Lucifer, Orcs, Ghosts and Aliens Rage Until the Planet Calms Down Do children make movies?
If you dig into the biographies of many modern (and not so) directors, you can stumble upon separate chapters devoted to how mastodons, being a baby, first picked up a camera and laid the beginning of the creative path. Without going far into the past and abroad of Russia, it should be noted Rostov schoolboy Andrei Archakov: being an actor of dubbing, at the age of thirteen, the boy distinguished himself on one of the TV channels, where he told about his dream and received a million rubles for its execution. My dream was to make a short film about Empress Catherine II – and now the film is ready. It is not so interesting, hiding in the cloak of skepticism, to grumble that a child cannot cope with such a thing alone, they say, somewhere behind the back there should be a mentor or talented parents - all these are just arguments of reason. The fact remains that a thirteen-year-old boy made a picture. Do whatever you want.
However, the above example is too bright for the era of video blogging, when everyone, regardless of age, is able to produce anything, gluing even seemingly heresy into the editing program. There is a monstrous misconception that cinema is about budgets, that without good injections you will not get anything worthwhile. Movies are about attitude. Cinema is about finding contact with reality or other matter. The movie is about talking to the audience. And if you are at least three years old, even thirty-three - inexperience, ignorance and poverty (most often spiritual), opposed to naked enthusiasm, do not give reason to call any of your burps a film.
Someone Andrei Gromov, nicknamed in the plot of “Rebel from the Darkness” as a video blogger Andrei Alekseev, probably believed that if there is enthusiasm as the only driving force, then any porridge from the head will come down to a mega-experimental hit. Especially amusing in this context were not even three hundred and fifty rubles, which went on a trip in the subway, coupled with the use of ice cream (learn to do with small means, gentlemen!), but the enthusiastic cries of a reviewer under the nickname “Sick Bastard”, who found in a rather wayward work such meanings that the best of us cannot see. Whether it's banter or not, no matter how sedate Gromov's efforts may seem, they are not worthy of admiration even as a joke. Really? The Kingdom of Hades, Orpheus, Eurydice, God’s punishments, doomed humanity – were we exactly watching the same thing?
What is this "masterpiece" about?
Next
Already from the first minutes of the session immediately after the opening credits, we learn about the mysterious Devil’s Scroll; the protagonists – they have to slap on the New Arbat in Moscow and get trapped; accidental victims; as well as hellish antagonists – it is important for them to resist the protagonists and harm the whole world. Sounds like a fun (un)childish tale with adventure. It looks like a crooked set of rubbish of terrible quality, shot on a calculator and mounted under the armpit, with heroes exuding ostentatious juvenile coolness, but running for a good pendel.
If you break through a bunch of useless tinsel, the story really takes on certain shapes and even divided into chapters with the so-called chronicles of eyewitnesses. Everything according to the classics: there are sides of Good and Evil, Evil has its motives and aggression, Good has naivety and an endless halo of curiosity, collision is inevitable. The parallel narrative shows the two lines apart, but they are destined to converge. It is enough to imagine yourself in Gromov’s place, remembering the influence of fantasies from childhood and conversations on roles, for example, on behalf of toys (here they are computer monsters), to understand what guided and how the young genius thought. Chaos in any case is stuffed on the core of the narrative, although the narrative is a forced cripple: the author is also interested in where everything will come and how it will turn out (I suspect pure improvisation instead of a prepared script). The catch is that the method of exposition of “genius” is extremely littered with unnecessary specific images, vomited by a mixture of words through the mouth monologues and fragmentary events that do not greatly affect the general situation: stretching the mud is not a shabby art. Trying to communicate is the trick.
With the report, Gromov has complete dyslexia. The French Surrealists, with their "exquisite corpse drinking young wine," did not stand by. By the middle of the session, what is happening is already reminiscent of nonsense, comparable to an increase in body temperature under forty degrees during the illness: here either die or force yourself to recover. Until the final, the internal thermometer will remain at a dangerous mark, then flare up and burst with mercury in the brain: thank you to all who have endured, and now we are friendly looking for the phones of psychiatrists – you cannot cope with what you see alone. Possessing a steely, bulletproof psyche, there are several scenes at the end of the credits (including deleted ones), advertising some kind of similar snag, the promise of a sequel in the two thousand and sixteenth year - and so help God in the final trial, amen.
Visual style (special effects)
The film has three dimensions: reality in the camera lens; hell with numerous graphic horrors crammed into the frame at the edit; and the human imagination, if desired, can connect the first with the second, as well as complement the missing elements or remove the receiving. To predict which dimension will appear in each subsequent episode is, at least, to be psychic. To stand together for an hour and eight minutes is like a fact of hating your own eyes. Such a multifaceted mocumentary can be found only once in a century. But to spend at least a moment of it, to meet, to get acquainted - is, at most, a shot from a machine gun in the head. Total apogee.
Sense
What's the point? Forget it.
Result
Do children make movies? Sure! Is the film a reflection of reality or a conditional interpretation of the stream of consciousness of the author? Yes! In the context of these findings, the only remaining question at stake is: Where are your parents, boy?
Fantasy of Andrei Gromov is not just rich – it is inflamed. I do not want to be called a medical stifling, but involuntarily there is a feeling that “Rebel from the dark” indicates an extreme preoccupation with computer games, which arose as a result of street behavior and a clear syndrome of attention deficit with hyperactivity. No artistic output, in addition to the constant flashes of the above-mentioned fantasy, which offers for consideration the so-and-so, the fifth or tenth, does not carry pictures. Undoubtedly, the abundance of various changes of optics, graphic overlays, other multi-colored serpentine, which is filled with an hour of timing - a huge work, sometimes unbearable for an adult. However, here such attempts do not look like a way of transmitting an idea to the masses, but a process of killing time, launched from despair by the arrow of the desire to throw anything into the light - just to escape from the routine of the day into a fictional world where the devil gathers his retinue. Maybe it’s a work that’s made up for an argument for kids from the yard, or maybe a personal initiative that arose to raise self-esteem. Disputes about causes will go to waste. The truth is hidden from view. And it doesn't really benefit him.
Whatever it was, with all the amazing components (age, budget, timing), the creative statement of Gromov is best ignored.
Life is extremely short to spend on torture.
1 out of 10