Commentaires des utilisateurs

What a rare treat! To be almost the first to review a picture. And this one! Cool ....

I am writing as I watch this. I think I can do this because I probably won't miss much. That's not to say you aren't missing anything. On the contrary ....

To watch how people handle silence is beautiful. Without silence you are nothing. I have to disagree with the reviewer that said being close to nature is not good for people. No wonder we suffer so much. This only expresses one way of dealing with nature. There are many. I do not think we have the best system so far.

Anyway, I do not want to get into a glorious argument about this. I am just so happy that someone has made a film where noise is not the way to communicate. Be honest! The shots of faces are stunning. Yekaterina Golubeva is STUNNING! I admit I wanted to watch the movie to watch her. What a tragedy she has passed so soon. Such an incredible looking woman who never seem to prioritise her looks to move forward. I wish I had met her in person.

I have been thinking of a TEDTalk to discuss no one is greater than you. This movie reminds me of the medium to achieve that.

Worth watching to learn to face your own silence.

2, now 3 reviews!? What a state of denial we are in .......

This movie is really slow! I did not read anything about it before, so I just sat down and watched. After 10 minutes I wondered if there were no dialogs - and really there is no dialog throughout the film. After you get used to this, it's a kind of depressing journey through Siberia which is interesting because it shows a very different way of life.

I had had no idea what I was going to see when I was entering the cinema and I still do not know what I saw there that evening. I cannot say it was a shock because shock is brutal and fast, whereas this film is brutal all right, but very slow. The story, if there is any at all, takes place somewhere in the Siberian woods, apparently in our times (there is a helicopter in the beginning and the end). I am not sure only because of the abysmal living conditions in the village which is visited by a young female from the civilization. It is not clear what the purpose of her visit was: was she a social worker, an exiled person, an ethnographer, a natural scientist? The lack of dialogue is not very helpful for analysis of the film on the rational level. Despite of - or perhaps because of - the detached documentary-like style, the emotional impact of the film is great. It appears that many characters, perhaps all the villagers, were played by non-actors. I would really like to know how much of the film was a documentary and how much was scripted and rehearsed. The main message that I took home from the viewing is that not all the savages are noble, that poverty, suffering and "the closeness to nature" does not help one's soul or improve one's character. The drunk and disfigured characters in this film are in a contrast with the people depicted in, e.g., Kurosawa's "Dersu Uzala" or Mikhalkov's "Urga" (aka "Close to Eden"). Rather, they remind me of the highlanders in Boorman's "Deliverance".

Bartas is not what I'd call a versatile filmmaker. His films are always slow, desolate, brooding and static. However, by hammering this aesthetic again and again he's managed to carve out a very idiosyncratic niche, making him a master in the overwrought art-house circle. Few of Us is Bartas at his very best.

Though the film lacks the outside political context which haunt Praejusios dienos atminimui and Koridorius, it is a deeply personal and emotional work. The setting becomes the main character, with the actors simply supporting it as they hustle and bustle through the pastoral landscape. Actions are carried out by the characters but nothing is explained. We are completely oblivious to their motivations or context. Yekaterina Golubeva's character is dropped into the setting via helicopter but we spend the whole film struggling to interpret why she is there. It provides many questions but few too answers, which only serves to enhance the mysteriousness of the film's purpose. The ambiguity of the characters doesn't hinder the film's emotional resonance however, demonstrating just how universal loneliness really is. Though the word 'thought-provoking' is overused in regards to these types of films, it really is the only word that can be used.