The rooks are here. Young Olga Kabo or “revolution” – who will you choose?
Is the answer obvious?
Not for the main character, Echevin. And it is not surprising that the whole life of such a hero has developed “somehow not very”.
As a child, Kolya Echevin “out of conviction” betrayed a loved one, his teacher Graube. He betrayed, feeling that he was doing the “wrong” thing. Growing up, already being a teacher at school and a father, Nikolai Stepanovich Echevin “out of prejudice” quarreled with his daughter. At the same time, Echevin is sure that he did and does the right thing: then, as a child, and now, as a teacher and as a father. (I tried as much as possible to describe the basis of the film without spoilers, so excuse me that “without specifics.”)
I believe that Kolya Echevin from the very beginning did wrong, betraying his teacher Graube. Because, as they say, do what you have to do and be what happens. We see that Kolya doubts, feels that he is doing “something wrong”, but in the end does not act as his heart dictates, but as... “correctly according to the textbook”, as others say. What is more important: the murder of some devious wives, or great historical deeds, who is more expensive: father or revolution? On the other hand, Kolya was young. Is it a crime to make mistakes in childhood? Nope. Was it Kolya’s fault that he had not yet realized everything and understood that he had not yet fully learned to “distinguish lies from truth”? Nope. Therefore, Kolya Echevin cannot be considered guilty of betrayal. I believe that Echevin is guilty of not realizing the mistake he made as a child when he grew up. It is not so terrible to make a mistake, it is more terrible when a mistake teaches nothing. Fate gave Echevin an opportunity to correct himself: the punishment for Graube’s betrayal was not as severe as it could be. But Nikolai Stepanovich did not take advantage of this opportunity. His betrayal, apparently, he considered as a “lie for salvation.” “And he who sincerely believes that lying for salvation is necessary for mankind,” is even “fearier than a scoundrel,” because “he makes meanness a rule.” Although wait... Is Echevin guilty of learning nothing from his youth? Or that he realized too late that he had made a mistake? Or that he, wishing no harm to anyone, wanted the best, but it turned out as always? No, you know, I changed my mind... I don't think Yechevin is guilty anymore. Perhaps they have lost their way, or rather “seeking the way, but not finding it for a long time.” Who doesn't? Who doesn't? Who can say with certainty what they found? Who can say with certainty that they are doing the right thing? Perhaps “right” is only until we get a kick to rethink? .
All right. What happens: everyone is sick and nobody is to blame? It turns out, yes. Then what's the point of the movie? I don't know. It's just kind of sad... and pathetic. It’s a pity that not everything ends well. It is a pity that none of us are immune from making mistakes, and the price of making mistakes can be unfairly high. It is a pity that we realize too late about some mistakes that they were mistakes.
I remembered the painting “Rooks flew” Savrasov. Just like the movie, gray, quiet, kind of sad... I’ve always liked more “bright” landscapes: mountains, trees, clouds. When I was in the gallery, Rooks, as a rule, did not pay much attention. Probably, this is because the picture “must be ready”, you need to be “on the same wavelength” to understand, feel. “Black Corridor” also needs a certain mood... and a willingness to be sad.
P. S.
Perhaps it should be added that the story “60 candles” by Tendryakov, on which the film was made, I have not yet read. So I’m just impressed with the movie.
P.P.S.
Want another version of “short content almost without spoilers”?
Yechevin lied about Sukov. Graube cheated. Kropotov lied because of Yechevin. Bocharov lied for the sake of "a good rating in the magazine." Yechevin cheated.