Throughout the history of the world there has been a form of theater and story telling. Originally it started out as stories being told orally form one generation to the next to an organized theater that had a cast of characters that acted out a plot line to entertain or inform it’s audience. This then adapted in the more modern style of story telling which are films and maybe they eventually developed into a TV series to elongate the story. However, film tends to be more common media from the 1960 till present and have developed an incredible amount since then and are still further being developed in ways that were never expected. Mainly films have adapted to change stylistically throughout time, whether it be because a director’s choice in how a movie is filmed or the frames that are set or even just wanting to have their sets designed to be a particular way. Thematically however, things have been rather consistent since even the times of Shakespeare as there are main genres such as comedy, tragedy, and history that are still a part of film currently.
Films have been changing their style since film was invented but especially within the past sixty or so years there has been a drastic difference in the way that directors present their films. Obviously genre is going to play a part in how a film is presented stylistically, whether this be in the visuals that are given or the sound design that can set the mood for the scene or entire film. A couple of films that I would like to talk about are Russian Ark, both Solaris films, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, and Blue Velvet. All of these films have their own unique tone and setting that pull their audience into.
Let’s begin with the two different Solaris films as they hold the same title and similar stories but the way that they are told is entirely different. The original Solaris film was shot in a very slow but consistent pace as it follows a psychologist who is sent to a space station that is orbiting a plant that is called Solaris because there has been reports that the occupants are not in good mental health but the reason is unknown to those on Earth. When he arrives it’s discovered that the planet sends “guests” which are actually dead loved ones that act only in the way that they are remembered. One of the main overarching questions throughout the film is what in fact makes a human a human and what makes them this artificial “guest” or are they just as much a human as those on the station observing the planet? In the remake that was released in 2002 there were similar ways that the film was paced as it made as it follows the same slow and intimate format that makes the audience more likely to form a bond with the main character. However since the original was filmed in 1972 and the remake was done in 2002 there are many different ways that the sets and their design have changed as with the original Tarkovsky talks about how he wanted the space station to seem like it was falling apart as he felt that it helped show how things were falling apart whereas in the remake it seems to be that the ship is an advanced space craft capable of so much and is put together incredibly well. Referring to the original I don’t think it could’ve been put better than what Roger Ebert says in discussion about another one of Tarkovsky’s films when he says, “one of the things I think he’s trying to do is make his films so long that we lose touch with the person we were when we came into the theater in a way that we become entirely into his universe and he completely absorbs us with these images, including the down time, including the boring time so that by the end hes got us reduced to the point where he can give us the message he’s trying to give us.” While the remake is also regarded highly for not only delivering a phenomenal film but also paying a wonderful tribute to the original Russian film, it also seems to lose the most intimate pieces that connect it to the idea of nature and it’s importance for balance in life. As is seen in the trailer of the remake, the beginning focuses on the love and romantic pieces of the film then turns it into a more complex idea about morality. While the main focus of morality in these “guests” is genuine or just a recreation of their memories comes through in both there are just the more thoughtful ideas of humanity that are presented in the original that don’t feel like are apart of the remake.
Next there is Russian Ark, which was shot entirely in one take. This piece of Russian film follows a pair of characters going through the Russian Hermitage museum that goes through different periods of Russian history and shows off a large amount of traditions, art, famous and infamous people in history as well as having live orchestras play music composed by Russians throughout history. This movie is rather unique not only in the plain and simple fact that the entire ninety minutes of the film is one shot but also in the way that it takes part in a museum that has an incredible amount of information stored in it. The costumes are also all set to the time periods that they are portraying as well as having accurate information presented as a history lesson with a plot line to it. I’ve never had a more interesting way of teaching me history than having two people trapped in time travel through era’s of their country while learning about different ways that art and literature are produced along with the importance that each piece held to the time. I like how Tim Harte puts it when he says, “the film’s unique premise and setting allow Sokurov to convey how the museum, its art and history, and subsequently cinema can affirm a nation’s culture, transporting die past ever so evocatively into the present in order to sustain culture’s vitality.” Furthering the idea that the film is very interactive and involves a lot history and cultural ideas that may not be know to many. If you watch the trailer for Russian Ark it becomes apparent that it is historical film but there are also a lot of fun pieces incorporated that are spectacles of their own as it has a large amount of extras that are important to the setting and overall weight of the scene. Russian Ark is a great example that filmmakers around the world can create beauty and art in their own ways with a unique style that fits what they are trying to say.
Continuing with our lists of films we arrive at Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, which my second favorite film in this list after the original Solaris. The reason that I enjoy Crouching Tiger so much is not for it’s martial arts aspect that I thought would be the reason I’d enjoy it but because it’s story felt genuine and more realistic than just having everything work out in the end and the main characters are happy with the outcome. This film has so many different themes that are played with inside of it’s story line but it has just the right amount because I never felt overwhelmed but I was never uninterested in what was happening. The film revolves around a famous sword, Green Destiny, that belongs to a warrior, Li Mu Bai, who is done with his life as a Wudang swordsman and wishes to have a romantic relationship with his long time friend, Yu Shu Lien, who he couldn’t have been with before as the Wudang are supposed to let go of all that attach them to the world so he had to let go of her to become a Wudang warrior. In his retirement he gives his sword to another one of his good friends that he felt he owed for his kindness to him. When the sword is in Li Mu’s friend’s possession it is stolen by the daughter of a governor, Jen Yu, who has learned Wudang from scrolls that were stolen from Li Mu’s master by Jade Fox who is Jen’s teacher. As things progress Jen eventually turns against her teacher and shows that she has superior knowledge of Wudang over her master but is then is lightly poisoned, which is when Li Mu finds her and defends her from the Jade Fox after a barrage of poison darts are shot at the pair Li Mu is struck and becomes poisoned. Jen says she knows how to make the antidote but while she makes the concoction Lu Mu dies in the arms of Yu Shu and confesses his love to her. The film really dives into the ideas and culture that was apart of Chinese history as is said by decentfilms, “On a deeper level, Crouching Tiger is not merely a product of Chinese popular culture, but a thoughtful exploration — and critical evaluation — of various aspects of Chinese classical culture.” The films trailer shows a little of the plot and how it attaches some of the more intense action pieces of the films instead of the ideas that are in it but it still holds the culture.
The last film I would like to discuss is Blue Velvet. Which is probably one the oddest films I have ever seen. It follows a young man, Jeffery, coming home from college because his father has a stroke. When he is walking home from the hospital he finds a human ear in a field and become interested as he turns it into the police and the detectives daughter begins to talk to him about an odd lady, Dorothy, who sings at a night club type of bar. As he follows Dorothy around more to see if she pertains to the ear he becomes involved in her situation as her husband and child were kidnapped by a man named Frank who is involved in the underground drug trade and uses Dorothy as a sex slave but in an incredibly disturbing way as he uses her husband and child as leverage. Eventually Jeffery collects enough evidence against Frank and the detectives partner for the police to make arrests but when he goes to Dorothy’s apartment to see if she’s okay, he finds her husband dead and the detective’s partner borderline dead while Frank comes along and Jeffery has to outsmart him but instead has to kill him in self defense. The film ends with Dorothy being reunited with her son but her husband died, while Jeffery and the detective’s daughter are then in a relationship afterwards. Blue Velvet has a very odd story arc but an interesting amount of people enjoyed the film and it’s themes. I stand more on the side of Roger Ebert when he says, “And yet those very scenes of stark sexual despair are the tipoff to what’s wrong with the movie. They’re so strong that they deserve to be in a movie that is sincere, honest and true. But ‘Blue Velvet’ surrounds them with a story that’s marred by sophomoric satire and cheap shots.” I’m not trying to say the films is horrible but it’s exactly as Ebert says when there are parts that carry weight through the film but they are undermined by these completely repulsive scenes that don’t feel like a necessary part of the film. Blue Velvet’s trailer gives off a very different vibe as to what the movie will actually be about but still incorporates the odd vibes involved in the film.
Lastly I will leave a clip of each film to show how different they truly are.