A Visitor to a Museum

Tarkovsky’s influence is so strong, or at least Lopushansky’s style is sometimes so similar, I’m forced to ask where the differences lie? I’m not against imitation, but I appreciate distinction. Where Tarkovsky’s work has god’s implied existence (water for example), Lopushansky implies god’s absence. In this way, the spirit is Tarkovsky’s inversion.

Critically, Lopushansky doesn’t seem to posit god’s nonexistence. Instead, it is his, at best, apathy. Cosmically, an apathetic god is grimmer than a nonexistent god. This is truly a damned world.

I believe there is a meta-implication, only truly acknowledged in the very beginning of the film. At the four minute 20 second mark, our protagonist turns toward the camera and asks, “What do you want from me?” He is addressing god. This shot incriminates us; it makes us god. I would go even further to suggest a scene toward the end, with our hero prostrate beneath a cross, with the scene cutting to his face on a television screen. Again, a connection between observer (us/man) and god to whom he believes he is addressing is made.

Once again, Lopushansky mines the depths of dour philosophy. He asks questions I love to think about. He explores themes within contexts of severity. It pushes the exploration for existential truth further. Few films have felt so palpably apocalyptic. Truly, this is a damned world.

Tarkovsky’s influence is so strong, or at least Lopushansky’s style is sometimes so similar, I’m forced to ask where the differences lie? I’m not against imitation, but I appreciate distinction. Where Tarkovsky’s work has god’s implied existence (water for example), Lopushansky implies god’s absence. In this way, the spirit is Tarkovsky’s inversion.

Critically, Lopushansky doesn’t seem to posit god’s nonexistence. Instead, it is his, at best, apathy. Cosmically, an apathetic god is grimmer than a nonexistent god. This is truly a damned world.

I believe there is a meta-implication, only truly acknowledged in the very beginning of the film. At the four minute 20 second mark, our protagonist turns toward the camera and asks, “What do you want from me?” He is addressing god. This shot incriminates us; it makes us god. I would go even further to suggest a scene toward the end, with our hero prostrate beneath a cross, with the scene cutting to his face on a television screen. Again, a connection between observer (us/man) and god to whom he believes he is addressing is made.

Once again, Lopushansky mines the depths of dour philosophy. He asks questions I love to think about. He explores themes within contexts of severity. It pushes the exploration for existential truth further. Few films have felt so palpably apocalyptic. Truly, this is a damned world.

Je me devais de le revoir pour me rendre compte que c’est bel et bien mon film préféré au final 

La science fiction est pour moi le meilleur genre, surtout lorsqu’il est parfaitement exploité comme ici : le futur, l’imaginaire et les symboles ont toujours fasciné les hommes

Je pourrais parler longtemps des nombreuses références bibliques qui parcourent le film, mais en prenant la globalité de cette œuvre, ce qui est le plus intéressant c’est la place de l’homme au milieu de cette dualité entre dégénérés et humains, entre foi et savoir, peuple et bourgeois 

Et pour Lopushansky il n’y a pas de partit prit, l’homme est le problème, partout où il y a un homme, il y a l’enfer. Pourtant, cette dualité destructrice forme une sorte d’équilibre pour l’identité humaine, les hommes et dégénérés savent ce en quoi ils croient, ce qu’ils sont, ce qu’ils font de leur vie, tandis que celui qui se place au milieu, le runaway, mi-dégénéré, mi-humain, est en dehors de cet équilibre.

Pour lui, ni Dieu, ni le savoir n’existe, il est délaissé face à son existence sans but, et cette fin est juste la plus grande de tout le cinéma, tellement plus forte que des milliers de dialogues 
 
Y’a encore tellement de choses à dire je trouve, le côté religieux est tellement riche, que ce soit le rêve prémonitoire du personnage principal qui voit venir son statut déifié, les 7 jours pour se rendre au Musée qui semble si inaccessible physiquement ou encore cette phrase répétée encore et encore par les dégénérés à leur dieu bien aimé, « Let me out of here », c’est juste trop magnifique 

Ma définition du cinéma 

Je me devais de le revoir pour me rendre compte que c’est bel et bien mon film préféré au final 

La science fiction est pour moi le meilleur genre, surtout lorsqu’il est parfaitement exploité comme ici : le futur, l’imaginaire et les symboles ont toujours fasciné les hommes

Je pourrais parler longtemps des nombreuses références bibliques qui parcourent le film, mais en prenant la globalité de cette œuvre, ce qui est le plus intéressant c’est la place de l’homme au milieu de cette dualité entre dégénérés et humains, entre foi et savoir, peuple et bourgeois 

Et pour Lopushansky il n’y a pas de partit prit, l’homme est le problème, partout où il y a un homme, il y a l’enfer. Pourtant, cette dualité destructrice forme une sorte d’équilibre pour l’identité humaine, les hommes et dégénérés savent ce en quoi ils croient, ce qu’ils sont, ce qu’ils font de leur vie, tandis que celui qui se place au milieu, le runaway, mi-dégénéré, mi-humain, est en dehors de cet équilibre.

Pour lui, ni Dieu, ni le savoir n’existe, il est délaissé face à son existence sans but, et cette fin est juste la plus grande de tout le cinéma, tellement plus forte que des milliers de dialogues 
 
Y’a encore tellement de choses à dire je trouve, le côté religieux est tellement riche, que ce soit le rêve prémonitoire du personnage principal qui voit venir son statut déifié, les 7 jours pour se rendre au Musée qui semble si inaccessible physiquement ou encore cette phrase répétée encore et encore par les dégénérés à leur dieu bien aimé, « Let me out of here », c’est juste trop magnifique 

Ma définition du cinéma 

Wherever there is man, there is Hell 

Déjà en 89 ça traitait des désastres écologique et de à quelle point certaines stupidité humaine nous aveugle, et ici c’est la religion ce filtre opaque qui nous empêche d’y voir clair. 

Les dégénérés sont ils des représentations de nos classes sociales, vu du point de vue des riches, comme du bétail sans cervelles, ou sont ils la représentation caricaturale des adeptes de Dieu ? Dénonciation ou Moquerie ? 

En tout cas c’est tellement magnifique, et la mise en scène qui accentue tellement la détresse du personnage principal qui se heurte au monde réel et au doute de sa foi, c’est incroyable 

Une des plus grandes scènes de fin que j’ai vu 💔💔

Wherever there is man, there is Hell 

Déjà en 89 ça traitait des désastres écologique et de à quelle point certaines stupidité humaine nous aveugle, et ici c’est la religion ce filtre opaque qui nous empêche d’y voir clair. 

Les dégénérés sont ils des représentations de nos classes sociales, vu du point de vue des riches, comme du bétail sans cervelles, ou sont ils la représentation caricaturale des adeptes de Dieu ? Dénonciation ou Moquerie ? 

En tout cas c’est tellement magnifique, et la mise en scène qui accentue tellement la détresse du personnage principal qui se heurte au monde réel et au doute de sa foi, c’est incroyable 

Une des plus grandes scènes de fin que j’ai vu 💔💔

It's incredible that i get to experience such amazing films like this for the first time, it feels as though recently i've been watching new movie after new movie, and they've all just been fantastic.

A visitor to a museum is first and foremost a strange movie, but i mean that in a good way.This film follows the visitor on his journey to the museum, a borderline mythical "city" that rests on the ocean floor.  Which of course can only be accessed once a year, for roughly a week.  To get to the museum, the visitor would have to traverse 3 days there and 3 days back in order to bypass the rising tide.Along the way, the visitor has many strange occurrences with the people he ends up staying with, and also with the "degenerates" a sort of race or species of human that has been deemed unworthy or less than, by whats left of civil society.  These "degenerates" seem to have both mental and physical abnormalities, but for the most part, don't have any significant health issues.  Unfortunately some of the people the visitor stays with along his journey own some of these "degenerates" as slaves, which is what leads to the main events surrounding this film, i don't really want to get into the latter half, as i think it's incredibly layered and complex, and I'm still also not fully sure what's meant as metaphor or not.What i do want to talk about though is the atmosphere and cinematography, (and was even hindered by the fact i had to watch this in shit quality) This is without a doubt one of the best looking movies i have ever seen, from the set design, to the coloring, and even the camera composition, all of it is incredibly unique, and in my opinion, VERY enjoyable too look at.  I've seen lots of people criticize this movie in regards to this aspect due to the darkness in certain scenes, but i honestly found it to be very fitting for not only the story, but the themes in general, i mean this is an incredibly existential, and philosophically exploratory film.I think this movie is obviously not for everyone, but i do think that if you like philosophical slow burn art-films, you would very much like this one.

It's incredible that i get to experience such amazing films like this for the first time, it feels as though recently i've been watching new movie after new movie, and they've all just been fantastic.

A visitor to a museum is first and foremost a strange movie, but i mean that in a good way.This film follows the visitor on his journey to the museum, a borderline mythical "city" that rests on the ocean floor.  Which of course can only be accessed once a year, for roughly a week.  To get to the museum, the visitor would have to traverse 3 days there and 3 days back in order to bypass the rising tide.Along the way, the visitor has many strange occurrences with the people he ends up staying with, and also with the "degenerates" a sort of race or species of human that has been deemed unworthy or less than, by whats left of civil society.  These "degenerates" seem to have both mental and physical abnormalities, but for the most part, don't have any significant health issues.  Unfortunately some of the people the visitor stays with along his journey own some of these "degenerates" as slaves, which is what leads to the main events surrounding this film, i don't really want to get into the latter half, as i think it's incredibly layered and complex, and I'm still also not fully sure what's meant as metaphor or not.What i do want to talk about though is the atmosphere and cinematography, (and was even hindered by the fact i had to watch this in shit quality) This is without a doubt one of the best looking movies i have ever seen, from the set design, to the coloring, and even the camera composition, all of it is incredibly unique, and in my opinion, VERY enjoyable too look at.  I've seen lots of people criticize this movie in regards to this aspect due to the darkness in certain scenes, but i honestly found it to be very fitting for not only the story, but the themes in general, i mean this is an incredibly existential, and philosophically exploratory film.I think this movie is obviously not for everyone, but i do think that if you like philosophical slow burn art-films, you would very much like this one.

Filmi anlamadığımdan değil anlatım tarzı ve bir hikaye yerine soyut metaforlarla dolu olduğundan beğenmedim. İlk izlediğim rus filmi olmakla birlikte pek bir beklentim yoktu ama bunu hiç beklemiyordum. İlk olarak kaçırdığım birşey var mı diye birçok yorum ve birkaç eleştiri videosu izledim anlamadığım bir yer yoktu. Bazı insanların filmdeki mutantlar hakkında olan tartışmasını gördüm, bence onlar kesinlikle canavar olarak yazılmamış tanrı inancı olan, medeniyetten uzak kalmış, toplumun dışladığı insanlar olarak yazılmış. Filmin sonunda adamın da onlara katılması artık bir tanrı arayışına girdiğini ve eski hayatını geride bıraktığını gösteriyor. Filmin sinematografisi çok hoşuma gitti oyunculuklar da bir o kadar gerçekçiydi ancak turistin gittiği müzenin o kadar az gösterilmesi beni çok hayal kırıklığına uğrattı. Filmin genel olarak atmosferi insanı huzursuz etmek olsa da bazı sahnelerin olması gerektiğinin 3 katı uzatılması beni çok sıktı ve kendimi filmi bitirmek için zorladım.

Filmi anlamadığımdan değil anlatım tarzı ve bir hikaye yerine soyut metaforlarla dolu olduğundan beğenmedim. İlk izlediğim rus filmi olmakla birlikte pek bir beklentim yoktu ama bunu hiç beklemiyordum. İlk olarak kaçırdığım birşey var mı diye birçok yorum ve birkaç eleştiri videosu izledim anlamadığım bir yer yoktu. Bazı insanların filmdeki mutantlar hakkında olan tartışmasını gördüm, bence onlar kesinlikle canavar olarak yazılmamış tanrı inancı olan, medeniyetten uzak kalmış, toplumun dışladığı insanlar olarak yazılmış. Filmin sonunda adamın da onlara katılması artık bir tanrı arayışına girdiğini ve eski hayatını geride bıraktığını gösteriyor. Filmin sinematografisi çok hoşuma gitti oyunculuklar da bir o kadar gerçekçiydi ancak turistin gittiği müzenin o kadar az gösterilmesi beni çok hayal kırıklığına uğrattı. Filmin genel olarak atmosferi insanı huzursuz etmek olsa da bazı sahnelerin olması gerektiğinin 3 katı uzatılması beni çok sıktı ve kendimi filmi bitirmek için zorladım.