Pope Carlo in the role of a retired mentor I watched this movie as a kid. I always remember him in a schematic way. But I revised it and I understand that it was not schematic in the memories, but shot like this. Too big, apparently, the theme is driven by the director into a narrow one-part format. At the same time, to shoot about the topic of misunderstanding of different generations on the example of the factory shop is long, would be quite dreary.
What kind of man is the main character, I see. And the film shows a short chunk of his new life - on a civilian. But with the same tasks that he once set himself when he was in the military. It's business. And usefully. However, there successfully educating soldiers and here, at the factory, finding a common language or at least understanding and respect among teenagers, does not find a common language with his own and only son. In the scene of a meeting with the parents of his factory wards, the colonel also looks advantageous: there, strangers’ children trust him, and their parents do not know anything about them, but only demand. And yourself? With your son? Is it easier to educate others?
About the similarity of the fates of two women - the wife of the protagonist and the wife of his son, one can only guess. Or read the novel on which the film is directed, because there will probably be more explanations. But most likely, the essence of this similarity is that the son, despite disagreements with his father, is still the same, only on a new turn of time lives. Or that the love for his wife, the main character carries through his whole life, because he realized about this very love, when he did not become close to her, and while he was - did not notice, lived and lived. It is unlikely that Yankovsky’s hero is now happy with his involuntary freedom, which he got at such a price. They are different, father and son, but similar. Each of them has their own time. Hence the misunderstanding.
I thought, perfectly Yankovsky was given the role of scoundrels or complex natures, where you do not immediately understand who is in front of you - a martyr or a torturer. Although he often did not have torturers, but charming cynics.
Great artists. It is also interesting to watch. The film is terrible, as it always was in the USSR. No colours.
Sasha Bogdanov as always plays a difficult teenager. Kanaeva is funny and pathetic with her naivety and soreness - she has also always been used in such a role. I love the beautifully-eyed and beautifully-voiced Nikulin. In general, I repeat, great artists. Maybe that’s why the movie has been made. And good music.
In general, you can only guess about a lot here without reading the novel. Part of the topic is clearly left behind. "This is the end of the war." When I was a kid, that phrase seemed romantic. Now I think - and why does the wife of the hero say it several times in the final? And what didn't the colonel say in the final scene to Gene-Bogdanov when he asked to accompany himself and then turned away? Some questions.
But here's Soviet cinema. And the tape is terrible. And it's schematic. For the most part, they speak as if from the podium. And a fugitive above the roof. And they slowly got into the soul, they broke everything. Sitting down and surprised by your tears or smile.
Something like this.
8 out of 10