It's a pity that great actors starred in this. Completely useless scenario and implementation with a good game. A typical Soviet treshka, from which post-sooks describe the knees.
I watched the movie first because I had to learn history. But by the 20th minute of this miracle, I had forgotten why I was even watching it. I'm just drawn.
The humor here is subtle, certainly not low, but to understand it, you need a little “work” with your head. Once you blink, you will easily lose the thread of the plot, because in an hour and a half of the film, a lot happens. Very talented filmed, qualitatively and, in its own way, beautifully, this is true. The setting of the frame, details, angles, soundtrack – it is clear that people created this film with a soul. I admit, the scenes with the Makhnovists are really funny, sorry. Smiled. Two heroes of the Red Army are very vital people, for the film there was almost no thought "and why you did it." And the friendship of front-line cinematographer Nekrasov and his assistant Karjakin is one of the strongest aspects of this film, their chemistry is just something! A song from one line of Nekrasov will remain in my memory for a long time, truly opens the hero, predetermines his fate.
"Shoot again?" Well, how much can you do? – exclaimed Karjakin once. And I totally agree with him! So many misfortunes, so many tragedies, so much pain suffered on their shoulders heroes. White officer Brusentsov, however, is very pathetic. The film, as ironic as it sounds, only plays by the fact that it is black and white. Only one gray morality, the Civil War, is primarily about fratricide. How many people, families have been divided in half because of political views, how terrible!
“Two Comrades Served” is a very honest film, as has been written many times before. While you and your friend and comrade rejoice in a small victory, there are other friends and comrades on the other side of the front who are just as hard to survive the loss of one of them.
Although the plot, as I wrote earlier, was very difficult to follow; after the first viewing, I went to Wikipedia and other sources to understand some aspects of the work (by the way, I learned that Vysotsky played Brusentsov here, a huge plus, although I did not recognize the actor at first), I understood why this film is considered by many to be cult. There are no reds or whites here, I have not seen such propaganda either whites or reds. There are just unhappy, honest people... Everyone feels sorry in their own way. There were a couple of moments that I cried over, either with delight or with grief (the scene with the legless red commander is an example of this). The horror, despair, despair that you experience with the main characters. Knowing that this was all done in real life... The actor who played Nekrasov is just something. Karjakin - also turned out to be very alive ...
One of the most important things I can say about horses!! In the film, not only people play well, but also animals. The scene with the steamer and the scene in the field are imprinted in memory, the sediment after watching will remain, I think, for a few more days for sure. You don’t believe in what’s on the screen. You don’t believe in what people did to people who are all brothers by blood. The author was able to perfectly and easily convey that period, you feel part of the story.
Nightmare and delight after watching. I definitely recommend it.
“Two comrades served” is one of the most popular feature films about the Civil War.
The film shows two storylines. The first tells about two Red Army comrades, the second about the White Guards. The action of the work begins in the early days of November 1920.
You should not watch this film with zero knowledge of history because, at least, the plot is based on historical events. During this period, the last major battle of the Civil War took place in the European part of Russia - the Perekopsko-Chongar operation of the Red Army (November 7-17, 1920), in which characters will participate. In the dialogues of the heroes, various personalities who played an important role in the events of those years are mentioned, for example, Lenin, Wrangel, Makhno, etc. Small political moments are shown (a conversation between two rich people in 15 minutes), the condemnation of the White movement, shown in the excerpt about a drunken white guard. Special historical blunders, inconsistencies were not found. If they are, but they are very small.
The Civil War is a wrapper in which the heroes of the work are located. The main theme of this film is friendship. The enemies, the Red Army and the White Guards, were brought together by fate. Although at this time, different views on politics forced the brothers to point weapons at each other.
I liked the movie. The cast is well-chosen, the script is beautiful. I’m not going to call it the best I’ve ever seen, but I recommend it.
The strangest thing about this magnificent tape is that it is at all, that it came out on time and did not lie on the shelf until the restructuring. Of course, in this form in the USSR, such a picture could come out only in the “thaw” or at its end, when the Soviet censorship slightly lowered the wing. However, inscrutable ways of censorship: for example, shortly before that, the beautiful lyrical picture “Zhenya, Zhenechka and Katyusha” was recognized as “harmful” and “corrosive”, and released only in the province. And the really ambiguous “Two comrades served” received the “good”.
Wrote the script for the film playwrights Valery Fried and Julius Dunsky, bosom friends who studied together at VGIK, together went to the front, together arrested on false charges of treason, together spent time in camps and together rehabilitated during the “thaw”. And yes, only such people could write such a film, look at the “sacred” and “sinless” Bolshevik Revolution, which in the then cinema simply could not be subjected to even minimal doubt, and was almost a religious matter.
This may have reassured the censors. The thought that someone could write something wrong about the Revolution probably did not even visit their heads, and most likely they did not look so carefully at such “military”, a priori patriotic films. At first sight, it is. There are whites, they are enemies. There are reds, they're heroes. The red ones will be taken up, and the white ones will die, who will flee in a terrible bustle and panic, fleeing from the just anger of the people. In the foreground - wonderful guys, real red heroes. Why bother?
That's it. But. How “red” are these heroes? How much did the revolution seep into them? How do you behave and what do your enemies say? Surprisingly, Fried and Dunsky, with true Jewish subtlety, were able to walk along the razor blade itself and preserve an absolutely amazing morality for time and place. You don't hate enemies here! And to the Red Army - a burning love. Screenwriters and director Karelov avoided the almost obligatory jingoism and black-and-white (red-white) division for such films and told the viewer the truth: there is not such a big difference between these class enemies, and all of them are one tormented, exhausted, inside out people who have lost their landmarks and are hastily looking for new ones.
Karelov avoided caricature in depicting whites and “supermanence” in depicting reds. You need to be an incredibly subtle artist and person to keep this truth under absolute, total system control. And yet, the white officers are noble and courageous; they are not destroyed by internal corruption and stupid arrogance, nor by popular anger, as other directors liked to show, but by the old feudal habit of deciding everything in offices and staffs without listening to the lower ranks and, more importantly, the habit of underestimating the enemy, who was for them only a horde of unorganized peasants and workers, despite the fact that by the 20th the Red Army was already a serious force. On the other hand, the “ideological” Reds, whose heads were cracking with Bolshevik propaganda, as a rule, poorly educated and naive, believing in all that was said, were ready to cut right and left, without trial and investigation sending thousands of valuable cadres and the most intelligent people to be shot.
Yes, the theme of “excessions” is not pedaled, they carefully move out of it, showing only one heroine who treats the heroes unfairly, the heroes are saved, but we perfectly understand how many were not saved.
The hero of Vysotsky, the white officer (the brightest character in the picture, and it is not surprising that his role almost completely remained on the floor in the editing room due to ideological considerations) suddenly turns out to be a man, restless and lost and, oddly enough, very close to the rustic hero of Bykov. Both the white officer and the Red Army soldier turned out to be “white ravens” among their colleagues, because “the time is now such,” both are ready to fight to the last and defend their ideals, both are impulsive and not abstaining, and both are waiting for a moral turning point in the end.
Oleg Yankovsky plays his Nekrasov with a suicide stamp on his face. He appears in the picture and his fate is immediately clear. The fate of a talented, honest, intelligent, subtle and spiritually much more developed than his surroundings man in terrible troubled times. This peculiar Rublev also suffers, is burdened by war and his position, tries to apply himself to the new time, but his era - the "era of mercy" - has not yet arrived, and he cannot exist on earth, just as Lieutenant Brusnetsov, who lost everything that made up his life, cannot live.
Karelov was able to fill the picture with real life – bright believable characters, irony, love for people, understanding “his” and “aliens”, good humor and the idea of unjustified victims. I don’t remember that in Soviet cinema anymore. When you look at all this, you don’t think, “This is what they need, cattle,” but you think, “Why?” Why all this? Why would these different, but not bad people kill each other? For what? And knowing the outcome of all this, it becomes even more painful, even more bitter. Ideology, of course, in the picture, it could not be absent, but it is carefully dosed and presented with some human wisdom.
And behind all these ironic sketches from the life of Russia of the 20s, an unexpected hromada appears the tragedy of a whole people, divided, ruthlessly confused, still unable to find a common language by themselves.
10 out of 10
A brilliant anti-Soviet agitation. Forerunner ' Heart of a Dog' Bortko. Gentlemen, white officers are almost all professors of Transfiguration, Bykov’s character is a real ball, and the retinue is appropriate. Just the time has not yet come with the same fury to tear up Soviet history, which came to the time of issue ' Heart of a Dog', so they were restrained.
The film does not just show the truth of both sides & #39; it begins to turn the meaning of the story. Not a word about the meaning of the war - one side is fighting for the right to be considered people, not working animals, and the other - for the right to exploit these animals - just fighting. As they say here - just ' difficult scary time'.
By the end of the 60s, the vast majority of citizens of the USSR already knew about the causes of this war only from books and history lessons. I watched the movie quite remotely. We saw humor, saw an interesting story, and the meaning of the confrontation slipped away. What if you don't watch humor? Assistant cameraman Karjakin is just scary. He is ready to kill at any moment and kills at the first doubt in a man. He is ready without trial to hand over a comrade with whom he has just looked death in the face, to be shot and still acts as an accuser without any evidence.
The female commander is shown to be crazy. And this madwoman does about the same thing as the cameraman's assistant - orders you to shoot at the first doubt. We see that if we remove humor, these two characters are equal to each other.
Unlike the red side, whites are shown very presentable. Beautiful, courageous, real officers, noble, prudent, fight to the end and do not even surrender.
By the way, count how many White Guards heroically go to sea when they are pressed to the shore of the red. And only one gives up. Does that ring a bell? In my opinion, this episode says a lot about the attitude of the filmmakers to their characters and sides ' conflict'.
I must say about the effect of the film on interethnic relations. Ukrainians are shown to be near bandits, Latvians are obedient executors of the commander’s will, although they see that she has gone mad.
Unfortunately, all this is wrapped in a completely ingenious execution. The movie became a cult movie. But the boys imitated not the fighters fighting for the liberation of the working people, but the handsome officers whose goal was to drive the working cattle into the stall.
The Civil War ends, the last stronghold of the whites – Crimea – remains. For reconnaissance of the Crimean fortifications, two fighters are sent to the rear of the whites with a film camera: Andrei Nekrasov (Oleg Yankovsky) - the son of a priest, a former student and photographer (aka a filmmaker) and Ivan Karyakin (Rolan Bykov) - a fanatical Bolshevik, demoted for the murder of a military specialist. We'll have to serve them together somehow.
In the White Army serves lieutenant Brusentsov (Vladimir Vysotsky), sent for accidental murder from the headquarters in the acting army. Destinies are destined to intertwine.
From the film, shot for the 50th anniversary of the revolution, probably, something bravura and unambiguous is expected and when you encounter characters like Brusentsov, you enter into a slight stupor: how did censorship miss this?
However, when it came to art, Soviet power was not always propaganda. After all, about 10 years earlier, the Chukhraev Forty-First had already come out. And there's a talk boy was already something human, not caricature. However, Maryutka still retained poster features.
Karelov went even further - good, in his hands was no longer a romantic script, but a multi-figure social and human drama. Time has also changed – 50 years of revolution have exposed the fact that not everything went as the first Bolsheviks thought, and the time was post-war – the world revolution has clearly receded, and the topic of homeland and reconciliation has become more relevant. It was necessary to retroactively slightly correct the history of 1917-1920 in the cinema. The influence of Bulgakov’s Run is also felt.
Nevertheless, two comrades served - cinema and bold, and figurative, and psychologically verified. The same changed symbolized Nekrasov in the performance of Yankovsky. He is fully a symbol of humanism, charged with revolution no less than violence - it is no coincidence that in the key episode he withdraws the barrel of a rifle. And the profession of the cinematographer kind of expressed gratitude to those years for having given this apparatus into their hands, which, according to the expression of the regiment (very expressive Anatoly Papanov), were to shoot not the coronation of George V, but a working man. Well, I had stupid thoughts: that 10 years to fix the brain, not enough. Intelligent, but as if carved from stone, confident face gives all nature and significance, and rightness. But it's not iron-concrete. To soften it seemingly invisible, but charming notes - the concentration of memory in the memory of fortifications is replaced by a shy smile and shuddering from foot to foot after praise, severe confidence in battle - awkwardness in front of the camera lens.
Another thing is emotionally open and seemingly oaky Karjakin. And here a contrast is created between behavioral heroism and determination (something like bas-reliefs on ancient monuments) and a simple, ingenious worker-peasant texture. But even here it seems that the ostentatiousness in the final turns into a human drama, told in simple human words.
The parallel world of whites generally descended from romance 'White acacia clusters fragrant' - tavern in half with longing and strange romanticism. Comic death in something like a restaurant is replaced by ridiculous and cynical talk about the fate of the white movement - the most that neither is decadence.
The nobility of the relationship with Abrek (the horse) and the attempt to find a kindred soul is replaced by the evil cynicism of war. Brusentsov is strength, powerlessness, nobility, anger, patriotism (although he is not half-worded) and cynicism. And the natural ending.
Its logic and absurdity is the main result. The civil war is a desert, like the streets of Sevastopol. Except that running with cheerful screams children give hope for the future. But the understanding of the Civil War as a tragedy in Served two comrades still sounds strong.
E. Karelov’s film is usually played on TV in late January and late July. These dates are forever associated in Russian art with the birth and death of its brightest representative of the second half of the last century. V. Vysotsky. And with those who believe that in this film Vysotsky played, if not the main, then one of the most important roles in his film career, it is difficult to disagree.
The most courageous (even Zheglov does not reach) image of Vysotsky in the movie. The most memorable and apt humor in his performance - albeit sometimes "black" (I kept this bullet for myself.) “What's an optical sight for? In order not to miss? and always colored with deep sarcasm (to sounding like repentance Vasilchikovsky "Tonight the Reds forced Sivash..." - restrained and caustic answer "What a surprise, huh? Who would have thought ...). Desperate reflection, not dissonant with this machismo, but perhaps even unobtrusive and subtly emphasizing it. Maybe this combination is “conducted” by the heroine Ia Savvina, on the one hand constantly quarreling with Brusentsov in his infrequent appearances on the screen, but at the same time mesmerizing with him under the crown among the crumbling old world, personified by the apocalyptic pictures of the Sevastopol evacuation.
Many blame the scenario for the illogical behavior of Brusentsov in the final. In fact, the whole logic of the image of Brusentsov in the picture just leads to such a denouement. Nietzsche’s hero, who does not worry about the opinion of others, but keeps faithful to the oath taken to a non-existent country; who understands the doom and inconsistency of those for whom he fights, despises them, and at the same time hates them with all his heart and those who are rabidly eager to replace them; not ceremonious with women (“And you, too, are crazy ... Here the deceased lies, you would sob, and you talk about a white matter!”), but at the same time is not able to forget about such an officer’s destined to resignation of such a dishonormist as a desson. The drama with the faithful Abrek, on whom, perhaps, one he could rely in this insane world, is only the last drop that fills the cup (similar to Nietzsche’s madness, which has matured for a long time, but broke through in a situation with a horse being beaten by a cabman), and pulling the trigger of a gun already on a ship departing for an incomprehensible, but obviously joyless life in foreign lands.
Despite the brightness of Vysotsky’s acting work, the film does not revolve around only one folk favorite of the time of stagnation, as it often happens with paintings with his participation. Young Yankovsky in one of his first film roles is remembered no less, despite the modesty of his character - the main character of the picture Nekrasov. Perhaps, largely due to this modesty, he catches the eye among the individual characters of the film - from tossing between brawl and reflection Brusentsov to fanfaron Karjakin.
Bykov and Yankovsky in the film created in general almost archetypal images of two hypostases of the revolution - its intellectual and compassionate principle (Nekrasov) and spontaneous and destructive (Karyakin). The latter predominated initially and, undoubtedly, the fate of Nekrasov in the film marked a parallel with the fate of all conscientious intellectuals who joined the revolution - misunderstanding and rejection on the part of the Karjaks, loneliness and death. It's fine if it's from an enemy bullet. Those who are not so “lucky” as Nekrasova, in a couple of decades will be prepared for their multi-series purge with preliminary entry into various categories of enemies of the people. Dunsky and Fried, who not only worked together almost all their lives on film scripts, but together sat in camps, it was known as best.
Nekrasov in the film is somewhere a mirror image of Brusentsov with all the external antagonism of these characters. He is as alone in his idealism in the November 1920 Crimea among the triumphant Reds, as is Vysotsky’s hero in his tossing in the bubbling thicket of whites obsessed with the idea of salvation! And it is no coincidence that their fates in the film are similar and at the end so intertwined.
Karjakin’s fate in the new world, which is approaching the idealists, white and red, crushing and throwing them, at first seems more prosperous. He is also, by the way, an idealist in his own way - much more organically integrated into the new realities that deny the half-tone, requiring readiness now to slap a comrade on the shoulder and admire him, and after a moment to salivate, pulling the mauser out of the holster: "Silence, popovich?" My heart felt against you from the beginning!! Such will be useful in the 30s, when those who are still standing next to the Leader on the mausoleum, tomorrow will have to be removed from textbooks; and in the 50s, when those of the survivors whom the Karjaks demanded at rallies to shoot, will begin to return from the camps. And the karyaks with all their hearts will extend their hand to them – “I can even kneel before you!” That's how I am! Let's be friends again! However, the wiser Nekrasov will not be as forgiving as in the film. But the hero of Bykov is tragic - this is an eternal expendable material for the idol he sings.
The film is remarkable for its presentation of white images, and it has already become a common place. However, the desire to see human features in the “class enemy” is inherent in almost all the paintings of the late 60s. The most powerful scene of the film - doomed, with frightening calm going to sea, throwing their hands behind their backs, white officers - unthinkable for Soviet cinema of the 30s, 40s and even 50s - shows how much the thaw has done with the consciousness of both creators and consumers of the film product.
As in any great film, even small roles in the film are remembered. The unusual role of N. Parfenov combines at once an atypical character - an intelligent and radiating decency white officer, with an atypical image - Parfenov in Soviet cinema rarely played intellectuals - and how he could, we see thanks to Karelov.
The sharp and even slightly cacophonous music of E. Ptichkin, although not a masterpiece, is quite suitable for the nervous rhythm of the era and a view of the world of the victorious class devoid of complexes.
Of the excess in the film can be noted only that superimposed on this music and stylized documentary footage of the parade, allegedly filmed by Nekrasov.
The rest is a brilliant picture
Comrades! There are those among us who are not our friends.
A 1968 black and white film about the civil war, filmed in the Soviet Union. It seems clear. The Red fighters are invincible. Their commanders are shrewd. The White Guards are bastards who deserve only death. The film is about two inseparable friends. In fact, it is not so clear.
First the name. It seems that the film is about the friendship of Nekrasov (Yankovsky) and Karjakin (Bykov). But what do we see? They meet by chance. It's not their choice. One is assigned to look after the task given to the other. It turns out that they are from different classes. Nekrasov was brought up in the family of a priest, which immediately raises doubts about Karjakin’s devotion to the ideals of the revolution. Sympathy of his ' comrade' Nekrasov wins heroism when they go on reconnaissance. And again Karjakin wants to shoot his 'friend' only there is the slightest reason to suspect him of failing the task. Nekrasov is modest. Embarrassed when it's filmed. He doesn't expect any reward. Karjakin also shoots on horseback with a sword and binoculars in a spectacular pose. Having done nothing to perform the task in intelligence, he talks about what reward they will be given. As you can see, these two are not very close to each other.
Unusually shown red. At first glance, it seems positive. From the beginning, they are for hygiene, literacy. Commanders are good-natured, available. But then what? Karjakin shot the military specialist. What punishment? Deported to private. Not really punished. It shows how easy it is to sentence people to be shot based on false suspicions. But at the same time, characters who do not pity others do not pity themselves. Karjakin, entrenched on the other side with a small number of fighters, says: ' We die today, they die tomorrow. Because the revolution will win, even if we die. '
Ironic from the mouth of Karjakin: 'In ten years, there will be no hungry at all', ' Prisons, of course, we will close all these. But let’s leave one still & #39; 'Who should be put in them?' Answer Nekrasov: 'There is someone', 'In order to change the brain, there are ten years not enough'.
Exposing the absurdity of the class struggle, the phrase sounds: ' Do you know that Comrade Lenin is a nobleman?' The authors of the film outline in several phrases what will follow after the victory of the Reds in the Civil War: hunger, prisons, brainwashing.
The White Guards are not grotesquely portrayed in this film. That's what you believe. But they have no sympathy. Vysotsky plays Brusentsov magnificently. He is not attracted to himself, but the logic of his actions is clear. He's a pretty, nice voice, great manners. He only thinks about himself and his ideals. A horse is worth more than his wife. In the church before the wedding, he says: ' There the last steamer departs from the pier. I have to make it.' He needs to know what happens to his wife. Sasha (Savvina) asks: ' Why do you need this? You don't love me.' Everything is falling apart, he needs something to lean on. The church, the family, is the last hope. No support. He did not take his wife or priest with him. He forgot about them. He cared about the horse. That's why he shot himself. That's all he was attached to. He left his homeland even earlier, on the Turkish rampart. As he tells his companion after the flight: ' We are with you in the red territory, in Sovdepiya' It's not his homeland anymore. He's got nothing else. The image is magnificent.
The plot in the film is linear. With captions, what, where and when is happening so that the naive viewer doesn't get confused. There's a prostitute in the movie hiding under a blanket. The naked female body is also shown, but so that nothing hot can be seen.
All filmed interesting, dynamic, without boring pauses. No time to miss. Comic scenes coexist with battle scenes.
A well-translated era. Immerse yourself in the atmosphere. Marches of those years performed by an amateur orchestra. Buffaloes made from a shop sign. Beautifully filmed scene after the escape from the Makhnovists. The sun through the branches, the illuminated hair of the main characters. It doesn't look like there's a war going on. At the same time, the view from the plane on the White Guard line of defense, the attack of the Red Army at night is fascinating. In memory, the pictures are stuck when the White Guards, pressed to the shore, shooting all the ammunition, go into the sea when the horse is thrown from the pier after the ship.
The film can be watched and revised. He doesn't impose his ideas. But you might end up thinking that Karjakin might be right when he says, ' Actually, I should have been killed.' Maybe so, but in the Civil War, the Karjaks won, and the Nekrasovs died, or 'remade brains' That’s my main conclusion after watching this wonderful movie.
10 out of 10
The film is, of course, very famous. It was probably watched by everyone who is at least 35-40 years old. And young people are not far behind either. However, this film was a very long time away from me for the simple reason that the subject of the film, namely, the civil war in Russia, has always been a rather controversial topic for me. And, frankly, not particularly interesting.
On the other hand, the participation in the film of such wonderful actors as Oleg Yankovsky, Anatoly Papanov, Rolan Bykov and, of course, Vladimir Vysotsky, simply does not give the viewer the right to bypass this tape sideways.
So here's the story of three, I think, completely different characters. There is a rather silent and, in my opinion, as if by accident, a young soldier Nekrasov, who is very different from the rest of the supporters of the revolution, both in his intellectual abilities and in his behavior in general. There is a devoted to the bone "fighter with a contra" Vanya Karjakin combines both comic and infinite seriousness when needed. There is Lieutenant Brusentsov, who, I think, is very confused in himself and in what surrounds him, a person. They're all at war. A war of savage, stupid and senseless. The war, which made it so that “two comrades,” two brothers, two people of the same country, “in the same regiment” that they go against each other without sparing at all.
What a tragedy it would seem. However, by the efforts of director Evgeny Karelov, the viewer does not feel this tragedy for the time being. On the contrary, Bykov’s character creates a kind of false-ironic atmosphere, showing that “the war is a matter of life” and even going to the shooting with some clown, in the good sense of the word, image. Perhaps it was the idea of the creators of this tape - at first to present it as an easy, not the most sensual movie, and finally, closer to the credits, to burst with tragedy and tears, as if from a cannon at the redoubts of the enemy.
However, I didn't like it. The absurdity of that war (although any war is essentially absurd) causes me to reject any justification for those actions. And, in this sense, the attempt to create a positive image (which, by the way, is clearly seen in the picture - red good, and white bad) of everything that happens causes me only sadness.
Summing up, I want to note that the film, of course, you need to see. And watch only for the sake of our wonderful actors. Otherwise, it is difficult for me to speak personally because of a biased attitude towards the subject of this tape.
A film about the most difficult period in the history of the country. Civil war, Crimea. The whole action takes a short period of time, the authors specify exactly what it is: from 1 to 17 November 1920. So that the viewer does not get confused, the titles swim. When the most important military operation to take Perekop begins, we will be shown even the time of this night in hours and minutes.
Red and white. Two camps. Confrontation. So in the film there are two storylines in parallel. We see the Red Army and the White Guard. And just like the famous gun that hangs on the stage and must be fired, the viewer understands that these lines must cross. For me, it’s a sign of a good script when nothing sags, when you don’t think about why this scene or this character is here. So here: everything is precisely verified, nothing superfluous and unnecessary. And no confusion.
Red Army soldier Andrei Nekrasov is tasked with reconnaissance of enemy fortifications using a captured French film camera. He is not a cameraman, but a photographer. He cannot refuse, otherwise the tribunal.
He plays O. Yankovsky, and this is his second big role. The beauty of his film authors in every possible way “extinguish”: in the first episode we see it from the rear. I'm sorry, sing up, 'cause he's looking for a drowned bucket in the well. In the ridiculous halif, sewn together by the unknown, in the cap sideways. Why? I think the film has a very precise balance, there are no heroes. In the sense in which we understand the word. There are no perfect, perfect, without fear and reproach. Not from either side.
Besides, he's still alive. The bucket fell, we gotta get it. And this is also the clash of these very concepts of war and peace. In such simple and everyday things. This is the absurdity of what is happening. People are born just to live. Not to die.
To help Nekrasov give an assistant. "Karyakin." Ivan Trofimovic. Son of his own parents”. So he appears at the first meeting of the "movie". Roland Bulls. Ridiculous, even less heroic, confident that he sees through and knows exactly what the truth is. To the remark that Lenin is also from the nobility, he indignantly replies: “You only do not disgrace Comrade Lenin!”
This strange couple is on their way. On an open-air plane. The dialogue and the lines are beautiful. “Wallpaper will fly!” – in different ways says Karjakin Ivan Trofimovich and sits first on the plane.
The genre of the film is defined in a somewhat strange way: military, drama, comedy. Strange and at the same time true. There are times when you can smile. And again, it's like in life, where from great to funny one step. Who said that funny can’t be great? At least this fuss on the plane, where Nekrasov with the camera really nowhere to turn, and Karjakin has to support him.
The flight would have gone quite safely, if not for the trouble with the plane. And our heroes get into strange and terrible alterations. The two men do not know who they are. Are they friends if they don’t have a haircut?
A number of scenes, I think, specifically emphasize the absurdity of what is happening. Here's the lead. They say, “Please go down.” Ridiculous? Yeah. But who's driving? A man who just recently was someone in a peaceful life in which it was very appropriate to say "please." And thank you, too. Now it's automatically pronounced, maybe out of place. But it is very necessary for the film.
Great actors in small roles and episodes. The list of actors is incredible.
Here is an amazing Alla Demidova in the role of Commissioner. An actress who is little known, but she is amazing. Here she seems a little crazy, she is so easily ready to send people to death, so easily and tiredly pronounces “shoot”. And it sounds so simple, you know, she's not saying this for the first time. However, one of her remarks will also explain: “I recognized you.” You tortured me in counterintelligence.” I know the wrong person, but who knows what happened to her after the torture? We will see her in another scene. And it's going to be quite different.
At the same time, there are white people not far away. Here the central character is Lieutenant Brusentsov, he is played by V. Vysotsky. He is also not perfect, there is no admiration for the officers. This is the first time we see them in a brothel. Yes, they drink, walk, and what else if every day for them can be their last, there is no longer that king and Fatherland, someone has nothing at all.
Sister of Mercy Sasha. Iya Savina. Touching and at the same time strong. And they, Sasha and Alexander Brusentsov, also met not by chance. But is it good luck?
There is another character - Brusentsov's horse Abrek. I can’t watch the scene with him on the waterfront every time, my heart breaks.
I was almost unbearable for the final. We were led, led and led to a real tragedy when a lump in the throat.
There's almost no music. Occasionally, scraps of revolutionary songs are heard, as well as ordinary sounds. The headquarters of the regiment meets in a simple muzzle, and outside the window the chickens cackle. And that's life too! Later there will be gun volleys when the offensive begins.
“Two comrades served in one and that regiment.” Exactly like that, wrong, somehow even ridiculous, but damn touching, especially when the character of R. Bykov sings in a completely non-musical, rattling voice. “Here's the bullet, and yeah. My comrade has fallen. Do you also know what is the purpose of any book? Why Karjakin himself will shout: “Don’t sing!” You're in trouble!
In my opinion, the film is amazing and flawless. It is possible to analyze literally every episode. The script is chic, the actors are great, the scenes are unique in their simplicity and symbolism. Our two companions were saved from imminent death, washing themselves by the stream. Water is one of the most important symbols, let’s remember. Purification in the literal and figurative sense, endless change. And the light, there's a counterlight, which can be seen as just a very beautiful moment where the leaves and the hair glow, and if you like, it's almost a halo above your heads. This is for everyone who is closer.
One of the strengths of Soviet cinema is a deep study of characters. This is both a script point of view and the talent of actors of that time.
So in the film by Evgeny Karelov “Two comrades served” – the creation of images that do not resemble each other and their eloquent opposition, perhaps, is the main creative achievement of the picture. At the same time, it is not only about the opposition of the comrades themselves - the ideological Karjakin and the lyrical Nekrasov. A separate powerful line of the White Guard Brusentsov and his fate regarding the fate of the main characters is also a weighty leitmotif of the picture, which at the culmination point becomes the main one. The trouble is that the need to reflect the Patriotic War as a whole - forced to go to extremes in creating images.
In Chekhov’s dorky Bolshevik Ivan Karjakin is quite straightforward and, due to his one-sided ideological escapade, even a primitive hero. But its strength lies in its directness. He clearly follows his goal and serves a global idea that helps him act during stressful situations. He looks at everything from the same angle. There is no truth in his mind and soul. Therefore, he does not feel anxious about the future. This is an absolutely caricatured hero who acts in the picture as a symbol of that very future, he is destined to survive, have offspring, become the locomotive of a new life.
To the same absolute extent, Brusentsov’s panic madness can be noted. The hero, molded by Vysotsky, draws into the funnel of evil. The dead weight hangs on his shoulders other people's deaths and retribution for them. The black card in the deck of the heroes of the film.
Silent, whether present, or absent, Andrey Nekrasov also rushing can not be called. But it is much more complicated in its inner world. In his clear eyes and blonde strands of hair there is some incredible purity, value. It’s like a treasure that we care about. This is more thinking than Karjakin, singing his sad song, a reflective hero. He represents the middle ground – not white, but without the brains washed with red wine of the revolution – not completely red. An ordinary guy with a camera. But despite this habit, Andrei is a real leader and a man of deeds and not slogans. He makes decisions that sometimes stand as a stone across the stream. Solutions are not logical, but the only true, saving ones. Here is an example of a complex person in the best sense of the word, we find this complexity pleasant and interesting. Nekrasov is everything that is high and alive in our people. This is both a creative and mental component - the ability to absorb, learn and at the same time have will, strength of spirit. And so the question creeps in, are the filmmakers so optimistic, since they give the right to go further than Karjakin, and not Nekrasov? Is a bright future really waiting for us in the hands of these Karjakins?
The picture, in my opinion, was spoiled and almost destroyed by ideological censorship and an unfinished creative idea, the desire to embrace the immense. All the same primitivism - good reds, bad whites. Karjakin’s speeches are too empty and bravura, the features of the entire military confrontation under the infallibly sweet Red Army sauce are too blurred. Personally, I lacked details in the lives of the heroes, the same Nekrasov, in my opinion, is not fully disclosed, the arch of the hero in this case is not. Like a steppe eagle, which was, and remained. The rest of the characters - as if from a silent movie, as I said, too expressive, caricature.
But through the fire of pretentious patriotism in individual fragments, the creators managed to convey true beauty, lead the viewer to catharsis. Due to the piercing, like an episode with a horse, scenes, the picture is fixed in the memory and one way or another is an ornament of Soviet cinema.
Soviet cinematic art is a phenomenon so great, so many and versatile. In many cases, it is saturated with life-affirming and inspiring energies of pathetic film epics, kind and harmless eccentric comedies that have no world analogues of the most fascinating fairy tale films. However, Soviet cinema had its own dark spots. On the one hand, the mechanisms of Soviet censorship effectively cut off spitty and entropic, on the other hand, the greatest brainwashing effect on the minds of Soviet viewers had films of revolutionary themes, regardless of the level of artisticity of such films. In this respect, the film by Evgeny Karelov is not a special exception.
Former student and pupil of the clergyman Andrei Nekrasov, who incredibly found himself in the ranks of the Red Army, is instructed to film the fortifications of the “whites”. A partner is attached to a military cameraman of “old regime” origin, who, of course, is not an ignorant upstart Vanka Karjakin, but a special commissioner, designed to control every step of the Red Army neophyte “from the former”, and, if necessary, apply the measures of the revolutionary tribunal. Pretending to be a half-blooded fool, he throughout the film scolds the presence of Nekrasov’s counter-revolutionary sentiments – then he does not allow him to shoot without his close supervision, then before the red commanders he slanders on “comrade” – in general, he is ready to arrest / shoot at the first more or less justified suspicion. A similar manic suspicion is shown by the heroine Alla Demidova, in the heavy dark-eyed gaze of which the cruel-eyed Rosa Zemlyachka is prototypically seen.
Not everything is so simple in the camp of the White Guard. Lieutenant Brusentsov, as the heroine Ii Savvina rightly notes, does not give the impression of an officer who is selflessly devoted to the White Cause, but, in addition, resembles a person who was not watched by the White Guard counterintelligence in time. Having gained the confidence of Colonel Vasilchikov by bringing the right arguments that forced him to make the right decision on the use of searchlights to illuminate the Sivash Bay, it was he who, immediately after successfully repelling the enemy's attack by the "whites," persuades the colonel to leave the fortification camp.
The end of the film is marked by a show of the results of the cinematography of the murdered Nekrasov, accompanied by a brave revolutionary march, as if the cynical principle “the Moor has done his job – the Moor must go” came into force. Listening to Karjakin’s last conversation, one gets the impression that he is not grieving for the deceased “comrade”, but continues his inappropriate clergy. Personally, it seems to me that the film almost does not reveal the tragedy of the horrific fratricidal war, as if the creators did not have the slightest compassion for the victims of this genocidal madness. The tragedy of the Russian people at the waving of a cinematic stick was turned into the demonic complacency of the commissars and the misanthropic reflection of the dubious officers merging Russia.
One of the best old Soviet films. Incomparably funny in some episodes, touchingly sad in others and very human. A film about a war in which there are practically no negative heroes - except for some bandits, who, however, are shown with such humor that they are almost forgiven. In this movie, neither white nor red is hateful. Both of them inspire sympathy and respect. Both the viewer and each other.
Maybe that's not very plausible. But that's pretty good.
For a Soviet film about the revolution, this work is surprisingly subtle and apolitically wise. A film in which there is no pathos of rightness on one side, but a demonstration of the revolution as a national tragedy and at the same time a beautiful national feat. Today we are further and further away from this ability to rise above the battle and understand that each of the participants, heroes and victims of the Civil War had his own truth. We are closer to the right and the guilty. And this film is not about the right and the guilty, but about Russia of different people. It is a beautiful, beautiful country.
Each of the heroes - and legless red commander, and shy brave in the performance of Oleg Yankovsky, and brilliant white officer Vladimir Vysotsky - the true ideal of a man, and his beloved (Iya Savvina), also a kind of ideal - the ideal of a Russian aristocratic woman - is shown with deep inner sympathy. You understand each of them, and even though they are enemies, you don’t take sides. Because there are no scoundrels here - there are good people who, by the tragic will of history, kill each other.
Everyone is given the opportunity to justify themselves. Even the iron commissar, who does not hesitate, does not listen, sends innocent people to be shot: in the film she will be given a short episode in which she, without sparing herself, as well as not sparing others, will die in battle. And now she does not seem like a monster, and now she becomes a dead heroine. The human nature of the film is perhaps too condescending, does not want to give final verdicts to anyone. This film wants to embrace and console its heroes - irreconcilable enemies.
Special thanks to the film for the character of Rolan Bykov - uncompromisingly unscrupulous and heroic in its own way, a high-aged child, so sincere in every manifestation that it is impossible to be angry with him.
By the way, there is a certain sad wisdom in the fact that of all the wonderful people shown in the film, this child will remain alive: a nice and kind person, but ready to become a toy in anyone's hands. This is a very subtle, very delicate, almost indistinguishable, but terrible prediction about the future that awaits the unhappy Russia.
But while we are still in a different era: the era of romantics and heroes, and you can still laugh sincerely and cheerfully, watching the scene of the escape of “two comrades” from bandits. I still want to believe in ideals. It seems like it almost works.
The film is made by very smart and kind people with an excellent sense of humor.
10 out of 10
To be honest, I used to think that this film was about the Great Patriotic War, but it turned out to be about the civil war. I don't like civilian. No, of course, I do not support the Great Patriotic unearthly love, but at least it is clear that the enemy is a malicious fascist, they are all bad, we are all good. Nothing brings people together like a common enemy. In a civil war, it is not clear who “they” are or who “we” are. For me, in the Civil War, there is no “they” or “we.” There are just them and they are fighting each other. The paradox is that all “they” are all “we.” And we fought each other. That's kind of sad.
The first paragraph was not about the film. I cannot say much about the film. I don’t like Oleg Yankovsky, I don’t like him, I don’t like movies with his participation. At the same time, I really appreciate the acting skills of Roland Bykov and I really respect his work in cinema. I revere Yia Savvina no less. Well, Vladimir Vysotsky is something at the level of Vysotsky or even higher, he is a wonderful actor and poet.
Having dealt with sympathies, I can only note that the film is interesting for individual scenes, dialogues, acting by Roland Bykov, on whose hero the whole friendship was held. Had Nekrasov been found to be an assistant of the same sullen type as he was, then such a “company” would hardly have arisen. It was Karjakin who made this friendship, he carved it out with his energy, his actions, his attitude. Of course, common captivity, “shooting”, interrogation can bring together probably the most different or the most equally sullen people, but without Karjakin it would not be such a sincere friendship. Not as interesting as I would say.
Many people feel sorry for the end of the film. Karjakin. Brusentsova. And the heroine of Ia Savvina, who followed a man whose soul was unable to withstand all that was happening. And, of course, the horse. “Horses can swim, but not well, not far away.”
7 out of 10