The flowers and plants of the Wu Palace were buried in the secluded path, and the Jin Dynasty was dressed as an ancient hill.
I think there must be many people who come here for the No. 1 long shot in film history, but it will definitely disappoint most people, including me. However, my disappointment is that I know very little about Russian history. Many of the works of art filmed in movies I know are allusions to something, but I just stare blankly and don’t know what to say, like in an exam It is as helpless to think of a knowledge point that I gave up several questions without reviewing it.
Although the threshold to fully understand and enjoy this film is not generally high (I feel that this kind of art film is far beyond the scope of our appreciation of general art, probably only the giants who have read a lot of books can talk and laugh here), I I don't know anything about the artwork inside, but I can still understand a little bit of the form and content presented in the film.
I didn’t see the general outline of the plot when I saw it less than halfway through. I thought it was a film that completely pursued form and abandoned the plot design. That is, the whole film was based on the movement of the camera and guided by the narration of Tsarist Russia. The historical re-enactment of the stage play. It turned out that the obvious plot happened in the dialogue between "I" and the strange French diplomat in the first perspective, some detailed statements and the historical reproduction (the part of the extras) that "we" saw. The French diplomat's disdain from the beginning to the last "I want to stay here" is enough to show that the artistic spirit brought to him by this history has completely plundered his heart, from beliefs to works of art, from witnessing meetings with Iranian envoys to Experience the splendor of the court, from the comfortable life of the nobles to the happy dance, there is no one that does not make people amazed. But there are also some of them, such as being driven out when talking about the regime, which expresses some thinking about ideology and monarchy. There is also entering the cold room as a coffin maker, which implies thinking about the Soviet-German war in World War II, which may specifically refer to the defense of Leningrad or the defense of Moscow. The director arranged such a violent conflict between diplomats and coffinmakers here may be Expressing the trauma that the brutal war inflicted on the hearts of Russians, even if it ended in victory. All in all, under the guise of a seemingly relaxed "cultural journey", there is the director's sigh at the passing of this history. Sad that Qin and Han traveled through the place, all the palaces and houses were made soil. Probably this is the mood. The Grand Budapest Hotel also depicts the heavy history in a light-hearted way and sighs for the lost culture.
But what attracts us most about this movie is the form and structure, after all, the strongest sports long shot in history. According to the introduction in another film review, two thousand actors, thirty-five rooms, three symphony orchestras, seven months of rehearsal, one shot. The museum only gave the crew two days, so forty electricians spent twenty-six hours lighting the thirty-five rooms, and then German photographer Tilmann Butner carried the lights for more than ninety minutes. Steadicam, which weighs more than 30 kilograms, completed the shooting of all the scenes in one go. "I can imagine how difficult it is. When I saw it, I felt that three forms of things seemed to be perfectly used in it: the simplest long lens is the eye, the most essence of history is concentrated in the museum, and the time is continuous. The most direct expression of sexuality is the connection of long shots. Therefore, this film uses a first-person perspective to watch the history displayed in the museum and the performances of the stage actors in the form of dialogue. It is true and false, and there is indeed a sense of historical substitution. In one go. The stretching and retracting of the middle shot is also very well controlled. The actors also make on-the-spot scheduling in the few shots and some close-ups. When I watch it, I seem to be able to imagine the actors in the next room. They are getting ready to go.
Of course, there will be many sacrifices in the pursuit of form. For example, although the lighting master is very hard, it is difficult to achieve perfect lighting in such a long lens, and many even use natural light inside or outside the building, and some The place is bright or dark. It is impossible to pursue the detailed lighting when shooting the content of the fixed frame. In addition, there are voices in the same way. Basically, there are as many echoes as the room is empty. It really feels like visiting a museum, but sometimes their speeches are vague and confusing, but this is inevitable. . In addition, there is the embarrassment of group performers deliberately avoiding the camera and not looking directly at the camera.
The ark comes from the Book of Genesis. The scene full of Ark imagery at the end is also the theme that the director wants to express in this film: the prosperity is no longer what I want, utopia has disappeared, only history and artistic spirit have survived the destruction of time, which is a kind of emotion Bar. Because I don't know anything about the art in it, and I can't dig deeper into the relationship between faith and art, the lens gave me the question of what kind of meaning does "The Virgin Land with Quails" have. But the narration and footage have given me a lot of hints, and I've had some idea of what the movie is about, inspired by other reviews. Think of this film as a primer for your own art film. If you don't read a lot of books, you will be as arty as I am now, and you will not be able to understand the true artistic connotation.
View more about Russian Ark reviews
