Fedor Bondarchuk is the son of Sergei Bondarchuk (1920-1994) who directed and starred in War and Peace — which won the 1968 Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film.
Fedor Bondarchuk is the son of Sergei Bondarchuk (1920-1994) who directed and starred in War and Peace — which won the 1968 Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film.
Better late than never! Barbie was placed in Adapted at the Oscars but is in the Original Screenplay category here,...
Read moreThe Academy should take a bow this morning for bringing back the Oscars, restoring them to their former glory in...
Read moreThe Golden Globes went off well enough this past year that CBS has signed a five-year deal with the Globes...
Read more
it’s bi-annual. they set up the the full, curved, giant cinerama screen for the event and show HOW THE WEST WAS WON and THIS IS CINERAMA. the 2-week event included 70mm presentations of PATTON, Branagh’s HAMLET, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, 2001, SOUND OF MUSIC, BARAKA, SPARTACUS, etc.
http://www.seattlecinerama.com
the one-screen movie palace was restored by Microsoft’s Paul Allen for $8 million and it shows. beautiful place.
p.s. i still love HOW THE WEST WAS WON. a great, big, corny, beautifully filmed popcorn music with amazing action and a fantastic Alfred Newman score.
Is the Big Screen Festival an annual event, seattlemoviegoer, or do you show throughout the year? You’re not far from me, so I should boot it down there for teh next one.
Quite a few films were shot in Todd-AO (or something else), then “presented in Cinerama”. As a kid, I saw How the West was Won in Cinerama, not so good because images went all “gumby” at the edges. Awful film, as well.
However, first saw 2001: A Space Odyssey (ripped to the gills) presented in Cinerama and had a near religious experience. Took two hours to get my jaw off the floor.
if the son of Bondarchuk has any of his father’s talent, this will be something to look forward to. WAR AND PEACE is still one of my treasured moviegoing experiences. 2 parts, 7 hours, totally engrossing and HUGE beyond any film ever made. STALINGRAD looks big as well, but CGI big. there is a difference.
to comment on another’s note about TORA TORA TORA…no, it wasn’t Cinerama but ToddAO. speaking of CINERAMA, we just had our bi-annual Big Screen Festival here at the Seattle Cinerama last week. we’ve one of only 3 theatres in the world that can show a movie in the Cinerama process…which was big screening process of that era, bigger than IMAX (its width is larger than an IMAX square) or 3D. you folks should come up and check it out next time.
no, it wasn’t Cinerama but ToddAO…
…yes yes, and the Soviet iteration of Todd-AO was Sovscope 70 — Sergei Bondarchuk shot War in Peace in Sovscope 70 !
Both Todd-AO and Sovscope 70 were intended to compete with Cinerama — except projected from single lens onto a flat screen, not curved. Todd-AO 70mm was called “Cinerama outta one hole”
Imagine seeing E.T. The Extraterresial, Close Encounters or Apocalypse Now at the LA Cinerama Dome.
Just noticed on second viewing – that’s the awesome Thomas Kretschmann as the German officer, isn’t it?
good catch!
I’ve added this to the main page now:
I know it’s just the trailer, but on the face of it it looks very clean, very aestheticized. Not a good thing. As Steve50 says, Stalingrad was probably the most savage, brutal battle in modern warfare and I find that the saddest thing about it is that those who fought the Nazis and survived were rewarded with living under the boot of Stalin. Such are the sickening ironies of history.
I think that’s a generalization to criticize the film for being too “clean” and aesthetically pleasing. The same criticism was made of The Thin Red Line and the documentary To Hell and Back Again. I am personally tired of always seeing war films having to be gritty, handheld and/or desaturated a la Saving Private Ryan.
This film, Stalingrad, is not photo-realistic like the examples I listed. But until we see the full film, we can’t tell if the aesthetic works. I can think of a few thematic ways in which one could work this. Guess we’ll have to just see…
Wow looks strong. Visually looks something like if a top-of-the-line Snyder went serious and realistic, but with the heart of a SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. Sadly I doubt we’ll ever get to see it as intended -on the big screen and 3D- here in ‘merica. Makes me angry.
Does anyone else find it disrespectful to those who sacrificed their lives by making a war film in 3D?
Not inherently, no. I think we have to wait to see the movie. It seems to devote a lot of time and attention to intimate moments too. Movies and paintings and novels use all kinds of techniques in their attempt to help us feel the horrors of war. 3D is just another device in the toolbox. For me, I need to see the overall impression the whole movie creates before I judge it for stylistic choices.
I agree – no.
I think experience enhancement, whether, aural or visual, can convey the atmosphere the filmmaker is trying to share. I’m sure there were similar questions around use of color film and stereo sound.
The Battle of Stalingrad was probably the most horrendous fight in human history with staggering loss of life. More people were killed in this battle than in some entire wars, before or since. 3D could be very effective.
Wasn’t Tora! Tora! Tora! in cinerama, or something – don’t remember. It was some kind of enhanced wide screen because the credits on the cropped televised version read a ! Tora! T/