I had a chance to look briefly at the Ruscico DVDs I ordered. In general, I am not disappointed with the quality of the discs, although the quality of the individual titles varies quite a bit.
The best looking one of the batch is definitely THE COMMISAR -- very sharp and clean image for a film of the late 60s. REPENTANCE and DESTINY OF A MAN come in second. DESTINY OF A MAN reminds of Chukrai's BALLAD OF A SOLDIER both in content of course, but also in the quality of the image.
RUSLAN AND LUDMILA and WAR AND PEACE both are fine, but somehow the image on these discs seem a little muted. If one is interested in the films, I see no reason not to go with these editions. If one is a die hard technical person, I can see how they may disappoint.
THE 41ST is an early 50s color film and looks it. Again, the film looked really exciting to me, but the colors of the DVD looked rather faded in places (again, this is based on just a brief random look at the disc).
MOSCOW DOES NOT BELIEVE IN TEARS I watched in its entirety, and the image on this disc is clean, while the colors again are subdued. However, the film can best be described as social-realist, and strong colors appear to have been avoided altogether in the making of the film. There is in my view no reason not to go with this edition, if one is interested and determined to watch this key film of the late Soviet period.
The film is in two parts, the first depicting the life of three young girls from the country, who have settled in Moscow at the end of the 50s to pursue education and marriage. The second part picks up twenty years later, and shows the mature life of the three women. It is not a film that is concerned with making big statements about the social and political state of the nation as such, rather it focuses on the commonplace events in the lives of its characters.
As a slice of life made and set during the days before the end of Communicism in Russia (USSR), I found the film really interesting. Growing up in the '70s and '80s, I had a very strong image of the Soviet Union as a deeply depressed place, where people had no freedom and really no individuality. Without painting a rosy image of life in the Soviet Union, the film to a large extent deflates this image. The characters in the film are shown to live through all the same situations, and to face all the same questions, as people in the West. Mainly, the differences between East and West are in the details -- the cars that we see are of course not the same as were seen in the streets of Western Europe or the United States at the time, the supermarket that is seen at one point carries none of the brands or colorful packaging of a Western store, and the apartments of the characters are more rustic and "old-fashioned." Also (as mentioned earlier), the palette of colors somehow seems much more limited than in the West -- this could just be a formal decision, but there is nothing about the film that really suggests that this should be so.
Being a film about "ordinary people," the film is carried by the quality of the actors. The central character of Katerina, who becomes pregnant at a young age, is deserted by her lover, and proceeds to raise her daughter alone, while successfully pursuing a career that leads her to eventually become director of the factory in which she works, is played beautifully and with great restraint by Vera Alentova. Her two friends -- the dutiful, traiditional Tonya, who marries at an early age and lives a humble but happy life, and, the more modern and rebellious Ludmila, who lives through a brief, unhappy marriage to a celebrated hockey player turned alcoholic are likewise believably portrayed by Raisa Ryazanova and Irina Muraveva, respectively. Of the male characters, the only one that really stands out is Georgy -- an eccentric die and tool maker, whom Katerina meets in the second half of the film (played by the celebrated Russian actor Alexei Batalov).
When I first started to become really interested in film in the mid-80s, I remember reading about the success of MOSCOW DOES NOT BELIEVE IN TEARS. Amongst other things, it won the Academy Award for best foreign film in 1980 or 1981. Lately, the film was mentioned by a Russian friend of mine, who told me that her and her friends saw it endlessly in their youth, and that the character of the strong and independent Katerina represented a role model to them as well as many other young Russian women at the time.
Those are my brief notes... as always I would be interested in reading thougths and insights from other forum members.
RUSCICO (Russian Cinema Council)
-
zedz
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 11:24 pm
This is probably one of the advantages of having your film banned for twenty years!Scharphedin2 wrote:The best looking one of the batch is definitely THE COMMISAR -- very sharp and clean image for a film of the late 60s.
Thanks for the appraisals of the various discs. Admins - this thread should surely be a sticky.
-
Michael Kerpan
- Spelling Bee Champeen
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:20 pm
- Location: New England
- Contact:
-
cdnchris
- Site Admin
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 6:45 pm
- Location: Washington
- Contact:
-
Scharphedin2
- Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 11:37 am
- Location: Denmark/Sweden
After watching REPENTANCE, I would add the following concerning Ruscico's DVD (Russian R0 PAL) of the film. The disc offers three different soundtracks to the film – Georgian, Russian and French – all of which are 5.1. I am fairly sure that this is not the way the soundtrack was originally recorded (Ruscico having a history of creating dolby tracks for their releases), and although my enjoyment did not suffer for it, I make this comment in the interest of objectivity. What I found to be a greater violation of the film was the vertical display of “Ruscicoâ€
-
Kirkinson
- Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 9:34 am
- Location: Portland, OR
That one's not so surreal. It was a reference to the Metekhi church in Tbilisi, which in its current form has existed since the 13th century (though supposedly there has been a church on that spot since the 5th). When Georgia was under the rule of Czarist Russia in the 1800's the church was used first as a barracks and then as a jail.Scharphedin2 wrote:many odd details of the story as such (the town cathedral being used for scientific experiments....) all lend to the film an air of the surreal.
During the Soviet era, Lavrenti Beria wanted to demolish the church and put a folk art museum in its place, but he was opposed by a group of intellectuals lead by a painter named Dimitri Shevardnadze. Beria suggested that a model of the church be made and preserved inside the future museum (a suggestion so wacky I can't believe Abuladze didn't include it in the film) and even visited Shevardnadze personally to tell him that he could be the director of the museum if he gave up his efforts to save the church (which he refused to do). The church was eventually saved, but Shevardnadze was arrested and executed.
The Metekhi church began functioning again (as a church) in 1988, a year after Repentance was released.
I never noticed the "Ruscico" logo appearing at the left edge of the frame. Maybe the TV I was using cut it off due to overscan. I'll keep my eyes out for it next time I watch it.
-
Scharphedin2
- Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 11:37 am
- Location: Denmark/Sweden
As much as I dislike to do this, I will start with a brief disclaimer: For anyone very particular about image quality, this is probably not a disc to purchase. From the little that I have managed to read about this film, it was amongst other things celebrated in its day for its groundbreaking color cinematography by Sergey Urusevsky. And, while the print used for this DVD is almost completely clean, its colors have suffered over time. Some scenes look gorgeous, but others look faded. In particular, scenes with the sky -- and the sky is a very important player in this particular film -- often look, as if the upper part of the frame had somehow been masked, and at times it is almost completely blocked out. It is an odd deficiency, and I can only think that it is due to some kind of special processing used at the time of the shoot that has made this part of the frame deteriorate at a more rapid rate than the rest of the image. If anyone has seen the film, or, may know what I am trying to describe, I would be interested to know what the cause of this phenomenon could be.
That said, the film is really wonderful in a very simple (almost naive) manner. It was Grigori Chukrai's first feature film after graduating from the VGIK, made in the mid-'50s, a few years before Ballad of a Soldier, which is very clearly the work of the same director.
The opening of the film depicts the sorry remains of a regiment of Red soldiers retreating across the Caspian desert after having seen action against the White army. On the brink of thirst and starvation, the small group of soldiers drag themselves onward, bundled up in their ragged uniforms, with many weeks worth of beard spilling out of their coarsened faces. In scene after scene we see the little train of men, silhouetted against the sky, as they crawl over virgin dunes, the imprints of their footsteps in the sand extending back into the camera eye. At one point a hurricane strikes, and for a few minutes, it would appear that the indistinct shapes of the men will be drowned completely in sand.
We learn that one of the surviving soldiers is a woman -- Maryulka. She is beautiful, and she is the sharpest sniper ever to be witnessed by the Commisar in charge of the group. Early on she demonstrates her prowess with a rifle by effortlessly picking off two enemies riding at full stride over the next ridge of dunes.
The soldiers are heading for the sea that they know lies somewhere beyond the desert. There they will be in friendly territory, and able to regroup. However, as the story progresses, it seems less and less likely that any of the soldiers will make it to those distant shores.
They encounter a caravan of traders, whom they hold up and force to hand over half of their camels. Amongst the traveling nomads is a White soldier, who is revealed to be an envoy, carrying important information to the Field Marshall of the White army. He is a strapping young man with a noble air about him, thick blonde hair and deep blue eyes. It is clear from the moment he becomes the prisoner of the Red soldiers that the rest of the story will concern him and Maryulka, who is charged with watching the prisoner.
I would have expected a Soviet film from the mid-'50s to have a very strong pro-Red agenda. Yet, without giving too much away, I can admit to being pleasantly surprised at the fallacy of my expectations in this regard. The plot developments in the latter half of the film are more sophisticated than that, and surprising in several instances. Let it suffice to say that the film has moments of great tenderness, and that the ocean figures in the film's latter stages just as prominently (and beautifully photographed), as the desert does in the beginning half. There is also a wonderful interlude involving a tribe of Asian people that adds another element of the exotic to this film, which on one hand is a rather common story of war and love, and at the same time so different from anything of this kind that a Western audience is accustomed to.
It would indeed be great to see this film in a restored print some day, but as I so often say in this forum, I find it to be a great privilege to be able to watch films like this one, which are so relatively far outside the byroads of any Western conception of the cinematic canon that the likelihood of ever seeing it in a restored version from an American or European company would appear slim at best.
In closing I add that the original mono soundtrack has been retained by Ruscico on this release, although a dolby soundtrack is available as well. In terms of extras, there are interviews with Grigori Chukrai and lead actor Oleg Strizhenov as old men.[/b]
That said, the film is really wonderful in a very simple (almost naive) manner. It was Grigori Chukrai's first feature film after graduating from the VGIK, made in the mid-'50s, a few years before Ballad of a Soldier, which is very clearly the work of the same director.
The opening of the film depicts the sorry remains of a regiment of Red soldiers retreating across the Caspian desert after having seen action against the White army. On the brink of thirst and starvation, the small group of soldiers drag themselves onward, bundled up in their ragged uniforms, with many weeks worth of beard spilling out of their coarsened faces. In scene after scene we see the little train of men, silhouetted against the sky, as they crawl over virgin dunes, the imprints of their footsteps in the sand extending back into the camera eye. At one point a hurricane strikes, and for a few minutes, it would appear that the indistinct shapes of the men will be drowned completely in sand.
We learn that one of the surviving soldiers is a woman -- Maryulka. She is beautiful, and she is the sharpest sniper ever to be witnessed by the Commisar in charge of the group. Early on she demonstrates her prowess with a rifle by effortlessly picking off two enemies riding at full stride over the next ridge of dunes.
The soldiers are heading for the sea that they know lies somewhere beyond the desert. There they will be in friendly territory, and able to regroup. However, as the story progresses, it seems less and less likely that any of the soldiers will make it to those distant shores.
They encounter a caravan of traders, whom they hold up and force to hand over half of their camels. Amongst the traveling nomads is a White soldier, who is revealed to be an envoy, carrying important information to the Field Marshall of the White army. He is a strapping young man with a noble air about him, thick blonde hair and deep blue eyes. It is clear from the moment he becomes the prisoner of the Red soldiers that the rest of the story will concern him and Maryulka, who is charged with watching the prisoner.
I would have expected a Soviet film from the mid-'50s to have a very strong pro-Red agenda. Yet, without giving too much away, I can admit to being pleasantly surprised at the fallacy of my expectations in this regard. The plot developments in the latter half of the film are more sophisticated than that, and surprising in several instances. Let it suffice to say that the film has moments of great tenderness, and that the ocean figures in the film's latter stages just as prominently (and beautifully photographed), as the desert does in the beginning half. There is also a wonderful interlude involving a tribe of Asian people that adds another element of the exotic to this film, which on one hand is a rather common story of war and love, and at the same time so different from anything of this kind that a Western audience is accustomed to.
It would indeed be great to see this film in a restored print some day, but as I so often say in this forum, I find it to be a great privilege to be able to watch films like this one, which are so relatively far outside the byroads of any Western conception of the cinematic canon that the likelihood of ever seeing it in a restored version from an American or European company would appear slim at best.
In closing I add that the original mono soundtrack has been retained by Ruscico on this release, although a dolby soundtrack is available as well. In terms of extras, there are interviews with Grigori Chukrai and lead actor Oleg Strizhenov as old men.[/b]
-
artfilmfan
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:11 am
Thanks for the wonderful write-up on "The Forty-First". I've wanted to see this film ever since I learned about it a few years ago. I'll be ordering the DVD.
As I recall, "Anna Karenina" has the same problem with fading colors that you described, especially in the outdoor scenes with the sky. And some indoor scenes look very nice.
As I recall, "Anna Karenina" has the same problem with fading colors that you described, especially in the outdoor scenes with the sky. And some indoor scenes look very nice.
-
Scharphedin2
- Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 11:37 am
- Location: Denmark/Sweden
Happy to hear that artfilmfan. I hope you like the film, when you get to see it.
Looking back over what I wrote, I am not sure that my enthusiasm for the film as such is clear enough. There cannot be many films in the history of world cinema that surpass the effective use of locales achieved by Chukrai and Urusevsky in The Forty-First. This ability of great films to allow us to "travel" is an aspect of film viewing that I particularly treasure; I would say that The Forty-First is on the level of such films as Dersu Uzala and Lawrence of Arabia in this respect. This must have been absolutely amazing to see on a huge screen at the premiere, when the colors were untainted by age.
Looking back over what I wrote, I am not sure that my enthusiasm for the film as such is clear enough. There cannot be many films in the history of world cinema that surpass the effective use of locales achieved by Chukrai and Urusevsky in The Forty-First. This ability of great films to allow us to "travel" is an aspect of film viewing that I particularly treasure; I would say that The Forty-First is on the level of such films as Dersu Uzala and Lawrence of Arabia in this respect. This must have been absolutely amazing to see on a huge screen at the premiere, when the colors were untainted by age.
-
artfilmfan
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:11 am
I've finally seen this movie. I like it. It's not as great as "Ballad of a Soldier", but it's a good movie.
My recollection (in an earlier posting) of the picture quality of "Anna Karenina" was not entirely correct. Although the colors look faded, just like in some of the scenes in "The Forty-First", I don't recall seeing the "masking" of the top part of the frame. Upon close examination, it appears that the "masking" of the top part of the frame in "The Forty-First" was intentionally done. It appears as if they used some kind of filter to block out exessive light from entering the shutter of the camera lens. In a few scenes when this "masking" doesn't appear, for example, the people in the scenes look almost totally black as they walk toward the camera. And in the scenes with the masking, the colors of the people or objects below the mask look natural. I guess the masking of the top part of the frame, normally of the sky, is the movie-makers' way of controlling the film's exposure to light.
My recollection (in an earlier posting) of the picture quality of "Anna Karenina" was not entirely correct. Although the colors look faded, just like in some of the scenes in "The Forty-First", I don't recall seeing the "masking" of the top part of the frame. Upon close examination, it appears that the "masking" of the top part of the frame in "The Forty-First" was intentionally done. It appears as if they used some kind of filter to block out exessive light from entering the shutter of the camera lens. In a few scenes when this "masking" doesn't appear, for example, the people in the scenes look almost totally black as they walk toward the camera. And in the scenes with the masking, the colors of the people or objects below the mask look natural. I guess the masking of the top part of the frame, normally of the sky, is the movie-makers' way of controlling the film's exposure to light.
You are absolutely correct.Let it suffice to say that the film has moments of great tenderness, and that the ocean figures in the film's latter stages just as prominently (and beautifully photographed), as the desert does in the beginning half.
-
bergelson
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:48 pm
Nikita Mikhalkov films
The Russian cinema council (Ruscico) has released several of Mikhalkov
films on DVD (Oblomov, Slaves of Love, Unfinished Piece fpr a Player Piano), only the aspect ratio of these DVD's are 4:3. I wonder if this is the
OAR of these films. The same goes, by the way, for Mikhalkov's brother,
Andrey Konchalovsky's "Siberiada".
Thanks
films on DVD (Oblomov, Slaves of Love, Unfinished Piece fpr a Player Piano), only the aspect ratio of these DVD's are 4:3. I wonder if this is the
OAR of these films. The same goes, by the way, for Mikhalkov's brother,
Andrey Konchalovsky's "Siberiada".
Thanks
-
MichaelB
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 10:20 pm
- Location: Worthing
- Contact:
As far as I'm aware, 4:3 is indeed the correct aspect ratio - the Russians carried on using it well into the 1980s. Although Ruscico's approach to the soundtracks of their DVDs is controversial, they do seem to respect the original aspect ratio.
I've seen their 'Siberiade' DVD, and there was no sign of any cropping. Not that I had anything to compare it with, but the compositions rang true.
I've seen their 'Siberiade' DVD, and there was no sign of any cropping. Not that I had anything to compare it with, but the compositions rang true.
-
tryavna
- Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 8:38 pm
- Location: North Carolina
Probably doesn't affect many folks here, but as I was browsing some of the usual e-tailers (DeepDiscount, DVD Planet, DVD Empire), I noticed that they're not stocking any of the Russico titles that Image released (e.g., Destiny of a Man, War and Peace, etc.). RussianDVD.com and Amazon still carry them, though.
Not sure what this adds up to -- except that if you want these titles in NTSC or for slightly less money, you might want to grab them now.
Not sure what this adds up to -- except that if you want these titles in NTSC or for slightly less money, you might want to grab them now.
-
Gordon
- Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 12:03 pm
Big fan of that film, am I. The Image edition is NTSC, with dodgy encodingtryavna wrote:War and Peace
and it makes me wonder what Ruscico's PAL transfer looks like. Artificial Eye
are releasing what I assume will be the PAL edition on November 13th:
Destiny of a Man is an amazing film and the Image DVD, though
only in 5.1, is a good disc, so it would be a shame if it went OOP.
-
MichaelB
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 10:20 pm
- Location: Worthing
- Contact:
I've just managed to lay my hands on check discs of Nouveaux Pictures' forthcoming Russian war films - The Cranes Are Flying, Ballad of a Soldier and The Star, all due for release at the end of January..
...and can confirm that they all seem to be clones of the Ruscico PAL discs, aside from a few small changes. I've had a look at Ballad of a Soldier and the differences are:
1. The Ruscico disc opens with copyright notices in three languages, the Nouveaux has just English, followed by the Nouveaux ident (which then cuts to the Ruscico ident);
2. The Ruscico disc offers moving menus in three languages (Russian, English, French), the Nouveaux just one (English, obviously)
3. The Ruscico disc offers three spoken language options (Russian, English, French, all 5.1 only) and twelve subtitle languages, while the Nouveaux offers just Russian and English 5.1 soundtracks, with compulsory English subtitles if you pick the Russian.
4. The extras are mostly identical (including the 35-minute interview with director Grigori Chukhrai), but only available with optional English subtitles - the Ruscico disc offered English, French, Spanish, Italian and Dutch. Also, the Ruscico disc offered trailers for four other war films, while the Nouveaux has just a single generic Ruscico trailer.
Aside from that, the transfer appears to be identical, as does the subtitle translation. Assuming it really is the same transfer, it's effectively covered by the middle set of grabs in this DVD Beaver comparison.
I'm guessing much the same is true of The Cranes Are Flying, but I don't have Ruscico's The Star for comparison purposes.
...and can confirm that they all seem to be clones of the Ruscico PAL discs, aside from a few small changes. I've had a look at Ballad of a Soldier and the differences are:
1. The Ruscico disc opens with copyright notices in three languages, the Nouveaux has just English, followed by the Nouveaux ident (which then cuts to the Ruscico ident);
2. The Ruscico disc offers moving menus in three languages (Russian, English, French), the Nouveaux just one (English, obviously)
3. The Ruscico disc offers three spoken language options (Russian, English, French, all 5.1 only) and twelve subtitle languages, while the Nouveaux offers just Russian and English 5.1 soundtracks, with compulsory English subtitles if you pick the Russian.
4. The extras are mostly identical (including the 35-minute interview with director Grigori Chukhrai), but only available with optional English subtitles - the Ruscico disc offered English, French, Spanish, Italian and Dutch. Also, the Ruscico disc offered trailers for four other war films, while the Nouveaux has just a single generic Ruscico trailer.
Aside from that, the transfer appears to be identical, as does the subtitle translation. Assuming it really is the same transfer, it's effectively covered by the middle set of grabs in this DVD Beaver comparison.
I'm guessing much the same is true of The Cranes Are Flying, but I don't have Ruscico's The Star for comparison purposes.
-
MichaelB
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 10:20 pm
- Location: Worthing
- Contact:
Based on precedent, and likely sales mitigating against a fresh transfer (quite aside from its gargantuan length), I suspect it'll be the NTSC edition of the Ruscico - which will be converted from PAL, probably badly.
I saw the PAL version a couple of years ago - I don't remember much about the transfer, but that's probably a good sign: had it been dreadful, I almost certainly would have remembered it!
I saw the PAL version a couple of years ago - I don't remember much about the transfer, but that's probably a good sign: had it been dreadful, I almost certainly would have remembered it!
-
Scharphedin2
- Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 11:37 am
- Location: Denmark/Sweden
Quite aside from the transfer, the film sounds really good. What do you think of it Michael?
In general, critical consensus appears to be divided on the work of Andrei Mikhalkov-Konchalovsky (and, Nikita too for that matter). I have only seen a fraction of either director's work, but I have yet to see a film by either director that I did not enjoy.
Siberiade has been on my "to buy" list for a while. I had a very positive experience ordering directly from Ruscico, so will eventually get it from them. Still waiting for Urga and Farewell to come out.
In general, critical consensus appears to be divided on the work of Andrei Mikhalkov-Konchalovsky (and, Nikita too for that matter). I have only seen a fraction of either director's work, but I have yet to see a film by either director that I did not enjoy.
Siberiade has been on my "to buy" list for a while. I had a very positive experience ordering directly from Ruscico, so will eventually get it from them. Still waiting for Urga and Farewell to come out.
-
HerrSchreck
- Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 3:46 pm
I'm not 100% sure what's up w that release, but I think I know... Kino had it available on disc & vhs for years, and is now releasing an updated version of it. Kino had the 4 hour version available for years, and now updated their catalog with this new release of it which restores it to it's premium six hour length, and over two discs.MichaelB wrote:Based on precedent, and likely sales mitigating against a fresh transfer ..
How long has-- if at all-- Ruscico had the six hour version of it available prior to late-06 /early 07?
Never saw the film but folks cream their woolens over it.. think it won the Jury Prize that year in Cannes among other awards.
EDIT just checked Rus's site here for this title... Ruscico's 3 disc set lists the film's length as spread over 2 discs 101 + 98 minutes (I guess the third are extras). So I don't know where Kino's new six hour version is coming from (260 minutes).
-
HerrSchreck
- Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 3:46 pm
-
Gordon
- Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 12:03 pm
DVD Talk review
Is 1.33:1 the OAR? IMDb lists it as being shot in 70mm Sovscope (2.20:1). Is the Ruscico in widescreen?
Is 1.33:1 the OAR? IMDb lists it as being shot in 70mm Sovscope (2.20:1). Is the Ruscico in widescreen?