Bad consistency Such a simple parable with references to the works of I. Bosch. At the center of the tape is the problem of succession: society demands a new king, and Azazel becomes one. In itself, this character is extremely inconsistent: he confidently gives the people freedom (from obligations, not for activity) and enjoys power, then laments, begging the hunchback Sarkis to take this power for himself. The true and false king and his attributes are perhaps a specific theme: she needs a viewer who will appreciate her incarnation.
As for the masses, the faces of the Peisans are very picturesque, and they behave appropriately: scenes of feasts, butchering of the monarch-pig, lustful riots, etc. were successful. The film illustrates the historical role of religion in the regulation of violence. According to the plan of the director, apparently, without the law - royal, protect God - in conditions of permissiveness, the animal essence of man inevitably appears, with all the ensuing: mockery, rape, murder. That is, the director inherits a rich tradition of breaking the ties between the social and natural worlds - well, that's his right. Simply emphasizing the importance of restricting human freedom should not obscure the fact that it is animals that successfully cope with intraspecific violence.
The depicted baseness of man as a predator, who without God is destined for madness and hell, is very consistent with the character of Bosch’s paintings, although, of course, his worlds are much brighter and richer, and here they are narrowed to the world of people. However, there is also a demonic beginning in the picture, and it was quite difficult for me to separate it from the divine beginning - although I admit that the director intended to bring them closer. The demons themselves came out well, however, they were given a little time.
The film tells a lot about the underbelly of life in Europe of the Middle Ages. Despite the undoubted visual merits of individual scenes, there is practically nothing to say about the plot: if you are familiar with biblical mythology, it will be very predictable, and the artistic image of the protagonist cannot be called original or outstanding.
In general, the film is not the most memorable, but it corresponds to everyday ideas about the power of the monarch and what drives it. Personally, I found the figurative series remarkable, which does not atone for the weakness of the storyline. The idea of the illusion of freedom, which S. Pacelli insists, is remarkable, but such an interpretation is difficult to accept. Ultimately, the world of the people in the film is the world of slaves: their nature, the king, public opinion, and finally some supernatural forces. At the end of the day, this is just a movie.
7 out of 10