Composition on the topic “How I spent the winter in the Donbass...” D. Shabaev According to the author of the review, it is somewhat wrong to shoot such a movie when humanitarian aid is sold on the shelves of stores instead of giving it away for free; when wages in the pseudo-state education that has achieved "independence" do not allow even tolerably beggars, and the municipal apparatus in relation to its "voters" is cold and alien; when 90% of the male population has joined the ranks of guest workers of other countries, and their children grow up without fathers, the other 10% serve in a half-starved, ragged army; when the municipal apparatus in relation to the center of the city is completely distributing from this territory, when you are completely proud of the 90th day, when you are completely distributing from this territory, you are completely distributive to the ground; when you are completely distributive to the ground, and you are completely dispossessing from the ground, when you are completely dispossessed from this place of the territory of the territory of the city; when you are completely dispossession, you are completely dispossessing from the territory of the whole day to
To list, unfortunately, can be a very long time, but no longer want. Also, the film does not want to simply tell the story of the fate of one person - behind the thin veil of the history of the allegedly honest crazy adherent (just what? socialism? anarchy? Russophilia? Ukrainophobia? xenophobia, finally?) and the follower of obscure, often absurd ideas, there is a clear attempt at political polemics in order to convince the viewer that everything in the newly formed republics is happening as a matter of “temporary difficulties”. If the film claims objectivity and impartiality, then it clearly lacks the logic of the plot basis, if the picture is a statement (which the author tries to disown as much as possible in order to add festivalness to the film), then why do these illogical oppositions in the psychoportrait of the main character: when one of the characters, the young guy is naive and incoherent, and sees no reason in the restoration of ideological justification for fratricide, then it is reasonable to push him “to the forefront, let him get used to life”, but the protagonist himself resigned from the army, because he met with a senseless fear. This is obvious schizophrenia, or an attempt to introduce two different ideological personalities into one portrait.
The viewer is constantly either trying to confuse weak attempts of emotional manipulation, or the authors develop incoherent polemics, hastening to drown out the plot holes and hide the instability of the portrait of the protagonist with another pale gray shot of the mine trunk that was once a battleground or, for example, a monologue of one of the characters justifying the entry into the ranks of volunteers for strange reasons, they say, Dad worked in the factory of one of the cities burned out by joint efforts of both armies. To further emphasize the mood of the picture, another implicit character is permanently present in the frame, namely winter. And at the same time, the territory on which the events take place is covered with snow less than two months a year, and all this pale deadness echoing the seemingly devastated soul of a nature hero is well, a very far-fetched parallel; why then put pressure on the documentary basis of the film is completely incomprehensible. All of the above directly testifies to the fact that the author, if he lived in Donbass, then strictly for the purpose of filming this improbable movie, and his immersion, to put it mildly, is difficult to recognize particularly successful.
However, the most defiant is the plot of the picture itself, to limit the idea of which they preferred not only that sparingly, but also covered with it deliberately unnatural hollowness and cardboard characters, allegedly behind its allegory and depth will hide all these shortcomings, when the viewer connects his still living fixations from the Soviet past with the motives of the protagonist and for his attempt to restore the ideological external they, together with the viewer, will aim at the inner not untroubled state of the soul of a whole nation that has fallen from the cultural code, which “are not Russians or Ukrainians.” And where did that stay in the movie? How poorly did they implement this? In his interviews, director Denis Shabaev emphasized the unprofessional nature of the actors and the absence of a single script as such, but this improvisational state of affairs clearly did not benefit the picture. In fact, the same inflection with the surrounding characters desperate devastation of spaces tears into flaps this hastily sewn white threads fabric of the plot ... What can be found in the gray, drenched, exploding horizon of everyday life, what idea? Then why even talk about it? Unanswered questions, even if far-fetched. . .
As a result, trying to tell about everything, the film turned out to be nothing, a very raw craftsmanship, which will not be able to define the genre within the framework of author’s cinema, nor will it be possible to call the work an artistic attempt to interpret the reflection of millions of people who suddenly became unnecessary in this geopolitically falling apart world. Empty about empty. But with what a claim and turning the main message of the final, deconstructing the ideas embedded in the picture! Absurd, but true. Hypocrisy drives madness, the main character does not find comfort, all attempts are in vain, work as a loader in these Londons is more important than attempts to find peace of mind, even if everything is surrounded by walls and unfriendly to a person there. I wonder if the sponsors were happy?