One might think Titanic and Russian Ark are two films that were, primarily, produced for entertainment. Although this assumption may hold some truth, to a certain extent, these films also hold a large sum of history within.
Titanic, directed by James Cameron is based off of a, horrific, true story. The mainstream blockbuster, released in 1997, goes beyond the depths of the wreckage. Real, underwater, footage of the ship wreck is used as the opening scene. In addition to real life figures are shown throughout the film as well. Although the story line of the wreck is true, the romance between Jack and Rose are fictional. The love between these two characters is what Cameron used to, humbly, show off the realistic architecture of the ship. James Cameron made sure that the lines, carpet, and other fine detail were pin-perfect. This carried over into the financial part of the film. It took $200 million to create Titanic, making it the most expensive movie to have ever been made. The New York Times wrote an article on this film and discusses the way Cameron was able to pull in the viewers, “Mr. Cameron rises to the occasion with a simple, captivating narrative style, one that cares little for subtlety but overflows with wonderful, well-chosen Hollywood hokum. In its own sobering way, the film is forward-looking, too, as its early brashness gives way to near-religious humility when the moments of reckoning arrive. Ultimately a haunting tale of human nature, with endless displays of callousness, gallantry or cowardice, it offers an unforgettable vision of millennium-ready unease in the sight of passengers adrift in icy seas on that last, moonless night” (New York Times). Human survival, being one of the subjects brought up is shown within the facts. On April 14, 1912 the real Titanic sunk. It only took, approximately, 3 hours to get the 25 story, 46,000 ton ship to become completely submerged. At 11:35p.m., the iceberg was spotted to be a quarter of a mile infant of the steamship. Just five minutes later, the Titanic sideswipes the iceberg. At midnight, compartments, that are supposed to be watertight, begin to flood. One hour and 20 minutes later, at 1:20a.m., the bow pitches and more water floods through the anchor-chain holes. Water continues to flood the ship until 2:10a.m. arrives. At 2:10a.m., Titanic began to tilt, until it hit a 45 degree angle. Eight minutes later, the 16,000 ton bow tore off, 2:20a.m. the stern slips beneath the waters surface. Finally, at 2:56a.m., the Titanic has officially sunk. The aftermath is 705 survivors, meaning 1,522 passengers and crew-ship members had died. This article gives abundant information on the Titanic’s material failures and design flaws. In another source, focusing on the storyline of the film, gives high praise to Cameron and his work, “It is flawlessly crafted, intelligently constructed, strongly acted and spellbinding.” This critique is given by Roger Ebert, and he goes one to tell more, “You know intellectually that you’re not looking at a real ocean liner–but the illusion is convincing and seamless. The special effects don’t call inappropriate attention to themselves but get the job done.” Ebert also brings up the romance and other emotions are portrayed throughout the film and how the entire film came together, “Movies like this are not merely difficult to make at all, but almost impossible to make well. The technical difficulties are so daunting that it’s a wonder when the filmmakers are also able to bring the drama and history into proportion. I found myself convinced by both the story and the saga. The setup of the love story is fairly routine, but the payoff–how everyone behaves as the ship is sinking–is wonderfully written, as passengers are forced to make impossible choices. Even the villain, played by Zane, reveals a human element at a crucial moment (despite everything, damn it all, he does love the girl). The image from the Titanic that has haunted me, ever since I first read the story of the great ship, involves the moments right after it sank. The night sea was quiet enough so that cries for help carried easily across the water to the lifeboats, which drew prudently away. Still dressed up in the latest fashions, hundreds froze and drowned. What an extraordinary position to find yourself in after spending all that money for a ticket on an unsinkable ship.” This critique gives great insight to the film and the success that came with it proves it truly was a masterpiece. Titanic brought in a gross amount of $378 million and was noticed in the Oscars for the visual effects. On a personal note, Cameron took home three Oscar awards: Best Director, Best Film Editing, and Best Picture (Biography).
Two years later, Russian Ark, directed by Alexander Sokurov, was released in 1999. This film is full of rich history from the 18th and 19th centuries. Russian Ark was an accolade to St. Petersburg’s Hermitage museum. The Hermitage was home to Catherine the Great and where the Russian revolution began. It is a miracle that Sokurov was able to film in the Hermitage in the first place. The tragedy that follows throughout the storyline of the film, in addition to the real-life events that took place. Russian Ark gives hints sympathy for the royal family throughout the entire film. This film was also the only one in history to have been made in one continuous shot. The camera never cut and the scenes never edited, what you see is what you get. Sokurov only had 2,000 actors, 3 orchestras, and the St. Petersburg’s Hermitage museum to work with. Peter Bradshaw, writer for The Guardian, focused on the cinematography of Russian Ark, “If there had been a single mistake, if someone had fallen over or if a door was jammed – or if the camera had blundered across a mirror or reflective surface – then Sokurov and his army of actors would have had to go right back to first positions.” Bradshaw also talks about the uniqueness of the film in regards to the way it was created, “Not all films can be like Russian Ark, of course, and it’s debatable if they could or should. But the effect of this cine-theatre event is extraordinary. When the cast of thousands are finally gathered for a vast, valedictory procession down the main staircase, and the marquis moans: ‘Farewell Europe’ – it is desperately sad.” Alexander was also interviewed after the film got released and he introduces the concept of cinema having no sense of history, “Those unlimited things that cinema is doing with no sense of history is due to the absence of cinema museums.” This is said as the film, Solaris, by Andrei Tarkovsky was being recreated in Hollywood. Another interview, with Sokurov is attached below. In it, Alexander answers questions from the audience as he speaks of his political views as well as how the Soviet Union censored his masterpiece and why. In addition, he speaks of the rich Russian culture during the 19th century. Another source, Roger Ebert, spoke highly of this historical film, “The film is a glorious experience to witness, not least because, knowing the technique and understanding how much depends on every moment, we almost hold our breath. How tragic if an actor had blown a cue or Buttner had stumbled five minutes from the end! In a sense, the long, long single shot reminds me of a scene in Nostalgia, the 1982 film by Russia’s Andrei Tarkovsky, in which a man obsessively tries to cross and recross a littered and empty pool while holding a candle which he does not want to go out: The point is not the action itself, but its duration and continuity” (Roger Ebert). After Russian Ark was released, it was clear that Russia preserved the elaborate art of Europe. Russia is the last place where the beauty of European history is, still, admired and preserved.
Resources: