Reviews on movie The Orchard (3)

The main conflict of the picture is what Anton Pavlovich meant by calling the play perceived as a drama, a comedy. It seems to me that we can now quite understand this if we use the term post-irony, when it is not the elements of what is seen that are ironic, but the very interaction of elements, like the opposite in appearance but counter-apuncture to each other according to the author’s plan. Simply put, the development in pop culture of this technique can be seen in Quentin Tarantino with his seemingly abstract monologues and dialogues, but without which much in his films becomes just a bloody mess and only.
So Chekhov's text, his pompousness, his melodrama, was supposed to cause dissonance with something that would become a comedic conflict. And there is only one thing left in the play - the action, its premises and justification. And the action betrays in the heroes small philistine souls, whose beautiful speeches are only a raid on the squalor of barbarism and acquisitiveness. This is ironic, this is conflicting, and what the artists showed in this film at the instigation of Ovcharov - clowning and breaking with interruption on the beauty of monologues.
The director, having decided to mechanically use his signature technique on a new field - a theatrical play, without its deep processing, received an unconvincing farce burdened with pathosity. But in the hunchback skate, this technique would have been in its place, even without a special modification, pulling out a movie to look at without spitting into the screen, it is a pity that its production was given to a person capable only of clichéd Western gags. . .

3 out of 10

Film ' Garden', generated based on the play ' Cherry Orchard', with its structure and commitment to the source, set a comedic intonation, at the cultural level obeying the intention of A. P. Chekhov himself!
In the credits of the film ' Garden' delightfully preserved early, pencil-recorded title of the play ' Cherry Orchard', on the foresat notebook of Anton Pavlovich (Zap. kn. III, period 1897-1904). Stress in the word 'cherry', i.e. 'Orn orchard' on 'Cherry orchard' was later replaced during rehearsals in late 1903.
Picturesque angles of shooting in the style of vintage. Expressively look fragments with the speed of silent film frames, against the background of vaudeville arrangement.

Choosing actors, meticulously brought the images closer to Chekhov’s notes, despite the fact that the general chronology of records for the Cherry Orchard & #39 was conducted by Chekhov for about eight years.
For example, in his notes we find that the lord's house must be very old, very spacious, but retaining luxury. The house is solid, wooden or stone, it does not matter. With the same solid, old, stylish furniture, non-payment and ruin did not affect the atmosphere of the manor.

Perhaps Chekhov's heroes will respond and answer us if we hear them ourselves: how they say what they say.
Love Andreevna Ranevskaya gravitates so much to her garden, it is so happy and calm for her to be among the cherry trees, as if she herself is one with them of nature, like branches uncovered with leaves and delicate beauty of flowers. Leonid Andreevich says about the sister that she is ' vicious'.
Ranevskaya, contemplating naked cherry branches with graceful flowers, says: ' how much we have sinned. ..'

Perhaps one of the meanings of presenting (i.e., playing) the characters of the play is to try not to deviate from the ideas of Anton Pavlovich, and not to simplify, but, on the contrary, to restrain and distance, as much as possible, spontaneously coming human reactions: tears, anger, etc. If you work on yourself in this way during the specified time allotted for the play by the Great Classic, the audience will laugh. He will come through tears.

The premiere of the film adaptation of “Garden” by Sergey Ovcharov took place on November 6, 2008, so by modern standards, the film can be called quite old, in connection with which it should be evaluated taking into account the technological capabilities of that time. For me personally, the picture was ambiguous both before and after viewing, existing reviews are also contradictory, but the film is definitely worth watching.
If we talk about the visual component, the camera work, the work of the production designer, editor, costume designer are delightful. The picture that came out in the end, can surpass some modern films, due to its brightness, diversity, pleasant shades; costumes and scenery are authentic and multi-layered, there is a desire to pause the movie and just look at all the small details of the frame. The actors are in their seats and their play, in my opinion, exactly reflects the heroes of Chekhov’s work. Especially stands out Anna Vartanyan in the role of Mrs. Ranevskaya, unusually touching and sincere.
As for the genre, we have a real comedy in which not only the situation in which the characters fall into is comical, but also the characters themselves. I see the same, only slightly modified, Anton Pavlovich from the pages of the Cherry Orchard. At the same time, directing the course towards comedy and farce, the director seems to leave the idea of the work on the surface, without forcing the viewer to look for a thought and think about the actions of the characters. It is also worth noting that the chosen course is exhausting when viewing, in the end it becomes difficult to perceive the picture due to constant emotional stress.

In summary, I would like to thank the director and his entire team for the implementation of this film adaptation. Unlike others, the Garden is original in its filling and light form, the characters are memorable, and the story is still interesting and instructive. However, do not forget about the subjectivity of views, which is inherent in each review and review, so for someone the comedy will be unworthy of distribution, and for whom it is perfect in everything.