Svetlana Baskova’s films are similar to Vodka. Like Vodka, Baskova’s work is like an initiation rite, a process that is not always pleasant, but certainly necessary. For the first time, a person often drinks Vodka through force and can not understand why they drink it. But Vodka warms hearts, and the second time it is looked at more favorably. And after a while, many people realize that they need this drink as a soma to the Indo-Iranians. The same habituation, rubbing should be with Baskova's films.
It is worth noting that now the “Green Elephant” (as well as the prose of Mamleev or Masodov) can not, with all desire, make as strong an impression as it was in 99. The plastic world has won, the specter of postmodernism is roaming Europe, and the moral bars of our society are buried under the plinth. What used to arouse fear and awe will now disinhibit modern philistines except to disgust. But still, this film carries such a strong transcendental challenge to society that it makes its way to its viewer through decades.
I would like to note the similarity of Baskova’s film with Gustav Meyrink’s book “Green Face”. Like “Green Elephant”, the book is difficult to perceive without some cultural baggage, both works are created in anticipation of the possible end of the world (the film was shot in 1999, the end of the second millennium), the main characters go through some metaphysical formation, losing their human beginning. As in Meyrink's book, the hero is met by teachers - bearers of wisdom, striving to reach the Absolute, but both Pachom and Fortunatus go the way to the end alone.
As in her previous film, Baskova demonstrates a deep knowledge of the traditions of mystical Gnosticism, diluting them like a tart spirit with visual aspects of situationism. Although in addition to the obvious comparison with Guy Debord, it is worth noting the influence of Ferreri and even such a luminary as Murnau.
It is difficult to cover in a brief review all the indisputable advantages of this film, but I hope that the viewer who did not accept / do not understand it from the first time at least try to return to it, as Odysseus returned to Penelope, as King Bran will return to his land and as every Russian returns to Vodka.
I don’t think it makes any sense to talk about how controversial this anti-culture work is. As far as it does not fit into any format. This film, as the king of all vile, sitting on its vile and disgusting throne, decorated with human tracheas and scenes of sodomy in its most nauseating images, reveals to the viewer its crippled soul. The soul, within the green walls of which, the remnants of adequacy recognized by people, are increasingly moving towards aggressive, all-destructive aggression.
Why is this happening? What makes ordinary society, in the person of Epifantsev, so quickly "exhale" from the vile, but not absolutely unmaligned stories of the counterculture in the person of Pakhomov. Society does not seek to accept those expressive movements that fill the underground creator. It's kind of looking up at him, laughing and grinning at this stupid weirdo. But then, ordinary society begins to get tired of the attempts of an original and incomprehensible creator to convey some hidden meaning of their stories about “Malafia”, rape and shit. The underground layer, which, by the way, does not even try to be guided by force motives throughout the time, is trying to win the trust of society, dropping lower and lower, up to the fact that the underground is ready to lay under the layman. And he, in turn, is tired of constant attempts to convey to him something that does not fit into the framework of generally accepted norms and rules, trying to push away this unusual. Trying to blur all resemblances to himself. (I was stripped off my epaulettes, and left him)
And all this bacchanalia does not end as expected. And those in power, “fucking” the underground with the full assistance of society, cannot stop the desire of the humiliated to convey his truth, his point of view to the inhabitants, to show them the world from a different angle. As a result, it turns out that the herbal counterculture manages to survive and manages to somehow influence the society, which, by the end, begins to change. I don't know how or why. In this case, the close interaction of two opposite layers of the same organism rejecting its own shoots is shown.
I can't help but add a few words. First, I was just wildly angered by the inattentive, indifferent attitude to the attributes of our long-suffering army. Maybe that was the point, but if you clothed your story, your point of view, Madam Director, so for the sake of all the statutory, comb your own peculiar opus. For you in the frame about the army does not resemble anything, except how, apparently, a Navy officer, played by Vladimir Epifantsev, tears off the epaulettes of the character of Sergei Pakhomov, whose belonging to the types and types of troops I could not see.
And secondly. Of course, I served not in 1999, but eleven years later, as a "still civilian" I did not think that everything was so bad there, and even now I do not think, although the guardhouse, according to people who were there, is still a place. But this is another story, at least for me it was not dominant in this picture.
And the originality of the picture I want to note at ...
Sometimes you have to be very surprised at what blatant slag (pardon for the expression ... or otherwise, no ...) appears in the cinematic environment. After watching both “Human centipedes”, I convinced myself that our cinema, based on strong Soviet traditions, is not in danger of sowing trouble. Wrong! Moreover, these Soviet traditions were trampled on in this “masterpiece”. It is both portable and direct.
Yes! It was quite possible to understand the director's idea, on the one hand. The sad results of the Afghan war, disbelief in the strength of our valiant Soviet Army, the complete, against all this background, the collapse of the state. It's 1986, but it's actually 1999. After all, it was possible to criticize the state of the then army system, which was “post-blooded” because of the two Chechen campaigns. No way! Mrs. Baskova (probably you are tragically surprised that the director is a woman - the guardian of life and goodness) then you would just put on a stake. Nervous politicians, frightened by the frenzy of the 90s, defaults and other changes would make garbage out of it. All right, I've opened my eyes to our society. But why mix open perversions, with elements of homosexuality, moronicism and shit-mongering (pardon a second time, otherwise you will not say...)? Yes! Non-statutory relations in the army environment, accompanied by hand-and-hand attacks – this is clear. I even began to sympathize with the hero Epifantsev, when he shattered his mind because of his “picturesque” opponent. And the second officer actually moved. The stories of mother, feces, eating food, and drunken intercourse are identical. And then it goes! Epiphantsev was moved not only by his mind, but also by his ... economy (I think you understood what I mean ...). Oh! And how much his household flashed in the frame! Only the separately walking trachea of comrade captain (the warden of a military monkey ... or whatever it is ...) took the palm of the championship in personnel lights. What's the result? It's a total art struggle. What did the director want to portray? Horror or vile reality, a mystical dream in the underground style or the story of the fates of two officers (one of whom clearly found himself in a military environment as not in his plate)? In general, we saw a malignant brute force thrash. But I am surprised how Vladimir Epifantsev got to the top of the Olympus of Russian cinema with such a bright debut. Come on! Who doesn't. For example, Helen Mirren played a court prostitute in the sexually bubbling Caligula, and thirty years later received an Oscar for the image of Queen Elizabeth. Only here shame stain Vladimir will be more smoky, and the level of acting skills does not reach the level of Mrs. Mirren.
All right, let's put it down.
1 in 10
... for the fact that dead flies are lying on a dirty windowsill. As you can see, I’m talking about the existence of this movie.
My list of live classics. The Green Elephant is a cult as a destination.
Warning: This review is completely devoid of irony and frivolity, at first glance, quite appropriate in assessing this film. On the contrary, the author tries to consider as seriously as possible the artistic value (if any) of the film and the reasons that led to its truly popular popularity.
Who would have thought that the film, shot in 1999 on amateur film, which does not involve any well-known (at that time) actor, which is almost one hundred percent consists of very unprofessional improvisation, and moreover, filmed, apparently, “their own” and for “their own”, will gain such wide popularity and become a cult. Here, the Russian Internet played its role, on the expanses of which the rules “The vulgar, the funnier” and “Freaks = popularity” work flawlessly. Moreover, Vladimir Epifantsev became quite respected (although still in a rather narrow environment as a sinophile) actor, and Sergey Pakhomov (aka Pakhom) and Alexander Maslaev (aka Alexander Maslaev) - underground stars "for their own." And, of course, a certain share of the popularity of “Green Elephant” brought various “photo toads” and so-called “memes” – images designed to express a particular emotion when communicating on the Internet or just funny pictures.
The reasons for the popularity of the Elephant are clear. What about the movie? What is its meaning and for what purposes was it removed? It is obvious that Svetlana Baskova achieved her main goal: “Green Elephant” became perhaps the first cult film of post-Soviet Russia, along with the later “Chapito Show” and “4”. In my opinion, the film was shot for this – for provocation and gaining cult status. Even the films of the father of Russian necrorealism, Yevgeny Yufit, are not so well known even to the most scrupulous in the research of cinematography, as the following works by Baskova, for example, 5 bottles of vodka. And Svetlana’s last film, “For Marx...” was presented at many major festivals.
But there's a message in the film. And it is, it seems to me, still in the vision of the director of the total disintegration of society. When people go crazy and become... Who? That's right, animals. In this respect, Green Elephant is most reminiscent of Japan’s necrorealism, the 1996 film Organ. Only if it described (also very vivid colors) the discord between a person and a metropolis, then the Elephant covers a broader topic: the discord between people. Baskova paints a picture of a world in which man is not a wolf to man and not even wow. Man is the worst enemy to man, subject to immediate brutal extermination.
Evaluating this film is hard. There is nothing in it that we call cinema. On the other hand, the film still tells the story, and tells in detail, even more than I would like. We'll leave it unassessed. When asked if I liked the movie or not, I decided I liked it. There is a thought, and this is enough to call this artistic act not a film, but at least a visual statement.
P.S. And while the level of crime, misanthropy and mutual hatred is growing in the world, one cannot even stutter about a bright future. We need to stop and think about ourselves, about our attitude to life and people, about mutual understanding, about human feelings. And fix something before it's too late. Otherwise, the world of the Green Elephant will easily become our world in a couple of centuries.
P.P.S. But watching “Green Elephant” is not necessary. Someone, like me, he cheers up, and someone and upset can.
As I put off this ambiguous film for a long time, I came close to the moment of "H." Today, I watched it. Everything on the screen can be described in one word. But this word is far from literary.
Face of Russian Art House
Our "heroes" are army officers in the guardhouse. Once in a confined space, they conduct “intellectual” conversations about “bump”, “malafia” and other incoherent ingenious expressions, pouring tons from one of the officers – Pachom. Towards the middle of the film, the relationship between the characters heats up, and by the end reach its climax - blowjob, tearing human flesh with teeth, blood, intestines and the established smell of freshly conceived excrement fill the picture with an incredibly magical spectacle. Anyone who has not seen this film has not seen life. If you are currently reading reviews and in limbo, watch or not. My answer is unequivocally to look. Run. One jump. Quickly cling to the screen and taste this ambiguous sweet bread.
Drill my eyes out
Are you comfortable? Well, you're going to be disappointed. The quality of the picture is very much inferior not without the famous Avatar. Even more. The smear from the film is worse than the Counton of the Matrix of 1999. I'm going to skip a lot more movies and I'm going to focus on The Blair Witch. She was shot in the same way, on a regular film camera and the quality is not much better than the Green Elephant.
The secret meanings
Someone looks for them and finds them in this movie, someone thinks they're not here, and the film doesn't carry any ideas. I'll say both are wrong. The Green Elephant shows us seven deadly sins. I will not spoil them and will tell you about them as briefly and secretly as possible. So in order:
The first sin is pride. The Epiphanes showed themselves here. In moments when Pahoma does not consider a person or does not calculate his strength at the end of the picture.
The second sin is envy. It's as transparent as possible. The assistant commander is a lieutenant rushing to the parade.
The third is Anger. It's simple. It oozes absolutely from all the crevices of Epifantsev and the Cruel Commander.
The fourth is Laziness. To clean the toilet - please.
Greed. Only a small person will not understand its essence in this film.
Gluttony. Do you need a lot of food for an officer in the guardhouse? But they needed more.
Sweetheart. It is present in some piquant scenes of the film.
What do you think?
One of the most amazing art house of the Russian "film production". Unprincipled, exciting with its frankness and severity of what is happening on the screen. This film cannot be rated, it cannot be given 0, 10, or the remaining digits from this range. Such films should be judged in words. Or rather, a word. An unwritten word from the first paragraph.
There is not enough health to adapt to this deeply sick society. - Jiddu Krishnamurti
Strangely enough, this film reveals the theme of a person from this world. The world in this case is represented by a small smelly guardhouse + some territory, maybe a military unit (?). It is inhabited by a variety of psychos, led by a despotic commander, self-affirming on bullying. The main character gets into this situation with a relatively normal person, at first he can still assess the environment, but he is constantly attacked either in the form of delirium of an absurd cellmate, or in the form of some unnecessary and humiliating work on the topic “I do not want you to serve, I want you to suffer.” As a result, a normal person who finds himself in abnormal circumstances becomes even more abnormal than these circumstances.
One thing I don’t understand is why it was necessary to put all the most disgusting things in the end, at least it was possible to show something in the beginning. I generally like such checks, when at the beginning of the film you are shown something terrible, looked at, was able to abstract - get an entrance ticket, or run with shouts "what's the horror?!" if you can't, like shooting a baby in the movie "God Bless America!", by the way, telling about the same normal person in an abnormal world, and took the same measures towards him. It was really disgusting to watch the movie. This is a negative point, you need to know the measure.
For a long time I could not decide between positive and neutral reviews. The film is far from brilliant. The impression after viewing is generally difficult to feel, neither good nor bad. But there's no neutrality! Then, remembering the performance of the actors, and the overall atmosphere, I still leaned towards a positive one. It hurts the final scene is “knocking out” everything.
7 out of 10
The green elephant does conjure up associations with the Naked Breakfast, but Burroughs, with its genital trees and masturbation professors, looks, by comparison, like a bedtime tale for children. There's a lot of mud in here. While watching the film, there is often an irresistible desire to go to the balcony, get some air. I understand that this was done to attract attention to him, because the film was spent a penny. If it wasn't for this dirt, we wouldn't be talking about it. But if they tell you that the movie doesn’t make sense, don’t believe it! There are only 4 characters in the film. But these 4 images are very recognizable and enough to describe society:
Pakhomov is a “village”, a simple and stupid person with almost no upbringing.
Epiphantsev is an intellectual, a well-read person who considers himself smarter than others. Ready to challenge community and "high ranks." This person is the most unpredictable in a crisis.
Osmolovsky is a minor official, a junior officer. Ready to lick your ass to your boss. Disdainful of ordinary people, he is not interested in anything but promotion in the “career ladder”
Maslaev is a military, big boss. Arrogant, considers everyone around idiots, gladly asserts himself at the expense of subordinates.
Such a film should be so that others have something to compare with. The film skillfully ridicules the huge number of shortcomings of the military, this and the whole society. Humor is, but it's dirty too. Hunches and impressionable - contraindicated. I advise the rest to look to “take off rose-colored glasses”, but do not take everything literally.
6 out of 10
I think my leisure will be incomplete if I do not now write a review of this wonderful example of insanity, rabies and dog feces from a Russian cinematographer. Where do you start your story?
I'll start with this. The fact is that I belong to the caste of so-called “internet nerds”, who spend a good half of their lives on imageboards and social networks. I may have exaggerated, but the fact remains that all these virtual dumpsters were my home, and since 2008, I have known firsthand about the birth of every Internet meme. Almost everyone, because the “Green Elephant” – this icon of the Russian YouTube Navel, the hochma of the entire Runet, a solid quote – passed by me completely unnoticed. I found out about it only at the beginning of this year and even until October postponed viewing for unexplained reasons. No, I wasn’t afraid of the scenes of coprophilia and violence, I just thought that this film from a to me is a complete nonsense, on which to spend two hours — not to respect yourself. However, as you can see, this movie and I watched and... I liked what eloquently speaks the color of my post. I do not want now, as it usually happens, to describe in detail the acting of the actors, the pluses of the plot and extoll the praise of Madame Baskova to heaven (I think in the context of sabzh this is simply ridiculous), but just try to formulate my general impressions about what I saw.
Before writing my review, I read all the others. You're overreacting, gentlemen. Both defenders and opponents. If the former spread the word “masterpiece” and find metaphors and allegories in this heap, identifying Pakhomov’s hero with Jesus (haha!), Epifantsev with Big Brother, and Maslaev with Universal Evil, the latter excessively exaggerate the disgust of the picture, clutching their hearts and fainting. Honestly, I have not seen anything beautiful or terrible. Well, plasticine feces, fake intestines - where is it creepy? Still, I tend to think that the film was conceived mainly as thrash, shit for the sake of shit, and fans after themselves hit the SRSG and came up with something that is not. It is said that the game is pure improvisation, so those who are looking for His Majesty Double Bottom in the monologue about Malafia are severely mistaken. However, the story turned out well, it was interesting to watch, at least.
A separate point would like to highlight humor. Good, black and brown, cynical humor. For this, of course, a separate thank you to Vladimir Epifantsev and Sergey Pakhomov, because this frenzy is their work. I laughed at the first half of the film like Prezhevalsky’s horse, after quoting phrases from there together with my friends, the same amateurs. I agree, by the way, with one of the neutral reviews, where it was said that “Elephant” should be perceived as one big joke, which in the final somehow spoiled. It's really funny at first and unpleasant at the end, thank you for at least smoothing out Pachom's funny psyche about mom and leaf.
The benefits are not exhausted. Although I promised not to emphasize the acting, I will say that it is not stupid. Everyone liked it, and I especially believed it. By the way, I would like to respect for five minutes of history — Pearl Harbor, yes.
I have no regrets that I saw this movie. Satisfied curiosity - once, imbued with Russian underground - twos, had a good time - Tris. Thank you to all, if you can call it that, the creative team.
8 out of 10
It's too much goury.
WHY. I would like to take this opportunity to say hello to the authors of the sabzh parodies from YouTube. Elephant Chats, Elephant Cancan and Imperial Elephant made my month.
The film is about the feat of a Russian officer. ?
This is what one of the annotations to the film says. But let’s talk about everything in order.
In this review, I will try to examine and evaluate this picture as objectively as possible. In this film there is almost all the lowest that can be in principle in cinema: coprophilia in its pure form; an abundance of obscene language that simply cuts the ears; scenes of terrible violence against people, both physical and moral; homosexuality with elements of nudity and sexual acts; necrophilia; sadism. That’s what makes the film as a whole. And I'm not exaggerating. That’s where I’d like to end my analysis of what’s happening in the film itself.
So antithetical and defiantly speaks the director of the picture, Svetlana Baskova, about her film:
The film is dedicated to high human qualities - courage, honor, unselfishness and male friendship.
Contrasts, doesn't it? The director accurately and competently conveyed everything that is happening on the screen. Only, probably, Baskova his film purely accidentally confused with another.
The following thought does not leave me: for whom and why was this filmed? On the scale of the film, this is a rhetorical question, the answer to which simply does not exist. In an interview, Svetlana said that the film “is a kind of response to the Chechen war, in a sense, a protest in artistic language.” That's the turn! I'm sure no one who's seen the movie would have thought that. That's it, art. People seem to think they are doing something great. But in fact, the film is just the fruit of a sick fantasy of people, a kind of “miscarriage” of the public.
I would also like to note two things: the uniqueness of what is happening and the performance of actors. Mentally ill people could not play otherwise. I advise everyone to watch this film, to understand what kind of movie should not be shot under any conditions.
5 out of 10
Oh my God, I loved this movie! So many positive emotions he brought me, but about everything in order.
The characters are beautiful. This is, by the way, the debut film of Vladimir Epifantsev.
The groin is just great, he tells his stories with a soul, they are pleasant to listen to. Loss of virginity, army stories, etc. He perfectly performs the role of “gotten”, few people would agree to remove feces from the body on camera, give a blowjob to the captain, etc.
Epifantsev (brother) also perfectly performs his role. He masterfully conveys to us, the audience, his emotions during the fork episode. We can see very clearly how his mood changes from positive to negative from Pachom's stories. And of course, the episode “Brother, I brought you a meal” was played simply masterpiece.
The guard didn't give up either, we see him despising both his brother and Pachoma. As he, because of his status and weakness, can not object to the captain.
The captain played just fine too. The episode lecture for me was in second place after ' Brother, I'll give you...'. And his phrase “how many fighters, sk**t I remember to this day, although the film was seen for a long time.”
The film shows difficult social problems, when the lesser in rank can not object to the older, when this “lesser” in turn offends the lower. This film is a standard of what Russian cinema should be.
10 out of 10
I'll call it a masterpiece. No exaggeration. I was very surprised when I learned that such a tough, truly male movie was made by a woman.
In Green Elephant, we see all the dirt of our society, we see that people, in fact, are not far from animals.
I would like to compare this movie with the rust of ice water after all these popcorn Hollywood movies.
“Green Elephant” is a movie without happy endings, it does not give hope. Rather, it is a cry of despair, like the hero Epifantsev in the middle of the film. Nevertheless, Baskova managed to dilute all this horror with rather comical dialogue at the beginning of the film.
I don’t understand anyone who criticizes this film. Aren't you tired of watching a monotonous, stamped movie? This is a real movie!
Perhaps one of the best films in the history of domestic cinema.
"Green Elephant" is a unique author's project directed by Svetlana Baskova Lady, specializing in the creation of heavy pathological tapes that affect the psyche of viewers. Perhaps this work is the most famous and successful among all her paintings. "Green Elephant" raises a very relevant for the late nineties the problem of army hazing, as well as the consequences that it entails. The terrible consequences.
The main characters are two army officers on the “lip”. The hero of Vladimir Epifantsev is a young and vocal soldier, a fighter of a heavy character, a real combat wolf in the full bloom of strength and aggression. The hero of Sergei Pakhomov is, on the contrary, burned through experience, broken by hard service and the horrors of the military structure, completely lost all his human honor and pride and now turned into a weak-willed rag, which has no purpose in life and about which now senior officials will wipe their feet to improve their own self-esteem.
The environment in which these two fell, as well as their further developing relationship, is the most natural, corroding the brain of the viewer psychedelic, without pity putting the viewer of the film before the harsh reality of the surrounding cruel world. It all begins quite innocently: the characters just talk about various life situations, which got into a hobby, about innermost desires. However, in the future, you begin to realize that something is wrong with the characters. Pakhomov shows us this first, who, out of a completely innocent conversation, slowly but surely begins to conduct completely delusional and vile conversations, while also asking his cellmate meaningless, idiotic questions.
When the hero of Epifantsev, driven to a breakdown by the conversations of the “brother” begins to rampage and tear all his anger at him, the picture gains more and more momentum, you really feel bad, the film has a strong impact right through the screen. You penetrate the schizophrenic, sick environment created by the skill of directing and excellent acting work. And physiological cruelty, also gaining momentum in the course of developing events, only increases the tension. In the frame, in addition to two cellmates, higher ranks appear, who will tear off all their fury on defenseless wards.
The authorities will not only humiliate Pakhomov and Epifantsev morally, but also subject them to terrible physical torture, they will also gnaw at each other, thereby demonstrating the baseness of human nature. The climax will spare no one. We will be shown the true Evil with a capital letter. The evil of all human nature, far superior to the evil of animal nature. Animals gnaw at their own kind solely for the sake of satisfying hunger, people gnaw just because they are bored, they want spectacles in the form of suffering of their neighbor. And in this picture, such an impressive and frightening horror is conveyed with stunningly masterful visualization. Of course, a little unpleasant impression makes the operator's work. After all, the film was shot on a standard amateur camera, which spoiled the overall impression.
In the end I recommend "Green Elephant" for viewing for intelligent people who are able to see the whole meaning of a really smart movie, which was filmed not to earn currency. Such films are made as the word of the author, which he wants to convey to the masses. A truly amazing masterpiece of world cinema, which deserves the highest praise.
10 out of 10
I just want to say that this film is not what it seems at first glance. This is not a film about vulgar Dembel stories, this is not a film about bullying in the army, this is not a film about cleaning shit and eating shit, and especially not a film about pederasty. That's higher. This film is truly high art, which is not so often found in Russian cinema. It's a film about Russia. On the survival of the Russian soul under the yoke of totalitarian tyranny.
I found out about this movie after watching it. At first I was very surprised that such a famous actor as Epifantsev starred in this kind of movie, but after watching Slonik I understood why he did it.
Svetlana Baskova is one of the brightest Russian directors. Her films always try to tell the audience the truth about the realities of the Russian space. In The Green Elephant, Baskova deals with the totalitarian Soviet system. Light does this with its caustic cynicism, black humor and somewhere even uses artistic techniques. It is noteworthy that the film was shot in military style.
The characters of the film are quite original.
Vladimir Epifantsev plays a simple Russian philistine. He is a normal person who has fallen into the harsh realities of the Green Elephant. This character tends to perceive the world from a rational point of view. The irrational madness of Russian life, where you have to work cleaning shit, living in a green room with a trumpet, gradually drives this character crazy. Baskova wants to show us that a normal person in Russia is not comfortable, he has to clean shit all his life, gradually going crazy. Therefore, the only thing a normal person in this paradigm can do is protest or cut his veins with a blunt knife hidden in his overcoat to stop hell.
The hero of Alexander Maslaev is an adapter. It is a worm that, in order to become a despodus, master, is ready to endure all the humiliations of the totalitarian system and inflict pain on others. The main dream of this hero is to become a colonel. He does not respect himself or others, he is ready to endure humiliation from the authorities, bring tea with his teeth. He is cowardly, fear is the main engine of his behavior, which is well shown in the scene in the pit.
The character of Anatoly Oslomovski is the embodiment of all Soviet despotism. He's an absolute dictator. In his absolute power, he can do anything to people; in the Pachom blowjob scene, it is shown directly. Oslomovsky personifies the whole insane despotism of the Soviet power, where a person is considered as a cog, where you can do anything with a person and no one can protect a person from it.
Pahom's hero is truly a symbol of this film. It was through Pahom’s play that the film itself became an internet meme. Trying on the mask of a foolish, green elephant, Pakhom is the personification of the irrational Russian soul. That is why Pakhom does not fit into the rational perception of the world of the hero Epifantsev. He is a kind, pure-hearted character, not evil, he does not hold anger at anyone. In his behavior, he is as simple as a village boy. He represents the irrational Russian soul. At the same time, he seems to go beyond the physical object, becoming the son of the image of Russia. As it was in the scene where Pakhom addresses his mother, that is, Russia directly. At the same time, in the image of Pakhom Baskov, he tries to show the viewer all the inadaptation to the life of the Russian people in the global society. Pakhoma is miserable, as is Russia, but it still remains a loser, capable of producing only its own excrement into the global economy. At the same time, Baskova shows the viewer that only Pakhom can survive in the insane reality of the totalitarian state of the despot Oslomovsky.
It is very remarkable that the film ends with a revolution in which only Pakhom, the Russian people, survives. The film is a metaphor for you and me.
Even before the Internet entered our everyday life, Svetlana Baskova, in her film, was able to show us its essence and convey its atmosphere.
So, what do we see? Two people, the so-called nerds, are sitting on the Internet, in this dirty and squalid room. They have been planted in a society that they are not interested in, that they cannot accept for various reasons. One seems quite normal, it is not immediately clear why he is here. The second is that society considers him not normal, even the interlocutor himself considers him “to have gone.”
Who is Pakhomov's hero? Troll, liar and virgin. And he trolls very thick, without hiding it. At first, the hero of Epifantsev laughs at him, but gradually he simply gets tired of such a thick and low-quality trolling and he begins to “butchert”, he feels discomfort under the influence of these factors, begins to “feed the troll” – threatens him with violence, swears mate and so on.
And then the moderator of the resource comes to the stage - he breaks in and does not want to understand the situation, sends the hero Epifantsev to the ban. After some time, the ban is removed and Epifantsev again finds himself on the resource, where the troll meets him quite calmly, as if nothing had happened - again, in order to cause a butterfly from the hero Epifantsev. However, this no longer works - he is calm and does not react to thick trolling. And then we see what happens on the Internet every day, every minute - Pakhomov's hero produces another content that finds its place on the Internet, but it is difficult to call it "shit." Seeing “shit on the Internet”, Epifantsev immediately leaves comments, and very rude, which is understandable. Once again, we see trolling, the so-called “scumbag” and again the moderator comes to the rescue, removing the hero Epifantsev from the stage, not really understanding the situation.
But on the stage there is another participant - the oldfag and one of the administrators of the resource. The thick troll tries to continue his business, but in vain - the administrator of the resource quickly plugs him and now, both participants go to the "pit", where the administrator of the resource himself begins to troll them, including his subordinate - the moderator. He threatens this person with the fact that he will be expelled from his favorite resource and in every possible way trolls ordinary users - the heroes of Pakhomov and Epifantsev and as a result, demonstrates his base essence, violating his own rules and throwing porn content on the resource that offends participants.
The hero of Epifantsev does not stand up and hacks the site, after which, begins to systematically destroy it and delete information, chaotically throws it gay porn and dismembered, then, exhaling, leaves the stage ... the moderator returns and sees that the resource on which he spent his energy, time, what became a part of his life – fell, that he was destroyed. He assumes the role of administrator, but realizing that he can do nothing, he leaves after the “users” (Epifantsev). The only one who stays on stage is, as always, just a fat troll.
“Green Elephant” is not a masterpiece of the film industry, but at the same time there is a message in it.
From the first minutes you are transferred to the film, living the events that occur with the main characters live. The main emotion that you experience when watching is a mad hopelessness. That verge of despair, when you can no longer do anything and only emotions remain, splashing out into yelling, screaming, irritation, aggression. When you try to use rational methods to solve a problem, you become even more desperate. And even fully understanding that you need to calm down at this point does not help, only aggravating the situation of helplessness.
There is a conflict of existentialism: a complete misunderstanding of two prisoners. One cannot stop loving his neighbor (Pakhomov), the other rejects this love (Epifantsev). And we are standing on the side of Epifantsev. Pakhomov’s vision of the world does not coincide with our vision of the world, but Pakhomov acts with the best of intentions. Our insignificance prevents us from seeing the full depth of Pakhomov’s motives; instead, we are disgusted. To understand it, we must rise above this abomination, which is practically impossible. She like a veil covers the main characters and us the true meaning of the actions of the officer. I remember Sarter's apocalypse. All people cease to understand each other, and house reigns.
As for the second part of the film, I don’t find anything interesting. In the beginning, there was the meaning and the play of the actors, but in the second part it is completely insane. The picture boils down to showing as many blacks as possible.
I would like to mention the humor of the film. It was really funny in some places.
If we don’t try to judge the film as black, then the meaning of the film is that we need to overcome ourselves and see something true in this mob. Seeing intent after action. Try to get rid of all these predispositions and understand the true intentions of Pakhomov.
9 out of 10
For implementing the idea so that the viewer understands it 5 out of 10. But nevertheless, it is worth watching a movie to at least have an idea that this is also filmed.
Friends, I honestly do not understand how much one has to be a limited being to consider this picture a thrash, let alone a garbage. The beauty and harmony of the film is that everyone will be able to find a reflection of themselves in this film and unravel the obvious metaphors that amaze with their symbolism and simplicity at the same time.
But as you can see from the low ratings and reviews, not many people decided to look beyond the thin veil of grotesque that was necessary for a film with such ideas. Here are some metaphors:
(1) Interactions with faeces (all senses!) The idea is evident in the fact that feces are associated with clay, and clay is the oldest tool of the creator. The hero is not afraid of public condemnation, he is the brightest image of nonconformism and independence. Also, feces are a byproduct of human activity, and the hero is able even through this substance to generate powerful images, symbolizing spiritual isolation in the traditions of dharmic philosophy.
2) A plate of f--- (you know what? It is easy to guess that this is a symbol of debunking the Golden Taurus - those very false values in pursuit of which so many people waste their lives ... in the end, finding themselves with a plate of ***.
(3) The sodomy of two naked men, in addition to unsurpassed aesthetics, symbolizes the fight against homophobia at the same time, as well as in my subjective opinion, the struggle of the art world and the world of science.
To sum up, the film performs an almost impossible task. Four actors. She's a director (it's almost like a mountain shark). Friendship, humanity. Betrayal. Forgiveness. Love. Individuality. Power struggle. The philosophy of war. A deep slice of social problems.
10 out of 10
I hope this medium-thick graphomaniac troll made you smile. Thank you very much.
There may not be a black cat in a black room. For me, any allegorical interpretation of the picture can have only in the context of the Chechen wars. Defenders of the film, think about whether this is PR, to release a topical for the 99th year movie about the unauthorized relations of the officers, seasoning the film with an incalculable amount of black.
To begin with, this is not a movie. And no matter how the creators justify themselves, like “we make a movie without pink glasses” is not a movie. And not even thrash. This is an inept craft of people who took a camera in their hands for the first time and tried to shoot something.
I'm sorry, but there's nothing. A huge hour of YouTube videos shot on some cheap camera just look better. I can't watch a movie that isn't beautifully built. I’m not talking about the action on the screen – it’s okay, taste and color, as they say – I’m talking about the elementary laws of image and composition.
We can admire the strange literature of Burroughs or Kerouac, we can like the strange paintings of Dali or Escher, we can laugh with Carlin's humor - but let me say that when we talk about Burroughs, we are talking about literature.
When we talk about a green elephant, we are talking about an inept home video.
Those people who intelligently say that this is almost a masterpiece that reflects the essence of the 20th century and drew a bold line under it (to be honest, I was told that once!) do not understand a damn thing. A film without an idea, shot incomprehensibly as with a million shoals in the scenery and composition. It is originally built on a hypothetical, and some narrow-minded people believe that if it is hypothetical – it means cool, and pretend that it is not created for everyone, but he is so special and understood all the deep meanings. Which are not.
I don't like shit on screen. I am speaking in the most literal sense of the word, not figuratively. I don't like poop on screen: it's not beautiful, it's gross. And, apparently, this was done by people of a small mind, since they could not find a more subtle move in showing abomination.
You want a thrash? Watch "Naked Breakfast." “Naked Breakfast” may not like or like the Cinema because it’s a Cinema, and may not like it for reasons of the film’s essence. And Green Elephant is a two-hour YouTube video, wearing nothing in themselves or outside themselves.
If it were not for the hype created around him, no one would ever see this movie and lose anything in their lives. I would have found two more hours.
1 in 10
... Although, in general, this site evaluates cinema, and we agreed that this is not a movie. I'm going to find it on YouTube and rate it like a video.
The viewer must filter what he sees. And the Green Elephant should not pass beyond the first purification barrier.
To say that it is a masterpiece; that it is only for a narrow circle of people; that it must be understood is simply a deception of ourselves. This film is just trash with interspersed genres such as absurdism, dirty realism, toilet comedy. You can only watch the first 30 minutes of the movie (before Pahoma decides to give his brother lunch). Just in this part of the movie, I smiled a couple of times and watched with interest. It is from this part and picked up quotes many Internet users. But then ...
It's just garbage. I would call the film differently, but I’m afraid the review will not be missed.
There are good movies. There are strange movies. There are complicated movies. There are heavy movies. But elephants are not one of them. I can't recommend it to my friends. Even say to them: "Listen, I watched such a movie - well, just a rare G. Check it out somehow, " - I can't.
I'll take a step back. I don't like Akhmatova. I don't like it. I don't understand her work. In my opinion, such poems can be “understood” only by smearing well with cocaine (optional). What I think our poets did in their spare time. But! Akhmatova has no poems where someone is engaged in anal sex (stupid sounds, but not miss censorship otherwise). No one bites off her ears or rips out her trachea. In her poems, they don't smear shit or eat it. And they don’t like having sex in their partner’s blood (not the one you thought of). That is why the Green Elephant is not Akhmatova. Akhmatov must learn to understand, but Comrade Baskov must be whipped out. Just kidding! Just brand it and never, ever watch it, sorry, osers. This is not art, but garbage.
P.S. God, I’ve called it sex a few times. This is not acceptable, but how to say otherwise, I do not know.
2 out of 10
What surprised me most was that the director of this film was a woman. I never thought a woman could make such a dirty movie. I don’t know much about female directors.
This film is about the relationship in a confined space of two male junior officers, solving acute social and psychological problems. Of course, what we saw in this film, we think that it really happened, but it is worth noting that I am the main characters. Who among us in the place of Epifantsev (I do not remember the names of the characters in the film) would not kill his cellmate, who can not remain silent for at least five seconds, and especially after he made a pile in the cell and offered you to eat it!? Epiphanes was somehow restrained, though with difficulty. Had he been put in another cell, I'm sure none of this would have happened. It’s just about ' who drove ' a man who, you might say, infected another person—had pissed off. The main goal of the film is to show us the relationship of the military according to the rules, who is higher in rank, the main one, therefore, he can do anything with the lower in rank - humiliate, beat, rape, i.e. show his superiority.
I really didn't like the scenes of blood, guts, coprophilia, homosexuality. It was superfluous, and to look horribly unpleasant.
The film “Green Elephant” is very controversial. At first, the film makes a bad impression because of the camera it was shot on. In general, many people say that this is a film for 3 kopecks, but it is worth noting that Oleg Mavromatti, the producer of this film, in his interview voiced the amount of $ 5,000. However, the actors themselves, according to him, worked for free - and not poorly!
There was a story. Yes, the film is built on improvisation - which is the highlight; all the stories Pach told are taken from the actor's head. The whole film is an abstraction, a cluster of blots and strokes directed by Svetlana Baskova, who in her past was an artist. Do not take everything literally: a huge amount of blood, naked scenes, mat and feces should not confuse the attentive viewer. Svetlana Baskova wanted to tell us that the strongest survives only in Hollywood movies. Through all this dirt and abstraction from reality, it reveals to us the harsh truth of our lives.
The actors are selected with a very skillful hand. Sergey Pakhomov, Vladimir Epifantsev, Alexander Maslaev were just born to shoot in the art house.
Green Elephant is a unique film that breaks the typical idea of cinema as it should be. I recommend it to art house connoisseurs or those who want something new.
Reactions to this film can range from "This is the best thing that has happened to modern art in the last 20 years" to "This is an outright black woman."
The film was conceived by Svetlana Baskova as a reaction to the Chechen events of the 90s. Vladimir Epifantsev, called this picture “film-punishment”
“Green Elephant” was shot in the “dirty manner” that is relevant for youth cinema, legalized in the film world by Danish filmmakers. The film, which from a black comedy reminiscent of the play Bald Singer by Romanian playwright Eugène Ionesco, goes into the likeness of Snuff-tresh, a la Lars von Trier. Along the way, revealing themes: morality, morality, cruelty, human limitations and non-statutory relations in the Russian army. And the degree of absurdity and cruelty grows here with each frame.
Art requires victims, to press on the brain, you need to damage the nerve.
I would like to recall one case that is inextricably linked to the topic of cinema. Once Andrei Tarkovsky was invited to the club of moviegoers to discuss the picture “Mirror”, which they just watched. Andrey answered questions from film critics. The discussion began, connoisseurs of cinema began to pour all sorts of clever things. One of the people said, “You know, there’s a crack in the glass, what do you mean?” Tarkovsky said confusedly: “I don’t know, I wanted to do this, I don’t want to talk about it for so long.”
Of course, the number of interpretations and interpretations of the film can be huge.
So maybe you're right and Green Elephant is really nothing more than Outright Black. Well, I recommend developing the taste. And first, open Google and search for the following: conceptual art, avant-garde techniques, Del Arte Theatre, William Burroughs, The Half-Liter Mouse, Eugene Ionesco, Lars von Trier, The Transformation (Franza Kafka), Stanford Prison Experiment, etc.
And then, follow my example: give the film “Such Different Twins” (with Adam Sandler) a rating of “1”, and the film “Green Elephant” a rating of “10”. In advance, thank you. I'm done.
10 out of 10
Greater thrashing in Russian cinema is simply impossible to imagine! The film is complete nonsense, the dialogue is really worth something, and as they move from stage to stage, they change and become more and more inadequate. Not to mention the last 30 minutes of the film, in which the genre of psychological thriller is fully confirmed, despite the declared horror genre!
It is impossible even to imagine how the idea of such a video came about, but, rejecting all the absurdity of what is happening and the idiocy of the script present in the film, the film is not bad, the atmosphere is transmitted, so you really begin to understand the main characters! Although on this film you can pour all that was eaten by the hero of Sergey Pakhomov, still do not regret the spent one and a half hours!
For its time and genre, the film crew coped with the task, and how this can be perceived by certain classes of people does not matter. It is better to watch it yourself once, if, of course, you like disgusting horror movies!
4 out of 10
The film perfectly depicts the Russian people, although it would be more correct to say the population of Russia, from all sides.
The hero of Pahom (after all, we are human) clearly reflects the mentality of all clergy fans. Always trying to please something, stories there, to eat, for example. And this is not just a desire to win the favor of a person, because in his thoughts he does not have to ask for anything in return, it is already pathology, a game of master and slave. It's under the skin, in the head, flowing in the blood. And what is especially comical, God here you can depict the captain, but the hero directs his passion not at him, but at the intermediary, at the priest.
The captain is an absurd bureaucracy mowing our ranks everywhere, whether it is some three-kopeck certificate from the clinic, or a technical inspection. .
So this devoured, incomprehensible, what is doing all day bad man makes the poor & #39; still we are people & #39; to learn Japanese history of the Second World War. What's the point, you ask? Nothing. Just like in the bureaucracy, actually. I want to note that Svetlana Baskova it turned out much more successfully than in a poor harpotter.
' Stuffed man with tea' - a typical resident of Russia. Hanging up his hands, tired man. Tired of everything: from work, from people, from thoughts, from the necessity of these very thoughts, from oneself, from life. And even living his last days, he just as obediently obeys orders and suffers humiliation from the authorities.
In the short 'arthouse' inserts we are shown how scared he is to shake, and at the same time tired of this fear. He doesn't get bored of it already. His whole life is filled with it. He settled in it and settled well, I must say.
And now the most complex and ambiguous character.
The character of Epifantsev.
I don't even know what to write. He's, let's just say, a normal person who got into all this bullshit. He resists, fights her as best he can, denies her. But not as long as I'd like.