A Visitor to a Museum by Konstantin Lopushansky (1989)
Yes I read that the director Lopushansky had worked with Tarkovsky before which did form a preconception in my head but I’m glad I didn’t pay much attention to that because even though the soul of the film was almost as honest as Tarkovskys, it was so much different from his work for sure. I read a few reviews of people where one said that the film for them defines hope and that even in the worst scenarios, something good can be brought out. One talked about the films association with religion and god.
I think for me the film in general just talks about the feeling of something absolutely opposite of hope. Sorrow or grief of realizing that the one hope you had is not real and that nothing can save the world from the reality of hell created by man itself. The ‘pure’ don’t believe in god but rather in science. They differentiate between themselves and the ‘degenerate’ with a feel of superiority and shun them to the edges because of their disabilities. They use their brains to believe in science and sugarcoat the rubbles of the post apocalyptic landscape as a “heap of goods”. The degenerates however look the world as “trash heap” and believe in god from whom they beg to be “let out”. On one hand the movie shows the existence of man who solely believes in science, who has created a pile of dead bodies and deranged scapes and on the other hand is the existence of man who solely believes in god but is himself disabled in some way or the other. A nameless tourist who seems to be a part of the ‘pure’ ends up accepting the fails of science and turns to the only other option left for him, god. Once touching his perception of the solution, we see him not being able to completely gain the mercy he thought his prayers could get him and in the end we see that long shot of him stumbling on the ruins of science screaming and looking up towards his unanswering ‘lord’ until he merges in the horizon as the sun shines like it always does without any reactions to the man.
What makes me respect this film is that we see what probably Lopushansky has the answer to his questions of 'what is life' and that is that he is still clueless but with the acceptance that god and science are at least not the answer. I think that is particularly what sets the film so far away from Tarkovsky because no matter how many hardships the subjects of Tarkovsky faces, they always land on faith and have some hope. His answer is always god. But Lopushansky has no answer. And he provides that thought, that dilemma and that disappointment in this film and in that last long shot.
Lastly, I think what sets this film further apart from Tarkovsky are the compositions in the frames. In every Tarkovsky film there will always be certain amount of shots, no matter how many, which will make you pause and savor, which might make you gasp or just feel tha warmth in your chest. But I think one thing I couldn't find in this film were definitely the out-of-the-world compositions and placements which would just blow my mind away and not that it's an issue but it just makes me fall in love and respect Tarkovsky's genius even more.
All in all, I absolutely loved the film. I think it was yes a bit hard to watch because the low quality of youtube but it was truly worth every second regardless.
