Koktebel

Koktebel is a very poor film made by obviously inexperienced directors. It centres on a father and son as they make their way from Moscow to the Crimea. Without money, they have to hitch lifts, get work when they can and rely on others' generosity. The film has enormous potential that is almost completely wasted by the directors. The cinematography (which clearly could make a film like this wonderful) is bad. The directors take the 'banale detail' camera-work to a new level in a clear imitation of better Russian directors (like Tarkovsky or Sokhurov), but carry it off badly, so that it becomes boring and sentimental. This is a real shame, since the Russian landscape is exceptionally beautiful in its sparseness and this is hardly captured at all. The directors are probably trying to show the the point of view of the 11-year-old protagonist, but it results in a pretentious and cloying film. Neither the script nor the acting are so bad, but the directors make unfair demands on the child actor playing the son, spoiling what would have otherwise been a solid performance. There are occasional good scenes, but the narrative lacks continuity and is horribly self-conscious (social stereotypes appear from the wings, making it seem like the directors have a tick-list of emotions they want to convey). The continual use of music (not a bad, but an inappropriate piece by Chick Corea) compounds the sentimentality of the film. Avoid it.

A pleasant enough road movie, about a divorced (or widowed, I don't remember) man going with his young son from Moscow to the Crimea. He's an aeronautical engineer who has been fired and has hit the bad times (maybe with the recovery of Russia's economy under Putin, the argument is slightly out of date). We see them traveling through the countryside in a dilapidated train, and then through the bad roads of Western Russia and Eastern Ukraine. Nothing much happens, but before reaching the Black Sea they stop at small towns, where they offer to repair the roof to a house where a mean old man lives, meet a pretty young doctor, etc. Some reviews I read wrote about the pair traveling through the desolate steppes of the former Soviet Union, yet this is some of the most fertile and densely populated part of that country. The pace of the film is slow, though not terribly so, compared with traditional Russian cinema, and the characters seem real even if the plot is slightly far-fetched. Recommended.

I stumbled upon the DVD version of this film and, being a moderate fan of Russian cinema, made the time investment to watch it.

The film was slow, and some takes were, in my opinion, unnecessarily long. The hand-held, back-and-forth capture of the boy throwing stones at a heap of junk strained my eyes, and I found it annoying and unnecessary.

However, the film also has the typical merits of a low-budget, personal film which does have a story to tell. The acting was fine, the story simple and yet believable, and the shots were visually pleasing.

This is by no means a great film, but I will recommend it to anyone who is fond of Russian cinema, and has the patience and a desire to have glimpses of modern Russia.

Quite simply this is one of the truest, finest films ever made. To say that it is about a journey to a ' better ' place which in this case is a a seaside pleasure resort in Crimea is to simplify. It is a place called Koktebel and a young middle aged man and his eleven year old son intend to reach it, and it is above all the young son's dream to get there. Father/son relationships have been depicted before in Russian cinema in many different ways, and their significance is probably difficult to understand in Western culture. In the West directors like Bogdanovich and Wenders have depicted daughters, whereas in Russia ( it seems to me ) male bonding has a stronger pull. In ' Koktebel ' the father who has fallen on bad times has to find a place to live and as his wife is dead he bears sole responsibility for his son's future. No spoilers but after many troubled incidents the two break apart, and the son alone in a desolate muddy field has a critical breakdown, sobbing that ' it is finished '. I interpreted it that his real childhood was finished and that he was too young to bear that. The actor who plays the son is superb, and for me he was the tragic focus of the film. Alone he continues the journey. I wondered as I watched about the true meaning of this cinematic masterpiece. Is disillusionment the fate of all of us who travel in life ? Is the journey better without the hope of a place where life will supposedly fulfil our fantasies and needs ? Many have written of the visual beauty in this film, and yes there is a beauty in the landscapes and also a beauty in the ' things ' however ' ugly ' that surround the various characters. All of this is here in ' Koktebel ' but for me it was the loss of childhood innocence of the son - and yes, of his father in his own youth that moved me to tears. A great, great film that needs many viewings and finally I feel its major achievement is in the not so simple fact that each and all of us must move on, and that finally our personal Ithaca is totally different from what we hoped for.

One should be in a relaxed mood when going to see this film. Be there to tranquilly cherish the moments of life and the film will open itself and offer you all its hidden prizes.

Someone mentioned the landscapes are bleak... The film is isomorphic to its landscapes. Bleak and lovely at the same time. Little bit depressing for those who choose to stay at a distance, to look at (film or landscapes) as at exhibits. For those who step in, it becomes precious in its touching ugliness. As you enter, ugliness is redefined. We are able to adore and love what we thought ugly before when we lived in the world bombarded by artificially selected beauty. We appreciate the naturality, the simple yet awkward reality of landscapes, of characters and of situations. The directing and actors are both excellent and succeed to achieve this reality so difficult to balance on screen!

There isn't more talk than necessary, more expression of emotions or velocity of thought than a real living person would allow - not any of the tricks directors have to use to keep us interested. Yet the film is not boring. Because we can feel and understand the characters on screen as fully as we can a human being next to us! We can recognize little parts from the happening in the memories of our own life.

Memories otherwise we'd never pay attention to.