“Streets, streets of memories. Your windows shine on my way. I recently revisited my childhood film My Destiny (1973). It consists of three full-length series, each lasting more than an hour (only 3 hours 39 minutes), but I watched it in one breath. I don’t know what moved me more – nostalgia for good Soviet cinema or anything else, but, nevertheless, it is. The story told by the main character still does not leave me indifferent, and the play of artists only strengthens the impression of what they saw.
I must say that I love Soviet films. They have their charm, their energy, their charm, even in the black and white version in which they were created.
The film is built on the basis of two storylines running side by side - the memories of the old general about his youth, the events of 1919 associated with this time and life in peacetime of the late 60s. Of course, this three-part film is a product of its time, but I must tell you that it is not the worst of it. Well, how else should the Chekists have been shown - only smart, brave and honest people with a hot heart and clean hands & #39; and the enemies of the revolution - people mean, vile, cowardly, shooting in the back and around the corner. There could not be any other way in the films of those years and this should be taken as a fundamental circumstance. Who at the time thought it could be different?
I was personally interested at that time (during the first screening in my childhood), how did such a good man (Ermakov in his youth – artist Yevgeny Gerasimov) fall in love with the daughter of some counter-revolutionary? Why does he live in the basement and the bourgeois (albeit former) live in their apartments? But there is a lawyer, a manufacturer, and others, and someone else goes to them and to counter-revolutionary meetings! At the time, it seemed to me that in the episode about the arrest of Lyudmila's father - yes, everything is right! If you love a person (Ermakov) – and love, be on his side, and if the father (artist Vladislav Strezhelchik) is the enemy, do not pity him! And the point is not in the perception of the film from the point of view of political literacy, rather, ignorance of life. I watched this film and saw how a young woman is torn between the love for her beloved, the future father of her child and her own father. This is a tragedy! And it was solved no less tragically.
It is interesting, of course, to look at the confrontation between the two characters of the film - Ermakov (Ivan Lapikov in old age) and the son of the janitor - Pasha Kozhukhov (young Vladimir Gostyukhin in his youth! and Yevgeny Evstigneev in old age), as two opposite heroes, good and bad, honest and scoundrel, direct or quirky, and ultimately (although the film was shot in Soviet times) - as Christ (this character turned out so correct and Juda, ready to sell anyone for thirty silver books.
Of course, there are generally incomprehensible moments in the course of the film, I am not looking for them in any way, but they are very striking.
1. Here, for example, at the beginning of the film very bad people Chekmarev, get a separate three-room apartment, and intelligent, kind and cute Barabanov, still all huddled in communal. Moreover, it turns out that Yermakov himself helped Chekmarev with the apartment. This is really nonsense! So you have to be like 'terrible Chekmarevs' to get some benefits in life? Now, of course, no one is surprised – the main thing is to have money and do not care what kind of person you are, but then how did you miss it?
2. Irritating and surprising in this film is the story of a boy who regained his sight. I was surprised that in those years, it was necessary to get acquainted to come to Moscow and get an appointment with a doctor. Why doctors themselves from the remote hinterland did not send the child for treatment themselves is unclear. But it was Soviet times, the treatment was free, not what it is now. But, as shown by the zeal of the Barabanovs in helping strangers – just read in the newspaper and immediately rushed to the phone, immediately began to act. Probably, the filmmakers wanted to show what good and responsive people Barabanova and Chumakov are ready to help everyone and in everything! They would know then how in the future children will be collected for treatment by SMS!
3. I know a little about physics, and what I heard in the speeches of so-called young scientists seemed strange and unscientific. Well, anyway, it was a long time ago, we will make a discount on this, and this film was clearly not designed, obviously, for connoisseurs of science.
4. I still do not understand why the episode with a drunk passerby (George Vitsin) was inserted into the picture, what was it for? Boris and his physics friends walk down the street, one of them grabs a book and passes it from hand to hand - eventually it falls under the feet of this drunk holding onto a pole, he steps on her - one of the friends tries to snatch it, but without success - and they leave. What they wanted to show, why this episode was shot – it is not at all clear!
A few words about the actors. Ivan Lapikov is a rock, in my opinion, he could play anything he wanted. And the chairman of the kolkhoz and the Chekist and the peasant and the worker, in general everything. I think he is more natural and organic in the role of a village man, but he also succeeded in the role of an intellectual here. To become him and Evgeny Evstigneev, who plays two roles at once in this film – janitor Kozhukhov in 1919 and his son Pashka in the late sixties. It is interesting to look at the young (at that time) actors - Evgeny Kindinov (grandson Boris), Vladimir Gostyukhin (Pasha Kozhukhov in his youth) and Nikolai Karachentsev (a small role of the Komsorg). In general, the acting ensemble is very successful. There are a lot of famous actors in it, only, unfortunately, engaged in episodic roles.
The music itself. That’s the best thing about this movie, honestly. The song about Moscow and memories, of course, is very soulful, but instrumental music is something! To be honest, I first thought about Tariverdiev and his music in 17 Moments of Spring, so it is similar in some places in texture, but I looked into the credits, no – Kirill Molchanov. But the music didn't get any worse. It is good to listen to even separately from the film and, of course, it is very organically included in its action.
To sum it up, it’s a good movie. I don’t understand why it’s not on television. Of the modern, unfortunately, there is nothing to compare, so I advise you to look.
7 out of 10