Great domestic smart thriller Here everything is whole, nothing sags, does not trample in indecision, there are no fabulous holes. It is difficult to write about this in 2 words, because it is more interesting and easier to criticize in detail than to praise in detail.
First of all, the atmosphere. This is a perfect thriller, psychologically, the film presses you face to the sticky creaky parquet floor and keeps you in this position under a heavy heel from the first second to the last. They were able to do this – inexpensive, without special effects and behind-the-scenes equipment – cinema: a lot of them, such paintings from the time when the quality of the device (everything hisses and rustles, aki a dense snake, which itself ensures even immersion) works on the atmosphere. She's oppressive. The floors creak, catastrophically, pitchlessly, eschatologically and hopelessly, the elevator in the St. Petersburg entrance rumbles - this is a devouring house, and the world of the whole picture is devouring; you look out the window - and there ghostly, not from this world, to God, makes a run by his own person Bes of Envy (simple, easily readable, but in this case appropriate symbolism).
Thematically and culturally: a very large range of associations and references due to problems, a combination of genres (drama / thriller / detective) and just an aesthetic component. When you think of the “arithmetic” of the protagonist, you think of detectives. And all these lobster intellectuals, solving crimes instead of the police one by one.
No doubt Dostoevsky (and to some extent Bulgakov, his heirs) breathed here. Here everything is from Fyodor Mikhailovich: a household with dirt and a roof - his, himself a "little man" - also of Dostoevsky blood - intelligent and prone to the specific application of his mind, thinking and conceiting, not devoid of a metaphysical, spiritual smell (God and God are here, too, all right). And the Dostoevsky dialogues. All these bloated, negotiated, sprinkling speech "introductory constructions", but remaining on his mind parquet sharkuna.
In addition, the relationship of the investigator (young Yuri Kuznetsov, known to everyone from “Streets of Broken Lanterns”) and the main hero is quite a relationship between Raskolnikov and Porfiry Petrovich, the same external courtesy combined with wariness towards each other. It is impossible not to notice the phonetic, intentional, undoubtedly closeness: the investigator from Arithmetic is named Pyotr Prokofievich. All these “p”, “p”, “f”, do not tell me that this is not a phonetic reference, 100% nod to “Crime and Punishment”, even Dostoevsky’s volume is deliberately highlighted close up in one of the frames.
And what is the somnambulistically seen squabbling and fussing of rats in the delirium of Glavhero, the very figure of which, I repeat, is also from the Gogol-Dostoev overcoat - after all, the theme of the "little man" is the same.
And this "little", being sophisticated - playful, that is, smart - intelligent, is something like a "small but predatory" (c) demon, he is not weakly rebelling, inventive, with a special dramaturgy (development, figures on the board, all things), revenges - God, the world, a specific place of his habitat - and all this for his notorious "smallness". "The Trembling Creature" is an insult. As you know, somewhere disappears, somewhere appears. He compensates for physical weakness with a mind trained in intellectual games, boldly - boldly and arrogantly even - implemented in a living life, in which once he acquiesced, he will certainly respond.
Most likely, this is obvious to many, and the letters are already a lot. One last thing. Accidentally, according to some obscure laws of my cultural memory, this flashed in my head for a second or two: I remembered the story of T. N. Tolstoy “Night”. There is hardly a direct connection, but it hurts the moment when the hero found himself in his wheelchair without an accompanying old woman, in a terrible “external”, “open” (unlike the musty communal) world, resembles the end of the mentioned story. But this is, I repeat, subjective.
In any case, 10 out of 10, the revision is