Calling all historians.
Frank Martin
trailer it promises to be a tour de force of Winter Palace
architecture, history, scenic views, artefacts, costumes,
manners and most importantly, of Grand Balls. I'll see it
tomorrow on the big screen.
Alex
> I have not yet seen the movie "Russian Ark",
What is it about? Is it a documentary or fiction? Who made it?
> but from the
> trailer it promises to be a tour de force of Winter Palace
> architecture, history, scenic views, artefacts,
It should be a VERY LONG movie (it takes few hours just to walk
throug, without stopping)
>costumes,
> manners and most importantly, of Grand Balls.
Of which period? You know, it was functioning for appr
century and a half. Costumes and manners changed substantially over this
period.
It would be interesting to find out how did they "make" the balls.
AFAIK, there was some surviving documentary from pre-Revolutionary
time but I don't remember if this was a ball in the Winter Palace.
Of course, if this is a fiction, the authors can do their own
"greater than life" version. :-)
> I'll see it
> tomorrow on the big screen.
Please, share the details.
Drew Nicholson
news:f8e58188.03042...@posting.google.com...
> "Frank Martin" <fr...@general.com.au> wrote in message
news:<b89t3h$1g2v$4...@otis.netspace.net.au>...
> > I have not yet seen the movie "Russian Ark",
>
> What is it about? Is it a documentary or fiction? Who made it?
>
http://www.russianark.spb.ru/eng/
> > but from the
> > trailer it promises to be a tour de force of Winter Palace
> > architecture, history, scenic views, artefacts,
>
> It should be a VERY LONG movie (it takes few hours just to walk
> throug, without stopping)
>
Not only that, but it's _supposed_ to be done all in one shot, in one take.
> >costumes,
> > manners and most importantly, of Grand Balls.
>
> Of which period? You know, it was functioning for appr
> century and a half. Costumes and manners changed substantially over this
> period.
>
It's supposed to cover the "history" of the museum.
OldWilmington
Worth every second of the 88 minutes...
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FILM_RUSSIAN_ARK?SITE=DEWIL&SECTI
ON=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
"
Frank Martin" <fr...@general.com.au> wrote in message
news:b89t3h$1g2v$4...@otis.netspace.net.au...
Alex
> "Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f8e58188.03042...@posting.google.com...
> > "Frank Martin" <fr...@general.com.au> wrote in message
> news:<b89t3h$1g2v$4...@otis.netspace.net.au>...
> > > I have not yet seen the movie "Russian Ark",
> >
> > What is it about? Is it a documentary or fiction? Who made it?
> >
>
> http://www.russianark.spb.ru/eng/
Ah, THIS one. Saw its introduction on Russian TV channel. Thanks.
>
> > > but from the
> > > trailer it promises to be a tour de force of Winter Palace
> > > architecture, history, scenic views, artefacts,
> >
> > It should be a VERY LONG movie (it takes few hours just to walk
> > throug, without stopping)
> >
>
> Not only that, but it's _supposed_ to be done all in one shot, in one take.
>
Yes.
> > >costumes,
> > > manners and most importantly, of Grand Balls.
> >
> > Of which period? You know, it was functioning for appr
> > century and a half. Costumes and manners changed substantially over this
> > period.
> >
>
> It's supposed to cover the "history" of the museum.
Judging by the comments on Internet, the movie is very popular
among the foreigners and produced some sceptical remarks from some
Russians who have a clue about the subject. Like this one:
"...There was not a single officer or a soldier to protect Nicolas II
when he was arrested by three unarmed deputies of the Duma. Nicolas
never dined with his family in a parade uniform. He was a most modest
man. Russian officers never danced in Zimni in the wellington boots.
Sokurov's team should know. The list is long… But it is OK for most of
the audience. Many Russians when they see the movie will take it not
as a piece of art, but as a preaching or a Sunday speech of the church
minister..."
Alex
> This article on _Russian Ark_ is one of the best! I've seen the film twice.
> Worth every second of the 88 minutes...
>
> http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FILM_RUSSIAN_ARK?SITE=DEWIL&SECTI
> ON=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
> "
IMO, the article is written by an excited but rather stupid person
(not a rare
combination for the Russian journalist). :-)
"The film begins with guests arriving for a ball and follows them into
the Hermitage, Russia's most famous museum of art and history"
The guests arriving for the ball were not the tourists looking at the
paintings in Hermitage (if they had been interested in art, they
already
saw all of them more than once) and, IIRC, one did not have to make
a trip through the museum part to get to the ballroom.
"Then it takes detours into the bowels of the building for a meeting
with a French diplomat, the Marquis de Custine, who will become the
world-weary, cynical guide to Russian history."
IIRC, de Custine visited Russia as a private person (can check this)
and
not as a diplomat. He is hardly a "guide to Russian history" because
his
book dedicated to his personal experiences, when he travelled in
Russia
during the reign of Nicholas I. The excursions into the earlier
historic
periods are minimal. The book is interesting, but too heavily
influenced
by a personal dislike to Nicholas I and I suspect that the author was
too much irritated by the bed bugs to be even marginally objective.
:-)
"Director Sokurov, who calls the Hermitage "the storehouse of the
Russian soul," plays the unseen narrator who wakes up to find himself
in the Hermitage Palace of the 18th century"
(a) Hermitage hardly has too much to do with the "Russian soul", with
the
possible exceptions of bedchamber of Catherine II (she was a pure
German
but some Russians definitely visited this room) and the Hall of 1812
(the paintings of the Rusian generals done by Englishman).
(b) What on Earth de Custin had to do with XVIII century?
"On his journey with the marquis, the two encounter Peter the Great
punishing a general"
I wonder, why not Ivan the Terrible. He had alsmost the same chance to
punish somebody in the Winter Palace as Peter the Great. The obvious
question is: are both Sokurov and author of this article
pathologically
ignorant in the Russian history or simply think (not without a reason)
that the foreign viewers will eat all this crap without thinking?
[A clue: WP was buit decades after Peter's death]
"Russia's last Czar, Nicholas II, having dinner with his family."
As one of the viewers commented, Nicholas would not wear a parade
uniform for
such an ocassion. :-)
"They pause to remark on great works of art, catch a glimpse of the
poet Pushkin, and all the while debate the soul of Russia, ever
divided between East and West."
All this in a single shot? Wow! As one Pushkin's contemporary wrote:
"Nothing is a problem for the fool".
BTW, IIRC, de Custin hardly could catch a glimpse of Pushkin because
the
poet was already dead when marquis visited Russia. Or, if marquis had
been
transfered to the XVIII century by a time machine, not born yet.
"He said he was determined from the outset to make no hidden edits,
even if some of the episodes were flawed."
Did anybody see "Ed Wood"? "Only the big picture matters!" :-)
E. C. Lee
<snip film review>
> Did anybody see "Ed Wood"? "Only the big picture matters!" :-)
Loved "Ed Wood".
Haven't seen the picture you've been discussing yet. It did get
great reviews so it was under consideration. If I finally get to
check it out, I'll keep your comments in mind and take it all in with
a grain of salt.
Eve
Alex
I did not see the picture either and Sakurov is a little bit after
my time in SU: he started when I was there and, IIRC, already had a
reputation for being "stylish" (so you probably should like him :-) )
but I simply don't remember any of his movies (providing I saw then
at this time).
I can easily believe that the movie is "watchable" if one is looking
for a "big picture" without regard to its correctness. Not sure why
it was necessary to make the whole thing in a single shot, except for
the advertisement purposes.
One more thing which makes me "uncomfortable" about this particular
movie is that de Custin dedicated to the Hermitage less than 3 pages,
out of which appr 2 pages are occupied by a reproduction of the Catherine's
"code of counduct" in the Hermitage and author's somewhat uneducated
comment on Catherine's joke about poet V.K.Trediakovsky (whose name he
misspelled). Regarding the Hermitage itself, he remarked that colloection
is overfilled with the second-rated paintings and that he prefers
the Rembrandt's paintings from other collections, esp. Louvre.
So, the movie presumably about the Hermitage, hardly can have de Custin
as a central figure. A probable reason for his inclusion (BTW, I checked
his biography, he was not a diplomat: a short-lived attempt to put him
on Taleirand's staff failed due to the absense of any relevant talent)
perhaps is in his overdeveloped rusophobia, which was always fashionable
(in a somewhat masochistic way) among certain parts of the Russian
intelligentsia, starting from Chaadaev (XIX century). Not that many things
he wrote were not true but, if taken within a context of the times, most
of them were rather common for Europe in general (eg, the habits of the
young nobility).
OldWilmington
>
> Judging by the comments on Internet, the movie is very popular
> among the foreigners and produced some sceptical remarks from some
> Russians who have a clue about the subject. Like this one:
>
> "...There was not a single officer or a soldier to protect Nicolas II
> when he was arrested by three unarmed deputies of the Duma. Nicolas
> never dined with his family in a parade uniform. He was a most modest
> man.
>Russian officers never danced in Zimni in the wellington boots.
Hi, Alex. What did they use as footwear?
Also, some Russians I spoke to outside the theater claim the ball had to
take place during Pushkin's time, but another article said this was
supposedly a 1915 event. Poor Pushkin was shown on the way out calling for
his wife among the ballgoers. Yet some of the women were wearing Princess
of Wales plumes that I thought were from the Victorian epoch.
> Sokurov's team should know. The list is long. But it is OK for most of
> the audience. Many Russians when they see the movie will take it not
> as a piece of art, but as a preaching or a Sunday speech of the church
> minister..."
I think the answer to Custine's question "What form of government do you
have now. A republic?" was "I don't know." from the narrator.
I should have put this to my Polish cousins in Warsaw a month ago. They
would have the answer. ;-)
Donata Lewandowski Guerra
OldWilmington
> "OldWilmington" <Oldwil...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<hLhqa.35992$RE3.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
> > This article on _Russian Ark_ is one of the best! I've seen the film
twice.
> > Worth every second of the 88 minutes...
> >
> >
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FILM_RUSSIAN_ARK?SITE=DEWIL&SECTI
> > ON=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
> > "
>
> IMO, the article is written by an excited but rather stupid person
> (not a rare
> combination for the Russian journalist). :-)
In that case, a more "stimulating" viewpoint from a superior American
intellect ;-) ! :
The Winter Palace
Alexander Sukorov takes an imaginative journey through Russia's ancient
past--via one of its oldest museums
B Y G O D F R E Y C H E S H I R E
Are you interested in beauty, or only its representation?
April 16, 2003
M O V I E F E A T U R E
-- from Russian Ark
Photo By Alexander Belenkiy
The dance of change: Officers and ladies relish a cultural past as a new
century approaches
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Conceivably the most brilliant and important foreign-language film that will
play the Triangle this year, Alexander Sukorov's Russian Ark contains
innumerable marvels, yet its primary fascination can be easily described: It
is the first feature in movie history to be comprised of a single shot, a
shot that takes the viewer on an extraordinary, dreamlike journey through
the Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg.
Lest that make it sound like a mere technical stunt wedded to a fancy museum
tour, let me emphasize that Sukorov's dazzler is a triumph of imagination
and craft on every level, as singular a work of art as any on the walls of
the Hermitage.
The film's technical side, though, is breathtaking purely on its own. Movies
haven't been made in single shots before because cameras use reels that
generally can't contain more than 12 minutes of film. Russian Ark was made
possible by a confluence of new technologies, primarily high-definition
digital video, which results in an image comparable to fine-grained film,
and an advanced computer hard drive that allows all the information to be
stored during the film's shooting.
Even so, what's amazing here is not the technology but the film's execution.
If you've ever seen a movie being filmed, you know that even shots lasting
only 10 or 15 seconds usually have to be repeated several times because of
technical mistakes, an actor flubbing his lines, or other problems. In
Russian Ark, the shot runs 89 minutes and encompasses elaborate movement
through miles of galleries and ballrooms, as well as the activity of
hundreds of actors and three symphony orchestras(!), and it all comes off
without a hitch.
To take this challenge almost to the point of absurdity, Sukorov and company
had to accomplish their single shot in one take, because the Hermitage
declined to close its doors to the public for more than a day. How did they
do it? Well, they rehearsed in other spaces for months on end, working out
every movement of actors and camera down to the finest details.
Still, the gods of cinema must have wanted this movie to happen, because
Sukorov and his wizardly director of photography, Tillman Buttner (a German
who shot Run Lola Run) , pulled off what has to be the most complex and
amazing feat of camera choreography in the history of movies. Honestly, I
don't know that I've been as impressed with a movie on a technical level
since I encountered 2001: A Space Odyssey at Raleigh's old Ambassador
Theater in 1968.
Russian Ark opens outside the Hermitage as people in 19th century dress,
dashing officers and their beautiful ladies, make a jumbled, high-spirited
entry to the palace. The first words we hear are, "I open my eyes and I see
nothing. I only remember there was an accident ..."
Throughout the movie we are looking through the eyes of the man who utters
these words--the Narrator. We never learn much about him other than that
he's Russian, but we quickly gather he has just died and awakened in this
place. He soon meets the movie's other main character, a caustic French
writer-diplomat named Custine (Sergei Dreiden) who's been dead much longer.
Custine (an actual historical figure who left memoirs of his time in Russia)
also seems to have no idea why his spirit is suddenly in this palace, which
he'd visited in life. (At first he thinks he's "in Chambord, under the
Directoire," only to be told, sadly, that Russian's own Directoire lasted 80
years.) Yet the Frenchman quickly begins to serve as the Narrator's Virgil,
leading him on an excursion through the Hermitage during which they cross
paths with modern museum-goers as well as figures such as Catherine the
Great and Czarina Anastasia.
With his black frock coat, upswept hair and theatrical manner, Custine is a
witty, entertaining guide, mixing dollops of aesthetic appreciation and
historical observation with barbed comments about all things Russian.
Sometimes he converses with the people he encounters; at other times he and
the Narrator remain invisible to others.
As its almost ceaselessly moving hand-held camera negotiates an endless
succession of gorgeous rooms, the movie has the feel of a mysterious
odyssey, a voyage into history and memory unlike any other. The first time
through, simply watching it is intoxicating. Yet Russian Ark is also the
first film I've seen in ages that grows more fascinating on repeat viewings,
which allow one to get a better sense of its multi-leveled meanings--another
thing it shares with 2001.
Regarding these meanings, the initial tip I would offer first-time viewers
is to notice how the film seems organized according to the principle of
twos, or doubleness. No doubt this is because Russian Ark is deliberately
self-reflexive--a work of art that is also a work about art--thus every
image also produces or implies its reflection.
Notice, in any case, how many of its elements occur in twos, beginning with
the two main characters (including a Narrator who says that he's a Gemini!)
and the implications of the film's two-word title. The first of numerous
biblical allusions, "ark" suggests two primary referents--Noah's Ark as a
physical refuge from ruin, the Ark of the Covenant as a vessel of communal
values--both of which apply to the Hermitage and Russian Ark itself.
With its sinuously musical flow, the film might be said to unfold in
movements, like a symphony. Yet, apropos the principle of twos, I think it
also divides into halves that reflect the Hermitage's dual identity as a
present-day museum and the former home of Russia's czars: The first half,
where Custine tours the museum's picture galleries, might be titled "art"
while the second half, which transpires mainly in the palace's state
apartments and ballrooms, might be called "history."
The theme of Russian identity predominates throughout and in the first half
centers around another duality: Russia and Europe. As he begins looking at
paintings, aware that St. Petersburg itself was created as a European city
in Russia, Custine superciliously remarks that the czars "were Russophiles,
but drawn to Italy," and that Russian art is never more than imitative and
second-rate.
The idea here, which filters throughout the film, is that culturally
Russians are bifurcated, forever obliged to see themselves through both
Russian and European lenses. But as for the putative corollary that Russian
art is necessarily inferior, I would say Russian Ark itself constitutes a
witty riposte to that, since it's easily as accomplished as any European
"art film" of late, and perhaps even more impressive as a vessel of European
tradition both cultural and cinematic.
The film's first half also presents various casually articulated arguments
about art, all of which redound on the filmgoer. Is Sukorov's movie an
elaborate allegory which those not versed in Russian history can't hope to
understand? It's easy to suspect as much, given its dense and playful
allusiveness. Yet I think the film answers this question in a scene where
Custine examines paintings in which different elements symbolize certain
things (e.g., a chicken means avarice), and we're reminded that we have left
this world of settled symbolism.
So, unlike The Odyssey or the Divine Comedy, Russian Ark doesn't emerge from
a culture of cohesive meanings. Rather, it belongs to the dispossessed
tradition of modernism and--like The Waste Land, or Ulysses, or The
Cantos--looks back on those lost cultures from a perspective that is
inevitably eclectic and idiosyncratic.
The film exhibits a similarly playful way with meaning when it comes to
cinema aesthetics and history. I admit I laughed when Custine complained of
a painting of Saint Cecilia being hung next to The Circumcision of Christ.
This must be the most droll swipe ever at Sergei Eisenstein's theory of
montage, the cornerstone of Soviet cinema (it's doubly funny if we read
Custine as a stand-in for another French Catholic writer, Andre Bazin, whose
theories overthrew Eisenstein's).
Sukorov inhabits this territory very comfortably. He knows that he's giving
new meaning to Dziga-Vertov's idea of the "Kino-Eye" and that, as Hitchcock
proved in Rope (a film crafted to look like it was made in one shot),
Eisenstein's idea of intellectual montage didn't depend on editing in any
case. Yet looming over all this is the rueful irony that Russian Ark may be
cinema, but it is not film, and therefore it can only refer back to an art
defined by a now-vanishing technology.
The nostalgia endemic to that position (like Custine, the film is a ghostly
visitor at the ball) also infuses the movie's second half, where the
dialectic between Europe and Russia gives way to another: Public versus
private. The Winter Palace, of course, served both functions. Thus, while we
glimpse Catherine the Great as well as Nicholas II and Alexandra with
children in family quarters, we also witness an elaborate ritual in which
Nicholas I receives a Persian prince.
Thanks in part to the subtle manipulation of color and light levels in these
sequences, they virtually glow with an aureate radiance that mournfully
whispers, "Look, look what was lost." Sure, the people we see are cosseted
and privileged, yet the film's emphasis falls on the evanescent essentials:
Beauty, grace, humanity, life. Against these, tragically, are posed the
encroaching shadows of the 20th century, symbolized by a hidden room of
corpses and coffins.
Public and private, symbol and sentiment converge in a double tour de force
that climaxes the movie. In the first of two astonishingly realized
sequences, both Custine and the camera join scores of officers and their
ladies (the ones we saw at first) in dancing a spirited mazurka that, like a
valentine from Tolstoy and Renoir, seems to provide a soaring elegy for an
entire way of life. When the music stops, the Narrator leaves Custine,
saying, "Goodbye Europe, it's over."
What comes next can barely be described, but it's one of the most haunting
sequences I've ever seen in a film: Hundreds of ballgoers amble down the
palace's vast marble staircases, like phantoms knowing they must disappear
with the dawn. The camera then glances out of a side door and sees a
steaming river that precisely recalls Tarkovsky's illusory planet, Solaris.
As we realize how many odysseys Sukorov has invoked--Noah's, Homer's,
Joyce's, Kubrick's and Tarkovsky's cinema's--we are told, in a tone too
gnomic to be reassuring, that the voyage is not over: "We are destined to
sail forever ... ."
The words linger long after the phantoms have faded into nothingness.
Frank Martin
I'll go back in about a week.
"Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f8e58188.0304...@posting.google.com...
| Sokurov's team should know. The list is long. But it is OK
E. C. Lee
> "Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f8e58188.03042...@posting.google.com...
> > "OldWilmington" <Oldwil...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:<hLhqa.35992$RE3.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
> > > This article on _Russian Ark_ is one of the best! I've seen the film
> twice.
> > > Worth every second of the 88 minutes...
> > >
> > >
> http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FILM_RUSSIAN_ARK?SITE=DEWIL&SECTI
> > > ON=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
> > > "
> >
> > IMO, the article is written by an excited but rather stupid person
> > (not a rare
> > combination for the Russian journalist). :-)
>
> In that case, a more "stimulating" viewpoint from a superior American
> intellect ;-) ! :
>
> The Winter Palace
>
> Alexander Sukorov takes an imaginative journey through Russia's ancient
> past--via one of its oldest museums
>
> B Y G O D F R E Y C H E S H I R E
>
Well, that does sound interesting. Thanks! I will have to try to see
it. But I won't be looking at it as an historical reference source!
Eve
Alex
> "Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f8e58188.03042...@posting.google.com...
> > "OldWilmington" <Oldwil...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:<hLhqa.35992$RE3.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
> > > This article on _Russian Ark_ is one of the best! I've seen the film
> twice.
> > > Worth every second of the 88 minutes...
> > >
> > >
> http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FILM_RUSSIAN_ARK?SITE=DEWIL&SECTI
> > > ON=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
> > > "
> >
> > IMO, the article is written by an excited but rather stupid person
> > (not a rare
> > combination for the Russian journalist). :-)
>
> In that case, a more "stimulating" viewpoint from a superior American
> intellect ;-) ! :
I'm not sure that the "American intellect" will be much superior or more
knowledgeable. :-)
>
> Photo By Alexander Belenkiy
>
> The dance of change: Officers and ladies relish a cultural past as a new
> century approaches
BTW, is it true that the officers of XIX century are dancing in the high
boots?
> Conceivably the most brilliant and important foreign-language film that will
> play the Triangle this year, Alexander Sukorov's Russian Ark contains
> innumerable marvels, yet its primary fascination can be easily described: It
> is the first feature in movie history to be comprised of a single shot,
Not true. The very first movies, like "Arrival of the train", had been
done in a single shot. :-)
[]
>
> Russian Ark opens outside the Hermitage as people in 19th century dress,
This more or less removes the need in the further investigations regarding
the author's intelligence or at least his education. :-)
Fashions changed dramatically from 1801 to 1900 so the author is obviously
seriously ... er .... "innocent" about the history.
> dashing officers and their beautiful ladies, make a jumbled, high-spirited
> entry to the palace.
AFAIK, the Winter Palace was not exactly a country fair and "dignity" would
be much more appropriate. BTW, the author obviously confuses Hermitage
(museum) and the Winter Palace (part of which Hermitage occupies). The
halls of Hermitage are not well-suited for the balls: too many statues in
the middle.
>The first words we hear are, "I open my eyes and I see
> nothing. I only remember there was an accident ..."
>
> Throughout the movie we are looking through the eyes of the man who utters
> these words--the Narrator. We never learn much about him other than that
> he's Russian, but we quickly gather he has just died and awakened in this
> place.
The last person (AFAIK) who managed to pull this trick was a Jew and this
happened well before the WP was build. :-)
>He soon meets the movie's other main character, a caustic French
> writer-diplomat named Custine (Sergei Dreiden) who's been dead much longer.
Sure. BTW, de Custin was not a diplomat.
>
> Custine (an actual historical figure who left memoirs of his time in Russia)
Yes, a huge volume in which Hermitage occupies less than 3 pages...
> also seems to have no idea why his spirit is suddenly in this palace,
I did not get it. Which spirit author has in mind? Narrator's or
de Custin's? With Narrator the answer is rather simple: he wanted to get
a tour for free (advantage of being a spirit).
With de Custin we may only guess, but probably to have an opportunity to
say: "it's still a lousy museum". Not sure that the spirit would be looking
for the unattached males (as his owner alledgedly did) but I'm not a big
specialist in the occult issues. :-)
>which
> he'd visited in life. (At first he thinks he's "in Chambord, under the
> Directoire,"
Being born in 1790, he hardly had a lot of memories about this period but...
>only to be told, sadly, that Russian's own Directoire lasted 80
> years.)
Rather moronic explanation because there was little in common between
Soviet Union and Directoire.
>Yet the Frenchman quickly begins to serve as the Narrator's Virgil,
> leading him on an excursion through the Hermitage
(Winter Palace?)
De Custin hardly was very knowledgeable regarding this place because,
IIRC, he was in the WP only once or twice and defintiely was not
roaming all over the place. Of course, you never can tell with these
spirits....
>during which they cross
> paths with modern museum-goers as well as figures such as Catherine the
> Great
Understandably, during his long career as a spirit he had a good chance to
get familiar with some other spirits. Hopefully, it's well understood that
he never had a chance to see Catherine during her life time.
>and Czarina Anastasia.
>
Wife of which emperor was she?
> With his black frock coat, upswept hair
Really? On his portrait (made in 1846) he has different hair style but,
of course the upswept hairs are more appropriate for the spirits (and for
the movie makers working for the easily excited audience)...
>and theatrical manner, Custine is a
> witty, entertaining guide, mixing dollops of aesthetic appreciation
Really? Well, either the movie makers did not read his memories or
marquis did not REALLY meant what he wrote about the Hermitage.
"I do not like paintings in Russia, any more than music in London,
where the manner in which they listen to the most talented performers, and the
most sublime compositions, would disgust me with the art. So near the pole,
the light is unfavourable for seeing pictures..." etc.
> and
> historical observation
His historic observations were mostly based on a pure ignorance...
>with barbed comments about all things Russian.
Hear! Hear! Now, something which is definitely correct.
> Sometimes he converses with the people he encounters;
Shouldn't they be scared of a ghost?
>at other times he and
> the Narrator remain invisible to others.
How about "and unheard by the others?" :-)
>
> As its almost ceaselessly moving hand-held camera
I know. My wife has the same problem with a videocamera...
> negotiates an endless
> succession of gorgeous rooms, the movie has the feel of a mysterious
> odyssey,
What is os mysterious about the ordinary museum tour?
[]
> Notice, in any case, how many of its elements occur in twos, beginning with
> the two main characters (including a Narrator who says that he's a Gemini!)
This would make 3 of them: de Custin and a Narrator with a split personality.
> and the implications of the film's two-word title.
Any implications of the "Magnificient Seven"? Two word title with "seven"
mentioned in it and a lot of the six-shooters in the movie itself.
[]
> With its sinuously musical flow, the film might be said to unfold in
> movements, like a symphony. Yet, apropos the principle of twos, I think it
> also divides into halves that reflect the Hermitage's dual identity as a
> present-day museum and the former home of Russia's czars:
It was not the home of the Russian Tzars. The Winter Palace was.
> The first half,
> where Custine tours the museum's picture galleries, might be titled "art"
Hermitage
> while the second half, which transpires mainly in the palace's state
> apartments and ballrooms, might be called "history."
>
Winter Palace
> The theme of Russian identity predominates throughout and in the first half
> centers around another duality: Russia and Europe.
Sure. Palace built by Italian architect for the German princess and
filled by the paintings and statues from all places but Russia (but the
malachite vases are Russian). :-)
> As he begins looking at
> paintings, aware that St. Petersburg itself was created as a European city
> in Russia, Custine superciliously remarks that the czars "were Russophiles,
> but drawn to Italy,"
"... here some choise pieces, especially of the Dutch school..." :-)
Well, he also mentioned some Italians: Mantega, Giambellini, Salvator
Rosa (2 Leonardo Madonnas were not purchased yet) and, a big surprise,
French. BTW, does anybody like Poussin?
>and that Russian art is never more than imitative and
> second-rate.
In this he was right: at his time everybody followed Italian and French
"classicism". Eeek!
>
> The idea here, which filters throughout the film, is that culturally
> Russians are bifurcated,
To such a high degree that this shows in their physique: most of then
were/are visibly bifurcated (except those with one leg).
>forever obliged to see themselves through both
> Russian and European lenses.
Old blah, blah, blah.
OTOH, I heard that this "euroasian" staff again became one of the fashionable
things in Russia.
> But as for the putative corollary that Russian
> art is necessarily inferior,
Marquis was a little bit of a snobbish and not very knowledgeable idiot
but, to his defense, he was talking (AFAIK) exclusivily about the
paintings and was correct.
> I would say Russian Ark itself constitutes a
> witty riposte to that,
AFAIK, there is no real need for this particuolar "ripose" because, the
most popular ballet in US is "Nutcracker", a music traditionally
performed on July 4th is "Ouverture of 1812", Stanislavsky system (which
I strongly dislike) is, AFAIK, still one of the most influential in the
theatrical world, and, AFAIK, the poor American schoolchildren are trying
to make some sense out of the writings of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. :-)
Situation with the paintings also changed a little bit since the Custin's
times (Shagal and Kandinsky do not need Sokurov's advocacy).
>since it's easily as accomplished as any European
> "art film" of late,
I bet that it can't beat "Sinbad" by Hussaric. To make the oil and fat
spots in the soup to look beautifully, now this IS an accomplishment! :-)
>and perhaps even more impressive as a vessel of European
> tradition both cultural and cinematic.
AFAIK, the Soviet cinema was "european" enough for quite a while. OTOH,
I never heard about the unified "european" tradition in cinematograph.
Is it EU-related?
>
> The film's first half also presents various casually articulated arguments
> about art, all of which redound on the filmgoer. Is Sukorov's movie an
> elaborate allegory which those not versed in Russian history can't hope to
> understand?
It looks like they are in a much better position than those who are versed
in it. So far, judging by the two highly laudable articles and some
comments by the Russian viewers, as far as the Russian history is involved,
the movie belongs to the category "Collective Farm 'Red Cranberry'".
> It's easy to suspect as much, given its dense and playful
> allusiveness. Yet I think the film answers this question in a scene where
> Custine examines paintings in which different elements symbolize certain
> things (e.g., a chicken means avarice), and we're reminded that we have left
> this world of settled symbolism.
Did not know that marquis was such a specialist. His book leaves an impression
that his ideas of art were extremely superficial and verged on banality.
>
> So, unlike The Odyssey or the Divine Comedy, Russian Ark doesn't emerge from
> a culture of cohesive meanings.
Does this mean that its author is not capable of a coherent thought?
Quite possible.
> Rather, it belongs to the dispossessed
> tradition of modernism and--like The Waste Land, or Ulysses, or The
> Cantos--looks back on those lost cultures from a perspective that is
> inevitably eclectic and idiosyncratic.
>
Which "lost cultures"?
> The film exhibits a similarly playful way with meaning when it comes to
> cinema aesthetics and history. I admit I laughed when Custine complained of
> a painting of Saint Cecilia being hung next to The Circumcision of Christ.
> This must be the most droll swipe ever at Sergei Eisenstein's theory of
> montage, the cornerstone of Soviet cinema
Grrrrrr!
>(it's doubly funny if we read
> Custine as a stand-in for another French Catholic writer, Andre Bazin, whose
> theories overthrew Eisenstein's).
At least something good to find out.
>
> Sukorov inhabits this territory very comfortably.
... Rather difficult, when at the same time one has to run like crazy
through the WP....
> He knows that he's giving
> new meaning to Dziga-Vertov's idea of the "Kino-Eye"
It would be much better if this idea was left dead (the corpse decomposed
long ago so why disturb it?)
[]
>
> The nostalgia endemic to that position (like Custine, the film is a ghostly
> visitor at the ball)
Ghost at the ball? Why is it necessarily to spoil people's fun?
BTW, not sure that de Custine was present on any ball in the WP
(can check this).
> also infuses the movie's second half, where the
> dialectic between Europe and Russia gives way to another: Public versus
> private.
I heard that the waterclosets had been installed in the WP in XVIII.
Not sure about it being true but, anyway, the courtiers were not
suppossed to piss into the fireplace as in Versallie.
> The Winter Palace, of course, served both functions. Thus, while we
> glimpse Catherine the Great as well as Nicholas II and Alexandra with
> children in family quarters, we also witness an elaborate ritual in which
> Nicholas I receives a Persian prince.
>
> Thanks in part to the subtle manipulation of color and light levels in these
> sequences, they virtually glow with an aureate radiance that mournfully
> whispers, "Look, look what was lost."
Don't want to rain on anybody's parade but Nicholas I was not
somebody to feel nostalgic about.
> Sure, the people we see are cosseted
> and privileged, yet the film's emphasis falls on the evanescent essentials:
> Beauty, grace, humanity, life.
Humanity is not something routinely associated with Nicholas I.
Actually, this was one of the most valuable observations in de Custin's
book.
>Against these, tragically, are posed the
> encroaching shadows of the 20th century, symbolized by a hidden room of
> corpses and coffins.
In the WP?
>
> Public and private, symbol and sentiment converge in a double tour de force
> that climaxes the movie. In the first of two astonishingly realized
> sequences, both Custine and the camera join scores of officers and their
> ladies (the ones we saw at first) in dancing a spirited mazurka that, like a
> valentine from Tolstoy and Renoir, seems to provide a soaring elegy for an
> entire way of life. When the music stops, the Narrator leaves Custine,
> saying, "Goodbye Europe, it's over."
Mazurka being the only manifestation of the "European" culture?
Not too much: after all, it was "only" Polsih. :-)
>
> What comes next can barely be described, but it's one of the most haunting
> sequences I've ever seen in a film: Hundreds of ballgoers amble down the
> palace's vast marble staircases, like phantoms knowing they must disappear
> with the dawn.
All of them being ghosts?
>The camera then glances out of a side door and sees a
> steaming river that precisely recalls Tarkovsky's illusory planet, Solaris.
It was an ocean, not a river.
> As we realize how many odysseys Sukorov has invoked--Noah's, Homer's,
> Joyce's, Kubrick's and Tarkovsky's cinema's
Too many of other people's odysseys and all without any visible relevance
to the subject. To S's defense, I'm ready to assume that all this is a
product of the author's overdeveloped imagination: I often heard the same
type of rubbish from the professional movie critics in the old SU.
>--we are told, in a tone too
> gnomic to be reassuring, that the voyage is not over: "We are destined to
> sail forever ... ."
In what?
>
> The words linger long after the phantoms have faded into nothingness.
=================================
Thanks for publishing. I'm glad to notice that the excited stupidity and
general ignorance are indeed international among certain professions. :-)
Alex
> "Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f8e58188.0304...@posting.google.com...
>
> >
> > Judging by the comments on Internet, the movie is very popular
> > among the foreigners and produced some sceptical remarks from some
> > Russians who have a clue about the subject. Like this one:
> >
> > "...There was not a single officer or a soldier to protect Nicolas II
> > when he was arrested by three unarmed deputies of the Duma. Nicolas
> > never dined with his family in a parade uniform. He was a most modest
> > man.
>
> >Russian officers never danced in Zimni in the wellington boots.
>
> Hi, Alex. What did they use as footwear?
On a ball? The same thing as eevrybody else in the contemporary Europe:
the "ball" shoes.
>
> Also, some Russians I spoke to outside the theater claim the ball had to
> take place during Pushkin's time,
Why?
>but another article said this was
> supposedly a 1915 event.
Why?
None of the dates has anything to do with de Custin.
> Poor Pushkin was shown on the way out calling for
> his wife among the ballgoers.
Well, in this case, it was not 1915. :-)
> Yet some of the women were wearing Princess
> of Wales plumes that I thought were from the Victorian epoch.
AFAIK, at the time of Nicholas I, the "ball" fashion was "Russian
style". Judging by the contemporary engravings, it was some
artificial mixture of the european and highly stylized Russian female
dress (esp, headdress).
The males, of course, had been in the uniforms. Including Pushkin.
Inger E Johansson
"E. C. Lee" <afro...@yahoo.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:f0cfed5b.03042...@posting.google.com...
SVT(Sweden's Television) talked about it the other day and show parts and I
will not see it. The few minuits they showed together with the recensions
there and elsewhere makes me as little interested as possible.
I am not interested in a film which forgets the historical scenario and with
lapsus as big as a hole in a Hardanger-cloth even if the camera-angles and
the cutting are ok. The overplay I saw, and which have been commented here
in Sweden makes it one of the few Russian Modern Films that I certainly will
not spend my money and time to watch.
Inger E
OldWilmington
> "OldWilmington" <Oldwil...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<DLBqa.36629$RE3.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
> > "Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:f8e58188.0304...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > >
> > > Judging by the comments on Internet, the movie is very popular
> > > among the foreigners and produced some sceptical remarks from some
> > > Russians who have a clue about the subject. Like this one:
> > >
> > > "...There was not a single officer or a soldier to protect Nicolas II
> > > when he was arrested by three unarmed deputies of the Duma. Nicolas
> > > never dined with his family in a parade uniform. He was a most modest
> > > man.
> >
> > >Russian officers never danced in Zimni in the wellington boots.
> >
> > Hi, Alex. What did they use as footwear?
>
> On a ball? The same thing as eevrybody else in the contemporary Europe:
> the "ball" shoes.
>
Makes absolute sense. I noticed those high boots with the knees cut out.
Ouch for the dancers!
> >
> > Also, some Russians I spoke to outside the theater claim the ball had to
> > take place during Pushkin's time,
>
> Why?
>
Because Pushkin was shown arriving at the beginning and leaving at the end.
However, considering that personages from various epochs were shown
simulatneously, I suppose one can argue this was not a serious defect in the
presentation.
> >but another article said this was
> > supposedly a 1915 event.
>
> Why?
>
It seems the writer was under the impression this was the last ball given in
this place before the revolution. Perhaps this information came from the
filmmaker himself...
> None of the dates has anything to do with de Custin.
>
> > Poor Pushkin was shown on the way out calling for
> > his wife among the ballgoers.
>
> Well, in this case, it was not 1915. :-)
>
You settle my confusion below. Too, familiarity with the uniforms at the
time would solve the problem. I'm trying to get hold of Boris Mello's
_Uniforms of the Imperial Russian Army_. Looks like I'll have to order it
second hand.
> > Yet some of the women were wearing Princess
> > of Wales plumes that I thought were from the Victorian epoch.
>
> AFAIK, at the time of Nicholas I, the "ball" fashion was "Russian
> style". Judging by the contemporary engravings, it was some
> artificial mixture of the european and highly stylized Russian female
> dress (esp, headdress).
> The males, of course, had been in the uniforms. Including Pushkin.
Yes, and I understand the Pushkin absolutely hated the uniform he was
foreced to wear. Poor darling!
OldWilmington
brilliant film critics about, and has also written for _The Village Voice_.
He's an expert on Iranian film, too.
"E. C. Lee" <afro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0cfed5b.03042...@posting.google.com...
OldWilmington
"Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f8e58188.03042...@posting.google.com...
> "OldWilmington" <Oldwil...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<s9Eqa.38891$ij4.2...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
> > "Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:f8e58188.03042...@posting.google.com...
> > > "OldWilmington" <Oldwil...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:<hLhqa.35992$RE3.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
> > > > This article on _Russian Ark_ is one of the best! I've seen the
film
> > twice.
> > > > Worth every second of the 88 minutes...
> > > >
> > > >
> >
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FILM_RUSSIAN_ARK?SITE=DEWIL&SECTI
> > > > ON=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
> > > > "
> > >
> > > IMO, the article is written by an excited but rather stupid person
> > > (not a rare
> > > combination for the Russian journalist). :-)
> >
> > In that case, a more "stimulating" viewpoint from a superior American
> > intellect ;-) ! :
>
> I'm not sure that the "American intellect" will be much superior or more
> knowledgeable. :-)
How 'bout the "Polish intellect"? Hmm, I can't decide which is "sexier" --
the
Polish or the Russian... ;-)
So, have you seen the film this weekend? Probably not. There are some
movies I'll never see.
Like _Polish Wedding_. But as they say, mileage varies. I say: "Some
folks like white chocolate, others dark. I''
always take the white!"
OldWilmington
I wanted to get back and go over the review with you.
Now here is a question one might pose: Is it worthwhile to discuss a film
when one party has not seen it?
Same goes for discussion of any "professional" criticism of flick.
Generally aren't we inclined to eschew criticizing novels unless we've read
them?
If I intend to see a film, I won't read any criticism of it beforehand.
>
>
> >
> > Photo By Alexander Belenkiy
> >
> > The dance of change: Officers and ladies relish a cultural past as a new
> > century approaches
>
>
> BTW, is it true that the officers of XIX century are dancing in the high
> boots?
Yes, again, those with the knees cut off. A researcher's mistake in this
case.
>
>
> > Conceivably the most brilliant and important foreign-language film that
will
> > play the Triangle this year, Alexander Sukorov's Russian Ark contains
> > innumerable marvels, yet its primary fascination can be easily
described: It
> > is the first feature in movie history to be comprised of a single shot,
>
> Not true. The very first movies, like "Arrival of the train", had been
> done in a single shot. :-)
>
Oh?
> []
>
> >
> > Russian Ark opens outside the Hermitage as people in 19th century dress,
>
> This more or less removes the need in the further investigations regarding
> the author's intelligence or at least his education. :-)
>
> Fashions changed dramatically from 1801 to 1900 so the author is obviously
> seriously ... er .... "innocent" about the history.
>
The Narrator himself states that he awakes to see people dressed in clothing
of the "1800s".
The historian will want to pinpoint the exact dates of that clothing. My
guess, looking at the officers
and ladies, was somewhere in the mid-1800s.
I'm sure most of the clothes used for the Ball at the end where also present
in the scene at Court where
Nicky I received the Persian delegation. Didn't this Tsar die in 1855?
>
> > dashing officers and their beautiful ladies, make a jumbled,
high-spirited
> > entry to the palace.
>
> AFAIK, the Winter Palace was not exactly a country fair and "dignity"
would
> be much more appropriate.
I agree. However, these folks were taking a "back way" in, so to speak, and
judging from the
demeanor and dress of the two women -- including a loud lavender ensemble
with funny beret style hat--
I was under the impression that these women were, perhaps, a social level or
two below the officers who,
in effect, were striving to "crash" the Ball with them.
BTW, the author obviously confuses Hermitage
> (museum) and the Winter Palace (part of which Hermitage occupies). The
> halls of Hermitage are not well-suited for the balls: too many statues in
> the middle.
>
This does seem to be a constant in articles about the film. We do see the
statues in the middle
of the halls at later points.
>
> >The first words we hear are, "I open my eyes and I see
> > nothing. I only remember there was an accident ..."
> >
> > Throughout the movie we are looking through the eyes of the man who
utters
> > these words--the Narrator. We never learn much about him other than that
> > he's Russian, but we quickly gather he has just died and awakened in
this
> > place.
There is no indication that the Narrator has died.
>
> The last person (AFAIK) who managed to pull this trick was a Jew and this
> happened well before the WP was build. :-)
>
!
> >He soon meets the movie's other main character, a caustic French
> > writer-diplomat named Custine (Sergei Dreiden) who's been dead much
longer.
>
> Sure. BTW, de Custin was not a diplomat.
>
> >
> > Custine (an actual historical figure who left memoirs of his time in
Russia)
>
> Yes, a huge volume in which Hermitage occupies less than 3 pages...
>
> > also seems to have no idea why his spirit is suddenly in this palace,
>
> I did not get it. Which spirit author has in mind? Narrator's or
> de Custin's?
The Narrator starts out, then finds an equally unconfused Custine who cannot
fathom
his ability to speak fluent Russian. The distortion of Custine's occupation
into diplomat
comes in handy later when the Frenchman makes reference to his time "being
received at Court" and
the length of diplomatic ceremonies.
I do not know if Custine was actually received at Court. The "conceit"
employed by the scriptwriter is
that Custine had seen diplomatic service. Such distortions, while
aggravating to historians, do occur
in literary creation.
With Narrator the answer is rather simple: he wanted to get
> a tour for free (advantage of being a spirit).
> With de Custin we may only guess, but probably to have an opportunity to
> say: "it's still a lousy museum". Not sure that the spirit would be
looking
> for the unattached males (as his owner alledgedly did) but I'm not a big
> specialist in the occult issues. :-)
>
>
> >which
> > he'd visited in life. (At first he thinks he's "in Chambord, under the
> > Directoire,"
>
> Being born in 1790, he hardly had a lot of memories about this period
but...
>
> >only to be told, sadly, that Russian's own Directoire lasted 80
> > years.)
>
> Rather moronic explanation because there was little in common between
> Soviet Union and Directoire.
>
Point taken. Custine also spends a good bit of time making negative remarks
about
Empire style.
>
> >Yet the Frenchman quickly begins to serve as the Narrator's Virgil,
> > leading him on an excursion through the Hermitage
>
> (Winter Palace?)
> De Custin hardly was very knowledgeable regarding this place because,
> IIRC, he was in the WP only once or twice and defintiely was not
> roaming all over the place. Of course, you never can tell with these
> spirits....
>
Again, artistic looseness. It was effective in the context of film
narrative.
>
> >during which they cross
> > paths with modern museum-goers as well as figures such as Catherine the
> > Great
>
> Understandably, during his long career as a spirit he had a good chance to
> get familiar with some other spirits. Hopefully, it's well understood that
> he never had a chance to see Catherine during her life time.
>
> >and Czarina Anastasia.
> >
>
> Wife of which emperor was she?
I'd thought of writing to the editor to point out this error. Someone
should have caught it at paper.
>
> > With his black frock coat, upswept hair
>
> Really? On his portrait (made in 1846) he has different hair style but,
> of course the upswept hairs are more appropriate for the spirits (and for
> the movie makers working for the easily excited audience)...
>
> >and theatrical manner, Custine is a
> > witty, entertaining guide, mixing dollops of aesthetic appreciation
>
> Really? Well, either the movie makers did not read his memories or
> marquis did not REALLY meant what he wrote about the Hermitage.
> "I do not like paintings in Russia, any more than music in London,
> where the manner in which they listen to the most talented performers, and
the
> most sublime compositions, would disgust me with the art. So near the
pole,
> the light is unfavourable for seeing pictures..." etc.
The actor is marvelous. He summons up a cantankerous Frenchman of that
period (and
is remarkably similar to one or two older European men I've actually met!)
>
>
> > and
> > historical observation
>
> His historic observations were mostly based on a pure ignorance...
>
> >with barbed comments about all things Russian.
>
> Hear! Hear! Now, something which is definitely correct.
>
Yes, he is crusty, as enacted! Deliciously so. Reminds me of certain
historians... ;-)
Granted, the critic needs to brush up. And the "dualism" part is fluff.
>
> > The first half,
> > where Custine tours the museum's picture galleries, might be titled
"art"
>
> Hermitage
>
> > while the second half, which transpires mainly in the palace's state
> > apartments and ballrooms, might be called "history."
> >
>
> Winter Palace
>
> > The theme of Russian identity predominates throughout and in the first
half
> > centers around another duality: Russia and Europe.
>
> Sure. Palace built by Italian architect for the German princess and
> filled by the paintings and statues from all places but Russia (but the
> malachite vases are Russian). :-)
Let me tell you, I loved those malachite vases best of all!
You should hear Custine insult Pushkin and get the Narrator growling a
little
at him!
I think the "epoch" that died with the little boy and four sisters.
> > The film exhibits a similarly playful way with meaning when it comes to
> > cinema aesthetics and history. I admit I laughed when Custine complained
of
> > a painting of Saint Cecilia being hung next to The Circumcision of
Christ.
> > This must be the most droll swipe ever at Sergei Eisenstein's theory of
> > montage, the cornerstone of Soviet cinema
>
> Grrrrrr!
Custine, as a "Catholic" objected to such juxtaposition. A Catholic of that
time would have,
just as peasants with dirty bare feet were found unacceptable in later
paintings of the Madonna.
Custine also is annoyed when a young man of this era admires a painting of
Peter and Paul, and
opines that "someday all men will become like them". Custine claims that
since the observer knows little
about the Gospels, and therefore his Church's founders, how can he say
anything about their
relations to others/
Custien objects to an older woman of this era motioning in front of a
painting in order to "communicate" with
it. Stranger things have happened in the art world, no doubt.
>
> >(it's doubly funny if we read
> > Custine as a stand-in for another French Catholic writer, Andre Bazin,
whose
> > theories overthrew Eisenstein's).
>
> At least something good to find out.
>
> >
> > Sukorov inhabits this territory very comfortably.
>
> ... Rather difficult, when at the same time one has to run like crazy
> through the WP....
>
I give the man credit for the physical requirements fulfilled for this
project.
> > He knows that he's giving
> > new meaning to Dziga-Vertov's idea of the "Kino-Eye"
>
> It would be much better if this idea was left dead (the corpse decomposed
> long ago so why disturb it?)
>
> []
> >
> > The nostalgia endemic to that position (like Custine, the film is a
ghostly
> > visitor at the ball)
>
> Ghost at the ball? Why is it necessarily to spoil people's fun?
> BTW, not sure that de Custine was present on any ball in the WP
> (can check this).
>
Yes, please do!
> > also infuses the movie's second half, where the
> > dialectic between Europe and Russia gives way to another: Public versus
> > private.
>
> I heard that the waterclosets had been installed in the WP in XVIII.
> Not sure about it being true but, anyway, the courtiers were not
> suppossed to piss into the fireplace as in Versallie.
>
> > The Winter Palace, of course, served both functions. Thus, while we
> > glimpse Catherine the Great as well as Nicholas II and Alexandra with
> > children in family quarters, we also witness an elaborate ritual in
which
> > Nicholas I receives a Persian prince.
> >
> > Thanks in part to the subtle manipulation of color and light levels in
these
> > sequences, they virtually glow with an aureate radiance that mournfully
> > whispers, "Look, look what was lost."
>
> Don't want to rain on anybody's parade but Nicholas I was not
> somebody to feel nostalgic about.
>
Any Pole would agree!
> > Sure, the people we see are cosseted
> > and privileged, yet the film's emphasis falls on the evanescent
essentials:
> > Beauty, grace, humanity, life.
>
> Humanity is not something routinely associated with Nicholas I.
> Actually, this was one of the most valuable observations in de Custin's
> book.
>
Amen!
> >Against these, tragically, are posed the
> > encroaching shadows of the 20th century, symbolized by a hidden room of
> > corpses and coffins.
>
> In the WP?
>
There was a bit about a room in the Hermitage where coffins were made during
WWII.
Did they use the frames when wood was in short supply?
> >
> > Public and private, symbol and sentiment converge in a double tour de
force
> > that climaxes the movie. In the first of two astonishingly realized
> > sequences, both Custine and the camera join scores of officers and their
> > ladies (the ones we saw at first) in dancing a spirited mazurka that,
like a
> > valentine from Tolstoy and Renoir, seems to provide a soaring elegy for
an
> > entire way of life. When the music stops, the Narrator leaves Custine,
> > saying, "Goodbye Europe, it's over."
>
> Mazurka being the only manifestation of the "European" culture?
> Not too much: after all, it was "only" Polsih. :-)
>
Do you consider the Poles more European than the Russians? I have been
given to understand, via Count Adam Zamoyski, that Sarmitism is at the heart
of the Polish
ethos.
> >
> > What comes next can barely be described, but it's one of the most
haunting
> > sequences I've ever seen in a film: Hundreds of ballgoers amble down the
> > palace's vast marble staircases, like phantoms knowing they must
disappear
> > with the dawn.
>
> All of them being ghosts?
>
None of these characters from the past are really presented as "ghosts". It
is more as though
the Narrator is in some kind of disjointed time-space continuum.
> >The camera then glances out of a side door and sees a
> > steaming river that precisely recalls Tarkovsky's illusory planet,
Solaris.
>
> It was an ocean, not a river.
>
Body of water does the trick for the film viewer.
> > As we realize how many odysseys Sukorov has invoked--Noah's, Homer's,
> > Joyce's, Kubrick's and Tarkovsky's cinema's
>
> Too many of other people's odysseys and all without any visible relevance
> to the subject. To S's defense, I'm ready to assume that all this is a
> product of the author's overdeveloped imagination: I often heard the same
> type of rubbish from the professional movie critics in the old SU.
>
No matter whose odyssey, the film must stand alone before the viewer.
>
>
> >--we are told, in a tone too
> > gnomic to be reassuring, that the voyage is not over: "We are destined
to
> > sail forever ... ."
>
> In what?
>
> >
> > The words linger long after the phantoms have faded into nothingness.
>
> =================================
>
> Thanks for publishing. I'm glad to notice that the excited stupidity and
> general ignorance are indeed international among certain professions. :-)
Generally, we in the West are very, very ignorant of Russian history.
Don't get me started on the Polish. Nonetheless, I like this film critic.
I loved the film, and therefore enjoy his enjoyment. Just as one cannot
read the Gospel as scientific or historical document, one finds that
literary and filmic narrative will not align to satisfy the intellect
examining
it with the the sole lens of historian or mere "chronicler".
Martin Reboul
Inger E Johansson wrote
> SVT(Sweden's Television) talked about it the other day and show parts and
I
> will not see it. The few minuits they showed together with the recensions
> there and elsewhere makes me as little interested as possible.
>
> I am not interested in a film which forgets the historical scenario and
with
> lapsus as big as a hole in a Hardanger-cloth even if the camera-angles and
> the cutting are ok. The overplay I saw, and which have been commented here
> in Sweden makes it one of the few Russian Modern Films that I certainly
will
> not spend my money and time to watch.
If it's under six hours, not in B&W and doesn't have subtitles, it can't
really be considered 'Russian' - a definite miss!
David Read
OldWilmington <Oldwil...@nc.rr.com> writes
<snip>
>> BTW, is it true that the officers of XIX century are dancing in the high
>> boots?
>
>Yes, again, those with the knees cut off. A researcher's mistake in this
>case.
Not necessarily a mistake by the researcher; the reviewer is at least as
likely to have made a mistake, or so it seems to me.
The boots you describe "with the knees cut off" or "cut out" sound like
what were usually called in Britain "Hessian", in France "Hongroise",
and in Russia, I believe, "Suvorov". Their popularity throughout Europe
derived from those boots commonly associated with hussar regiments of
the period, and which were to become a more widespread fashion statement
in both military and civilian dress during the late 18th and 19th
centuries.
The original "Wellington" boots were commissioned by the Duke to replace
the "Hessian" pattern, because Hessians were impractical for wearing
under trousers. Thus, these first "Wellingtons" were lower cut, closer
fitting and had round tops. "Hessians" were designed to be worn with
riding breeches.
While the replacement of boots for shoes, or dancing pumps, worn with
breeches and stockings would certainly have been appropriate and
visually aesthetic with civilian clothes and most military styles in the
ballroom, such a combination of leg-wear would have looked very odd if
worn by a hussar, even one wearing court or gala dress.
Unless there were specific regulations debarring everyone from wearing
boots for balls held in the Winter Palace, then the movie makers perhaps
deserve the benefit of any doubt.
cheers,
--
David Read
Frank Martin
mistakes in the movie! I should have kept quiet.
"Martin Reboul" <mar...@reboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:b8i5g8$p85$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
Alex
> "Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f8e58188.03042...@posting.google.com...
> > "OldWilmington" <Oldwil...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:<s9Eqa.38891$ij4.2...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
> > > "Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:f8e58188.03042...@posting.google.com...
> > > > "OldWilmington" <Oldwil...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:<hLhqa.35992$RE3.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
> > > > > This article on _Russian Ark_ is one of the best! I've seen the
> film
> twice.
> > > > > Worth every second of the 88 minutes...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FILM_RUSSIAN_ARK?SITE=DEWIL&SECTI
> > > > > ON=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
> > > > > "
> > > >
> > > > IMO, the article is written by an excited but rather stupid person
> > > > (not a rare
> > > > combination for the Russian journalist). :-)
> > >
> > > In that case, a more "stimulating" viewpoint from a superior American
> > > intellect ;-) ! :
> >
> > I'm not sure that the "American intellect" will be much superior or more
> > knowledgeable. :-)
>
> How 'bout the "Polish intellect"?
It would be probably "safer" to talk about "<whatever> journalistic
intelelct": nobody will get offended. :-)
>Hmm, I can't decide which is "sexier" --
> the
> Polish or the Russian... ;-)
>
I suspect that, if asked, the representatives of any of these sides
would be (on average) rather negative about another side: this would be
something like a "patriotic duty". :-)
> So, have you seen the film this weekend? Probably not.
Does not make too much sense for me: I was in Hermitage couple times
and it does not look like I will be REALLY interested in S's view of
the Russian history....
> There are some
> movies I'll never see.
Usualy, I'm waiting until they are available on TV or for rent: I'm
a couch viewer.
>
> Like _Polish Wedding_.
Did not hear about this one. Saw only the Greek Wedding.
>But as they say, mileage varies. I say: "Some
> folks like white chocolate, others dark. I''
> always take the white!"
:-)
Alex
> In article <6LXqa.39614$RE3.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
> OldWilmington <Oldwil...@nc.rr.com> writes
> >
> >"Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:f8e58188.03042...@posting.google.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> >> BTW, is it true that the officers of XIX century are dancing in the high
> >> boots?
> >
> >Yes, again, those with the knees cut off. A researcher's mistake in this
> >case.
>
> Not necessarily a mistake by the researcher; the reviewer is at least as
> likely to have made a mistake, or so it seems to me.
>
> The boots you describe "with the knees cut off" or "cut out" sound like
> what were usually called in Britain "Hessian", in France "Hongroise",
> and in Russia, I believe, "Suvorov".
Personally, I don't recall this term but this proves nothing. :-)
>Their popularity throughout Europe
> derived from those boots commonly associated with hussar regiments of
> the period,
IIRC, in Russia the hussar high boots had some peculiar shape on the
top (shown, for example on portrait of "Davidov"): M-shaped with the
rounded tops. This would be for the early XIX.
But the "simple" high boots were (still are) popular.
>and which were to become a more widespread fashion statement
> in both military and civilian dress during the late 18th and 19th
> centuries.
>
> The original "Wellington" boots were commissioned by the Duke to replace
> the "Hessian" pattern, because Hessians were impractical for wearing
> under trousers. Thus, these first "Wellingtons" were lower cut, closer
> fitting and had round tops. "Hessians" were designed to be worn with
> riding breeches.
>
> While the replacement of boots for shoes, or dancing pumps, worn with
> breeches and stockings would certainly have been appropriate and
> visually aesthetic with civilian clothes and most military styles in the
> ballroom, such a combination of leg-wear would have looked very odd if
> worn by a hussar, even one wearing court or gala dress.
Indeed. However, Denis Davidov "complained" in one of his poems about
the new crop of the hussars who, instead of drinking all the time, as
their noble predecessors, are "waltzing on a parquet" in shoes ("bashmaky").
As for the uniform, they are in the "vitzmundirs". I never could find an
explanation of what this "v" thing is because the contemporary authors
did not bother to explain the obvious for them thing and the modern ones
(ar least those I read) simply did not bother (both civilians and
military had been routinely wearing them so I suspect that they were not
very "hussarish").
OTOH, the hussars in the full dress probably would be easily recognizeable
in the crowd (as opposite to the vague remark about the "officers" in
general). Most of other branches would (IIRC) were the long trousers,
which would go just fine with the ball shoes.
This had been said, it looks like the shoes thing was applicable mostly
to a high society balls (court, high aristocracy) and in less aristocratic
environment the officers could dance in the service boots.
>
> Unless there were specific regulations debarring everyone from wearing
> boots for balls held in the Winter Palace, then the movie makers perhaps
> deserve the benefit of any doubt.
This, as many other things, would probably depend on the period. IIRC, things
changed considerably by the early XX and I remember some contemporary
(reign of Nicholas II, IIRC) documentary of a court ball where the officers
had been dancing in the high boots. The shoes would look really absurd
with the "Russian style" uniforms introduced by Alexander III.
This is why I was asking about the "period" of the ball.
Alex
Martin, dear, a "real" Russian movie would be a comedy (in color), which
would continue 1h10m-1h20m (according to the regulations).
What you described is "an idea of the critics (Russian and Western) regarding
what the Russian movie should be". :-)
Alex
> OldWilmington <Oldwil...@nc.rr.com> writes
> >
> >"Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:f8e58188.03042...@posting.google.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> >> BTW, is it true that the officers of XIX century are dancing in the high
> >> boots?
> >
> >Yes, again, those with the knees cut off. A researcher's mistake in this
> >case.
>
> Not necessarily a mistake by the researcher; the reviewer is at least as
> likely to have made a mistake, or so it seems to me.
David, by some reason I can't see the whole post to which you answered.
Can you, please, copy it?
Thanks.
Martin Reboul
Alex wrote...
> Martin Reboul wrote ...
Ah, but if you read what I said again, you will see implied approval of
'real' Russian films...?
Cheers
Martin
E. C. Lee
> Well, he also mentioned some Italians: Mantega, Giambellini, Salvator
> Rosa (2 Leonardo Madonnas were not purchased yet) and, a big surprise,
> French. BTW, does anybody like Poussin?
>
Eve
Alex
> "Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f8e58188.03042...@posting.google.com...
> > "OldWilmington" <Oldwil...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:<DLBqa.36629$RE3.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
> > > "Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:f8e58188.0304...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Judging by the comments on Internet, the movie is very popular
> > > > among the foreigners and produced some sceptical remarks from some
> > > > Russians who have a clue about the subject. Like this one:
> > > >
> > > > "...There was not a single officer or a soldier to protect Nicolas II
> > > > when he was arrested by three unarmed deputies of the Duma. Nicolas
> > > > never dined with his family in a parade uniform. He was a most modest
> > > > man.
>
> > > >Russian officers never danced in Zimni in the wellington boots.
> > >
> > > Hi, Alex. What did they use as footwear?
> >
> > On a ball? The same thing as eevrybody else in the contemporary Europe:
> > the "ball" shoes.
> >
>
> Makes absolute sense. I noticed those high boots with the knees cut out.
> Ouch for the dancers!
Well, the traditional Polish and Russian dances were invented by the people
wearing the high boots. :-)
>
> > >
> > > Also, some Russians I spoke to outside the theater claim the ball had to
> > > take place during Pushkin's time,
> >
> > Why?
> >
>
> Because Pushkin was shown arriving at the beginning and leaving at the end.
> However, considering that personages from various epochs were shown
> simulatneously, I suppose one can argue this was not a serious defect in the
> presentation.
In Pushkin's favor, unlike Peter I, he definitely was visiting the WP. :-)
>
> > >but another article said this was
> > > supposedly a 1915 event.
> >
> > Why?
> >
>
> It seems the writer was under the impression this was the last ball given in
> this place before the revolution.
This is quite possible.
>Perhaps this information came from the
> filmmaker himself...
>
> > None of the dates has anything to do with de Custin.
> >
> > > Poor Pushkin was shown on the way out calling for
> > > his wife among the ballgoers.
> >
> > Well, in this case, it was not 1915. :-)
> >
>
> You settle my confusion below. Too, familiarity with the uniforms at the
> time would solve the problem.
Even simpler: were the officers wearing the beards or the sideburns?
Beards -> Alexander III, Nicholas II. Sideburns - the earlier times.
A lot of the long white trousers, probably the early XIX (esp with the
uniforms cut on the belt level at the fromt and being long at the back.
The tunic-like uniforms - the later period.
The tricorner and/or the high uniform headdress - early XIX.
> I'm trying to get hold of Boris Mello's
> _Uniforms of the Imperial Russian Army_. Looks like I'll have to order it
> second hand.
>
> > > Yet some of the women were wearing Princess
> > > of Wales plumes that I thought were from the Victorian epoch.
> >
> > AFAIK, at the time of Nicholas I, the "ball" fashion was "Russian
> > style". Judging by the contemporary engravings, it was some
> > artificial mixture of the european and highly stylized Russian female
> > dress (esp, headdress).
> > The males, of course, had been in the uniforms. Including Pushkin.
>
> Yes, and I understand the Pushkin absolutely hated the uniform he was
> foreced to wear. Poor darling!
AFAIK, it was not an uniform itself but a low court rank associated
with it. He had been given the lowest rank possible to allow his wife
to attend the court (she was one of the leading ST-Petersburg beauties).
Usually, this rank had been held by the really young career-bend people
and P was definitely out of age. OTOH, Tzar did not have too many
practical options short of giving him "camerger's" rank, which would
fit his "national status" (not completely clear at the time and not
something Nicholas I would care to acknowledge, anyway) but would be
(IMO) an unusually big jump in status and not really fitting, taking
into an account P's rather ambiguous personality and behavior ("distinguished"
was a word implied by the rank but hardly associated with P.).
Alex
> Gee! After reading all this analysis, all I'll see are the
> mistakes in the movie! I should have kept quiet.
It's a bit too late..... :-)
OldWilmington
Ouch again! Could this have been a case of Slavic
"sado-dancicism"? ;-)
> >
> > > >
> > > > Also, some Russians I spoke to outside the theater claim the ball
had to
> > > > take place during Pushkin's time,
> > >
> > > Why?
> > >
> >
> > Because Pushkin was shown arriving at the beginning and leaving at the
end.
> > However, considering that personages from various epochs were shown
> > simulatneously, I suppose one can argue this was not a serious defect in
the
> > presentation.
>
> In Pushkin's favor, unlike Peter I, he definitely was visiting the WP. :-)
>
aha!
> >
> > > >but another article said this was
> > > > supposedly a 1915 event.
> > >
> > > Why?
> > >
> >
> > It seems the writer was under the impression this was the last ball
given in
> > this place before the revolution.
>
> This is quite possible.
>
> >Perhaps this information came from the
> > filmmaker himself...
> >
> > > None of the dates has anything to do with de Custin.
> > >
> > > > Poor Pushkin was shown on the way out calling for
> > > > his wife among the ballgoers.
> > >
> > > Well, in this case, it was not 1915. :-)
> > >
> >
> > You settle my confusion below. Too, familiarity with the uniforms at
the
> > time would solve the problem.
>
> Even simpler: were the officers wearing the beards or the sideburns?
> Beards -> Alexander III, Nicholas II. Sideburns - the earlier times.
>
SIDEBURNS, not bears. Looks like you've pegged it for us!
> A lot of the long white trousers, probably the early XIX (esp with the
> uniforms cut on the belt level at the fromt and being long at the back.
>
> The tunic-like uniforms - the later period.
>
They were not tunic-like either. Would the same difference apply to court
officials' uniforms?
> The tricorner and/or the high uniform headdress - early XIX.
>
I did notice TRICORNER!
> > I'm trying to get hold of Boris Mello's
> > _Uniforms of the Imperial Russian Army_. Looks like I'll have to order
it
> > second hand.
> >
> > > > Yet some of the women were wearing Princess
> > > > of Wales plumes that I thought were from the Victorian epoch.
> > >
> > > AFAIK, at the time of Nicholas I, the "ball" fashion was "Russian
> > > style". Judging by the contemporary engravings, it was some
> > > artificial mixture of the european and highly stylized Russian female
> > > dress (esp, headdress).
> > > The males, of course, had been in the uniforms. Including Pushkin.
> >
> > Yes, and I understand the Pushkin absolutely hated the uniform he was
> > foreced to wear. Poor darling!
>
> AFAIK, it was not an uniform itself but a low court rank associated
> with it. He had been given the lowest rank possible to allow his wife
> to attend the court (she was one of the leading ST-Petersburg beauties).
> Usually, this rank had been held by the really young career-bend people
> and P was definitely out of age.
Yes, that's what I'd read...
OTOH, Tzar did not have too many
> practical options short of giving him "camerger's" rank, which would
> fit his "national status" (not completely clear at the time and not
> something Nicholas I would care to acknowledge, anyway) but would be
> (IMO) an unusually big jump in status and not really fitting, taking
> into an account P's rather ambiguous personality and behavior
("distinguished"
> was a word implied by the rank but hardly associated with P.).
What is "camerger's"?
OldWilmington
newsgroup attracts some of the most brilliant minds on the net!
Donata Lewandowski Guerra
Vide infra pro wonderful historical knowledge:
"David Read" <da...@dreadful.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:J3svrDAS...@dreadful.demon.co.uk...
Frank Martin
"OldWilmington" <Oldwil...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:_%gra.41296$RE3.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Alex
You mean you DO love those 'real' ones? Did not know that you have a
well-developed masochistic streak in you. :-)
Alex
I never could develop any interest to him. Anyway, the point was that
de Coustin practically ignored in Hermitage collection and made an
interesting observation that people could not enjoy the paintings
that far North (he had rather peculiar idea about St-Petersburg's closeness
to the North Pole, but this is besides the point).
Which makes his choise as a "guide" rather strange.
Alex
Based on what I know about their histories, your assumption looks
realistic. :-)
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, some Russians I spoke to outside the theater claim the ball
> had to
> > > > > take place during Pushkin's time,
> > > >
> > > > Why?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Because Pushkin was shown arriving at the beginning and leaving at the
> end.
> > > However, considering that personages from various epochs were shown
> > > simulatneously, I suppose one can argue this was not a serious defect in
> the
> > > presentation.
> >
> > In Pushkin's favor, unlike Peter I, he definitely was visiting the WP. :-)
> >
> aha!
Yes, this definitely makes the movie authentic. :-)
[]
> > > >
> > > > > Poor Pushkin was shown on the way out calling for
> > > > > his wife among the ballgoers.
> > > >
> > > > Well, in this case, it was not 1915. :-)
> > > >
> > >
> > > You settle my confusion below. Too, familiarity with the uniforms at
> the
> > > time would solve the problem.
> >
> > Even simpler: were the officers wearing the beards or the sideburns?
> > Beards -> Alexander III, Nicholas II. Sideburns - the earlier times.
> >
>
> SIDEBURNS, not bears.
Probably reasonably accurately trimmed. During the Napoleonic Wars they
tended to be more "dashing" and during the reign of Alexander II they
grew almost to the complete beards (with Alexander III making the final
step back to the beard). During the time of Nicholas I they were accurately
trimmed.
> Looks like you've pegged it for us!
[jumping up and down]
Push-kin! Push-kin!!! Shai-bu! Shai-bu!!!
>
> > A lot of the long white trousers, probably the early XIX (esp with the
> > uniforms cut on the belt level at the fromt and being long at the back.
> >
> > The tunic-like uniforms - the later period.
> >
>
> They were not tunic-like either.
Which probably answers the question.
> Would the same difference apply to court
> officials' uniforms?
>
AFAIK, those were less change prone and the differencies were not that
visible (to an amateur like me).
> > The tricorner and/or the high uniform headdress - early XIX.
> >
>
> I did notice TRICORNER!
>
By itself, it does not tell to much because they still had been used by the
court officials. Not sure if by the time of WWI they were a part of the
parade uniform of the high-ranking military. But almost definitely not of
the officers uniform.
Probably something close or equal to the "chamberlain". A high court
position indicating closeness to the emperor's person. As I said, Pushkin
did not "qualify".
Martin Reboul
E. C. Lee wrote ...
>(Alex) wrote ...
> >
> > "... here some choise pieces, especially of the Dutch school..." :-)
> > Well, he also mentioned some Italians: Mantega, Giambellini, Salvator
> > Rosa (2 Leonardo Madonnas were not purchased yet) and, a big surprise,
> > French. BTW, does anybody like Poussin?
> >
> Yes. Quite a few people. Including myself.
I like Poussin - all those hints about the Priere de Sion, Sauniere and the
hidden goodies....
Alex
Goes well with your declared love for <youknowwhich> movies..... Brrrrr. :-)
OldWilmington
Such choice is a "conceit", and in terms of a story it does the job. I
would not so much consider him "guide" or "docent" as a commentator -- and
the character, as scripted, has little patience for the way in which moderns
(or is it "post post-moderns"?) approach works of art.
Alex
> "Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f8e58188.03043...@posting.google.com...
> > afro...@yahoo.com (E. C. Lee) wrote in message
> news:<f0cfed5b.03042...@posting.google.com>...
> > > am...@hotmail.com (Alex) wrote in message
> news:<f8e58188.03042...@posting.google.com>...
> > > >
> > > > "... here some choise pieces, especially of the Dutch school..." :-)
> > > > Well, he also mentioned some Italians: Mantega, Giambellini, Salvator
> > > > Rosa (2 Leonardo Madonnas were not purchased yet) and, a big surprise,
> > > > French. BTW, does anybody like Poussin?
> > > >
> > > Yes. Quite a few people. Including myself.
> > >
> >
> > I never could develop any interest to him. Anyway, the point was that
> > de Coustin practically ignored in Hermitage collection and made an
> > interesting observation that people could not enjoy the paintings
> > that far North (he had rather peculiar idea about St-Petersburg's
> closeness
> > to the North Pole, but this is besides the point).
> >
> > Which makes his choise as a "guide" rather strange.
>
> Such choice is a "conceit", and in terms of a story it does the job.
And what is his job? It was rather difficult to figure this part from
the reviews. Judging by his book, the only role marquis could play is
to be negative about everything and everybody. :-)
> I
> would not so much consider him "guide" or "docent" as a commentator -- and
> the character, as scripted, has little patience for the way in which moderns
> (or is it "post post-moderns"?) approach works of art.
Well, his perception of art, judging by his book, was too "politically
motivated" to be of any real interest. To think about it, in this area
he would make a perfect Soviet art critic. :-)