You can talk about the plot of this story for a long time, so I will try to highlight only the main thing.
The title of the picture is partly successful, only in relation to the form of presentation. Frankly, after living such a situation, it is difficult to make any meaningful afterword, you can only convey surprise and emotions, which is what Myagkov’s hero is doing here.
In meaning, this story shows the viewer that attention to older parents is good, lack of attention is bad; older parents painfully experience such inattention, especially if these parents are truly decent people, intelligent and emotionally sensitive. That’s the whole story.
Obviously, the filmmakers wanted to show two completely different human beings, two different types: the right person and the wrong person. The father-in-law, of course, is correct: he has experienced much, seen everything, he is a storehouse of knowledge and experience, he is an intellectual and an intellectual, large-scale personalities are eager to meet him. The son-in-law on the background of his father-in-law is wrong: mired in materialism, constantly sucking a cigarette, with the “wrong” home library, with the “wrongly organized” workplace, with the “wrong” razor and the “wrong” skin on the wall, his “friend” requires Magarich for translating the phrase from French. These wretched nitpicking on closer inspection seems ridiculous, but when you see a prehistoric creature encounter a newborn lamb, you involuntarily imbue yourself with respect for the first and smile condescendingly about the second. The form here sets the semantic context, but, unfortunately, it is not always in the top ten. And in real life, too. Everything will find a worthy explanation if you immerse yourself in a certain way of life: being determines consciousness; living with wolves is howling like wolves; telling me who your friend is and I will tell you who you are; stretching out your legs on clothes; not us, this is life. . .
. . Yes, the atomization of society is the scourge of big cities, and often people on the same entrance platform know almost nothing about each other. At least if they say hello. The smaller the settlement, the more “you cannot hide from people in the village”. But, yes, that's life! This has pros and cons, because you can not be a good neighbor, if these neighbors are several hundred, and not two or three neighborhood huts. Procrustean bed of the metropolis sets its rhythm of life. . .
There was always intrigue about the possible serious illness of his father-in-law, which he seemed to be hiding, and everything looked like an attempt at a suicide date with his daughter. I thought it was superfluous, because the film is not about that. And blackmail of this kind is too crude a game if we are talking about real life and real “spiritual cruelty”: should such people feel pity? The old man can only be lamented and indignant, but who is to blame for the fact that the affectionate “canker” turned into a cracker? And instead of crushing, is it not better to address directly: “I am waiting for you to visit,” or more often to come by yourself, but not as snow on your head, but as a human warning. But the right people, of course, know how to do the right thing. Although they often act impolitely, and do not even notice it.
By the way, in one episode, the old man also acts very cruelly towards his son-in-law, frankly, like a pig. And he doesn't apologize! If this is the attitude of a man to his neighbor, then what can he expect in return? . .
Special. Characteristically, during the entire film, the father-in-law never (never!) called his son-in-law by name, i.e. for a whole week of living together; the viewer learns about the name of his son-in-law only from a random interview. I don’t know how to explain it, it looked extremely strange, as some additional invisible, but still convex boundary between these characters. There was no disrespect, snobbery, domination, nothing like that. But the constant “my dear” and other pronouns are strange. Even more strange is that the situation with the son-in-law is a complete analogy! He also never addressed his father-in-law by name, including “dad”, although he spoke to him by “you”. Extremely perplexed! Perhaps that was the script to emphasize the alienation between these people. I don’t think it was a good decision, everything else was enough.
Conclusion. The picture is deeply philosophical. She's really amazing. Unfortunately, it does not end with anything specific, but it makes you think a lot.
PS
I saw this movie for the first time at a young age and have not watched it since. He made a really deep impression and was remembered forever, even in small details. I looked at it with pleasure, I can say, kept it in a stash.
It was after this film that I was excited to get a real Zolingen, and I got it! And shaved this razor for several years, until stupidly tired of these archaic nonsense - reality decided, "love boat crashed against everyday life."
Since then, I have always had a perfect workplace, wherever it is. This is how a different feature film can suddenly and firmly affect a person. . .
By the way, I was very impressed when I first came face to face with people’s disunity and distrust of each other when I first came to St. Petersburg in the early nineties. I was with a friend on leave in the city, and in the evening I was very thirsty, went into the entrance and called the apartments – so I had to go up many, many floors before I was served a glass of water, and also very surprised that I really want to drink. And I was surprised that such a simple desire caused such a surprise. These contrasts make one think of a prudent line between natural humanity and a miserable reluctance to manifest it. I still wonder how you can not open the door if someone calls. In the evening, all the windows were on fire.
I cannot begin with a domestic headline, because the picture captured by Comrade Khutsiev bears not so much the pain of generations as the pain of humanity, going through generations and imprinted deep inside.
To put a household situation is not a difficult task and, on the one hand, we have already seen this. But it is necessary to add only a few grains of deep and eternal melodies and everything is transformed into an incredibly capacious and complex design that refracts the light emitted by the mechanism of our everyday life.
When the lights go out, we remain in a world of shadows. The whole film will remain in the dark that the darkest and most sinister night for man came at the moment when there was not a single unlit corner.
From the threshold, we are given to understand that life is ... no longer a young, but not yet an old protagonist - a consequence of his movement by inertia, set by the unknown by whom. This ignorance is ignorant and faceless, but perfectly visible to a person who has passed through life.
Alexei Borisovich, who has already passed and crucified wars, and the loss of friends, and raised a family and more than once gave light to life to our world, everything seems clearer. He can compare, he can add up what is observed in the past and the present into a picture visible to him alone.
But he cannot do what inhumanly destroys entire generations from year to year: Alexei Borisovich is not able to bring everything that is inside him as a gift to his son-in-law.
In general, the stereotypical relationship of son-in-law and father-in-law is a subject for many judgments. It is they who are in front of us, but the people are not completely spoiled, where one nevertheless reached out to the other.
It is worth paying attention to how those who are connected with him by blood ties relate to Alexei Borisovich. Neglect, antipathy, irritation, an attempt to erase from his life a person who has rejected the “gift” of the industrial mechanism.
Through the trained patterns, the same bits of understanding of what is happening around Vladimir appear. He doesn’t realize that his father-in-law has said goodbye. He knows that no one will ever come after him. The era of his youth, followed by a difficult era, but shining in the light of friendship, sealed with blood, will not be sung by anyone. Our small but human stories, like raindrops, sweep under the roar of thunder, obeying the laws of the world in which they found themselves for a brief moment and most of them are unlikely to meet.
But sometimes, for a moment, if this happens, the drop will become something greater than the bola before, supplementing itself with what was in the one whose life she had never known before.
A magnificent and very powerful picture of true values born incredibly rarely and at an incredibly high cost. And how they will go unnoticed amid the reigning apathy.
Alexei Borisovich is not behind life. We are far behind and, for most of us, irreversible. But those who still, at least for a moment, will be able to catch up with what is elusive, while you run and rush, rushing headlong into nowhere, those of us will be able to leave their Afterword, behind which, perhaps, our image will be seen by those who are just beginning to see their way through the pitch darkness.
An amazing thing – before the Afterword, I watched the American film directed by D. Hamburg “Why Him?” (2016) with James Franco in the title role. And willy-nilly I had to compare both pictures - especially since the material for comparison is fertile. Yes, these are completely different epochs (the USA of modernity vs. the apogee of Soviet stagnation), these are diametrically different characters (the recklessness of the young and the conservatism of the old in the first case and the openness of life, the almost childish curiosity of the old man against dryness, “subtleness”, indifference of the young (well, “middle-aged man”) in the other). But the essence is still the same – the clash of generations, their inability to understand each other despite the fact that they speak the same language, they are united by the cultural field, the common past of the country, and, in the end, their relatives. Of course, there is no confrontation in the second film, moreover, the characters are full of warm feelings for each other, peaceful and kind. But the contrast does not become faded because of this.
Although "Afterword" is very stingy in color. The restraint of emotions and feelings is reinforced by the phlegmatic character played by the great Andrei Myagkov. He is a dissertator, engaged in work that he himself is not interested in; I suspect that family life has become so desalinated that the departure of his wife on a business trip did not bring any variety to his dull life. Depressing, and this is provided that he has the opportunity to travel the world and explore the safari, and in the future he plans a trip to the States (and in the yard 1982-1983!). Yes, routine is able with incredible cruelty to absorb interest in life, making it a wrinkled cloth. And then an unexpected whirlwind bursts in, a hurricane simmering in an already elderly surgeon who has passed the war, and many years of glorious but complex medical work - the test of the main character, whose role is played by the even greater Rostislav Plyatt. And throughout the film (chamber in its essence, because the two characters together we see mainly only within the apartment) we see the meeting of two generations, and the balance of forces is discouraging: the old father-in-law is full of energy, he is still as, probably, 70 years ago, happy with a thunderstorm and enthusiastically welcomes it, he sprinkles quotes of classics and learns unnecessary ancient Greek language. He wants to go to the circus, he meets with old comrades, and what is there, he even does laundry, while his children have long relied on this household issue on laundry.
What about his son-in-law, a man apparently 40-45 years old? His day looks alike. He gets up, sits down at the typewriter, and, lighting one cigarette after another, painfully squeezes out the scientific text. It seems to him that the current work interferes with his research, and for this the hero of Myagkov goes on vacation. And it turns out that it is not the work that hinders him, but he himself. Everything is subject to the standard routine, life is essentially mechanized. What can not be said about the test-southern: here he is in the south and active, and you can expect anything from him daily.
There is no conflict between them. Myagkov (which is characteristic, the names of the main characters are not named in the film, so you have to address the names of the artists), although somewhat irritated by the sanguineness of the Plyat, but kind, courteous and attentive to him. The board, in turn, may be annoying, but understands that his participation is not always appropriate. But in these small details - inefficiencies and ineffects, when, for example, the Plate bursts into a long, interesting monologue, and Myagkov says nothing in response - a lot is shown.
Urban life with its fuss, the requirement of constant concentration, activation at work and everyday problems erases a lot of human in a person. What's the storm? Not a miracle of nature, but a potential threat to stable electricity in the entrance. That's why so irritated going out into the pitch darkness of the staircase neighbors who do not know each other at all. “Where are we going?” asks his father-in-law, seeing lifeless gray new buildings, from one kind of which his teeth shrink. "It's Tushino," the son-in-law replies. “Yes, and there was a Tushino thief here?” "Scarce, scanty" - the old man answers with annoyance. How can I not be annoyed? This view does not please the eye, but there are 400 apartments, no less. In every life, in every life, and in every life, there is a story. And the further, the more these stories merge with each other into a single whole of the “history of the Soviet man”, the history of life of the Soviet man, the history of blinkeredness and conceit. This is not a stone in the garden of the USSR, it is rather bitterness, because we, the present, have received this sad legacy. We have become accustomed to seeing the great in the small, to enjoy even the smallest events, and many still have books as decorations.
But not everything we inherited from the Union. First of all, the “hereditary mass” did not include the ability to make such films – and most importantly, to watch them. Yes, the era has changed, to shoot (write, sing, play) as before is no longer relevant, it is old, it is epigony, but therefore such undervalued creations as, for example, “Afterword”, do not lose their charm, but, perhaps, on the contrary, they acquire it every year.
9 out of 10
Andrey Myagkov — in an intellectual film from Marlena Khutsiev
It’s hard to evaluate this movie right now. The fact is that it, without a doubt, must be put on a par with the contemplative tapes of Myagkov of that period - "Letargy", "Look", "You wrote to me"... And against their background, Khutsiev's film does not look like a leader.
But you need to understand the magic of the name of Khutsiev, who did not shoot for a long time. His film was waiting and “Afterword” then attracted attention, pushing other films.
Now I would compare this psychological trip with the tapes of Krzysztof Zanussi and Antonioni. A close-up portrait of a successful middle-aged man. Career, apartment, car, wife (assuming that the entire value series is built in descending order) – all right. They look at them with envy.
The conflict is built on the fixation of several days of communication with a stranger, in fact, a man - the father of his wife with whom there is practically no communication. This is a man of old temper and living on his own rhythms, far from the capital. No scandals - just a clash of ideologies.
By the way, a few years earlier, Nikita Sergeevich put his “Rodnya”, which was exactly the same, just “closer to the people”, “simple”. Khutsiev tried to charm the viewer with another - a breakthrough of the wall between the viewer and the artist, a special arrhythmia combining boring everyday life and "explosive moments", a bet on an actor's duet. Myagkov and Plyatt were apparently pleased with each other - their duet turned out to be very energetic.
Memorable episode of lights out - click... And the capital city dweller is irritated. His whole life changed. Rubik... and the sweet pace of life is over. If it were not for the balagura of the Plyat, then the excellent gloom of Myagkov could not be so clearly revealed ...
And yet, the film is simple. The storyline is not enough to fully “flash out” the talent of Khutsiev. This is the case when there was not enough spark.
In all respects, this film was prepared as an event, if not decades, then years. And it turned out too modestly, mannerly, simply and simultaneously - contemplatively. Perhaps it was necessary to sharpen, reveal and intrigue the viewer ...
Perhaps that is why “Rodnya” remained in the memory of the audience – a film that certainly did not pretend to be aesthetic and refined.
6 out of 10
You can be happy, can't you? Oh, that's your rotten business, son.
- Why are you so excited?
- Well, it's me, brother, I don't know what to be happy about. If you can, rejoice, if you can't, then sit. They don't ask.
'Kalina Red', 1973, dir. V. Shukshin
Rhythm. Temp-temp. Speed. The capital is a perpetual movement. Only for the night a little quieter, silenced life. A little nap. And people are involved in streams, columns, lines. Cars, subway trains, trains of the surrounding streams carry and carry masses to the heart of the world & #39; To work, to rush, to bustle. Faster, faster. You should. Rhythm. Temp-temp. Speed-speed. She and him, husband and wife. They. In case. In the jet. In his element. Every day. Year after year. Run. Fast. Even a vacation - and he is at his own expense and for business. For the dissertation. This is the character of A. Myagkov. Close your house and...work! Such is the wife, the character of L. Zorina. Father's coming from the south to stay, according to the telegram. But once, once. Not to sentiment. Let the son-in-law meet his father-in-law someday. Is the women’s share in Moscow easier? Business trip ' on the nose '. And no delay. This is the plot of the story.
Human robots? Human machines? What is it? Contemporaries. Is it different now? The painting is dated as early as 1983. Nothing has changed. Career. Business. Concerns. We sell ourselves here and there. Turn around. Climbing. More, more. No way. This is the world of the present.
And how it is characterized by Marlene Hutsiev. What are the author's sketches in the demonstration? Spouses. No kids. And probably never will. He's over 40. Her too. The dog is the watchman 'good' and an outlet for warmth. Right? Right? The dog is a member of the family.
The apartment is a full bowl. But one of the rooms turned either into a warehouse, or ' in a stable'. You got your hands? Don't get it? Is repair necessary? Or is it a permanent fix?
Machine ' Volga', by Soviet standards top chic, attribute of wealth, position. An early business trip to the United States emphasizing the status in society among tribesmen. And the home library (a thing for the 80s about a lot talking) is quite crumplish, scarce.
We see the directorial dispersal in the comparison, the opposition of these two figures - by the will of circumstances, like two bears placed in one den. The old man (R. Plyatt), despite his age and complexion, is young in soul, enthusiastic, light. And the learned husband (A. Myagkov) is dry, skeptic. When did he fade? When did phlegm prevail in him? So what? Everyone is happy in their own way. They're just different temperaments. Right? Nope? Maybe. Of course.
So what's the drama? What is the main ' feature ' this picture? In the reflection. In a mirror image.With refraction. Having come into contact with the world of another person for a few days, he felt the attractive power and power of an unsaturated, not forgotten how to enjoy elementary things ' giant'. War is on his shoulders, blood, countless deaths, and he says trivial things - do you like bread? What question? Bread? Who doesn't love him? So what? ..
How here again not to remember Alexei Balabanov and Danila Bagrova:
As you said, the city is a force, and here everyone is weak.
- The city is an evil force. The strong come, become weak, the city takes power.
Classic Soviet cinema. It's ageless. And it's always relevant.
Khutsiev is considered by many to be a chronicler of the post-war USSR. Two Fedor (1958) and The Month of May (1970) told about the time immediately after the end of the Great Patriotic War. “Spring on Zarechnaya Street” (1956) and “Ilyich Outpost” (1962) spoke about the era of hopes – Khrushchev’s thaw, “July Rain” (1966) as if continued the story of the generation of youth of the turn of the 50-60s, but already at the beginning of Brezhnev’s stagnation. “Afterword” (1983) – the third part of a kind of trilogy, started by the films “Ilyich Outpost” and “July Rain”.
I think many of you have encountered annoying relatives who have no sense of empathy at all (I hope you are not that kind of relative yourself). So in this film to Vladimir (Andrey Magkov), without asking anyone, at the most inopportune moment comes to visit his father-in-law to see his daughter. Only now the daughter at this time went on vacation, and the husband also took a vacation, and at his own expense, to calmly write a dissertation. Despite the fact that Alexei Borisovich (Rostislav Plyatt) is 75 years old, he does not sit still and he bothers his son-in-law in every possible way. But gradually Vladimir realizes that the strangeness of this elderly relative is due primarily to his love of life and still a sincere desire to make his son-in-law learn to live fully.
Of course, the old man is really immeasurably backward from life (for example, shaves a dangerous razor), somewhat hypocritical and his lack of desire to reckon with the interests of his son-in-law is very repulsive. But the closer you get to the finale, the more you realize that our 40-year-old hero is not perfect either: he is really too stiff, clamped, boring and does not even want to get out of his shell sometimes. And, as it turned out, the fact that the dissertation is not written is not the fault of the father-in-law, but something inside Vladimir himself.
The filmography of Marlene Khutsiev once again confirms the idea that the films of any great artist should be familiarized in chronological order. Tracing the ideological similarity between “Ilyich Outpost” and “July Rain” allows you to answer many questions, in particular, why the hero still can not write this notorious thesis. Afterword is another attempt to paint a portrait of an era, this time of late stagnation, when the last hopes to make their lives and the lives of their people better within the framework of an established ideology have completely disappeared. I think it is no coincidence that the hero is about 40 years old, that is, he is a representative of the same generation, which told the Director in the first parts of the trilogy. But in the beginning and in his heart there was still hope.
Another question is, why the “afterword”? Of course, Khutsiev was not going to finish his career in the 80s. The thing is different: this title emphasizes the ideological continuity with his other films and sums up a peculiar feature. And in my opinion, this picture conveys the spirit of the era much more accurately and voluminously than Roman Balayan’s Flights in Dream and Reality (1982), which told about the hero of about the same age (Oleg Yankovsky). This film is considered almost an example of a film work of late stagnation and for some reason against its background is pushed to the background not only “Afterword”, but also a wonderful picture of Georgy Danelii “Tears of Kapali” (1982).
It is always interesting when two opposites are encountered in works. Here is a 30-year-old son-in-law whose life corresponds fully to the city and the surrounding weather, and the other is his father-in-law, 70, who became so full of knowledge that he reached Zen. He rejoices in this world and remains not indifferent even to small things.
Mental dryness is as much a sin as envy. It is it that allows us to stand idle, to strive for nothing, and to look detachedly at the sweeping life. Indifference leads to cruelty. First to yourself and then to others. And if you are even the most polite and noble person, if you do not have emotions and feelings, you are doomed. Doomed to loneliness (not always physical), longing, fatigue, lack of meaning in life and inability to pay attention to people.
Everyone in our lives plays a role. It can be a best friend who inspires you to improve yourself, a meeting with a longtime acquaintance who turned your ideas and ideas the other way, or even a millisecond glimpse of the silhouette of a person who is completely unfamiliar to you, but has already changed you and your whole life. In the film, it is the usual visit of his father-in-law to his son-in-law, who for both became a turning point. People always leave scars on our bodies from moments and memories.
Life is given for a meaningful existence. You cannot be in a fast rhythm all the time. You need to stop sometimes to relax and enjoy what is happening. Slowly drink expensive champagne, not overturning vodka. After all, the more measured and slower you live, the deeper you feel this life, and if you live fast, you just rush through it and feel it superficially.
I’ve already heard a lot about the film and I’m glad all the comments are positive. All this is correct, but I would like to note one important detail that is of great instructive value. The hero R. Plyatta loves life in all its manifestations: this is seen in the way he enjoys sniffing and admiring the tobacco of his son-in-law, while saying that he never smoked, but really wanted to; and in the way he reacts to the rain, catching his drops with his trembling fingers; and in many other episodes. Perhaps this is typical of old people, but from the way my father-in-law looked at the footage of the chronicles of the Second World War, I concluded for myself that he also has such a love for life because he survived all these horrors. Of course, God forbid us to survive the war, but as Admiral S. O. Makarov said: “Remember the war!”, that is, that it can happen and appreciate life. Love life, take care of it, brothers and sisters!
What is an afterword? What was said after that, an attempt to comment and explain? Afterthoughts or late words? The title of this film can be interpreted in various ways, including symbolically - as the last replica to a bygone era. But the simplest and most human explanation that comes to mind is to try to keep talking to someone who has left. It seems that he just closed the door behind him, he can still be caught up, told, asked or explained.
The main character of the film “Afterword” (1983) Alexei Borisovich left, went to his town, cut off the conversation, which his son-in-law Volodya did not really want to continue. Then why is there a sense of emptiness? Why is it necessary to complete or at least retell everything that was said in those few days one on one? Maybe because you can’t reach your father-in-law, or his unnamed town, or other areas where the old man probably now resides. And now it is impossible to learn from him about the secret of his ability to look at the world with surprise and hope, the secret of a look that combines sadness and smile. Behind everything he says, behind his silence hides his amazing resilience - including to the slight indifference of his son-in-law.
And the afterword is about Rostislav Plyatt, the great Russian actor of Polish-Ukrainian blood, this is an afterword to his creative path, his story about himself and his generation. Not because there were no roles after this movie, but it’s probably where he’s somehow defenseless and open to the camera. It is difficult to say whether this applies to the Plate itself or rather to its hero, because in the mind of the viewer it is difficult to separate them from each other. In this role, as under a magnifying glass, we see the best acting qualities of Rostislav Yanovich: intellectualism, inner beauty and external character, soft manner of play. And now not only the hero of Andrey Myagkov wants to rush after his father-in-law to get an answer to some doubts and questions, but we also want to once again call Plyatt to turn around and leave a little of what made the Russian acting school like it will never be again. In a review of the film, critic Sergei Kudryavtsev said in search of a solution to the title that for director Marlen Khutsiev, the film could not be an afterword. By time, it did not become an afterword for Rostislav Plyatt, who died in 1989, but emotionally, it seems that this is a farewell film.
To finish the dissertation Muscovite comes from the province father-in-law, whose daughter at this time left. How do you find poetry and emotion here? Chamber atmosphere of a typical apartment in a high-rise building, two heroes, a minimum of expressive means and the absence of techniques as the main directorial technique. In everything that the subtlest artist Marlene Khutsiev reveals to us in the Afterword: there is so much beauty, beauty unspoken, hidden, waiting for understanding and accessible only to the viewer who feels deeply.
The relationship of a person with a person is the most mysterious area, in which each of us seems to understand perfectly, but, in fact, we all go to the touch. Perhaps this complexity is created by art that shapes our reality. It focuses on relationships and feelings, but only true creators dare to step into the realm of relationships that have not been poeticized for many centuries.
A good job, an expensive car, a spacious apartment, for many people such things have become the attributes of a successful person. The thirst for financial well-being became the most powerful engines of the capitalist world. The world speeds up its run, and those who do not keep up with it will be mercilessly thrown out on the sidelines of life. For a beautiful, rich life, as for everything in this world, there is a price. It is about the clash of people of different life philosophies that the film Afterword is dedicated.
Almost all the action of the film takes place in one apartment, but the director managed to create a unique atmosphere. For this, the housing of a prominent scientist is filled with the attributes of a really rich and successful life (of course, during the USSR 80s). Nevertheless, the most important role in the film is played by amazing dialogue. The confrontation of two worldviews, the essence of which becomes clear only by the end of the film, became really the best attribute of the novel by Yuri Pakhomov. Operator work is also on top, allowing you to fully feel like a witness to what happened. Special mention deserves a masterpiece of musical accompaniment, so necessary in such a tape, authored by Bach and Beethoven.
The plot was based on the story of the father-in-law. The whole story unfolds from the perspective of Victor, who is forced to meet his father-in-law, during the absence of his wife. In his house, Vitya is not particularly happy with guests, but out of politeness does not deny a relative practically nothing. The main character is constantly annoyed by an annoying old man who constantly tells new stories from his life, and also loves to quote poems. Despite the banal plot in the film magnificently presents the emptiness of life of many people. With financial well-being, excellent education and many opportunities, they are often engaged in what deep down they hate.
Definitely, the film Afterword can not be recommended to everyone. Some will be pushed away by the slow development of the plot, others by an excessive number of dialogues. But anyway, in many ways this film touches on the most important issues of human existence. After all, in the pursuit of success, people often lose one of the most important things - the taste of life.
8 out of 10
Screen adaptation of the story by Yuri Pakhomova “The father-in-law has arrived”. Although the credits are based on motives, I would say based on the story. I'll try to explain. I read the story, and frankly, did not cause much delight. I read it after watching the movie. The film filmed 90% of the story and added a number of episodes. So these episodes make an ordinary story a powerful drama. The story describes the relationship between father-in-law and son-in-law, lasting several days. People have their own opinions on certain events. And ALL! In the film it is a clash of different life positions, I would say worldviews. On the one hand "honorary citizen of the apartment" - on the other Man of the Universe. The only thing that is not shown in the film, as under the influence of his wife (for whom the main thing was glamour), Shvyrkov (the name of the main character) and became an honorary citizen of the apartment. A person who has lost interest in life and work. And by the way, this explains the episode at the beginning of the film, where he tries to explain to his wife, and the ending of the film explains why he tries to do it. But the film is not shown, the reason why he wants to find out the relationship with his wife. Again, in the story, this is explained by the example of the childhood of his wife and his mother-in-law. After all, under the influence of communication with his father-in-law, he began to think about his life, his place in life, his family, his friends. A very revealing episode where a friend (a friend), at Shvyrkov's request, finds a translation of the phrase Cruaute mentale - spiritual cruelty, and immediately demands a bottle of cognac for it. An example is an episode where the absence of light (i.e. darkness) causes the residents of the entrance to unite to solve the problem. However, the call of the father-in-law does not diverge, people immediately come Cruaute mentale and they disperse in their apartments-holes. In the story Shvyrkov understands why his father-in-law came, in the film he is aware and accepts the reason for the arrival of his father-in-law.
It's a chance to change your life.
If we apply a subjunctive inclination and imagine that if the main role in the film “Afterword” was played not by R. Plyatt, but by L. Obolensky, as it was according to the original plan of the director, then the interest of the viewer was apparently enough, well, for a maximum of half an hour. Leonid Obolensky was remembered in the role of a beautiful old man in the film story “Alien”, where he perfectly coped with his task: he created the image of a person who lived a difficult life, but was not tired of it, not saturated with it. Apparently, what was bright in the format of a single scene would have been difficult to extend to a full metre. For the simple reason that it is very difficult to implement a scenario about how the father-in-law untimely came to his son-in-law busy writing a dissertation; and annoying him with his endless delights; distracting him from the case with all sorts of memories; sharing endless impressions - but, at the same time, do not get bored with the viewer, do not irritate him, like the character of the story of K. Paustovsky, in which one enthusiastic old man brought the author out of his endless delights and exclamations about and without reason.
Color, which gushes Rostislav Plyatt, more than enough for several such films. In the palette of feelings of his on-screen image, bright colors prevail, so the “portrait in the interior”, made in an expressive manner, turned out to be especially expressive.
The film shows the contact, one can say, a “quiet” clash of two psychological types: if the hero of Myagkov is rational, then the hero of Plyatt is irrational; if the first is a phlegmatic pragmatic, then the second is a sanguine idealist; if the son-in-law is an objectivist, then the father-in-law is a subjectivist. But the antagonism of images is not an end in itself. It is rather a means: using the play of light to give the image three-dimensionality.
By the way, Myagkov got a difficult role: in dialogues, he is mainly listening, not talking. Therefore, he has to play face, and, I think, there is aerobatics here, which once again confirms the classiness of the master ace, Andrei Myagkov. It is worth noting that the image of the “man in the cocoon” was so successful to Myagkov that he successfully developed it, playing a major role in the film with the speaking title “Letargy”. The only, in my opinion, his puncture in the Afterword is when Myagkov’s character participates in a popular program on television. Here everything turned out to be played out, without proper psychologism - it seems that the artist decided to go out on skill, but this time it failed him. After all, this episode is very important, it was supposed to demonstrate a person who suddenly made a timid attempt to free himself from the emotional-muscular shell that had bound him, and, instead of becoming one of the fundamental, the episode became a passing one.
You can talk about the film for a long time because of the variety of topics covered in it. Well, for example, on the threshold of the decline of life, what could be the answer of the protagonist to the essential question: what is there, beyond the threshold? Or, a vast theme of callousness, which so alarmed our old man in one of the episodes.
Finally, in a similar way to the final question of one of the TV shows: is this film a classic? For me, yes, absolutely! Because I'm constantly reviewing it and always finding something new in it. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
That's why this film is so close and understandable to us ?Because director Marlene Khutsiev - yes. Because many people know the artist, yes. Because it is impossible not to fall under the charm of Rostislav Plyatt - and again to the point. But none of this would have happened if it wasn't for a great script. Absolutely non-standard theme: to show the relationship of son-in-law and father-in-law, without involving other persons. But that's not all. The film clearly shows the spiritual basis on which it is based. Why did I come up with this idea?
We are often invaded by someone who irritates us. Victor (Andrey Myagkov) was no exception, whom the arrival of his father-in-law knocked out of a state of mental balance. Perhaps all this is the case, but at the same time, the different life orientations of these two people. The younger one lives in the hustle and bustle of today, and the older one does not hurry anywhere, because soon he stops and he is grateful for every day and moment he lived. You will see how Alexei Borisych rejoices that spring has come, like a child of a desirable toy! But Victor was not happy, he hung his head, although there is no reason for despondency. Naturally, the eccentric old father-in-law will irritate him. But the time will pass and Victor will be able to appreciate their meeting, because this person can be your teacher in life. I generally tend to think that the people you dislike and annoy are none other than teachers: teachers of patience and humility, which we so often lack.
Can the hero of Myagkov understand how expensive a dangerous razor of the old model of the company Zollinger for his father-in-law? And on these contrasts, the whole film is built. It is difficult to recommend it for viewing to young people, because when you are 20 and you are full of energy, for you the advice of older people that about the wall of peas. And they have no living baggage behind them. To recommend this film, it is practically recommended to read “War and Peace” by Leo Tolstoy as part of the school curriculum. Read it, but can you feel the big question? Therefore, those who are not indifferent to the work of Marlen Khutsiev, Andrei Myagkov and the charming Rostislav Plyatt, who unlimitedly valued and respected the Woman and was always gallant with her, I certainly advise you to watch this film. We’ll all be old people someday, but if we’re like Alexei Borisych from Afterword, why not?
10 out of 10
Some sad melancholy beginning, in fact, the mood of the film does not determine. It will end on the same note.
The film is actually amazing. In many ways, the merit of this is the play of two beautiful, brilliant actors. Plate and Myagkov are a wonderful duet that makes this picture seem like a performance. It feels like you're looking at the stage, not the screen.
This film is about the attitude of generations, about their understanding of life and foundations. Especially vivid is the thought of how the old man cherishes and enjoys every moment, and the young, who still has so much ahead, looks at life with boredom.
It’s amazing that I haven’t heard of this wonderful movie before. I advise everyone to look!