Soviet films

Synistor 303 · March 22, 2020, 11:32:53 PM

My favourite "Russian movie" is the skits done by comedian Magda Szubanski in the Australian comedy TV show 'Fast Forward'. In each one Magda and some bloke were meeting in secret for sex, usually in a car, but of course it was snowy Russia, and before the couple got all their layers of warm clothes off, the movie would end. This happened again and again.

morozow · January 09, 2021, 08:55:47 PM

A beautiful children's fairy tale with a moral.

But I like it with the beautiful atmosphere and style of the USSR of the mid-60s. A great time of romance.

So...

"The Tale of Lost Time" is a film based on the fairy tale of the same name by Eugene Schwartz. Filmed in 1964. Director: Alexander Ptushko, a great director of fairy-tale films. This is the only film by Alexander Ptushko, shot on "modern" material.

The main character, third-grader Petya Zubov, is initially shown as a lazy person wasting time in vain. When he wakes up in the morning, before going to school, he decides to take a walk around the city, not afraid of being late. And at this time, four evil wizards, whose main goal in life is to do mischief to people, realize that they have already aged and can not go about their business as before. They decide to regain their youth. To do this, it is enough to find a few young idlers, collect the time they have wasted, make cakes with it and eat them.

The wizards went in search of it. They managed to find children who were wasting their time in vain (among them was Petya Zubov), and collect their lost time in bags. After that, the children instantly aged. And the wizards made tortillas out of flour, to which they added the collected time. However, they ate more than they should, as a result of which they turned into children.

Here's the plot of the story.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0166804/

Сказка о потерянном времени (сказка, реж. Александр Птушко, 1964 г.)

Spoiler: Show

morozow · February 18, 2021, 09:05:30 PM

"The Box with the Secret" (1976) is a Soviet hand-drawn cartoon directed by Valery Ugarov, a mini-opera based on the fairy tale by Vladimir Odoevsky "The Town in the Snuffbox".

"The town in the Snuffbox" is a fairy tale in which the device of the music box ("snuffbox") is told in a fairy-tale form.

In the film adaptation, the original motif of "cognition" fades into the background, giving way to music, dynamics, and a kaleidoscope of color. The film has an incredible number of characters, which grows from frame to frame. By the end, the pace of the story accelerates, the music gets louder, the tension reaches its highest point — and all this in order to stop, collapse and freeze forever.

"Шкатулка с секретом" 1976

morozow · April 01, 2021, 09:04:15 PM

In Russia, there was a small but high-profile cultural discovery.

A Soviet TV play from 1991, filmed at the studio of the Leningrad television "Keepers", was found. This is an adaptation of the first part of the Lord of the Rings by John Tolkien.

The play was shown on Soviet television only once, on April 13-14, 1991. The recording was considered lost, the search was not successful for a long time, and there was even a widespread opinion that the story of the performance was an invention of the Tolkienists.

Interested people knew that the play was filmed and shown on TV. People saw him. The cast was even restored. But it was impossible to watch the TV show itself.

And here it is found.

part 1

Хранители | Часть 1 | Телеспектакль по мотивам повести Д.Р.Р.Толкиена

part 2

Хранители | Часть 2 | Телеспектакль по мотивам повести Д.Р.Р.Толкиена

The discovery caused a lot of noise and discussion and laughter.

For those who are too lazy to watch, here you can get acquainted with the main characters: https://dubikvit.livejournal.com/971778.html

And try to guess who is who.

Sorontar · April 02, 2021, 01:14:59 AM

Wow, thanks for sharing those links. I may not speak Russian, but I can work out what parts of the story are being told (and cringe at the costumes).

Sorontar

morozow · April 03, 2021, 08:48:49 AM

Well in the continuation of the previous one

"The fabulous journey of Mr. Bilbo Baggins, the Hobbit, through the wild country, the black forest, beyond the misty mountains. Back and forth. Based on the fairy tale story of John Tolkien "The Hobbit" (also known as "The Adventures of the Hobbit")-a TV play based on the story-fairy tale of J. R. R. Tolkien "The Hobbit, or There and Back", translated by N. L. Rakhmanova. Artists of Leningrad theaters took part in the work on the play.

The TV show was filmed in the 7th studio of the Leningrad TV Center, which at that time was one of the most equipped hardware and studio units on Soviet TV. At the performance, the technology of double rearprojection was used for the first time.

Smaug and the Mirkwood spiders were portrayed as puppets. This version is missing trolls, Elrond, Beorn, and wood elves. Goblins look like people with a little makeup, and they were portrayed by dancers of the Leningrad State Academic Opera and Ballet Theater, as well as residents of the Lake City.

The film exists in at least two official versions, each of which has episodes that are included only in this version. The timekeeping of the versions differs by 50 seconds. The TV version, broadcast on terrestrial and cable channels, contains a scene with dwarves singing the songs "Beat the cymbals" and "For the Blue Mountains, for the White Fog". The episode is missing from the DVD version. The DVD version contains scenes of the treasure sharing, the battle with the goblins at the Lake City, and the death of Thorin. The episodes are missing from the TV version.

There is also an "amateur" version based on the DVD. It lasts 72 minutes and contains episodes available only in the TV version.

Сказочное путешествие мистера Бильбо Беггинса Хоббита

Interestingly, in the early 90's, "The Hobbit" was going to be filmed again. It was supposed to be a large-scale full-length cartoon "Treasures under the Mountain", combining hand-drawn and puppet animation. The role of Gandalf in it was to be voiced by Nikolai Karachentsov, and Torin - Lev Borisov. But whether with the collapse of the USSR, or for some other reasons, this project was not destined to come true. All that's left of it is a six-minute video, the introduction to the film

Hobbit in USSR, intro(1991 not released) -Сокровища Под Горой, или Хоббит

Sorontar · April 03, 2021, 10:39:32 AM

Oh, my gosh. The dwarves are fine, I can forgive that Bilbo looks like a football supporter, but why does Smaug have human hands???!!!!

The cartoon wasn't bad but the music in the teaser didn't work for me.

Sorontar

morozow · April 03, 2021, 07:06:08 PM

Allow me! But how many dragon paws are available for us to study? Maybe that's what they look like.

morozow · April 09, 2021, 08:15:06 PM

So according to the requests of the public

The film of 2000, - "DMB" (demobilized). Directed by Roman Kachanov based on a script by Ivan Okhlobystin (a very interesting person) about the situation in the army in our country in the 90s.

It is filled with crazy characters, philosophical quotes to the point and not to the place, to which it is dragged, hazing, black humor, as well as an all-reigning atmosphere of equanimity and irresponsibility.

The characters of the film are surrounded by a complete sur that the characters are well aware of and comment on the farce surrounding them with stone-serious faces.

So, the plot.

At the recruiting station, fate brings together guys who are not at all similar to each other. One is a student who was expelled from the institute for having sex with the dean's wife right in the classroom. The other is a factory worker who started a fire in the shop. The third is a player who has lost a large amount of other people's money in the casino. In the army, until the moment of taking the oath, they are all waiting for the most incredible adventures and adventures.

The film is divided into four novels with a prologue, connected by a common sequential plot.

Quotes and illustrations

Spoiler: Show

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0266437/

Version with English subtitles:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZCZ9DWCwuI

morozow · April 20, 2021, 10:59:05 AM

The Marriage of Balzaminov is a 1964 Soviet feature film based on the works of the playwright A. N. Ostrovsky.

A beautiful lyrical comedy against the background of "Victorian" Russia.

The film takes place in Moscow in the XIX century. A minor official, Misha Balzaminov, who lives with his mother, does not shine with intelligence and talents, but he really wants to get married — and that the bride should certainly be rich. A matchmaker comes to his aid.

Beautiful costumes, beautiful old city streets, beautiful acting. Light film, luxurious funny scenes of provincial life of the 19th century.

And the movie's melody. Buttercups are flowers.

Финал кф "Женитьба Бальзаминова"

From the funny. According to the script, Misha Balzaminov was 25 years old, and George Vitsin was already 45 at the time of filming. The actor had to go to tricks to get closer to the age of his hero. He painted himself with perky freckles, chose a curly wig, and added red paint to the foundation to make his face look rougher and thinner. Sitting in front of the makeup mirror, the actor sighed: "The marriage of the embalmed... "(in Russian, an obvious play on words, and there and there balm). The actress Lyudmila Shagalova, who played Misha Balzaminov's mother, was actually 6 years younger than Georgy Vitsin.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058770/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYdfEMNkVwI

morozow · May 06, 2021, 09:35:39 AM

Soon the holy holiday of May 9. And we have the appropriate subject matter now.

I came across a review-a comparison of two beautiful Soviet films about scouts in the enemy's lair.

I wonder which movie will attract you more. Although I'm afraid to imagine what an online translator will do with the text. Moreover, these two films in Russia are iconic and do not require details in the description of the characters, plot, scenes. It's a mystery to you. But it will be what it will be.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

"Seventeen Moments of Spring" vs. "Shield and Sword"?

But really. Stirlitz or Weiss? Lioznova or Basov? Don't think about seconds or where does the motherland begin? Kobzon or Bernes? Vyacheslav Vasilyevich or Stanislav Andreevich? TV or movies?

We have two films, let's have two epigraphs:

...But you still can't forget everything that we once didn't finish: Cute tired eyes, blue Moscow snowstorms. Again between us cities, life separates us as before, In the sky an unfamiliar star shines, like a monument to hope ...

... Ah, the dashing side, no matter how I prowl in you, You are red with a frontal place and a slimy rope...

General considerations

Both films are black and white, each with its own specific charm, great acting ensembles, mega-brilliant main roles, songs that have become almost folk. In each, I will note in parentheses, there is a weak link, both times female. In "Shield" it's Titova (sorry, Vladimir Pavlovich!), in "Moments" - no, not even the artist Gradova, but the whole line with Kat and the babies. In my early childhood, of course, she made a great impression on me. However, Titov too.

The events of" Moments "cover seventeen days, so they are described in great detail, and the events of "Shield" - almost five years and require great concentration from the viewer. In "Moments" everything is articulated in such a way that even if we want to, we will not lose the thread, while I understood some of the moments from "Shield" only on the third or fourth (tenth, fortieth...) viewing, a lot is delegated to my observation and ingenuity, which do not always keep up with events.

Comparing a movie and a TV performance(almost)should be done with caution. Basov had real locations, real explosions, fires and collapses (the municipality was just clearing Berlin of ruins), some kind of foreign help, inventive artists and a brilliant pair of cameramen (father and son Lebesheva), which together gave him the opportunity to design each frame reliably, take at least the art of the third Reich, graffiti in German, which covered the ruins – our walls are crumbling, but our hearts are firm! "or the poster of Hitler,' Your life is for the Fuhrer, ' under which Lansdorf shoots himself." But the basis of any film, whatever one may say, is the director's thinking, and a few words about this.

A voiceover can be considered a sign of poor command of the film language, but Lioznova did a great thing, she turned this voice into an integral part of the aesthetics of her film. Absolutely everything is commented on, you can slowly figure out who is under the hood of whom, everyone is told in words about what they thought, what they felt and why. The commentary does work that would otherwise require complex decisions and inevitably increase timekeeping, and making it a technique without which "Moments" are unthinkable was a wise move. Kopelyan is perceived as an alter ego of Stirlitz, and the video sequence is supported, duplicated and explained. "For the first time in his life, Goering objected to the Fuhrer. He was crushed and humiliated. He could still feel the Fuhrer's aides-de-camp smiling at him from behind." Everything is clear with your eyes closed.

"Stirlitz was on the verge of failure" became an anecdote. And how do you let the audience know about the edge of failure without engaging an oral comment? Basov shoots a scene that should be included in textbooks.

A couple of deaf-mutes, husband and wife. They are valued in the Abwehr because they can read lips. My wife has endless longing in her eyes: she recently had an abortion, what kind of agent with the child. Weiss begs for a puppy in the kennel and gives it to a deaf-mute woman, who is happy, takes the puppy in her arms, smiling through tears, and writes something in chalk on a special board.

And all the sounds are silenced, but the harmonica begins to squeak so softly, playfully: oh, my dear Augustine! And these three are standing in the courtyard of the barracks, communicating with the help of a slate, we see how the inscriptions change each other-thanks for the dog, more about this and that, and suddenly bam: "Where are you from?". Bright white on black in full screen. There are no extraneous sounds, in the silence the accordion barks about Augustine, Weiss smiles with an impossibly sincere smile. And then the exchange of boards and smiles: from the Baltic States – we realized that we were not from the Reich-why-the articulation is not the same. The deaf-mute woman strokes the puppy and talks about the Baltic States, nods to her husband: everything is in order.

This is black and white blackboards, sweet Augustine on the harmonica, and a desperate smile with sixty-four teeth-and there is "on the verge of failure", with all the confusion and horror. All other scenes in Basov are also solved by purely cinematic means, which leads to an increase in the density of the film text and requires a certain culture of its perception.

In some cases, Lioznova also shows cinematic thinking. When Stirlitz needs to look at the window of the turnout from the street – how are things with the flower pot - he goes to the bird shop, where a scene is played out, memorable and valuable in itself. In a perfectly natural way, moving his eyes from cage to cage, he ends up looking at the geranium. It's so subtle and beautiful - the old birdman is charming and familiar, the whole line is elegantly and precisely summed up to the point where the end will be put - that I can only regret the woefully small number of such scenes. I do not know what made Lioznova stay away from the voice-over " Stirlitz couldn't just look up at the window. He had to find a way to do this without arousing suspicion. He could have been followed." In most other cases, it does just that! But, it turns out, it can solve the scene so that we can easily read it ourselves.

He can, but he doesn't want to. She needs Kopelyan, not only for the sake of saving resources, but also for rapprochement with the viewer, who will always find an understanding and friendly interlocutor closer than an artistic image. Kopelyan is absolutely necessary for the discourse of this, in essence, multimedia TV show, where, in addition to permanent oral commentary, newsreels and "information for reflection" are also involved, that is, dossiers on the actors.

Unfortunately, the entire dossier (along with the proverbial wording) is made up by screenwriters and contains gross factual errors. I do not know what artistic or ideological necessity required the distortion of the biographical facts of historical characters, but probably some did.

In the "Shield" there are no such blunders, although there are technical errors: the wrong tank will flash, the wrong machine gun, buttonholes, that is, the usual shoals of film production. But they don't draw with markers, they don't sing songs of the 60s, and they don't write documents on Soviet-style letterheads. The voice-over is used only in exceptional cases, when appeals to the nation are read out or German speech is translated. Kopelyan gives us a sense of the presence of some higher intelligence that gives us hope: "Strength, courage, and finally victory itself were on the side of his homeland," he promises in the first episode. The sharp SS-like intonation of the female announcer in "Shield" acts on an internal level, enhancing the authenticity and even more unnerving the already not very peaceful viewer.

The first frames use a tuning fork to adjust the rhythm and tone. At the beginning of "Moments", a solid middle-aged gentleman thoughtfully observes flying cranes, three (three!) minutes of screen time walking around the spring forest, having a funny conversation with a nice old lady about medicinal herbs (do your kidneys hurt? Don't you? Sorry!). "Shield", before it even starts, throws us into bedlam: military equipment on the road, an overturned car, German speech, the intonation of the announcer cutting the ear; they drag the body of a radio assistant, at which a bony guy, someone's driver, looks with an incomprehensible expression.

Something like this will go from now on. And, in general, this is already a partial answer to the question that gave rise to this multi-letter text: why the film about Stirlitz became a cult for the vast majority of the population of our country, and the film about Weiss-only for a handful of fans. But I still have a lot to say, so I'll continue. Let's take a closer look at the main characters, their activities and environment, and the discourse used by the filmmakers.

morozow · May 06, 2021, 09:39:29 AM

Personality

Max Otto von Stirlitz, an aristocrat (which corresponds to the noble origin of Maxim Isaev), with a hell of a time in the NSDAP, an influential figure in the Reich, who was integrated into the machine long before I met him and by the time we met, had become a significant figure.

Johann (not the background) Weiss-Volksdeutsch from Latvia, a chauffeur (which corresponds to the worker-peasant origin of Alexander Belov), is repatriated to the Reich in 1940, where he makes his way up step by step before our eyes.

The personality of Stirlitz arouses respect among others and the need to reckon with it. The word "personality" is the key word here, because Maxim Isaev preserved it and put it at the service of Stirlitz, it is the charm of this personality – his own – that he uses, it is the personality that everyone values, trying to win him over to their side as such: with his mind, his experience, his ethics; it is he – Stirlitz – "famous for liberalism and logic".

The fate of Weiss's personality is determined by Bruno's words: "To get used to... to skin yourself, turn it inside out, put it back on – and smile. Such a job." He reads and mirrors the interlocutor, in all situations demonstrating exactly what is expected of him. It is good to have such a person in your drinking buddies, orderlies, and confidants. At the same time, he always shows a precisely verified measure of his own dignity: just enough to arouse respect and sympathy, but not rejection.

"And he's young...
" If that's a flaw, I'll fix it. Over time.
"...And bold.
"My bad.

So he looks closely at Frau Ditmar, and tells her exactly what she needs: he used to do everything himself... grew up without parents. They drink coffee, and Weiss bends down to take a sip from the cup, and Frau is moved: "You remind me a little of my son..." and here's my son's room, and here's his shirt. Now look at him drinking coffee in the company of people with manners: standing up straight like them, holding the saucer with his fingers in the air, elegantly landing the cup on it. They have a million of these things there with Basov.

Stirlitz's good manners, his dignity, his behavior-these are exactly the dignity, manners and behavior that belong to him. There is no need for Him to use them as a tool of manipulation. The first series of "Shield" is called "Without the right to be yourself", while Stirlitz earned himself just such a right.

Gentleman Stirlitz is impressive, stable, at every moment equal to himself. Parvenu-Weiss is mobile, cat-like plastic and flows from image to image. Stirlitz has a wise sadness in his eyes, Weiss has a desperate melancholy when no one is looking at him. Stirlitz is characterized by mild irony; Weiss allows himself only dry sarcasm. Stirlitz is comprehensively gifted, he philosophizes, draws cartoons, and sings about the steppe. Weiss shows one talent – to please his superiors and inspire confidence.

"They think that if I haven't failed in 20 years, then I'm all-powerful," Stirlitz tells Erwin. They think correctly. And the audience thinks so. Stirlitz is such a Fandorin of his time, whose very appearance in the frame means that everything will be settled and everyone will be saved. He is, of course, a mythological character, but Tikhonov and Lioznova managed to convincingly clothe him in the flesh.

Ace, an enlisted felon, says to Weiss ," I'm not much older than your brother, Nekawede." Well, the audience too... in different ways. We prefer to think that Stirlitz belongs to some abstract "general intelligence", with the NKVD we associate it little. And Weiss-easily. The icy steel of the old Chekist temperament shines through his continuous acting, causing him to reject the truly Aryan joys of everyday life,in which he is forced to plunge like a slop. Stirlitz is no stranger to anything human, he smokes with taste, drinks with pleasure, eats with appetite, enjoys music, dances with Gaby and flirts subtly with her.

- Gabi, as a chess partner, I'm not interested in you.

Stirlitz has enough strength to connect with the present, has enough time for islands of comfort, where he warmly communicates with illegal immigrants, then with touching, slightly comic characters; he rests his soul-he will look into the basement of the Elephant, then bake potatoes in the fireplace, and then quote Pushkin to himself. By the time we met him, he had already created and lived in a world in which he could exist if he had to. That's why we, the audience, feel quite comfortable there. Weiss is on the same high-strung nerve, and so are we. Stirlitz fully lives – Weiss works continuously, and his work is hard labor and dirty. Here's a sleek, carnivorous German woman (gorgeous Chursina):

"...And then we'll have some schnapps."
"When will you be all alone?"..

Can we imagine that Stirlitz, for the good of the cause, was hanging around the lance-corporals? To laugh at unfunny jokes, get mixed up with career-useful secretaries, get drunk with the devils, and mock the messenger for show to his drinking buddies.

"Ah, Master Teacher! We haven't hung you yet?" Around the column march!

On the other hand, can we imagine Weiss suddenly singing about the shirokaya steppe, even in his mind? Or would he start exchanging glances with his wife across the restaurant? We do not observe a single – not a single second of relaxation in him. Zubov has taken off his shoes and is sitting splashing his feet in the river. Weiss doesn't even allow himself to do this: you'll start splashing around, and then you'll remember Pushkin, sing about the steppe, and the Khan. And there isn't a single knot on your string.

The Stirlitz persona exists in continuity, within an integral system of relationships. "The twenty-third of February was a day that Colonel Isaev always celebrated." Captain Belov, I'll give you my teeth, during all the years of this mad frenzy did not distinguish the twenty-third of February from the first of May, and most importantly, pay attention: Kopelyan often reminds us that we are talking about the colonel, or simply Maxim, Isaev, while the name "Alexander Belov" was once pronounced by Bruno at the very beginning, and no more twenty-third of February. We are used to: Weiss, Johann (Hannes), Peter Kraus as a special assignment officer. That's why it works like this when our general enters the ward and says the memorable "Why are you so... not very cheerful, Belov?»

Stirlitz never completely breaks away from Isaev, just as he never breaks away from his homeland. Chronicle, a great advantage of the film, does not allow us to lose the feeling that the outside world exists and our close. Stirlitz is a soldier of the State, history and big politics are being made, Stalin makes speeches, the globe is spinning, Eustace is Alex, and my coast may seem like a thin line in the distance. Weiss is connected to "that big war" through the wandering international of free shooters of unclear status, the adventurer Zubov and Nina / Spitz, whose operatic style here plays into the hands of the existential side: Titova, really, looks so frivolous that even the presence of a walkie-talkie cannot soften the impression of essential isolation from her native shore. We are suffocating in a ring of fire on an inhabited island of the Third Reich.

When they meet in Poland, Bruno says: "Our people were at your house, mother, father, everything is fine." Weiss freezes for half a second – and that's it, no reaction, no gesture, no look, gone. By June 41, he had already knocked the whole "house" out of him completely, and in vain, in fact, the older comrade started these conversations. He himself said back in Latvia: "We need Johann Weiss. We don't need Alexander Belov, and we won't need him for a long time yet." While Stirlitz integrated Maxim Isaev into his personality, learned how to use him, release him, restrain him, rely on him, and thanks to this, exists without burning out. And it's been working for decades.

morozow · May 06, 2021, 09:43:13 AM

Work

Stirlitz's activity consists in such global achievements as disrupting separate negotiations and preventing Germany from creating an atomic bomb, and directly manifests itself in saving various good people. In order to do this and survive yourself, you need to be one of the main players on the stage of world history, one that no one will sacrifice as a bargaining chip, who will be protected, pulled over to their side, so that they can use it to replay and devour opponents. Who will be trusted to the last and readily believe his explanations of all sorts of fingers on suitcases: firstly, in the hope of including such a joker in their own multi-way combinations, and secondly, given the obvious simplicity of all his actions and the power of the forces associated with him. How Stirlitz achieved this, we do not know, but we believe absolutely.

The status of an employee who is more profitable to use than hang, Weiss earns before our eyes. He is constantly on the move and serving, putting someone drunk to bed, taking someone out of the bath, giving someone a massage, handing over a coat and chair, pouring wine, bringing a hot water bottle, holding the doors open, picking up the broken glass and holding out the ashtray. He listens to nonsense, begs for protection, insinuates himself into trust, coaxes subtly or rudely, drowns some, curries favor with others, bites his way up with his teeth; well, not that the very top, not Stirlitz, which is already a whole Standartenfuhrer (colonel) and short with all the bumps. But by the end of the war he was promoted to Hauptsturmfuhrer (captain) and, most importantly, scratched out a travel certificate, which, logically, saved his life among his own people. (If it weren't for the suggestion that a comatose SS man with such an important paper - "the whole menagerie has signed!" - might be needed by serious departments, the army in the confusion would hardly have stood on ceremony with him, would have shot him on the spot, saving a bed in the hospital).

In the Reich, Weiss legends his every move: all his art is created within the artfully expanded framework of job descriptions and direct orders from his superiors. As for Stirlitz, with his unlimited leisure time and uncontrolled movements, I just don't quite understand what he does for the Reich in his workplace. As he leads Kat out of the room and down the hall, Kopelyan tells us how much he has to say to her in that time. And so he starts. Weighty so. Slowly:

"Listen to me, girl. (An impressive pause.) Listen carefully.

If this is not a rough scenario jamb, then, perhaps, a subtle hint that time for Stirlitz is a stretchable concept, he disposes of it at his discretion, as well as space.

The lion's share of the time of "Moments" is made up of dialogues that are statically shot, but delightfully played. The dialogue in "Shield", though brilliant and precise, does not allow anyone to develop much in depth, but in" Moments " everyone has the opportunity to express, in aphoristic or lengthy form, their concepts of good and evil, the course of history and the essence of man. Everyone, from their superiors to random fellow travelers, shares with Stirlitz and with each other unorthodox views on Hitler, fanaticism, the fate of Germany and the upcoming Allied victory, claiming, for example, like Frau Saurich, that the war is already over. Agents provocateurs - and those philosophers who are experienced in theodicy; there is no place for criminals from the Abwehr school of saboteurs. And his fallen comrades are buried in the church, and not dragged along the rubble. And everyone plays chess, piano, and organ. Around Weiss, they play cards and the harmonica, and if they suddenly play the piano, they are exceptionally drunk SS men before they get into a fight with the Abwehr.

In both films, the characters work among the spiders in the bank. Everyone is sitting on everyone, some departments are playing games with others, so you can catch fish in muddy water, maneuver, manipulate. Stirlitz does this among smart, educated, subtle people who have become disillusioned with the ideas of national socialism and are mainly engaged in intrigues both in the global and career fields. So yLioznova exploration is a competition of skills! The confrontation of the most charming thinkers in the aura of intellectual romance. And the recruiting and rescue contingent is: Professor Pleishner. Runge physicist. Pastor Schlag...

At Basov, intelligence is a cross and hell. In the end, the hero, even without the underground catastrophe, would have remained the same scorched, half-dead. There is no charm, much less romance, in this work. Good romance, to serve cannibals, and not to prepare saboteurs from the last human garbage, former compatriots, and even inspect the camps. And no intellectual duels. All nerves, pretense, and dreary work-usually among butchers, fiends, and fanatics, though intellectuals too

they meet and very well justify the need to destroy concentration camps before the arrival of the Allies. Contingent: Number seventy-three two zeros twelve. Seventy-four zero zero fourteen. Nickname "Goga". Nickname "Gristle". Nickname " Ace»...

Work:
"Alas, I would very much like to believe that Herr Dulles is not negotiating with Himmler, but ... did you read what I gave you this morning?"

Work:
"Mr. Instructor! Nickname "Goga" hanged himself!

Weiss did not really make a contribution to high politics, even in the Gestapo in the case of the July plot, he was thundered by accident. His specific tasks are increasingly focused on prisons and camps, and the crowning achievement will not be the disruption of separate negotiations, but -

" Comrades! Get as far away from the bars as possible! We're going to blow it up now.

In place of Stirlitz, I would like to visit, that's the thing. In Weiss's place, maybe only to the boys of the late sixties, and then only because they drew romance from themselves.

But here's what's important. With all the rigidity of the "Shield", Basov does not show any atrocities in the frame. No one beats anyone, tortures anyone, or freezes babies. It is clear that Lioznova wanted to show-here, you think, Muller is such a darling, and he does what Evona does, such are they, the fascists. But it turned out, really, crooked. When someone is punched on the screen, the viewer willy-nilly remembers the conventions of art: it's not like they're real. On the contrary, they are really fighting intellectually, there is no convention here, and everyone is happy to join in the duel of cute characters.

Once, at an impressionable age, I watched "Moments" and thought: I will never review" Shield", it's scary there! How is this "scary" achieved?

"What was it called before?" Shteynglitz asks grimly in a basement beer hall that might have been a cozy Elephant in another universe.
"Is the Herr Major joking?" That's Warsaw!
"No," I said. This whole country. ... Lie down! Stand up! Lie down!.. I would not recommend that you burden your memory with old memories.

Nothing fatal seems to have been done to the old waiter, but everything that the "Herr Major" says, thinks, and embodies is fatal.

We won't know what they'll do with those who flashed past us – two seconds in the frame and away! "Polish partisans, but when they are being chased, barefoot, with placards around their necks, they are followed by a small boy skipping along, singing Schwarzbraun ist die Haselnuss, a merry song. We didn't see the soldiers being shot, but we did see a pale, shocked Heinrich, and then a satisfied Shteynglitz ("I don't hide it, I like to shoot!"). "Oh, shit, my head is aching," the commandant says in a polite voice. "I was on duty at the gas chamber at night, and a couple of trains were eliminated." In the frame, people in prison uniforms crush the stone and carry it in wheelbarrows. The passage through the children's camp, with a panoramic shot of its nightmarish squalor, is mounted with a soft, fatherly voice, broadcasting the beyond about "... children are used to it". The counterpoint of these voices, the apparent mundanity of their workdays, and the unthinkability of the spoken text creates a terrifying authenticity.

Lioznova, who shot not a movie, but a TV movie two steps away from the TV show, did not solve the problem of balancing her skew. But she solved a different problem. It's much nicer when ninety percent of the screen population is the nicest people, and the main character is a knight without fear or reproach, than when the space of the film is populated mainly by creepy figures, and the main character causes mixed feelings.

morozow · May 06, 2021, 09:49:51 AM

Stirlitz manages to stay all in white, while Weiss is up to his ears in blood and mud. It seems that both exploit trust – but Stirlitz plays somehow so elegantly that it is awkward to brand his manipulations as " treachery "and intrigues as"substitutions". Stirlitz's line "I love open games, at least with my own" stands between two Mullerovs: the first is "I'll close my eyes, and you'll hit me on the head like Holtoff", the second is "I always regretted that you didn't work in my machine. I would have made you my second-in-command long ago." Here, the interlocutors communicate through such layers of common contexts, such layers of transformed trust and distrust, such exchanges of caps (who is under whose) that it is somehow not appropriate to talk about clumsy categories like treachery.

The situation around Weiss is much rougher and simpler, and here, without Fleur ekivokov, it is striking: he is engaged in the manipulation of trust. For example, in a critical situation, he deftly otmazhet the necessary Stoneware, and unnecessary Gerlach buried directly in prison, and get the expected reaction from the authorities:

"Always you, Weiss, with your sincerity!

And at the end, he will get the documentation of the camps through vulgar blackmail – you believed me, and I worked against you, what will happen to you now? "which results in the shooting of old Lansdorf." Lansdorf was a seasoned national Socialist, and he gave terrifying orders in his old-fashioned, intelligent voice. But Dante placed the "traitors of his benefactors" in the last circle of hell, without distinguishing the moral character of these benefactors.

Lioznova and Semenov do not force Stirlitz to do this to anyone. They don't put them in a critical choice situation at all, if the viewer may have a bad feeling about this choice.

For example, I didn't notice before (I wonder how much more I will open in this film), whether I was inattentive, or naive. After one of the diversions, Weiss and Zubov accidentally meet Brigitte on the street, and Weiss, who personally drove all the vehicles throughout the film, suddenly puts Zubov behind the wheel. A wounded man with a bandaged arm. He sits back down with Brigitte. A small talk ensues, from which it can be concluded that Brigitte did not suspect anything of this or that. That's when I realized: what if I did? Look not at Brigitte in this episode, but specifically at Weiss: the watchful eye of a predator on the prowl. And now I remember quite differently how he yelled at the same Zubov – "Yes, I'll shoot you without any tribunal!" And once it seemed to me that this was a figure of speech. No, what a figure.

And Heinrich also understands everything perfectly: the episode with the phone call.

"You'd have slapped an old friend, wouldn't you?"

Weiss doesn't deign to answer Heinrich at all. No need.

Stirlitz has no moments in which we would suddenly begin to leave the ground from under our ethical feet. It is infallible, and its shoals exist in the space of external analysis, but not in the space of the film. Any possible questions are removed by skilfully constructing a scenario with an emphasis on how Stirlitz leads all situations to a victorious end, and placing emphasis in such a way that all his actions, no matter what they are aimed at, are perceived precisely as saving good people – for starters, Runge, smoothly moving on to Schlag, then everywhere. And most importantly – this is Stirlitz itself. His calm, ironic charm surrounds him with such an aura of rightness that there are no questions about him in principle.

Stirlitz treats people with sympathy, respect and empathy. This is what prevents us from blaming him for the death of Professor Pleischner – we know by default that he did everything he could for the professor, but, of course, even Stirlitz is not omnipresent. But we do not forgive Weiss for the cadet Phase: my God, it was clear to snitch Tit (he reported that the Phase "does not inspire"), and the Soviet intelligence professional did not see anything behind the soft intellectual habit, behind the mocking mask of a Moscow boy. Here Stirlitz would have seen, - we know, - would have understood, would have sensed intuition.

Basov does a terrible thing: he forces Weiss to be present at Phaz's execution. This was not the case with Kozhevnikov (in the novel, Faza is killed in custody), and this is one of the most powerful scenes in the film. When the truck starts moving, Smirnitsky's face is shot in such a way (and the music is still there!) that it becomes clear: a person goes to heaven right now, right away. Weiss took another step away from the sky at this moment.

...And always behind the crows and coffins.

The only coffin that we agree to attribute to Stirlitz is the provocateurKlaus. It is so disgusting, so much effort is put into drawing it in the form of human garbage, that the shot at the lake is perceived with an unconditional hurrah. Only Klaus Stirlitz studies with visible disgust, like a louse under a microscope, and this makes it all the more obvious that other people are interesting and sympathetic to him in themselves, not only as material. And Weiss is not interested in them, except as objects of manipulation or, willy-nilly, cooperation. And Heinrich is an object, and Weiss did not pull him out of the Gulf of Riga out of friendship.

As a human being, he only applies to Frau Ditmar.

"Tell me, Hannes, will the city be surrendered?" Do we have to leave?"

- The city will be handed over. You don't have to leave.

This was probably the intonation of a guy who watched a newsreel through an open door in Riga in the forties, when he wasn't frozen in Weiss's skin, when the war hadn't started and everyone was still alive. At the key moment, a wise guide will deliver not the bride, not the brother, not the good and faithful companion who lives in the neighboring yard – namely, the mother.

Stirlitz, however, also says: "Of all the people on the planet, I love the elderly and children the most." But Stirlitz at this moment was interesting with Gaby, and so he generally treats people carefully. And dogs love it. Weiss even tries to use the dogs for his own purposes, Frau Dietmar will arrange a turnout at the apartment, but with the children... my nerves are finally giving out.

morozow · May 06, 2021, 09:55:14 AM

Nerves

They, nerves, were no longer to hell. For the first time, they passed the Test after the execution: in the company of saboteurs, Weiss personally went to rescue Elsa – a criminally unjustified risk - and a number of assumptions can be made about his motivation, one worse than the other. Here, I shot Gerlach unarmed on the way. Oh, yes, Gerlach recognized it and could have pawned it. You don't have to take part in prison raids. As I understand it, if Stirlitz gets nervous, he sits and plays chess, and does not take up the machine. In general, it is difficult to imagine Stirlitz with a submachine gun. And with nerves, too.

Whether Stirlitz for decades of work completely got used to his role, or he was originally made of more durable material... in any case, it works smoothly, as if integrating the drama of events into the personality, processing it as fuel,and moving on with it. We don't know the dynamics of his development: perhaps earlier he was even more unruffled, or perhaps, on the contrary, gradually hardened like steel, and eventually became so – vulnerable only to fatigue (but "exactly 20 minutes later he will wake up refreshed and full of energy") and sadness.

Weiss, in ' forty-five, is not on the verge of nervous exhaustion, but far beyond it: a little more and he will break down like Don Rumata, extinguishing everyone indiscriminately. He breaks down in a children's camp, even if he puts his explosion in the right words:

"You're being too wasteful with your merchandise! Today-immediately! – now!" - start fattening up the kids!..

He openly spat with Angelica. Killed the Shteinglitz killers. I began to worry-okay, for Zubov, with whom I had long been bound by risk and blood – but for the dying Brigitte. He uttered such an unexpected word "home". And the word "tired" in conversation with Heinrich.

"I think I'll go too." I'm tired of your uncle.

So, with my uncle! Well, a professional couldn't snap his beak like that: he stood in the doorway for about three seconds. A movie clip? I don't believe in such blunders in a movie of this level.

But I do believe Weiss would have liked to see Willy Schwarzkopf take poison in front of him. Otherwise, it is quite strange to reproach Henry and the landing party, who are not required to understand such things at all.:

"Well, what about you?"

And you, if you please? Am I tired of your uncle?

"For him, people are garbage," a character in another film about another controversial hero will say twelve years later. Garbage is not garbage, consumable material for sure. So the bortstrelka, who is supposedly "drunk", will most likely be court-martialed, and recruitment, catching human souls, is carried out by handing over informers to the criminal-we feel sorry for them, we don't feel sorry, but they were strangled in the camp. And how many such victims were there in all the years? And Stirlitz? But the viewer doesn't really want to know about such things. And Lioznova doesn't show them. And Basov shows it.

"They were forced to shout' Heil Hitler ' when they were being led to execution," Heinrich recalls painfully. "And they were silent.

Henry refused to shoot, he is allowed, he is a nephew. And what would you do, Johann, if you were ordered to? And Stirlitz? Suppose Stirlitz came up with something and saved everyone ... eh...

Fortunately, Basov did not dare to break the viewer through the knee to such an extent. And so already-a lot. What will become of a person after such an experience?

Look into the eyes of Stirlitz and Weiss closer to the final. Stirlitz's look is one of hope, sad wisdom and understanding (generally a happy feature of the artist Tikhonov). Weiss's view is from the abyss, from the otherworldly, beyond (in general, a happy feature of the artist Lyubshin).

In those days, they did not talk about post-traumatic syndrome, and much later the "Afghan syndrome" appeared in the domestic discourse, then the "Chechen"one. But Basov is a front-line soldier and knows everything; as for the invisible front, his film was curated by those who themselves visited the other side. And despite the final smile-not a smile, but at least some shadow of a return to life-Weiss will have a hard road to recovery, which is still unknown how it will end.

And Stirlitz is easy to imagine after the victory exactly the same as always. Even if, out of desperation, he had gone somewhere where the trolley would have hit him (I repeat that the trolley is only a pretext for Basov to visibly show what a price is charged by infernal, dirty and incompatible with life work among the fascists), he would have recovered by sheer force of spirit. It is Stirlitz-the image of the Soviet, our superman. Able to preserve wisdom, kindness, the nervous system and your own personality in conditions in which it is impossible to do so.

How do they approach the final itself?

morozow · May 06, 2021, 09:59:05 AM

The final

How do you even finish a story of this magnitude? You should put the dot in such a way that it is memorable.

Finals. One that is intelligent, precise, leaves an aftertaste, makes you think and remember. Another murderous, heart-breaking one.

Lioznova collected all the archetypes.

Basov blew up all the templates.

At the end of "Moments" we see cranes in the sky, as we saw them at the beginning; the song "Cranes" was written and performed by Bernes at that time, and it is impossible not to remember it at this moment. And Stirlitz sits almost in the Shukshin pose from the final of the Stoves-Benches, which will forever remain symbolic. And the landscape around us is archetypally nostalgic. And Kopelyan's voice-over sounds for the last time, and the most soulful, lyrical song that accompanied us throughout the epic. This closes all gestalts, rounds out and exhausts topics to the viewer's complete satisfaction.

And I want to analyze the final of" Shield " in detail, by seconds, because from my point of view this is one of the most powerful scenes in world cinema (there is nothing like this in the novel, Basov invented it himself).

Johann-now Alexander, but the big question is whether he understands this or not-crawls out of the hospital barracks and into the open. And the music begins, which has never been played before.

If at that moment Basov had given the music of "... Rodina", it would have been impossible, at the internal level it is clear that it would have been false. But no, pipes, such a tune sounds just like a yard, light. Remember, right? Searchlight sha-rit as-ta-rozhno on the hill! No words yet.

Stops, turns around, sees his departmental general. No recognition marks, nothing at all. He speaks-in a hollow voice, without expression-something that is the only thing that keeps in his head:

- I have to go to the front line.

"There is no front or front.

"Is Zubov alive?"

- If only so...

This dialogue, which everyone knows by heart, contains everything: victory is such an ordinary announcement of it! - and its price, which was not taken care of. No visible impression from Johann / Alexander. The general quickly slips away to prepare the next stage of the operation to restore the sanity of his officer, and the latter limps further somewhere on the road.

The song sounds again, with words. And these words have nothing to do with anything that happened in front of us for six hours - five years. In the text - a letter from my mother and a handful of native land, a tobacco pouch with self-planting and a hundred grams with a trailer for the native Guards corps, let's wave without looking, as they say at the front-this is the song of those who reached the end, to Berlin, to victory as part of their unit, in the fight against the enemy at the front. And in the frame, a half-dead winner of the great war is walking in flip-flops and a hospital gown, trying to return from his front line. A victory, one for all.

...Two seconds of complete silence.

- Shura!...

Turns around. The frame is highlighted. My eyes seem to come alive. And now – a control shot to the viewer's head: the first bars of "Homeland". The end.

Results

"Shield and Sword – is a story about working behind enemy lines, told as honestly as possible by artistic means within the framework of a dynamic adventure film, without slipping into blackness, de-heroization and iconoclasm.

As a work of art, from my point of view, "Shield" is much better than "Moments".

But "Moments" is not just a work of art. Lioznova gave the audience a friend and companion, and our mythology – a whole new character. "Moments" is built on coincidences – Stirlitz, Colonel Isaev's personality, Kopelyan's intonation, Tariverdiev's music, the archetypes used, our sympathies, Kobzon's voice and song lyrics-with each other and with the audience's expectations, which contributes to the natural inclusion of the film in the space of a familiar and convenient cultural code for the viewer.

"Shield" is built on counterpoints, contradictions, emotional discomfort, breaks in patterns, and from "Homeland" in the voice of Bernes at the end of each episode, the heart is squeezed, so it goes across everything that we just saw. An attentive reader has noticed what sources I have used to accompany my discussion of this film. The cultural code to which it belongs goes beyond mass culture.

Stirlitz came to our house as a native person, and from there stepped straight into folklore. Weiss is alienated from himself, not from us. Lioznova anticipated all the audience's expectations and met them. Basov puts the viewer in a state of confusion and anxiety, poking us in the nose with something that we might not want to know. Stirlitz comforted and encouraged us. Weiss got on our nerves to the sound of a drum roll. Beyond Stirlitz, we are like a stone wall. Weiss and I are in the quarry, where that trolley is always coming at us.

_______________________

ugh, who finished reading and got interested, the source code - https://grigvas.livejournal.com/707989.html and https://grigvas.livejournal.com/708133.html

morozow · October 20, 2021, 06:04:44 PM

If Harry Potter had been filmed by the Gorky Central Film Studio for Children and Youth Films.

Which Soviet actors could play the heroes of the book. They offer their own options in the comments.

There will be questions about who-what, I will be happy to answer.

https://congregatio.livejournal.com/4696084.html

morozow · August 22, 2022, 08:16:54 PM

"For Two Hares" is a Soviet art comedy film directed by Viktor Ivanov, released at the Dovzhenko Kiev Film Studio in 1961.

The masterpiece "For Two Hares" shakes not only with the magnificent performance of the young Oleg Borisov, who was able to create not only dramatic, but also grotesquely comedic types - the plot shows us an exquisite version of Ukrainian drama. The author of the play, Mikhail Staritsky, was and remains a classic of Little Russian literature, and also an intellectual, a theatrical figure, a guardian for Ukrainian culture. Therefore, in Soviet times, he was actively, as they say now, promoted. "For two hares" is one of the brilliant facets of that PR.

A wonderful comedy story about a dandy starving. And a wealthy family with a stupid daughter commanding her parents.

Wonderful images, wonderful dialogues, wonderful language game.

Plot

Svirid Petrovich Golokhvosty (Oleg Borisov) is an unlucky owner of his own barber shop, a fashionista and a helicopter pilot. Having gone bankrupt, he decides to improve his affairs with a profitable marriage. By chance, he finds out that for his ugly daughter Pronya Prokopovna (Margarita Krinitsyna), her father gives ten thousand dowries.

Walking with his friend on Vladimirskaya Hill, he sees a beautiful girl Galya (Natalia Naum) and falls in love with her. He boasts to his friends that he will marry Prona Prokopovna only for money, and he will have an affair with a beautiful woman on the side. One evening, having met Galya, the Bare-Tailed One begins to molest her. At this moment, they are caught by Gali's mother — Seklet Limerich (Nonna Koperzhinskaya) — and forces him to swear to marry Gal against his daughter's wishes.

The next day, Svirid Petrovich goes to visit the Serks and receives a blessing for marriage with Pronya Prokopovna. Returning from the bride, he accidentally runs into Sekleta and gets to her name day. There, Sekleta informs her guests that Galya and Svirid are now the bride and groom. Galya runs straight from the engagement to her lover Stepan and asks him for protection, he calms her down.

The wedding day comes, but the plans of the Bare-Tailed one are not destined to come true: Seklet's friends, who were present at the engagement of Svirid Petrovich with Galya, accidentally find out about his upcoming wedding with Pronya Prokopovna and inform Seklet. She runs to the church and announces to those present that Svirid Petrovich is engaged to her daughter, and he is marrying Prona only because of a rich dowry.

Pronya Prokopovna and her parents drive away the treacherous groom, and the pawnbroker informs everyone that the Bare—Tailed one is bankrupt, and by no means a rich groom.

Left with nothing, Svirid Petrovich leaves with his idle friends.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chasing_Two_Hares

I'm a bad film critic.

He wrote that the film is good. and why?...

Well, I have already mentioned the performer of the main role of the magnificent Oleg Borisov.

Live images. And the main character, who wants to live in idleness, is a fashionable scoundrel. And an ugly, scandalous, stupid, but at the same time romantic main character. Well, the main thing is that she completely lacks reflection, when she meets a handsome prince, she does not ask herself why he needs me. She is confident in her irresistibility. And her parents are submissive to their "smart" daughter.

Wonderful visual solutions. All these stylish, fashionable suits and dresses, hats with ribbons. The actress playing the main role was really without one tooth. She was supposed to insert an artificial tooth, but the director asked her to wait until the end of filming. In real life, she is a pretty woman.

A wonderful language game. Soft South Russian dialect, already sets up a light mood. And the speech of the heroes, the use of "smart" words, causes bright laughter.

I don't know if the translator will be able to convey the humor of the catch phrases from this film.

— Your cigarette is squashing!
— It's in my chest squirts!

The young ladies have already gone to bed and beg.

That's where tau is.

News:

Soviet films