1952. The Great Patriotic War has just ended. Many have lost relatives, loved ones, and someone has completely lost a part of himself. Add also that the Stalin era has not yet passed. It is in this world that young mother Katya and her six-year-old son Sana have to live, or rather exist. But here comes the charming handsome Tolyan. Charisma, but also military. And he seems to treat Sanka like a father. Hard, but so that the boy was able to stand up for himself. They live, of course, poor, in small communal apartments, but at least they are happy. Isn't that right?
But just as in the real world such stories are not complete without important “buts”, so here one unpleasant detail can ruin everything. Tolyan, it turns out, is no military, but the most natural fraud. He travels all over the country and through risky adventures robs people. It is from this moment that everything becomes not so clear. Is he really in love with Katya, or is he using her as a cover, for his wife and son give him some kind of insurance? And is he really raising Sanka, or is he just using it as a bedding? Or will he become an accomplice in the future, who can then be abandoned in case of what?
Due to this ambiguous component, the film is interesting to watch. Each of the moments can have several meanings and its actions can be interpreted differently. The hero can cause disgust, sympathy, and sometimes even respect, but it all depends on your perception. Is it true, or is it a double or triple game? Of course, this is largely due not only to the excellent script, but also to the acting of Vladimir Mashkov. For many in recent years, he is known for the same role without any change of role, but then he was very versatile. He was professional enough to play such an ambiguous character. I dare say that he evokes the same emotions as Tony Montana, which is a huge compliment.
You can also speculate on the theme of symbolism in the film, and it can be found here. By the way, the time of the Thief’s action was chosen by Stalin’s post-war era. Then there was a lot of theft in different senses of the word. Both the state and individuals could steal a lot from the common people. Someone robbed materially, and someone spiritually, stealing whole years of life, or even all his life. It was one of the most difficult periods for the quiet life of a Soviet citizen, many lived as they could, sometimes by stealing. But the actions of some individuals did not justify it.
But even without looking at allegories under a microscope, it's just a powerful movie. In the end, no one will be indifferent after what they see. You see a boy who lost his childhood early, lost his quiet life because of the man for whom he "betrayed" his father who died at the front. At the end of the offense, tears come with him and you realize how carelessly a thief can steal other people’s lives for his own purposes.
This movie is not recommended for easy viewing. You need to be prepared for the fact that it will not pity the viewer and show all its harsh drama, what it is. It will bring people to life and show them what they have lost. Undoubtedly, an excellent representative of Russian cinema, which was not in vain nominated for various awards, including the Oscar, which says a lot.
This film is usually praised and even called one of the best Russian films of the 1990s. The reason is often indicated by good acting. Well...
If we talk about actors, then there is no dispute – everyone plays well or at least not bad, whether we are talking about the main characters or secondary. The thief to whom the events are dedicated is a charismatic character. Disappointed with life and accustomed to earning his livelihood by dishonest means, he trades in what he can - steals. The fact that the main character is rather an antihero is not immediately revealed, but only when the character commits the first theft. This is a rather unexpected plot twist , which is worth noting positively. But the problem is that starting somewhere in the middle of the film gradually begins to deteriorate.
Everything is getting too dark. It is clear that in this way the director reflects the turbulent spirit of the decade, the message that everything was and will always be bad in Russia is too obvious an exaggeration. When this thought creeps into the subconscious mind of the viewer, disagreement arises, especially when events are carried forward for years to come. To make matters worse, almost all of the Thief’s characters are ill-mannered and downtrodden people who have no hope. They drink, wander around train stations and almost lie in the mud. Proponents of the “truth” will say that such a difficult life should be covered and discussed, but there is no subtext in the film from which to draw the right lesson. We just see that everything is bad.
A rather strange disadvantage is the operator's work. At the time of 1997, Russian operators already had good cameras, to make sure of this allow at least "Old songs about the main thing". “The Thief” looks like it was filmed in the 1950s. And the impressions of such a visual are far from joyful. No matter how good the actors are, the main criterion for success is the script. And, as you can see, everything is not sweet.
As a result, “The Thief” is a highly praised tape that leaves the audience’s requests unsatisfied. Except for those who want to be nostalgic for the darkest periods of recent history. I raise my score by one point solely because of acting.
So came the piercing and harsh “Thief” – the story of a man in whose life falls in intricate boots handsome man, witty and strongman, and concurrently – bastard and scum.
Finally (khe-khe, even when) someone took, and deconstructed to the pheni the image of a romantic from the big road (which - handsome and clever - we have full of online cinemas), showing that behind the soul of such romantics only rot is. For this Paul Chukhrai honor and praise.
Another honor and praise to Vladimir Mashkov, who at that time carefully approached both the choice of roles and their acting. His thief is persuasive, voluminous ... and it is difficult to imagine anyone else in this role, to be honest. He is a brilliant child of the main character.
Masterfully - and accurately, and terrible - conveyed the atmosphere of the post-war life of the country: vodka, devastation and vultures, do not hesitate to rub into the trust and leave with nothing.
And the special depth of the film gives a timeless story about the search for the father and the purity of the child’s heart. The child needs love so much that for decades to come he places in the holiest corner of his heart even those who have deceived, insulted, and brought only misfortune. Big man. Mitya would, of course, narrow, as we know - but it is better not to.
Great movie.
I want to note the skill with which the film was made - even without taking into account brilliant acting work. Greatly recreated the atmosphere of everyday life in the 50s (Stalin and a little later) years - scarce housing with rented corners, patrols on the streets and loading prisoners for transportation, a hospital and a cemetery with fences from the wreckage of beds, educational marching in an orphanage ... And types, types, types: motley residents of communal apartments, children in the yard (especially lame friend Sanki), injured disabled with a bicycle, found the prospect of tetanus bored wife of a surgical doctor, responsible and not very fighters of the transport police ... And Tolyan himself, with a saleswoman from the outskirts who picked him up and a buffalo friend, it is impossible to remove it better. Still shabby buildings and endless railway tracks – cars – the landscape of the country. Watch and review... In tone - the music of Vladimir Dashkevich. At the end of the film (when the grown-up Sanek meets the retired Tolyan) – an amazing effect of presence: it seems that you yourself wander around the nooks with the smell of sleepers. Ours, darling. Something from childhood.
There are such films that you watch and think: ' You have to give credit to the crew, they were able to convey the atmosphere of the past. I believe! I believe!'. And Stanislavsky, from some unknown world, nods like this, approvingly. Yeah. And there are those who watch and think: 'No, this movie wasn't made today! It's not 2012, it's not 1997, it's not even 1983. In front of me is 1952 as it is. I didn't live at the time, but I know that's it! And you're going to tell me that it's really just a set, that there are cameras everywhere, and actors from 1983, 1997, 2012 are on the screen? I don't believe it! I don't believe it!' And Stanislavsky somewhere in uncharted worlds froze with gazed eyes and open mouth, nervously going over his neck ' butterfly'...
The only question that stuck in my head while watching the film, can be formulated in a general way as follows: 'How did I, a big fan of selected Russian cinema of the late 1990s and present time, miss this chic film?!'
It is not easy to find words about this film that have not been said before by someone. But it was even more difficult to close the tab or switch the report in a panic - only by chance you stumble upon a review of the very film with Mashkov and Misha Filipchuk, so that even a random shot does not spoil the impression of the plot intrigue! I succeeded. When I started watching, I knew about the plot no more than the annotation says - here, on the page of the film on Kinopoisk.
Not a stereotype. Psychological law. Just a fact. Women love scoundrels. Women love those who take their own. Women love those who decide and think for them. They want what they want, they want what they want. A man. Man. A real man. Cool megamacho, brutal, bad guy, and other letters of the Greek alphabet.
Well, dear ladies, the red carpet is already spread out! Before you Tolyan (character Mashkov). Sex icon timeless, at your service! Now on command, all amicably shout 'Hurrah!' and with a sweep throw in the air caps. Other underwear will also work, the main thing is to throw as high as possible and squeal as enthusiastically as possible.
Forget the fairy tale about the train with Prince Gosha from 'Moscow-tears-not-believe'. Welcome to the car to Tolyan! As the character of a very different movie said, please ' Eat it with porridge!' For this, the son can be pushed aside, so as not to obstruct: 'Sanechka, walk!'
Come on! Like Tanya Zaitseva from 'Intergirls', like Ilya Goryunov from 'Text', like Larisa Viktorovna from 'Cruel Romance', like on any cineidiot of a tragic image I want to say directly, I am not afraid of this word, spit and say: #39;Not pity'', of course, the boy. Although, of course, she had a slightly more difficult situation in the beginning. She had nothing to lose. Perhaps I am in a hurry to make a diagnosis.
But the fact remains. Tolyan. What she deserves.
Of course, there are many other aspects to this movie, but all the other reviews say green and not so. So that the reader does not reproach me with a one-sided interpretation of the picture. In general, of course, her public opinion rating here is a bit low. At the time of writing, the review does not even reach 8 out of 10. What is the cost of only a young Mashkov ! And, of course, the boy - for me he was always the boy from 'Orphans of Kazan'. If my review is suddenly read by someone who does not know the film - here he has the main role! We must assume that Mikhail Filipchuk’s acquaintance with Vladimir Mashkov on this film and Demendeev’s role in the Kazan orphan #39 are not accidental coincidences, but interrelated facts. Although I don’t know what movie was made before, I think you can find information in open sources.
I'm finishing it. I wanted to see this movie. I saw it. Surprised that he lived to twenty-six years and still did not look.
10 out of 10
P.S. Wipe your tears. There are enough Tolyans for everyone. Don't thank me.
That case where you're not Martin Scorsese, but you really wish you were.
I’m not saying that Chuhrai wanted to make a movie like Scorsese, but I think he wanted to make a movie with a character like Scorsese. But still, I think he failed and here are a few reasons why I think so.
1. Let’s go back to Scorsese’s films, consider such his films as ' Taxi Driver' 1976, ' The King of Comedy' 1982, ' Nice Guys' 1990 and Casino 1995. The main characters in his film, I think, are kind of antagonists, they lead the wrong lifestyle, kill, earn illegal money, kidnap people and have a bunch of negative traits. But they have a code of honor, they have motives, they change as characters at the end of the film, and they win my sympathy. Tolyan, in turn, is an ordinary thief who does not attract anything, he steals from ordinary people, although I do not feel his financial need for this, he does not steal because he has nothing to eat or nowhere to sleep, he rather steals for signs of kleptomania. In addition, he beats his woman, instills in his stepson manic traits, teaching him noble concepts, although the boy is not even seven years old. Not one act reveals it from the positive side.
2. No character changes at all. The thief remains a thief, Sasha's mother remains as spineless as she was. Sanya still makes an act by the end of the film, but he does not change anything in it, he still remains, like a bub, despite all the humiliations on the part of Tolyan, loyal to him and love him.
In addition to trying to play in Scorsese, the film is written very poorly, played disgustingly, cinematographic work is worthless and this is the most important disadvantage of the film, because there are films with bad scripts, but watching them is not sick, since it is pleasant to look at a beautiful picture, the film & #39; Thief' I do not want to watch at all, more accurately review.
1 in 10
The film makes you think that not everything in life is black or white: no matter how bad Tolyan was, but he still gave life lessons, lessons of strength to little Sanka, gave him a sense of security, explained what his mother could not explain. Also, the film about how our passions destroy us: Tolyana is a passion for an easy life, and Katya is a strong feeling for a man.
As a child, every year, on May 9, this film was shown on television, after a minute of silence. It is strongly associated with this wonderful holiday, and immediately recalls the song 'Eh, roads'.
The plot is very interesting and quite unpredictable, well, Chukhrai does not know how to do otherwise.
The difficult fates of people in the post-war period, the confusion in the country, everyone is trying to find a way to live, and besides, to live well.
A woman with a boy gets a strong man, a man gets a great cover, good for everyone, up to a point. But when the moment comes, it's too late, for everyone, but at different times, and in different ways painful and hard.
The main qualities of people are revealed, someone used and threw away, someone could not cope with it, someone carried love for a person through the years.
One of the best films about the postwar period.
A stunning film with vivid erotic scenes and the beauty of the spiritual state of the actors. Brilliant Ekaterina Rednikova, courageous Mashkov, the smartest Misha Filipchuk - the director did not lose, but won. Not quite good quality of the picture was specifically released for rental for allusion with wartime. The film is beautiful in drama and story.
It is quite simple: a young widow with a child in her arms finds a brave officer on the train who uses the overcoat only for disguise. For him, the cult of personality is the very life in which he feels himself this person. He can do what he has always done. Retribution will overtake him anyway. And there will be an adult Mishka, already an orphan. Only Tolyan will not hear it again.
You know, black is not my genre. I don’t like movies that always have cloudy weather, gray, cold tones and sullen faces, and a lot of human grief. I don’t want to spoil my mood.
The “thief” of Pavel Chukhray is also a black woman. But why did I like the movie so much? Have I even reviewed it several times?
First, a great selection of actors. They don't play here, they live here! It's real here. Nobody overdoes it. The kids are amazing! Especially Misha Filipchuk, his big blue eyes say nothing. Katya is such a typical Russian woman, whom God rewarded with an attractive appearance, but whose share fell a lot of suffering. Tolyan Mashkova – from the first frames it is clear that this is a bandit, even when he has not yet had time to say “Well, Fraerok?” No uniform, no weather cover it with the truth of essence. And as he sings in a gentle voice, "Eh road!" And what are the residents of one of the communal apartments? And the alcoholic, who can “learn the Bayana”, and Tanya’s grandmother Lidia Savchenko, and the limp, but pretty girl-neighbor, and Jewish accountants. Everyone seems to be living in a difficult time.
Second, it's a black woman, but it's a light black woman! It happens. There's always some hope. Little Sanya saw the sea. He learned to stand up for himself. All the people who were allowed to live there were good and bright. At the end of the film, we see how the already aging Sanya managed to remain a good person and not turn into a moral freak like Tolyan, despite all the experiences. How he did not abandon our women and children in besieged Grozny. He remained a good man, even though he himself committed a sinful act – he killed a man! He was the one who broke his whole life.
Despite the fact that the film tells about the post-war era, about the Stalin era, about the fact that despite the repressions and purges, crime flourished, it was shot in the spirit of the dashing 90s. It even reflects this era in some ways. The same devastation, the same thieving concepts that came from places not so distant into the ordinary life of people. And the same kind, bright people who stay that way no matter what. They are often victims of people like Tolyan. Still, hope! That it'll be over soon, and it'll be a little easier.
Being a devoted fan of Mashkov’s work, I was going to watch this film for a long time. So I got to him. What to say... the movie is great! After all, old movies are power. It is a pity that there is no Oscar award.
After all, Vladimir is a master of reincarnation. Any film that you watch with his participation, you live with all your guts, you worry about the hero, you hate or regret. In this film, I experienced all these feelings. It seems that he was a thief, and he raised his hand on Katya, and sometimes he was too strict with Sanya, but you still justify this hero to the last. And I felt sorry for him when Sanya shot. It was well deserved.
Many argue whether Tolyan loved Katya. It seems to me not because if I really loved, I remembered, tried to find, to know. And he didn't even know if she was alive... And all he remembers about her is "In the train gave."
Katya was shown as a devoted woman, able to love and forgive everything. For that, thank you very much. Played great! Although, many will now say that this is banal spinelessness and childish naivety. But in my opinion, this is true love.
Mikhail Filipchuk ... always with a stretch treat children actors. But this boy has eclipsed my heart. I couldn’t help but cry as he ran after the car... what a scene! Could you forget this wonderful, sincere boy?
I would recommend everyone to watch. Once again fall in love with Mashkov’s acting and want to watch other films with his participation.
I’ll bet 10 out of 10 for everything: for the cast and the amazing performance, for the story itself, for the music that is played in the film.
I don’t know why, but when watching Russian movies, there is always a strange feeling of rejection, even when they show tolerable scenes. This feeling usually occurs at the words of a person who once betrayed, cheated and talks a lot of excess, that is, you expect something vile in advance and treat with distrust every word.
The film by Pavel Chukhray does not quite relate to these feelings but stands in dangerous proximity. I had heard a lot of good things about her, and I approached her with the most pleasant thoughts.
Let’s start with the script, written well, the camera work, editing and flashbacks are not bad. The actors were selected textured, which is Vladimir Mashkov, like a criminal. Also like and military of course, in general the actor is capable with irony.
But after fifteen minutes of the film you start counting how many bed scenes there were, I counted as many as four, in fifteen minutes.
The main heroine resembles a “difficult” excuse the simpleton on her mind, who, with her own son, is not averse to indulge in bodily pleasures. Throughout the action, she will have to choose and she will finally undermine faith in the image of a Russian woman, I think none of you wanted such a mother.
The main character played by Mashkov, a rare recidivist who does not neglect not only regular thefts but also domestic violence, coupled with his father’s pseudo-moral. And the third character is quite amusingly played by a talented, but alas abandoned acting career Misha Fillipchuk. Well, he's the only one who causes warm feelings, at first, of course. But the epilogue of his story spoils everything, maybe people with him from the combat point to take, or maybe two minutes to cry over a beggar, and when he finds out that it is not the right person calmly pushes the deceased away and leaves.
In addition to the love of bed scenes, the director will add to the collection of a boy suffering from enuresis, naked men in a bath with absolutely unnecessary details. Also waiting for you female characters looking at which it becomes embarrassing, all around cheat and sell for a penny.
Also looking at the film, I learned one thing, a recipe for making Russian cinema in the hope of success. The whole action is accompanied by dubious actions, unjustified motivation, and at the end you are shown a great, but momentary scene full of tragedy. As in "Burnt by the Sun", although the picture "The Thief" undoubtedly wins over the first.
6 out of 10
My heart hurts after watching a movie. For all three main characters and for life in general - how difficult it is and what kind of person in it - very vulnerable.
The actors played wonderfully, Vladimir Mashkov is reincarnated in all the works perfectly, just live with him all these stories as your own.
This film is dramatic and short, but accurately conveys the feelings of the boy that stuck in his soul as a child and did not leave him in adulthood. How he always missed a man’s shoulder, strong and loving, and never found that shoulder.
What a devoted woman - how much she endured, and could not part. Why did Tolik not realize that it is the Great Happiness in life to have such a woman around?
And upset the quiet life of this little family - mother and son. Decent and kind people...
Men when they watch this film, let them not forget that they are stronger and when their strength is good is happiness and his, and evil is only the destruction of souls who are nearby, and in the end - their own.
This is a very psychological film.
I applaud the creators and actors of this film, thank you.
Parents are not chosen. The fate of little Sani stretched rain-washed country road through the cities and villages of war-poor Russia. No coke or yard, just a mother packing her bags again, getting on the train again, sighing bitterly about something again. The absence of the notorious female happiness (the same - would be nice near) is incomprehensible to a five-year-old boy. It is only clear that Uncle Tol, who smelled so tasty of thorn on the whole carriage, should now be called Dad. And another, real, returned from the war ghost in a soldier's overcoat, can only shamefully look into the eyes.
Based on its vulgar household history, the thief from the first frames takes not by the heart, but by the throat. A grief-stricken single mother, falling for any - even the most illusory - promise of happiness, an image not only familiar, but archetypal for our society. The historical period and the name of the country have absolutely no meaning. Deprived of support either because of war or because of drunkenness and irresponsibility of the “strong sex”, such women always cause a mixed sense of shame and pity. Leading the narrative on behalf of his youngest character, the director does not allow to make any moral demands on the widowed Katya. She is just a mother, the kindest, the most beautiful, the most dear. And it is scary when it seems that Tolia’s uncle is strangling her with a pillow; and it is joyful when she laughs and dances in a new house.
Hope, flashing a flame in the eyes of a lonely, restless woman, is transmitted - as if through an invisible umbilical cord - to her son. It is too easy to succumb to the brutal charm of a casual fellow traveler: officer uniform ("Military - people are reliable!"), rollercoaster, carelessly clamped in your teeth, a firm look and a confident tone. The power emanating from the character is interpreted as the ability to protect. Katya sees a reliable support in a man, Sanya - a model of behavior. But if a woman is ready to recklessly surrender to a sudden passion, then the child intuitively feels a trap. The true essence of Tolyan is in the title of the film, however, this knowledge does not detract from the dark appeal of the image. So casually played by Vladimir Mashkov, this pseudo-officer, pseudo-father to the final credits does not want to turn into a vile domestic thief. With the iron wire of the last hope, he wraps desperate hearts, throws bones to hungry dogs. There is no choice for Katya, Sanya, or the viewer: Tolyan is a savior, even a criminal. And it remains only to follow him, submissively bowing his head, and believe that, perhaps, it will cost.
And you are ready to breathe it to dizziness,
To burn in her hell until she burns herself.
Shot in the so-called “dashing nineties”, the film by Pavel Chukhray is one of the best portraits of the era, appearing deceptive contours of black history in the minds of ordinary people. That the film takes place in 1956, you never believe it. The noble jargon ("frayerok") and the general level of dialogue sound much louder than the train "Eh, roads...", which was casually thrown at the beginning of the picture of the historical date. Even the names of the heroes raise questions: Katya - instead of Katerina, Baba Tanya - instead of Tatiana Pavlovna, Tolyan - instead of Anatoly. The thief, played by Mashkov, according to the psychological type - the same brother that visited the zone, and learned to hold a razor in his teeth, and Stalin (the main "pakhan") on his chest. Finally, all secondary characters are corrupt, petty souls, by default glorifying the leader, but caring only about their molting skin.
Due to directorial negligence or insufficient budget, such a dissynchron with the era depicted only puts more pressure on the sore spot. Speaking to the viewer in a familiar language, Chuhrai evokes feelings before thoughts. Fatherlessness, restlessness, fear, running hot urine on shaking legs. Doomed, blind hope, grasping at the only thing that fate sends. A sharp “Daddy, dear!”, curling with clubs of hot breath in the cold, treacherously escaped ... and remained forever.
And in this silence under the creak of a broken door
Sounds the distant bell of your loss.
The Soviet Union is like a father who never returned from the war. A black and white ghost in a soldier’s overcoat, waving a handkerchief from the platform of books and newspapers crumbling into dust. Whether he would become a good example for us, whether he would love his motherland so sincerely, so tenderly, we will never know. Time has inexorably carried us down the tracks of history, planting dubious authorities and endless drunkenness in the car. The country at the breaking point of the nineties is what Tolyan is: admiring, frightening and pathetic at the same time. A thief in someone else’s guise, stealing not only the good he has earned, but also dragging people’s hearts in a rough canvas bag. A bandit who puts dust in his eyes to throw salt in it. But the terrible thing is that the orphaned Russian people - to match Katya and Sane - were glad to be deceived. I really loved it, through pain and tears. Like a groove in memory. Like a country that is not chosen.
Well, comrades, of course, "ears hung up, stood up in the dance." As a result, another batch of simple trophies, which, by the way, need to be sold somewhere else.
What can I say? V. Mashkov, of course, created a strong image – this is understandable. And the form suits him, and the straightening of his hero is proper, and he pronounces his uncomplicated speeches with frightening conviction. In my own right. However, conviction, fortunately, does not guarantee anyone credibility. And therefore, a man adequate to anything but contempt for the ghoul, self-affirming through the establishment of a regime of personal dictatorship over the obviously weak, can experience, I think, can not.
Therefore, even less respect and understanding in the eyes of such a person deserve those who are not amenable to force (for this would be quite understandable and natural), but to what in such cases is called negative charm. For the only permissible association with the word “thief” in the face of a sane person can and should be only a short but capacious sentence, as close as possible to the “categorical imperative”. Gleba Zheglov: "Should be in prison!"
In this case, the attention of the viewer is offered the story of the next (this time performed by E. Rednikova) “sex rag” and her son. He is the son of a mother who has betrayed him, and who has betrayed him. And, as far as I understand, twice: the father of the native and the “father”, found in the person of the cowardly jackal Tolyan. However, it is difficult to feel sincere sympathy for such a company.
Therefore, the film this emotion, if it causes, is only superficial, momentary. For, in fact, played very well, and maintain an absolute equanimity, say, in a knife episode ("Battle! Or I'll hit you! - Well, it's unreal, what is there? But you only need to think for a moment about why the characters behave in this way and not otherwise. And tragedy gives way to farce. Like, you know, rat fuss in the mud, from which you just want to stay away, because the right is not there, and everyone is to blame at once and separately. Disgusting.
Don’t be fooled, that’s my advice to anyone who wants to see this movie. Quality form does not mean similar content.
"The Thief" is our strongest drama and the pride of our Russian cinema. The film is very powerful and its history cannot be forgotten. Director and screenwriter Pavel Chukhrai should be given credit. He made a stunning film that can stand next to foreign, strong dramas. The film was made qualitatively. The script is amazing. The actors played clean. You can't forget the final. The film turned out to be a strong, life story.
We see a young mother and her son meet a soldier. The woman fell in love with him and they began to live together. The mysterious military becomes the father for the boy, but the hero is not a simple person, and soon it turns out that he is not a military man, but an ordinary thief.
Since childhood, I know that Vladimir Mashkov is a really talented actor. He plays very different roles, and in each of his characters gets used to one hundred percent. His game is pure and inspiring. I respect this actor and would like to see as many serious and talented actors as possible in our cinema. Ekaterina Rednikova played a female role in this drama. It was after this film that I remembered the actress. She played sensually and vitally, and I was very sorry for her character. The moment after her death with the boy looks in tears. How beautiful and delightful was the young Mikhail Filipchuk at that time. This boy played incredibly touching and clean, you wouldn’t even think that he was playing as if everything was real.
This drama is going to the world level, and it was very nice that it was nominated for an Academy Award as best foreign film. "The Thief" - a story of life, a story of pain, a story through the eyes of a little boy. Awesome drama. Thank you to the director for having a worthwhile movie in our cinema.
The film realistically shows the gloomy Soviet and perestroika reality. Against this background, a drama plays out, the main core of which is the problem of fathers and children. The main character, the boy on whose behalf the story is being told, has no father, he has never even seen him. However, he often dreams of the silhouette of his father. And so, after his mother meets a thief, it becomes interesting to watch the evolution of the relationship between the boy and his temporary father, who raises him “by concepts.” The most interesting thing happens at the end, but I can’t write about it because spoiling is not good. Anyway, the wonderful ending perfectly illustrates the fact that the child’s psyche is a very fragile thing, and demonstrates the serious consequences of tragic events in childhood, how much they can conquer the character and fate of a person.
The story of a young widow and her six-year-old son, who once met a Red Army officer on a train, transports the viewer to the distant 1952-th year, with his troubled life and unstable life. Then any single mother would give a lot to just lean on a strong male shoulder. It is such hope and support for Katerina and Sanka that the tanker Tolyan promises to become. And for the sake of this unintentionally fallen happiness, Katerina, longing after the death of her husband for male affection, is ready to submissively bear both the rudeness of Tolyan and the jealousy of Sanka.
But this small payment for the right to have a full-fledged family suddenly acquires the size of an exorbitant load: in fact, Tolyan turns out to be not a demobilized captain, but just an ordinary apartment thief. Thanks to family cover and well-sitting officer uniform, he easily enters into the trust of people, and every time he benefits from human disposition. But love that has taken root is ready to accept even such a betrayal.
Pavel Chukhrai, who for many years was in the shadow of the fame of his father, having exchanged his sixth decade, made his most personal and best (at least at that time) film, immediately leading him to the first row of Russian directing. In a sense, he managed to revive, rapidly and, it seemed, has finally lost the folk or, if you like, “national-tribal” traditions of Soviet cinema, laid down by previous generations, including the tapes of Chukhrai the elder, “The Ballad of a Soldier” (1959) and “Clear Sky” (1961).
While it’s equally possible to find a roll call with Italian neorealism in The Thief, from Bicycle Thiefs (1948) to Nights of Cabiria (1957), Fellini’s tape may not formally belong to this current. It is no coincidence that at the festival in Venice, where “The Thief” was presented in the competition, the picture was a resounding success, and equally – with critics, spectators and the jury.
Therefore, after the perestroika and postmodern delights of young Russian cinema, a simple story (which fans of all structured classified as “neo-neoretro”) told by Chukhrai Jr. seemed to be the most promising way out of the ideological, creative and economic crisis of our cinema. And according to the results of the world distribution of Russian films in the 1990s, "The Thief" was in second place (with a budget of $ 2 million, the box office of the world box office was $ 2.8 million), second only to "Siberian Barber" (budget - $ 42 million, the box office of the world box office - $ 7 million).
The Russian film The thief, released in 1997, quickly fell in love with me, then I was only 10 years old, fell in love primarily thanks to the incomparable acting performance of Vladimir Mashkov, Ekaterina Rednikova and of course the drama that is shown in the film by Pavel Chukhrai.
The film takes place in the 50s of the 20th century, Pavel Chukhrai perfectly conveys the mores and atmosphere of that time, watch a film and seem to immerse yourself in that time, worry about the boy Sanya, who is only 6 years old and lives in very difficult conditions, the mother tries to give the boy all the best she has, but poverty and various circumstances do not allow her to fully take care of her son.
I consider this movie one of the best works of Pavel Chukhray, he put all his soul and all the best in this film, the shortcomings of course can be found in any tape, I just do not cease to admire this film, because they can shoot when they want and done it with a great soul and heart.
I really liked that the film shows how the boy Sanka goes from childhood and ends at a very respectable age, through what he has to go through, through the death of relatives and friends, through betrayal and hypocrisy, through pain and much more.
Vladimir Mashkov, a stunning role, played a thief and a hypocrite who lived for his own pleasure and lived for himself. Thief, hypocrite, you can find quite a few words to describe this character. Although I will not call an absolutely negative character, such as he can be found a lot in real life, what the movie catches is the realism of what is happening. I really liked the moment when Tolya taught to defend the young Sanka, it was very much shown.
Ekaterina Rednikova, her heroine is very sorry, and not even because of the fact that the end is sad for her, she is sorry throughout the film, she is alone with a child, she is very difficult, there is no place to wait for help, but she still finds the strength to survive in difficult times. Her relationship with Toley was peculiar, for him she was probably only a passion, since he lived for himself. Did she love him? I think I did.
Such a favorite and dramatic movie for which I am not ashamed.
10 out of 10
Shortly after the release of the film on the shelves of video kiosks, its licensed edition appeared, in (now rare) VHS format. The tape was bought by my father, and by the will of fate, (and not only them), I, despite my incomplete 8 years, was allowed to view. Honestly, the scenes most imprinted in my memory (despite futile attempts to hide them from me) are rudeness, violence and passion, which (correct me if I am mistaken) for some reason always succeed in Russian cinema better than all others.
Frankly, I have been somewhat knocked out of the ruts, thrown out of the familiar world of magic-fairy-tale, eye-pleasing Hollywood cinema, and struck by the very fact that there is something different from it. In those “hard” times, a film like “The Thief” was a real feat, a blow, a cry, testifying to the life of Russian cinema and its ability to soberly look at things.
Many see the film as an additional political subtext and thus a double bottom. If we judge this, the story of Sanka acquires a completely different character and deep meaning. This is no longer the story of the robbery of a communal apartment by a lantern with a false officer rank and his unwitting “partner” in the face of a 7-year-old boy, but a detailed parable about the fall of a whole state left without a father-leader. Indeed, it is difficult to disagree with these people, because the film literally breathes allegories and hidden symbols. For example, in the first scene, a woman (Motherland) gives birth right in the middle of a field (the boundless Russian land), and the whole scene is watched by the ghost of the father (God, leader) of a newborn boy (the people). Subsequently, he will regularly appear to the guy under certain circumstances until the latter betrays him.
It is with this betrayal not of his father, but of his memory that Sanka’s “other” life begins. Having called Tolyan a folder - a thief, a recidivist, a lyceum, a cheater and just a prodigal son of his homeland ... he himself becomes such a prodigal son, having broken some finest thread that connected him with his father. And she's got everything. The reasons that prompted Sanka to kill Tolyan are difficult to analyze and describe. No Oedipus complex will help here. From that moment on, the main character can be likened to a Brownian particle that moves randomly in the airless social space of the modern world, in which “everything is allowed”, and suffering and murder are quite everyday phenomena.
In my opinion, the most attractive hero to the public has always been and will be an adventurer. And Mashkov in the role of a stately, tall, determined, courageous, cunning deceiver, of course, seduced and charmed the audience with his charisma. But in this case, it was not so easy to play the role of Tolyan: on the one hand, a false imitation of O. Bender was threatened, on the other hand, a beast living according to the laws of the pack, immoral, merciless and cruel. But Mashkov played exactly so that he came out, in general, a vagrant-romantic, but who knows how to live with wolves and howl like wolves. Unhappy, left alone in the world. He was chained to a cross far more terrible and absurd than the one on which Jesus hung, confident in the existence of God the Father. But his wanderings are coming to an end... while a new hero is already born... whose fate will certainly develop no other than Sankin.
There are a lot of emotional scenes in this film. And these emotions are not associated with joy or fun. A very multifaceted film and allows you to look at the situation from the perspective of each main character whose actors play. The actors perfectly convey their character to the viewer. A character with a difficult life situation that developed in the post-war Soviet Union. There are no cheerful scenes in the film, as it is definitely a genre of drama. And that is why the viewer is completely immersed in this atmosphere of drama of the current life.
It was very gratifying that in Russia in 1997 they were able to make a film that would squeeze a tear out of the viewer by the frankness and sincerity of their scenes. That the director felt it all and correctly put. The actors look like their characters are themselves. The complexity of their existence and what binds them together. It is impossible to watch this movie and remain indifferent.
10 out of 10
Thief. At the sound of this word, involuntarily recalls the legendary phrase Gleb Egorich – “A thief should be in prison!”. Pavel Chukhrai, playing with this uncomplicated characterization of Mashkov, draws an instructive, full of suffering and deprivations line of fate of another hero, a boy who learned fatherlessness early - one of the topical themes of the postwar structure of our civil society.
One of the fundamental factors when watching such, heartbreaking films, and domestic (the requirements are naturally higher, since my own is native) so especially for me is the presence of a nerve in the narrative. The lamentable eyes of little Sasha, who so dutifully called Tolyan - Uncle Toley, clearly rush past and do not give rest. The grief of a single mother who thinks of only one thing: a father to her own son. How many lonely hearts touched the picture, how much suffered our women, it is terrible to imagine.
A thief, a movie from a category that is difficult to write about, there are no special effects, there are no underwater storylines. It's simple and complicated at the same time. After all, Tolyan is a reflection of a whole layer of post-war years - theft and lawlessness in the streets, chaos and devastation. But they survived in spite of everything, and the character of these little Sankovs was tempered, who later became who: who is a doctor and who is a military man, and preserved the remains of humanity. .
I would like to note the beautiful recreation of the atmosphere and life of those years - the environment, phrases, music, it would seem small things, but from such trifles and the perception that the director put into his creation is formed.
Acting is not behind the direction.
Mashkov, having a rather uncompromising character in the non-shooting frames, looks quite convincing in the role of a lone wolf from a big road. He knows the laws of this harsh world. Tolyan intends to make a man out of a snotty boy - "always give back." The common misfortune of that generation is instability, sailing along the path of life without clear guidelines, for one reason or another, not everyone has reliable places for a pier, someone’s life ruthlessly throws out on the street.
Ekaterina Rednikova also coped well with the role of a single mother, the couple with Mashkov came out quite harmoniously.
Summing up a certain line, I want to note that the painting of Chukhray, a truly Russian painting, is one of the few that I want to say “I believe”!
8 out of 10
How much faith and forest fell,
How much grief and tracks are known.
And on the left chest - Stalin's profile,
And on the right - Marinka face" Vladimir Vysotsky
I think it is completely stupid to blame the American Film Academy for the fact that the Oscars for 1997 did not go in favor of the domestic Thief. It would be surprising if Americans could see the complexity and ambiguity of this film and the fate of its heroes in the context of our post-war history, with the exception of the melodramatic and tragic main storyline, which was the love of Katya’s widow for the recidivist thief Tolyan. Moreover, with the ending and voiceover of Katya’s grown-up son, director Pavel Chukhrai hints that this story is not the most important part of the film, but only a long and detailed springboard that serves to understand the reality of the present time (90s, in which the film was shot). And that is why, at the end of the picture, there will be a rude but necessary debunking of the cult of Tolyan’s personality (all allusions with Stalin are welcome!), because in the last years of Katya’s life, for her and her son, he became a real husband and father (neither one nor the other, formally not being). Precisely because a criminal who lives in the present day and loves his way of life can never become anything more in the human value system than a drunkard in the company of impoverished drinking companions and an old homeless man falling apart at the touch of his eyes. But this is not moralizing morality, but bitterness that has swept through generations, where theft, famine, orphanages, prisons, wars and repressions have been and remain on the nooks of a quiet philistine existence.
At the very beginning, and throughout the film, Chukhrai often juxtaposes the image of a military man in the face of an unknown father of a boy and a rude thief in the face of Tolyan performed by Vladimir Mashkov. Both the soldier and the thief are presented in the film as a strong, brave, confident and persistent person, and therefore confusion is allowed in the first scenes, because Tolyan impersonates a military man. But the viewer, and behind him the civil wife, and the little boy will figure out what is wrong in the image of this stately captain: too often the prison jargon slips in his speech, tattoos catch the eye, and you have to hide more often than you sparkle with a uniform. This image of Kolyan is the cornerstone of the film, constantly jumping in the face of the boy and mother from sympathy to dislike. Kolyan is not averse to influence the minds of people by the means that the alleged “father” – Comrade Stalin – gave him, deceiving with false kindness and intimidating those who are undesirable, so that “others are afraid.” The reincarnation of Katya is very revealing, because being brought up in the traditions of the Soviet Union, she cannot imagine that a thief is next to her. But, now, after a while, she will not leave by train, but will go to the thresholds of precincts and prisons to at least once again see her beloved - she no longer needs a good and honest husband; she needs this very recidivist, who cannot be ideologically justified as political prisoners of that time, or, as before, the Decembrists, with whose wives she is associated. In this respect, The Thief is amazing because the romance and melodramatism that were present at the climax of the main story (prehistory?) melt in front of the viewer and in their place comes the realization of something more. Only, it would seem, everything fell into place, personal conflicts of the heroes were settled, as a sharp plot move tears the narrative out of their lives and raises above the reality of one family, to the reality of dozens of such families, and in the future, thousands of the same “orphaned” destinies, which, disappointed and embittered, will have to get along in a new “bright” world.
One can recall many Soviet post-war films, films imbued with the euphoria of victory, the thirst for the renewal of the path to bright communism, and it is clear that the plot of The Thief could not be among them, so he stands with them in a sharp polemic: where is everything beautiful and bright, where are the smiling faces of soldiers and girls waving handkerchiefs? Why is everything so dark and hopeless? Without deleting the bright world in which Kolyan distributes tickets to those who are going to rob, Chukhrai brings to the fore the world, which was not accepted (and forbidden, in general), but through which you can try to understand the situation in the 90s, with its wars (Afghanistan and Chechnya) and crime. After all, those who were in charge in these years, in many ways, grew up in that unfavorable period, about which so much good and almost nothing bad was said in Soviet cinema and literature. I remember only that Marlene Khutsiev with his “Ilyich Outpost” – there was a very similar attempt, though an attempt to understand in the 60s and in her youth. But it is the resemblance of the military father in that film and the nameless father of the boy in The Thief that are both idealized, both dead strangers to these guys on the one hand, and their birth fathers on the other. And if even for Marlen Khutsiev, who remembered about the man and the events of ten years ago, this man in military clothes is a mystery, then what can the graying colonel say about him, vaguely remembering a military man from childhood, leaving him on an oncoming train, and waving goodbye.
His real father is a shadow, a pipe dream of Hamlet with his righteous Oedipus complex, in reality incapable of killing his Claudius. His life and homeland is a mother who could be the wife of a hero, but by the will of fate, a villain, who passed under the wing of a thief and was drawn into the abyss of the criminal world, ruthless and not remembering loved ones. And the worst of all, his essence is that Tolyan, his image, his tattoo on his back for intimidation and his “science”, his world in which nothing matters but short-term profit, and life is worth no more than a penny. What to say, he once took the life of a man. Who? Who cares? Here, in the future, people are being shot at the wall. And perhaps we should change something, because on the shoulders of the colonel, but on the table a bottle of vodka. And it does not even matter that now in this vodka dipped some cloth, it should immediately drink without disdain, because this is the only way not to go crazy, from the realization that somewhere near lies the corpse of a stinking homeless man, a bum, who forty years ago famously climbed into the windows, seduced women with one apt glance and was able to impress a child. And of course, the image of an unknown but nobility-filled soldier, for whom thousands of boys put on uniforms and remained in the army with the belief that he was their father, and not at all Comrade Stalin, who remained only an ink portrait at the heart of the old regime, a lesson in the blind hope that the Chekists would not shoot him.
This film is included in my small, but still gold collection of modern Russian cinema, it is a pity that the Oscar did not go to this stunning picture, where the plot, the acting and everything else at the highest level, the film just wants to watch, it is very interesting. Pavel Chukhrai wrote a wonderful script, and shot an excellent movie that can easily impress any viewer. The trio of main actors is Vladimir Mashkov, Ekaterina Rednikova and Mikhail Filipchuk, while still a small but very talented boy. I have always respected Russian dramas, of course, it is a pity that there are not so many of them, good Russian cinema is created extremely rarely, but if you already feel something, then this film can not be thrown out of your head. The current problem of Russian filmmakers is that they are drawn to the West, want to surprise the viewer with the stunning special effects that Hollywood has fed us for many years, do not do this, you need to make your own movies, such as the film The Thief, director and screenwriter Pavel Chukhrai, well done, he made such a movie, the plot of which has been in my head for many weeks, by the way, after watching, this picture deserved my sincere applause, which I give only to those films that really managed to fall in love with me.
Katya is a young mother, along with her six-year-old son Sanka travels from city to city, looking for a better life for both herself and her child. But a chance meeting on the train completely changes the fate of Katya, who fell in love with the handsome officer. Together with him, they settle in the same communal apartment, and all three live as an ordinary family. But soon, Katya realizes that her beloved young man is not an officer at all, but an ordinary bandit whose goal is to rob and cheat. But even learning the truth, Katya does not run away from Tolyan, because she loves him and expects from him at least some help, because she is a young single mother, her own son, whom she gave birth to in the field, is starving all the time, it does not matter where Tolyan takes the money, the main thing is that the son was fed and did not worry about anything. In the yard in the autumn of 1952, such personalities as Tolyan on the streets to meet is not difficult, the time was, where the majority lived on the concept "If you want to live, know how to spin." It was very funny to watch how Tolyan taught Sanka the laws of thieves, and how to live by concepts, even took him to rob a communal apartment, knowing everything that is happening, Katya is afraid to reproach Tolyana, because she does not want to be alone again. Summing up, this is one of the best Russian films, a great script was qualitatively staged, more to say nothing.
The thief must be in prison This film by Pavel Chukhrai is one of three films that were nominated for an Oscar in the category of best foreign film. I am talking only about the Russian period, I do not take into account the USSR. I had a certain feeling about this film before I watched it. The Oscars just wouldn't be nominated, so I was expecting something special. And I got it: a very life story in conjunction with some inner experiences of a little boy, against the background of a very robbery plot. In the autumn of 1952, six-year-old Sanka and his young mother meet a handsome military man named Tolyan on a train. Katya falls in love with Tolyana, and together they begin to live as a family. But in fact, this brave and charming officer is not a retired military officer, but a professional thief. Against the background of such a seemingly simple plot, we are shown a whole range of internal experiences of the voiceover of a young boy, and the voice behind the scenes belongs to him already at a fairly mature age. As I said, the story here is not intricate. Tolyan, with the complete resistance of his new friend Katya, robs communal apartments to somehow feed himself. After all, all this happens in Stalin’s time, and no matter how much they drank to him, they still considered him a tyrant in their hearts. The culmination of all this story was, of course, one of the last frames of the film. He turns the whole understanding of the film on its head. If in the beginning it was possible to sympathize with Tolyan, and somehow worry for him, then, strangely, by the end of the film this feeling is greatly enhanced and it is impossible without some longing and sadness, some even with tears in their eyes, to look at the departing train, even though the image of a seemingly good thief, so carefully created by Chukhrai, would literally be scattered in a couple of minutes. But still, the main theme of the film, in my opinion, is not that during the years of Stalin’s repressions, people earned as much as they could, but in the courage of an individual who is able to defend his honor and the honor of his loved ones, even despite the great pain in his heart. All this is expressed in the image of the boy Sasha. Two major roles have been played. Vladimir Mashkov and Ekaterina Rednikova. I especially remember the image of Mashkov. With such cold blood, he robbed these communal houses. Such an unshakable image that combines both love for Katya, for Sasha, and complete serenity, anger at the whole world. Even though Mashkov has always been an image of a militant actor for me, he played a wonderful drama in this film. I would say that this film was nominated for an Oscar. Too bad he never got the statue. Very good, both in semantic and simply in everyday terms, as a description of the life of those difficult times for our country.Original
The thief must be in prison This film by Pavel Chukhrai is one of three films that were nominated for an Oscar in the category of best foreign film. I am talking only about the Russian period, I do not take into account the USSR. I had a certain feeling about this film before I watched it. The Oscars just wouldn't be nominated, so I was expecting something special. And I got it: a very life story in conjunction with some inner experiences of a little boy, against the background of a very robbery plot. In the autumn of 1952, six-year-old Sanka and his young mother meet a handsome military man named Tolyan on a train. Katya falls in love with Tolyana, and together they begin to live as a family. But in fact, this brave and charming officer is not a retired military officer, but a professional thief. Against the background of such a seemingly simple plot, we are shown a whole range of internal experiences of the voiceover of a young boy, and the voice behind the scenes belongs to him already at a fairly mature age. As I said, the story here is not intricate. Tolyan, with the complete resistance of his new friend Katya, robs communal apartments to somehow feed himself. After all, all this happens in Stalin’s time, and no matter how much they drank to him, they still considered him a tyrant in their hearts. The culmination of all this story was, of course, one of the last frames of the film. He turns the whole understanding of the film on its head. If in the beginning it was possible to sympathize with Tolyan, and somehow worry for him, then, strangely, by the end of the film this feeling is greatly enhanced and it is impossible without some longing and sadness, some even with tears in their eyes, to look at the departing train, even though the image of a seemingly good thief, so carefully created by Chukhrai, would literally be scattered in a couple of minutes. But still, the main theme of the film, in my opinion, is not that during the years of Stalin’s repressions, people earned as much as they could, but in the courage of an individual who is able to defend his honor and the honor of his loved ones, even despite the great pain in his heart. All this is expressed in the image of the boy Sasha. Two major roles have been played. Vladimir Mashkov and Ekaterina Rednikova. I especially remember the image of Mashkov. With such cold blood, he robbed these communal houses. Such an unshakable image that combines both love for Katya, for Sasha, and complete serenity, anger at the whole world. Even though Mashkov has always been an image of a militant actor for me, he played a wonderful drama in this film. I would say that this film was nominated for an Oscar. Too bad he never got the statue. Very good, both in semantic and simply in everyday terms, as a description of the life of those difficult times for our country.Original