

The anachronism of this film as a artistic decision is not new(such an "estrangement" device was used 20 years before,in Glauber Rocha's "Antonio das Mortes").In addition,late 1980s were the time of "postmodernism" in film art(enough to remember the works of Peter Greenaway and Alexander Sokurov). Political satire is keen and actual. Alex cox'x insight is deep. Here Willam Walker is represented not only a historical figure, rather a symbolic character embodying American-style imperialism in the name of "democracy"and "freedom" of people. The process and outcome of this imperialism are always similar; after the civil war in the name of democracy and liberation of people, comes the enslaving of the nation and people by American dollar and troops, sometimes accompanied with atrocity, hypocritical preaching of Christian ethics by invaders, and at last,poverty struck, politically unstable society. With all of them, the country will gradually be integrated into "global economy", where English is "official"language and "Newsweek" or other media telling us "facts".

All characters in this film is well arranged to make clear the whole mechanism of the above mentioned American imperialism, the basic frame and process of which have been surprisingly consistent over these 150 years.

The satire by Alex cox has its own analytic consistency and logic to explore the above mentioned mechanism of imperialism,.So when on the screen appear helicopter to save only American citizens from the battlefield, television images showing Ronald Reagan, contemporary American soldiers and dead bodies of Nicaraguan people, they seems not at all ridiculous, but look totally "natural"conclusion of the film's artistic system.

From the author of "Spider" and "Videodrome", I have expected from this film far deeper and more original study of the theme.

But watching "Eastern Promises", honestly say,left me an impression of total failure, or "propaganda" designed for audience of Western developed countries.

If you ask Why? I will point out the following moments;

1.Stereo-type characters of "bad guys" from "wild East"; not only Russians, but also Chechens... They are totally lacking of the psychological depth and even lacking of consistency in their behaviors(they say and do only what's needed for the development of the plot)

2.lack of dramatic tension.It's a natural result of the flatness and inconsistency of the characters.

3.Utterly unrealistic representation of various organizations(Russian mafia, Hospital,FSB and Scotland Yard). The large Russian restaurant with wealthy Russian speaking clients(are they so many of them in London?) and the owner is the boss of the mafia with the same title of a popular Soviet film of Perestroika period... National security organization which is so eager to punish the Russian mafia outside their own country as to sending their men into the mafia as a spy... And the hospital, as some reviewer has already pointed out, without any security measures to prevent suspicious outsiders from visiting their nurse or stealing a new-born child...

4.As many reviewers have pointed out, the plot is so flat and with little moments for our surprise, it's impossible to watch this film as an "entertainment", as an well-made "genre film"(from which we will not expect so much authenticity).

5. The shortcomings listed above, nevertheless, would not be so irritating, if this film doesn't pretend to be a serious drama.Its visual style is persuading the viewer to take it seriously, but of course we can't. If someone takes its story to be truthful, then the person must be a naive believer of the representation of the ethnic groups, the countries and their various organizations depicted in this film.

6.In the similar way Soviet propaganda films were made. Namely, they were made on totally one-sided view to "hostile", "different" human groups. Among them there are such genius films as "Battleship Potemkin" and such boring films as "Tractor drivers"(by Ivan Pyriev). The former is among masterpieces because of its formal discovery, humanistic belief and dramatic tension.If a film lacks all of them and has one-sided view to the "East", then what the difference between "Eastern Promises" and "Tractor drivers"?

As in Hollywood "classic"films of 1930-40s,anywhere in the world "blockbuster"films have common weakness--if not eclecticism of style,then noises-seemingly needless scenes and characters in dramaturgy."Statskiy sovetnik" isn't the exceptional case.

But here such flaws are less than any other Russian "blockbusters" in recent years.They are strategically included into the plot,so that they will look necessary elements of the drama(in fact,I think,not). Litovinova,an eccentric lady,strangely sympathetic to revolutionary movement,hating Ppojarskiy and falling in love with Fandorin,is utterly unnatural and inconsistent.But her character is charming in its way and her behavior partly helps the plot developing. The same can be said about the Japanese servant of Fandorin, Masa(again,utterly nonsense if consider the historical moment just before the 1905 revolution). But he also helps the plot developing, including Fandorin's affair with Litovinova and solving the case.

Weakness of style also can be pointed out.Director Philip Yankovsky so often uses dissolve, which make the temporal order of some scenes unclear at their beginning.

In spite of such flaws,"Statskiy sovetnik" is so far the best of Russian "blockbusters" made from 2003 to 2007. Its decent, even elegant look is undeniable. Dramatic elaboration of the "terrorisim" theme is excellent(it's one of the best element of this film),main actors' and operator's works are quite adequate. Some scenes are far above Hollywood analogue(especially,the scenes with tragic lovers:Green and Needle, and verbal duel of Fandorin and Pojarskiy).

As I believe that excellent genre films are far more precious for cinema as a whole than bad "arthouse"films, I rate this 8 of 10.

After the storm of "Globalization" and quick growing of "multiplex"theaters with their overwhelming taste-unifying power, Konstantin Lopushansky remains to be one of the most consistent and humanistic author-filmmakers. His films have always dealt with serious problems threatening human civilization. Global climate change after nuclear war and ecological catastrophe("Lettes from a Dead man" and "Visitor of a Museum"),people's indifference to children's fate and utter powerlessness of contemporary intelligentsiya in the moment of social destruction("Russian Symphoy").

Based on a novel of Strugatsky brothers, "Ugly Swans" shows a new step of Lopushansky's filmography. It is far more easy for ordinary film-goers for watching and understanding than previous works,because in "Ugly Swans" author's own intonation is deliberately concealed under the mask of "popular genre". Author's discourse here is near to that of rather anonymous storyteller, as that of Strugatsky brothers. The story is rather simple. It's of a tragic and desperate trial of Father-writer,representing the conscience of old generations and old civilization, to save his teenage daughter,who has passed through intellectual evolution with other teenagers and become superior,because they now are treated as a threat to the old human being and their civilization. Conservative people are trying to destroy the threat for human being. Children themselves don't want to return to the old world. They are living in some kind of supernatural ZONE,where they are taught by mutated adults called "Mokrytsy(wet people). Father can rescue children,including his own daughter,but outer world is found to be fatal for her in spiritual sense. Apparently, it's a allegory of contemporary cultural crisis embodied mainly by mass medias, which force new generations to stop their intellectual and spiritual development.

As far as I know,previously Russian critics often blamed Lopushansky for his extreme seriousness and preachy approach to audience,but the situation seems to be changed after Lopuchansky's last work. And I heard that the Russian young audiences also saw it with sympathy in film-festivals and in Cinema Museum.

Yes,after the global mode of excessive indulgence in "entertainment" and "blockbusters",at last the time has come for new generation to think their own fate reflected in "serious" films.

I'm very glad to find this film much better than Japanese mass products and half-done "(quasi-)arthouse films", which became worse and more hypocritical in these 10 years. "Nagai sanpo" is a simple story, of parenthood, of neglect and abuse by parent on children and of repentance and spiritual rebirth. An old man and a little girl are shown here as the past and the present, as two contrast persons concerning the same problem. He is a man who harmed and ruined his wife's life and his daughter's childhood. She is the victim of her mother's neglect and abuse. He tries to save her life, giving her a sense of warmth and intimacy, in which her poor family life is lacking. But unfortunately, in the course of things it takes a form of kidnapping. Cinematography is very beautiful and clear,the original music sounds as if an organic part of these characters' state of mind. Not too long, not too slow,everything seems natural and--at the same time--very sad,because we know similar stories are going in reality, children and young people are dying or committing suicide every day because of neglect,abuse and violence of their own parents or their surrounding people.

I don't think this film is so bad,but totally disagree with the opinion that it's a masterpiece. The plot of the film seems to be made for 3 different themes and accordingly, the author must have made 3 different films. These 3 themes aren't new themselves;the importance of belief in love and reliance,the difficulty of relationship between mentally growing child and parents,the inevitability of payment for guilt over beloved people. Director Anderson introduced an additional forth theme; "coincidence as Providence", but it functions only as a formal element without resonance with main 3 themes,because these themes are presented as personal problems of weak people,which can be and must be resolved by themselves.(it is a great difference between Anderson's film and "Stalker" by Tarkovsky, where main characters are humiliated and disappointed by human beings or civilization as a whole,clearly unhappy from the very first scenes).

Namely, there is no justification of "deus ex machina"embodied by the rain of frogs. Presentation of "examples" of coincidences as framing episodes made the situation even worse.By them film became longer than it really needs, and more complex than it might have been,making the film even more inconsistent. Such formal "explanations" and "resolutions" for 3 hours fiction film I can't accept seriously.

"Pyl" is made with incredibly low budget(they said,3000 USD),but much more interesting than some recent Russian "comedies" or "melodramas". They are sometimes well-made,but don't surprise those who knows old Russian popular films in Soviet period.

The story develops around a young, not at all attractive, quite ordinary man Alyosha,whose troubles(including dangerous experiments on innocent citizens in the name of Nation) and simple desires can be understood by everybody in the world. But there is nothing "dramatic" between him and people around him. All that makes this film funny,expressive and critical is his inner vision and his lonely struggles for his own self-image. Probably no one has ever took such a story for a full-length fiction film after 1930s, when cinema began to depict people and its surroundings mainly from outside,to gorily, cherish or criticize visible world only by showing or reconstructing it more expressively than it really is(Sometimes filmmakers added voice-over narration for the same purpose).

In "Pyl", on the contrary, visible world looks boring,banal and hiding nothing spiritual behind it.Alyosha feels its total meaninglessness better than anybody because of his inferiority complex and the sense of powerlessness in it.But when this boring world is reflected in Alyosha's nightmare,it obtains strange charm of absurdity. So his choice of his own vision(ideal self-image)is not only psychologically justified,but also logical from aesthetic point of view. "It's an overall Hell",says the professor to him,warning the risk of death or getting madness. But our ordinary hero chooses his meaningful illusion than meaningless desert called "reality".

Director Sergei Loban,probably, doesn't approve Alyosha's regressive choice. So he added very interesting "postscript" when credit titles flow. Victor Tsoi's famous rock of Perestroika time "We're waiting for changes" sounds with the illustration of sigh languages by an unknown young man.

Alexander Rogozhkin is probably one of the most underestimated Russian directors outside their own country.

"Svoya chuzhaya zhizn" is made as a serial for television,but it's rather a feature film in 5 parts,where author's struggles and experiences in film industry are reflected through a multi-layered narrative structure.

Contemporary St.Petersburg and Petrograd in early 1920s are contrasted as two opposite worlds. Miserable,banal reality around famous film-director Kalistratov and vital, cruel but romantic era of Communist aristocrats and genius poets(first years of NEP). The latter develops only in Kalistratov's imagination, when he's testing locations, young actors and writing scenario. He knows exactly who must play whom and what kind of details are needed for this project.

But he himself doesn't have any chance to realize it as a film. Big television channel has a right to decide, to make it as a tele-serial which their audience can understand. The producer foresees their decision and recommend Kalistratov to write another scenario. His real life is filled with such obstacles and inconsistency not because of his own faults, but of coincidences, happenings and most of all, will of media-magnates.

"Svoya chuzhaya zhizn" is an answer to contemporary Russian "blockbuters" like "72M" or "Night Watch", saying, "You, newcomers from television don't know what you are doing now.You are destroying Cinema and lives of its professionals".

It's not mere coincidence that this serial's producer, Sergei Sel'yanov was also an independent film-director from early 1980s.He is also on Cinema's side.