This film is perhaps the most honest war film for me. This film shows the war not as continuous atrocities of Germans and concentration camps, not as heroic feats of Soviet soldiers - it shows the war as a constant psychological struggle, when it is difficult sometimes to make a choice and act according to conscience. Everything here is told in the film: about heroes, about cowards, about ordinary soldiers and the most ordinary generals. Finally, the authors showed the everyday side of the war and the problems that arise in ordinary fighters, such as missing documents and the subsequent troubles.
In many ways, the director managed all this thanks to the cast - I will not praise, this is useless, I will just list the names: Kirill Lavrov, Anatoly Papanov Oleg Tabakov, Oleg Efremov.
Honestly, due to my age, I did not master the book, then I will read it, but a low bow to Konstantin Simonov for the book. I think this movie could be called a documentary - it's so real. Perhaps no other film will show you the war from such a perspective as here.
The film is somewhat drawn in places, of course, but deep, realistic, suggestive of interesting thoughts and in general - not boring.
I would definitely recommend watching it for everyone except action fans – sorry, it’s not for you. Those who do not know the book yet – have not mastered it or have not reached it yet – all look. This is a really serious movie.
It is necessary and not dead! It is necessary and must be alive!
In the title words from "Requiem" Robert Rozhdestvensky himself asked. In Simon’s novel, the idea was stated many times that it is important for the living what is done in the world of the living, but it is unbearable to be ashamed if it is impossible to report to ancestors.
In the first part there are two episodes: "The Living and the Dead" and "Soldiers are not born". Stolper exactly followed the route of the heroes of the novel, which is easy to understand, since the co-author of the script was the author of the literary basis - Simonov himself.
Criticism noted that the first two parts became a very careful film adaptation, attempts were already made to talk about the third series as a film based on motives, but the Living and the Dead with the next films in theaters felt by viewers of the sixties of the last century as an excellent screen adaptation.
And I liked it, because Simonov’s trilogy was received with respect and love by readers.
Even if there is some confusion today, it is important for today’s viewers to know that the next parts of the film were shot three years later than the first film, and only two five-year-olds after the mutation of Stalinism into neo-Trotskyite crustaceanism, Stolper could not mutate into a creator with another leaven.
But the cinematographic authorities and overseers from the ideological structures of the CPSU were able to.
Probably, some differences in style in the last part of the epic are explained by the fact that the novel was completed by Simonov only in 1971, and the final part of the film was shot in 1967.
Moreover, as Simonov himself and people from his entourage recalled, the book hero was influenced by the actor Papanov (performer of the role of Serpilin).
Since there are no weak roles in Stolper’s films and each actor did a great job, the role of the central persona is very important.
Papanov had experience of war, more than once communicated with veteran soldiers and generals, including those who fought after years lost in prisons and camps, like Serpilin.
Surprisingly, of all Mosfilm tapes of that time, even shot by Stolper, only "The Living and the Dead" still look with a full sense of spiritual unity of the viewer and the creators of the film.
For example, if you compare with his “Fourth”, it turns out that the political opus does not save either Vysotsky, Kaidanovsky or other superstars. And in “The Living and the Dead” the light of Simonov’s prose is alive, a voice is heard, and Papanov and Lavrov, who have already gone to a better world, shine the same way.
The plot about the first days of the war, when the main characters of the epic strengthened the will to fight for the living, so that there was no shame in front of the dead, it makes no sense to describe - there was a war, both reached their edge and Stalingrad region or on the outskirts of Moscow, no matter.
What is important is what happened, which clearly describes the full meaning of the saying: “Soldiers are not born, soldiers become.”
Interestingly, a similar dictum was attributed to Cicero Marcus Thulius (106 – 43 BC): “Orators become, poets are born.”
But the fact is noted: after the film of Stolper and Lavrov with Papanov in the lead roles, the popular will amended the historical annals.
Now it is an ancient truth that soldiers are not born. They become.
The age of this “ancient” wisdom is only sixty years old. And she came to the people with the light hand of Simonov and from the film.
9 out of 10
Cases of outright cowardice, abuse of power and the fact that only Soviet troops are considered enough are considered, since the behavior of the fascists becomes quite clear, they had almost besotted heads and they slaughtered people who were not perceived by people.
The characters and commanders whose orders decide how and who and when and why can die are valiantly shown. Here everything is decided only by the decency of the commander and nothing else, as well as trust, strength of spirit and intelligence, and if a fighter does not possess such qualities, then he will either die or betray, or from fear he will commit suicide, because he will be afraid to go into battle, to defend the Motherland and his comrades.
The film reveals some very serious and not at all social problems.
1. Excessive self-confidence.
This applies primarily to the power of the holders, in whose hands the military forces of the state are concentrated. The first days of the war showed that the USSR was absolutely not ready for the start of hostilities. It is because of this that millions of people were killed like straws in the very beginning. Here it must be said that no one will ever answer for this, will wash away not the whole government, but ordinary people, as if only ordinary people with intelligence and strength can answer for ordinary people, and others, as if not capable of this.
2. Desertion or caution.
Many soldiers on the battlefield, left alone when everyone around them died, and they seem to also have to do something like the rest, but they hide and run away to either get out of the war in the rear, or to get to a place where there is no need to fight especially and like they are not traitors, but do not want to play with fate in the game I will stay alive or I will be killed. Who are those soldiers who must defend their homeland, but surely want to be sure that they will survive, and this is impossible? Such a difficult dilemma and such a difficult new question, what to do with those who entered and died in this game?
It is impossible to answer this question, everyone will have their own answer. What movie will the director ask this question? You won't find an answer.
3. How to forgive a country that betrayed you.
Often, slander and envy play a cruel joke against the most worthy people. Once upon a time there lived a man who lived for his conscience, for his honor, but his fame rose across his throat and was accused of treason, then of course it was proved that this was not true, but it took not a month or two, but four years to divide the life of a respectable military man into before and after. However, a decent and conscientious person will not become a traitor, he will not only prove what he is worth, but also become a general - not for favor, conscientiousness, not for a bribe, not for the fact that he is a lick, not included in any groups, but because people will see that he is a person - that is all. No money, no connections, no deal with conscience, but simply because he is decent and brave, that is all, without any dyllemic torments of the soul, drunkenness, women and philosophy.
What domestic film will you see this in today? It seems that without drunkenness and women the film can not be made, shame.
It can and will be better, certainly much better.
4. Loathing and cowardice.
In the military environment, there are inexperienced, by some stupid principle, who became commanders and received high appointments. It was because of them that young boys died, because of their weakness, cowardice, and in the end there were those among them who suddenly became obese, and they tried to commit suicide, and many succeeded. Only shame had to be washed away in battle, because perhaps the dead because of them looked from heaven and probably forgiven, and the guilty put their hands on themselves.
How can you explain to yourself that if you committed a crime, you can’t do anything, you have to pay, there is no other way and there are no more excuses?
Today, in the domestic cinema, they will all be justified by something, but not by conscience. Apparently, because it is shameful to show conscience in today's film, it is better to laugh.. some glasses, and if you look at it like this, there is nothing to look for in such antics, there is one weakness of spirit.
5. Death.
Death is merciless and obvious when forces are unequal. No one comes down to you in battle, if you don't know how to fight, you'll be killed. The fact is obvious, real, vital, without any circumstances, even friends will not help if you are with the enemy one on one, and those you love for hundreds of thousands of kilometers. There are circumstances in which you will die, in any case, and you can die not as you want, but as circumstances will decide and often these circumstances you absolutely can not build, not because you can not, but because there are situations in which it is impossible.
Today they show a movie where they convince you that your fate is in your hands, that you do not owe anyone and that you can plan your own circumstances, so this is not true. The only question remains, why is this being hammered into your head if it is not true? And if you think about it, the answer can be frightening and better imbued with this fear.
So what this movie is about is war and the people who can win any war and those who can’t win it. Such films and books should be on the shelves and off the screen, because they are the salt of the earth. It is through such films and books that you can see who bought a place for himself, and who really deserves to be a writer, director and actor.
Beautiful! A beautiful plot... The great work of Papanov and ... everything.
No, the film is good, but as a document, not a work of fiction. Yes, the undisguised truth of the first tragic days of the war is shown, but there is no nerve, no music (for example, the director’s finding), no humor (no jokes in war). The film is not emotional. It's too dry. Maybe in the book, I repent – I did not read, but for the film this is not enough.
What's going on on the screen? In fact, this is a set of fragments of frontline life, connected by a common hero, nothing more. Only the hero appears emotionally above the general background (the hero of Tabakov), immediately disappears, the same story with the hero of Efremov.
And most importantly: a catastrophic blunder with the choice of the actor who plays the main role. I think Kirill Lavrov did not cope with the execution of a difficult main role. In this film, the acting ensemble is magnificent: a standing ovation to Anatoly Papanov, this is really a great performance of the role, applause to Oleg Efremov, Oleg Tabakov, Boris Chirkov. Fine performers of small roles (Lev Round, for example), but Lavrov did not cope with the role of “first violin”.
In summary: despite the outstanding acting work of Papanov, the excellent roles of Efremov, Tabakov and others, the general dryness of the film and the miss with the lead actor greatly reduced the potential of the film work, and therefore, only
6 out of 10
As a child, watching the TV screen like many of my peers literally every war film, I did not like this picture. Fights are small and casual, endless conversations, conversations. Growing up, rereading the book and reviewing the film, you come to completely different conclusions.
The talent of depicting a man in war, which glorified Simonov’s trilogy, largely migrated into the film. In general, there is a regularity - the involvement of the author of the novel in the development of the script usually improves the screen adaptation (remember "17 Moments").
The film is not even a hundredth of the scale of the disaster of the first months of the war. But what Simonov wrote later about her first weeks - as it seemed to him that he would not see anything more difficult for the rest of his life, and that he still thinks - is clearly shown by the eyes of Sintsov - the prototype of Simonov himself, who was sent by him by the same route as he himself, also a military officer, walked then.
Often discuss the degree of truthfulness of the display described. In general, truthfulness as an absolute in any film, especially in an ideologically-indoctrinated country, is always conditional. Yes, Stolper skirts the heaviest pages of 1941 - it is no coincidence that the short imprisonment of Sintsov mentioned in the novel was washed out. Prison, (without this theme, any film about 1941 is hardly true), despite the timid opening of the theme in "The Fate of Man", remained virtually taboo for domestic cinema. Especially on a scale that required revealing the topic for truthful display.
But the film said a lot - somewhere muted, and somewhere almost out loud. There is little panic in the frame, but there is a clear hint in Sintsov’s words about “the first regiment that really beats the Germans.” Sent without cover slow-moving bombers, shot by the Germans as in a dash - ruthlessly logged in the film scene of the destruction of one after another three Soviet aircraft in the Soviet film, etched into memory since childhood. Like the bitter words of the selected pilot: “See how Stalin’s falcons...?” Like blind kittens. . !
The very name of the “creator of all our victories”, including those “victory” over which the downed pilot sobbed, and those about the causes of which Serpilin unsuccessfully tries to think only with the most reliable military friends, except for this episode, is almost absent in the film. But the hard questions addressed to him are the background of the whole picture, sometimes coming forward in the thoughts of the characters. The very name in conversations is increasingly replaced by pronouns “he”, “he”, “to him”. But who is this questioned mentally by everyone in these tragic months, he is clear, especially those who read the novel, where it is said about Stalin in such a way that it is difficult to object to both his fans and haters.
The film demonstrates the skill of the Soviet film school of its heyday. The picture is long, but not drawn. The plot is dynamic. At the same time, Stolper and Simonov managed to fit into the film almost everything important in a large volume novel.
The actors’ play is such that the complete absence of music in the picture (I wonder if there is a second such picture in world cinema) I personally caught only watching it more than once, and then first reading this fact in the description of the film on the website.
The main roles of Sintsov (K. Lavrov) and Serpilin (A. Papanov) were so close to the idea of the film and the book that Simonov later admitted that while writing the trilogy, Serpilin represented only in the form of Papanov. This recognition is expensive.
In the film, a lot of characters, but even small roles are remembered like an unnamed soldier - a cheerful man in a truck - one of the first film roles of the still difficult-to-recognize V. Vysotsky or a phlegmatic specialist (V. Paulus), who started the war as a border guard near Lomzha, and is not happy with the change of military specialty ("... where they are now, these borders ...").
What can we say about the roles more noticeably like Masha (L. Lyubimov) in the dramatic, but without replaying, scene of a short meeting with Sintsov in Moscow, which is facing the already inevitable fall of October, or Lusin (R. Khomyatov) - the antihero of the film, always a correct and conscientious order-bearer-scoundrel, although bred difficult and heterolinear for such a character.
As always, in his early paintings, very good O. Efremov in the role of the tanker Ivanov. Of especially successful hits in the image – the role of Z. Vysokovsky (Mishka Weinstein), an old hermit Biryukov (B. Chirkov). A wonderful image of the incarnation of a pack of specialists with their paranoia of “vigilance” was created by a young O. Tabakov, and the role of his sane, albeit grumpy, ordinary man (E. Shutov) is, for all its smallness, one of the most memorable in the picture.
Images of political workers are one of the most important for Soviet military cinema. Here they are presented, of course, positively, but differently. For example, Commissar Shmakov (L. Lyubetsky) is brave, principled, but stereotypical, impulsive and hardly valuable as a military officer for the surrounded regiment. But conscientiously performs the function of an agitator, almost immediately after breaking out of the environment, arranging a rally. However, immediately Stolper again at an atypical move - shows the conflict of the commissioner with a specialist due to the surrender of weapons by those out of the environment (at the same time, another sick theme surroundings is carefully affected).
Really deep and almost the most memorable in the picture is the image of another commissar - Malinin. A. Glazyrin in general, in my opinion, one of the best actors of the 60s. But here he probably played his star role. Few words, fanatically devoted to the communist idea, and at the same time shunning loud slogans; true to duty and demanding it from others, and at the same time human, ready to understand without sparing effort and time (and where - in the eschatological atmosphere of Moscow on October 16, 1941, the date understandable to anyone who knows history) in the fate of one man, dragged down by the whirlpool of war - Malinin was chosen as the model of a communist-Leninist, as the filmmakers presented him as "the eyes of a man of their generation." But Malinin is not just the embodiment of the ideal of the political instructor, but a sample of this ideal of the era of the “thaw”, at the outset of which the film was created. Here Malinin favorably differs even from Simonov's favorite - Serpilin, ruthlessly dealing with Baranov - another entourage without documents, however, burned them himself in case of captivity. Only those who remember the USSR are able to understand what this meant for the future fate of a person. Even in the war. And even from the endless checks, distrust, suspicion, among which only Malinin’s sympathy breaks through in a thin ray, breaking into the cry of the soul: “Which is more expensive: a person or paper?” I now think paper is more expensive. And it's about the party ticket!!! In the midst of the “building of communism” promised by 1980!! And Malinin’s rebuke is not the shooting and demotion of the main positive characters into the main negative ones. She is harsh, but in some ways encouraging, with barely perceptible notes of sympathy.
Bottom line: The thaw changed a lot more than we can now imagine. It is comparable to the Renaissance, which turned to man after the Middle Ages, beating man to the glory of the church. After decades of man’s decay, the state with the party-church at the head of the “thaw” allowed man to be a man. And what we have this right today is the merit of that time, including his films.
10 out of 10
Compared to the book, and especially the diaries of Konstantin Simonov, the film is weak. There is not enough screen time to reveal the character of the characters, the details of leaving the environment. The acting could have been better, too. But the merit of the film in another is an honest film.
The film is one of the first to raise the theme of repression, which in relation to the average commanding staff were often unfounded, the film, like the book, shows cowards in the war, and skinners, and may be offended by the Soviet authorities, but remained Russian people.
The value of the film is that it doesn’t lie. Simonov wrote that what he saw, art is only in the collection of images and plot twists, and not in facts. Therefore, there are no stamps of the 40-50s about the fascists, about “everything as one”, there is no decisive role of the Rate – this is, in fact, a trench truth. Simonov is the forerunner of the “lieutenant prose” of frontline writers, which will appear later. And the film, shot in the midst of the "thaw", anticipated the subsequent films about the war, loved by the audience - such as in "Combat are only old men" (1973), "And the dawns are quiet here" (1972), "They fought for the Motherland" (1975). He anticipated the open conversation on the topics of war, repression, the causes of defeats in 1941, the resistance of ordinary soldiers, bastards in epaulettes and trials of the people.
Yes, the film is not perfect by modern standards, the dynamics of the battles is shown by a skewed frame, German tanks (long-barreled, with rollers from the T-34) are far from historical realities. But we see it today, educated and picky. And for its time, the film turned out to be chic and correct, and even now it looks good, without feeling false and excessive playfulness.
Every movie is a message. If there is no idea in a movie, then it is just a video series, pictures replacing each other with the sound of dialogue and music. In the film "The Living and the Dead" (hereinafter referred to as "Live") so much, because in fact it is a collection of short stories about the fate of different people, but they are permeated with one idea. But more on that later.
I want to start with a wonderful cast. Young Lavrov and Tabakov, charming Efremov Sr., and many other wonderful actors of Soviet cinema. Special attention deserves the Greatest (I can not write in this case with a small letter) Anatoly Dmitrievich Papanov. Known and loved by me since childhood for his roles in the Diamond Hand and 12 Chairs, he appeared before me in a completely different role. His character is a kind of hymn to the human spirit, indomitability and courage. I don’t really like stories where characters are divided into “good” and “bad”, but for me, Combrig Serpilin is a positive character.
The actors seem to have been sorted out, let’s move on to the characters. Here we have "heroes", and "scoundrels", and "neutral", although, as the main character Sintsov says: "No need to poke your anger in the eyes of others, we are all the same in war now: evil - evil, and good - also evil!" And he who is not evil has never seen war, or thinks that the Germans will pity him for his kindness. The main thing here is one thing: all the heroes are “alive”, not embellished, believe every word, every punch on the table, every swearing. Empathize with some and despise others from the first seconds of meeting the characters.
As for the plot and production, it is really difficult to “push” Simonov’s wonderful book into a three-hour film, but Alexander Stolper managed to convey the atmosphere, characters, and the main idea of the book (at least what I found in this). sometimes the change of frame seems quite sharp, but it gives the film a certain highlight, the viewer simply does not have time to get bored looking at the same characters - he is immediately transferred to another location. Despite the fact that the film is Soviet, it describes the events of the 41st year quite critically, and its characters react differently to what is happening: someone firmly believes that "Comrade Stalin did not know, because his generals did not tell him," someone understands everything perfectly, which is indicatively described in one of the dialogues: "We could not not but know, but why did they not act?" You know everything as well as I do, I will not lie, and I have no right to tell the truth. The film, as for me, qualitatively stands out against the general background of “Soviet-patriotic” cinema, while not delving much into the complacency of the commanders of the “commissar” as it became popular in post-Soviet cinema.
Separately, I want to describe the director’s work: musical design, special effects, costumes, design, etc. As for the music, it's not in the movie. And that's a huge plus for me. Instead, the atmosphere “heats up” voice over frame. For some reason, immediately recalls the cartoon “Penguins”, where the announcer with his comments about the drowning penguin father with a pebble instead of the cub’s egg makes not only children cry with crocodile tears (it is better not to show them this cartoon at all under 15 years old), and adults. And this voice, going back to LIM, is the second distinguishing feature (and unambiguous plus) of the film. The costumes in the film are good, the soldiers look really battered in battle, not just left the dressing room, the weapons are real, everything looks natural. Even the cardboard-sheathed T-34 under the German “panzers” (or what else these “tanks” were supposed to depict) do not spoil the overall impression of the film. It is important, of course, to pay attention to the fact that although the film is military, there are practically no battle scenes there. The film is primarily about people.
In summary, after watching more than 50 feature films dedicated to the events of the Second World War, shot in different countries, the film “The Living and the Dead” remains for me one of the best and most beloved films. It is worth watching and reviewing – every time you can find something new, previously missed, or just enjoy the magnificent acting. And most importantly, remember that this is a film about people, its idea (in my opinion) is that a person should always remain a person (it is difficult not to spoil here) regardless of the circumstances in which he finds himself at the whim of fate.
Memories are never so distant as to mean nothing. Even the ones that seemed worth giving up on suddenly come back and start to mean something. - Konstantin Simonov
Konstantin Simonov fell in love with the army as a child, thanks to his stepfather, a professional military teacher of tactics in a military school. And, although the passion for verbal creativity overpowered in him the desire to protect the homeland, a serious passion for the life of the military never left him, in combination with his talent, bringing unforgettable literary fruits, such as memories of “Different Days of War”, the play “The Boy from Our City” and, of course, the novel “The Living and the Dead”. Various journalists and writers both during the war and many years later wrote about the most difficult ordeal that fell to our people in the 1940s, about the behavior of Russian people in the war. But very few managed to grasp the hidden essence of the catastrophe and learn from it, if only for themselves, to reassure their conscience in the coveted truth to which every honest person strives, unable to be satisfied with superficial rhetoric and thick official versions of what happened. Such consistent and successful writers belonged to Simonov, who found his own formula of war, which he briefly formulated in the words of his favorite hero Serpilin: “Do you think only those military who have shoulder straps?” Nope. The military is all those who have war on their shoulders.” The author of the popularly beloved poem “Wait for me” showed by his example that a man who knows how to love a woman knows how to love the Motherland, and with all his heart to experience her grief. And this love is imprinted in his works, as the surrounding reality on film.
Film director Alexander Stolper showed that for a good movie neither special techniques, nor pictures that delight the eye, nor even a sharp and dynamic plot are necessary. It is enough to have a scripted basis of high quality – the quality that grows out of pain and love, out of ardent desire and the will to truth. It is also desirable to exclude gross interference by external forces such as ideological censorship. The latter circumstance is especially evident when comparing the two films of Stolper: “The Living and the Dead”, filmed according to the script of Simonov at the end of the liberal “thaw”, and their continuation – “Revenge”, filmed according to the script, steeply remade by zealous party ideologists at the beginning of the Brezhnev stagnation. With equally honest and consistent direction, the second film noticeably lame with numerous and obvious omissions and inconsistencies. It is not by chance that the first film that successfully popularized the beautiful novel by Konstantin Simonov and for the first time revealed the artistic genius of Anatoly Papanov, who starred in the title role (and, incidentally, who passed the entire war), remained in the grateful memory of the audience. Papanov’s play, like directing, is simple and unsophisticated, but this is the simplicity in which the elusive truth of life lurks – the simplicity of wholeness and power that imprints on consciousness without any intention. The brilliant Papan role and the necessary special role of a military chronicler performed by Kirill Lavrov are successfully shaded by Oleg Efremov, Mikhail Ulyanov, Oleg Tabakov, Boris Chirkov and other favorite Soviet actors who managed to reveal great talents in small roles.
The plot is vanishingly simple and believably bitter. The war correspondent Ivan Sintsov tries to get to his editorial office, located in Western Belarus, but gets into a terrible mess when no one and nothing can be found. The more he strives for his destination, the more obstacles he encounters on his way. Before Sintsov there are refugees, retreating soldiers, our bombers are blowing up in front of him and people are dying from a bomb explosion. The worst thing is that neither he nor those around him can understand or explain anything. The ground under the feet of Sintsov appears only when he meets the commander Serpilin, whose soldiers, covering the way to Mogilev, managed to knock out thirty-nine German tanks in one battle. The military officer stays with Serpilin, with him comes out of the encirclement, rescues a military doctor, but he is seriously wounded, without documents and again surrounded. The viewer cannot doubt that all this is the bitter truth of the first months of the war, shown through the eyes of a man who really experienced all these misadventures. Although the script omits many episodes of the novel, the film pays attention to such circumstances that began to be silenced a few years after its release. Courage and cowardice, heroic and ordinary, the truth and lies of war can be seen here without embellishment, which gives this work of art the value of documentary evidence.
“The Living and the Dead” by Alexander Stolper belong to those paintings that are decorated with a black and white palette, better shaded by what is happening on the screen and complementing the numerous antinomies of war, starting already with the title. A stingy monochrome fits the tough moral choice facing a man caught up in a war. Many subsequent military films, pleasing the eye with all the colors of the rainbow, lack this minimalism, without which it is difficult to understand the inner state of man in war. They often lack a sincere desire to understand the essence of the disaster. In The Living and the Dead, Serpilin asks the commander, his old friend, how could it happen that we did not know, were not ready. A question that can never be answered, a question that only you can answer, but also a question to ask yourself if you are honest and faithful to your duty. The answer to this question determines your moral attitude to what is happening, and therefore your position in the events that are crucial for the fate of your homeland. There are very few writers and directors who seriously ask such questions. The more valuable the old film by Alexander Stolper is a worthy adaptation of a wonderful book.