Policy under mask fencing The film is quite lively, having its own "light breathing".
The basis is based on the motives of the biography of a real person, which was changed beyond recognition.
It looks like the director has set himself the task of making a film about politics. Rather, the biography of a real person was imposed on the current attitude of certain European comrades to the Soviet Union.
From the film we learn that the hero fought on the side of Nazi Germany, at the end of the war deserted and changed his name. Because of what he is sluggishly interested in the special services of the KGB and “someone else”, so he hides in a small town on the periphery.
In this town he teaches fencing to children who were almost completely left without fathers (who died in the war).
At the same time, the director hints that the main character is good, and the people who suspect him of “bad” are bad. Which is very grotesque.
If you add the scene of the action formulated only as “Estonia occupied by the Secular Union” and similar comments, the film immediately takes an anti-Soviet position.
Just think, a soldier who fought on the side of the Nazis for a long time, killed the fathers of Soviet children teaches them fencing and is shown as a positive hero. And the Soviet Union, demonstrated as a place where intimidated people are afraid to express their own opinion, for some reason is not in a hurry to detain the main character for investigative work.
At the same time, the invitation to the All-Union competition, apparently, is sent to the blind, and the competent authorities, of course, do not check who and where they invite together with the children for whom he is responsible.
“Fencing” films are very few, and I must say that fencing in the film is shown well. But the relationship of the heroes, the problem is shown very primitively. That is, we will not see anything that goes beyond templates and stamps. Which again leads to the idea that the main thing in the film is to demonstrate how bad it was in the USSR.
The film has both authentic moments and quite fantastic ones. From the annotation to the film, it is clear that in 1950, the main character was hired at school. We see that he has been preparing his wards during the year (without warm-ups and OFP). From the point of view of film narrative, the fencing tournament in Leningrad was no later than 1951. However, electrified fencing, which is shown in the film and in the world, was introduced in 1955. It didn't come in immediately, gradually, and it had its opponents. If we assume that by 1957, electrified fencing became ubiquitous in the USSR (which is not the case), then the proposed tournament takes place no earlier than 57. And where in the schools of the Union newfangled equipment in such quantity?
And we remember that since 1955 there has been a wave of rehabilitation of convicts in the late 30s. And if we have in the frame of 1957, then Khrushchev’s speech on de-Stalinization at the XX Congress has already occurred (in 1956) with all the ensuing warming.
The actors play well, the work of the operator deserves attention. There are funny solutions. For example, when a train goes to Leningrad, from the window we see the Peter and Paul Fortress and the Neva.
If it were not for the free interpretation of history and the obsessive imposition of a certain politicized point of view, the film would be curious. And so it leaves a very ambiguous feeling. If I wasn't interested in fencing in movies, I probably would have missed it. Because politicized fiction, under the guise of biographical history.
Original