Night Watch

Night Watch kept my attention very well. It definitely was a bigger budget film than probably any of the other movies that we watched this term. It was definitely more of an entertainment film. The fight between the light and dark is a pretty common theme in movies. This movie reminded me very much of the movies that we have like Star Wars. It also had kind of a Lord of the Rings feeling to it. These movies are fun to watch but you also get kind of tired of seeing the same things over and over in movies. It was nice, in a wierd way, to see the kid choose the dark side. The father didn't know that it was his son until the end. When it was exposed to the son that the father went to a witch to have him killed before he was born, the kid chose the dark side. The ending in this movie definitely makes me want to see the second part, with hopes that the kid switches sides. There didn't really seem to be any hidden themes or messages, just an entertaining movie to see, I could see it being a block-buster film when it came out. I really liked the fight scenes and the way that they used montage during these scenes to create even more confusion and excitement. I enjoyed the film alot and am interested in what happens in part 2.

The Return

It is easy to see that Andrei Zvyagintsev was influenced alot by Tarkovsky. The overall atmosphere created in the film seemed to be one of confusion. You didn't really know whether to be angry or happy. The movie changed sides several times. Their was sharp contrast between the two boys and the father brought that contrast out even more. Ivan was very irritable and stubborn. Andrey seemed to be more mature, but by that I mean that he was able to keep a cool head with his father and he showed some respect for him.

St. Petersburg is not portrayed to be quite the same in this film as in Brother. There are some similarities that I noticed. It tends to show people sort of out and about, children rough housing just like the "kids" out with Kat in her little area of the city. However I sort of felt like this film showed the city as much more isolated, there wasn't alot of people out on the streets.

The mother doesn't seem to be too excited that her husband is back. I think that she is pissed off that she has had to raise her kids for the past twelve years without him. You don't really see any type of excitement from her or spark between them. I felt like they were like a divorced couple getting together to exchange the children. The house seems very plain and simple. The bed that the couple sleeps in is like a one person cot. I think that the mother cares alot about her children from the first scene that she comes into.

The father is very hard to describe. He is a guy that you can't really break down to a science. There seems to be many different varying aspects of him that kind of throw around your feelings towards him. At many times during the film, I had extreme hatred of the father. Finding out that he had been gone for twelve years. When he hits and beats his children, and just the way that he think that he deserves their respect and doesn't try to earn it. On the other hand, there are alot of times where I second guess those reasons that make him a bad guy and I think maybe he is just trying to reconnect with his kids. He atleast came back, so maybe he missed them. Maybe he is just looking for a second chance. He might be attempting to make up for it by taking them on the trip, even though it seems like there is some sort of personal gain in it for him besides spending time with his kids. Ivan is very irritated by his father and is stubborn to him. Sometimes he even doubts that it is his father. Andrey is much more obedient to the father but is easily persuaded by Ivan to join his side. In this way I think that the father brings the boys together.

We never find out what was in the box that the father goes to the island for and digs up. We also never find out if he needed the boys on the trip for some reason or if he just wanted to spend time with them. I think the director really wanted you to be able to develop your own opinion of the father without these pieces of information. It creates alot more debate and discussion. It allows your own thoughts, ideas, and feelings to be created. He didn't want to just lay it all out in front of you, he wants you to make of it what you see and feel.

Very good movie, to say the least. It was a very artistic, but it was also very entertaining for me. I thought right from the beginning that the first two scenes or days seemed alot like journal or diary entries, then to my suprise, that is how the rest of the movie went. It would kind of jump into certain parts of days, where something interesting happened, then we could leave the scene and move ahead several hours to something else prominant.

I enjoyed this film very much.

Brother

There were many things that I found very interesting about the film Brother. Brother was a very good movie to me. It reminded me alot of the mob movies that we have here in the US. One of the things that I liked the most about the film was how the brother came onto the scene and just took everything over. His older brother was supposed to be some crazy guy that was really high up and kind of a man in power, but the kid comes in and is dominating everything that goes on.

Besides noticing this about the film, I also noticed that their seemed to be alot of economic depression. Other than the money laundering and stuff like that going on, all of the other people seem very poor. We see the german and all of the other "homeless" people. I think that they are in the cemetery too. There is also alot of drug use shown in the movie. It is kind of an interesting scene when he is in the club, which I think shows his youth and immaturity, even after we see him killing guys and crafting his own weapons.

I would definitely recommend this film to others and I would love to watch it again.

Little Vera

I thought that Little Vera was a very interesting film. I enjoyed it alot. It had a very good story line and I like some of the thematic elements used.

One of the major things that caught my attention in the film was how alcohol was used in the film. It was used very often in the movie. Also, almost all of the characters in the movie drank at some part during the film. It seemed like whenever any of them would drink gin, they would become very angry and violent. Their true emotions would come out. Usually it is the father that becomes more drunk and angry than any of the other characters. He will yell at his family, even calling his daughter a slut or a whore. Then, he even stabs his daughters fiance after he tried to control the dad's drunkeness.

The drinking was one of the ways in which I saw that alot of the film was spent showing the almost absence of care about what they are really doing. The daughter is shown several times out partying, which is how she meets her fiance. They sleep together, unmarried, really early in their relationship. They don't really seem like they are in love, even though they try to pretend like they really are. This also seems to be the case with the parents as well. They don't really show true love between them.

I enjoyed watching the movie alot. I would like to see it again sometime to see if I develop any ideas about the messages that were trying to be conveyed.

Moscow Does Not Believe in Tears

Today we had the opportunity to enjoy Moscow Does Not Believe in Tears. This movie was a very good movie. I am not normally attracted to this type of a movie, but I actually really liked it.

The three girl friends were the main characters in the film. They were great friends, but somehow very different from one another. Antonina represented a very, very modest girl. She didn't want much. She only wanted someone who she loved and would truly love her back. This is not to say that the other two did not want this as well, but this is all that she wanted. She didn't care about the money or the fame. Lyudmila, however, is the complete opposite. She is looking for a man with alot of security. She wants them to be rich and famous, therefore making her rich and famous. I find Katerina to be in between these two polar opposites. We sometimes see her wanting the more famous, wealthy men. I think that alot of this comes from the influence of Lyudmila though. Later in the film, more in the second half, we can see that she is more looking for the same type of thing that Antonina found.

One other difference that I noticed between parts, besides the change in Antonina, was that there was almost a change of luck in general if you would call it that. Everyone seemed quite a bit happier in the second part, whereas everything was kind of falling apart throughout the first part. In part one, Katerina is doing really crappy work. It is alot of hard labor. In the second part we see her being the boss figure of a plant.

Ivan's Childhood

Today we watched the film Ivan's Childhood. I thought that this film was very good. I especially enjoyed the idea of the kid being such a big part of the war. When he first comes back to the Russian side, the military officer doesn't even believe what Ivan is trying to tell him. Ivan is shown to be a huge part of the Russian military and at one point it is even said that scouting is the most important part of war. This film ends tragically when we find that the boy has been killed. Ivan knew that he had the chance of death though. He didn't care, he wasn't scared of anything really. At one point he said that anyone able to be in the war but not helping is a useless person.

The film shows the maturity of Ivan very well. Ivan lost all of his family and was left alone, but then he found the military. He is already great friends with Kholin and Katasonov and then we get to see the great friendship develop between Ivan and Galtsev. I think it is almost like a brotherly relationship. Sometimes it appears like they are trying to control him, like a father, but he ultimately makes his decisions which makes it feel more like a brother trying to look over him but eventually letting Ivan decide.

This movie seemed alot different to me than Mirror. It had a much better story line. One of the repeating images that I noticed were the birch trees. I really enjoyed the multiple scenes where the camera would be moving through the birch tree forests. This type of forest is very repetitive. The trees all look the same and it almost seems like you lose track of where you are or where you started. You look around and all you see is trees. He did a very good job directing this movie.

Mirror

Today we watched the film Mirror by Andrey Tarkovsky. It was a very challenging film for me to watch. I kept my mind open and tried to rely on my instincts to figure something out about the film, but it never happened. I just couldn't grasp exactly what was going on. This great challenge, although tough, makes the movie one of a kind. I have never seen another movie like this. I guess that their were similarities to horror films, like the hair washing scene, which was very creepy. I think that the main problem with understanding this movie is that there is a hard connection to make between scenes.

One of the things that I did notice about the film was the change of time(year). There were many times where it was a big flashback, where it would change to black and white, and where houses were being destroyed. There were also other times that there might have been glimpses into the future.

This was a very artistic film. There were some recurring themes or images that I noticed. I think that the wind blowing had alot of significance in the beginning and end of the movie. Also, the water well that is shown a couple of times in different shots. And obviosly, mirrors and reflections were found alot in the film. These were used and the film was more than likely named as it is because of what mirrors do. It is almost like another world exactly like yours on the other side of the mirror. People use mirrors alot and I think this movie likes to use them to show some deeper message that I can't quite grasp.

It was probably my least favorite film so far, only because I couldn't follow it. I appreciate the artistic quality but I would need to hear some explanation and watch it a couple more times to enjoy it more.

Ballad of a Soldier

I really enjoyed the Ballad of a Soldier alot. It had a very good story line and it kept me very interested. This war film was alot different than alot of the other war films that we have watched though. It focused alot more on the individual soldier Aleksei. It also doesn't really contain that many battle scenes. There is the opening scene with him all by himself in the field, when he takes on two tanks, then after that the rest of the film is all about his trip home. It explores the heart of the common soldier. This movie differs greatly from the Socialist Realist films that we have been watching in that there is no real obvious propaganda message included in the film. It does show you that alot of common people can be great heroes, but that isnt the same message as the Socialist Realist films try to send out. I think that it does carry a message of bravery, courage, and heroism. Aleksei stops both of the tanks in the beginning by himself. Then he goes on to save alot of people from the burning train. I think that it also had the message that Russians need to show more recognition for the soldiers lost in the war. Like we were talking about in class, a whole generation of men were wiped out. As you can see in the film, there is almost no respect shown for Aleksei. First his commander won't believe that he took out the tanks by himself. Then nobody on the train car will believe him either. After he saves all of the people from the burning train, people are telling him to get out of the way and calling him lazy. I think that Chukhrai was trying to show that the Russians were lacking respect for the lost men in WWII.

I would place this film in the entertainment category more than any of the others. It just kept me very interested, and I don't really feel like I was getting a major propagandistic message from the film. It was an artistic film and it was put together really well, butI would definitely classify it as more of an entertaining film.

Even though this story is only about one man, it was fairly easy for me to think of him as every other soldier in the war for Russia. I think that all of the encounters that he has show how caring he is and how much that the Russian soldiers did for their country. Everything is shown on the scale of one person, but he is supposed to represent every member of the army.

Aleksei's meeting with his mother seemed to be very, very brief. It kind of disapointed me, and I think that that is exactly what Chukhrai wanted to do with this scene. He wants you to see how much the mothers and wives suffered through this time of WWII. He barely gets to speak to his mother before he has to head back to the front lines. It really makes you feel sorry for him and his mother, and for all soldiers and their families. It shows the great losses that Russia had from the war.

Ivan the Terrible, Part 1

First of all, I don't think that I would have been able to tell that this was directed by Eisenstein, even after seeing Battleship Potemkin. I would probably think that the director of Ivan the Terrible was influenced by Eisenstein. Over the rather long period of time between these two movies, I think that Eisenstein developed into much more of a creative director. I saw alot more creativity and personal feelings being shown in this film. Potemkin had a very clean cut, clear message. It didn't really lead you astray, it was straightforward. On the other hand, this film contained alot more elusiveness and was not near as straightforward. The "sound" Eisenstein seems to be much more expressive with his own feelings and opinions, making the movie more his own, than the usual Socialist Realist type movie. The montage was alot different in this movie. He did still use alot of different shots, changing the angles and moving the camera, but I think that in this film he used much better camera angles to get better shots, making him not have to change scenes so much.

One of the themes from the traditional idea of the Socialist Realist movies that was also in this film was the idea of having the whole country come together to succeed. I think that Ivan the terrible is presented in both a positive and a negative manner. On one hand, he is trying to bring the nation of Russia together because it is the only way that they will survive and protect the motherland. On the other hand, he is portrayed very power hungry. He says that it is all for Russia, but it seems like he really enjoys having all of the power. I can't even begin to explain how similar Ivan seems to be like Stalin. He is trying to bring Russia together, in a socialist manner. He is eliminating those with power closest to him and pulling peasant like people up into their spots because he can trust them. Stalin did this same exact thing when he was reigning.

The Boyars are presented to be much more wealthy and more of the evil characters of the film. At least in my eyes, the Boyars are very villainous. They all seem very self-centered. They care more about themselves than the people. Ivan might be like this as well, but atleast he says that he is doing it for the Russian people. He is atleast trying to consolidate the Russians in attempt to save them all.

After reading the article on the Japanese Kabuki theatre, I think that it influenced the style of the acting and of the actors themselves in this film. The actors, specifically the wealthier men were dressed very lavishly and over the top. They crown and the globe and the staff were all covered in jewels. Everything was very highly sylized. It was also a very dramatic film. The drama of the film was displayed at an unordinary amount. Alot of emotion was shown in faces and body movements and gestures.

I think that the cross in the film was a recurring visual image that was used quite frequently. Religion seemed to be a rather large aspect of the film in the beginning, then it slowly faded out. The cross remained a large part of the movie. It was shown all over the place, and they would do the sign of the cross alot. Another thing that I really noticed was the shadows in the film, especially Ivan's. When he had is robe or cloak on, he almost seemed like an animal. I'm not really sure why this was. He was shown with very long, unhuman like arms. I kind of felt like the times when they would show this image, it might have been a change in his character, when he became a little bit more aggressive during a couple of parts in the film, when he becomes more power hungry than compassionate.

Burnt by the Sun

I found this film very interesting, however there were many things about the movie that made me upset. It was easy for me anyways, to see Dmitri as an intruder into the lives of happy people, and causing harm to everyone. I can see how you could side with him because he had to leave the country and lost alot of what he had in his life. But, that doesn't matter, he shouldn't have come back and made all of that crap up about Kotov who was obviosly very loyal to his country. Kotov was also portrayed as much more peasant like than Dmitri even though Kotov was a high-rank military official. Dmitri is shown as being very lavish. He knows how to play the piano well and tap-dance. He questions why they don't play more gentlemenly games.

I think that using this song as the title for the movie was a very good idea. The sun can portray the revolution or the ideas of the Socialist Realism. Almost all of the people in this film get "burnt by the sun", in that they almost all lost their lives trying to create this perfect socialism. All most all of the characters were killed in this film, even the young daughter, who was truly the brightness of the film, she could pick her dad's emotions up with one look even when something terrible had happened or he was in a bad mood.

I already explained how I strongly disliked Mitya's character. He was very sneaky and there wasn't one moment where I sided with him. Kotov and Chapaev seem very similar to me. They are both high ranked military officials, but they don't live their everyday life like that. They view themselves as equals with everyone else. I don't think that there were political motives at all in the arresting of Kotov. That was just Mitya's excuse for getting back at Kotov, it was purely personal motives that caused this to occur.

I think that this film was probably more for an international audience. I think that it was made to be more popular of a film and make the world aware of these things and the struggles and bad things that occured during the Socialist Realist time. It seems like it really was a film trying to say, "These are some of the things that really happened in Russia, and what they had to go through." It definitely wouldn't be purely for the other countries of the world, I think that it is a good film for Russians too. It portrays the message of how loyal some of the military was to the idea of the Revolution. It also shows great honor in Kotov, when he knows what is going to happen to him, however he goes willingly, and shows trust, because he believes that he will be set free by Stalin himself.

I liked this movie alot, however the end was fairly depressing. It was nice to see some color and still have the sound. I also liked the acting in the film alot, it definitely deserved the Oscar.

Circus

Circus, a Socialist Realist musical comedy, was a very good movie. I really liked watching it a lot, it kept me entertained very well. One of the aspects of the movie that was really interesting to me was just the comedic style of the actors and actresses. Their style was much different from the comedy in Irony of Fate. It was much more of a goofy comedy, just like in the real circus, when they do stupid things to try to make you laugh. Except in this movie this type of comedy continued off of the stage and you could see the goofiness in their real lives.

There seem to be several defining traits of the Socialist Realist films that we have watched. One of the more prominent traits is that they both separate the good from the bad, and they make it so that you can tell which side they are on. Another thing that stems out from this is that the good side shows characteristics of honesty, appear more peasant like, and also they are shown to approve of all people and consider them equals. This is a major part of the socialist idea, to make everyone equal and seen as equal in the eyes of all. Circus shows this idea several times but especially at the end. When Mary's secret is revealed that she has a black baby, Von Kneishitz(the bad side), who revealed the secret, is acting like it is a terrible thing and it is unacceptable. However, the entire rest of the crowd and the other characters are kind of like "So what?". It shows that they don't care what the color of the skin of the child is or anyones skin color, they are all accepted and equal to one another.

Even though I can tell that the director's or the artist's are restricted by Socialist Realism, I still think there is alot of room for them to give their own creative expression. They can make the movie in any form that they really like, such as comedy, romance, and war. Just because they have to portray certain messages, I don't think that it is ultimately restricting, they can also use their own creativity to portray these movies.

I would place this right in the middle of the triangle because I feel like it really covered all forms of film. I think that it was very artistic because of the whole circus thing. We know that it was a propaganda film because it was created during this time of Socialist Realism. Also, it was very entertaining. It was an excellent film.

Chapaev

This film was one of the first Soviet blockbuster movies. This film was probably so popular because it was based on real life events. Chapaev was a legendary commander of the Red Army in the civil war against the White Army. This movie is different from Battleship Potemkin in that it was a lot more realistic. It was much more believable, that this was truly how it all happened. The sound of the film also makes it much more popular in my eyes, because it creates more entertainment, to hear their voices, and read all of what they are saying. I think that the sound made a huge impact on this film, so I think that without it, it wouldn't have survived or it would have at least not been as popular as it was.

It was easy to see that Chapaev was the big hero of this film. He was brave, and showed a lot of honor on the battlefield, yet he wasn't full of himself, he saw himself as equal to all of the other men. He said something like, on the battlefield I will command you, but off the battlefield, treat me just like you would anyone else. Even though Chapaev was the ultimate hero of the film, there were a couple other heroes that shined forth at different times. One of these was the Commissar Furmanov, who seemed to be very influential on Chapaev in the movie. When the movie starts out however, they don't seem to be on that good of terms, but that all changes. By the end of the movie, when he is assigned a new Commisar, you can see how Chapaev and Fumanov have grown together when they embrace each other before Furmanov leaves. Another hero of this film was Petka, Chapaev's protege who is shot and killed while trying to give Chapaev enough time to escape. These two have much different of a relationship. Chapaev is definitely like a father figure to Petka, like when he talks to him about him going off and getting married to Anka and being so happy together. It is just like how a father would talk to his son. Also, when he protects him when the Whites have come in the night, and he tells Petka to leave with Anka, to save themselves. This brings me directly to my next hero. During the first attack on the Reds, Anka used the machine gun to force the Whites to defeat. All by herself she held of the entire army, that is something truly heroic to me.

One of the characteristics that I noticed to distinguish the Reds from the Whites is that the Reds seemed to be alot more Proletarian, where as the Whites seemed to be more bourgeoisie. Or in other words the Reds seemed to be more like peasants, while the Whites were much wealthier and dressed more lavishly.

Man with the Movie Camera

This film is one of the most unusual films that I have ever seen. I was continually waiting for something to catch my eye, or something to start to make sense, but that time never came around.

Since I didn't come up with anything that was too significant, I will just talk about some of the things that I noticed during the film. There were several times when they would just show the making of a movie, cutting and editing the film and putting it all together. One of the things that I thought might have been going on the the film, is kind of how the camera seems to bring things to life in the morning. As the camera man films people sleeping, they start to wake up and get the day going. The train scenes are also interesting. The way that he captured the train was different than any of the other trains scenes that we have seen. I also think that the movie shows how camera men see so much, good and bad, life and death, birth, and really anything that happens, the film can capture.

One thing that I especially found entertaining about the film is that it showed people playing musical instruments. This is so strange because they still did not yet have sound for their films. I don't really see how watching someone play an instrument could be entertaining without the sound, you would have to use your imagination. Either this, or he made the film expecting to have an orchestra always at the showing to provide the music. There was a lot of the physical day to day labor filmed. There was a lot of camera movement, special effects, and illusions of time and reality. I like the scenes where they would set up inanimate objects to appear like they were moving by themselves. It is something simple to do, by shooting shots, then cutting, moving the object, shooting, and cutting over and over to portray them as moving by themselves. However, at that time, this would have blown my mind. There also seemed to be a lot of things about Lenin in the film, but I couldn't tell what he was really getting at with all of it.

All in all, this film was very interesting but I didn't really have a clue as to what was going on.

Battleship Potemkin

There were so many significant things that I found in this film. I am going to try to get everything down that I can remember well. First of all, I liked this film a lot more than the three we watched the other day. This is an extremely influential film made in 1925. It is much different than prior silent films, it features a lot more propaganda. One of the first things that we were asked to watch for was if we could tell the difference between the good guys and the bad guys. The good guys in the film seemed to all be wearing white, which is a commonly used color to represent the good side or good men. At one point one of the guys even takes off another guys' coat and hat and gives him a white hat to wear after they had won over the ship.

One of the images that i saw in the movie that was a type of foreshadowing was when they were going to kill the lower rank men. The officer told them to go get a canvas to cover them with while they shot them and when they carried the canvas out, one of the guys looked at it and it looked exactly like there was a body already inside, like a body bag. Even though this was the image that we saw, the killing didn't happen. Since it didn't happen it might not have been anything really at all, but it just caught my attention because there seemed to be a purpose to showing it.

The religious character in this film was very interesting. I wasn't really sure what was going on with him. It really confused me, maybe someone could enlighten me on what was happening there.

The idea of a revolution is present in every part of this film, starting on the boat and moved onto the shore. This is a reason why this film is a huge piece of propaganda. It is trying to convince the audience of how good a revolution can be. It showed the officers on the boat as really bad men, who represent the wealthier men of the country that should be revolted against by the Proletarians or workers below them who don't have the high ranks or a lot of money or power. The soldiers call each other brothers and this represents how the proletarians should come together and be like a family. It shows the closeness between the people and that you can succeed when you work together like they do in their own little revolution. The soldiers in the town that come out of the building are displayed in a very bad way. They are shown to be very cruel, shooting anyone in sight, even little kids. Seeing this makes you want to do something about it. Another part when you can see them encouraging the people was when they joined in saying "all for one and one for all". Last but not least their red flag waving with the images of the hammer, the scythe, and the star is shown waving multiple times. This flag symbolizes the Proletarians or the workers of the Soviet Union.

One part of the cinematography of the film that I enjoyed alot were some of the camera angles that were taken, especially one where it seemed like the camera was hovering off the boat up high in the air looking down at the boat. The other part that I really enjoyed was the special effects. There were two times when I really noticed the special effects. One of them was the blood and gunshot wounds on the civilians shot by the military officers coming down the stairs. The other time was when there were explosions shown on buildings and other places.

I enjoyed this movie alot, it was very good and I think it did an excellent job sending out the messages that it wanted to portray.

Earliest Silent Films

Today in class, we had the chance to watch the first film ever shot. It was a silent film, because the technology of adding sound to films was added way after the start of the creation of the films. There were some very interesting things that I noticed about this film. One of them was the way that the camera never seemed to capture any individual people. Instead, they would film from somewhat of a distance. They would film alot of different normal day things happening and they would include the setting. I was able to see the big buildings in the background and people covering the streets. There was never really a piece of the film that had any closeups on one or more people, they were more like documentaries made of big cities. They picked cities that people wanted to see. Places in the United States were filmed, like Chicago and New York, plus places all over the world, even in Moscow. Another thing that I noticed about the film was that the camera angle or direction never changes. The shots that they would take were amazing, because they picked spots that could show you alot about what places are like. The way that they filmed in this way lets us use it for historical information, like how they dress and act. The train film was also very interesting. I can see how someone might be a little bit frightened or freaked out by moving pictures because it was something very new to them.

The other three films that we watched today, had alot in common. These movies were all made around the same time. This explains why they are so similar, because as we read in the Kenez for today, the filmmakers would produce things that the people were entertained by. Obviously the people in this time really started to like dramatic romances. These films told stories to the viewer, unlike the first film. Each of the films featured some type of affair. In the first two films the women weren't being loyal to their men, but in the third, it was the man who was not loyal to his woman. The ideas of affairs or not being loyal to your significant other are constantly used in the films produced today in the US. It is a very universal idea. These films were also silent, but there is music that accompanies them. I think that the music was probably a huge improvement to the viewers back then. First of all because they probably started thinking that if they could put music with the film, eventually they will have the technology to have all of the sound for movies. It was probably also a big improvement to the film because it makes it appeal more to the viewers' senses. Also, even though they were silent films, the actors do a really good job of showing emotions with their facial expressions and body gestures. This helps the viewer to follow along much more easily, along with the short breaks that come onto the screen showing what is said.

Irony of Fate, Enjoy Your Bath Part 2

After finishing the rest of the movie today, there were a lot of things that I liked and disliked. I thought that the movie started to take a much more serious side than before. The second part reminded me a lot of the romantic comedies that we have in the US. This is not a terrible thing, however I was hoping for a little bit more comedy. It was still very enjoyable, and it did have me hooked on waiting to find out what was going to happen between Zhenya and Nadya. The movie did a very good job of keeping that aspect of the movie very suspenseful and I am happy with the ending. It is the type of movie that needs an ending like that, it does seem a little bit crazy or far fetched, but that doesn't matter, the whole movie was crazy. Plus, nobody in the movie would really end up happy, and that type of an ending is usually no fun.

One of the things that I really started to notice about the movie is the recurring theme of the guitar and music. Just as we talked about in class today, about how there are lines in the movie, like the tradition of the bathhouse, that seem to repeat over and over throughout the film. I think that these are like verses to a song and the repetitious parts are just like a chorus or a refrain. Both Zhenya and Nadya play the guitar and sing several times throughout the movie. So in a way, I think that this movie is supposed to resemble a song or a poem. The movie is creating its own romantic and comedic song.

Probably more than anyone else in this movie, I really enjoyed the character of Ippolit. I did enjoy the character of Zhenya very much, however in the second part of the film, Ippolit the main source of comedy. I laughed every time that I would here the door buzzer when Zhenya and Nadya would finally be close to each other again, and he would come in rudely and then just storm right back out again. He played a very good role in the film.

Overall the movie was very good. I am looking forward to more movies similar to this one. It captured my attention from the start and even though it was a long movie, it didn't hardly seem long at all, it was a lot of fun to watch.

The reading for tonight was a little bit rough to read only because of all of the names and dates. However, I found it interesting to read about how the film making started in Russia, and also about the somewhat rebellious attitudes of the writers and film makers. They ignored some of what they were told that they couldn't do and made what pleased the crowd. They were looking to make some money, so they had to give the people the films that entertained them. The limitations that were put on them were normally by the government or the church. This is understandable because you wouldn't want somebody releasing anything that may influence of change the opinions of a controlled society. It was an interesting read, but I am looking forward to moving on to a little bit more modern times.

Irony of Fate, Enjoy Your Bath Part 1

Hey, so the blog is up and running and I am just going to put the first assignment that we had on here as my first blog and as kind of a trial blog to make sure everything is working correctly.

One of my first impressions from this Russian comedy is that it is remarkably funny. Originally I didn’t think that I would find it as humorous as it actually is. I thought that it would be a lot different from our comedies. I thought this way only because people from different cultures have different tastes and behave differently. However, that is not so much the case with this movie. So far, it has been very interesting to me.

I think that this movie strongly resembles the types of comedies that the US was making in the 1970’s and 80’s. I can also easily relate this to sitcoms that we have in the US today. The family type atmospheres and intertwining relationships, along with all of the arguing and confusion are all typically found in US sitcoms. However, there is quite a difference between this comedy and the comedies that we have being made today in the US. The comedies today are a lot more liberal. I think that the conservatism of Russia held back their movies from some of the things featured in our films.

One thing I really like about this movie is that it contains a lot more than just jokes and comedy. It has a very good story built inside of it that keeps you very into the movie, whereas, some of the comedies here in the United States seem to be losing that great story underneath. One of the things that particularly stood out to me in the film that is peculiar to Russians is the housing arrangements. Even thought the coincidences of this story are already hard to imagine, it would be impossible to imagine if there wasn’t the extreme similarities that are present amongst the cities. With the street names and apartment building style being exactly the same, it makes it easier for this story to come about.

Overall I would say that the humor in this movie is very similar to the humor that I get out of older comedies in the US. It is a very entertaining film and I would actually watch it a second time if I ever have the chance, maybe suggest it to some friends as well. I can see why it is called one of the greatest Russian/Soviet comedies of all time.