Originally posted by miseenscene
by forcing us to identify with the Frenchman as the only recurring visual character throughout the run of the movie, the emotions and themes must be experienced by us through him.
I found myself identifying with the unseen "cameraman"(Sokurov). This character's observations seemed to me to be more contemporary. Also, his "eyes" become ours for the entirety of the film.

at the end the camera drifts about somewhat aimlessly through a ball in which there's something interesting to see no matter where the camera travels.
What a glorious closing sequence. I had never before felt personally "incorporated" into a historical event to such degree.

I imagine further knowledge of Russian history and art would have lent more depth to the viewing experience, but even as a relative unknown in these waters I found myself entertained and dazzled throughout.
I agree on both counts. I find that knowledge of the fate that befell the guests at the formal ball accounts for my being so emotionally affected by that final sequence. It felt like a funeral for a whole way of life. On the other hand, a knowledge of Russian history is not required to enjoy the film as a technical and aesthetic marvel. Moreover, you don't have to know about Catherine II to be amused by her frantic search for the bathroom.


I found myself wondering several times if it was wrong of me to feel completely bored senseless, may be a trial for some attention span-challenged viewers like myself, but it's certainly a risk worth taking.
One's personal reaction to a film is always valid, never wrong. I believe snippets of Russian Ark assume some viewer's interest in the polemics between the Marquis and the cameraman. I commend your willingness to engage this film. I feel encouraged you found it "worth taking". Risky films deserve an audience. You remind me of my own "struggle" with films like Chantal Akerman's classic Jeanne Dielman.