cossilcossol The concept of the movie is simple and could make for a great story. The good hearted nurse with a poor background faces the selfish testament of her rich husband who bequeathes all his money to his only daughter. The movie does a good job at avoiding manicheism and portraying interesting characters, from the poor family of Elena to the spoiled but nuanced daughter of her husband.Sadly, all these good characters are wasted when the movie ends abruptly, apparently in the middle of the story, with no denouement whatsoever. Also, long and seemingly useless shots are spread throughout the film, like a long car scene where absolutely nothing happens, or a shot of kids walking through the forest before a fight that seemed just as useless. Maybe I just don't get that kind of "artistic" storytelling, but it just felt empty and pretentious to me, while the movie could have saved time to show the consequences of Elena's deeds, and extend the daughter's character arc.Wasted potential for what could have been a good tragedy.

hte-trasme I came to this film simply because I am learning Russian and love the music of Philip Glass, knowing nothing more about it. As it happened, the Philip Glass music consisted of a few sparse selections from his Symphony No. 3, and the Russian dialog was sparse and usually hyper-naturalistically mumbled. Of course, neither of these facts are indictments. The most striking thing about "Elena" to me is how much it revels in its own stillness and slowness. One can tell that the filmmakers very self-consciously decided to spend as much time as they do on long, quiet sequences of characters walking down the road, waking up, using various pieces of gym equipment, et cetera. This does make in interesting contrast with the murder at the center of what is really a very dark story. And in certain sequences (notably the gym) it provides a measure of suspense. But ultimately I think this pacing decision works against the film. There's not enough evidently going on while the camera lingers to make the events on screen seem worth our attention most of the time. The film could have made an interesting investigation of the philosophical question of whether Elena's murder of Vladimir was justifiable. With one lingering shot of a baby and the hospital conversation between Vladimir and his daughter, it touched on an issue it could have explored more in the question of when human reproduction itself is justifiable. But it is so dedicated, it seems, to a stylistic vision and to presenting only events and nothing that suggests analysis, that much of the potential interest it had drains away.

nqure I watched Zvyagintsev's first film 'The Return', but have to admit I much preferred this, his third film, finding it more accessible but still a subtle piece of work.I viewed the film as a comment on contemporary Russia, a character study/ portrait of a morganatic marriage as well as a wider comment on society, & the dark side of both the working/upper (moneyed) classes.At the beginning of the film, Elena has already made an accommodation and personal sacrifice in her marriage/relationship with an older richer man, Vladimir, where she is nothing more than a glorified drudge. She appears a docile, a dutiful wife and mother, her caring nature exploited by a feckless son and then subject to the caprices of her husband who calls the (economic) shots, but as the film unfolds, she becomes far a more complex figure and we view her & her acts with ambivalence, and more with an element of sympathy than horror.This is a film where lines reverberate or provide an ironic comment on the story. For instance, feckless Sergei gets distracted playing a computer game with his son, Sasha, as he tries to help him 'get to the next level', a comment, you feel, more about how to get on in Russian society (and perhaps not just Russia but beyond, too). The contrasts are slowly built up scene by scene: the luxurious, spacious flat with a giant modern flat screen TV in contrast to the cramped flat lying on the fringes in the shadow of a disused power station (a metaphor for the powerless underclass left behind by post-communist Russia); Elena has to travel by foot & public transport whilst Vladimir travels to his exclusive gym in a luxurious car; and the contrast between the 'dowdy' Elena and stylish Katya.The entry of Vladimir's daughter, Katya, changes the dynamic of the film and provides a fascinating counter-point to Elena. It is almost as if two different Russias, one modern, cold & cynical meets its older, more traditional counter-part with the younger & older woman barely lacking anything in common. Or so we think on first impression. Katya is a spoilt hedonist, existential in attitudes such as a lack in interest in motherhood and continuing 'the disease'. She connects intellectually with her father in a way that he never does with his social inferior,Elena, and this is because, as one perceptive reviewer pointed out, both share a similar sense of detachment and lack of feeling for others. Again, Katya utters a line which acquires significance as the film unfolds. During a moment of reconciliation with her father, a man she doesn't give a damn for, Katya remembers the childhood games that 'taught her the harsh realities about being an adult'.But it is Elena who must learn the dark lesson about what she must do to survive the game ('the last will be first') , the law of self-preservation, and how good people are sometimes forced to do bad things to survive & damn themselves - contrast the scene in the church lighting a candle with the flaming basket, spouting hellfire, as Elena burns her husband's draft will - in order to protect their loved ones in an unequal society.I'm not sure about viewing the film as a condemnation of the Russian male & the lack of a good male role model. What about Putin? isn't he an alpha male who rules the country in a 21st century manner but a continuation of a one thousand years of authoritarian rule albeit now in the media age of TV shows providing in-depth reviews on sausages (contrast with the sale of reading matter on the train, the Russians are known as a nation of voracious readers). And Katerina, in her own way, is just as feckless as her male working class parallel, Sergei. Both drink, are indifferent towards their parents & selfish. No, I see the film as about how Russia has lost its moral compass (with Ukraine now in the role as Elena with Vladimir/Putin supplying cash & oil if the Ukraine obliges for an occasional bit of rumpy pumpy).If the people at the top are corrupt, and Vladimir 'uses' Elena sexually, so then must those at the bottom if they are to survive. A bleak message but an honest one. What was that old Marx said about religion being 'the opium of the people'? It's misquoted because Marx did not disapprove of the religious impulse, because he saw it as 'the sigh of the oppressed creature in a heartless world.' And that's what Elena has to become, heartless, to survive, because you have to live on this earth.

sidneywhitaker-1 It is indeed "slow", and perhaps a little more movement in the sound-track during the first 30 seconds would reduce anxiety for the viewer who is not prepared for the SILENCE, which the Director (in his excellent interview) rightly regards as more eloquent than words. And what eloquent silences, in contrast to the violent action and sound-tracks of popular films! How else than with silences can one feel and think? and study the expressive faces of the oppressed and anguished Elena, and the cold Vladimir?Of the three generations--grandmother, son/daughter, and grandson--which of them is not dysfunctional (in that cold, scientific term)? How strongly the viewer's pity for our (relatively) affluent contemporary citizens is generated by this painful domestic tale!