Gerasimov would be a liberal today. It was impossible then, but in 1967 he managed to make a stunning advertisement for the West and the Western way of life, covering it with a fig leaf of bland arguments about the right values - it seems only for a tick, so that the film was not cut down in Goskino.
After all, the whole trick is that the words of the Soviet delegation about the high goal of art - it is to help people, that you can not abuse the shocks in art, because too much in the upheavals leads to madness and inability to distinguish good from evil - all these words are very correct and even genius, but ... It's just words. And the picture against which these words are pronounced is about the beauty, sweetness and abundance of Western bourgeois life. Convertible, Paris, great costumes and ties, evening dresses and nightclubs, rock and discos, fashionably dressed girls and boys. That's what the audience takes, and not on the arguments of an elderly Communist woman about the right values, because you perfectly understood this, Sergei Apollinarievich?
That was the hidden message, the seed you sowed in the souls of Soviet comrades. I write this with irony, but we all know that the Soviet Union was eventually destroyed by a craving for the conditional “foreign gum” as a symbol of the Western consumer paradise. Going for this gum we almost fell into the abyss - who remembers the 90s, he will understand. And by the way, this paradise was only a screen, specially and skillfully created, including in Western cinema, as propaganda of Western values. Well, Sergey Apollinarievich here a little helped Western partners.
In general, Sergey went on vacation with his wife to Europe and made a film about it. That's right, by the way.
The second point in the film, which also causes dissonance, is the love story of the protagonist. He is the main character, so the viewer should be for him a priori. And if he is a hero is not very positive, then it would be worth the director to decide on this more specifically and call him such, because he behaves arrogantly, even boorishly somewhere. It's not likeable.
But in general, the film is worthy and very innovative for the time. I recommend watching.
Yes, comparisons with 'Sweet Life' are not accidental. For the Union, these are really sketches from the life of a real elite. Judge for yourself. Before us is a portrait of a young man, a graduate of MGIMO, who travels a lot. By virtue of his work, he visits remote regions of the country and travels to Western Europe. It is impossible both in Gornouralsk and in Paris. He communicates equally with the young journalist Valya Korolkova and with the French film star Annie Girardo. But the most important thing is that before us there is a qualitatively new example - a well-educated, cultural, able to behave, and most importantly - a person ready to make responsible decisions.
Gerasimov highlights all the temptations of Western society. There are imaginary freedoms, and sexual emancipation and much more. The film is full of halftones. It's important just to highlight them. And it does not matter that the choice of the main character between impeccable Western charm and such an incomprehensible province is predetermined. The choice is important.
All this makes the tape interesting even these days. It is difficult to imagine how bright this film was in the distant 60s.
Perhaps here we need to talk about the wonderful acting, draw analogies with the works of Fellini and Antonioni. But I will highlight another.
To some extent, this film is opposed ' Moscow does not believe in tears' Menshov. This is due both to the success of both films and to the graceful acting work in both films by Yuri Vasiliev. One film received foreign recognition, but the second – not at all. And this is understandable to some extent. The fact is that Menshov’s heroes are not perfect at all. They without much hesitation can make a lot of claims in terms of ethical behavior. But in Gerasimov’s film, despite the clearly deduced conflicts of interest, the actions of many characters can well be considered as a benchmark for behavior. For me, this arrangement, taking into account the brilliant directorial work of Gerasimov, looks more preferable.
10 out of 10
Probably imitating Fellini, with his 'Sweet Life', Soviet directors shot contemplative films, here and Gerasimovski ' Lake' and 'Your contemporary' Reisman, supposedly with a detached view of what is happening only conveying the environment perceived by the senses, without the subjective opinion of the artist. This is evidenced by decent timekeeping of the paintings and the absence of the stated plot conflicts in them. But this is how successful this idea was in this film. . .
And by no means, if filming a film without conflicts, the authors sharply change the environment shown with one social formation to another, conflicting with the first, then there can be no talk about the principle of detached view and speech, too fundamental differences, most importantly, the meanings of the systems, so as not to cause conflicts by their very combination in one world of cinema. Yes, and the finding of the most ' objective' observer in the frame is also an unambiguous destruction of the fleur of detached attention and the justification for using my union allegedly at the beginning of the review. Well, or what else does the presence, in the same place, in the film of the beautiful wife of the director, and even with a minted phrase about love for French old women, clean and neat chatting lively on the veranda of a Parisian cafe, it is probably like the opposite, not love, for domestic grandmothers, not so neat, elegant and often loud. How to explain to a lady protected from real life in her world by her own fees and husband that these representatives of French society in which a generation are not creators and creators of nothing but excrement, living like mold, for rent and often not even thinking about children, because then the tranquility of their life and its focus on themselves (and often on soy & #39; creative development') will be disturbed by the invasion of worries, troubles and the opportunity to sit quietly in a cafe will go away. Is it older women, in a country completely ruined some 23 years ago, with the active support of France, and the whole ' clean and neat' Europe...
So, what is opposed to in the film 'narcissistic contemplation' from Gerasimov? What's the director against? What is highlighted in the plot brightly, dynamically and what is really descriptive and contemplative? The second style of narration includes scenes from life in his native country, to the first scene from abroad. Some scenes of beautiful rest or constant pastime of a small part of society, others consisting of everyday life, worries, work. Why is the author so ' retracts ' maps of social locations, comparing the incomparable? Why break the arc of the character of the Polish heroine, reducing her to female melodramatism? Why stick out of all the characters, on ' this side', only ' iron' the old woman, contrasting her and Girardo, and those ' old women on the veranda of the cafe'? I leave these questions unanswered, because for complete understanding, a multi-letter excursion into history, sociology and psychology is necessary.
I will highlight only one explanation whether it was conscious 'hype', for 'piple' which 'washes', or it is finally burst on the screen the sensation of the creator, but it did not go unnoticed and became appreciated, for consumers and like-minded people (or rather, single-consumers!) of this view, because there is recognition as the best film of the year in the CE and the presence in the list for viewing in VGIK. And it is not surprising that having brought up a huge number of students, the Gerasimov-Makarov couple and similar cultural agents created that world with their own, different from the public, opinion on a set of meanings and ideas, successfully and further separately existing for themselves (and for cafe verandas!), issuing so one-sidedly ideologically sharpened products so far in the form of ' Thunderstorms' or 'T-34'.
Yuri Vasiliev, familiar to most film lovers as an unscrupulous TV adept from the x/f "Moscow does not believe in tears", in the sabja acts as a young elite journalist who is bright with a wonderful career, involving trips abroad and communication with the capitalist elite.
But before the first trip abroad, so that the guy does not forget what country he lives in, he is entrusted with the investigation of a dubious businessman, from whom all his colleagues shun: a half-crazy grandmother from the town of Besprosvetovsk writes cloaks on everything that moves, and Vasiliev must figure out whether her grandmother is right, or it is time to hand her over to the state yellow house.
Arriving at the place, Vasilyev gets acquainted directly with his grandmother, as well as with the local princess from the sokha Galina Polskikh and with the editor of the newspaper “Vestnik Besprosvetovsk” Sergey Nikonenko.
This is followed by intense adventures of both a loving and socially useful nature, revealing the difficult inner world of heroes, including secondary ones - for example, a local young journalist performed by Valentina Telichkina, this Renata Litvinova of Soviet times.
The second series, where the main character is sent abroad, is much weaker, as it is overloaded with politics. Apparently, the creators of the film had ambitious plans related to international distribution - this is indicated by the presence in the film of real and living Annie Girardo and Mireille Mathieu; however, they only once again emphasize that the second series, although formally wins in form, but hopelessly loses in content.
A wonderful film, I watched a long time ago, and only the first part.
I wanted to remember
Sergey Gerasimov is a genius, of course. How it was possible to make Soviet realities so free and very neorealist both in form and in content of cinema - I do not mind.
But Gerasimov, his weight as an artist and master has always been very high.
The amazing work of Lydia Smirnova’s husband Vladimir Rappoport (DP), very subtle, very sensual, interesting angles, a little Rodchenko, of course, but only by hint, wonderfully shot scenes in the dark, sensual to the point of eerie, even sparks fly, but without intimacy – aerobatics, even moralizing and excessively long monologues are not too annoying.
Sometimes there's too much protracted scenes, but the script is wonderful nonetheless. Neorealism has its own laws.
If the first part is a village love story, the second is an ode to Paris, in full.
Magnificent cast, just 15 points out of 10, such a hit in the images, it's scary.
The main role or 2 minutes on the screen, like Vasily Makarich Shukshin or no matter - remember everything in detail.
Not a single passing job.
Unbelievable beauty and truth of character Yuri Vasiliev (such a handsome and gifted, and so little played! - loved Gerasimov rare beauty of young men - that he is like Kolya Eremenko, straight from the canvases of Renaissance boys).
A wonderful young Nikonenko, wonderful work.
All the girls - and the young Polish, and always the same, but this is the lovely Telickina with cow eyes and manners, and the wife of Kleiman Alevtin Rumyantsev with a child in the episode (beautiful!), and the beautiful Zhanna Bolotova, and, of course, the beautiful Tatiana Myasina in the role of Michelle Aubrey - a look (and most importantly, both in Russian and in English / French plays, very precisely, such a rarity for Soviet cinema, such a face, body and type - nowhere else like Liazhenkaya) - and play the role of Omashina!
Yuri Kuzmenkov is a wonderful, wonderful Ivan Lapikov, a beauty with the aristocratic manners of Tamara Makarov and a replica about Parisian old women.
Nadezhda Fedosova is an old slander, God, how she plays, this is something!
And this American journalist is wonderful – Anatoly Kryzhansky.
A separate delight cameo 19-year-old Mireille Mathieu and matchless young Annie Girardo at the same table with Gerasimov himself - how it is mounted there, what eyes, what face!!!
Sergey Appolinaryevich himself with lengthy arguments about the fate of mankind (all so naturally, no pathos or the presence of a foreign body).
A wonderful, filigree cinema, it is obvious that there is absolute freedom (internal), but at the same time absolute skill of both great and beginners (under the guidance of the Big Master and the Big Artist).
Wonderful!
The most complex work. For its time and place, it is phenomenal. Let us remember who Gerasimov was. A world-class director whom the Soviet authorities did not allow themselves to be shot. A great lover and connoisseur of cinema and young actresses, and a great performer and figure in both these fields. He started with a bold socialist realism, but after the war he moved to a purer form of realism, from where he washed away party pathetics and began to bring real social problems, global issues and even some elements of a parable.
When a person decided to sing, the following happened: either he began to sing, or he fell silent forever. Gerasimov made increasingly desperate moves, but he was never silenced. He had recognition, he had opportunities, he had a position. Having received his second order of the great leader, immediately after Brezhnev came to power, Gerasimov removes The Journalist - a story without unambiguous definitions. Honest, deep, extraordinary and extremely unexpected.
A socialist realism in which there is no truth and no heroes. A very cynical, hopeless subtext. Decline, decadence, duality, doubt. Not idealization, but fixation: reality, thoughts, moods. Acceptance and accurate transmission of reality. Incredible level of production and acting. Delightful camera work and impeccable installation. Unusual, but also perfectly suited to the film voice recording, a very pleasant use of noise instead of music.
At the same time. Reliably executed noble story of the hero of Soviet times. A symbolic story about the struggle of a new generation of communists and the dying historical heritage of the owners, about the choice of the intelligentsia, about its love for the people. The existential drama of a choking intellectual. An essay on views on global and general cultural problems. A narrative that connects all of the above, as well as fragments of scenes, situations, ideas, points of view, conversations, thoughts, elements of reality.
In the same 1967, to some extent, Roland Barthes, a communist from France, wrote the epoch-making Death of the Author. Soviet literature could not think of any experiments at that time. Not to mention the movie. Dissidents are brutally and demonstratively dealt with. Nevertheless, Gerasimov seriously expands the horizons and emphasizes the idea that undermines the generally accepted line. Uncompromisingly and with great enthusiasm, he both expounds quite frank thoughts and applies new means for their presentation.
It is impossible to describe or even grasp all ideas and interpretations at once. In addition, the author tries to distance himself from the presentation as much as possible, inviting the viewer to draw a conclusion and disposing it to often opposite, controversial interpretations. As an illustrative example, I will consider only two leitmotiv moments, one of which is pronounced and repeated constantly, the other is hidden and elusive, but critical to understand.
“We’re all right about something, but there’s nothing special about it.” Being right about something is not difficult, it is much more difficult, for example, to work well.
At the very beginning, we see the newspaper Pravda coming to every house, after which the whole film is emphasized to us that a person’s one-sided perception of the world cannot be true. The party cannot guarantee a citizen the truth because he cannot be honest with himself - do you have any idea how scandalous this allegation is? In the frame constantly (and especially in the climax period) the dualism of phenomena, and therefore the assertion of the right to a separate opinion, which is able to make the idea of things more complete. And then again duality: along with the assertion of the subjectivism of truth, there is the assertion of the depravity of the individual. Despair, decline, and nothing to lean on; there are no real heroes.
What did you see? What do you know? What do you like? Except for yourself and on holidays.”
Although the era of stagnation has only just begun, Gerasimov already wields it as a classic character – a person who does not want to participate in anything, a journalist, an outside observer. Immediately after the landmark scene with the newspaper, we see an equally symbolic episode: our hero (27 years old) does not want to wake up, and when his mother wakes him, he hides behind her from the outside world. She leaves, and “torn from the nipple” he immediately seeks to calm oral deprivation (ie, take in the mouth a nipple substitute, which subconsciously causes pleasant childhood memories of staying with his mother) and rushes to cigarettes. Nothing makes him happy. It's not a nice new day for him.
At the end of the film, during the so-called climax (the culmination of all the elements of which it consists are actually blurred, not emphasized and do not come at the same time), the hero also hides behind the beloved, leaving us with the question: is this really selfless love or an escape from hopelessness to the best possible ending?
The Union was very late overtaken by a wave of frankness in art. Even after modernism destroyed the classics in world culture, it mixed and leveled all the bad and the good. The themes of understanding people and accepting the order of things were built on a very intricate foundation and always presented as semitones. The author could not, due to external pressure, or even did not want to divide the world into unambiguous contrasts. Right and wrong disappeared, everyone became guilty, but no one deserved punishment. The author tried to disappear from the work, to deprive the heroes of their support. It went so far as to deprive him of hope, and seemingly simple stories turned into very bitter, embarrassing statements.
This style was found in literature, but sometimes reached the cinema. Despite their complexity, these films are very lyrical. They're a lot about heroes. But if romanticism glorifies the hero, gives him the right to accomplish something, then realism puts him in a strict framework, which he only illuminates, especially without changing anything. In "Journalist" in contrast to struggle and conquest put calmness and love. It is the last things that the protagonist seeks, and it is their author who allows him to find them. Exactly the same approach is observed in the work of Shukshin and many authors after. I’ll be honest with you, although many people are shocked. At the head of the author's message here is usually humility. If the plot of the hero accepts humility – a comedy (“Love and doves”); is not accepted – the collapse follows and tragedy comes out (“Flights in sleep and reality”).
Humility is elevated to the rank of ideology. The questions and reasons behind it are extremely ambiguous, and it itself is questionable. But nothing but humility and an invitation to think. It's kind of a twisted hero. Searches or exploits against the backdrop of delightful realism and elusive, but well conveyed to the soul decadence. All this is asked for under the cliché of decadence, and I don’t understand how this kind of creativity came to be in a country with terrible ideological censorship.
Two words cannot describe or sum up. Unless you have to watch it. Moreover, the work was out of time and in many ways relevant now. And just as in today’s books, its strength lies in the host of contradictory doubts and thoughts that arise in you.
I confess that until now I was not familiar with the work of Sergei Gerasimov, but was quite heard by him. Still, a world-class director, whose work can and should be studied. And it is safe to say that his paintings are known not only in Russia, but all over the world. But I knew all this, so to speak, in theory. In practice, in my cinematic baggage, the Gerasimov regiment was still empty. Must be because his work is really quite monumental and heavyweight. And the images are always deep and incredibly literary, almost Tolstoy’s.
Gerasimov's films won't be on Saturday night with nothing to do. You need to grow up to such a movie, and not just reaching a certain age, but having accumulated a certain life experience, mature. And, not least, find the time and catch the right cinematic mood. And the stars came together. The evening was empty, my head greedily demanded spiritual food, and in our film club there was a screening of the film “Journalist”.
After watching, I was seized by a hurricane of emotions and feelings. He hasn't let go yet. They don't make it anymore. At least not here. But even if there is something similar in foreign cinema, the cinema is skipped through the prism of modernity and looks completely different. Which may not be that bad. But this is something completely different.
From the first minute it becomes clear that the film was made with great love. The picture became Gerasimov’s favorite child, to whom he gave his whole soul. I think that’s why the story is incredibly realistic. There's not an ounce of falsehood in it. You believe her from the first to the last minute. You become a part of it. What, of course, is the merit of not only the director, but also the actors, by the way, who are students of the maestro. You can't find those characters right now. Touching, somewhat naive, but honest, open and loving.
The film is divided into two parts, dissecting not only the almost four-hour timekeeping of the tape, but also the life of the main character into two conventional halves “before” and “after”. “Meetings” begins the story of a young metropolitan journalist who is sent with an editorial assignment to a small Ural town. It would seem, unremarkable plot and unusual to the modern eye monochrome picture can drag in a sweet nap. But after 40 minutes, you know. They can't. The movie is addictive, and the plot seems no more boring than any modern detective. Upon arrival, the main character plunges into the life of a provincial town in which real passions boil. There we get acquainted with the main informant Anikina and, as if in contrast to her, a modest and charming Shurochka, in which the hero, according to the law of the genre, falls in love. And there is already “Garden and Spring”, there is a bright, dizzying Paris, Mireille Mathieu and again the Russian hinterland. Having passed through this whirlpool of events, the hero changes, and now he is no longer a boy who is woken up in the morning by his mother, but a man who passionately and tenderly loves, does not want to put up with the miseries of Anikina and runs for his beloved to the end of the world, namely to a provincial dormitory, famously climbs into the window and even a little further - into the heart of the viewer.
The Journalist is a wonderful film with no less remarkable actors. This is a great game by Galina Polish. She turned out to be a pure, untainted soot of resentment and anger, despite the harsh and hard life, a heroine. The image was successful and despite all its idealism, you love her, believe her, and sincerely sympathize with her.
Interesting was the image of the provincial editor Reutov. Sergei Nikonenko has a modest young man, with sincere admiration looking at his capital colleague.
Well, the most funny Gerasimov made Secretary Reutov Valya. Valentina Telichkina made the image absolutely caricatured, incredibly funny and understandable not only to a person close to the journalistic profession, but also to a simple viewer. It was because of her phrases that our little auditorium exploded with laughter. It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad. The director not only ridicules the image of a stupid errand girl, but also sincerely regrets Valya.
The film was full of different themes. But each topic is intertwined with a special love. Here is the love of the main characters, Anikina’s love for complaints, the love of the director in his homeland. Gerasimov sincerely admires Paris, its beautiful, luxurious life, but returning to the gray and dusty Ural town, shows that we have nothing worse than “foreign Paris”. Everything is different, but in its own way it is beautiful, and most importantly – all this is dear to the eye and incredibly dear to the heart. Moreover, he does not try to show all the best sides: instead of pompous hotels - an old wooden house, a cramped and stuffy scene in the local creative house, instead of expensive cars - a bus and an irregular column walking to work. But despite the bright contrast of landscapes, themes and images, the picture does not turn out to be ragged, Russia and Paris, the capital and the Ural hinterland, are more than enough in it. The director harmoniously and carefully stitches the “patchwork blanket” and towards the end of the film the viewer is cozy and warm together with the already beloved heroes.
Let the Journalist not be about journalism. It's partly about her, though. It was she who gave a chic fertile basis for building a plot. There are no instructive lessons to be learned about how fiercely to pursue the truth and save millions of lives, as was the case in All the President's Men. There is also no point in rooting for your business and going all the way to the end, as in "Here they smoke." But there's everything else. It's called love.
All of us like a magnet pulls on the newfangled cinematic novelties, which as if in a giant centrifuge spin in cinemas, replacing each other. Almost everyone can claim to have seen the next movie. But to boast that he watched an old, smart movie, unfortunately, can not. The "old" of this is only the release date. Stories of morality and love are still relevant. It's all about us. And the film club gives us the opportunity to look at ourselves from the outside, albeit with an eye almost 50 years ago.
- What's the happiness? - Fighting and conquering!
To be honest, I haven’t seen much of Sergey Gerasimov’s films. To be precise, there were only two. And if the first picture “Rural doctor”, somehow, as they say now, did not catch, then released on the screens, 20 years later, the tape “Love a man” liked much more. And so, in order to more or less form an attitude to the work of Sergei Gerasimov, it was decided to watch the film “Journalist”. It was a sort of adjudication to some extent. What do I want to tell you friends? A movie with an extra class prefix. The highest, higher is no longer by definition, category. This is despite the fact that I am still overwhelmed by emotions and feelings. Yeah. So now it is unlikely to be removed, with such a soul and love. And the heroes of this day with fire in addition to all the spotlights can not find. But it is, senile grumbling. And now on the case, that is, on the film.
In Moscow there is someone named Alyabiev. Name is Yuri Nikolaevich. He works as a journalist in the letter department. Gerasimov will not show us how this man works in the sweat of his face. The director will immediately take the bull by the steep horns and give our hero a business trip to Gorno-Uralsk. Before, as it was, the party said, a man took a visor and went to explore the Far North. That’s almost the transfer to the new department is not far off, and not just in some there, but in the international. But first we need to deal with a certain citizen Anikina, who writes denunciations and cloaks on all the respected residents of Gorno-Uralsk. Therefore, it is worth waiting for overseas walks, and to go to comrade Alyabiev in this very Gorno-Uralsk. In fact, there is nothing in particular in the bundle. But then the story will be extremely exciting and curious from all points of view. Here you and journalistic investigation, and meetings with people from the outback, and local life, and... That and a little later.
The amiability of the people of Siberia, the Far East and the Urals, as you can imagine, is beyond discussion. We received a guest from Moscow warmly, as befits. But, paradoxically, the journalist Alyabiev settled not in the hotel and not even with his colleague Reutov (Sergei Nikonenko), but with the very Anikina, who was the subject of the visit. And now we have a little surprise. We're not going to see an old aunt pulling her throat for nothing, we're going to see a woman in her years whose tongue is so hung that any philosopher is envious. And it's practically in the village. An impressive stock of vocabulary words and terms, as the speech is poured from the mouth of citizen Anikina (Nadezhda Fedosova). I repeat to a woman in her fifties and she doesn't live in a big city. These are the miracles.
And in parallel with her in the neighborhood lives a young Shura Okoyomova, which the heroine of Nadezhda Fedosova, oh how does not like. She loves no one except private property. And this is Shura Okoyomova. I'm not going to talk about that. You have to see that.
Here's just a little touch on the plot. How many interesting scenes and episodes! Can you get rid of the conversation Yuri Alyabyev and his colleague Reutov about happiness, that life is in struggle and conquest? You will not forget the moment when a journalist falls behind a bump and touches a slot machine. Throws a coin, looks into the phone and two garns of foreign villains begin to undress. And then the cunning capitalist machine asks the Russian journalist for another franc to see the beauty of the female body. This is an interesting episode.
I cannot but mention the introduction of such people as Annie Girardot and Mireille Mathieu. Little charming charming Frenchwoman can be seen at the rehearsal of the song, and the actress at a round cafe table surrounded by the master Gerasimov and Tamara Makarova. By the way, the heroine Tamara Makarova talks very interestingly about what is the best in France. These are cute French old ladies, always well-groomed and tidy, who are pleasant to look at. And maybe she's right.
But the main thing in the picture of Sergey Gerasimov is of course love. She will be with her skews and misunderstanding, trembling and tender. And how Shura Okoyomova will drive Alyabieva away, insisting that she does not need handouts from visiting men. Galina Polskikh, in my opinion, played one of her best roles in cinema, if not the best. A huge human thank you to her! Not a film, but a real gift for all fans and connoisseurs of cinema. A little nostalgia will not hurt in our age. What do you think? And the second question. Are there any other girls like Shura Okoyomova?
10 out of 10
I've loved this movie for a long time. I've seen it a dozen times. Perhaps this is the best work (together with the picture “The Quiet Don”) of the great director S. A. Gerasimov from all his more than thirty films.
It has always been fashionable to love foreign filmmakers. With a breath to call their difficult names, confused in pronunciation and stress. But such a lump as Gerasimov to call among the geniuses of cinema many somehow even uncomfortable. Well, it does. We'll survive.
So, the black-and-white film The Journalist (1967), in my opinion, is a brilliant film.
I would put it on a par with the color film by M. Antonioni “Profession: Reporter”, which the Italian master shot eight years after (!) S. Gerasimov. Not just because the characters in both films are journalists. And here and there are absolutely unique atmosphere, mood, aura.
Sergey Gerasimov, of course, they are more familiar, more natural for us. But special. You forget that you are not looking at real life situations, but just a movie. I would have noted such a confidential black and white shooting in another later film by Gerasimov “At the Lake” (1970). This atmosphere is sometimes called socialist realism. Usually when there is nothing more to say. In my opinion, any cliches in art are destructive, do not reflect anything, do not say anything. What matters is what the author wants to tell us. Why all this? Isn't that right?
In a fairly simple plot - on the instructions of the editorial office, a metropolitan journalist goes to examine a household complaint in a small Ural town - the director tries to think together with the audience about global problems. Such as “what is love”, “what is a favorite profession”, “what is art”, “what is the Motherland”.
The action takes us from the capital to the far Russian hinterland, then to Europe, then again to the province. That fashionable metropolitan disco, then rehearsal in the factory club, then chic skyscrapers, then a modest hostel ...
The Journalist is a very beautiful film with beautiful actors and actresses. One of the best roles of the wonderful Soviet actress Galina Polish. They say that the script of this film S.A. Gerasimov wrote specifically for his favorite student. The amazing play of Valentina Telichkina in a very small role of an employee of the editorial office of a small newspaper. Many of the phrases of her character, the way she speaks, I remember, were quoted for a long time by my peers. (And then I went to the Spanish again!)
Good play Yuri Vasiliev as the main character - promising handsome journalist Yuri Alyabyev. A loving couple of heroes Vasiliev and Polish psychologically accurately conveys the nuances of the relationship between people who met and almost lost each other. The sympathies of the audience are clearly on their side in all the collisions of action. How we lack such a clean relationship in today’s cinema And in life too.
Not much time in the frames of the film the capital of France Paris, where the main character gets on a business trip. But you feel the city, you feel it, you admire it. Moreover, in this the viewer helps actress Annie Gerardo and singer Mireille Mathieu. Both famous Frenchwomen surprisingly organically entered the plot of the film, giving it originality and special charm.
I want to mention one more thing that amazes me personally. Quite a lot in the frame we see Sergei Apollinarievich himself. Very risky move - the main director shoots himself in his own film. Will it work? It worked! Gerasimov is uninhibited, unusually original and convincing. It is his character that unobtrusively touches on a whole layer of philosophical questions in the film that make the viewer determine his position. (From the successful repetitions of the experience of filming myself in my film, I can not but recall our brilliant Vasily Shukshin and Leonid Bykov.)
The film is full of small directorial and cameraman (operator V. Rappoport) discoveries, interesting plans and interiors. Everything is very carefully thought out, and there are not even elements of negligence, negligence, imitation, which fill many of today’s films. The skin feels a huge amount of professional work of the filmmakers. However, it was the lifestyle of the great director and teacher S. A. Gerasimov (Four Orders of Lenin on his chest, of course, not for the beautiful eyes).
As a result, "Journalist" is a very worthy work of Russian Soviet cinema, which we will be proud of and which we will review for many, many years.
July 2013
We're in a hurry to see the new movie, but we haven't seen the old one. Smart movies aren't enough. Take the time to find the film “Journalist” by Sergey Gerasimov. Probably not without reason VGIK bears his name. The film received the main prize of the Moscow Film Festival in the 67th year.
It's more than cinema is literature. Great Russian literature. So many themes, images - and everything is real, honest and sincere. Believe only - the 67th year and Gerasimov without looking back speaks about us and about them.
Sergey Gerasimov and Tamara Makarova are a director and actress – a married couple who have raised many of our wonderful artists. They sometimes shoot their films under specific students.
Galina Polski has a complex image. Gerasimov came up with the ideal person, clean, talented and far from the surrounding filth. I don’t know whether it’s an actress, a director, or both, but I have no doubt that these people live among us. Dear girls, if you all looked like the heroine of Galina Polish
Sergey Nikonenko plays a young provincial journalist. His image is so literary verified and organic that it was possible to create a separate film for his character. An honest, hardworking and modest intelligent editor, thanks to whom something turns around in this province. Gerasimov not only saw such a man, he was able to make him one of the heroes of his film.
The movie has a lot of themes. About such films should write dissertations, not reviews. Or at least review to hear everything, understand, argue.
There are so many brilliant scenes in The Journalist that you can stop watching a new movie! Look at Gerasimov first. Vasily Shukshin appears for 10 minutes. His hero is worried that he was replaced by a young man. Just 10 minutes a brilliant director and a brilliant artist show the experiences of the hero.
The theme of homeland and love for France. In 67, Gerasimov admires France, introduces the young Mireille Mathieu into his film. Argument scene with Annie Girardot. Two different worlds. Makarova and Gerasimov turn the film into a documentary and tell us how much they love each other. So the finale is real.
“To cruel upheavals in art one can get used to and demand even more cruel upheavals, to the point of confusion. What then will become of man, what is the demand of the foolish? In this scene, you should try not only to admire Girardo and Makarova, but also carefully listen to the argument.
We are talking about a prosperous Europe. And Gerasimov in the 67th year admires exquisite French grandmothers chatting about dogs.
The director is fascinated by France, shows Paris in detail. And after these beauties, he takes his hero to an ordinary railway bridge in the Ural town. What a beautiful city, better than Paris! A perfect comparison of the country and Paris! And at the same time - long before all globalists - Gerasimov insists that the same trees grow in Russia and the same fields turn yellow.
Gerasimov does not embellish Russia at all. There are people walking in the park, we have a crowd going to the factory. He brings out a typical of our resident - Migra Anikin, who reports and writes anonymous. Gerasimov is ashamed of her, but can not help noticing that such people are around. And again, getting to the point with the actress - Anikina is played by the wonderful Hope Fedosov. The director is not mad at Anikina. He regrets it and leaves it with a dusty rug on the porch.
Getting into images is perfect. American journalist, editor of the newspaper
And most importantly. The scene where the heroes whisper at night, kissing each other. She asks him to tell and tell, and he kisses her in passing. “Distract me from The Journalist if there’s a director in this world who loves and loves and who’s going to try to make one of those scenes!” .