... And finally, to the spouse (the rest is known where). An executive worker, a good family man, a kind person, capable for the sake of the family of self-denial and overcoming serious difficulties. By nature, soft, malleable, accustomed to obey and execute, “little boss”, not showing initiative and afraid of it. At the same time, he achieved a lot in life: a separate large apartment with magnificent rich decoration, a decent education, work, income, a beautiful wife, raised a daughter - he has a thousand reasons to be happy with himself and his life! He is very fond of his wife and daughter, ready to close his eyes for the sake of peace in the family, even, perhaps, for everything. This latter, probably, has two reasons: the first, sincerely kind attitude to a person, and the second, the fear of changing something so as not to get worse.
There is a great deal of hypocrisy in this fear, because this person would have to enter into a serious deal with his conscience in a critical situation, and then live in the suffering of this, somehow humble himself with what happened and, finding nothing better for himself, persuade his conscience that one should simply endure, that one can live with this too. For this cowardice, both households and spectators do not like him. Everyone would like to see the manifestation of some brutality, aggression, chivalry, anger, something wonderful, as a result of which the spouse would save face and feel like a winner. But instead, he only “ate the chick”, breaking off on the labuche. After all, we feel sorry for this person, we do not wish him harm from the heart, but the humiliation that occurred on the screen is so strong that we cannot reconcile with him, and therefore we fence off the inner from this character as from a leper. And in this fence – oh, miracle! – there is its own hypocritical humiliation of the viewer, because he categorically does not want to rationally comprehend what happened, and, being in the power of strong emotions, is capable only of this fence, condemnation, contempt, and other “uplifting” disdainful impulses. After all, the viewer treats the head of the family with prejudice, this character is unpleasant, you do not want to have anything in common with him. However, for the sake of objectivity, it is necessary to recognize all the above good for him (he is too good to ignore it!), and that his only fault and baseness is that he habitually behaved like a household coward, not finding the strength (or not having the ability) to make a quick and correct decision. (It is time to recall the hypnotic paralysis of animals under the gaze of a snake.) Well, who cares if it’s all so clear? However, in this scene, other observers were also paralyzed. They are the same cowards and accomplices of his shame.
A very subtle moment in the beginning of psychological balancing when a lover appears on the stage is in which direction the spouse should start acting. It was only necessary to give a slack in the first step, as further by inertia carried this hero after him, he could not stop, it was categorically unusual for him to contradict the boss, whom he in the usual situation was afraid like fire, and here - such a ridiculous situation and under such absurd circumstances! No one wants to delve into these subtleties, because it is easier to take a ready-made incident and in fact condemn the guilty, automatically attaching himself to the host of other such “righteous judges”.
Conclusion. I watched the movie a few months ago and thought about it. I couldn't think straight away. Desperate times require desperate measures, or to paraphrase: a difficult situation requires difficult reflection.
The movie is extremely heavy, unpleasant to the disgust. I first saw it when I was young and it made a stunning impression. I just watched it again now. I didn’t really want to do it because I was doomed to touch something disgusting. The cinema is literally black, and partly because it is perestroika: everything from below was happily dragged upstairs, and the worse it was, the better. The school of mastery remained, and the vectors were strongly conquered, so it often turned out like this.
It’s hard for me to call this movie a good one because it leaves an unpleasant feeling. This is a heavy drama, hopeless, it touches the living, because it is a story about ordinary people who surround us all the time. Anyone can find themselves in such a situation, because before such a meanness, anyone can come sooner or later, just at different speeds, depending on many different reasons. But most importantly, it can come. And if you do not give yourself a sound understanding of this, it means to be a hypocrite and a coward, not the best character of Filozov. As they say, there is no such person who would withstand any torture (this is allegorical). So there's a lot to think about. (And if you grew up and lived in greenhouse conditions, do not even try, here on the principle of "fed hungry does not understand"; this remains only the self-loving: "If only I ...", "Yes, I would never ...", etc.)
If you evaluate the external TTX, the movie looks great, impeccable, unsurpassed. School again! If the internal content, it is incredibly bad: there is no way out, there is no role model, here everyone is total cowards and scoundrels, everyone hides “under the blanket” when it becomes unbearably bad (or would like to hide under it). There were moments when it was possible to change something, and no one here did it, while there is no remorse on the screen, the viewer does not understand how it was possible to get out of the situation. And tantrums on the windowsill or tales of the old labukh are the “exit” for infantils. Everyone makes mistakes, but not everyone corrects them. This film is about mistakes, not about fixing them. And I don’t enjoy the aesthetic pleasure of watching someone fall, no matter how beautifully they are presented.
Few people can understand and appreciate this film. I'm sorry. (I don’t know how to do this 50 times.) Is this not about being rude?
PS
Perhaps this is my protective reaction to the stress of the picture, I want to understand the reasons and find an excuse for the actions of the characters. That’s why I wrote so much about my husband. Maybe... Well, object if you don't. I haven't seen that version yet.
The question in the title is not simple, for someone it is typical, and who is not, but the situation itself is typical.
A young girl, realizing in her own skin the betrayal of her beloved decides to put an end to her parents. An accidental night call involves an outsider in a family conflict. What is to blame, entertaining himself with pranks on the phone running into the heroine, who decided to play along with the grief of the humorist.
Here and begins the most interesting, the daughter decides to bring everything to clean water, locked in the apartment mom and lover waiting for the hour of reckoning. The heroine sends a telegram to her father, so that he catches his faithful in treason. And an old joker, let him play people on the phone now let him do it with his own eyes.
Mother, realizing that the daughter is not joking trying to save the situation, but in vain there is no way back. She is angry, reproaches and explains to her daughter that her idea will come out without success. An aging musician entertains himself and the locked up as much as he can. This character is an irony here.
And then my father rushes home and what is it? The daughter, realizing the seriousness of the situation decides that she was in vain climbed into someone else’s garden, but there is nowhere to go. First, the head of the family is told the absurdity that an elderly man in their house is the groom of their child. The father does not believe at first, but after questioning convinces himself otherwise. Bye. ..
And what about the lover you ask, no, he did not forget he was waiting for his release and when the situation got to the point of absurdity, he decided to reveal himself. The head of the family, perplexed by the appearance of the boss in his apartment, begins to slowly fold the puzzle. Seeing the whole picture what, he does the right thing, knocks out all the irony, and then? He did not intend to do anything, he was comfortable living so without noticing anything. The wife, who tried to lead him to action and emotion, realized that she had lived her whole life with mediocrity and poured the remnants of her shame into her husband’s face. The truth was revealed, but it did not become easier, as in life.
The film is incredibly interesting if you look closely. As mentioned above, each character represents a human being. A musician is ironic, a daughter is true, a mother is a lie, a lover is shame, a lover is disappointment, a father is nothing. At least I saw it this way.
A great film and actors absolutely coped with their tasks.
But in general, watch films deeper and think about it from different angles, and you will be surprised how differently you can interpret the same picture.
10 out of 10
No one “fails” in a successful actor’s ensemble, but the colorfulness of the brisk-nosed Evstigneev cannot be eclipsed: in the image he is so organic that a guess inevitably overtakes him – Evstigneev himself in life, right, the red tape was still the same, and age was not a hindrance to him, and there was no shortage of those who responded to him by reciprocity ... In the film in the dance, he is already a little heavy, but he is confident, and even with such a young beauty - why not? Contentfully, the film fits into the frivolous genre of domestic “cooperative” cinema, characteristic of the turn of the 80s and 90s, looking definitely the best in artistic terms its model. The only conspicuous sin is the blowing of Evstigneev into a saxophone: the artist did not master the movements of his fingers, that it was quite possible to cut the boundaries of the frame. Bright episodic role - in 70 years - Maria Vinogradova: the old acting school.
I first saw this movie over 10 years ago. Then I was captivated, fascinated, fascinated by the incomparable game of Evstigneev, whom I already knew as cunning Koreiko, ' noble' Handleman, hard Sparrow. And then - such a charming old rogue, it did not occur to me at all that calling people at night is indecent. . .
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. What is always pleasantly striking - every viewing (the number of which has already exceeded 50) I find something new in the picture, for which the eye did not cling before, otherwise I watch some scenes. And that's true - every year Soviet actors play better.
In this film, everything came together perfectly - the brilliant play of actors, without exception, even episodics like a loader at the airport or a restaurant maitre d'hotel; the amazing music of Tariverdiev, the script of Merezhko, the directorship of Uskov and Krasnopolsky. . .
The immature motive of human betrayal, the survival of a lonely man under the mask of a balagur and the soul of the company, the first glimpses of the truly adult life of a greenhouse child who does not know what lies are; dissatisfaction with his spouse, coupled with love for him, grayness, pity, kindness on the one hand (Silin) and the sleek face of a calculating, selfish, overbearing boss (Yezepov) on the other. Priceless...
A very unexpected film for 1991. At this time, as a rule, opportunistic films were shot, and this pearl was among them undeservedly involved. The cast, of course, is beyond praise, otherwise it could not be, we will not return to this. But the plot itself deserves a separate conversation.
The play was written by a brilliant playwright, Victor Merezhko in the early 80s. Unfortunately, the original text could not be found, as it was not possible to visit any of the productions, so all the reflections are based on the film of the same name. If someone corrects and gives references to the original, I would be very grateful. The reader is expected to have watched the film carefully. If you are reading this to determine whether or not you want to watch the movie, then further text will not make sense.
So what do we have? There is a classic drama - husband, wife, lover. In addition to them, we have a daughter and a certain subject who appeared in the plot by accident. Literally by accident, he is a restaurant musician who is amused by calling the numbers of banknotes he received at a restaurant for playing the saxophone. It's worth a little digression: The musician does not play the piano, not the guitar, not the flute, but the saxophone. The saxophone is a unique instrument in some respects. He can play unaccompanied, he doesn't need other instruments. The musicians will understand. But this is not very important, let’s go further.
I warn atheists in advance, there will be similarities with the Bible. I believe that even the most ardent atheist, if he is sane, will not deny the universal meaning of biblical truths. We don’t expect much more than that.
At first glance, we see the situation quite well. But only at first glance. So, who is the “Labuch” who plays the saxophone? Labuch is a slang word for a musician who plays for money. On the street, in a restaurant, or anywhere else, it doesn’t matter. So who is this random participant in the drama? Where did it come from? Why is this character in the story? He says he remembers all the people in the face, and when we play, you don’t dance, and it hurts us musicians. Let's try to remember what else he said about himself. He lives in a dormitory, where everyone respects him and calls him “Grandfather”, not “the fornication,” as he first called himself. No event is complete without him. He lives there because he likes to live there. He has 7 wives and 12 children. Not 11 or 13, but 12. The hint is completely transparent. In the end, he says that he has no children, no wives, no loved ones, he is actually quite alone and all his joy is that he “performs when he is invited.” I think it makes no sense to say who exactly is under the image of the Musician.
A musician speaks very rarely with a boss. At one point, losing patience, he warns, “But here I can touch,” but these were only words. Maybe, but it won't. At the same time, he observes the growing conflict with Olympic calm, and does not even make attempts to change anything. He intervened only at the silent request of Olga, and when her father broke his lip, he did not answer. It is noteworthy that after the incident, he pushed back his hand with a handkerchief, which was handed to him by the Chief.
What kind of comrade is this, the Chief? Starting from the image already known to us, we will try to isolate the moments that will give a hint. The boss was not surprised to see the stranger, he even pretended not to notice him. Strange, isn't it? It seems that they actually know each other, and for a very long time, and they do not need to advertise. I saw you in my restaurant, you always sit in the corner of the back. This Chief has a lot of guises and a lot of names, you do not need to name them, anyway, the Musician will recognize him. As well as the head of the musician.
Let us return to the mortal heroes of the drama. Who's our wife? A woman who, on the one hand, seems to have made every effort for the well-being of the family, and on the other, let’s call things by their proper names, sold her soul for it. Here we go. It's simple and simple. Once she did it out of good intentions, but once she chose the easy way, she already lost the opportunity to change anything. Her relationship with her husband and the very concept of family were doomed. The most curious thing is that in a critical situation, she does not even think about her role, only looks for someone to transfer responsibility to. To a daughter, to a husband or to a lover, she does not care, so as not to answer. Even when Olga threw her apartment keys, she threw them back. The inability to make a choice reaches a grotesque form, and she believes that she “always made decisions”, and now it is not her turn. Let the husband decide. Or, at least, a daughter.
Husband Well, husband. Eat pears. In fact, the image of a small, malleable man has been played out countless times in literature. Weakness in the face of temptation, the desire to appropriate our laurels, but not to answer for anything ... all this is so natural to our nature, as it is pointless to discuss it. There's nothing to accuse him of. There was a human being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Pity him. That's it. It's not his fault. It's bad that you can't call him a man. And yet he is a real living man. He loves his daughter, loves his wife and... Musician. They all really do. There is no point in that.
Olga is a key character. It was she who assumed the responsibility of cutting the Gordian knot. From the beginning to the end, she felt responsible for everything. And when her mother actually refused her, her father fell to his knees before the Chief, and before that he raised his hand at her Guardian Angel, at the Musician, she had no choice but to open the window. The saxophonist took her in his arms directly from the window sill, but, knowing the essence of the Musician, there is no doubt on which side of the window sill she was. The last scene with an empty restaurant, his restaurant, leaves no opportunity to interpret otherwise.
The whole text is written by a person who does not believe in God, does not even accept such a concept as “God or faith”, and understands the concept of religion exclusively as a cultural phenomenon. Note given in case the text is perceived as religious propaganda.
A wonderful film about a family whose apparent well-being hides the most common human vices: cowardice and adultery. But the film, in my opinion, is much deeper than it seems. Moreover, perhaps the filmmakers deliberately tried to distract from allegories and land characters. The film is full of nude scenes, which, however, is typical for that period. and now about allegories: Alexander works as a musician in a restaurant, he really likes the work. He likes to make people feel beautiful. But do they see it?'We are very offended when people don't dance' he repeatedly repeats, while remembering everyone in person. Maybe it's because they're his kids. He has been married seven times and has twelve children. What does he mean? Did Alexander call the numbers at the beginning of the film? Was his interference fun, or was he trying to awaken the good in people who turned away from him? Maybe he is God himself. You can unwind the tangle of possible meanings of the film endlessly.
Maybe names mean something. And were Alexander and Olga (Conscience, Love, Beautiful) in the apartment that night? Did love perish the night my father knelt before the devil and his own cowardice and stopped fighting? There are a lot of unanswered questions and I think it’s a self-fighting movie. The wife justifies herself by cheating on her husband’s behalf, but was it the right path, albeit less difficult? The husband, entangled in his own weakness and cowardice, does not notice that his wife sold her soul, only he was stronger. And Love, with the help of God, trying to open their eyes and awaken their conscience, died, breaking her wings to be reborn again to the sound of a saxophone. . .
General impression: Take it off, you have to know. The film is so attractive and easy to understand that it seems such important topics as a family quarrel, treason, lies and betrayal, can not be played so easily.
But the two-part film drags into its narrative, filigree throwing from the drama into an ironic comedy. Oh, believe me, this is painfully funny and tragic at the same time. And the intimacy of the picture is only for the benefit, because so the viewer understands and feels the atmosphere more, pulling into the distance of the cramped room in which people are locked. Is it possible to say that 5 people in one room are closed by feelings? No doubt! Someone from a lack of attention and love, someone from rancid lies, and someone here for fun, which turned out to be not fun, but a real adventure. The night is long, but there will be a day, the closer the final, the faster the dots on the i.
Briefly about the plot: The husband is a subordinate. The lover is the boss. And a "wise" adult daughter who tries to save her father's reputation and catch her mother by dragging an unfamiliar restaurant saxophonist into this farce. Who will break more wood and how to get out of a delicate situation, being locked in a small apartment?
Incredible performance of actors, it is clear that everyone plays with his soul, and let you pay more attention to the saxophonist (Evgeny Evstigneev), who plunged into the role, surrendered completely to his charisma. Do not forget about such actors as Irina Alferova, Valentin Gaft, Albert Filozov. Each of the actors showed a whole range of emotions, forming a powerful theater team. All such multifaceted characters, and with what absolutely every hero, revealed in 2 hours from different sides! Isn't that a great script? Put the important in such timekeeping! That's great!
You can talk about Filozov for a long time, he was able to portray a man stuck in work, loving husband, but did not notice what was happening under his nose, and when the truth comes out, he is unable to accept it. His huge eyes, which are covered with a veil of tears, touches the heart, you can immediately see the acting skills!
I recommend you watch a movie, right now, for the sake of such a masterpiece game coupled with a delicate theme, it is worth it. The film will give you pleasure, definitely. And let some episodes seem fabulous to you, the deep essence is important, which is reflected here in actions and dialogues!
9 out of 10
The secret becomes apparent... But who is more comfortable with it?
Alexander Grigorievich Ondryushchenko is a musician in a restaurant, whose favorite fun is playing for money - he dials bill numbers like phones and pranks people. Involuntarily, he interferes in the family life of a seemingly prosperous family of the Soviet high middle class.
The absolute realization of the formula “secret becomes manifest”. Externally, a prosperous family on closer examination turns out to be a decayed cell of society, in general, also far from dysfunctional.
In addition, Merezhko, familiar with the ideological basics of Soviet script art, kind of sums up his script path (after fun, he did not create anything sensible) and the heroes of the past. Firstly, because it continues the theme of the decay of the Soviet intelligentsia, which arose in Soviet cinema at the turn of the 70-80s and his works too - the famous Flights in Dreams and in reality. Well, the efforts of Evgeny Evstigneev is the last stronghold of a decent Soviet man - a musician (the creator after all), but who hangs out on the Soviet "bottom" - lives in a hostel, plays in a restaurant and is called not a musician, but a labuchus, demonstrating the fall into the historical pit of what the Soviet system aspired to - a new man. One could even recall the Soviet classics in the person of Gorky with his pre-revolutionary still “At the bottom” – a man that sounds proud, even if he is a loser.
Who's lucky? Cynical and immoral functionary Ezepov (Valentin Gaft) and petty-selfish conformist Silin, covered by a noblely cheating wife.
Of course, this is still a playful trend of perestroika with glasnost - the exposure of an idealess management apparatus, but firmly standing on its feet privileges - an apartment, cognac, shitty wine, which seems to a person easier good, a Finnish tie, foreign tours ... And the price is small – forget where it comes from. Living a lie. In short, the humanitarian collapse of the Soviet system ...
It is also good that there is hope - a young girl inspires the idea that honesty is in the future. And Ondryushchenko becomes a memory of the almost forgotten 60s.
Naturally, such a story could be played only by very good actors - from the ensemble with Alferova, Filozov, Gaft and Evstigneev falls out except that the young Alexandra Kolkunova (daughter, by the way, Evstigneeva). Well, sadden not particularly necessary scenes with nudity, the gulba of the restaurant, easy too much with getting on the plane for the same cognac. But otherwise, great drama with prologue, epilogue and catharsis. And whether the late Soviet hope for honest young people was justified, it is up to each viewer individually to decide.
“Night fun” has two indisputable, for me, factors – the first human aspect in the plot, which captures, and the second game of Evgeny Evstegneev, which is fascinating.
The problems of betrayal, meanness and material well-being raised in the film are common and inherent in all people. Each of us makes our own choices and closes our eyes to what can interfere with the illusion of a prosperous life. On the screen we see a hypertrophied image of these phenomena. If betrayal, then obvious and irrevocable, meanness and rudeness pretentiously ostentatious, justification and illusion to the very bottom, when obvious things can not be overlooked. At the same time, the viewer sees sincere experiences and the nobility of the soul, which are also served to the very foundation of the essence of man. But for all the pretentiousness of the image, emotional experiences do not look farce, filled with the sincerity of the image, they organically fall into the canvas of the narrative. Yes, everyone has made his own choice, why and why for a second time, when you see the consequences that deprive some heroes of human dignity, while others, on the contrary, show the best features. The whole gamut of the human soul is revealed completely.
Evgeny Evstegneev is magnificent, his Alexander Andryushchenko reveals himself to the bottom, when he turns from an elderly hoodlum into a deeply lonely person capable of saving another person by self-sacrifice in a single impulse. The confession to Anna is apotheosis, and the subsequent scene is an explosion, after which calm begins to sound to the saxophone. The actor played so well and decorated the film with his role that the rest of the actors looked like the background of his benefit. But Valentin Gaft, Irina Alferova, and Albert Filozov played well, and their heroes were revealed, and the characters showed, but Evstegneev was the best. Separately, I will tell you about the heroine Alexander Kolkunova, who catalyzed due to the youth of her heroine, the process, and was not lost in the end when she saw Andryushchenko as a big soul, and not just a scabby old man. The actress was able to convey this process to the viewer.
The film is very good and the viewing will bring pleasure.
“It is sometimes very skillful or idle. And unexpected as a knife.
Pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple.
Oscar Wilde
There are films that you have high hopes for, like a millennial, a familiar fugitive convict or unfamiliar own offspring. There are films from which you do not expect anything special, but get a defrosting of emotions, a heart that went into a galloping rhythm and the realization that Homo Sapiens did not destroy the remains of Homo Gumanus in you.
When faced with betrayal, everyone reacts differently. Greenhouse girl Olya it almost crushed. Her condition is clearly conveyed by the change of personnel: here is a youth company, and after a second, animal muzzles from the walls of the restaurant with such a speaking name “Fauna”, where the seeming “eternal festival of the soul” is actually an almost identical gallery of faces, characters and vices. Among the guests of this Sabbath is a 55-year-old saxophonist Alexander Andryushchenko, aka Sashulya, aka Grandfather, aka Pribalda, aka Prince (hello to the textbook Goshe-Goge-Jore!). Who would have thought that a hooligan phone call on this dragged from fairy tale to fairy tale Prince will save a human life?
And the picture declares itself unassumingly. Before us, in a chamber setting, a stencil, with superficial acquaintance, prologue from the novel of upbringing is played out. Intelligent family of average income, the presentation of which begins with two beauties: mother Anna Nikolaevna (Irina Alferova) and daughter-student Oli (Alexandra Kolkunova). The head of the family Alexei Yurievich (Albert Filozov) - on a business trip, the girl is going to visit. Promisingly sparkle in the smile "mouth to ears, even the tie of the ears" emoji on her denim jacket. But chance will confuse the plans for all, and lies inconspicuous voracious worm lives already inside the narrative. First, she will hit Olga, sharpening her senses. Then, awakening her desperate adventurism and desire to play Themis, he will send an invitation ticket to the play of the home theater to the first telephone counter Alexander (Evgeny Evstigneev). And, finally, resonates in her parents’ apartment, highlighting a whole series of deceptions, among which the night pranks of an elderly musician will seem truly harmless.
And everything turned into a tornado, here you can not tell briefly,
And here is no longer to death - here is the life to deal with ...
(Alya Kudryasheva)
The truthful, soul-turning film, one of the best domestic, became such thanks to a rare alloy of precious components: script, acting, music, directing.
Not being able to see the contribution of Maria Merezhko to the writing of the script, the joint work in co-authorship with my father I appreciate the highest score. Victor Merezhko, a screenwriter and playwright, has a piece talent to depict Man and Woman in an everyday and extravagant confluence of events, alternating warm, humorous moments with sharp dramatic ones. This skill is fully revealed in Night Fun, where there is not a single casual dialogue, not a single passing scene. The scenes! Acrobatic tricks and the legacy of the “Winter evening in Gagra” – first-class tap dancing, “brothering” father-in-law with his son-in-law, the monologue of the restaurant “labukh” about his fate or his moment improvised love farewell to her mother Anna, begging for the salvation of a young girl, begging for the rescue.
It is time to say that Alexander Andryushchenko is the unambiguous acting luck of Evgeny Evstigneev. His extravagances, starting with the welcome "Salam-kalam!" and a foreboding voiced by the leitmotif "Raki is for a fight", as well as his solo - decoration of the picture, gold of the highest standard. How good he is in the role of an aging pseudolovelas, who amuses himself at night by fooling the heads of unknown people, but at the same time turns out to be the only one who does not hesitate to rush to the help of several of them at once! “I am all in youth, and youth is in me!” – resoundingly declares Sashulya, and in something is not cunning. Much older and more rigid when “opening” the family apple and removing wormholes from it look Silina’s spouses. Albert Filozov in the role of the spineless father-"rag", a modern "little man", able to humiliate the weakest, but humiliated by the strong, and Valentin Gaft, the bossing lover "without socks", and then eloquently pulling up trousers - perfectly played by two masters of the pole of one behavioral flaw. And, probably, for the first time I saw here in addition to the stunningly beautiful Irina Alferova-woman Irina Alferov-actress, put, however, in the usual circumstances of the same stunningly beautiful woman.
I can put the music of Mikael Tariverdiev for cosmic power and permeability along the chain of cells-capillaries-heart-consciousness-brain on a par with the music of Alexei Rybnikov and Ryuichi Sakamoto. I would never have believed that in the saxophone parts written by Tariverdiev for the “Night Fun”, one can hear the cry of a lonely soul and echoes of Bach’s organ works, but they are audible, and very clearly. Dilution in the sound more expensive to the film classic melodies of Glen Miller and Louis Armstrong does not diminish them at all, but makes them a hundred times more piercing.
What if the weighting of the tea program? Coffee? Shall we dance? with the sound of the “popped string” and the movements of his own conscience, she does not fear you in unison, welcome to the “Night Fun”! The picture turned out to be sharp, relevant at all times, youthfully intolerant of any lies and maturely wise. The swan song of the creative tandem of Krasnopolsky-Uskov, Evgeny Evstigneev and Soviet cinema...
- In suspicious combinations, I ask you not to involve me!
When the film takes place in the same room, the bet is placed more on the actors. They are able to play a simple scenario so that you forget about everything around you and look in one breath. And I felt it with all my heart, because in this movie the actors are amazing.
Has Major Pavlov searched you yet?
I just bow to the boundless talent of Eugene Evstigneev! He captured everything completely, charmed as if I personally knew the saxophonist Sashulya and he was the only ray of light, hope in the dark of another family. Humor, liveliness, “slackery”, behind which hides, only known to him, longing and loneliness.
Wait a minute, what's that laugh?
- Sorry, that's nervous... Are you really 20?
21st is gone, should I go?
Valentin Gaft is harmonious and beautiful in the role of a complacent and insolent boss-lover. He was incomprehensible to me until the end while sitting in the bedroom. But in the end, his image was just a fireworks display in a rotten environment. His audacity has no limit and until the very end he continues to press, which was crowned with “success”.
Irina Alferova is beautiful. In her behavior, at first, she seems simple and banal. But in the end, when she is tired to endure and she explodes, sick spots are exposed, which, it turns out, do not cease, even if you pretend that they do not exist. And if at first she is ready to whip her daughter on the cheeks for this exposure of the truth, then in the end she exhaled. What I have long been asking for out there.
Do you have any idea?
- I'm afraid to guess.
Albert Filozov in the role of the father caused many different emotions. From a simple sympathy at the beginning, to a terrible incomprehensible pity at the end. It's a terrible feeling when another person looks so pathetic. He's weak, he's cowardly. Until the last day, I was hoping he wouldn’t do it. But he did.
In general, its place was clear - warm, cozy, home, family, something you can close your eyes. But there comes a time when everything collapses and you have to make a choice. And he makes it... The ending for me is a heat of emotions and nothing concrete can be said.
Alexandra Kolkunova as a daughter. The girl, whose concepts and values were shattered one evening, gave in to the impulse and opened Pandora's box. I have no idea what the consequences will be. It is obvious that, if you do not regret, then she began to doubt even when she saw a taxi out the window. But everything went like an avalanche and nothing could be done. The heroine is quite understandable - young, naive and it seems to her that everything is very simple, that if you bring everyone to clean water, it will be like in fairy tales - good will prevail, the scoundrels will be ashamed and punished. But this is not a fairy tale and everything turned out differently, due to human qualities.
Why did you start?
- What a fool!
The film was a revelation to me. And another wave of warmth to amazing actors.
10 out of 10
There's a family in the world. At first glance, it looks good. Three-bedroom apartment in the center of Moscow. Beautiful wife. Good daughter. And Dad is the middle-hand man. Friends are probably jealous, colleagues too, and only the spouse knows at what cost this prosperity was achieved. One day my daughter finds out, by accident. And decides to call the father from a business trip, so that he found his beloved wife with a lover in the marital bed. And for reliability, he invites a casual acquaintance, a restaurant "labuch" to visit. Sasha, who is in his 60s, is amused by the fact that at night after the restaurant closes, he calls the numbers from cash bills, like on the phone. She invites him to visit and locks the apartment, and her mother declares that Alexander “Sashulya” is her fiancé. And here in the apartment between them tied up the clarification of the relationship. And then the father arrives, and the lover has not gone anywhere.
It would seem that this simple plot can be put and thriller, and melodrama. Or maybe a psychological drama. Or comedy. Directors Uskov and Krasnopolsky choose the path of stylization, bordering on parody. Up to a point. Until all the actors get together in one room. And there comes the very catharsis for which it is worth watching this whole movie. From start to finish, although sometimes, especially in the middle pulls to put the player on rewind. The last 15 minutes of the painting is something. In my opinion, this is the “gold reserve” of our cinema.
Here we learn where this family well-being came from. Or rather, what price each of the heroes paid for it. That the whole career of a husband is the merit of the wife, or rather the payment of her lover, and concurrently the boss of her husband. And that the husband knew about it, but was afraid to think, and pretended that he did not know. He does now. But Sashuly, who stood up for his wife, he beats. Because he can't fight back. How to beat stray dogs when they take their souls away. He's a homeless man. Painful in trifles of life, he is a tramp, hiding under the mask of a jester the face of a sad clown. Sitting to the last in a restaurant, he takes his time home because no one is waiting for him. And all these stupid calls are just trying to prove to yourself that someone else needs you. Let's have one night.
It is worth admitting that one of the most undoubted advantages of individual samples of Soviet cinema (to which the subject of this review absolutely deservedly belongs) is a rather rare (and therefore so valuable) property to introduce the viewer into a conditional boundary state between reality and fantasy, common sense and clouding of reason, between radio and qualia. Such works go beyond the usual viewer experience, affecting the depths of the subconscious and leaving an indelible trace there, unwittingly contributing to the reassessment of values and the revision of life guidelines. In other words, it is difficult to convey the range of feelings and the flow of thoughts that arise in consciousness after watching “Night Fun” – the undoubted creative success of the permanent duo Krasnopolsky-Uskov, who brilliantly implemented the original concept of Victor and Maria Merezhko, supported by outstanding acting works of masters and masters of domestic cinema. In the best traditions of puzzle film mosaics, we have an uncompromising view of the immortal vices of society, only at first glance embodied in the images and characters of the beginning of the fateful dashing 90s. You can choose words of delight for a long time, but you have to agree that they are not able to express the fullness of the message inherent in the film, so the best option would be to try to directly analyze the picture and try to isolate its components with one sole purpose - for the subsequent reduction of components into a single picture of ringing splendor.
They were destined to meet that evening. An evening that will change everyone's fate. An evening that will only be the beginning. The beginning of the night, during which each of them will look into each other's eyes and express what is hidden in the depths. Resurrection of hopes, paternal wisdom, universal forgiveness, which appeared as an elderly troubadour-pranker (brilliant Evgeny Evstigneev), in which a reference to the masterpieces of Scorsese and Kubrick is easily read, in which the main character at his own risk is put into a night Odyssey full of dangers. Purity of thoughts, spiritual openness and sincere unblemished faith, forcing you to pinch the heart with incredibly slender legs of Alexandra Kolkunova - incredibly similar to Fellinian Kabiria and remotely (pardon for the difference of sexes) with Randall McMurphy, who came from the pen of Ken Kesey. The sadness and penalized fate of the lost generation, whose hour was so short and fleeting (the masterpiece of Albert Filozov, in which the anachronism and naive belief in the inviolability of the family inherent in the Visconti Professor is easily read). The tragedy of the sacrificial loneliness of Irina Alferova - and this is 5 years before the Trier trilogy about the Golden Heart. The incarnation of the devilish gloss (or patchwork devil, which in the context of the film is the same) is the inimitable Valentin Gaft, with his destructive negative charisma worthy of tangibly moving Burgevo Alex from the pedestal. On that night, these characters will become captives of a web of lies. For every second change of masks and guises, the viewer will be lost in search of a connecting thread, a key that would allow to fully understand all the nuances and shades of the story told. But after a famously twisted flirtation with the viewer, the filmmakers will be extremely cruel in their honesty towards each of the characters, without further words stunning us with an unprecedented finale. In short, we are presented with the concept of the following content: the obvious sinfulness of lies, stimulating the futile catharsis of a weak-willed person in conjunction with the collapse of family values represented by an act of sacrificial altruism. Hand on heart, it is difficult to immediately find analogues in world cinema, embodied such a meaningful message.
In addition to brilliant dialogues, ingeniously building the dramaturgy of action, it is impossible not to ignore the excellent directorial work. It is no coincidence that the film begins with a demonstration of heterogeneous orchards, designed to paint a picture of the world in which the characters of the film live (but are they only heroes?). The beginning of the film not only takes us from one place to another, hinting at the potential of the work as a whole, but also pleases with a curious metaphor, realized exclusively by cinematic means. In one of the initial episodes of the film under the conditional name "at a party", in which the moral convictions of the heroine Kolkunova pass a painful test of strength, her shkodnyh companion (whose name is not worthy not only of mention, but also of existence as such) unambiguously studies a woman of a rather specific disposition, diligently learning Lambada on the table and not shying about sharing her experience. Further, for a permissible author of such a scale as Krasnopolsky (Uskov is still a separate conversation, right), a metaphor follows, at first glance, designed to simplify (but as we will understand later – complicate) perception. Dirty thoughts of a lecher in the years materialize and from all honest company diligent dancer stands out not only lack of clothes, but also underwear. The intentions of the shameless are more than transparent, but at this point the character of Kolkunova intercepts his gaze - and also sees the girl in the above specific form. It is a pity that Paul Thomas Anderson will not dare to realize the telepathic ecstatism of this kind. This episode, by the way, despite its power, is perhaps one of the least impressive in the film, but it perfectly sets the overall tone and mood of the upcoming opus.
The greatest omission will be not to mention the very symbolically loaded image of the film, as the crayfish, acting in this story a little bit like such conditional "heralds of the Apocalypse", prophesying chaos and destruction, angrily falling on the shoulders of the heroes of the film with another injection of cathartic revelations. The verdicts of the authors are close to disappointing, but do not rush to conclusions. There seems to be a way out...
A separate mention is the musical accompaniment from Mikael Tariverdiev, who accumulated and developed the main motives of his work in the soundtrack to “Night Fun”. Thanks to him, the finale of the film reaches a metaphysical level, rising above the most talented life writing of the unworthy of this world. The frightening emptiness of the auditorium (the restaurant devastated in the morning certainly symbolizes this), always ready to receive the viewer, who knows how to compassion and think, is violated by the singing of the saxophone lyre. Divine Music echoes from the corners of the spacious hall, ready to receive those who find the way to it, reminding of the unshakable eternity of art. The Creator is always ready to share it, and the casual sufferer thanks the author with tears of tenderness and repentance. Art will live only when it reaches those who are ready to receive it. As you can see, there will always be one. And thanks to this symbiosis, it will live. It? Of course I mean the movie...
A film about the tragedy of a “little” man. This topic was loved by Dostoevsky and Ostrovsky. But their little man, as a rule, was always only pathetic, here he is not only pathetic, but also quite disgusting. Learning that his career is not only and not so much his merit, he behaved in the most vile way. And the final scene, despite the absolute unreality of what is happening, is quite plausible. This is the only way a small, narrow-minded, but overly ambitious person could behave in this situation. And pity after all the events is not him at all, but those to whom this person was dear - a daughter and a wife.
I absolutely agree with the statement that this film is a swan song by Evgeny Evstigneev. He's just great as an old restaurant musician. Here you can find echoes of several of his other wonderful roles: for example, the tap dancer Beglov from “Winter evening in Gagra”, Vasily Vasily Vasilyevich from “I still love, still hope” (with his lifelong deep feeling for one single woman).
Since the movie was shot already in the 90s, it was impossible to do without bed scenes and not the greatest talent of the young pretty actress. Against the background of Evstigneev, Filozov, Gaft and partly Alferova (which, in my opinion, did not play her best role), Kolkunova looks somewhat pale. Though not hopeless. But despite this, the film can only be put
As I said when I was a student, one lecturer said: “The question is not idle, the question is very serious.” There is a healthy irony in my words, so this is not the worst thing in life. But what happened to the heroes of the film “Night fun” is much more significant.
Pay attention to who made the film. It's not some old morons, not at all. These are rightfully honored directors Vladimir Krasnopolsky and Valery Uskov, who created a gallery of unforgettable films, including my favorite “Eternal Call” and “Stewardess”. Therefore, it was reasonable to assume that “Night fun” will not fall out of the overall series of paintings made by these creative people.
And the film lived up to expectations. Combining genres is a difficult task, but the filmmakers successfully coped with it. It would seem that the topic of marital infidelity is boring! How many films and books have been created and will be created on this topic. But this movie has its own thing. Both husband and lover are in the same apartment for a long time. One is strong and confident, although he still feels not at his plate, and the other is opposite, weak and weak-willed, trying to close his eyes to the obvious. I mean, my husband. But that's not all. It is not clear what fates in the apartment there is another character, saxophonist Andryushchenko (Eugene Evstigneev). And here begins the chaff and carousel in the native Russian style.
Megafantastic game of Evstigneev and company. In the top ten selected actors, take at least an insidious cheater Anna, performed by Irina Alferova or the macho of our local bottling Ezepov (Valentin Gaft), who with his animal grin will convince anyone that he is still wow! Well, the music of Mikael Tariverdiev, brings together this wonderful performance. To watch and not forget Russian actors!
10 out of 10
I was able to immerse the film in its atmosphere. This atmosphere of quarrel, anxiety, anxiety seemed to hang in the air. True, I have not been in such situations where in the same apartment there is someone who was cheated and someone with whom they cheated, but the atmosphere of a very serious quarrel, the fear of this quarrel, I think everyone experienced. Especially when I was a kid. "Smells of fear of punishment" sang "Time Machine."
And in the film, thanks to the acting, this terrible atmosphere is very clearly felt not just quarrels, but the collapse of the family. The viewer becomes a witness as the “cell of society” crumbles. Long, slow, but true.
The final test for the father of the family seemed doubtful. I can’t say that the episode is by the ears, but I still felt that I’m directly squeezed emotions. Pity or contempt, sympathy or indignation, but began to be deliberately squeezed out, because the realism of what was happening was not very believed. But everything happens.
