Have you noticed that people become relaxed and frank at the end of some stage, an episode of their life, when the stress of responsibility for the result of this segment no longer affects behavior? This is the revelation we see in this film. The end of the stage is the end of the USSR, the end of the moral and instructive position of cinema. And already on the specific fabric of production and social drama, even yesterday’s relationships are not timely, but even yesterday’s. Here, unlike, say, American cinema, our creators are always half a step behind society, analyzing and reflecting on what can no longer be changed. A recent example is "Crystal."
A peer-reviewed film speaks honestly about the motives and motivations of workers in a single laboratory. But it also reflects the general trends and trends of society. It's a pity it was yesterday. Social currents are represented in all possible gradations from the engineer enthusiastic about his creativity to the chief parasitizing his subordinates intellectually. Only extreme types are cut off: clearly criminal and empathetic. With such a multifaceted nature of the declared characters, a conflict inevitably arises - production-personal, worldview. The question is raised about defending any notions of justice, decency or a complete retreat into mercantilism. This is the line and try not to cross each of the GG. But it is written so differently for each of them that the approaches of all are different. And attempts to coordinate the actions of the “good forces” are destroyed by internal contradictions. And they bleed out in this collision. And the self-conscious evil, embodied by Mikhail Danilov, losing nothing, confidently maneuvering, penetrates into the inconsistencies of the flanks of the opponents, forcing them to move in the right track. This "undercover" struggle is the interest in the film.
The finale of the women’s positive-moral instructive: the most fair in nature GG finds a way to protect justice both in himself and in his comrades, without putting them before a choice, but one continues to “go with the flow” hoping, probably, for the next “case”, the other succumbs to the temptation of an easy way, although not betraying his comrades this time, but obviously embarking on the path of far-reaching internal compromises – as probably earlier the head of their KB.
Once again, starting to dig into the ideas and meanings of Soviet cinema of the 70-80s, I find there deposits of unclaimed ideals and goals. Why didn't anyone want them? Something must have happened with the presentation. Or the inner-author's belief in these meanings has disappeared. Or, despite the importance of our cinema in the cultural and social life of the country, it degenerated into genre-entertainment, without honing the presentation of deeper ideas. And it turned out that the director who wanted to speak about the painful or deeper was blinded by stereotypes or doomed to an experimental search for a way to convey his thoughts to the viewer.
6 out of 10