Sto dney do prikaza

This is, and I guess, will remain, an extremely underrated film. There is no chance that those of us who are just a little bit intellectually lazy will like it. The viewer's participation in creating (or re-creating) the plot is absolutely required, to an even higher extent than in Bertolucci's "Besieged". This short film consists of several disconnected vignettes from the life of the Red Army soldiers living, training, working - and let us not forget: washing themselves - on an army base. The country is deserted and the buildings are dilapidated, but everything is beautifully shot. The atmosphere is oneiric, the dreams and imaginations blend with the reality, thus resembling the works of the Master - Andrei Tarkovsky or the Disciple - Aleksander Sokurov. There is not much dialog, which leaves us on our own to interpret sometimes surrealistic happenings on the screen. As in many other soldier movies, the topic is the clash between individual's humanity and the inherent brutality of the system. The clash is treated very delicately, there is not a single scene of the direct physical violence in the movie. Yet, we witness - or infer, for that matter - hazing and several deaths on the camp. Although not an overly gay film, it is remarkably open in its homoerotic subtexts. In contrast, the scenes with direct nudity, like those in the showers or the pool, are devoid of eroticism. They are shot in a documentaristic style, but the beautiful sacral music of Johann Sebastian Bach gives them another meaning and elevates them to unanticipated heights. The film opens with a biblical motto and it is not a chance that the story of St. George battling the dragon appears twice in the movie. Another hint to a deeper meaning of the film is that two persons of the cast are named Death and Angel... As for the acting, there will be some that will not like it, but, incredibly, all the roles are played by real-life soldiers, except for one professional actor (guess which). Watching "Sto dnei do prikaza" (and I recommend to watch it multiple times ) is a strange, difficult, but rewarding experience.

only a poem. bitter, cold, honest image against reality, precise verdict about an institution. in same measure, an aesthetic delight. because it seems be at the border between dream and reality.because, behind eroticism or humiliations, it preserves the flavor of Paradjanov , Sokurov or Tarkovsky work, the fundamental lines from war films and the precise verdict about a political system. more than a film, it is a wake up. a strange story from East, aggressive and delicate, terrible and useful. the force of images does, in many scenes, the story only a pretext. and the feeling after the final credits remains long time as convincing warning/testimony in the memory of the viewer.

This is the first film I have seen where there is no plot. Apparently that is the plot???? A friend of mine who did his military service in the Soviet Army during the late 1980s said that the film's portrayal of the uniforms and barracks etc are very accurate. There was however no apparent mention of the dedovshina endemic in much of the Russian Army. Dedovshina (Law of the grandads) is the bullying (often very violent) of the new soldiers or dushi (spirits) by the older soldiers known as deds or dembels (grandads).

Many have commented on the supposed homoerotic scenes in the communal bath or banya, where the soldiers are seen washing each other down. According to my friend this portrayal of the banya is accurate, however the homoerotic interpretations are NOT!!! In the USSR homosexuality was considered to be a mental illness, and in the Soviet military it was an imprisonable offence. In addition there is substantial and often violent homophobia in Russia, nowhere more so than in the military. According to my friend if you were even suspected of being gay, let alone getting turned on by the sight of your fellow soldiers naked in the banya you would not have left the banya alive - literally.....BE WARNED!!!! All in all this is a very odd film. There is clearly some deep an inner meaning in it somewhere, but I'm afraid it was a bit too deep and inner for me.

This is one of those enigmatic 'artistic' films beloved of intellectuals and elitists that will mystify everyone else due to the internalised nature of its narrative (if it can be called such) which makes its meaning virtually impenetrable. In fact trying to describe it is like trying to describe a colour to a blind man: each scene is its own little story that bears little or no relation to those that precede or follow it. People die, but we never learn why. People stare at each other without talking. There's a lot of nudity, and this being a film about soldiers, much of it is of a homoerotic nature. Oh, and there's lots of cameras – so they're probably quite meaningful, although I couldn't say why. In fact I think I might have been watching the out-takes.

At first sight, comparisons with Tarkovsky and Sokurov are inevitable. However, although this film is visually striking and very atmospheric, it seems to lack balance between the cinematographic and the narrative parts. Watching this movie, feels a little like watching a slide-show by a great photographer.An interesting experience, great to look at, but something is missing. Some parts are obviously dreams or hallucinations, but then I'm still not sure what statement the director intended to make by these parts. Maybe it's all intended to be a dream, and it does indeed have nightmarish qualities. At times I felt like I was watching life shortly before and/or after a nuclear catastrophe. Despite my criticism about "the missing plot" I can't seem to get this movie out of my mind, so it might be brilliant after all. If not, it's still an interesting look "backstage" at how life may have been for soldiers in the red army.