Morphine is a Russian film from 2008, based on Mikhail Bulgakov's prose. It must be one of the most gruesomely real movies I have ever seen - and it takes a lot for me to say something like this as I usually enjoy rather depressing movies and art.
It's 1917, the year of the Russian Revolution. The story follows the life of a young doctor, who shortly upon his arrival to a remote, small and understaffed hospital becomes addicted to morphine. What makes the plot so striking to me is the portrayal of hopelessness. Being the only doctor for several surrounding villages, the main character is confronted with a plethora of atrocities - death, people burnt in fires, difficult births, amputation and similar interventions - all of which the movie visualizes in detail. The message is very negative: it is the curer of an ill society who becomes ill himself, a morphine addict, in the face of overwhelming misery.
The movie is shaking, interesting and different. It is a good movie. Nonetheless, I kept wishing to leave the cinema while watching it. I was sad for the rest of the day and in an exceptionally bad mood the whole day after. What's good about that?
Bringing us back to the same old unanswered question... What is it that constitutes the quality of art in general?
It's 1917, the year of the Russian Revolution. The story follows the life of a young doctor, who shortly upon his arrival to a remote, small and understaffed hospital becomes addicted to morphine. What makes the plot so striking to me is the portrayal of hopelessness. Being the only doctor for several surrounding villages, the main character is confronted with a plethora of atrocities - death, people burnt in fires, difficult births, amputation and similar interventions - all of which the movie visualizes in detail. The message is very negative: it is the curer of an ill society who becomes ill himself, a morphine addict, in the face of overwhelming misery.
The movie is shaking, interesting and different. It is a good movie. Nonetheless, I kept wishing to leave the cinema while watching it. I was sad for the rest of the day and in an exceptionally bad mood the whole day after. What's good about that?
Bringing us back to the same old unanswered question... What is it that constitutes the quality of art in general?
I really want to watch it now. But I am afraid I might have the same reaction.
ReplyDeleteIt's funny that you ask that question about art. Sometimes in the midst of my dramatic theory class discussions, the essays we read from people like Goethe, Brecht, even modern playwrights like Havel- all encourage an art which on one level or another is gruesome and disturbing. Even in my 4 years of theatre training, my professors have always wanted us to find the profound flaw in a character, to first find all the negative aspects of their existence and their interactions and then find the minute good within them. Basically, we are always told that theatre about good people in a happy world with fulfilling life is not interesting. What's more, its not only not interesting, its not accurate.
So i guess, I am just as put off by art that makes your so depressed. And yet, I think that's what art should be. Because it's on those occasions when you run into that kind of brutality and gruesomeness that you suddenly appreciate the life you have. It might be cheesy but its a bit true: inevitably, you will be thankful that your life isn't that dark or depressing. Most people will watch that film, be a little depressed for like 30 mins and then just remember that they don't have it all that bad after all.
The above statement applies to all but sociology majors, whose concern in life is the suffering of others. And we love them for it.
Can't be better said.
ReplyDelete