'Demon of the Revolution', as Lenin Evgeny Mironov, Nadezhda Krupskaya Daria Ekamasov, Inessa Armand Victoria Isakov, Alexander Parvus Fedor Bondarchuk. I deliberately list the actors to emphasize the seriousness of the approach to the given topic by director Vladimir Khotinenko. In addition to the above actors, I cannot but name Alexander Baluev, Maxim Matveev, Dmitry Ulyanov. A whole constellation. But the theme, as you understand, predetermines complex acting tasks. And the actors of this film as a whole cope with this task perfectly. It is incredibly interesting to watch Lenin performed by Evgeny Mironov. Plastic, living man this ' Mironovsky' Lenin. Undoubted leader and obsessed Bolshevik. Mironov paints before us the image with bright or muted strokes, creates his own picture in which the leader of the world proletariat finds flesh and blood. And this role, for me, becomes fundamental in this series. I watch Mironov’s play and can’t turn off, I hear every intonation, measuring it with the image of Lenin that was formed in my memory from the Soviet past. First of all, this is Boris Shchukin’s Lenin in the films ' Lenin in October' and ' Lenin in 1918' brilliant director Mikhail Rom. As for the script 'Demon of the Revolution' and the overall feel of the film, I found it somewhat disjointed. The figure of Alexander Parvus is presented in the picture almost as a center. Who does not remember from the history of the receipt of Parvus to receive a million rubles from the Germans for the needs of the revolution? Here we are given a detailed illustration of this process. But for some reason you wonder if it really was like that? Is it really that simple? I can't say I could finally believe it.
In general, I evaluate this series positively and do not regret the fact that I gave it my time.
7 out of 10
Historical drama. Again, Channel Two is fighting the First, trying to make a better historical series. The first presented 'Trotsky' with the excellent Konstantin Khabensky. The second decided to tell about the most mysterious figure of the Russian revolution - a certain Alexander Parvus, while calling in the director's chair eminent Vladimir Khotinenko. I’ve watched both shows now, and I can make an objective view of that.
Strengths:
1. The scenery - that's what you can't complain about, is the costumes and the surroundings. I have always said that our historical films are able to shoot at the highest level. Just for an example, watch the film ' Romanov Crowned Family' filmed for pennies in the difficult 1997, and even there you will see evidence of this. You can literally go back to those days. It feels the same here. It is clear that the tradition is not broken here.
2. Good actors in almost all roles - here you and Mironov Bondarchuk, which I will talk more about later. I was pleased with the appearance of Vladimir Zaitsev, Alexander Baluev and many others. I especially want to note the appearance of the famous actor dubbing Alexei Kolgan.
3. The atmosphere - you may not believe me, but when watching, I literally felt the avalanche that was coming on poor, blood-soaking, feverish Russia, my Motherland. I would have hated Lenin, the Bolsheviks and all those who advocated separate peace and revolution. Again, this is my personal opinion, I do not impose it on anyone.
Now the cons:
1. There is practically no dynamics - the first part was just a banal traction. Some progress has already begun in the middle, but also not very much. The last third looks like something dynamic. I compare it with 'Trotsky' - there is a constant dynamics, I even watched the first four episodes just wildly (and this, by the way, is half of all series). This is a clear loss to Channel One.
2. The presence of Maksim Matveev in this picture - no, don't get me wrong, I really like this actor. He just played one of the main roles in the TV series 'Trotsky' although here he plays a similar role. Did Channel Two invite him on purpose, or was it an accident? Unknown.
3. Historical errors are also in bulk here, as in Trotsky (although in my opinion there are many more in the latter). Just one example – most of the series is based on rumors or myths about this period of our history. There are no witnesses, we will never see all the documents. Truth from fiction is almost impossible to distinguish. Here I would say that based on rumors.
A few words about the main characters:
1. Alexander Parvus performed by Fyodor Bondarchuk is really the most mysterious figure of the revolution. Almost nothing is known about the activities of this person. What is known is that he offered German money to Lenin and that was it! Whether Lenin agreed or refused, historians disagree. I'm afraid we'll never know the truth. And we also know that he was a scammer. True, his end was what he deserved - almost complete obscurity. Bondarchuk played it in his own way, and Porechenkov in his own way - and none of them 100% hit. But Fedor was not annoyed by his appearance on the screen.
2. Vladimir Lenin, played by Evgeny Mironov - at the time of the series - the leader of the most radical socialist party in Russia. It creates the impression of a cunning and intelligent interlocutor, a true leader. He still has great accomplishments to come, from which he will forever enter the history of the world. He was rightly said ' Lenin beat everyone' Everyone wanted to use him, but he ended up using everyone. Personally, I liked Mironov’s acting much less than Stychkin’s playing from the TV series 'Trotsky'.
3. Rotmister Aleskey Mezentsev, played by Maxim Matveev, is a Russian counterintelligence officer who is trying to stop an impending disaster. A true patriot of Russia. He has acquaintances among revolutionaries, which greatly influences his work. I would like to know his future fate. But the series is silent about this, and much more.
As a result, we have a perfectly shot from a visual point of view, well-directed historical series with historical mistakes, good actors. But, compared to ' Trotsky' - he loses. And why the Demon of the Revolution? After all, this nickname was Leon Trotsky! Coincidence? I don't think so.
7 out of 10
Showed the series of Vladimir Khotinenko and began: tuff, antihistoric. . Pardon me, and that feature films-models of historicity, for example ' Lenin in Paris' classics, which show the miracles of the foresight of the Marxist - a practice in Longjumo, in fact there would have gathered from a dozen listeners, half of whom are provocateurs.
Now for the Parvus race. Let’s start with the details, as the champions of historical truth try to indicate here: Inessa Armand did indeed have five children (Wikipedia to help) or any literature that is enough about Comrade Inessa now. The fifth, Andrei, attributed to Ulyanov, was born, allegedly before the meeting of fiery Marxists.
I will not recommend the book of Zdenek and Spandau ' Credit for the Revolution'- it is very controversial, although most refer to it in one way or another, since Parvus burned his archives, and everything is right and negotiations with the Germans, and the participation of Hanecki, who is too lazy to read the book Elizabeth Heresch 'Bought Revolution. The secret case of Parvus'-I can recommend the article by Vadim Ehrlichman, it is online, also on the network you can see the receipt of Dr. Gelfand (Parvus) a million rubles from the German government: scrupulous Teutons kept everything.
Now about the film: the actors played their best, who is worse; Bondarchuk tried. at times and the truth crawled sinister figure of Parvus, not the only demon. Khotinenko still in ' Besakh' it was well noticed how in Switzerland at the end of the film grows future Nechaev homunculus. So he grew up riding a bicycle with Inessa, playing chess with Tzar. Animal instinct and the help of the enemy drove to Russia with songs in a sealed car and a stupid flag received from the hands of comrade Inessa. Evgeny Mironov gave an image controversial, but alive. Further, what turned out was a hundred years of revolution, which the Bolsheviks themselves called a coup, and then began to close it with mythologemes, but to hide the difficult-elephant figure of Parvus prevents, among other things, someone may be interested in myths about the armored car and stove and the revolutionary situation, when the lower classes did not want and the revolutionary creativity of the popular masses, yes, yes, yes, yes.
Paulina Andreeva is amazingly good in this role, especially costumes. Mezentsev (Maksim Matveev) looks good, imperial: it is a pity that we did not learn about the completion of the really invented love line. The series is recommended to fans ' The Death of Empire' and to anyone interested in the history of the early 20th century. Let it not be the ultimate truth, but arouse the interest of the audience in the search for arguments and facts.
This creation left an extremely ambivalent impression. On the one hand, it was quite interesting to look at the Parvus-Lenin line (let us put aside the question of its historical authenticity for now). Well, for the scenes in the Dada bar special thanks - they looked very exciting and, most importantly, unexpected. On the other hand, the line of “counterintelligence” turned out to be boring to the limit, besides, openly secondary (first of all, in relation to the creation of Hotinenko’s “Death of the Empire”, but borrowing from other sources was also enough). For an episode of the acquaintance of the hero Matveev with the heroine of Andreyeva, the director should simply be fined for the amount of fees - to such an extent of a primitive and fake scene, it is simply completely indecent to go down.
In general, I had the full impression that at first Khotinenko jumped up on his favorite skate of pseudo-historical fantasy, completely broke away in the first series, and by the beginning of the second I realized: my God, a third of the film is behind, and we have no melodramatic scene in stock, what will the audience think about me?! Then immediately turned on the Akunin regime (hey, God, this whole line of “counterintelligence” was very similar to the writing of Mr. Chkhartishvili, including indispensable love scenes, unnecessary for the main plot, but extremely necessary for the best sales of the next novel) and practically did not turn it off until the very end of the work.
The same dual impressions were left by the actors. First, the pros. The chief of them, of course, is Yevgeny Mironov with his interpretation of the image of the leader of the world proletariat. Lenin turned out to be really alive, very whole, a man of great will, energy and ideas. In my opinion, Mironov played not quite Lenin, but a kind of “perception of Lenin”, or even “the myth of Lenin” (in the good sense of the word). However, I repeat, this is the undoubted success of the film. The second success of the picture (and the most unexpected) was Fedor Bondarchuk in the role of the notorious “demon”-Parvus. Bondarchuk, especially in his later works, almost everywhere plays the same and, in fact, himself. But then suddenly struck, found for this character some other notes (excluding the scene of his first appearance in the frame – there was just that standard F. Bondarchuk). Parvus came out as a living and at the same time extremely unpleasant type. Well, traditionally, Baluev played decently, the only thing was a complete feeling that his character proceeded to the Demon straight from the above-mentioned “Death of the Empire”, up to individual lines and actions.
Now for the minuses. In the picture there are at least two, and the fattest. The first is the counterintelligence agent Mezentsov performed by Matveev, the whole film was held with a stone face (strangely, Matveev still knows how to play, at least look at the previous film of the same Hotinenko “Demons”), on which I personally periodically with terrible force wanted to punch. However, in the end, he still punched enough, after which he effectively merged into blue nowhere. The second was a certain “revolutionary” (the image was so “bright” that I did not even remember her name), which Andreeva portrayed. This “actress” seems to pose a real threat to the current queen of modern Russian film junk Chipovskaya in terms of talent. And the character was completely unnecessary and played accordingly. Well, one more drawback, though small and subjective - I did not like how Isakova played Armand. Perhaps there was not much to play there, but it seems that she did not even try (although the actress is good, unlike the example above).
As for the credibility of what is happening. Let’s throw aside the melodramatic part of the plot (although there are also many things that are not reliable purely from the point of view of psychology and logic), let’s immediately move on to the question of its historical component. It's amazing from the very first titer. It turns out that the truth about it was hidden from us for 100 years. I don’t care what “German money for the Russian revolution” and “Lenin-German spy from a sealed car” were actively written in our early 90s almost in the ever-memorable “Ogonyok”. I don’t care that in 2002, Sobolev published a detailed monograph in St. Petersburg entitled “The Russian Revolution and German Gold” (by the way, those interested in the topic – I refer to this work, everything is very detailed there, with figures and documents on this issue). I don’t care about a lot of publications both here and abroad. Hiding this and everything from them. Similar lies in the very first frame I saw earlier only in the film “the King” (although there it was much more enchanting).
And then it's just as wonderful. Even if you do not touch on the main theme of the work - whether Lenin took money from the Germans through Parvus or still did not take (better read Sobolev's firm, well, or, if you are interested in the point of view of the modern left - Vodchenko's article "The Myth of German Bolshevik Money"), the protrusion of Hanetsky's personality (such closeness to Lenin is not documented, but, to the joy of the filmmakers, he really worked in Parvus's firm, though in Stockholm, not in Copenhagen) or the notorious "sellowed car" (to which Parvus cinema - for sure, no reason even in the winter did not even stop working with this simple Russian government in the summer, it became clear that it was not even after the slightest in the summer that he had any time in the summer, since he had a simple Russian government in the summer, since it was not even stopped in the summer.
Lies literally ooze from the screen even in the most insignificant details, like the children of Armand (in the film there are five of them from different husbands, in reality four from the first husband and one from the second), a passing replica of the “Estonian nationalist”. Keskuly about the “victorious Russian army” of the model of the 15th year (in reality, the 15th year the Russian army “victoriously” retreated, surrendering Poland to the Germans, and the Austrians Galicia) or the fate of Baluyev’s hero Prince Turkestan, vilely killed by a gopnik in the corner in the spring of the 17th year (the real prince Turkestan (his real name) lived in the Union as early as 37th year, when he was shot during the “great purge”). The most characteristic is that before the release of the picture, the creators literally raged to say that everything in their film is TRUTHTM, and immediately after the release rushed to declare that it is an “artwork, not documentary” and “authors have the right to their own assumptions and fiction”. I will leave the latter without comment.
A general impression. Extremely ambiguous staging, enchanting range in acting works (although, more in the plus than in the minus), well, and frank and conscious lies in terms of historical authenticity - this is a full bouquet of impressions from this creation. But there were some good things here.
I wanted to see more dynamism, but in this series more shows the long history of the preparation of the revolution, as it all began, the relationship between Lenin and Parvus. It was the latter that we can say paid for the revolution in Russia, and in the end was abandoned by Ilyich.
The series was made quite qualitatively, beautifully, the details were thought out. Very good selection of actors. Mironov coped well with the image of Lenin making him recognizable, but at the same time with his vision of himself as a leader. Bondarchuk, as always, is ideal for the role of any aristocrat, as he himself admitted, he adores himself in such types. As an actor, he's five. Quite recognizable actress Daria Ekamasova was well suited to the role of Lenin’s wife, similar, although the true Krupskaya was definitely less cute. Actress Victoria Isakova, recently gaining popularity in cinema, just as well embodied the image of Lenin’s associate Inessa Armand. Baluev is always good as a military commander. Maksim Matveeva has apparently become accustomed to taking on the role of officers of those times (Contribution, Anna Karenina). Paulina Andreeva as Sophia, a little-known actress for me, similarly did not get out of the picture with her play.
It is interesting to watch, the camera work is good, the musical dramaturgy is average, but it is not particularly necessary here. It is pleasant when the series is made without inflection in one direction or another, showing the revolutionaries too bloodthirsty, or too much virtue. Our country is complicated, our people are complicated, our history is even cooler. Time is going to dot it.
At the moment I watch the series 'Trotsky' already from the First channel, it is much more dynamic and interesting although most likely there will be claims about the image of Stalin in the series.
I will not even talk about the importance of this topic for modern Russia. On the one hand, the 100th anniversary of the revolution, on the other hand, the same endless native conversations about the fate of Russia, the Russian people, and the Russian intelligentsia.
What did you like?
- The image of Lenin. Finally, we saw not the kind “grandfather of Lenin” Bonch-Bruevich and not a grotesque parody in the style of “Comedies of strict regime”. Purposeful, tyrannical, cynical, but adequate, sober, quite ascetic, although moderately selfish, with its human weaknesses, very realistic thinking and acting politician. Of course, very power-hungry, vain, selfish, not taking into account the feelings and desires of other people. Unconditional leader, “brain of the party”, workaholic, calculating and realistic politician.
I liked E. Mironov as Lenin. Despite some looseness in the face and characteristic features recognizable in the game, the image of Lenin is revealed: vivid, realistic, quite interesting.
I also liked Parvus, though not from the first series. But in the second F. Bondarchuk convinced me. An extravagant adventurer, however, with a fair share of Bondarchuk’s mannerism, turned out organically and in the theme.
- I really liked the Dada line and Tristan Tzara. Indeed, in 1916 Lenin often visited the Voltaire cabaret in Zurich and played chess with Tristan Tzara. In general, we must pay tribute to the authors of the film with Dadaists and Lenin turned out very well, revolutionary.
What didn't you like?
I am not a connoisseur of the revolutionary movement in Russia, but even I was struck by the blatant distortions in the series of fairly well-known facts.
- I really didn’t like the fragment where Lenin and Krupskaya listen to Wagner’s opera in the opera and suddenly it turns out that it was Wagner (and not Beethoven!) – Lenin’s favorite composer. In the film, Lenin is so fascinated by Wagner’s music that he hardly responds to Parvus’ appearance in the box. It is highly doubtful that Lenin ever listened to Wagner, much less enjoyed his music. The authors of the film deliberately “mixed up” Lenin with Hitler, whose favorite composer is really considered Wagner.
In addition, Wagner is completely "unsuited" to Lenin and does not correspond to the idea of the Russian revolution, unlike Beethoven, who is both epic and titanic, as well as revolutionary and romantic, which is very in the spirit of the Russian revolution. A true singer of the revolution, he has no gloom, paganism, unlike Wagner’s music. In general, even with the most distant acquaintance with the biography of Lenin, it is obvious that Wagner is not his composer.
Such a vulgar and absolutely unnecessary distortion does not honor the creators of the film.
- I didn't like the image of Krupskaya. Despite attempts to achieve portrait resemblance and the efforts of the actress (the film is very clear that the actress is trying), all this makes not quite the proper impression. According to the film Krupskaya is quite a young woman, although in fact in 1915 she was 46 years old and her illness, which spoiled her pretty appearance, was in full swing. In the film, it is not clear why Krupskaya plays a young actress. At the very end of the last series, where the filmmakers show in comparison the true photos of the main characters and their film performers, we again show a photo of Krupskaya in 1895.
- It is not clear why Krasin is presented as an outspoken terrorist, in fact known for his measured and cautious behavior, his rotation in industrial and diplomatic circles, as well as significant disagreements with Lenin (which he was repeatedly reminded of).
- I did not like the image of the main character Alexei Mezentsev. The actor (who, in my opinion, would be better suited to the role of Vronsky, because more than the hero-lover his game does not pull) constantly suffering expression. Well, at least Baluev drew counterintelligence.
- I did not like the image of Nicholas II, who is again played by a very young actor in the film, although he is 49 years old in 1917.
- In the film, the February Revolution is represented by a bloodless event (this is directly stated by one of the characters of the series), although this again does not correspond to the historical truth.
- I did not like the postmodern allusions and borrowings that seemed superfluous here. Thus, the scene when Baluev’s hero throws a map of German fortifications to the lawyer Luntz, and after that there is a dispute about the morality of this act between Mezentsev and Turkestanov, is written off from the dispute between Zheglov and Sharapov about the morality of throwing a purse to Kirpich (“The meeting place cannot be changed”). And the “playing” of the emigrant train seemed to me created under the influence of the painting “Lenin”. The Train (1998) by Domiano Domiani. By the way, the beautiful Cossack song “Among the Forests of the Dense”, really very popular before 1917, primarily in military circles, was hardly known to Russian nobles who spent many years in exile.
Still, I liked the series. Not too long, not too short. Looks with interest and, if we distract from the problem of historical truth, in one breath. I would cut all this unnecessary love lyrics, in particular, the inorganic and unreal story with Sophia Rudneva.
In short, it's better to shoot like this than not. Better "The Death of an Empire", "The Demon of the Revolution" and "Trotsky" than another schizophrenic soap opera. After the "Demon of the Revolution" there is a decent enough chance that the representatives of the younger generation will know who Lenin, Trotsky, Parvus are, and those who are really interested in the history of Russia will set a goal and figure out for themselves what Lenin, Trotsky and Parvus really muddled there.
7 out of 10
For the 100th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution, federal channels decided to entertain us by the very tomatoes. They also appear to have entered into explicit or implicit competition, resulting in kicks under the table and shots with an umbrella. If the channel Russia 1 ahead of staked for his series about Parvus (Fyodor Bondarchuk) the name “Demon of the revolution”, more suitable for the series on the First, in retaliation, the First channel in his series “Trotsky” also entered Parvus and did not breed the premiere with the project-rival in Russia 1. You can count this competitive fuss as a credit in favor of the creators of a quality smoke screen over the historical (no kidding) anniversary.
I wouldn’t be wrong if I said the show was really good. And all this background as Yevgeny Mironov (Lenin) was preparing for the role, and in general, the choice of almost all actors, and the old-fashioned use of voice-overs, and the wretched hat of Krupskaya (Darya Ekamasova). Characters speak exquisite Russian and even “hang noodles on the ears” from the mouth of Parvus is noted by consciousness, but does not cause much irritation.
Only for what is removed all this artistic, high-quality and lulling pseudo-historical beauty? What messages are spent on the talents of actors, taxpayer money and screen time? Again, for political propaganda. I protest as a spectator. It is very tiring after each series to watch a documentary about the historical context, the real participants of the events, especially if this film is released on the same VGTRK after midnight and on the Internet is not posted, among the shaft of historical and fantastic publications on the subject.
We are informed in the credits that the script is written on the basis of non-existent memoirs, in one interview - which is partly borrowed from Solzhenitsyn, in another - which is completely historical. What a postmodern, you fiddles! At the same time, the director is again hung up on the facade of the project for batting, more precisely, the director was thrown to beat for a historical fake. But we already understand that a television series is a product of collusion, conspiracy, planning, positioning, marketing, promotion and very little directing. But we do not believe that the specific revolution of October 1917 was the product of exclusively orange technologies.
Hard times have come, you just can’t watch the series. The Chinese are celebrating their anniversary and are probably watching something good.
Every revolution is conceived by romantics, carried out by fanatics, and the fruits of it are used by scoundrels.
Thomas Carlyle
I would like to praise the creators for showing the revolution and the revolutionaries without embellishment. This is not a bravura ode to heroic thinkers and freedom fighters, but a story about how it was in reality, with the caveat that we do not really know many facts. But what is known for sure, in Soviet historiography about Parvus’ role as a financier and driving force of October 17th you will find nothing! True, the carelessness of domestic special services of the sample of that period is also weak to believe - well, they are too short-lived. The last truth is not the most serious sin of the serial.
The problem here is in the manner of narration:
1) The monotony of the narrative - in contrast to 'The Death of the Empire' Dolenko strongly hyped the narrative, which harms the dynamics.
2) Unevenness and undercoverness - 4 series are devoted to the events of 1915, and the transition to the events of 1917 is very sharp and without prefaces. Some things are conveyed strongly at the top.
3) Music. In the action scenes, the authors decided to use some incomprehensible trip-hop, or electronics. Who it's for and why it's not clear. Looks like an oxymoron.
For the visual part, train costumes, shooting the interiors of the creators can be praised. Although the title is 'Berne. 1915 & #39; Against the background of the same panorama is annoying. Couldn't it have been taken from a different angle?
And about the actors:
Parvus / Bondarchuk - Well, as a director, he ended up on attraction for me, and as an actor he never shone. Inconclusive. And his attempt to portray the Jewish ' CHITO' causes laughter.
Lenin / Mironov - As always, he played well at a high level.
Yemakasova and Isakov were not strangely annoyed and convinced.
Even though Andreeva has a period face, acting talent has not increased. All advances given to her for 'Thaw' were not justified.
And the chief miscast is Matveev. Here's an episode with a flashback where his minor relative dies - a terrible tragedy, but why is Mezentsev remembering this sitting with a fucking face? No, he doesn't have to cry! But there must be some emotions!
In a word, somewhere undersaw and not thought out, monotonous film. But with the right thoughts and reassessment of events.
I warn you in advance, I am an apolitical person, my opinion may not coincide with the opinion of the respected public.
Alexander Gelfand, aka Parvus, is one of the mysterious figures in the Russian Revolution. It was to him that Trotsky owed the theory of permanent revolution, and Lenin owed his return to Russia and the revolution. This man was a grey cardinal, he was always behind the scenes, but his role in the events of 1917 is extremely important. This is what Vladimir Khotinenko’s new TV movie is about. By the way, a few words about the last creations of the master. ' Demons' turned out to be a free interpretation of the novel by Dostoevsky, but at the same time the tape is quite holistic. ' The heirs' did not work out at all. They turned out to be a film adaptation of modern debates on how to equip Russia. Anyone can read my review of this film.
Perhaps one of the main claims to the creators is that the demon of the revolution was called Trotsky, not Parvus! For example, the book of the late General Volkogonov is called '. Demon of the Revolution & #39; Hence the second claim to the creators. Where's Trotsky? On the one hand, Trotsky was on his own at the time. He was a non-factional Bolshevik and at least departed from the Mensheviks, but kept in touch with them.
The second claim is that Lenin and the Bolsheviks are shown to be men without principles who have sold themselves to Germany. According to the logic of the creators of the series, all the troubles came from people like Lenin. A counter-question: and not from the talentless tsar, his dignitaries, generals who spewed intrigue, industrialists who did not care about the tsar and the people - all the troubles went? Aren't they to blame? We do not yet know the full role of the British and French in overthrowing the monarchy. If you are interested, read the memoirs of Maurice Paleologus, the ambassador to St. Petersburg, and you will see with what hatred they are written. I note that even the above-mentioned General Volkogonov, despite the tendentiousness of his works (the general was a communist, but this did not prevent him from becoming a staunch anti-communist), believed that bribing Lenin by the German special services was unlikely. If an ardent anti-communist did not believe in this possibility 20 years ago, then the creators of Demon & #39 believe that it was. The theory that Lenin was a German spy has been refuted many times. The Bolsheviks were financed through several channels. Not just through Germany. Through the USA (for example, through the bank house of the Schiffs), Great Britain, France. There were many sources.
But that's not surprising. The script was written by the late Eduard Volodarsky, 8 years ago. What do you want? This man, who had a hand in the anti-Soviet TV series 'Penalty' and Lenin showed a traitor and petty man. If Volodarsky had the will, he would have rehabilitated General Vlasov. As for the plot, it is rather incoherent. Plus, the love line of Mezentsev and Rudneva looks far-fetched. Well, God be with her.
Otherwise, I was distracted. Now we move on to the third claim. ' The Demon of the Revolution' is a reference to modern liberals. The comparison shows that the modern liberals are no different from the Bolsheviks. I think the comparison is incorrect. Even extremely incorrect. First, the Bolsheviks had a clear leader, Lenin. Around Lenin was the backbone - Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin, Radek, and we should not forget Nadezhda Krupskaya and Inessa Armand. Second, we see political emigration as fragmented and intriguing. I agree with the latter, there were many intrigues, but still the Bolsheviks were not divided. Thirdly, which of the present so-called extra-systemic opposition resembles Lenin in its skills and intelligence? Navalny? Gozman? Don't make me laugh. The analogy of Lenin and Navalny is the same as comparing Valery Kharlamov and Alexander Ovechkin. Both are great hockey players, but they played in different eras! The same can be said of the Bolsheviks and the current liberals. These are incomparable things.
Pros ' Demon of the Revolution' are actors, cinematography and the work of artists.
I was impressed by the main actors. Both Lenin performed by Evgeny Mironov and Parvus performed by Fyodor Bondarchuk are expressive and good. A better choice for the role (I do not like the word 'casting') could not be invented. Lenin Mironov cannot be compared with the hagiographical image created in the Soviet years. His Lenin is not an icon, but a pragmatist, ready to do anything for his purpose. As for Parvus, although he had an adventurous streak, but it is also impossible to call him an absolute adventurer. He was a man whose financial and organizational abilities were unmatched in emigration.
Their opponents are also interesting. Prince Turkestan performed by Baluev and Mezentsev Maxim Matveev is also strong images. Not without idealization, but I believe that in counterintelligence served not only and how many rear rats, but also military officers.
Victoria Isakova, playing Inessa Armand, once again proved that she can play anyone. And it's amazing.
Daria Ekamasova also played perfectly Nadezhda Krupskaya. As I said above, the actors are excellent. Even in episodic roles.
I didn't like Paulina Andreeva very much. She plays the whole movie with the same face. This is the Russian Kristen Stewart.
I'll sum it up. A beautiful picture, a good acting, a high budget can not overshadow a bad and tendentious scenario. I understand that the tape tried to draw an analogy with today, but it looks too politicized.