If you want to see the new film by Andrei Konchalovsky, I purposely did not read the criticism and tried to look at this subject as much as possible not biased and based on his own and not inspired by someone’s thoughts. It’s hard to say how I did it, because it is very difficult to get rid of information noise.
The theme of the Second World war, collaboration, Nazism, the Holocaust and Russian participation in the French Resistance to me is not that well understood, but many aspects of it I quite familiar. From the point of view historical film Konchalovsky weak. The historical background of the prescribed vaguely and leaves a feeling that is the background. Similar events could happen in the USSR of the 30’s or 50’s, in China the cultural revolution… In the movie almost no specifics of time and place. Very generally, all around. Very much draws from this background “mijalkovski”. Even as the heroes wear costumes and how they keep the weapon visible foreignness to them these items.
If we talk about main characters, they are cardboard and stilted. Their suffering hard to believe. Suffering is more like ostentatious tantrums. The text they say mindlessly, not living it, and the emotions do not fall into the right places of the text. Of aristocracy in HIM, and in IT there is absolutely. This is a common modern soderjanie life actors dressed not organic to their clothes. They have no sense of truth. Even looking at their hands I couldn’t shake the feeling of rejection of them as aristocrats. The dancing fools on the old film is the aristocrats? Pataskala milf is the “Russian Princess”? All as at Zhvanetsky:
Very great difficulties for the filmmakers. The large, creepy difficulties with filmmakers. I don’t know. The requirements for the reliability increased, and tanks old no little revolver. Coat people wear to practice. Rudeness and crudeness in Siberia just get anything, and education in St. Petersburg is not yet. The aristocracy in St. Petersburg. If a character just sits there nothing more, and as you open your mouth so while not talking. Or there is dignity, here is the untouchability of the person…
It is felt that told him. Can, demanded, scolded, deprived of wages, sick leave is not paid. Well, to played it a sense of dignity. And, apparently, wants, and raises his head, and on her toes, and drinks to strengthen, but doesn’t know how.
And most importantly it’s meaning. What is the main idea of the film? Why all this fuss? The Holocaust stake? Unexpected angle to try? So not getting cold from all this pictures inside. Painful hopeless and depressing, too, is born inside. All feelings are not hurt. And “geroizm” the heroine some slack and “nikchemushnye” and “ostentatious”. And the stoicism of the hero but meaningless pathos on his “psevdoastmatichesky” the face does not create anything. His fanaticism and infantile Nigran rather than real. God no poker, no line candle)))
Secondary characters upset not less. Disgusting Himmler/Sukhorukov just can not portray anything in any meaningful way. Like Sukhorukov personally, but the cardboard image of Himmler, whom he portrayed. For children’s party such a work would be a ride. Comparing it with parteigenosse of Moloch (Himmler is not there, but the characters drawn filigree and it is their nature visible) or with Prokopovich from “17 moments”, or Bershadski of “Blockade”, or Tiede of “Liberation”, or Neutron of “the Bunker” I can see how he “falls” into the image. And the room for maneuver was… a Servant in the home of the protagonist has left a painful feeling of artificiality… Full face and body of prisoners in the camp also did not add credibility. Bluish mate of the main character though, and most likely “stuck” in an alcoholic stupor, but also pathetic in their antics to portray a war veteran with PTSD who became the executioner. Whether it Steiner from “cross of Iron”… the Commandant is also empty and not infernal. Between him and the main character of the opposition to cardboard and “newsamples”. Deliberately whether he passed by such a rich “confrontation” or just didn’t see it, is not clear. Secondary came and the Frenchman. Although, like, he needs to claim a place close to the main characters, but, again, he is vain and probably is intended to represent the “ordinariness” of evil. This dual position makes him a passing character, minor and his appearance in “purgatory” is clearly far-fetched. The impression, as if he conceived was deeper, but then it cut…
Well, strange text of the dedication the “fighters of the Resistance who saved Jewish children”… All the way we see on the screen of the Germans, the Russians, the French, who existed and died just for the sake of the Jewish children? Not their children, not people in General or children in General, as a symbol of the future, namely Jewish children… well, too straight and weird… Die like the children of the huge number of nationalities in the war, and not set themselves Resistance fighters although Russian, French such one-sided problems… of course the Risk of being accused of anti-Semitism, but rather see anti-Semitism in such a straightforward handling of historical material…
All the pathos of the end of the film is very straightforward and schizophrenic. We don’t leave room for thought and reflection, though the film claims to have material for reflection, but in the end the ending was like, “well we all thought and waking”.
If you talk to God is prayer,
and if God is talking to you is schizophrenia
© Thomas Szasz
Summarizing say that the film has left a painful feeling a single shot and wasted time. Neither of historicism suiting the film. No drama in the suffering of the heroes. No agostoli of despair drawing environment. No horror from the crimes it opisujemy. No sympathy for survivors. No awareness of the righteousness of the “great sinners”. Nothing that is not there… Momentary “turning to God” the main character, too artificial and cardboard, on camera… well not watching this movie. Save money and time.