In those distant times, when films about the war were shot, with the advice of the competent authorities, the best films about intelligence and operations in the rear were shot. Of course, much, in view of censorship and propaganda, now looks naive or stupid. But then--
The great series, along with others, keeps the attention all the time. Excellent actors: Oleg Dahl, in the role of Sergei Skorin, our scout, Elena Prudnikov, in the role of Lotta, Shlosser's assistant - Igor Vasiliev, and Kalyagin - Franz, with the face of the sufferer throughout the film. .
Vasiliev's game is especially beautiful. There can be no more suitable for the role of aristocrat than he, with his manner of speech, gestures and behavior. This is akin to Vasily Livanov, something innate.
What's the highlight of this movie? It shows not just the struggle and competition of intelligent and worthy people, intelligence professionals. It shows the nuances and subtleties in the work. And also, as Skorin replays the game imposed on him, under the control of Schlosser, at the same time, within the framework. When, being in a cage, he begins to dictate the conditions of the game, forcing not only to accept everything, but also, let not give up position, but to retreat from pressure and control.
The film is not an action, it has no passions, in some ways, even delayed. But, this is what distinguishes from most films “about spies” and about the Second World War.
The role of Lotta, in this confrontation, as a softening, deflecting exacerbations and aggression. It shows the other side of war, when love forces us to move away from work and struggle. Become a man in a state of intransigence with the enemy.
The film is stylish, shot in the castle and old Tallinn. The film has a documentary effect. Excellent choice to watch.
Alas, it is not clear what was played because of the transformation of the war drama into theater. The theater in this five-part film is a lot of good theater. It’s not just the production, there is also such a color in the lists of performers of roles that the film looks now, if we want to admire the work of masters.
Only a war movie about intelligence officers and their opponents can not be admired. Just because it does not turn out that the directors and actors were carried away by the theater, and not the truth of life about the war and the fighters of the invisible front.
You can argue as much as you like and prove that theatrical truth is truer than newsreels, but this will lead to irritation from verbiage, not to truth. Perhaps the style of the film will become clearer and more pleasant to us if we evaluate who shot it.
First, after returning home to Greece, the filmmaker had the opportunity to work productively as a director in television, theater and cinema.
Secondly, his work in Soviet documentary and feature films so often fell on the shelf that the successful appearance in the wide box office of a large film about the work of a Soviet intelligence officer is a real miracle.
Thirdly, the director Antonis Voyazos was a connoisseur of world theater, had an excellent education and broad interests, became known as a connoisseur of the Russian theater school, and to all this in his youth he was a partisan and became a member of the first in the history of guerrilla hijacking of an aircraft.
Events in the life of this man would be enough for several heroic or theatrical or cinematic biographies. Well, lastly, he became one of the best scholars of the Greek struggle against fascist occupation.
Thus, a five-part theatrical feature film turned out not so much about the collisions of the wartime of Abwehr’s attempts to deceive Moscow with disinformation about Japan’s entry into the war against the USSR, as something else – an artistic analysis of the characters of mortal enemies in conditions of an almost theatrical scene.
It can not be said that this spoiled the film about scouts, but we can say for sure that in this film you can insert a plot from at least ancient plays, even from the fables of Aesop. This story did not become a heroic war movie - it is about the properties of intelligent enemies and the battle of intellectual duelists.
Just replace the Abwehr from the Gestapo with other organizations and even if in Athens send a story about the struggle of the heroes of the resistance against the junta of the “black colonels”.
The film honestly deserves praise for the direction and excellent acting.
I love this movie very much. I like it a lot more than "Seventeen Moments of Spring," which is a comparison. As I watched, I wondered where the line was between a double agent and a traitor. Of course, Oleg Dahl brilliantly plays a brilliant scout, who has developed plans for all the letters of the Greek alphabet. But it was much more interesting for me to watch Von Schlosser. For me, he is the main character of "Omega Option". Smart, intelligent man. He has to choose between Nazi Germany and Soviet Germany. And he does not want either the first or the second option, but he understands that perhaps the fate of his country depends on this choice. In every nation there are different people - evil and good, smart and stupid. And Nazism can arise in any country.
I always thought that the worst Soviet TV series on a military-espionage theme was Semenov’s saga about Stirlitz. Its vulgarity was not in the plot as a whole (how the Soviet intelligence officer in the very womb of fascist Germany obtains important information), and not even in individual episodes (some are really strong, like a scene with a frozen child), but in the presentation of material: the scout was dressed in a fascist uniform only for the sake of making the public “sick” for a character who looks like a Nazi. And all those vulgar scenes, starting with the namerek stepping on the background of the Nazi guard, contributed to one goal: to love the enemy, and not to be filled with legitimate indignation at the crimes of false Aryans. The main effect of that series was that the pioneers (Soviet middle school students) greeted each other with a ziga, and the Komsomol members, in places, too. This is all about how easy it is to seduce a morally weak viewer with such an entourage tinsel (coupled with the cult of overseas jeans, it worked flawlessly). But the “stirlitz” was filmed in the eighties, when the marasm of power was painted on the face of the Secretary General, and the establishment was preparing the people for a counterrevolutionary coup.
Omega was released in 1975, when many participants in that terrible war were in good health, and the insanity of power had just begun. In other words, the reasons for the strange presentation are different: to prove that Germany is a wonderful peace-loving country (its bloody thousand-year history is completely ignored by the authors), and the Nazis are to blame. The reason for this strange decision lies in the political order: half of Germany was under Soviet control, and in the second, a few years before, the Social Democrat Willy Brandt came to power, a veteran of the resistance and one of the few who understood that the Germans had committed such monstrous atrocities that one should not hope for forgiveness, as he wrote in his book Geopolitics in Europe before the elections in West Germany. In any chauvinist country, which undoubtedly has always been Germany, a politician with such a position would have failed miserably, but a miracle happened - Brandt and his party won! And he apologized and repented (though he was not personally guilty) to all of Europe for the atrocities of his people. This event caused a wave of enthusiasm in the socialist countries, and they seriously decided that, in the words of another spy film, “the time of the Adenauers is over.” And, since the insanity was already beginning, they began to rehabilitate the Germans in every possible way, shifting all the blame exclusively to the Nazis (as if they were not the same in context), and even to praise Germany as a whole.
Here in this series, the authors do not cease to torture the viewer with arrangements of second-rate German music and convince him of the "greatness of German literature." And from the greatness of literature to the greatness of the Reich, as applied to Germany, one step. And! even if we assume that Goethe-Heine-Schiller can be placed on the same shelf as Pushkin, Tolstoy and Chekhov (which, of course, is not so), then they are the best manifestation of German culture*, and on the screen the third Reich is the worst, clinical manifestation of Germany, when the same goethe-gaine was banned. But who cares if you want to be praised at all costs?
Here it is worth noting that they did not dress Stirlitz in the SS uniform, but came up with an even more sarcastic step - a positive, clearly designed for the empathy of the viewer, a Nazi. It was he, not the Soviet intelligence officer, the real hero of the teleopus. Oh yes! He's a real pacifist - he can't kill a deer. I mean, a hunter, but fake. And the big democrat takes the reins from the driver and rules the tremors himself. This amiable aristocrat, whom the viewer is offered to love as himself, is clearly inspired by the authors of some pre-war novels by S. Zweig, who contrasted the aristocracy with the “fascist cattle.” The cattle are represented here by a Gestapo butcher. This is already the influence of Remarque (“Black obelisk”). Undoubtedly, the narrow-minded petty bourgeoisie is the braga on which Hitler’s National Cretinism matured. But for centuries, the trained German people did not stand aside - in the same series there are documentary footage where giant crowds of petty bourgeois hysterically adore the hysterical "Führer." If it were not for those butchers, Germany would be the best friend of the Soviet people. And then there is the philologist general, whom the evil Gestapo (and who else?) martyred. The viewer, watching a film about fascist aggression, should mourn only the Germans, for nothing that they show the chronicle of the battle for Stalingrad. By the way, Levitan’s fake phonogram is completely fake and not empathetic. And Moscow at the end of 1942 was not bombed for a long time - air superiority passed to Soviet aviation.
Finally, the plot: five episodes out of six, the viewer wonders what the whole fuss is all about. What does the scout know? Who is going to put it into strategic plans? Ahn no! He feeds our "dezu" about Japan. And they almost believe it if it wasn't for the flowers. But not everything is so bad - there is a Nazi with stupid eyes, but in a miniskirt, there is a good game of Dahl. I'm skeptical of this actor, but here he surprised me.
Finally, the claim that everything is filmed on some military documents is populism. If there were any documents, the authors did not see them in the eye (I can not imagine the screenwriter of “Training on Friday” in the archive or “Leninka”). Maybe you read a note in Red Star. And so they justified their loud statement. Moreover, there was probably no assertion (not a word in the credits) - some fool in a pediatric stuffed "infu" from the ceiling. Be that as it may, this protostirlitz has nothing to do with reality, and is set with other goals. By the way, the indicative moment is already at the beginning: the character of Evstigneev looks at the unconscious Sergei as a cow cake, and claws through his teeth casually: “Take him,” in the tone inherent in the Gestapo butcher. Obviously, the Balt director really didn't see any difference.
___
By the way, their socio-ethical views were indisputable even for their time.
The film of A. Voyazos, which I want to call the film of Oleg Dahl, on the one hand organically integrated into the line of Soviet paintings about the everyday life of intelligence officers during the war in the rear of the enemy, and on the other hand, in some places knocked out, and not for the worse, from this series.
The plot is basically identical to most Soviet films of this subject. Skorin performed by Dahl, however, is no longer a superman from the poster, almost openly mocking the stupid Germans, as Kadochnikov’s hero in “The Feat of the scout”. His main antagonist is already recognized for the ability to get around the main character in some places (but not in the whole game, neither) as in the tape recording episode. Soviet cinema, like the Soviet audience, has undoubtedly become much smarter and thinner over the previous decades. However, the single-handed combat with the Reich’s intelligence services, which is easily won almost alone, is also present here. To such an extent that the action to eliminate Walter, which is organized during an operation squeezing all conceivable moral and physical forces of strategic importance, is in itself a complex, risky undertaking, which dangerously brings this episode closer to "miracles." Johann Weiss from The Shield and the Sword.
It is no coincidence that the Omega variant is practically associated with Dahl – rarely where it becomes the axis of the picture around which everything revolves. In the “Suicide Club” he is brilliant, but the anti-hero performed by Banionis is so bright that they still “rule” the picture together. In “Bad Good Man” you have to get along with two alternative “axes” – Papanov and Vysotsky. Except that in “Vacation in September” was achieved the same effect of domination in the picture of one actor, albeit playing the main role.
And it is not in the absence of star rivals – Voyazos gathered in the film a star cast from Vasilyev and Evstigneev to Kalyagin and Polezhayev, who have acting experience and talent quite comparable to Dal. And yet Dal here is not just the unconditional, but the absolute leader of the film.
Dahl plays one of his best roles - with ecstasy, with a sweep (as in the scene of his fictitious binge), demonstrating the best facets of his unique acting talent. Ironicity, coupled with the appropriate and correctly dosed, and therefore unobtrusive even in the Soviet military picture pathetic, calm, reaching to slowness, and immediately incredible impetuousness and swiftness - we are used to seeing such Dahl, but here all this is concentrated, as in natural juice.
“Omega” is a rare Soviet film, where the characters of the enemy occupy (after the main character) more screen time than their own – which again brings it together with the Lioznov saga about Stirlitz. The line on the image of the Germans, if not people, then quite human-like, which debuted in “Seventeen Moments of Spring”, in Voyazos finds a confident and not much less talented continuation than in Lioznova and Semenov. Schlosser, performed by the aristocratic and sophisticated B. Vasiliev, is not only smart, cold-blooded, but sometimes timidly tries to play “according to the rules” – however, immediately remembering that in an inhuman profession and in the service of an inhuman machine, you will not indulge in principle for a long time. At the same time, a similar Soviet institution, where Skorin works, is drawn by tradition almost more poorhouse - and here the picture is closer to the samples of the 40s than at least to the films of the 60s. There is stagnation in the yard – and even blank hints at the doubtfulness of the morals of the top of the Soviet intelligence service, which were allowed a decade earlier (immediately after the thaw) in V. Azarov’s Path to Saturn (remember Timerin’s (G. Zhzhenov) dialogue there with Drobot (A. Tolbuzin) about how he “silt before the war”: what about repression? Mutual distrust? The viewer can only guess, now unimaginable.
Schlosser in the picture is really a “complex man”, as Skorin says at the end. But in the course of the picture, the Soviet side more often gives wishful thinking to him. Skorin flatters him that “if you like, we believed in your loyalty to Germany.” That, Simakov (E. Evstigneev) proves to the superiors “human qualities of Schlosser”. In fact, unlike his father (one of the best small roles of the film performed by F. Nikitin), to put up with the Nazis for the time being does not cause him any special problems: remember the scene with the baron’s house in Tallinn in a requisitioned Jewish house. Only the story with Reindlich seems to lead to a breakdown, prompting Schlosser to behave as he does during a historic conversation with Skorin and Petrukhin in the cafe.
The film continues the tendency started by “The Way to Saturn” to treat the Abwehr as if not more legible, then more intelligent and subtle division. SD is traditionally shown to be a collection of not-too-intelligent sadists (which is somewhat far from the truth). As in the Azarov trilogy, sympathy for the forced servants of the Germans is demonstrated, but here the approach is differentiated (there is Zverev, eager to return to his, but there is also a convinced Vedernikov).
A truly memorable image of the most dim and functional character - Sturmbanführer Maggil managed to create in the film A. Kalyagin. The mid-70s is a fountain of creative successes of Kalyagin. Here and “My Among Strangers” by Mikhalkov, and “Hello, I am your aunt” Titova, who became the Kalyagin business card. In "Varianta Omega" he starred in the same year as in "Teta". Unlike Lioznova’s flamboyant Muller, Muggil is an example of Hitler’s “homo novus,” a dull functionary who owes everything to the regime (“the Fuehrer gave me what you had from birth”). And at the same time, despite all the cruelty and negativity of this character, Kalyagin's acting charm is such that the viewer now and then pulls to somehow humanize his disgusting hero: then in the ragged Schlosser ("I am not the Pope, and I do not give absolution of sins") scene of "confessions" about the hardship of being in torture, then in the staged "sympathy" tortured ("It hurts him! Remove the forceps! You find yourself trying to see something sincere behind these tricks. However, in the next series, seeing admiring the photos of the tortured Muggil, you understand that most likely, attempts are so futile.
Female roles are not bad, however, Lotta (E. Prudnikova) is more often in the frame, and may therefore be more impressive (but very small) than Lena (I. Pechernikova). One gets the impression that by nature Lott is closer to Skaryn than Schlosser - maybe, so their relationship looks so ambiguous.
The music of Bogdan Trotsyuk is magnificent. It is extremely organically interwoven into the fabric of the film - from the slightly mysterious (quite appropriate for the tape about scouts) fading timbres of the Tallinn theme to the tense accompaniment of excellent newsreel cuts and exhilarating bars of the final song (by the way, a rare case when Dahl himself performs it in his quiet soulful voice and how both the film and the song benefit from this).
As a result: one of the best films about scouts and one of the pinnacles of Dahl’s creativity.
10 out of 10
I don’t even know what words to choose to convey my impressions, but I’ve seen this film many times in my youth. Apparently, for me, Oleg Dal was almost an idol, only I did not think about it, it seemed just like it. I read that in this film Dahl played himself - what he did and said, when he got into this situation, the result was a very sincere image.
Von Schlosser tries to break the Soviet intelligence officer, turn over, and Sergey Skorin leads his game. Their psychological duel is the main plot of the film. By the way, I really like Igor Vasiliev here too. Interestingly, the German is shown not as a stupid aggressor, but as a person who knows how to think. This film is an adaptation of the novel by N. Leonov and Y. Kostrov “Operation Viking”, I have not read the book, I quite enough film.
If you're interested in Soviet war movies, look, and I'll probably still be watching. Apparently, at the next viewing I will be able to notice some weaknesses of the script, which are written here, it was difficult to do without pathos and some naivety, but who rushes with criticism at the film that has long sunk into the soul?
“Where is it, this day, and on what calendar, like a flame, does it burn? . . "
It's not a bad movie, but there's no tension. The ending is clear, but how it will be somehow uninteresting. It is clear that the Russians will win, but it is always interesting whether the chief intelligence officer dies or not, and in this mini-series it does not matter. And all because the scout is not sorry, because during the film does not show his positive sides, which are usually used in such films to cause sympathy: love for the Motherland, longing, love for family and friends. Of course, he is sad, but it is given little time, so it did not catch me.
Although on the other hand, probably it should be, because the scout must be essentially a machine without feelings, ready for great sacrifices, or otherwise exposure. And the people were taken in the intelligence. And in this film, I liked the lack of emotionality in terms of the truthful description of the work of scouts.
But the ending kills everything because it's built on a huge mistake that the German side made. But it simply cannot be, because the main antihero (Schlosser) is presented in the film intelligent and calculating, and in the end it turns out that he is super stupid, because he did not take into account the simplest thing (three roses). But how can that be?! Smart and calculating, and in the end overconfident and stupid. Plus that simple escape. I can't believe it all.
Almost all the main characters are played by faces of Slavic appearance and it sometimes catches the eye. Especially the German Lotta with her pomp. And the strange remarks of Dal and Vasiliev at the first meeting of Skorin and Schlosser in the cafe slightly cause bewilderment: why was the unusual behavior of both necessary?
The film is not bad, the acting is cool, but the ending is disappointing.
7 out of 10
The series is about the confrontation of Soviet intelligence officer Sergei Skorin and German major Abwehr Georg von Schlosser at the most difficult moment of the war - the Battle of Stalingrad (although the case takes place in Tallinn).
Strangely, during the period of “detention” films about scouts flew like hot cakes. And 17 moments of spring, and movies about the resident, and Option Omega, and Major Whirlwind, and many not so memorable. Of course, to the scale of Lioznova, the “Variant” somewhat falls short. Oddly enough, but in the series “Omega variant” at the same time much more human. This, of course, does not diminish either the skill of Lioznova or the genius of Vyacheslav Tikhonov. Again, but the scale was painfully steep was taken - the leadership of the Third Reich.
And here it is almost like a cell and family: Tallinn is a quiet little town. Although still adopted about the same techniques that Tatiana Mikhailovna – a combination of chronicle footage and spy game, “quiet” war of minds (the Germans are smarter, but our smarter), and even a meeting with his wife, too, is, however in the photographic version. The style is the same, in one word, but there is still something else. Instead of the aristocratic Tikhonov and Tabakov, the brutal and charismatic Armored and Vizbor (although the latter did not speak in his own voice), the aristocratic but intelligent Vasilyev (Schlosser) and the soft and slightly nervous Oleg Dahl appear. The Gestapo in the face of father Muller is replaced by the caricature pig face of Muggil performed by Alexander Kalyagin. Instead of one love line, and then purely retrospective (ie, left in the past), there are as many as two - German and ours. Surprisingly, the German is not devoid of sensuality. Finally, there is the line of moral degradation and the impossibility of remaining an aristocrat in the by no means aristocratic environment of fascism.
Still not convinced that these are different movies? I don't think you should. You can watch even with interest, and more from such a movie is not required. And some edifying and informative moments will not be superfluous either. Finally, great actors – in addition to Dahl, Kalyagin and Vasiliev (one of his most memorable roles) should also be noted Evgeny Evstigneev, who played a somewhat atypical head of one of the units of the NKVD. If you like good movies about war, you won’t be disappointed.