It is this film that opens a new, most successful chapter in the career of Alexander Rowe. Having made many hurtful mistakes in "New Adventures of the Cat in Boots", a year later the director gives a more integral and deep work without deadlocked storylines and with a more successful distribution of roles.
Partially repeating "Humpback Horse", the director shows the underwater world, this time not the sea, but the river, but even more beautiful and amazing. Water Route XIII is an impressive and very insidious analogue of water, which in terms of power only slightly does not reach the level of Kaschei from the earlier film Rowe. For Anatoly Kubatsky, Vodokrut became, of course, the most prominent role in Rowe's films. The actor receives sincere pleasure from how gorgeous his character looks and how many bright, albeit negative emotions there are in him. Looking at the short and funny Quak, who covets before Vodokrut, you blur in a smile, recognizing George Millar. Already used to playing fairy-tale villains, this time the actor plays a very unusual role of an anthropomorphic frog. Amphibious, if there is a word for it. And although Quak is a negative character, it is impossible not to feel sympathy for him, at least for the reason that he is not alien to the love that they feel for foster parents.
In such films, positive characters tend to look much dimmer than villains. It is. One can praise the bravery of the soldier and young Ivan for a long time, but they pale in comparison with Vodokrut, Kvak and pirates. But Mary herself is another matter. Ninel Myshkova very convincingly shows her character lost and hypnotized, and her phrase "that the will, that captivity - still" was quoted by fans of fairy tales many years after the release of the film.
But the most remarkable thing is that “Marya the Artist” became the first film where the audience saw a very malicious, “rat” image. She so convincingly played a cunning Auntie-Nazzard that later Rowe took the actress for similar roles three more times. As a result, a bad image was fixed for Altai, but what to do, witches are needed in the cinema!
Once again, Rowe reminds the audience that if desired, he could shoot a horror movie - some scenes in Mary the Artist can frighten. Although, of course, it makes no sense to compare this movie with horror films of other countries, which are designed for a more adult audience. The advantages of this film are in the unusual for those years message "about the power of maternal love". Half a century later, moviegoers will say that this topic is already beaten, the more interesting it is to look at how everything was in the middle of the XX century.
8 out of 10
Before us is the first fabulous colored (I emphasize) masterpiece of Alexander Rowe. Subjective. Why "Maria the Artist"? I like ‘May Night’, but it’s still a good movie. “Cat in boots” at Rowe generally criticized (in case or not, we’ll figure it out some other time). “The Mystery of Mountain Lake” – moved away from the storyteller Rowe in the direction of an adventure film. “Precious gift” is a musical film about fishermen.
All that remains is "Maria the Artist." Other colored stories by the director came out later. If you look at Rowe’s filmography, you’ll notice that the director desperately needed a masterpiece. He turned to the work of Eugene Schwartz, specifically to an old play in 1946 called “The Tale of the Brave Soldier”. That's how the legend was born. Hand on heart, this is one of the most unusual tales of Rowe.
Although she is called Mary the Artist, Mary is a minor hero. But the main ones are Mary’s son and a brave soldier. When they meet in the woods, the characters descend to the water king to rescue Mary. The bad guys are underwater residents led by Vodokrut. He was played by regular actor Rowe – Anatoly Kubatsky. He played great (as always).
In general, when it comes to Water, he often stands somewhere in the background (yes, behind the wide backs of Baba Yaga, Kaschei and Snake Gorynych). Rowe made him a central antagonist. Interesting. Do not forget about Aunt Bad weather (Altai), such a strange lady who can calmly call a thunderstorm with rain. And Millar created the brightest image of a funny servant Quak.
Pay attention to the scene in the first half of the film. The watercutter asks Kuznetsov, Why are you not in your own business? That is, evil hints that the soldier has no family ties with Ivan (Marya), they die there or do not die, what do you care, live and do not worry. Kuznetsov looks at Vodokrut and replies, I am a Russian soldier! You know? Anyway, the grass used to be greener, I am already silent about a completely different attitude towards people. Now there is no respect, no morality, no responsibility, no love.
“Mary the Artist” is a fairy tale to watch. All in a row.
8 out of 10
Films-fairy tales, directed by Alexander Rowe, quite firmly occupy their place in the classics of cinema. And no one will throw them away until the end of time.
“Mary the Artist” is a beautiful creation of this director. I think I've seen a lot of Rowe's stories. And they're all excellent. All on 10 out of 10. We'll fix it. But of the magnificent, too, you can find something stronger, and something, so to speak, passing these “stronger” forward. (Even the word "give way" is not suitable here). And yet I would call the top three absolutely as follows: “Fire, water and ... copper pipes”, “Barbarian beauty, long spit” and “Maria the Artist”.
Moreover, it was a discovery for me that, it turns out, I had never seen Mary the Artist in the past. Not a single familiar shot. But all this is in the past, I still looked. And, alas, I missed it. And he began to watch already with the fact that the soldier had already met Ivanushka, he told about his trouble - the boy's mother was kidnapped! - and already they appeared before the water king.
And then... Then, I would say, the fairy tale becomes something similar in its entourage to "Barbarian beauty, long scythe." Heroes go to the underwater world. All the underwater brethren, blessing, pass before the soldier and his drum. There, they say, the king does not tolerate noise.
This world is full of witchcraft. Computer special effects were replaced by editing. Chromakei did not exist, we had to do with the scenery. And colorful costumes. But it's always plentiful for Rowe. The main thing is that the heroes figured out in time that the mother of Ivanushka (the very same Mary-artist) is here, in this underwater world. But they still have to go through the many twists of the castle and through the heap of sorcery.
That's good. That this is not just, so to speak, a fairy tale for the sake of a fairy tale. And there's drama. And proper music! I tell you, among the great works of Rowe, Mary the Artist is definitely in the top three.
And the actors have known each other for a long time. It is a special place for George Millar. He's here as Quak. I am familiar with and Alexander Hvylya. And Vera Altai - now in the role of Nagainst! But Maria-artist played Ninel Myshkova. I didn't know this artist. Like soldier- Mikhail Kuznetsov. Like Ivanushka — Victor Passes. Well, it is probably necessary to specify the role of the king . This is Anatoly Kubatsky . The actor is familiar to those who know Roe's fairy tales.
The ending in the fairy tale, by the way, unpredictable! It is somewhat similar to the denouement “Barbarian-beauty, long braid”. Vanya also had to guess among the transparent Mary arts where exactly his mother was! But here even an attentive viewer will not be able to guess it.
And in addition to the ending, the ending is also filled with alarming colors, why the picture does not get a high score for beautiful eyes!!!
Great viewing experience!!!
Walt Disney once said, “You’re finished if you only aim at children, because children are grown adults.” There are doubts that the Soviet filmmaker Alexander Rowe could hear this remark from behind the Iron Curtain, but he acted in strict accordance with it. His films were never aimed exclusively at younger students, which leaves his films incredibly popular to this day. Strictly speaking, these films are not even quite fairy tales.
This is rather something like homegrown fantasy, and this genre as you know has no age restrictions and today is one of the most fashionable in the readership and audience.
In turn, the film “Marya the Artist” for a conversation about the work of the Soviet fairy tale filmmaker was chosen by me precisely because it is largely the quintessence of the original style of the director.
Have you ever been surprised that Rowe’s paintings are not full of special effects, but almost no one says with disdain that this is “old”?
The salt here lies in the following.
The fact is that Russian fairy tales are so specific material that newfangled technical innovations would only harm them, since the genre of the fairy tale itself cannot be modern.
There may be a lot in Rowe’s films that are naive, but again, a fairy tale is often naive as such.
At the same time, the director in his films fully reflects all the immutable folk attributes.
There are heroes and villains and their henchmen and the invariable victory of good over evil.
But all of this does not look like cardboard.
The images are distinguished by the thoughtfulness inherent in serious adult films, and not a relatively easy genre of children's cinema.
Here, special attention is drawn to Water (Anatoly Kubatsky).
Perhaps for the first time in Rowe’s filmography, a negative character is almost not perceived with humor and sympathy as a conditional Baba Yaga Millar.
The underwater king really causes wariness and fear and some sticky and soulful, and his invariable smile does not look good-natured The phrase pronounced by the character with a special intonation: “No wonder I love you all so much” leaves no doubt about its true essence.
Not without clichés, the main of which in the film is “frog” Quak is a typical henchman and henchman, a constant companion of the powerful with bad intentions.
You may ask why nothing has been said about the main characters in the film.
Because there's not much to say.
Unlike the villains, the main characters turned out to be quite typical although their wonderful actors played.
Anatoly Kuznetsov in the role of a Russian soldier tried to bring a little bit of his own charisma to a fabulous image and just his soldier can not be called quite textbook.
Usually in Russian fairy tales, this hero is savvy and cunning, but not always sincere and likes to cash in on someone else's stupidity (remember "Porridge from an axe")
Kuznetsov’s soldier is not just a hero with many positive qualities.
The decision to help the boy Vanya snatch his beloved mother from the clutches of the insidious Water is dictated by him not only by altruistic goals, but by the philosophy of the defender of the Fatherland, and therefore the weak and disadvantaged. And let the line: “I can’t live quietly if children yearn, and mothers languish in captivity” sounds somewhat pathetic, but still quite worthy.
But the main plot of the picture associated with the boy who lost his mother believe not everything. In my opinion, a lot of it is too deliberate and theatrical. The experiences of Mary performed by actress Ninel Myshkova about the fate of the lost son border on hysteria, and therefore do not look sincere. Therefore, despite the title of the heroine, it is as not sad as the weakest character in the film. And the tireless cry of the actress during the fight with Water “I am fighting for my son and at all looks quite posterous.” Honestly to say Watery at the time of his final defeat was even a bit pathetic. The film was worth watching because of him.
The ending is as standard as it should be: evil is shamed, everyone is happy only this time they are sick for the villains. They're painfully bright.
Children’s films of that era are now evaluated ambiguously: someone considers them unsurpassed masterpieces for centuries, someone scolds as hopelessly outdated. For an objective assessment, it is worth noting that modern children's cinema / animation (both domestic and foreign) is in the stage of absolute degradation. So it's no surprise that after the bloody horrors, homosexual characters, etc., old movies look much better. Not all of them, of course, but only those in which there is no such thing as “social racism.” Present, for example, in the film "Barbarian Beauty" - the original Zhukovsky was distorted so that the author probably turned over in the coffin (in what kind of freak turned Ivan Tsarevich, who in the original voluntarily went to puff up for dad's mistakes). And also the favorite of all totalitarian regimes of dressing girls as boys, striking LGBT soul (" Kingdom of Curved Mirrors, Merry Dreams, Three Nuts for Cinderella), and the like. For example, in this film, where most of this is not, apparently due to the oversight of officials from culture.
The plot is quite ordinary for fairy tale works: a supernatural character kidnaps a man who is going to be rescued by relatives. In this case, the son is looking for his mother, meeting a retired soldier along the way. Their adventures in the underwater kingdom may seem boring to an adult viewer, but this is for children. It is very difficult to do something universal, only isolated cases are known. Older movies are often scolded for the poverty of scenery and special effects, but I didn’t notice it. I don't care how many LEDs went into making a Cinderella dress if the plot is bad. Well, the appearance of characters who are residents of the underwater kingdom, here is not much worse than modern ones. At least they don’t look as idiotic as Angelina Jolie, who, in the lesbian interpretation of Sleeping Beauty, runs around with clown makeup, smearing her face with whitewash. Well, what has always attracted this director in some films is a really fabulous atmosphere. All this nature, animals, folklore characters (for example, Baba Yaga in Morozco is definitely the best image of this character in the cinema).
Cons there are also, for example, it is unclear why the main villain is a water, personifying one of the forces of nature. Why is the evil witch responsible for the rain? We don’t seem to have Asia, the main problems are caused by drought. I remembered the cartoon “Magic Coins”, where the child made a wish that it would never rain, because it interferes with walking (it is easy to guess what happened). It seems that some of the authors here have the same childish level of thinking.
But the main disadvantage is the relationship of relatives. Namely grandparents. It’s as if Ariel from The Little Mermaid didn’t just escape to the ground, but helped kill her dad (who had previously tried to kill her). Why make one relative a negative character and another a positive one? I don’t know if there was something like this in fairy tales (I don’t remember exactly in the folk ones), but you have to think with your head that children can find good in this?
With so many flaws, of course, you can’t count those films as masterpieces for centuries. Just a certain stage of development, which looks good due to the fact that modern cinema is rapidly flying into a bottomless abyss.
7 out of 10
You know, unfortunately, I have to point out that there are some movies that are best seen as children. Not because they are bad or interesting only to children under eight - no, nothing like that; just the glory of such works makes a sense of nostalgia, unconsciously coloring everything in a delicate pink color. Nostalgia is a terrible thing: it helps to put up with the poverty of staging, excessive convention and protracted action - you just do not notice all these things, or if you even notice, then so, in passing.
For the most part, children’s Soviet films are of this type: they cannot be watched for the first time at a conscious age, because then they lose their charm.
This opinion is sure to be unpopular, but this is exactly what happened to the reviewer when watching Mary the Artist: not that it seemed like a bad film or a failed adaptation – not at all. It is simply impossible to ignore the shortcomings that a more nostalgic viewer would certainly miss: the protractedness of individual scenes, excessive convention, making the film more like a TV show, loose narrative composition ... Of course, they coexist with the indisputable merits of the film - wonderful actors, a wonderful folk element, wonderful dialogues included in the domestic gold fund of quotes, an interesting story, an unusual conflict, and simply a wonderful image of the main character - I personally cannot remember other domestic films in which the hero and the villain maintained such respectful, half-joking relations. A wonderful gallery of images, unconventional plot moves (Schwartz's script, after all!), clay music, choreography - this is all that you can not criticize in any way, even if you really want to.
On the other hand, there is an awkward feeling of boredom in individual moments. That is, while everyone is watching and admiring everything that can be admired, you are waiting for this interlude to end and the story to go its own way. And this despite the fact that comedic moments are set at a high level, and they are really funny and memorable! But still - there is a violation of the temporite and do not know how to rebuild to listen to the film with former interest.
Maybe I just watched this movie too late. Had I seen it a little earlier, at least at the same age as I watched Morozko, it would have been a little easier to come to terms with the long journeys around the palace of the Sea Tsar, the unnecessary tragedy of Marya, who speaks on a tear even when everything is good, and the charm of actors and Schwartzev’s dialogues would have ended up sceptical attitude to “miracles” on the screen.
Therefore, young parents, for God’s sake, do not repeat the reviewer’s mistakes: show your children the right movies at the right age. Because in this case, at least they will not get into an uncomfortable situation when everyone praises the film, and they can not unconditionally share this enthusiasm. And at the same time, they will see what a real acting game is; it is worth a lot.