THE MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA (1929)

A.K.A.: Chelovek s kino-apparatom

Country: U.S.S.R.

Genre(s): Art Film / Documentary / Propaganda

Director: Dziga Vertov

Cast: Mikhail  Kaufman

Plot

There is no plot to speak of in this film.  It is primarily a collection of candid moments from the lives of everyday people in the Soviet Union of the period.

What I Liked

Having read that this film was mostly an aesthetic and political statement by its makers without a storyline of any kind, I have deliberately avoided watching this film for a while, figuring I would find it dated, pretentious, and boring.  However, while watching it, I was surprised how well this film kept my attention.  Thrilling, it wasn’t.  Yet two elements kept the film at the very least watchable and at times even interesting. 

First, the movie documents the typical minutiae of daily life nearly a century ago, capturing real people in private and everyday moments that would otherwise be ignored by most artists, storytellers, and filmmakers.  Thus it is a compelling and gorgeous historical document of the ways in which people from that time in place lived differently from today, and also the ways in which they were very much the same.  At the movie’s outset, the title cards express the filmmakers’ goal of establishing the cinema as a universal human language.  To do so, they showed the world how beautiful human beings, particularly the working class, were in both their day-to-day activities, their physical forms, and their industrial endeavors.  The filmmakers succeeded surprisingly well in their goal, considering that that beauty remains visible 87 years after it was first put to celluloid.

The second way in which the film remains interesting was through its technical achievements.  This film is as much a tribute to film and filmmakers as it is to mankind in general.  Thus director Dziga Vertov and his wife/editor Elizaveta Svilova assembled pretty much every special effect and technical approach in existence to that point in motion picture history: stop-motion photography, time lapse, double exposure, freeze frame, split screen, and so on.  It must have been pretty astonishing stuff for audiences of the day.  Even today, a first time viewer won’t know what to expect next from one moment to another, even if we are familiar with all of the techniques involved.  Svilova edited the film so that scenes that otherwise seem completely unrelated are juxtaposed against one another in ways that emphasize their hidden similarities.  That the cutting back and forth between these images happens at a frenetic pace helps keep the eye busy, preventing boredom, and really predicting (maybe even influencing?) the more recent filmmaking techniques of men like Guy Ritchie or Darren Aronofsky.

What I Disliked

Even after taking all of the above into consideration, “The Man with a Movie Camera” really was nothing more than a curiosity from a bygone era for me.  Nothing about the movie really moved me emotionally, nor did it provide any significant intellectual revelation.  It certainly didn’t approach anything resembling entertainment, either.  All in all, while I can respect what the filmmakers accomplished, it doesn’t mean I’ll be watching this movie a second time.

Most Memorable Scene

Because this film lacked any conventional scenes or plot structure, it is impossible to describe a scene that sticks out the most.

My Rating: 3 out of 5

GLADIATOR (2000)

Country: U.S.A. / U.K.

Genre(s): Action / Adventure / Epic

Director: Ridley Scott

Cast: Russell Crowe / Joaquin Phoenix / Connie Nielsen

Plot

Maximus, General of Ancient Rome, is betrayed by the newly crowned Emperor Commodus, who murders his family and forces him into hiding.  Living as a slave and then as a gladiator, Maximus returns to Rome to exact vengeance.

What I Liked

The emperors of Ancient Rome liked to keep the masses placated with mindless bloodshed in the various arenas throughout their Empire.  Inevitably, as time passed, the emperors would have to continually top themselves and each other in decorating this bloodshed with increasingly lavish productions, replete with sets, live animals, mock sea battles, and –of course- more and more bloodshed, so as to prevent the audiences from growing desensitized and bored.  In some ways, “Gladiator” can be said to be a worthy product of that tradition as it has continued through the millennia to today’s popular cinema.  It is nothing, if not a two and a half hour visual spectacle with monumental production values.

I chose the word “monumental” because the plentiful set pieces and visual effects continue to be convincing and dazzling, despite the rapid advancements of filmmaking technology which have produced increasingly jaded audiences over these past fifteen years.  From the cinematography of the early scenes documenting Maximus’ escape from Commodus’ forces to his time as a slave in a far off land, along with the magnificent CGI effects that revive the awe of Ancient Rome, remain as gorgeous as they are convincing.

What I Didn’t Like

[Ancient Rome is probably my favorite period of world history and I’ve done my fair share of reading no the subject, but I’m going to resist the temptation to point out all of this movie’s historical flaws, out of respect for creative license and recognizing that it is a work of historic fiction.]

The marvelous display serves as a terrific distraction from what are ultimately generic characters populating a bare-bones story.  Our good guy, wronged in the worst way and fighting his way up form nothing, is the ultimate underdog who, armed with nothing but his manly stoicism and brute force, triumphs (spoiler?) over a suitably whiny and effeminate bad guy.  Actors Russell Crowe and Joaquin Phoenix are at least suitable in their bare-bones roles as good guy and bad guy, respectively.  It could even be argued that an escapist epic like this shouldn’t bother with moral complexities or underlying themes about society, power, or life; yet it is still obvious that the filmmakers didn’t put half the attention to detail into writing their movie that they did into actually producing it.

Ultimately, “Gladiator” failed to pull at my heart-strings or inspire me in even the slightest way.  This was the second time I’ve seen the movie and I admit I was still thoroughly impressed by the majesty of its visuals, but on an emotional level I was completely unmoved.  This film was a mega-hit upon its release, but today I don’t really hear many people talking about this one when the topic of great movies comes up anymore.  I think that’s because, while it’s certainly worth seeing at least once for the sheer visual power, a second viewing is entirely unnecessary because there is very little to enjoy once one gets over the “wow” of the initial spectacle.

Most Memorable Scene

For a lot of people I’m sure that the multiple scenes of gladiatorial combat that takes place in the second half of the movie are the most memorable, which makes sense, considering the title, as well as the fact that these scenes amount to the dramatic climax of the films plot.  Not to mention the sheer scope of what the filmmakers accomplished technically in pulling those scenes off.  They are truly technical masterpieces.

However, when I think of “Gladiator,” the scene that most often comes to mind is the moments preceding the opening battle between the Roman legions, with Maximus at the fore, and the enemy barbarians.  I’ve been thinking about why that is and haven’t yet come up with a satisfactory answer, but it’s the truth.  Those moments with Maximus and his men preparing for battle just stand out and maybe that’s all there is to it.  There’s not another moment in the rest of the two-and-a-half hours that makes use of silence and suspense over pomp and violence.

My Rating: 3 out of 5