Panfilov has long wanted to film this story Solzhenitsyn “One Day of Ivan Denisovich”, as a result, Natalia Solzhenitsyn She agreed to a change in the storyline, so the film was based on the motives. If I am not mistaken, the book was written in 1959. A kind of detonator for society. I read the book carefully. The language of writing is a powerful impression. There was no doubt. Panfilov Gleb Anatolyevich will shoot his own, but globally. And I wasn't wrong. This is certainly not Solzhenitsyn, there is a more sophisticated pace. The film is more flexible in many ways. Most importantly, it's the team, I watched it because it's here. The great Mikhail Agranovich, who is the operator-master of such masterpieces as Kreutzer Sonata (1987), Mother (1989) and Look for a Woman (1982) and the second half of the film "Ivan Denisovich", which was shot by Agranovich in rich action - more voluminous. What is productive here, Panfilov - shot episodes about the war so technically in the format of a Soviet real movie, which is a feeling when watching that you plunge into the atmosphere of the films of the 80s, the appearance in the frame of Inna Churikova strikes the mind - she, as always, The role of Philip Jankowski is heavenly true and finally a separate line. He played in the organics of his father, apparently genes do not betray blood. And talent is transmitted and revealed in these people by the second half of life. Philip as an actor has proven himself after the role in The Miti Karamazov Theater in the Moscow Art Theater.Chekhov's name is Bogomolov, the performance lasts five hours and Yankovsky is a block here, I was defeated by him. Literally and figuratively, here... in Ivan Denisovich, Jankovsky Jr. also found himself. Watching a movie is a must. It's a separate chapter in cinema. Nice work. Thank you very much. 👌 Review written: October 9, 2021, Olya Grinevskaya (Alenushka).
Ivan Denisovich / Philip Jankovsky / - a political prisoner who has 10 days to sit
This is the last directorial work of Gleb Panfilov to date. Anyone familiar with his work knows how he relates to Solzhenitsyn. What is one adaptation of "In the circle of the first", shot in the format of the series Panfilov. And so he took up the film adaptation of the story “One day in the life of Ivan Denisovich”.
To be honest, I have no relationship with Solzhenitsyn at all. Perhaps the thing is that the institute special course dedicated to the work of this writer and a detailed analysis of each of his works discouraged me from getting acquainted with the writer for real. And my memory completely destroyed all discussions, because I clearly remember that we, excuse me, muzzled Ivan Denisovich for a very long time. I watched the film as if it had never been seen or heard.
It is worth noting that Solzhenitsyn is not close to me yet, and the fact that his works breathe hopelessness and one desire remains - to cloak under the blanket, so as not to see anything and not to exist in this terrible world. However, Panfilov created a completely different mood of the canvas. After the film left a sense of light, warmth and even some touching. And most importantly, hope and faith in the best.
The music in the picture was, however, inflating, personally I thought so. I always expected something bad to happen right now. It could happen, but each time, as they say, “carried”.
I was glad that the film was not shot like modern films, where the characters, overcoming a lot of troubles, remain clean, anointed and sparkle with the smiles of a “stomatologist”. No, it's fair here. Teeth are bad for everyone, which is not surprising, because the food that the prisoners have, that their guards do not have much. Well, the supervisors are fine. However, in any case, the lack of vitamin D makes itself felt and reads in the appearance of each hero. Attention to such details and makes films authentic and penetrating the viewer.
For this film, Panfilov received the Golden Eagle as the best director, and Yankovsky as the best actor. In my opinion, the awards are well deserved. It is noteworthy that in the same year the Golden Eagle was received by the son of Philip Jankovsky - Ivan - for the best supporting role in the film "Fire". I do not want to say anything about this fact, it is just interesting in itself.
I did not compare the painting “Ivan Denisovich” with the original source. I know a lot of people scolded her for her shortcomings. Fans of the USSR were also not delighted with this tape. However, I am not a critic, nor a Soviet sheep, nor an expert on Solzhenitsyn’s work. I saw this film purely as the story of one man placed in certain conditions and trying not to lose hope or humanity. Personally, I liked the movie. And still sounds in the ears more than once said the hero: “Thank you, Lord, thank you...” It's very close to me.
It is not surprising that Panfilov is filming Solzhenitsyn. Back in 1964, he filmed the story of Alexander Isayevich. Taking on Solzhenitsyn was a special challenge. And now?
Without a doubt, One Day of Alexander Isayevich has long been a classic, but is it so relevant? Maybe it's a different time, other challenges.
Because when the cook sings a song about Stalin it seems superfluous, far-fetched. As if you can see the Russian picture of the early 90s in which everything is one-dimensional.
However, this is one of the few episodes that can be blamed for poor work. Panfilov focuses not on politics but on interpersonal issues. Behind every conditional “whip” in his reality you can see a person – good or bad. Each convict has his own story, his own nerve, his own tragedy.
Extraordinarily subtly conveys the experiences of the “little big” man Philip Olegovich Yankovsky. Perhaps, this actor for the first time received such powerful material and space, perfectly coping with the challenges.
But after watching the tape, the question does not leave me: “Is it possible to shoot the camp theme differently?”. In fact, all the paintings by Solzhenitsyn are similar. Perhaps now we deserve a new understanding of the work of this author, even if critical. So, this film Panfilov, if it was shot in 1988 or 2000, probably could be a masterpiece, a hit. And now it is nothing more than a good film adaptation.
6 out of 10
87-year-old wizard Gleb Panfilov has created another miracle – made a good fairy tale about the Gulag. That is why it appears in the credits “for motives” that the source of Solzhenitsyn is both more terrible and hopeless. As compared to Solzhenitsyn more terrible and hopeless Shalamov. But if Alexander Isaevich set the goal of his work - to tell us how it was; Shalamov – to tell us that man – first of all, an animal, which for the sake of human survival throws away almost happily; then Gleb Anatolyevich – without trying to terrify us first, without arguing with the second (because this is also true) – focused on the main (most important for him). For the sake of survival, as a rule (hello Shalamov), a person will rather sacrifice his dignity, but the spark that has been planted in him from above is inclined to still save, rather than extinguish.
That is why Panfilov living and even moving like a reptilian Ivan Denisovich (deserved prize in Locarno Yankovsky) enjoys in the squad not respect, but love. Because in an extreme situation (but not before), completely hopeless, able to raise his voice for the defenseless and humbly, like a true righteous person, accept the due punishment for it. (Unlike those who paid off their “sparkling investment in the trunk” knowingly and cheaply – for questionable prosperity and power over other people.) Where the righteous are, there are miracles. Miracle with Ivan Denisovich in the film happens three times. Not as a reconstruction of real events, but as an image of invisible patronage over all who did not consciously abandon it. And there is no need to overshadow miracles with the horror of the real Gulag: the wise Gleb Anatolyevich conveyed this dubious honor of reality. Literally shortly after the release of the film, the world saw fresh documentary chronicles of the “life” of our colonies. So, congratulating the authors, it should be noted with regret that the film turned out well not historical, but super-relevant and eternal Russian "from the sum and from prison" and "why so?" did not go anywhere.
We have completely forgotten how to make historical films. It would seem that such a simple story as “One Day of Ivan Denisovich” is difficult to spoil – but they easily managed to turn it into a real mess.
What did Solzhenitsyn show us? The most ordinary day of the most ordinary convict - without heroism, tragedy, pathos and mental suffering - "such days in his term from call to call were three thousand six hundred and fifty-three." All the thoughts of Ivan Denisovich are occupied with bread, porridge and balanda, and if even “they did not put in the punishment cell, they closed the percentage well, worked part time in the evening and bought tobacco,” and in general “you can live.” That was the most terrible, the most egregious thing Solzhenitsyn - man-thing, man-louse, a person from whom only one letter remained - the one embroidered on the number of Shch-854 - for this reason the story was written, this was the disgusting camp as such.
No wonder Private Ivan Denisovich sat down for nothing. Like everyone. “In February of the forty-second year, their entire army was surrounded in the North-West, and they did not eat anything from planes, and there were no planes either. They got to the point where they cut the hooves off the stunned horses, soaked that cornea in water and ate. There was nothing to shoot. And so little by little, the Germans caught them in the forests and took them. And so in a group of one Shukhov in captivity was a couple of days, there, in the woods, and they escaped five. - What did you do? For not preparing for war in the forty-first, for that? What do I have to do with it?
What does Gleb Panfilov show us? On the contrary, hero! He knocked down five tanks in an unequal battle, then overcame a minefield, in the camp going for a comrade for 10 days of solitary confinement, which means “for life to lose health.” Tuberculosis will never come out of the hospital.” Moreover, the sufferer and the martyr whose wife died, and now all thoughts about daughters, one of whom is not clear from whom pregnant. Yes, the world must collapse if such a person does not come free, so the head of the camp has already bowed before his spiritual power, beating up one day of unjust punishment! What an ordinary convict here - here the image of the Real Man emerges!
It's just a problem. With the text of Solzhenitsyn, with the simple, everyday, peasant phrases of his Ivan Denisovich, who just lives and survives, all this has nothing in common. And I want to follow the text, because it seems to remove “based on motives”. Therefore, Panfilov split his character: the hero and martyr, and Solzhenitsyn Shch-854, the camp "quite satisfied." Therefore, a mysticism is declared neither to the village nor to the city in the form of a girl and mother who, in a difficult moment, help Shukhov. It is as if angels were leading him under his arms through the adversity and storms of a cruel age. He is led, he is a hero, and the rest are just the background of his procession. How is it not Solzhenitsyn’s way, how anti-Solzhenitsyn’s way! Again we have the story of the hero, for whom the camp is only a donkey of his spirit. This camp is not necessary, and the camp will move. After all, Shukhov survived, came out, as undeniably makes us understand the last frame of the Panfilov. But whether Ivan Denisovich came out, whether millions of Ivan Denisovich survived - then Panfilov is not interested, so, a change of heart of history ...
Step left-right-and-left-and-run! Jumping on place — provocation!
I like Panfilov. Including for the fact that does not tolerate black and does not smear characters on the frame, like a smelly mass of plastic consistency. In his films, people are always dressed in such a way that they respect themselves and the cause they serve. The military and the NKVD are especially good. And this is nothing that the system betrays them - they remain people for Panfilov. Or try hard enough. Perhaps that is why the repressive-camp theme at the master sags in places.
Characteristic episode. Brilliant as an adjutant of his superior, the SMERSH officer does not follow a blunt installation from above, but turns on his head and unravels the “sly” legend of the Abwehr about his daughter, who allegedly led Shukhov through a minefield. And no, he doesn't look like an idiot and wants to respect himself. But something doesn't fit in here.
The camp we see is also not shuddering at all. Probably shouldn't. I'm sure it reminded some of the army. Or watch. I remember that Varlaam Shalamov in Denisovich also puzzled a lot. Like a cat. In a real camp, he'd be eaten right away. There's no cat in the movie. But the rest of the cranberries, marked by a convict with almost 20 years of experience, are hung abundantly, as well as in the original source.
Shukhov hides food and tobacco in his mattress. The prisoner's sleeping accessories include a pillowcase. Life in the camp is very quiet. Work too. Clothes tolerable, on the feet of the boots. Security doesn't monitor production. Balanda is thick enough to use a spoon. Zack enters into a discussion with the security guard about the rights of the CC. The brigadier is his man. And most importantly, no lesson. Where are they? Okay, "special camp." Then it doesn't reflect. At all.
For Panfilov, all this is secondary. It's not about camp. And about Shukhov, who should personify the modest charm of the Russian peasantry, caught in the binding, but preserved in the soul of God. That's it. Not that smooth though. Among the peasants, for example, there were the most snitches.
With the charm of the hero, too, did not work. Shukhov behaves victimly like a beaten dog. He's always whispering, he's staring at me, he's kind of cuckoo. And where did Yankovsky look at this slouchy plastic? Is that a twisted movement by short runs on half-bent? I have only seen this in Asian films. But more significantly, the expressions on Shukhov’s face get stuck a little longer than necessary – this tells the character a mannerism that, as an expression of the suppressed Ego, is not at all charming.
And now I can no longer refer to Shukhov Tolstoy’s words about “the incomprehensible, round and eternal personification of the spirit of simplicity and truth” – this is how the classic described Platon Korotaev, another national character, also called to explain at one time why we resisted another preposter. Korotayev, not attached to anyone, loved everyone. His positivity evoked sympathy. Why Shukhov’s neighbors in the barracks respect him so much, I don’t understand. For righteousness? It seems to me that, given the above, this will not be enough.
The life of Plato Korotaev, as he himself saw it, “had no meaning as a separate life: it had meaning only as a particle of the whole, which he constantly felt.” It's a religious attitude to the world. By the way, Shalamov considered it the most viable in the conditions of the camp.
Shukhov is also religious. So much so that the director flexes the genre under it - magical scenes appear in the film. But unlike Tolstoy’s “man” with his bright fatalism and deep faith in the triumph of moral law, Shukhov is sentimental to tears. He's too focused on the personal. And this, despite the mystical episodes, takes him beyond the cohort of winners. Shukhov is adaptive because he is weak. And power? The power comes from Churikova. Forever and ever.
Whose land is the Russian land???
And on a simple peasant Ivan, and on a woman named Mary, that is how, from time immemorial, they sang in songs and poems.
This picture tells about a simple, Russian soldier - private - Ivan Denisovich Shukhov (Philip Yankovsky), who in his simple life managed to get married, have two daughters, walk through Red Square on the Parade in the cold 1941, and also become a hero - an artilleryman, knocking up as many as five enemy tanks and a car with infantry, and then get to the Germans in captivity ... not for long, maybe for ten days, but it was enough to ' rattle' for 10 years camps in the harsh North.
This is an adaptation of the almost eponymous novel by Alexander Solzhenitsyn & #39; One Day by Ivan Denisovich' which was massively replicated in the Soviet Union during the times of the Khrushchev Thaw'. Director Gleb Panfilov tried to tell this story in his own way, adding some events to the biography of Ivan Denisovich and some divine mysticism without which in those harsh years, and especially in places so remote, it was impossible or even impossible to live. Only faith saved everything.
And so... while all the prisoners exploded on a minefield to Ivan Denisovich in foggy dreams came his younger daughter, took his hand and held him between the mines and he remained alive. And the nun - a wanderer miraculously gave him at the construction site, a fallen craftsman and threw a jacket and a hat into the solitary confinement, and the light from an ordinary light bulb in the same solitary confinement was lit up so bright and hot that no stove is needed. And everywhere Ivan Denisovich was helped: the soldier’s ingenuity, and the man’s hard work, and simple and sincere character – from that he had human respect. And how he longed for his daughters and to say it is terrible. Every year counting days to see each other, but hugging blood.
In my opinion, Philip Jankovsky very much managed to play this character authentically and realistically. A very pleasant florome sounded recitative behind the scenes from Leonid Yarmolnik and somehow added integrity to the picture.
If in general, it is very high-quality camera footage both in the war and in the camp, seasoned with the color of the harsh and terrible life of convicts with philosophical conversations of political prisoners, murky balanda and lawlessness of the guards. It would seem that Russian people are on one and the other side, and what are different in the meaning of life and in mental purity.
I personally recommend this movie to everyone...
And you will plunge for almost two hours into some totalitarian and hopeless world of those times, in which millions of human lives were cooked and from which there was no salvation.
Only faith ... is not in a bright future, but in itself and its loved ones, and even in God, helped man to survive.
Approximately what was expected from the screenwriter of “Sun Tired 2”
The main character gives the impression of a frankly feeble-minded person - does not recognize the first persons of the state, which are familiar even to a modern schoolboy, not only catches glitches on a minefield, but also seriously tells about them to counterintelligence, almost the entire film acts as a fool. It is difficult to empathize with him, it is difficult to associate with him. I hope the creators under the "amazing properties of the Russian character" Ivan Denisovich did not mean imbecility.
The fighting scenes are disgusting. I would even say that everything that has been happening since the beginning of the film is so fake (ZIS-3 in 1941; the long road from the parade to the front, to which it is 2-3 hours drive; German tanks out of nowhere, as in the White Tiger; the unnatural behavior of almost all the characters; the strange outside and inside the camp ...) that I seriously expected that in the end Ivan Denisovich would wake up and realize that this is another hallucination. Although, the scene with Rubank hints.
There is no plot per se. There's a purposeless fool, and an hour and a half of bullying him of a surreally violent world. Boring. The only thing that pleases is the comedy inserts with Irina Churikova, allowing you to start and finish the film on a cheerful note, bringing some uncertainty into the reality of what is happening.
Personality and faceless mass with numbers instead of names
Open fire or get through. To flee to Germany or to stay in the Soviet Union. Be human or betray yourself. Choice. Before a choice, a person stands free and in prison.
Ten years in the camp for Ivan Denisovich - ten years of choice.
“Ivan Denisovich” is a film based on the story of Alexander Solzhenitsyn “One Day of Ivan Denisovich”. A terrible, shocking work, Solzhenitsyn laid the foundation for camp prose, the most honest literature of Soviet times.
Gleb Panfilov, the director of the film, carefully shows the realities of that time with the help of an abundance of details.
The image of the mother of Ivan Denisovich, mythical, full of mysteries, the first image we see. It starts the film like the beginning of a new life.
It is striking how, throughout the film, each of these “faceless masses of people with numbers instead of names” is revealed as a person. Everyone outside the camp had a life: a family, a job, what was dear to them.
The shooting itself, its quality, editing are far from ideal, sometimes spoiling the picture. But acting and working on each image, attention to detail, dialogue - all this gives the film depth, truthfulness.
We live without feeling the country,
Our speeches are not heard in ten steps.
And where is enough for half a conversation,
They will remember the Kremlin mountaineer. . .
'One day of Ivan Denisovich' Alexander Solzhenitsyn today with the revelations of a convict. The very scandalous work that Secretary General Nikita Khrushchev approved, giving the green light to educate the masses - and built up the printing presses of the entire Soviet Union, spreading the truth about the "Dragon's Teeth" & #39; - CPSU. And four years later, suddenly ' thoughtful' power is a blessing that the King and God' Cornfields' was retired, hastily retired. From the libraries seized ' yesterday', washed out the recognized as best they could - so that the spirit of it was not ... Ideological diversion! Pasqueville in line! Strike the system! Dung communism? On dung? How is that possible? Into the oven. It wasn't. Didn't happen. Fiction. Lies. ..
A Russian man goes to camp. Zone. Baraki. Watch towers. Everything is as it should be in a socialist paradise. Ten years, the poor man's time is measured. Re-education. Sent to reforging. Didn't justify it to the investigator. He did not convince the authorities of his loyalty. I couldn't find an alibi. Was he a prisoner? Survived? Back with yours? Yeah. It is. Lucky you? Lucky guy? Ha ha! No way! No special department would believe that. From the Germans 'Kill'? Alive in snowstorms? Fantastic! No traitor. No way, saboteur. Recruited by the enemy...
Thanks to the master-director Gleb Panfilov, we plunge into the circles of hell 'Leviathan' stretching from the Baltic to Kamchatka. That was not long ago. Until the mid-50s, right. Unlike the author, before the viewer not only those very unfortunate, ordinary days, from the rise to the retreat of the Soviet convict, but also a front-line feat with knocked-down tanks, captivity with the horrors of a mine trawl, the joy of meeting with ' his '. Portrait of the hero in all its glory, so to speak.
All given to us. All told. That's it. As it was with the pakhan-usache (this is what Alexander Isaevich called him & #39; In the first circle & #39;).
But the painting is missing something. She's clearly missing something. What? The power of words, in my opinion. Cutting, devoid of depth work leaves a contradictory impression. Yes, Philip Yankovsky (Ivan Shukhov) is trying to play the main character. He is asthenic to an extreme degree of dystrophy. Organic physics is a complete similarity. That's all. I didn't feel Ivan Denisovich in him. The one. The author didn't convince me. Why is he so respected? Surrounding. By name and patronymic. What pulls the strap for two, for three? Where's that in the painting? On the brickwork? But it's not enough. Is that clearly not enough? That it's a queue and a caper? Not impressive. . .
In 2006, Gleb Panfilov shot a series about the Gulag 'In the first circle'. The characters are dark. Stars, large and small - a placer. Topic - disclosed, as they say, ' from and to'. But there was a residue from the series. You know what? It seemed that all those people, not serving time in the martyrdom of fate arriving, but as if spending time at the resort. Vouchers are issued to them by force, without their desire and they are burdened ... suffer ... but, endure ... and, incidentally, as in the yard of the peasants before - ' goats score ' in idleness. Right? Evgeny Mironov (Gleb Nerzhin) then just ' bell ' happiness poured into the ringing. From scene to scene. Why despair? The Adventures of Tom Sawyer Played... What kind of tragedy? As for Alexei Kolubkov (Lev Rubin) - just annoyed with parody of the book light... First classmate as a graduate student. Nothing less. Laughter, that's all. What do I mean? Oh, and that's it. The current ' Ivan Denisovich' is a very, very weak liner for classics. No soul. Without thinking. Superficial.
The strokes necessary for the picture in the sketches are absent or indistinct. Kartser, for example, a terrible place, a closet of ice for ten days correction, why stacks ' Zhmurikov' not paint? There are no words behind the scenes to explain. Skin-covered skeletons in blue frost will tell more about the regime of the Emperor. The pain and suffering of that ' guy' on the screen, we, gathered in the hall, must feel, share. To shake, to pinch, to cry inside. You can't do that. There's no other way. And this author ' give ' and failed. Couldn't? You didn't? Maybe you were scared. Afraid...
' Take' for example 'Lost in Siberia' (1991) by Alexander Mitta. There is a camp with all 'beauties' here ' same latitude' Homeland. But how different are they... There and then, what is not a character, what is not a dialogue, all in the top ten, here - in the milk, past ... You're still getting cold from that horror. Revisiting is not possible at all. For the reality that opens up there does not slam. She lives by frightening the reality of the evidence of those days. Once you look at the horror, you're his prisoner forever. And here? What can I say? . .
Too bad. Sorry, of course. Or maybe the time ' the present ' that same Ivan Denisovich, has not yet arrived? We'll try again in 50 or 70 years? Huh? Maybe? And then without any varnishing of superficiality? Yeah? From the guard when there is no one left in the world. . .
And believing neither the heart nor the mind,
In order to keep your eyes open,
How many times have we been silent in different ways?
Not against it, but for it!
Where are the screamers and mourners now?
They were squandered and squandered...
And the Silent Ones came out as leaders.
Because silence is gold.
Be quiet, you will be in the first place!
Shut up, shut up, shut up!
...what? Does the picture have a budget of 170 million? Oh-oh-oh! Not funny! Sad.
Literary works can be judged by their influence on history. Many mediocre poems have created a language, a language an army, and an army a color on the political map. Flying Over the Cuckoo's Nest destroyed the old mental hospital system, Uncle Tom's Cabin contributed to the fight against racism, and The Sufferings of Young Werther killed several thousand people. And, probably, the first place in this row is in a small story about a simple convict Ivan Denisovich, who destroyed the cult of personality in the 60s, the reputation of communism in the world in the 70s, a superpower in the 80s.
This story cannot be filmed.
How to put the taste of the ocean in a teaspoon? It seems that it is necessary to describe the most terrible horrors and give a retrospective of decades - to make a thrash squeeze with cannibalism and pornography. Solzhenitsyn’s ingenious find is in the headline – the entire future “Gulag Archipelago” fits into one day from rise to fall – a very good day in a very good camp by the harsh standards of earthly hell. The most important part of the power of the story is its rapid, clip-like pace. But cinema has its own laws, and the fact that on paper increases the pace – author’s text and short flashbacks – on film it monstrously slows down and tears the narrative, no “one day” will not come out. 18 hours – very little for a book and a whole series on video.
The story is about survival. But survival films are not filmed about one day of dozens of people, they are about how a loner loses the husk of culture for weeks.
What do camp inmates look like? Well, not like the Moscow intellectuals, much hungrier, angrier and uglier. And the sons of Adam tend to sympathize with the beautiful and not sympathize with the ugly. How does a Moscow intellectual imagine a camp? Mistakes.
Well, stop giving Gleb Panfilov discounts, it's time and bill to put.
I think from the above it is clear why “One Day of Ivan Denisovich” increased to “Ivan Denisovich”. The hero had to move closer to the modern viewer - in the world of films of the genre "cinema and Germans" of the XXI century. Along the way, turning into fillers from the “Archipelago”, the biography of the AIS, a look at the camp from Dovlatov’s tower and the writer’s fantasies on the theme of the memoirs of confessors of Orthodoxy (I will return to the latter). Between tempo and loyalty to the source chosen second, so that the film is sometimes meditative – but I must say, not boring.
The plot of survival in one day from infinity was replaced by the expectation of imminent freedom. Survival turned into small details like eating crumbs. In 30-degree book frost, no one freezes. The beatings mentioned on each page did not make it into the frame, as Tesak did.
Casting is unexpectedly optimal. Not a freak circus, but the key characters look like convicts. Some actors are too full and healthy, probably not even one died on the set, minus the film. Sometimes these actors don't play, Ivan's conviction is a thrash. The Zekis are dressed like convicts - some in scum and some not; the guards are dressed as for a parade.
I watched it first, then I read it again. The funny thing is that everything I thought was a blunder directly contradicts the text of the AIS. For example, in the book they started and finished working at night, in the film they started after lunch, they finished after a couple of hours; in the book the camp is poorly lit, not like the Kremlin under Putin; in the film, the guards give out paper bags to customers, as in your Vkusville – in the book they write something on plywood. Special thanks to the writer for the episode with the pouring of water on the path – in the book would not notice, but here the meaning was chewed.
If a man remembers the ten emperors of Rome, he is either a historian or an Orthodox. If ten Ihemons are exactly Orthodox. The Orthodox remember the persecutors, the torturers, and Stalin will be the last to be forgotten. By necessity, Panfilov could not but count on an Orthodox audience. However, the golden times of Orthodoxy, when the Solovki Cathedral was more representative than that in the wild, it was most likely to meet with a brother in the monastery at the transfer, and in each barracks liturgy was served, have long passed - neither Solzhenitsyn nor his correspondents found them almost, and in the 50s the Orthodox "were not imprisoned, or gave five years." Therefore, the Orthodox part of the film was invented by the director based on the memoirs of very few elders-confessors who survived to the 60s/80s, and there are no Orthodox in the camp. Some moments, like the visit of the Virgin to the camp, are quite successful, some are glued to tape. Shukhov was not made a Christian, but he was made a hero of life. Even Alyosha-Baptist for the sake of his film career had to abandon inciting hatred on the basis of belonging to a religious group.
In short, the film could not but appear, and could not be fundamentally different. If you've finished reading this, you'll have to watch.
Hanging between the illustration of the text and its mystical interpretation
On the second day of rental went to the new film of 85-year-old Gleb Panfilov “Ivan Denisovich” – a free film adaptation of the textbook novel by Solzhenitsyn. I read the text in school, so I can not say that I remember it well, however, even with approximate knowledge of the source, it is easy to notice that the director allowed himself excessive liberties in the cinematic retelling of the literary text. The main vulnerability of the film is not even military episodes, which were not in the story, but the hanging of the director's plan between the illustration to the text and its mystical interpretation. As I remember, the story is characterized by hyperrealism, even naturalism in the description of one day in the life of convicts, Panfilov tried to make a picture of salvation and curse.
Despite the very good performance of Yankovsky – the only one who fully coped with the tasks set before him (the rest of the performers, as in any of our modern films about the past, look “dressed”, too calm, fed up with actors, namely, that the PLAYERS of the camp are bottoms), to look at the film in general at nothing but a few mysterious scenes (like the episode with Churikova), several unusual angles and generally suitable video sequence of music. Military episodes, unfortunately, fit the film into a series of Ministry of culture crafts about the war: Big Style, pathos, etc., and the camp, barracks and prisoners themselves give the impression of amateurism, not a movie.
The treatment of the guards with convicts (except for undressing in the cold) looks generally tolerable, which is also annoying (however, Solzhenitsyn himself, in his own words, smoothed out much of the story so that it was printed). In the finale, it seems that a dramatic escalation of the plot is about to begin, but ... boom, and the film ends. Without a doubt, the main theme of the picture is the Divine patronage of man and his salvation, but the mystical component of the picture is presented, albeit obviously, but somehow timidly, dotted, as a result of which the film oscillates between realism and symbolism. And the very conversations about God between the main character and Aleshka-Baptist (I don’t remember if they were in the book) are perceived quite as moralizing.
Often using the middle plans, Panfilov hopelessly hangs in the teleformat, which also distinguished "In the First Circle", but it was a series, and this is a movie. The main failure of this picture is its visual indistinguishability from the numerous crafts of the Ministry of Culture, the operators did almost nothing to make the image become an independent participant in the narrative. “Ivan Denisovich” gives the impression of the creative, artistic and conceptual infirmity of the director, who has no choice but to illustrate the text with timid intersperses of his mystical interpretation. Yankovsky is the best thing in the film, but one actor (and, of course, Churikov, who is a genius in the episode) will not go far.
“Ivan Denisovich” was long and, as it turned out, waited in vain: a film about the camps, ours, not fascist, should have appeared long ago, but how powerful Solzhenitsyn’s story is, so weak is this film adaptation of it. Right word, if there were no military episodes, and the director would focus entirely on the camp scenes, more detailed and staged work on them so that the barracks and towers did not look like scenery, and the actors – “dressed”, then the effect of the film would be different. In the days when everyone talks and writes about Villeneuve’s Dune, it makes no sense to go to Panfilov’s new film and even more so to write about it – every shot sees through his financial poverty and low-budget, the inability or inability of the director, cameraman and production artist to work out the visual component as detailed as Villeneuve and his team did in Dune.
However, Yankovsky’s work is on the verge of complete self-forgetting and timid attempts at mysticism somehow bring Ivan Denisovich beyond the limits of hopeless grayness. Indeed, in the post-Soviet era, the previously prolific Panfilov shot only “In the First Circle” and its film version “Keep Forever”. Here's another one of his work, I don't think it shows that the director is fit. After all, to film Solzhenitsyn can only be as energetic and fighting man as Alexander Isayevich. In this sense, the recent films of Andrei Smirnov “Once upon a time there was one woman” and “French” in spirit is much closer to Solzhenitsyn’s prose than not only Panfilov’s new film released yesterday, but even, let’s be honest, the TV series “In the First Circle”, also sinning with ordinary, gray illustrativeness, like most average television products.