The topic of Soviet hippie initially seemed to me extremely interesting due to the synthesis of a bright American subculture and gray Soviet reality. When I first heard about the film, I didn’t quite understand it, but later, after reading it on Wikipedia, I was excited to see it and didn’t miss it. The main character, like a divine revelation, invades the life of a young and beautiful Sasha, whose life for years ahead was painted by her influential father. In the 1970s, communism as an idea is losing ground, giving way to Western influence, with its jeans and rock music. People want freedom, want to be themselves, and for this I zealously advocate Soviet hippies, called the System. In the United States, along with the festival “Woodstock” ended the era of hippies, but in the USSR it is just beginning, replacing the style of the 1950s. Sasha lives and enjoys life, at least as she knows it. Meeting with the mysterious and beautiful Sun radically changes its usual reality, opening new horizons. Friendship with a hippie teaches her to be herself, capture every moment and build her own reality. Soviet hippies, like their Western counterparts, are against violence and the Vietnam War. Their lives are bright and rich, full of new sounds, in contrast to the dull Soviet reality, where everyone walks on a string and is free only when they get drunk. It is not known whether Sasha became happy in the future, having her family and the position of surgeon - the ending in this regard is open. The important thing is that she had a chance to experience life beyond the reach of her stupid and pseudo-correct parents. The sun, her beautiful guide to unknown lands, became a real revelation to young Sasha, like an angel who appeared out of nowhere and brought good news. “House of the Sun” is a very beautiful and touching story of love and growing up in an atmosphere of change, which I highly recommend to everyone.
10 and 10
Our palaces are tempting vaults will never replace freedom
The first word I ever heard was the word hippie. It was said by the obstetrician, seeing my hairy head, when I had not even had time to be born, and without knowing it, predetermined my life path.
Of course, hippies as a movement no longer exists.
Now we sometimes call it a freethinker, or a free artist, or a relaxed jerk, or just someone who waltzes through life with no purpose and does what he wants. Well, hippie chic is one of the fashion styles in clothes. But once there was a whole philosophy and political position behind this word.
The House of the Sun is about hippies in the Soviet Union. The film is based on the story of Ivan Okhlobystin about real people and events, and some of his characters live to this day.
Although I was born later than the characters in the film, I still found the last hairy people in klösh trousers, the last trips to the fragrant steppes, sleeping in barns in the middle of a field somewhere in nowhere, and some scenes from the film I know from experience ... although of course, compared to real hippies, we were just flowers. . .
People tend to love what is associated with their youth, especially if their youth was happy. So I had little chance of not falling in love with this movie.
At first, I resisted - I noticed small shortcomings, blunders, naivety, irritated by the exaltation of the main character, found the picture sometimes too mundane ... but gradually gave up. Criticism of reason has receded. The heart won. Hippies camped out there.
The storyline is somewhat reminiscent of the story of the Bremen musicians, where the princess escapes from the palace with the troubadour and his cheerful companions. The main character, a girl Sasha from a very prosperous family, falls in love at first sight with a mysterious guy nicknamed the Sun, the leader of Russian hippies. But... The sun comes and goes whenever it wants. The sun doesn't explain anything. He doesn’t promise anything, he doesn’t plan, and he only does what he wants. Its main principle is to have no principles. Legend has it that somewhere near the sea he has a house – the house of the Sun. But no one has ever been there.
In general, Sasha becomes a hippie, and in love, exhausted by his unpredictability, she follows the Sun everywhere. . .
But how far will this journey take you?
If you are a romantic, this story will break your heart.
You will not forget this sun-drenched film, its special aroma - the aroma of youth, freedom, southern wind and spicy herbs, and a chic, simply chic soundtrack (still the film is made by a musician).
I won’t forget this movie because the house of the sun still exists. Because that’s what’s missing in movies right now. And in life too.
I never know what to expect from you!
- Would you like to know everything in advance? So why should I live?
I very rarely watch Russian films, one of the reasons is the lack of soul in the films, but the picture of Garik Sukachev, who acted as another screenwriter of the film just gives this soul, gives a lot of food for thought, allows you to plunge into the world of hippies, gives a generally good acting, which is not so often seen in our cinema.
I don’t really like hippies, their lifestyle is not particularly attractive to me, but in this film they are shown a little different than usual, they are very romantic, love life in all its manifestations, love freedom and have a bright time and their lifestyle does not seem so unattractive. Sukachev showed them well, there is something to pay attention to.
I will not call the film a masterpiece, but it was made with great love and a great soul, it is not a pity to spend time on it. Although it goes for some 95 minutes, which is of course not much, but the time spent with simple Hippies is certainly memorable.
But for me, this film is no longer about Hippie, for me it is primarily a film about the love of Sasha and the Sun. I really liked their love, on the one hand there are not so many love scenes, but on the other hand they looked very beautiful with each other, a lot of beautiful and vital dialogues. It was a bright, beautiful and tragic love, where there is a lot of sincerity and sincerity.
Is the sun the last romantic? I call him a true romantic who is so in love with life that there is much to learn. He really wants to make life brighter and better, and make it so.
Throughout the film, of course, the Sun is a mystery and intrigue. Which you don't see so often in our movies. Who the hell is that? What drives him? You get all the answers and admire his attitude to life and people.
I really liked the game of Stanislav Ryadinsky, perfectly conveyed all the emotions of his character, his play and chemistry with Svetlana Ivanova - this is certainly the best that is in this soulful film.
Such as the Sun as if from another world and another planet, they are rarely found in our lives, but when you meet them, they fill our lives with bright emotions, add to life a lot of bright and really good.
I believe that people like the Sun should live only in heaven, because being there they will be loved as much as they deserve.
It's beautiful. Tragic. Sincerely. It was good and real.
Action in the 70s in the USSR. A young Soviet student, Sasha, encounters the charismatic, enigmatic boy Sun and falls in love. From now on, her correct, planned, prosperous life is turned upside down: The Sun is the leader of the hippie, he is free and out of control of the regime, he is a rebel. Fateful love for him through acquaintance with the hippie subculture, Makarevich’s music and such unfamiliar freedom will lead Sasha into her adult life, full of her first real feelings.
Who gets in.
Those who want to watch a movie about love and freedom, a little nostalgic and condescending to the freshness and vulnerability of first love. Those who are looking not only for romance, but also for reality.
Why is it worth watching?
It's a mood movie. It is light, light, joyful, it blows with the sun, the smell of summer and sea. It’s like your fond or tender memory of something in the past when you were younger and more enthusiastic. It will leave deep and sensual emotions in you, as if you had a very bright, pleasant dream. The history of Sasha’s relations with the Sun is a linear plot around which the significant events and people of that period pass unobtrusively, but clearly.
Cons.
A film about love in a very interesting period of the Soviet Union, this story is the basis around which many painful events are shown. I am not familiar with this period of the country's history, and experts can find many inaccuracies: from dates to characters, etc. I was so taken by the mood of this film during the first viewing that I forgive him flaws like a favorite friend with oddities.
Ivan Okhlobystin wrote a sweet story about first love. Amazing, touching. Garik Sukachev picked up good music for her, good types. We invited talented actors. Daria Frost is brilliant! But the film did not work out, somehow all separately, in pieces. No Korean quarrel with Galia is gorgeous and the drunkenness in their apartment is pretty authentic. But a little step aside and begins ' do not believe ' The father of the main character enters the Central Committee, and the apartment, to put it in modern language, completely sucks. The child is taken from the movie at ' Seagull' (that is, the father is well very high rank), and the child does not know what parents can arrange for the institute. Lists in the medical institute - 1 sheet of A4 format. Nikita Vysotsky in the form of some chewed, while in a random episode, a police colonel in a white summer shirt is just 5 plus. A professor comes out of the operating room wearing a suit of trousers, a KGB-shnik who someone let into the op-block, well.
Remember, in the hospital there is no worse beast than a nurse, she would chase him to the Lubyanka with a wet cloth. Other little things that warp. It turns out that part of the culture (that is, hipp), which was familiar to the filmmakers, is shown more or less authentically, but then – no way. To look, to nostalgia, to remember youth. It is only a shame that neglect of small things has become a habit of our filmmakers. Professionalism is made up of little things.
Having learned that among the domestic film production there was an artistic (which is important, because the documentary on this topic is a pond) film about the Soviet hippie culture, I involuntarily caught fire with a desire to see how the director captured this difficult and tragic history of the Soviet hippie movement of the 60-70s.
And overall, not bad, not bad. A decent picture, good camera work, the playlist of the film is filled with really good tracks, and most importantly, meets the expectations of the playlist of the film about “hipping peeps” and it does not cease to please throughout the viewing. A couple of covers of the hits of that ever-sunny era of the hippie American 60s, many less popular, but the most excellent tracks of that time, in general, there are no claims to the playlist, although there are not enough stars from the sky.
Now, about the plot, characters, and blunders in more detail: The film, as I said, is generally not bad, but the key word in this thesis is “in general”. Some of the roughnesses make themselves felt.
The film begins as well as possible, but then everything turns into an incomprehensible porridge and in places boils down to clowning.The scene with the “radio broadcaster” in the barn (who watched him understand) seemed to me absolutely inappropriate, although it is worth noting that from the point of view of the comedic component, all this business punches into a laugh, but then another question arises - what are you, comrade director, shooting? Are you filming a melodrama parallel to the drama about the fate of Soviet hippies, or are you making a clown? The question remains open. Now for the story porridge towards the end of the film: Without spoilers, it's hard to be more specific, but I'll try. A measured narrative towards the end turns into a kind of frivolous “dream”. So it is quite possible to put it, because everything that was built throughout the film ends with something so frivolous from the point of view of narrative and realism about the whole film that it is impossible to perceive this ending. I wish I could. And in general, throughout the film there are very strange decisions in terms of storytelling. One of the characters disappears in the middle of the film and his fate will be told to the viewer only at the end, black and white. Literally. Just write down what happened to one of the most memorable characters (personally for me). There are also questions about the realism and reliability of events. One of the characters catches an overdose, although in the frame and in general it is shown that he used only ordinary marijuana. And I'm not picky at all, the film shows a serious overdose, with whipping foam from the mouth, everything is as it should be. For the sake of truth 25 minutes ago screen time, this character lit up more serious drugs, but this movie babble does not save at all. A meme was also shown at the hippie party. Really? Hippie and meme, quite canonical meme, black white, performing his typical mime twists. And in the end, in an hour and a half a lot, and I still do not understand why.
But in general, as I said and repeated, the film is not bad, especially the first half of the film, it is great.
The film for once but to watch all the same, in my opinion, is worth it, the first half of the film looks very good, the second, in comparison with the first looks “tolerable”, a good cast, play well, generally strong.
6 out of 10
P.S.
But I want to note that some claims can be objectively false, since I am not familiar with the original source. Perhaps the absurdity that was described by me is inherent in the book on which the picture was shot.
Nice nostalgic movie. Soviet times, rock and roll, jeans and conservative party members. Garik Sukachev has already amazed me with the non-standard approach of the actors and the script. In this picture, there is no usual banalism, where an ordinary rich girl falls in love with a vagrant guy and Happy End. No!
Fortunately in this film there is both love and cruelty, censorship.
The line between bourgeois and simple hippies who just want to sing what they want, do what they want and listen to the music that is fashionable abroad is very qualitatively shown. But as you know, in Soviet times was actively banned by love abroad: jeans, Coca-Cola, gum, Beatles and rock and roll. Just all our strict style and no bright colors.
In this film about hippies, forbidden music, this confrontation between the middle class, hippies, vagrants and the bourgeoisie is subtly revealed. But as always, love is stronger than any prejudice.
Well, sweet: excellent musical accompaniment in the film.
Dual film, complex, heavy and light at the same time. When I found out that the director was Garik Sukachev. If you are familiar with his work, everything falls into place. The notorious hippie and anarchist filmed a sad ballad about the heavy share of another person in the Soviet system.
Romance and ease of being, guitar frets and port three axes - this was all the freedom of the creative underground of those times. And a big-eyed, crystal-naive, high-school girl, just a newcomer student, looks at it with her big eyes.
A sad story that I don’t want to tell. But Sukachev still told her.
Some fantastic halo enveloping the main character, the way he appears - on foot, in the middle of the field, disappears by jumping into the sea - all this kind of tears his image from everyone else. Until it turns out about him a strange and terrible truth, but in the meantime ... songs to the guitar, the summer sun and freedom to drink a full bowl to the bottom!
The stunning soundtrack of the film touches the very soul, it is fun and dreary and sometimes painful. We can say that this is a soulful classic, put on a good and high-quality visual range, and a picture in the theme and music in the theme, and together they make up an amazing whole.
The film leaves behind a bit of a sad touch, but I want to watch it again. Maybe in a couple of years, maybe in a dozen, but you definitely will not forget it.
9 out of 10
The main character is a mysterious young man. The whole film he says almost nothing, his feelings do not express. The film accurately conveys one very important point. If you can somehow assess the level of spiritual development of people, then the hippies of the USSR it was much higher than the average layman. Hippies read the Bible (as shown in the film), were interested in religious concepts, philosophy. At the same time, the interests of the majority of “individuals” do not go beyond everyday issues, and from the religion of the inhabitants are interested only in external rituals. The main character is a very emotional naive girl. But at the same time - with a powerful strong-willed rod, which few of the spectators noticed. She reprimands her parents for getting her into college. She decides where to go: to Bulgaria or to Crimea. She rejects her fiancé. She is a person who lives according to her own desires, not according to others (as it was propagated in the USSR, and even now it is propagated under the names “tolerance”, “patriotism”, “church”). And this phrase, “I have to give myself to you now?”, which many considered a manifestation of naivety, is a manifestation of strong will. Don’t think that a girl in the Soviet Union really thought she should give herself to a guy she knew for a couple of days. In those years, in the USSR, it was customary to get closer to the wedding. This phrase is her attempt to seduce the frozen gentleman, which is below. The main character is a mysterious young man. Throughout the film, he says almost nothing, does not express his feelings. He seems to have no desires. Speaks in jerky phrases with the philosophical fleur ala Zen guru. Wherever he goes, everyone loves him, but for what it is not clear. Outwardly, yes, he is certainly very charismatic due to his brutal appearance and inner peace. But his calmness may be a mask of depression. He doesn’t want anything, he doesn’t care. But how does he treat his friends and girlfriend (though unlike her, he didn't consider her his girlfriend)? He's just doing what's in his head right now. He wanted to come, he wanted to go. Didn't warn anyone, didn't explain anything. Nobody knows anything about him. Friends say he’s “out of the system,” as if it’s a good thing to be out of your friends’ system. In general, someone is a type of autistic. What does he do to get close to a girl? Did he even like her? It is difficult to understand, like everything related to this man-mystery. He's coming, she's following him, he hasn't driven him away - that's flirting on his part. Then he got tired of walking with her, got on the tram and left, the girl left one night. A real Romeo. The girl had to drag him to her home and try to seduce him in the presence of her parents, but Romeo again retreated. Before sex still came, but not soon, and in the morning the girl says, finding him outside, not in bed, “I thought you left.” And the girl is right, he really could have just gone. She loves him, sticks to him, and only on this to keep their “relationship”. And he just lets her walk with him and speaks to her philosophical phrases in the style: “eat – wash the dishes.” How he organizes a trip to the Crimea is a real three-walker in the style of one famous insecure politician. Step 1: He told the girl he was coming to see her off, but he didn't come. 2nd move: the girl saw his friends and got off the bus and went with them, but did not board the train. Romeo didn't show up at the station. Move 3: Romeo was riding in the last carriage of the train and picked up a girl. The relationship with Dad is similar. "Daddy, give me the money." Son, I brought you records with music you love (in the USSR - a rarity) and money will give, but only go to the hospital. "Daddy, fuck you." In general, as with friends, as well as with a girl: "Everyone fuck off, I'm on my own." And the girl took these dad's records, they sold them and got money. But still, the bad father does not give life. Interesting fact. In the role of Guru (grey grandfather at the end of the film) starred a real hippie, who in the 90s even gave lectures about how to be a hippie, for example, on the theme “aesthetics of poverty”. But he wasn't seen as a guru. There were no gurus among the hippies, as shown in the film. Original
This happens: a high-profile large-scale project, a lot of positive reviews, a high rating. You watch, but the movie doesn't touch. You wonder why that is? Everything seems to be done at a decent level: good actors, strong camera work, high-quality music, costumes, light... everything works. The movie doesn't touch anything. You look at these pictures and you think, well, is there a final? The “House of the Sun” is exactly the same. There are two reasons for this.
First, there is something to compare. In our regional drama theater there is a production of director Alexander Pletnev: “The House of the Rising Sun”. It's exactly the same thing. And this performance appeared about a year earlier than the film, and still it is in the repertoire of our theater and is a great success. The actors have aged, but they still play on the stage of students, although many are approaching the age of forty. And, frankly, the story there turned out to be more sincere and touching than in the film. Seems like a regional theater competitor to a high-profile film premiere? And, it turns out, there is something to compete and argue about. I will not go into details, but I felt very clearly: I watched G. Sukachev’s film as a primitive forgery of Pletnev’s play. That was eight years ago. When "House of the Sun" just came out. But even now, years later, my opinion has not changed. The performance was really stronger and more interesting than the movie.
Hence the second reason that alienated me from the plot of the film: heroes are all, not natural. They're like colorful dolls from a souvenir shop. No stories, no characters, no psychology. There is only a catchy appearance and some momentary attraction. A similar feeling causes when you watch some buffoon scene in a cabbage. The same superficial perception remains here. The heroine Sasha (Svetlana Ivanova) does not touch at all, because she appears as some obsessive fool from the alley. Who blindly trails behind the sun like a one-year-old puppy, not realizing why she does it at all. And, nevertheless, its society even looks from the outside, at times, too intrusive. She follows even when she is told specifically, “Don’t follow me.” Doesn't help. And when the object of her desire for some reason is not near, immediately begin unmotivated resentment at the whole world, tears and snot. The object of desire is also good, a kind of image of spitting macho, too stamped for today. A constant grin curve on the face, sudden disappearances and chopped predictable phrases. The hero, alas, is not interesting. It is also a color picture in a book with no past or future. A serious illness? What kind of disease is this? There's nothing in the story. If short-term hallucinations are to be believed, the Sun has brain problems. Then the question arises: where does a person who underwent surgery have such a lush hair? Did the surgeons pick his hair? Or were you trying to get to the brain? In this case, patients are shaved on the bald, if someone did not know. It's a completely incomprehensible and illogical moment.
However, alas, this moment is not the only one: Nikita Vysotsky somehow looks very unconvincing in the role of the father of the Sun. They, if not peers in the frame, look with a difference of 10 years, maximum 15. The actor should have aged a little. Today, makeup allows you to easily throw the right number of years. In addition, at the very beginning of the film, Father Sun appears before the audience at the Moscow Medical Institute, where Sasha entered. Next, there is a cycle of events that, according to screen time, are squeezed into one week. Well, maybe two, if these events are a little smeared false on the plate. And then, again, the portrait of the Sun's father appears before us, but this time on the page of the newspaper, where it says: "The squadron has returned to its homeland." Therefore, the father of the Sun is the captain of a long voyage, who returned from some long voyage. Only, how long did this trip last? Three days? Is that five? Was it swimming in a trough in the nearest pond? What nonsense is this: a captain who sailed only a few days, and then returned to his homeland with chic.
It is strange that in "Film Mistakes" such obvious flaws are not indicated. But someone wrote about the thong tracks on girls' tanned ass. Especially after reading, I pointed out these butts: almost nothing is visible. And the frame lasts from the force of two seconds. I am really excited to read about these “mistakes.” As the saying goes, "The elephant was not seen."
I will immediately write about another elephant, or rather, about Baba Bede. A certain girl created an underground radio station in the shed near the house, stuffed with modern equipment, which rattles, rings, tranches. Which has to be powered by something that needs maintenance after all. The girl smokes, shouts into the microphone, and her mother does not hear or feel anything. And mom, just a moment, the local police chief. So the question is, is this mother deaf-blind? It seems normal in the story. Then why doesn't she feel like her daughter smells like cigarettes? That she disappears in the shed, yells at the flowers with a kind mat. My daughter says she grows flowers there. Where are those flowers then? But instead of flowers to the shed, this stretches a power cable of a kilowatt of three at least (to feed the audio crap stuffed there). The cost of electricity in the house is enormous. Is that normal? Is that normal? As for me, not even funny, but simple, stupid and primitive.
And such shydevry can be listed further. Alas, it will not be possible to describe them all. For the revocation will be longer than permitted.
Then I will summarize: as separate examples of the quality work of individual workshops of the film crew: camera, lighting, sound, staging, costume, "House of the Sun" is not bad. It can even become a reference point for how to work qualitatively and professionally. But in the aggregate, nothing good happened, unfortunately. Just a set of colorful pictures for a book. And an exciting story, drama, tragedy, cut at the height of love is not even close. Sorry.
That’s what was not expected from the musician Sukachev, so many mistakes in the movie, even really debut. The whole film tells that the life of a young girl collapses, as she was late for the dream. What will happen next is unknown.
A very serious blunder: at the moment when the concert of Alexei Belov's group was supposed to begin, the same Belov comes to the stage and begins to sing his song in the image of Makarevich. Yes, "Battle with fools" - the evil sentence that the Soviet intelligentsia passed on the system.
The girl is given a chance to go to Bulgaria, but she prefers to sleep with her beloved hippie. Zero emotions and the fact that he has no interest in everything Soviet - here Sukachev greatly overdid.
The only thing that succeeded was the transmission of the atmosphere of the 70s, when only their people could listen to records. They could have. This creates an atmosphere of eternal struggle and duality in which a person is lost forever. And only then, as an adult, with his children and grandchildren, he realizes that it is not easy to live like this. It is impossible to repeat the 70s. In 2009, a different generation will come, and those who are older will watch Garik’s movie with a smile.
After watching the trailer, I was almost sure that nothing good should be expected from the film: a banal “love story”, seasoned with ridiculous images of hippies in Soviet realities. But still, despite the biased attitude to modern Russian cinema, interest in this topic took its toll. I will not say that I am sorry.
I cannot judge the authenticity of this film, but at least it is worth emphasizing the beautiful picture and atmosphere of serenity of "hipp" youth. And, of course, a good soundtrack.
In my eyes, House of the Sun specifically spoiled the sweetness of the love line. A guy named Sun, radiating pathos, and in love Sasha - everything that happened between them looked too implausible, too dull. In addition to this, Svetlana Ivanova (Sasha) sometimes overplayed and the image of an infantile “simple” turned into just a bad acting game.
Verdict: Not hooked, for once.
Watching this movie made me write a review for the first time and register here. A bad movie, in many ways, is a bad one. First of all, absolute freewill in the approach to understanding the life of that time. There was never a fashion for a girl to have an open stomach, skirts were in the waist! It's a fact. No one ever went home in a pioneer tie! Secondly, we are tired of this vilification of Soviet people and Soviet youth in particular - gray, rude, stupid. On the contrary, Soviet youth was good, kind, to come to the aid was a matter of honor, there were principles based on pioneering and Komsomol, betrayal was not characteristic, it was condemned. But such morons, which at night the exhibitions are arranged in the film are shown by the heroes. And imagine that such an exhibition at night above your apartment, immediately sympathy and sympathy for all kinds of hippies disappear. Thirdly, absolute irresponsibility before everyone - a loved one, family, friends, homeland - is shown here as some kind of romantic heroism. Compared with the fashion of today’s youth to get involved in prison romance. Imagine that there is a person living next to you who absolutely does not care about everything, you, obligation, children, yourself, life! I do not need such joy at all, let such people exist somewhere, it is their right. But not near me. That’s why the film is kind of stupid, politicized (', how bad it was in the USSR!'). No admiration, no empathy, no interest, just wasted time.
If you haven’t watched House of the Sun yet, the first thing I want to warn you about is that despite the hippie subculture clearly expressed in the title and synapse, in fact, this is primarily a romantic film about love with an admixture of drama.
That is, a person who has not read either Okhlobystin’s novel or a deep philosophical synapse runs the risk of not noticing any subtext and symbolism in this love story at all.
Those who have read the story and expect to see something equally detailed, with taste and grace described the era of the seventies, the film is not worth watching. Still, as the movie itself, House of the Sun is pretty good. First of all, thanks to albeit not brilliant, but rather talented and clearly sincere acting.
I especially liked the obviously not too popular in big cinema, but very talented and perfectly entered the image of the hippie leader Stanislav Ryadinsky.
The second thing that deserves praise is music. Although I must admit that Pletnev’s performance of the same name is much more to my liking in this regard. However, Alexey Belov deserves compliments for his talented, atmospheric and in tune with the film as a whole musical design.
Otherwise, the film may not shine genius, but to call it bad, adjusted for the genre, the language does not turn.
The girl Sasha - a child from a difficult, but ideologically sustained Soviet family entered a prestigious university, went to the informals, fascinated by their leader. The main character (S. Ivanova), like an endless exclamation point, caused irritation from the first minutes of the film. Everything she played falsely and incompetently: starting from jumps about admission to the university, continuing the love at first sight between the ball game and her “hipping” throughout the film.
There is only one unexplained question about the hero named Sun: why is he a hippie leader? It always appears at the very end of any mess, always the first molts. His only horse: in difficult situations mysteriously smiles and cunningly squints the left eye.
That’s who really should be presented as a leader, it’s Gerda: always surrounded by a retinue, intelligent, charismatic, not one unnecessary word or look, and the last word is always her. She even managed to present a combination of a Bible and a cigarette in a very stylish, hippo fashion. It was a great hipper, just a look!
Baba Beda is an interesting move, it is a pity that it is very small, and the denouement of her story disappointed.
But in general, the film for one time, I do not want to review.
Garik Sukachev wanted to make a really kind, gentle and simple film. Hrum. Let's go.
Let's start with acting. With the image of a fool, the heroine certainly oversteps. Even fools at least a little feminine must be insidious. Jumping near the main character like a puppet under the strings. The main character pulls at them even a little lazy. It demonstrates unpredictability, thereby raising its status and causing interest. Half done. Intrigues, falls in love, demolishes the roof, seduces. His emotional play is even easier than our princess. A confident, always calm lion that basks in the sun. Against the background of all this, secondary characters also naturally do not stand out. Taaak, the acting's done. Plot? Without too much drama (well, why scare the viewer?). The main character learns that to trample the sinful land left quite a bit and deciding not to go into all serious (no advertising of the series do not think: ) by the Buddhist chooses full Zen, i.e. contemplating all the beautiful and still manages to do good deeds, for example, to fight the evil system, protecting their brothers by idea. By the way, the vague ideas that in my humble view of a pragmatic cynic are displayed in the hippie movement are not quite, let’s say frankly, clearly and clearly. In general, I tend to believe that it was the lack of an idea that ruined this subculture itself, and not drugs and the pressure of the authorities. Well, young people full of energy and faith in the beginning of a new era can not drink port wine, smoke and stagger on relaxation wherever their eyes look. It's getting boring. Another question that came to me when I watched the fearless look of the main character, who knew the essence of being in the face of death, is this: would he be like this if he knew that he still had a long life ahead? Do you know how easy it is to walk on any path, knowing in advance that any of them will lead to one? This important point preferred to hide from the inquisitive viewer. In general, in the plot, I liked only the ending, when I brought information about the people in memory of whom, as I understood and filmed the film. Life put everything in place. The paintings of the talented artist are popular, which would not change his youth attempts to be a hippie and vice versa, and the girl from a decent family apparently still moved away from her daring views in Soviet times and became a doctor in a Moscow clinic and a mother of two children, and does not travel to African countries as a volunteer, helping all the unfortunate on a free basis. About freedom. Free from what? You tell the system. From the Party, from the gray color, from the moralizing and order of the Komsomol, etc. Let's say I get it. But what did they do to get it? Freedom doesn't just happen. It has to be ripped out with your teeth. Wearing bright clothes and shouting freedom to Angela Davis won't do much. Here I can slide to the examples of the opposition, various examples ... (and then the ostap carried: ) Let’s leave this topic alone.
Now for love. More precisely, about the first serious attraction of the entrant (playing hormones, forbidden fruit... oh what am I... forgive the slander on an honest Komsomol-beautiful) to such an extraordinary character. Until I forget, romantic erotic climax, ala last love, on top of the rock in the tent (and the breeze does not blow by the way?), with the inevitable languid glances and slow movements. ..well, I didn't get it. Some kind of incorrect, but what is wrong, almost animal, compared to these creatures of the sun, I had sex with an innocent girl. No more sarcasm! Outcome? It is difficult for me to evaluate films that do not give any emotions, where any reflection leads to the banal conclusion that you have been deceived again, that somewhere it has already happened (about white and black, about fighting the system, about imaginary freedom, about love). No, guys, eat this yourself, and I'm going to watch Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas with the hippie Johnny Dep. Everyone's pissed!
P.S. This review was written specifically for my naive rabbit.
Despite my somewhat biased attitude towards modern Russian cinema, Garik Sukachev’s “House of the Sun”, thanks to numerous positive reviews, still got on my list of views. And he really dragged me from the first minutes, but further impressions were not so clear.
It immediately catches the eye that the picture seems to consist of three parts: the plot, the idea and the decoration. The first is significantly inferior to the second and third. In contrast to the beautiful landscapes, good music and fascinating atmosphere of the hippie subculture fighting for freedom, stands unremarkable love story about a super-mysterious guy and a naive girl. With each new question in the spirit of “why?” of the main character and with the next “intriguing” disappearance of the main character, I had to scream with disgust, but I will not focus on personal nagging.
Acting, surprisingly, pleased, except sometimes excessive emotions Svetlana Ivanova.
In general, after viewing, there is a pleasant sediment, caused mostly by the types of places and coasts.
I would never expect that I could treat a film with such a theme negatively. I spent the whole film in a stupid misunderstanding. How come, a film about freedom, peace and love, what am I?
Perhaps the most careless decision of the author of the film was in the choice of actors. The Sun and Princess look great together, but they’re like they’re from a different movie, like they’re here by accident.
It's just monstrously gorgeous, sometimes I wanted to close my eyes and remember what I saw. Well, that's really cool, especially at the house of the Sun with the Princess.
The Sun itself is kind of strange, kind of detached, well, it becomes clear when you learn what its history is. And she even seems to justify all his crazy actions, but the feeling of unreality never leaves.
Well, it was a very strange movie. And when you hear the songs of foreign artists like the Beatles, you generally sit and think how poorly the musical design was chosen.
And besides, I do not believe that in Soviet times it was possible to walk around the streets like this, in the clothes of hippies, with uncombed long hair and so on.
Everything is too simple, everything is too easy and therefore difficult.
I don’t know what the tape is about.
About freedom?
Well, it's all too infantile for 20-year-olds. I do not dispute that there are eternal children. But what do they do, what do they live? Sales of tickets and fennets?
No, I really respect the hippie movement, but it's a thing of the past. And the director’s attempt was not justified – it turned out that he shot a hippie in our time, although it was planned just the opposite – to create an allusion to the 70s. That's why there's conflict.
What about love?
Yeah, there's a love line. Of course it is, but it is.
I thought all the time what a fool this Sasha is, that he is grasping at such an unreasonable, incomprehensible and infinitely distant from her Sun.
Their dialogue was also not so philosophical, the banality carried directly from the screen, the feeling that they decided to sketch everything in this film, to make such a sodium. It is clear: the hippies of the world culture, who did not touch it? But in this film, for some reason, did not take root.
Anyway, I'm confused. It doesn’t, but there’s something in it.
I've wanted to see this movie for a long time. Once even took this film on the media, included, “stuck” different moments, and did not catch a single segment. I thought I should watch this movie in its entirety. And the time came when I chose the moment to watch the movie. And I watched it.
You see, movies are made for people who don't have any preparation for the film. At the very least, a good writer should always strive for accessibility to understand the film. Otherwise, the film will be incomprehensible to people, and will not become the spark of art that should carry its mission. No one really knows how to make movies right. There are directors, actors, operators and so on. Everyone is taught what rules and regulations are. And all authors make films the way they were taught. But not all movies are good. Knollets are shot equally qualitatively in compliance with certain rules, but different are obtained. It's like people. Everyone studies in the same schools, universities, and only one of the masses becomes an academician. The same goes for filmmaking.
The movie “House of the Sun” was made, I thought, like all the other films. You can watch it, there is a dynamic in the plot. More than that! There's a plot... As always, love. The girl fell in love with a strange man. And the film tells us that. A life story. Oh! I forgot! From Soviet life, history... The Soviet system creates obstacles for young people. Keeps them alive. Keeps them from having fun. And they live and have fun. After all, for many participants in informal movements, parents occupy high-ranking positions and pull their children out of crappy situations. So what? I already know that.
The problem is that there are discontents in any political system. They exist in democratic, communist, fascist, and monarchical societies. I think that the disadvantage of all systems is the need to follow the main ideology of the reigning system. Hippies protested in the United States, Europe and the USSR. What's changed? Nothing. People will always find that they are not satisfied. Before, they were not satisfied that they lived in barracks, that a car could not be bought. Now there are stone houses, but utilities do not repair them, gasoline rises in price so that if you bought a car, then the devil on it will go far. Unless, of course, you are a big boss or a deputy. What's changed? Nothing. Therefore, I see no sense in the fact that once again in the next film tickled the Soviet authorities.
As for the informal currents of the Soviet period, a separate story. I didn't get the point from the movie. The main character could fall into a state of “no need”. He had a reason. The girl just reached for the principle of “what is bad, then funny”, plus heart affairs. And the others? It would be great if the filmmakers paid more attention to this. I have met representatives of different trends in my life. When I spoke to them, I did not understand why they chose the path they were following. The moment I tell such people about certain successes, achievements of such people, they have sadness in their eyes. Why? How? Note that the authors of the film also bothered to convey to the viewer the further fate of the characters of the film to demonstrate their life gestures. People free from the system of society are important achievements in society. There is a contradiction here...
See, I watched the movie. I understood it the way I understood it: the filmmakers lived and developed in those days, loved the atmosphere, and decided to share it with us; remember the people of that era, and introduced us to these people. The film may have historical value: it can provide some light insight into the late Soviet era in informal circles. I don’t see anything more useful in this movie. That’s why the movie should have been called “How It Was.”
5 out of 10
I love movies about hippie culture: movies are usually light, rainbow and inspirational. The film was recommended to me, citing the fact that I would like, as well as any dreamy person. Found, turned on and did not expect.
First of all, it’s a very primitive plot: an ordinary correct girl meets a hipparian guy, falls in love, runs away with him and all this is so dreamy. The dialogue is too simple, the actions are predictable and the plot changes too quickly.
Secondly, it is unpleasant to see a twenty-five-year-old actress portray a young girl. Sick, for God's sake. I believe only Daria Frost - no pretense.
Third, Music.Sometimes good, but it's not enough extreme. I'm sorry about Time Machine. A great band, and they were given little space in the movies about hippies, that is, almost about them. It looks unnatural when young Andrei Makarevich pops up on stage and immediately sings the famous song, and the viewer applauds in delight. Unnatural.
Fourth, Sun. And his name is hippie, and there are a lot of curls and jeans-klesh and even a guitar. But there was not enough to charm the audience. Too simple, there is no mystery in it. It is immediately clear that it is complex not because of natural giftedness, but because of illness.
The end. Why make beautiful words on a black background about heroes whose characters have not been revealed?
Eh... I respect Garik Sukachev, Ivan Okhlobystin. But it did not turn out to make an exciting film.
Strawberry and raspberry jam anointed on a Soviet loaf for 20 kopecks. A sweet story about nothing and nobody. The story of Okhlobystin on a couple with Sukachev about their youth, interests and fun. That's how it was. That's how they beat hippies!
But young people over 30, who lived in the Soviet Union, know that they regularly and unwillingly had to go “district to district”, participate in street brawls. And somehow it looks harmonious: the police with whips in their hands “wet” someone on the streets on orders from above. Such were the realities of Soviet times - everything had to fight: for sugar and vodka in queues, for the district, for freedom.
In this film, we should not sympathize, but envy people with long and loose hair. Their long and free thoughts. So the main character throws everything (and she has everything) and joins the free flight of birds that have fought off the flock (USSR). But it is not so much the pack that worries the girl as the leader of the Sun flying in front of everyone. He is that spark that triggers the engine of life in the soul of a teenage major.
Sukachev in his work uses a sufficient number of top actors that would give the younger generation an opportunity to declare themselves against their background. The main character with the task of playing a simple beauty coped well. She's cute, beautiful, and most importantly, unusual. He's not good enough, but not without a claim.
In general, the picture was successful, although not without blunders in the style of unburned thong tracks from bathing ladies (then). Women should weep, and let the story not about a prince on a white horse delivering his beloved to the palace, but about a simple guy carrying what got his girlfriend to a shack on the top of a mountain. However, in the end he leaves, but not as banal as in life, but in general from life.
The author wanted to plunge into the past and convey his fortune to the viewer. But if you compare, I would still put Shakhnazarov’s “Empire” as an example, where the trend of time is transmitted brilliantly, and the actors’ play is beyond doubt.
And yet, as for the third film, Garik did a great job, and who knows, maybe soon we’ll talk about him as a big director.
Among the many domestic films released in recent years, unfortunately, there are not so many films that could be rightfully proud. Many criticize modern Russian cinema for the lack of films that could stand on a par with films of the Soviet period. Many people with nostalgia remember the tapes of the old days and say that in Russia today there is no decent cinema. But it's not. There's still gunpowder in the powder. Not often, however, on the Russian screens come out movies that are not ashamed. And one of these films is the film Garik Sukachev “House of the Sun”.
The script was based on Ivan Okhlobystin’s novel “The House of the Rising Sun”, which, by the way, played a very episodic role in the film. The picture tells us about a girl Sasha, who accidentally meets young people who are representatives of such an extraordinary subculture called itself - hippies. The correct, planned and prosperous life of Sasha is fundamentally changing. The girl learns the real, free life of these, according to Soviet society, long-haired slackers and falls in love with their mysterious leader, whose name is the Sun.
The film is imbued with light, sincerity and warmth, which is so lacking in modern films. He doesn't let you go until the end credits. And while watching you feel the true, true spirit of freedom, which is imbued with the whole film.
The House of the Sun is a hut on the edge of the amazing Crimean rocks, offering a divine view of such an endless sea. It is a refuge, a place where a person feels good, where he can be alone. And the sun, bringing Sasha to this house, as it were, makes her part of his house, which will disappear with the sun.
Of course, the film became so, thanks to its creators, who worked hard for fame. First of all, it is worth noting the brilliant directorial work of Garik Sukachev. This is not his first job in this difficult field, but certainly the best. I am very grateful to him for being able to create such an atmospheric, naive and childishly bright film, without vulgarities and falsehoods.
And the camera work of Sergey Kozlov is just something! What are the fascinating views of the Crimea? Accurate angles, smooth movement of the camera contribute to a deeper immersion in the story. And the bright, bright saturated tones with which the film is filled help create the necessary mood.
The musical accompaniment in the film is also good. It features music written by composer Alexei Belov, as well as various compositions of those years, including the song of the legendary rock band Time Machine "Today is the best day."
And now the actors. The role of Sasha was performed by a young actress Svetlana Ivanova. She perfectly managed to convey the image of a sweet, sincere, naive girl in love with an unusual young man. I think most viewers would agree with me because her image is sympathetic. In addition, the advantage is the external data of the actress. Its beauty certainly adds to the picture charm.
The role of the Sun was played by Stanislav Ryadinsky. Perhaps he is the highlight of the film. He was able to perfectly embody the image of a mysterious, outstanding, interesting character. And most importantly, it was as if he really emanated some kind of light, warmth, purity and sincerity.
To the actors who performed the roles of the second plan, there are also no claims. Both young actors and recognized personalities coped with their tasks, such as: Chulpan Khamatova, Mikhail Efremov, Nikita Vysotsky.
As for the shortcomings, in my opinion, the film has almost none. Of course, there are some drawbacks, film blunders, but they are insignificant and do not spoil the impression when watching.
As a result, Garik Sukachev managed to make a high-quality film about the love, friendship and freedom of these young people who were not afraid to go beyond the limits and taste a real, crazy life in the vastness of the already sunk Soviet Union.
10 out of 10
No positive emotion. The whole film was haunted by a growing sense of disgust and vomiting! Ate it!
The film is completely and completely filled with anachronisms and glimpses. The mockery of history and cinema never stops for a minute. The Soviet past can not be called cloudless, but the authors of the film it seems not cruel enough. They've got a bloody hell of a show on their own, and then they're trampling on hippies. Strangely, the drunken demos came later. If they were chasing down unhappy hippies right after the cavalry, it would be much more spectacular.
Acting, especially the main characters, is thoroughly imbued with falsehood. The actors wear masks instead of faces. They could not even imitate a kiss, they got some indistinct hugs. And it's in a love movie. But naked female breasts are shown extremely frankly, went out of place. Of course, it is much easier to shake boobs on camera than to show emotions.
Heroes are extremely flat, dull, behave illogically. Eternally mysterious, appearing out of nowhere and disappearing into nowhere, curly, narcissistic. He speaks in a sexy half-whisper about himself in the third person. A naive girl who graduated from school yesterday, at the first opportunity, offers herself to the first person she meets. And a miracle! The leader of a gang of always drunk and stoned hippies turns out to be noble like a knight and refuses to take her! And people outside the hippie movement are generally shown as idiots. A father, a party leader who wants to protect his daughter, can sit on his ears so that he will give you new Czechoslovak shuzy and go whip cognac from his throat.
No story. Not at all. 80% of the timekeeping can be cut. No damage whatsoever.
Music. The music in the movie is beautiful! And I'm scared. I am afraid that like the hero of Clockwork Orange, I will be disgusted with music because of the associative series to the terrible film.
1 out of 10
When my friends asked me what to see today, they often heard me say, “The House of the Sun!” And, to be honest, none of those who saw this film were disappointed.
How many melodramas we have to watch in a lifetime. Dozens? Hundreds? Alas, not all of these hundreds of paintings leave such a living trace as the House of the Sun. This is not only an exciting plot, a beautiful performance of actors, for me this film is especially great for its selection of music of the time. And the right music, as we all know, creates the atmosphere of the film.
We have to pay tribute to the work of the operator. Landscapes of the Crimea: the Black Sea, coastal rocks captured the spirit, leaving a pleasant impression after viewing and the desire to wave somewhere far to the sea.
The film is a must-see for romantics and fans of music of the late 60s.
10 out of 10
70 years of the Soviet space. The origins of the hippie subculture in Russia.
She is full of innocence, the daughter of the Foreign Ministry worker Sasha, just finished school and entered the medical school.
He is the son of a military general, the leader of the “Moscow system”, named the Sun.
Their unexpected encounter changes their fate forever.
She doesn’t notice how her world is changing. True love, first fears and a huge step into adulthood. She doesn’t know what to expect and just succumbs to a wave of awe and happiness.
He's really falling in love for the first time. Always secretive and mysterious, only to her he reveals his secrets, soul and heart. He is afraid of losing it and is afraid of losing it.
They're together no matter what. But not every story has a good ending. Behind the whirlwind of events lies misunderstanding on the part of society, alienation and responsibility, which is so imposed by the KGB.
General impressions.
We should pay tribute to Garik Sukachev, for his directorial work. He is a musician and has a huge experience in filmmaking, he does not have, however, it is clear that heart and soul are invested in the work. The film is based on the unreleased book by Ivan Okhlobystin “The House of the Rising Sun”, so he acted as a screenwriter. I would especially like to note the work of the operator, Sergey Kozlov, for the remarkable general plans of Sevastopol, Moscow, the sea and rocks, and for the sensitive close-ups of the main characters. The film was shot for 4 years, and in this perhaps Garik Sukachev lost. A year earlier, the film “Styliagi” was released on the screens, and literally shot, capturing most film awards. “Styliagi” became the first Russian film about subcultures, and “House of the Sun”, as it continued this narrative, but unfortunately with lower ratings. In the end, it turned out that the film about hippies, somehow passed away. Everyone likes to compare both pictures and look for matches. Yes, there are many of them, but each film is about its own. Stylags is more musical than a film that reveals not the “inner” of the subculture, but rather the Soviet realities and tells how hard it was to live in the 50s, if you have no connections and you are not like everyone else. The House of the Sun is a film about primordial freedom. And of course, love. Garik Sukachev tried to put everything “as in the palm of his hand”, without hiding any details of the life of hippies in Moscow. And bribes, and drugs, and illegality, all this is in the picture. And when you watch it, you don't think that it's all right, that it's the right thing to do, but rather you think about the risk and the human soul that so openly goes to wrong for freedom. In general, the picture causes positive impressions, especially putting emphasis on the fact that in Russia, in principle, they do not make a film about such a history of the country. But this layer of culture, thanks to which we have our own rock, our own style, our own atmosphere of life. First of all, I would like to say thank you to Garik Sukachev for understanding that there are things in our history that should not be forgotten.
Feelings.
From the first shot, you plunge into nostalgia. Unfortunately, I did not catch the Soviet Union, but still, the wild feeling that you live there now does not leave you throughout the film. You are closely watching the turn of the plot, sincerely worried about the heroes. I confess honestly, not a fan of Russian cinema, but this film turned my view, as if to say: “We can shoot!” The story of Soviet Romeo and Juliet goes straight into your heart, and you are very emotionally reliving the ending of the film. An important part of the picture is the reasoning that a house is not a roof over your head, but a roof over your heart, where you feel good, there can be your home. And this is really a very important philosophical idea that the director holds throughout the picture. A separate story in the art line is the life of secondary characters, but it is equally interesting, and no less screen time is allocated to it. The viewer understands that there are separate people, but inside the system everything is like one big family and there are no main or secondary characters. All are absolutely equal. When beautiful common plans of rocks and sea appear on the screen, you can feel the wind on your skin and the feeling of happiness from what you see. You have to be able to live a movie. And this is exactly the picture I want to live. This is the movie, after which you will want to learn more about this story, touch the culture of our country, especially considering the fact that the main character of the Sun has a real prototype. This is a movie I don’t want to be distracted from. This is the movie you should have on your shelf!
An old reflective rocker from another binge decided to get his manifesto about the years when he wanted to be an adult. It turned out very beautiful: the camera, editing, lights, costumes - everything is as it should be in the frame. It's not pretty.
Fiction, fantasy, freedom - all this has become in the service of decoration and vulgarity. As a result, the “anti-Soviet” characters in the film broadcast to the viewer exclusively vulgar slogans: “the sun is in my heart”, “you do not have to give yourself to anyone, otherwise there will be nothing left for yourself”, “only death knows who to die and who to live next”, “the best system is the absence of a system” – carry their numbers. The prototype of the main character was actually a rather nefarious character who surrendered his friends to the committees, a chronic syphilitic sitting on heavy drugs. The authors needed the Hero, and he was not, had to make an icon.
The result is sad - lies and hacking. Sukachev and Okhlobystin are my beautiful youth, I hope they will remain there forever. Sometimes, to save talent, you need to stop in time. Why did this agitation come about? I assume that the authors hope for a return glorification in the future.
The mood of hippie and summer, sky and krutansk sneakers wanted to draw in the “House of the Sun” Sukachev, went to look with hope – and suddenly it will pierce. And neither. They walk, they look, they talk, they smile, they go crazy, and they don't touch me. Aren't these hippies dressed up? And is it possible to show freedom within time, which is not as pressing as it was then? Both her and her. What can anyone who doesn’t feel a deficit really know about it? It's about freedom. So I read it. Garik Sukachev, in my opinion, did not manage to leave completely in the present, as he wanted, probably, picking up authentic things, collecting authentic hippie and real hippie characters all over the country.
What really struck me in the film was the energy, the emotion, the flair, the haze, the light breathing (I don’t even know what synonym to stop at, everyone fits) of the first love... It only happens once. And I did. And you, I'm sure. And always beside her, in her, near her, signs, signs - will pass, pass, though it will remain like the Snow Maiden, will dissolve over the fire of everyday life, over a cold and warming fire. Sad. Sad. A sad understanding of the finiteness of happiness. But it is.
Personally, like... You always try to cover it with your hands. Protect them from looking. That’s why it touches when someone opens it and splashes it out like Sukachev. Especially in the scene in the House of the Sun (the one that is love) is very beautiful. Soaked!
"Carpe diem" can be epigraphed to the film. Catch, breathe, live, accept, deny, spit, but only for real.
And I keep thinking, what is it like to be real, how is it real? How?
How is being yourself? It's easy for a fool or a child to be that way. They don't think about it. The real and all here.
And we think, we reflect, we rage, we are afraid to make mistakes, in search of these losing spontaneity, purity, selfless, but hopeful love for the miracle, as in childhood. And we are afraid to make exploits, not because even cowards, but because there is not ... a lot of inadequate in this: fanaticism, stupidity, if we look from the outside (and we are desperately afraid to seem stupid, inadequate), excitement (and it seems to waste ourselves on it, like everything burns in vain, that then turns into ashes, and why, in fact, in vain?).
Recently, the theme “be yourself” has been heard everywhere, art in slender rows goes in search of the present. And why do we not believe in ourselves, do not trust that we are real, true? Where does that come from? But that's not an answer. So, just thinking about the time it takes to eat and eat a dog. And he can't stop.
The guy who starred in the lead role, amazingly fit into the image of the unworldly - a distant star that distributes rays, just gives away, spends itself and thus burns every second. All life is combustion. Seen those when? I am. But that boy, also an artist, by the way, was the winter sun. With cold rays. For light, but not for love.
The sun is a hero. But he is the hero of his own life. He helps others and seems to live for others, yes. Shoes give, love, life (addict), freedom (to those who were imprisoned, and not only), light is shared, friendship... But there is an impression that shines for all, and burns – alone, alone. Honestly, I guess so. But no one came near them.
He needs total freedom, from connections, too. He's free of attachments. That's why it goes away so easily.
You don't belong because you love? I think it’s more honest to belong. Because... well, not for the pleasure of one thing (confidence, security, happiness, success, etc.) we start a relationship and people love us. It must be assumed that when you enter into love (as in life), there can be different in it - pain and death, including.
Everyone will find as much meaning in it as they can.
At first glance, this is just an era film, an attempt by musician Garrik Sukachev and current priest John Okhlobystin to describe the spirit of the times and the rebellious hippie movement in our country. It is no coincidence that I remember other attempts to show the mood of a generation through his music - "Ball", "Tommy", "Assa" and "Styliagi". The movement of children of flowers was born as a protest against Soviet ideology, with its hypocrisy, hypocrisy, cruelty, inhumanity.
But if you look carefully and thoughtfully, you can understand that the film “House of the Sun” is about freedom, about Love with a capital letter. About the feeling that made children from quite prosperous families leave their parents, fearlessly challenging the admiration for the usual material values. Love willing to sacrifice everything for friends, even life, if necessary. The ability to enjoy the sun, the sea, friends, freedom and life itself. In the appearance and actions of the main character named the Sun, you can even if you want to see some resemblance to the hero of the rock opera “Jesus Christ – Superstar”.
It seems a little unusual that some hippies, whom Soviet propaganda usually describes as supporters of free love and drug lovers, profess Christianity. Although, if you think about it, from the Beatles slogan “All you need is love” to the phrase from the Bible “He who does not love has not known God, because God is love” is just one step. This is what the main character does.
The young man called the Sun has no home ("Foxes have burrows and birds of the sky have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head"). His original words and way of thinking astonish people as Jesus did those around him and his disciples. The young man has not only his permanent home, but also property to which he would be attached ("Do not accumulate treasures on earth"). In the same way, the Sun is ready to sacrifice himself for the sake of friends in episodes of demonstration and arrest (“There is no greater love than that a man lay down his life for his friends”).
The latest footage, where the hero appears before us on the operating table, once again testifies to this. The moment when security officers come to the hospital for the Sun is reminiscent of how the Romans came to kill Jesus’ shins on the cross. And the provocation of the authorities and the attack on peaceful demonstrators are comparable only to the treacherous kiss of Judas, the beating of Christ by Roman soldiers and the Bethlehem babies by the servants of Herod.
It is very vividly perceived that in this story there are many real events, real people, and in the last minutes of the film even describes their subsequent real life. The construction of some frames cannot but cause admiration for the work of the operator. It feels like your life is on the screen, like you’re one of the flower children. I really liked the selection of actors. It is believed that this is how hippies were – strange by our concepts, but kind and funny. The main characters seem unusually sincere, alive, real, beautiful, and the generation of their parents – ugly, fake and sick, spiritually dead. Young rebels in the film cause clear sympathy and sympathy of the audience. And if anyone in our world has gone mad or is sick, it is not hippies, but their ideological opponents.
The film bothered me from the first scenes. In this case 'tense'means'Oh, God, I know how it ends'.
So, the fairy tale begins... – just like all the others – the main character appears out of nowhere, bright, illuminated by the sun, and, unfortunately, very typical (or typical), pronounces the sacramental phrase: ' This is how it all begins ' and ' evaporates ' enveloping himself with a veil of mystery. My mind gradually paints mystical pictures and tries to cling to the elusive hope of unpredictability, but no – it (my mind) is already flipping through the pages of the script ahead, and I realize that I have already seen all this (read, heard...). Okay..., I try not to focus on this, dooming myself to the contemplation of a bright mainly picture, (by the way, the work of the operator is quite worthy), the play of actors, of whom ours impressed once again ' Teeth': Nina Ruslanova, Nikita Vysotsky, Daria Moroz, Chulpan Khamatova, Mikhail Efremov - in this order. In their scenes, they rudely, that is, accurately and professionally, brought me back to earth from the fabulous heights of the action called plot. The other actors liked it to some extent.
The nostalgic notes of the film did not squeeze out my tears, because ' the last pure, ideological, born as a protest and as a worldview, and not as a club of interests, the system' is shown too one-sidedly. I understand that the writer and director did not want to darken the bright memory of youth and make a lyrical fairy tale an edifying angle into history, but still too romantic. And it is necessary to give credit - the reverse side of the medal was painted with light strokes (the death of friends, drunkenness and theft, as well as sex), without darkening the overall picture. The authors say: all this happened, but this is not the main thing. What's important? Unfortunately, I never understood. All the attempts of the protagonist to wrap himself in the halo of a prophet, some messiah, a guru or something like that, are broken about his consciousness of near death - and what to lose? - it is easy to be a prophet, knowing his end. He opened the eyes of this naive girl, or cruelly deceived her - a difficult question, everyone will answer it in their own way.
A very strong phrase - ' We will not live here, but enjoy life' - sounds ambiguous, or more precisely - naive. Enjoying life without living... You cannot isolate yourself from the rest of the world and be happy, this invented world, this fairy tale will sooner or later burst like a balloon under the pressure of the surrounding atmosphere. However, it happened, and this is really a big plus of the film, otherwise I would be completely disappointed.
And what about 'the surrounding atmosphere'? It is shown in grotesque terms. The notorious ' anti-Soviet' is laughable and sometimes regrettable - but I'm sure that the prototypes of the main characters at the time did not seem so. I agree with the authors here, though, it was a terrible time to laugh at.
I don’t like to compare American and Russian films. I am very glad that this film is still ours, because mindless imitation of other people's ideals will be brutally trampled by the mounted police - one of the two scenes where there is blood - and such films will live, people!
8 out of 10
Due to the lack of money for the movie in the early years, I never watched “House of the Sun”, and recently all my hands did not reach. And now that I've finally seen it, I want to ask: what did the viewer deserve to be so disappointed? For all our bias towards modern Russian cinema: it would seem that this tape is not from the infamous conveyor directors, it is not dedicated to oligarchs and their cinderella, and the theme, idea and music of the film are so close, so to the heart!
But the authors, apparently, decided that with beer will do. Therefore, the script does not need to be worked out, let nothing special happen in the film, let it begin with nothing and end with nothing. Seriously, what can you take out of it, besides a beautiful picture?
I wish there were only problems with action. The actors don’t believe a word they say (and I can still understand that, because there is so much pompous pathos in these empty phrases that it is impossible to say it seriously), but I don’t believe them either. All the characters, except literally two or three people, are cardboard. Always indignant dad from the Central Committee. A mama running around him. The capricious daughter you don't feed bread, let her rebel. Stupid right fiancé with a lean face. So necessary young female body rebel-supermacho Sun, “breaking stereotypes” and each of his replica pronouncing tomboyantly pompous. Come on, it's cardboard! But could they be played in a human way, so that there was a possibility that they existed in reality? They're like scenery. And even the scenery itself, by the way, managed to create ideal, unreal, as in most of our modern films, only Soviet. It’s a shame, it’s just a shame that the director thinks that the audience should believe this.
Another cliché reminded me of Stilag: the stereotyped confrontation of “dumb and grey” Soviet people with “foreign and sunny” hippies. But here is not a musical, there are no musical numbers and there will not be, so it looks in a bad way caricature. The bloody dispersal of the demonstration by mounted police with the use of whips and prancing horses is probably the most ridiculous scene in the film.
I really liked a few moments. The concert of the future "Time Machine", where the son of the real Makarevich so successfully fit. Gerda, depicting on the phone “girlfriend Katya Litzman”. Sasha, making a mess on the list and playing drunk in front of the groom. A Korean with his "A Knyxen"? Lovely. While watching these episodes, I started to feel guilty and thought, 'Oh, that's great! Come on, the movie isn't that bad! Then it all started again... We enjoyed the final credits. The stories of the characters and, unfortunately, the fact that the pull is over. But very nothing came out Gerda, Korean, Baba-Beda.
I tend to idealize a lot of movies, especially those with a bright love line, but even I couldn’t believe it. I did not want to scold him, but the offense did not leave from the first minutes of viewing. You probably know that there are just movies that are “wow, I watched and forgot.” This is different. I write negative reviews when I am sad, ashamed, hurtful, when really what is happening is so outrageous that you won’t keep silent about it and you click the “Add review” button disappointedly.
5 out of 10