Taurus

This film, quite blatantly filmed with GREEN hues in a painterly fashion adhering to Sokurov's vision of 'the true cinema' is a slow and purposefully languid account of 2 days in the life of an ailing Lenin. Not set at the time of his death (as is often noted) it is - in accordance with the banal and random feeling associated with the way such power is given and then taken from great but fallible and flawed men - 2 days in 1922, two years before Lenin passed away and while he was essentially housebound, deeply ailing but not ready to relinquish his grasp on the turmoil he instigated in Russia. At this time he allegedly re wrote his will to say sorry for betraying the ideals of Russia and leading it into the horrors of communism. (This will has unfoundedly been claimed to have been stolen and kept from the Russian people). As Sokurov himself notes, the point of this film and 'Moloch', first part of this ostensible trilogy of great leaders (or monsters) of the twentieth century - Moloch being about Hitler) soon to be completed with a film about Hirohito, is that power can be given and taken arbitrarily and no matter how much they may protest to the contrary, they are elected leaders to speak for the people who took that trust and altered the course of history to highly detrimental effect.

The fetid and distressingly verdant atmosphere alludes to the dank, moldy presence that Lenin and all he stands for has become. Decaying, sodden and sluggish. To look on Lenin in this state after seeing what a profound - good or otherwise - effect he has had on history - is sobering indeed.

A highly intelligent film, slow for all the right reasons and with images and aural landscapes that stay with you long after the credits rolled.

Sokurov's latest film, "Taurus" can hardly be called a successful endeavor but it has a few things going for it. The story of Lenin's final days, his battle against his own physical decay and the understanding that his ideals never were and never will be realized is related by Sokurov almost as a filmed stage play shot in muted blue. "Taurus" depicts a giant who has outlived his time - isolated on a farm away from the world waiting out his death, ineffective and forgotten. Even those that are meant to take care of him treat him as an invalid or a fool. The film has many intriguing ideas about the nature of power and the reaction of an individual faced with his own mortality, but its excessive wordiness and repetitions bog it down. In its favor the film shows a surprising sense of humor in the face of all the dreariness which keeps it from being unwatchable and lightens up the intensity a bit. Mosgovoy's performance as Lenin is either pitch-perfect or more than a bit over the top depending on your taste.

As compared to the only other Sokurov film I've seen, "Mother and Son," this almost seems to be the work of a totally different director. Whereas "Mother" was almost entirely wordless, "Taurus" is heavy on the dialogue; "Mother" was shot in wide open outdoor expanses and "Taurus" takes place mostly in a single room; "Taurus" uses professional actors while the characters in "Mother" were obviously amateurs. However, both films share the same stateliness, the aspirations to High Art, and interest in visual experimentation. I can't say that I agree with the claims that Sokurov is a modern master based on what I've seen but he's certainly talented. "Taurus" has much to admire about it - and in a brilliant scene where Stalin comes to pay Lenin a visit it achieves greatness - but never quite achieves its lofty aspirations.

Before I went to see this film, I thought it would be a very interesting film, and I would enjoy it a lot. This is because it was a film on the last days of Lenin, and that I liked Russia a lot. Lenin was such a important person in the modern history, therefore I expected that the film would be very exciting and had a lot of twists, such as political plots or assassination conspiracies. In addition, Russia had a lot of beautiful landscape, and I thought the film would be shot in a lot of nice scenery. However, I was wrong.

The film was mainly shot inside a very old house. The house was very colourless, even the curtains, beds, cupboards had very plain colours. Therefore, the film looked very dull. 80% of the film was shot inside the house, and there was not much going on. His wife would read him stories, feed him, and sometimes the doctors came to see Lenin.

It depicted Lenin to be a demented old man, who could not walk without assistance. He could not even think clearly. The only thing that he could think clearly was that, he wanted to die. To hear this from such an important person was quite shocking. He had so much power in his hands, though his best days were gone, I still could not imagine that he wanted to die. I do not know whether this part is history or fiction, as I am not very good in history.

The worst thing in the film was that, the actors had no emotion. All of them did not smile, laugh, cry. They had no facial expressions at all throughout the whole film. I think that facial expression is the key to convey messages and emotion to the audience. However, in this film, as there were no facial expressions, I could not clearly understand what the characters were feeling. As a direct effect, I could not relate to this film, and therefore I found this film to be boring.

Another bad aspect is that, the pace of the film was extremely slow. Why did the director had to show Lenin sitting on a chair doing nothing for three minutes? Or why filming them siting in a car for a long time without conversation? To sum up, I found this film to be very disappointing, and not what I expected.