The most interesting and convex role here is in Ranevskaya, who joked and crooked at all 100, portraying the character of an unscrupulous petty huckster (or as it is now called, a businessman). Some phrases have become memes. When watching, I could not shake the feeling that the role of Ranevskaya voiced by Frecken Bock. Cognitive distortion.
The role of Yakovlev felt overly artificial; I believe that for his character a reasonable balance between grotesque and satire was not found. It didn't work either.
Principal honest sister performed by Rumyantseva for some reason still “broken” in favor of the ridiculed idea of total lies and philistineism. The positive character turned out to be “split” and not whole.
The plot made a big "sexist" roll in the side of woman-pleasing. For those years, it probably looked authentic, now it looks unpleasant.
Many forms of social or family behavior exhibited here have personally caused me natural disgust. From a comedy point of view, this is, of course, ridiculous, but if you imagine such a thing in life, it is very sick. Because of this, the picture causes a dual impression, on the one hand, funny, on the other – “fuck you!”
Special. From the point of view of Soviet morality, the behavior of GG is reprehensible. However, the modern generation will not be able to understand what the scourge of Soviet satire was whistling over here, since the behavior of the GG and, characteristically, the visible fruits of his activity speak of his reasonable and rational behavior: a person received a useful higher education, got a job in his specialty and managed to realize himself in life as a professional, received both official and additional income from this, thanks to all this he lived on a wide foot and did not deny himself anything. Life is a success!
Conclusion. As a comedy so so, and look in this sense do not advise, although funny moments a lot. Except for the love of art, the animal world, or your favorite actors.
It turns out that the taste of “easy life” was known even in the deeply socialist USSR of the 1960s. It would seem that the Communist Party did everything to cut off oxygen to parasites, parasites and other lovers of unearned income (itself, of itself, “beyond brackets”!).
At the same time, as always, they “forgot” about the axiom of life – to meet urgent (and not only!) needs, a person is ready to pay much more than the “state price”. And against the background of “forgetfulness” and a general shortage of goods and services, such a phenomenon began to flourish magnificently. Everyone knew about it.
What a reason for a film in the style of social satire!
That’s just the “ambush” in the fact that to reveal the true causes of “easy life” in the USSR even during the “thaw” is still fraught.
But how long ago they said: “There are no hopeless situations!” We will find the unanswered, cover with tinsel and “Ala-ulu, drive the geese!”
We're so fed up with speculators that we can't take a step! What will we do?
On the brilliant Faina Ranevskaya we put on a heel of fashionable sweatshirts, put in the hands of a bag of incomprehensible appearance, but understandable content, we “erase” all accents and nuances from behavior and speech (so that anyone should not recognize themselves in it!). And here is a portrait of a “typical” speculator – grandmother with a fool – who will envy such a woman!?
Who will be in the lead role?
Of course, an apostate engineer who has lost his way.
You know, what you think - with your talent and work earn yourself a human life. Yes, and even to marry a beautiful woman – the same “split” as himself! Instead of incomprehensible where and incomprehensible for what to sow good, smart, eternal, you see, makes ladies’ hats and sells for money!
The country taught you, the nights did not sleep, and you - on the run to go! Well, no way!!! Let's go back to the stall! That your lot is a yoke in life! One by one, not a couple!
And that was not bad, the man repented in the end! (Baby, we will be sorry.) Baba is a fool, what is there to take!
What are we missing?? An example from the other end. Add sisters that will be a bone in your brother's throat, and shade the purity of your mud.
And here you are in the load of someone who has not crooked. It works well and doesn't whine. And the fact that by the age of 30 without a woman's affection, you don't look - your sister is already ready to fix it. We found each other, so to speak.
Well, that's it! We won!!! The horse is finally on the right course!
And everything would be funny if it weren’t so sad.
No, a whole constellation of brilliant actors, as always, perfectly embodies the roles. Comedy, in general, a look!
That's just the way out morality - in the intolerable pun of Soviet reality to blame "unworthy" behave engineers and teachers!!
These are those who, for the most part, have always been in poverty and lack of rights in the margins of Soviet life! I really should have thought of that!
P.S. As expected, the film ends at the place where I would like to see the continuation of the collisions of the main character. You can’t go there without throwing up!
I personally listened at the table to the frank story of a familiar family, a classical Soviet intellectual, how he, having studied as a civil engineer, could not work on a real construction site - "there were only unions and interjections from censorship vocabulary."
But most often, the departure from the “karma” of an ordinary Soviet engineer, of course, was the result of a shameful level of salary, on which neither the family nor themselves can be fed. (Just don’t believe in the fables of the Soviet man about how he lived perfectly on the ruble a day, and on the “three” walked in the restaurant!!)
P.P.S. I always take my hat off to those who can do what you can’t do.
I can't understand how Soviet engineers sometimes achieved phenomenal results. For example, the triumphal flight and landing of the space shuttle Buran in automatic mode. And this is at the end of 1988!
So I take my hat off to you, engineer!!
10 out of 10
Good Soviet film. Excellent acting, well-written dialogues, competent scenography. However, the same can be said about Ryazanov’s “Give a Complaint Book” or Klimov’s “Welcome, or Forbidden Entry” (black and white contemporaries of “Easy Life”, plus or minus a year...).
However, against the background of other Soviet comedies, “The Easy Life” stands out very much. The love line in “Give a Complaint Book”, the children’s revolt against adult tyranny in “Welcome”, etc. are quite “universal values”, understandable and close to our contemporaries. But the basis of the pathos of “The Easy Life” is a completely lost motif of... perfectionism, idealism, realization? All the wrong words - in modern culture this motif is lost and with terms for its designation it is bad.
A man who possesses certain talents should not bury them in the ground, should engage in such a business in which his talents will be most useful. And even if elsewhere he receives more income - by abandoning his purpose, he still steals from himself, depriving him of the opportunity to become something more. This message, quite obvious to contemporaries of the film, reflected not only in the main plot, but also in episodes (the same sketches from the alumni meeting), regularly pops up in Soviet literature ("Monday begins on Saturday" - another weather of "Easy Life"), these days requires special efforts to perceive. And so the Easy Life looks like a monument to another civilization. Qualitatively different, with a different system of values, ideals and concepts. . .
The film tells us about the wonderful life in the capital of its heroes - a homemade chemist (Yu.Yakovlev), an under-professor, but who knows how to earn money (R.Plyatt), his wife, who knows how to spend them perfectly (V.Maretskaya), her sister, who envies the easy life of her sister and dreams of Moscow, and a fool who will pay her a merry life in the capital (Nelli Myshkov), an ideological fool - the sister of a homemade chemist (N.Rumyantsev) and the most bright and attractive figure - a speculator (F.Ranevskaya). Only negative characters cause laughter and admiration. Soviet people, accustomed to lies, perfectly accepted everything negative in films and secretly dreamed of living the same way. Positive heroes, like a classmate of a homemade chemist (Safronov) are dreary, like cabbage cutlets in Soviet cooking for 3cop. This is a custom film for fools who suddenly believe the stories about the unknown to anyone Dalnogorsk, abandon Moscow and the distribution will touch on the construction of cities that are not on the map. I must say such were, but only dreamed of getting a high position and return, or, as they used to say ' chased the long ruble' On the one hand, the film allegedly criticizes the easy life of Moscow, and on the other hand, drools in everyone living outside Moscow, about how you can move there and do something like that. This eventually happened as soon as the reins weakened. From Dalnogorsk, scoundrels reached out and flooded Moscow with everything the Soviet people dreamed of, even when they sang songs about the cities ' which have no names' And how many divorced professors in all fields, and all science in last place. And those who want to get married? Oh-oh-oh! What do movies do to people?
For me, this film became a document of that era. Since then, everything has changed very dramatically, almost on its head. It is interesting to see the ideology of the time.
Sasha is portrayed as a negative character. But why? Because he doesn't work in his specialty. Because he does not work hard for an idea in some Dalnogorsk, but lives on a big foot in Moscow, has an apartment, a car and often eats in restaurants. He's a speculator. Shame, shame and stuff. Man wants an easy life and lives it in full force. Interesting, isn't it? That was the ideology. The hero is the one who for little money, but is engaged, for example, in science, works for the country, and not the one who lives in prosperity.
Olga Sergeevna is also from this company. Instead of becoming a teacher, being a beacon of pedagogical thought, she changes her ideologically loyal profession to making and selling hats. Sasha and Olga are two boot pairs. And that's why they so clearly lie about their work, so clearly hide them, replacing them with socially approved professions - a chemist, a teacher. They are ashamed to admit that they chose money over Idea. How interesting to look at this from the height of the present time. People have changed dramatically.
But it's just a little note. The film itself is very funny and rich in phrases that flew to the people. The culprit of this phenomenon can be safely considered screenwriter Vladlen Bakhnov, who worked most often with Veniamin Dorman and, which especially confirms his status as an excellent screenwriter, with Leonid our Gaidai. In terms of script and dialogue, the film was very funny, lively, interesting and memorable.
Separate lines deserved Faina Ranevskaya. There are people who are simply destined to be actors. Faina Georgievna is one of them. This is an amazing fireworks of unforgettable charisma, intonation, presentation, and in general the image of a speculator. At night there is no rest, in a dream I see only policemen, honestly. "It's a cream, it's a cream ... for facial expression." He said, "Hello, I'm your aunt from Kiev." And a lot more. As they say, you have to look at it.
Also interesting are the so-called Easter eggs in the film. For example, the heroine of Nina Ivanova, who works as a teacher, at a graduate meeting says that she is now Savchenko, which means that in the film “Spring on Zarechnaya Street” she did marry Sasha Savchenko, which we are happy about.
Anyway, it's a fun movie. It's really easy. Too much. I think that the viewer himself could think of what the hero of Yuri Yakovlev thinks and feels, and these are his arguments on camera could be smaller. This gives the film a share of naivety and it seems to chew everything up for the viewer, so that the latter does not miss anything important. Therefore, very often Yuri Yakovlev in the image of Sasha looks straight into the camera and explains what is already clear: “Now I think so and so and feel so and so.”
8 out of 10
- Hello, I'm your aunt. I came from the city of Kiev. I'll be staying with you!
Who does not remember this phrase of Faina Georgievna Ranevskaya. The image of a charming speculator, hung with a deficit in 5-6 fashionable sweatshirts worn on her own body. Every sentence she says is a masterpiece. Every gesture she makes is a real joke. Choosing the easy way of the dry cleaning director, Yuri Yakovlev, is very well suited to the image displayed by him - weak-willed, cunning, but with some correct basis somewhere in the back of his soul. And although he saws the proceeds from an illegal firm with Faina Ranevskaya, goes to restaurants and drives around in a car, something undermines him from the inside and he realizes that he is capable of much more. As a teacher of morals, of course, all the surrounding Soviet people - professors who came to the dry cleaners, young principled girls-collaborators and, of course, the younger sister - the standard of naive correctness of the Soviet Union - Nadezhda Rumyantseva.
What always gets us out of balance is women. The arrival in Moscow of Ninel Myshkova ruins all the plans of Yakovlev, who is ashamed of his profession. Sister Ninel's charming family is a landmark. The unbound curves of the inimitable Vera Maretskaya against the background of Dunduk-Professor Rostislav Plyatt. "What a clever look this fool has,"" Ranevskaya says of him. Vera Maretskaya painted an unparalleled image of the capital’s idler, but so charming, so I can’t imagine how she could be criticized in the Soviet years.
The movie is amazing. I envy those who did not watch.
34: Am I still an aunt?
- Auntie! But settle for Grisha!
What great actors we used to be! They're all different. But then, in Soviet times, only good was promoted. And what they want to prove and show us in today’s Russian cinema is not yet clear.
The film was directed by Benjamin Dorman (known for the tetralogy of "Resident"). It's not for nothing. Faina Ranevskaya alone was enough to understand that the film was worth watching. I am not talking about Nadezhda Rumyantseva, Yuri Yakovlev, Ninel Myshkova.
Then, probably hilarious story about the owner of dry cleaning - Bochkin was extremely relevant. But this film does not lose relevance today, although the humor is not so fresh.
But there was something missing in the film. Joke? No, they were enough. Actors? There were a lot of them (and some of them). I still don’t understand why... I’ll throw another ball, if only because of the episodic appearance of Stepsel and Tarapunka. And the appearance, again, Ranevskaya.