The film was disassembled for quotes and memes, which says more about recognition than any ratings, awards or fees. The production itself is quite chamber, and the direction is unremarkable. The film is secondary to the original source. It doesn’t add much to the movie language. Success has provided quality acting. Tolokonnikov and Evstigneev show an impressive acting range. Carpenters successfully embodies the role of the second plan, which serves to contrast with the character of Preobrazhensky and give him greater respect in the eyes of the viewer. Kartsev portrayed the villain well.
Perhaps the success of the film was influenced by a good time of creation. Getting out, for example, now is likely to have received less recognition and more criticism. Being an adaptation of the source, cinema inevitably reproduces both its strengths and weaknesses. The political satire of the book was never a mystery. To make the salt of the earth out of the proletariat is like trying to turn a dog into a man. Moreover, the dog turns out to be a much more pleasant character than Sharikov. Bulgakov's satire is extreme. To ridicule politics, he creates a Russian Frankenstein who scares with his reality. But if you distract from satire and ask the opinion of Bulgakov himself about the correct structure of the world, the work begins to sag.
Bulgakov is especially offended by the intelligentsia. The intelligentsia is suffering. Against the backdrop of the two wars that have ended, such a cry does not look beautiful. It's kind of like crying about missing cakes during a famine. On the other hand, any government in Russia did not like the intelligentsia and suspected it of seditiousness. In the days of Alexander I, Nicholas I and then the intelligentsia was not in favor. Therefore, sighs from the good old days are not justified. Then more. The famous dialogue about devastation is not really convincing. Bulgakov is not trying to give any answer about how this devastation arose? Why at some point a person begins to urinate past the toilet and who can do so to overcome such devastation in the head? The devastation, according to Bulgakov, comes from the fact that someone begins to teach the proletarian to think instead of instructing him to clean the sheds. I mean, everybody has a place. Born to crawl, cannot fly. The proletarian must clean up the mud, and the intellectual must subtly feel and live in seven rooms. This is the natural order of things and cannot be violated. Needless to say, Bulgakov proved archaic for the twentieth century, as many countries went the other way. Bulgakov, no matter how special, turned out to be a man of his era. The Bolsheviks spoke of a class conflict in which the proletariat must win and establish its dictatorship. Bulgakov also thought in terms of class conflict, only on the other side. And the Russian intelligentsia thoughtlessly began to praise a man who approved of class hostility. What can I get from her?
In the end, the book that replicates it is controversial. On the one hand, they contain excellent satire that cannot be ignored. On the other hand, they preach contempt and dislike.