New Zvyagintsev’s film, recently released, can be compared in its effects with Gestalt therapy. Although the Director’s goal is not to “diagnose” or “suggest drugs”, “Hate” embodies in practice the main ideas of psychotherapists-humanists, giving the viewer the opportunity to “identify rejected parts of the personality”. Because this picture, if you ignore all the political labels and social cliches, which sometimes see it as both critics and ordinary spectators – the people generally outside their national or any other affiliation.
The story shown in the film is not new, and could occur at any point of the globe – the collapse of what we with great reserve can be called “family.” The main characters get a divorce, and his desire to start “from scratch” reach, without realizing it, to a Frank recognition of his own spiritual callousness when they decided to send son to boarding school. All constraints from social and religious to “traditional” (“you’re the mother”)-give in to selfish human desire of “happiness” which, of course, incompatible with ballast in the form of under-loved twelve-year-old boy, born only to resolve the problems of parents…
Reveals a picture of forest landscape in a very cold colour. Standard construction of the sleeping area, unremarkable school, wastelands and ravines-the camera captures all these details of everyday life, almost without stopping for anything except the intricacies of the roots of the ancient tree at the foot of which a fair-haired boy picks up construction tape. Quick and hearty keyboard chords, increasing to somehow unpleasant to the ear, dramatically and almost instantly break: the soundtrack, the film will feature the same minimalist, and dialogue – nothing more. The ultimate conciseness and expressiveness of images, concentrated and, paradoxically, typical, recognizable in their own environment-the calling card of the film, as well as its modernity and timeliness: in some ironic episodes (the scene with the selfie in the restaurant, the lunch break in the office, the morning radio) is unmistakable, although somewhat grotesquely guessed the Russian reality. However, the film is not about it: the scenery could be anything, from the Indian slums to London living rooms. The situation in the film called “typically Russian” would be inappropriate exaggeration: she, like the problem of “fathers and children” an eternal and universal, and appeal to her as a “theme” (another favorite word of the Director) is another sign “no-go” film.
And in the film there’s really no “random” episodes designed to fill the space; the action develops linearly – slowly, but consistently. Interestingly, if “Helen”, the camera repeatedly focuses on the face of the protagonist, often resorting to shooting “close-up”, “Dislike” big plans are virtually absent-as if the action was shown through the eyes of an observer, preferring to be just in the distance. And this artistic technique “works” as it should, providing further evidence of alienation.
Even dislike as act in the film is devoid of verb – heroes are too busy with something to notice in the world around. The main character, Jack, exist in the atmosphere of white noise, woven from endless TV, idle chatter, envious observation of someone else’s “beautiful life” in social networks, listening to music, dimensional rumble of the train station. Nedopoluchit mother simple tenderness and not knowing his father, it is not capable of experiencing any strong feelings for men, nor even attachment to his own child, which is not able to see and feel sorry for myself, unknowingly in a relationship with him copying the “lonely bitch”, which was her mother. Another example that children are like their parents, no matter how eager you are to go “reverse”.
By becoming a Wife and her husband Boris is a boy who never grew up to the end, not understanding the words “duty” and “responsibility”, without end doomed to repeat the same type of life scenario – marrying “young fool” who dreams of escape from the authoritarian mother, for the sake of social status. It does not matter with whom to live and where he has no attachments (is it because to talk to the parents, he could only at a seance?) or even ambition. Perfect emptiness, not filled, in spite of all kinds of philosophical concepts, nor God, nor Satan.
In General, the heroes of the film-it is particularly evident in the image of the grandmother, consciously protect ourselves from the world by a wall, distinguished by a special kind of egocentrism, which can be expressed in one phrase: “they don’t want happiness, they want to reduce their own misfortune”. Apathy and inactivity that accompanies all stages of the search Alyosha does not cause neither surprise nor rejection looking at what is happening on the screen, could not help think of “the Cherry orchard” by Chekhov with his “dialogues of the deaf” everyone speaks about her, trying to shirk responsibility and make excuses, while not appearing in the empty apartment. A child does not need their parents, it turns out, by and large, do not need anyone – neither government agencies, who rely on statistics nor teachers and peers. There are only volunteers, which the Director himself has described as “indisputably positive characters”; indeed, their bright orange jumpsuits, moving among the dank and dull, quite the Moscow forest is the only “warm spots” inscribed in the landscape of the artist’s hand. But, in the words of Tarkovsky, a little…and is it the story of a boy? Isolation explicitly says that no, not about him, or about him. The situation of the disappearance turns out to be the “disruption of the integument,” which just puts all points over “i”, showing how empty it is behind the facade of relative prosperity.
Imagery in the film refers to the archaic: it is already known in other works Zvyagintsev the way home (a dilapidated sports complex, repairable flat, a house in the country), and the image of the forest-the same one in which strayed Dante, not knowing that he had to descend into Hell. The forest is a metaphor of the human soul, the unknown, wild, sometimes frightening. Search for the child in the forest refer to mythological and folkloric stories, tales of the gingerbread house and the witch that steals babies. The motive for the disappearance and search-another method that serves one purpose-to hold the viewer in those parts of the consciousness where a scary look. Because “dislike”is a property universal, as much as we want to deny it. And it is impossible to go all the way, never experienced it.
The film raises questions rather than provides answers; final, despite the epilogue, remains open, and the last scene, in which many see an allusion to the “bird-Troika” of Gogol, and I see a hint of “running in a circle” proof. The composition of the whole painting loop-the farewell bend in the same wood with which the story began, although the question “was there a boy?” safely ignored. Catharsis does not occur; too clearly realize that the heroes missed their chance to learn from the past. For the characters the way some development and change is closed; but the fate of the Director and not care. The purpose of the film Zvyagintsev called awakening the audience a simple desire to “go home and hug loved ones.” Did he do that? This question can only be answered after viewing. And he is perhaps decisive for the whole movie…