Life under Aurora This is the product of joint work between Japan and the USSR. And if the first joint project (the penguin Lolo) was a masterpiece and a pleasant new experience, then this creation came out in a lump. The film is based on Togawa Yukio's book Under Aurora, 1912. Unfortunately, this book has not been translated into Russian, and there are no mentions, so I have nothing to compare this movie with. But a couple of days ago, I found fragments of it in Japanese, made as a novelization with pictures under the anime. I don’t think the film is close to the book. By the way, the title of the book is rather strange. Simply because its author was born just in 1912, but here, this I do not know (probably in Siberia). I would venture to assume that the film is just a loose adaptation.
In principle, it's pretty good. There is a tangible blizzard, sled dogs running through deep snow, quite good landscapes, beautiful northern lights. There's nothing wrong with him. Constantly twitching camera, confusing, too blurry picture, terrible editing and boring narrative. You feel a sense of incoherence. Personally, I was really bored. The film is very sad and I have watched it since the fifth time. In the end, it is unclear who the main character is. I don't think the movie's about anything. It does not lead to anything, the characters are like wooden. There's no beauty in the movie either. Only the average village and some faded and dirty tones.
Now let’s talk about the main exotic film. This is a dogwolf named Buran. I can't say anything. They picked up a very beautiful animal. Such a silvery handsome man with green eyes. Very aggressive, intelligent, experienced, but also devoted. It is also worth noting that Buran is only half a wolf. His mother was the leader of the husky harness, and his father was an omega wolf. Does that ring a bell? In addition, his mother, the dog Lady, was almost white. First, perhaps it was from this film that Simon Wells, creating the script for the film Bolto, communited the idea of a Glavhero with a “rattling mixture.” Second, again, does it remind you of anything? Judging by the fragments I found from the anime book, the main character was Buran (in the original Japanese version, his name was Baruto, and he was white), and the plot focused on him. Well, sort of like the Japanese "White Fang" (Fang was the son of a wolf and a wolf dog - authored by Jack London) and "Kazan." Noble Wolf (author James Kerwood; Kazan's parents were a wolf dog and a dog). Although, this Baruto even before Kazan as before Venus, not to mention the White Fang. I don’t know what it was like in the book, I’m looking at the movie. Yes, he is a born leader and calmly copes with wolves in fights, deceives hunters. Wait a minute. Buran has more in common with White Fang's mother, Kichi's red wolf. Not only because they are both half-wolves on the paternal side, but also because they possess animal uniqueness and human gaze. The main force of Kichi was not only her cunning and intelligence, but also her attractiveness (strange to hear, but the Romans always considered she-wolf sexy and at the same time dangerous, fatal), thanks to which stupid dogs followed her straight into the mouth to her pack. She was almost invincible, luring or biting dogs and was not afraid of even the most daring hunters, easily tricking them around the finger. To some extent, Baruto is only a fainter copy of it. He only protects his family, protects them, but we do not see his difference from his pack. Let the hunters say, "This is a very dangerous beast." It is like a blizzard destroying everything in its path. But we don’t see it, so we can’t believe it. Well, he won't let you shoot. So what? A lot of people do that. We see only a half-breed that grew up in the wild, and then became a sled dog and watchman. He is a thunderstorm of wolves, but an unfinished figure in general.
Very often I see that when filming a book about animals, people are made the main characters (take Disney’s White Fang or The Eye of the Wolf 1 and 2). What are they doing? Are Animal Movies Only For Children? The same primitive and frankly stupid stereotype as “cartoons only for children” or “cartoons should be instructive, have morals and educate children” (hell! a child is brought up by parents and family! cinema and animation is a means of expressing something and entertainment! it is like saying: “what sculptures with beautiful nude bodies can teach” – well, nonsense).
I didn't like the movie. And I don't see the potential in it. Just the playfulness.
4 out of 10