The thesis “you can leave the village, but the village will not leave you” in one or another probably heard everyone and this tape an obvious attempt to film it, but with an increase in the scale of what is happening, but what works at the level of “city-village”, begins to fail very much at the level of “homeland-emigration”.
The fact is that a rather specific stratum of the population emigrates and what is shown here with a stretch can be imagined in the early 90s, when many people in the expanses of the former USSR believed that it was only necessary to wrest out by the cordon and everything would immediately improve.
At that time, it was possible to imagine both the emigration of the conventional intelligentsia and highly qualified personnel, who, having worked in the specialty for many years, were ready to emigrate and settle in much lower positions.
But these days to present such characters as shown here, you can only understand nothing at all in this matter, because of what the plot fails literally at the basic level.
To watch how in 2020 a businessman tries to mimic his own, pretending to be a Pole, how a girl who grew up in exile suddenly strikes nostalgia, how a grandfather from the 80s comes to a grandson who was born in exile, who is still being erased by a newspaper and begins to teach a grandson of street life of the USSR, an Armenian who for some reason appeals for help in a city with the largest Armenian diaspora in the United States. Who conceived the hero Nagiyev, honestly, I did not understand.
To work such an exhibition in principle can be in the mode of absurdity, but here it is served in the mode of drama, with the message - "Look, they left, but miss their homeland" therefore ... but it is not clear that therefore ...
If in the plot the United States was replaced by a conditional Moscow, where people gathered for a long ruble, but still maintaining contact with a small homeland, the meaning would be clear, and in this form – it is a completely artificial construct, and even filmed according to the patterns of perestroika times, when the plot of the action takes place somewhere abroad, but there is no foreigner in the caste.
It didn't work out in the end. Comedy works on the most template scenes and curves, and the dramatic part, to which there are no formal complaints, has no connection with reality, because of its simple narratives are clear, but do not cause absolutely no response.
6 out of 10
P.S. A year earlier, “Giv Mi Liberty” (2019) was released, in which the director somehow managed to capture the spirit of our emigration to the United States, watch it better, at least a unique experience is guaranteed.
Before watching the film, there was a prejudice that we would be shown people who are saddened by life in exile, who are pulled back. The film’s message is “Go back” or “Don’t leave.” And this message seemed to be some kind of government order. Maybe to reduce the flow of emigration or, indeed, to encourage those who left to return.
There were also certain preconceptions about the quality of the film, related partly to the theme itself, partly to the figure of the director. Before that, this director’s films deserved the lowest ratings. They were completely empty, stupid imitations of the West. The complete absence of ideas and “self” in these films caused complete rejection of them.
But always try to be impartial. The movie "Goodbye, America" - very much liked. Emotional, hurting, strong film about people, about feelings, about the soul. Unlike other films of the director, a completely different message is attached here, the relevance of the topic is felt, the elaboration in detail. Maybe this is a consequence of the professionalism of the team, or maybe something is really worth it.
The film pleasantly surprises the quality of the acting, the setting of scenes and the successful solution of the tasks that faced the director in each particular scene. Correct accents, correct play, pauses, words, intonations cause the desired response of the viewer.
The film only in some moments reminds of routine on television receptions and stamps, and mainly covers various aspects of the life of the heroes in its own way, originally, with charm, color and talent!
Dmitry Nagiyev, Yuri Stoyanov, Vladimir Yaglych, Elizaveta Sailor, Grant Tokhatyan in their roles are completely organic. But these are positive characters, they are played well, you sympathize with them, and you empathize with them. It is impossible not to mention Lyanka Gryu, despite the fact that her heroine should not cause any emotions, except for condemning indignation.
It is worth noting the musical range. The song chosen as the film’s leitmotif by Benjamin Basner (music author) and Mikhail Matusovsky (verse author) “Where the Motherland Begins” sets the right mood for viewing. Organic sounds the song of Nautilus Pompilius “Goodbye, America”, which sounds in the film in a new performance. I hear that this is a different voice of Butusov.
It is nice to know that the authors paid attention to the nuances.
Separately, we should mention the stunningly strong scene of the call to Grandma. The background music slightly supports the scene, but then the lullaby song begins to be performed in the frame, which sounds in unison with the voiceover music, and this is a magical punching effect! It’s hard to remember this in other films. But it is from such nuances that the general impression is formed.
No wonder the film is framed by poetry. It's a very lyrical movie. By the way, poems are read beautifully, and poems are beautiful.
The script is complex, precise, subtle and deep. Several typical characters are shown. They live, interact, intersect. Disclosure of the plot is carried out, among other things, through instant contrasts. The characters, interacting, show the viewer two views on the problem, show differences in approaches, in lifestyle. There are no sharp external conflicts in the film. It's more about feelings, inner feelings, feelings. And it's filmed and shown well.
In the film, not only views on life, but also events are contrasted: tragic events are replaced by joyful or comic events. Several times pierced into the heart of the viewer, not yet having had time to recover from the shock along with the hero of the episode, is forced to come out of the torpor in a completely different scene, with a different mood and a different dynamics. It is difficult to say whether this was intentionally done or not, but there were several times such dissonance between the emotions caused by the viewer and the picture on the screen. Perhaps this is the contrast the director wanted to make the film memorable.
The multiculturalism of the “Russians” who are in exile together again is represented in the film by Russians, Jews and Armenians. Not a complete bouquet, but still this mixing brings us back to the old Soviet films, where people of different nationalities communicated like brothers, shared bread, problems and joys. No one thought of strife or divided the garden.
Nick’s words to his wife, Yulia, that the Black Sea is a dirty puddle are hurting because we hear it often and in real life. These are real words, as are other collective images and situations depicted in the film. When and how quickly did people forget who they were?
The main idea of the film is a man without his roots, revealed in various game situations in the film. The attempts of people to break the connection with their past and their self, feeling, but not always understanding, that in this way they break themselves are sharply shown.
The scene with the grandmother at the end of the film seemed superfluous, since the symbolic image of the distant grandmother is close to the viewer. But the appearance in the frame of the grandmother in the image of the famous, but quite real actress Ekaterina Vasilyeva, this symbolic image makes real. From this, the very line of the script loses a little emotionality.
The film has a few climaxes, emotional accents and many not basic, but also very important and memorable. The film is rich in events and situations.
During the viewing, the question constantly arose about why he was so catchy, why he touched so much and even hurt somewhere. Even those who have not gone anywhere, to any America.
Then I thought it was not about America. It's about all of us. We all live in this America. And the “Russia” that torments the heroes of the film is our childhood, memories, the image of a country that does not exist.
The script of the film, despite the fact that it was written by a large number of authors, turned out to be very integral and worked out. There are many topics, many areas of life, many nuances. Very accurately, many emotionally subtle moments, as well as acute and painful life situations, through which a person must go.
Many in our society have become “Americanized.” More meaning, less emotion, more rationalism, less feeling, more self, less we. It is surprising how relevant the book of Ilf and Petrov “One-storey America” is now.
In general, the film is good and relevant.
Repeatedly saw the trailer of the picture when visiting the cinema or surfing the Internet. From what was shown, almost nothing was clear. Who is the director, what is the film about, do I want to watch it? The answers came when the tape was published on HD Film Search.
Director Sarik Andreasyan, a film about the mysterious Russian soul and cotton in the minds of the Soviet and post-Soviet population of Russia, I do not want to watch, but I learned about it after the fact.
The acting game is drawn by Stoyanov, Nagiyev and Strugachev. The rest of us don’t know who, I don’t know why. For decorations, probably.
But God is with the actors. This is undoubtedly taste and it is unlikely that there can be such a casting, the result of which will satisfy any viewer. A bad game can be tolerated. No bad scenario. This is not porn, the story is very important. And here he is not only secondary (Intergirl 1989), he collapses from his insolvency.
Armen does not want to return to Armenia because he will be laughed at there. But he doesn’t want to live in America either, or does he want to? What is the dilemma? In life with a hypertrophied and stereotypical Samantha? Or that there is no Mount Ararat in America, no peaches from trees, no lakes like the sea? What is the motivation of this hero to live in America, how and why did he get there? What would the movie lose if you cut that line? Probably nothing, but this is the wrong question because it applies to all storylines. As a result, you can cut everything.
Pregnant Julia remembers how good she was as a child with her grandmother on the Black Sea. And now somehow not good, not childhood, my grandmother is not near, and the Black Sea especially. What would a mature person do in such a situation? I went to visit my grandmother, quenched my thirst for nostalgia and returned to my life, probably. What's Julia doing? Inflames the conflict with the mother and husband, bringing the situation to the absurd. He slams the door and flies to Grandma. The husband does not understand anything, and then he understands everything and runs after his tantrum.
There is some progress in the stories of Igor and Ira and Alice and Dad. In the first case, the character came to recognize his nationality and ceased to hide behind the Polish ancestry. In the second case, the heroine realized that not everything in her childhood was bad and that her father was able to give something to her grandson.
George, who links all the lines together, has not changed. His character was prescribed the least, he was given the least time. It serves as an advertising face for the trailer and an editing glue for the transition from history to history.
Thank you to Sarik for not making below-the-waist jokes, flatulence, faeces, etc. this time. There is a noticeable movement in the right direction, but at this pace it will be extremely long.
I'm sorry for the time I spent on the film and I'm glad I missed it in the movies. If you’re thinking of watching a movie or not, watch Intergirl.
If you cut the film into episodes, throw out 40% without hesitation, give 20% to Yeralash, and 20% to the first league of KVN, the remaining 20% are quite digestible, and one or two episodes even pull on elegance. But in a glued state, they form a vulgar agitation to the glory of the chronically mysterious Russian soul and ancient Russian cements of unclear content. Moreover, trying to somehow formulate and explain these clips, the authors simply present to the viewer a wretched set of pleasures of the Soviet Gopnik, propping it up with the nostalgia of grandchildren for grandmother feeding. In fact, the whole film flatly and straightforwardly boils down to a series of episodes in which Russian emigrants living under the palm trees of Los Angeles are trying to become local, but under the charm of a person who arrived in time to visit a carrier of correct values (Sovkopensky performed by the professionally flawless Stoyanov), immediately line up to return to their native birch trees. However, there is hope that the latest footage of Nagiyev parodying General Khludov is a kind of “get it right”.
I don’t know how people who moved to another country feel or how much they miss it.
But from the experience of my friends, I know that:
1. Russians abroad are looking for their own and keep in groups.
Hence the story of Dmitry Nagiyev, who will solve any questions ' for his ' It's kind of like the 90s.
2. It is better to move to work than to start from scratch. But no one has a problem with you hiding your nationality.
Therefore, the block in the film about a businessman seems to me extremely Americanized.
3. In another country, sooner or later you start to miss things.
The theme with the girl who was looking ' the very dish, like my grandmother' - very cute. I can’t say it’s because of the move.
4. You move with your traditions, which you try to pack into another world.
From a Green Card perspective, Americans and Canadians have comedies on the subject. Ours decided to make an analogue. Not bad, funny, but hardly so true.
Although it is worth noting that moving to another country is a move to a different mentality - a beautiful display of the barbecue scene.
Overall, a good movie with some interesting stories. I can't say they make you think about moving or change your mind. But you can watch and cry / laugh in places.
7 out of 10
I watched the movie by accident, completely blind. I thought I’d watch ten minutes and turn off what I do with 90% of Russian cinema now. Because as you get older (I'm 47), you start to value your time. And what has been filmed in Russia and Hollywood since the late 2000s is rarely worth the time, let alone the money. But 'Goodbye, America' Watched to the end, without breaking away.
The quality of acting
And #39: Bad acting is bad directing & #39; Bad acting is bad directing. In this film, this proverb is not appropriate. There is no one here who plays badly, even in episodes. Even absolutely wooden Yaglych, literally struck the depth of the study of character, in a small episode that he got here. even tired of ' Crimean bridges', Perdimonocles Stoyanov suddenly forgot about what he became under old age and played brilliantly. About Nagiyev I noticed this thing - if he is given a clear task and not allowed to survive, he plays great. Lisa Sailor - just lived her role, it's even difficult to call a game. Lyanka Gryu, as always, perfectly played ' foreigner' from the Russian film. Oh, this indescribable Moldovan English: )
Plot
It is banal and simple - life ' our TAM'. The plot seems flat, since the circle of these ' our ' is very narrow. There are no outright bums and losers. There are no bandits and prostitutes like Balabanov. These are quite successful immigrants, somehow hooked in a foreign country. And all the suffering of which, in fact, is only the discomfort of getting used to other people's rules of life, nothing more. And that's exactly what I liked. After all, extremes in life are not what they are in movies: the average person rarely comes face to face with them. Yes, I sometimes see homeless and unemployed people descending to the near-bottom space. But their problems are more frightening than they cause real empathy. Everyone has their own problems. And 'Goodbye, America' it is about the problems of the majority, about everyday life, not about extremes. It's hooked.
The element of nostalgia is also played easily, without tear, but with a note of longing. It is the same one that is not in English: ) It also worked.
Summary
The film ' Goodby, America' - a strong, good melodrama for one evening. If you don't miss it, someone will cry. And yes, that the film was directed by Sarik, I only found out when the credits went. Otherwise, I wouldn't even include it. Alas. reputation is also a cross and this director weighs more than one ton.
Probably more for expats. There are a few not-so-smart moments imposed by Putin’s propaganda, such as “America can easily take a child from the family.” But overall, the film looks like a solid seven. Moments are nostalgic.
Goodbye America is a very simple movie. It’s so simple that from the first five minutes of the film you’re ashamed of the writers.
What did the filmmakers try to say? A romanticized homesickness. This topic has huge potential, but the authors chose the easiest way - to play on stereotypes about Americans that are so untrue that you have to pause the film and take a deep breath. Misunderstanding and rejection of the life of the characters of another state only strengthens the feeling that the authors seek to make Americans flat and dry (often frank fiction), without revealing at all any problems and difficulties of life in the United States. The whole point of the location is just a background for the characters to grieve against the palm trees. At the same time, the complexities of immigration and the personal motivations of the heroes are not disclosed - what did they all come there if they miss their grandmother's cooking so much? - they are just dummies to sing Russian songs, cook Russian food, and remember the Great Motherland. Fan service to mother Russia, so that less people complain about how bad their lives at home.
There are funny moments when the characters genuinely laugh at something stupid and you're on the same wavelength with them, or there's some sudden burst of originality. But then there's the toilet humor, the superficial, semi-caricature portrayal of literally all the minor characters, and the "wisdom" of people who haven't seen the world beyond the grocery store.
A separate mention is the quality of the film. An unprofessional voice-over, because of which the characters say one thing with their lips, and another is voiced, makes it very difficult to watch the film. Feeling like you're looking in bad dubbing is frustrating. Numerous mistakes during the shooting and absolutely stone play of most actors, accents in characters depicting Americans, styling and makeup in women during sleep - all this shows the attitude to the viewer: well, what for them to try, who they are?
1 in 10
I watched the movie without knowing who the director was. Just a good evening, just a good mood, just watch a movie.
I liked it.
Yes, maybe some storylines are too simple and simple, but this is a comedy after all, not a drama.
Although there are a lot of moments when the tear itself flows (yes, a banal feature, but it works).
Stories are a little simple, without sharp angles, but this is the idea of the director - to make a comedy with meaning.
In itself, the topic of immigration and mental anguish on this soil is worn out, but quite interesting. People are always different and stories are always different.
Many people say that the film has nothing to do with reality. But again, the film is not for those who have gone there. A film for all the rest of us about what each of these immigrants might have in their hearts.
Fish fish is not about fish. Even he realized it by the end of the film, and some commentators still think it’s just such a whim of a pregnant woman (absolutely not).
Igor, trying to forget his homeland - I understand him perfectly.
Lianka perfectly played Samantha - even I believed at first, it is some American actress.
The double standards of the US, subtly outlined at the very beginning (with the police) - I appreciated.
Stoyanov and Tokhatyan are the perfect game. You can see the old school of acting. The others are good. Nagiyev, as always, played himself and looks perfect as a link between all these stories.
It is difficult for me to assess the musical background objectively, because the song “where the Motherland begins” infuriated me since childhood and now infuriates me. But overall, it didn't hurt to watch. Especially since other music and songs are quite at the level.
Titles in the form of children's photos of actors - a cool thing!
Only after the film in the credits saw the director - Andreasyan. So, in the reviews again there will be a heated discussion on the topic “why he shoots something”. People, understand, Sarik is a director of light comedy films. Who do not need to attribute high meanings and ideas. He makes movies to watch and relax. And those who need it, they will find meaning in his films. I don’t understand hype about his character in cinema. It has taken its niche and is gradually growing.
The same "Defenders" - it was interesting to watch. It was interesting for my son to watch The Carlson and Robo (especially since the films are children’s, not for us adults). The same goes for his other films.
I recommend this film for a family viewing or in the company of friends - it will be fun (and sometimes soulful).
'There is longing only in Russian. Other nations have sorrow, regret, sadness, but no longing. . ?
A rare example of Russian cinema with a capital letter. Although, unfortunately, the assessment has to be put upfront... I could not help but read the works of other reviewers and categorically disagree with them that the assessment of the film is based on the plot. As the final scenes show, it is often not what we see or hear that matters, but what we remember and what we may remember.
This is really a film about Russian longing - for the Motherland, for culture, everyday life, relatives. Everyone has their own, but it’s the same... The director managed to show the advantages of the multicultural past of the USSR without pathos, which previously seemed simply impossible to me.
Well, I would still like to see ' barrel of honey' It's definitely a cast. Maters Stoyanov and Nagiyev demonstrate excellent performance and remind us that we still have actors to be proud of. They even overshadow the not the most successful selection of other actors - personally I did not understand why Yaglych was invited - his character was simply not revealed to him, and hardly could. Remember the same Karp frostbitten, where there is a similar plot point. But here, why, the actor could not play the same. For me, there is a lack of Khabensky. Well, the lyrics. Tokhatyan was extremely unexpected to watch, I did not expect such a good game from him. Not to mention fragmentary appeared, but well played Vasilyeva is also impossible. And against the background of these actors, it is especially sad and even sad to see how much less the younger generation is able to play. So the feeling of longing is caused by the very implementation of the film. But good longing, Russian.
At the same time, the film does not try to squeeze a tear in everything, the key characters, especially in the performance of Stoyanov, perfectly act out comedy scenes. They may not be enough, but they will be remembered by the audience. Even Strugachev, who appeared in the fragment, caused such a storm of emotions that (so forgive me those who are offended by stereotyped anecdotes of the times of the USSR) ' So all Israeli Jews can directly take and die of envy (should not have been born in Odesa!'); because so atmospheric play, albeit in the shortest passage, hardly anyone can.
This film is a tribute to the Golden Age of Russian cinema, farewell to the departed and respect for the departing. He will not be understood by connoisseurs of ' progress' but he will not fail to cause a sad smile in those who found at least the 90s.
The film is not a call to return the departed and not tearful pity for the irretrievable past, but a reminder of the importance of preserving your culture in memories and children!
A film for people who know nothing about life in America, not about emigration.
Adaptation in another country requires some effort and it is not always smooth. But what the authors came up with does not fit into any gate. Everything is pulled by the ears and sucked out of the finger.
Some grandfather who came to the American grandson, to teach him 'real life' who speaks not even slang, and hair dryer. It feels like Grandpa ' reclined' recently after 15 years in prison. It is impossible to listen to speech.
A young couple who is perfectly settled in a new country, but his wife is so worried that he can not eat in the restaurant grandmother’s patties that buys a ticket and flies to Russia.
We would like to show how poor the emigrants live, we should have filmed in Brighton, where English is not even spoken, and the level of the environment, as we had 20 years ago. Here you can talk about homesickness, and with those who are normally settled it will not pass.
If you look just like a comedy, without going into the details of plausibility, then the authors did not bother themselves much, took some templates and shoved them into decent actors. It is clear that Stoyanov is a cool actor, he would not do anything funny, but the level of directing and script can ruin almost anyone, which happened here. The creative torment of creating a work is clearly not about these creators.
In the end, a strong two!
Sarik Andreasyan is a strange and not very lucky director in terms of the quality of films. He shoots bad comedies stuffed with low-grade humor and residents of KVN, which can hardly be called powerful actors, weak fiction with good ideas and tolerable special effects, but toothless script and talentless performance, and, surprisingly, quite watchable dramas and melodramas. These films can hardly be called cult or at least stand out from the others, but, in general, Andreasyan’s dramas can be called a good middle man without pretense. Such films are not postponed for a long time in memory, but they do not cause shame in the viewer, which cannot be said about other films of the director.
His melodrama “Goodbye, America” director with a pure heart can bring in the column with a positive experience in cinema. But again, it is worth keeping in mind that this experience is positive against the background of other films by Andreasyan.
Now, a little bit of everything.
1. SOURCE
The screenwriters of the film were Sergey Volkov and Alexei Gravitsky, already familiar from the works of Andreasyan – “Unforgiven” and “Robo”, Yaroslav Lushkevich, who worked on “Women against men”, and Artem Efimov, who practically has no script practice.
Making an almanac of stories that intersect with each other was the right move and, well, the idea of making a melodrama about Russian immigrants in the United States is good in itself. The writers definitely did not have solid material worthy of a full-length film, so the format chosen suits Andreasyan’s film more than ever. The stories told in the film are as simple and simple as possible. They do not have any extreme intrigue, but for such a format, it is enough to play on the feelings of the viewer in a quite primitive plot. The director puts pressure on nostalgia, Russian longing, very simple humor and drama. And for those who do not expect from this film some incredible folded mountains, it will be interesting and even pleasant.
The film is divided into four stamped intertwined stories, two of which quite successfully combine good actors and a normal script, the other two are frankly squeezed out of the finger and imbued with ossified stereotypes about both Russians and Americans.
2. Actor's Game
The main link of all the stories of the almanac is the character of Dmitry Nagiyev (Fizruk) - he is a kind of solver of any problems that may arise for Russians in the United States. And how nice to see him in a role that has nothing to do with the image of “Foma” from “Fizruk!” Perhaps his character Grigory is the main highlight of the film, proving that Dmitry Nagiyev knows and can play well, that he knows how to reincarnate, and, finally, that he is able not only to make faces in cheap comedy crafts of the same Adreasyan. In general, Gregory turned out to be the most soulful hero of the film, which accommodates both longing for his native country and the balanced decision of an adult not to return.
Also worth noting are Vladimir Yaglych (Warrior) and Yuri Stoyanov (12). They don’t show any extravagant acting, but for an almanac that’s enough, and their characters look alive and enjoyable. It is easy for them to empathize, even looking at the clumsiness of their situations.
Elizaveta Sailor (Girls are different) and Mikael Aramyan (Earthquake) – perhaps the main failure of the film. Their game is as "oak" and repulsive as possible. So both were also placed in one novel, burying an already weak plot even deeper.
Lianka Gryu (Barvikha) and Grant Tokhatyan (Earthquake) are the reverse side of the medal. Unlike the Sailor and Aramyan, they preferred a noticeable overplay. Their characters are walking stereotypes and clichés, which can get bored almost as soon as they appear on the screen.
“Goodbye America” is a film with a huge heap of problems that mostly narrow to the excessive simplicity and straightforwardness of the script (so much so that after the first third of the film you can break through the endings of all the novels). But, in general, the film is more pleasant than the shame that usually comes up when watching Andreasyan’s paintings. He is able to press the right levers, if, again, you do not expect much from him.
Result: a middle peasant who can entertain the viewer while preparing a Sunday dinner.
6 out of 10
Sarik Andreasyan is the main parasite of Russian-language cinema - so many people think, but this idea did not come to me. Since 2009, the director has been involved in cinema, with 1-3 films released every year. If in the early 10s the choice was not so diverse, and Russian film production reached a stable level and the audience to some extent greedily grabbed new products, indiscriminately. After two or three years, people were not enough just a set of Russian stars on the screen, wanted density and intricacy. That's where Sarik swam. "Pregnant", "That's Carlson", "What men do!", "Defenders" is an example of how you need to shoot. But at the same time, such a movie takes place, it is necessary for unassuming and easy viewers. Then, at some point, a wave of seriousness came: foreign experience with cool actors in “American Robbery”, serious stories on real events “Earthquake” and “Unforgiven”, and making you think about the next “Mom”. “Goodbye America” is the continuation of this well-calibrated wave of suffering and meaning in a bad wrapper.
The film tells about people who immigrated from Russia to the United States, each for different reasons, each with its own history and state of mind. And the state is such that over time it comes to the conclusion that the home is far away, but by some habits and foundations it can be approached, albeit in a foreign country.
Each story, and here there are 2.5 for the whole film, does not look like an independent direction - these are not independent novels, each is closely synchronized with the other, and in the end, according to generally accepted concepts, a common whole is assembled.
The authors instilled in heroes who have gained stability, longing. The longing is so improbable that the causes and expression of these causes make one wonder at their sincerity. It's so caricatured that it has nothing to do with most of the real problems of people coming abroad on a permanent basis. Jokes for the sake of inserting such sluggish moments about nostalgia, instructive moments, and just lurking resentments. It does not come to mind to sympathize with heroes, situations do not favor it. The superficial turn of action does not exasperate, but there is no feeling of trying to approach the viewer.
Apparently, the director, significantly worked out the moment with squeezing tears from the viewer. It started with Earthquake, continued with Unforgiven, and hopefully ends with Goodbye, America. This function looks forbidden, and most importantly not appropriate reception. Putting heroes without a weighty background in difficult situations comes out with a very big grin in terms of viewability.
The quality of the picture stands out, but this does not make any weather evenly. If Andreasyan ever has a solid, deep and, most importantly, expressively completed film, it will be a mix of all genres. So I believe he's just trying. The series “Chicatilo” is proof of this, with the detective artist has not yet appeared on display.
Together, the film withstands a lot of criticism, few positive aspects. It will be interesting for those who have no idea of the director’s past works, and for those who do not live far from home.
So flat and even primitive, designed for the ignorant, that it is no longer funny, but still in some places pity.
According to Adreasyan, this is ' more touching than funny. . . a metaphor about nostalgia, love for childhood, homeland - this is not even the place where you were born, but this is your mother, school, childhood. This is what your grandmother cooked. '
The film was supposed to be called ' Homeland' and was named after the principle ' America is a country, and the homeland is there'.
It turned out to tell a metaphor about nostalgia for the homeland arising from the inability of the identity of one country to integrate into another country (actually just dumb characters, on the spot sad about the homeland).
It turned out to show an infinite number of patterns and cliches, to show the superiority of the identity of the homeland over the identity of the country (yes, yes, Russia over America), and not to show anything else.
An ordinary propaganda product designed for the viewer in the soap bubble of the cultural space of Russia.
In addition, it is so flat and even primitive, designed for the ignorant, that it is no longer funny, but still in some places pity when it is not disgusting.
In the place of chewing this metaphorical cactus, read the verses used at the beginning and end of the above mentioned:
E. Yevtushenko - 'People are my homeland'
The idea of the film is very good. The topic of emigration, its causes and consequences is the theme of Dostoevsky’s depth. And any expat will tell you a lot of real stories from his circle of friends, about how everything worked out well and what they regret anyway.
But this film doesn't have that depth, that tragedy. Perhaps the problem is in the script, because the stories and motivations of the characters are somehow too simplified and generalized.
Stories about gefilta fish do not believe at all - a woman lived, wanted Jewish fish, so much so that she went back to Russia. It is obvious that to go because of a fish or grandmother with whom I did not communicate for 20 years to the end of the world can only unfortunate person who is not well where he lives now. It's not the fish that's bad for him. What about? Not disclosed.
Monologues and jokes are often stilted. Why did an Armenian attack a poor American woman who put a dog in a wheelchair? Is that adequate? Or why did he want a fictitious wife first and then seriously wonder if she didn’t want to have children? Is that humor?
There's a documentary from the early '80s about Soviet emigrants in New York asking to go back. There are words about the ruthlessness and even inhumanity of American life. In America, a man is nothing, he is thrown into the trash as soon as he ceases to function and no one gives up, everyone survives alone. The freedom they were chasing was the freedom to be alone in the jungle of predators, where no one cares about you, and even more, where they want to eat you. Those who have been to America have seen thousands of homeless people on the streets of San Francisco and Los Angeles, people who have lost their jobs, their homes and their chance to return to normal human life. Nobody cares about them. The fear of falling, the fear of losing everything, is America. It is a place free of love and humanity. A place where you can physically feel this vacuum. Of course, if there is something to compare.
That's what I had to shoot. That's why they're running back to Mother Russia. The mother who loves you. And I'm not talking about the state so much as about the people.
Instead, we were told about the Jewish fish as a symbol of higher values.
From the successful - the hero Stoyanov really pleased, there were funny moments. In general, I think the film is more positive, at least for choosing the theme.
So, Russian cinema. No Petrov, no Bortnich, no Kozlovsky. You can watch it.
It was unexpectedly good. There is no this endless viscous vulgarity and obscenity, almost a family movie. Very kind and soulful film, it is really good.
Since the director does not seek to put his characters in any difficult situations, you do not need to expect any special acting and funny jokes. And of course, we all know that people don't change that easily. These ' Russian Americans' - they, for good reason, all went to America. They did not flee their homeland because of a good life.
This 'Igorok' which underlines any attempt to link it to the Russian past. This family, in which she, crying, assures that she is happy in a new country. And her husband, beaten by a poverty-stricken childhood, scores on the upbringing of his son, only to provide for everyone. This Armenian who dreams of a green card to ' everything is like people' to envy the abandoned village.
I do not believe that all of them suddenly remember that they are Russians and they were happy in Russia. The problem is that the Russia they were good at no longer exists. Now it is a different country that lives under different laws and has different people. And the whole Russian-Armenian diaspora, in fact, perfectly clumps it. And they love Russia. But at a distance. With a big dollar bank account. Like all true patriots.
My review came out angry, although I thought it was positive. To be honest, I give the film a high rating only for the character played by Vladimir Yaglych. First of all, I believed him. Secondly, his situation is more realistic than the fate of all the other characters in the film combined. And only I empathized with him, although the authors used a rather cheap and thoroughly worn-out technique to make the hero survive the metamorphosis.
And the rest is solid
After watching the movie, I realized there was no sex in the movie. Heroes don't even kiss ' suction '! And that's great!! No jokes below the belt! Oh my God, do they still make this movie? Very good! Very, very good!!
Hero Nagiyev & #39; unites & #39; people - Russian emigrants, whose stories do not overlap. They are parallel, but they are all united by the common idea that wherever a Russian finds himself, his homeland remains Russia. On our morals again, on the difference of mentality with the Americans. The jokes about Americans are subtle (for example, about the police: what is in the trailer and in the movie). If you play a Russian melody, you break the order, if it is American and patriotic, then sing! The policy of double standards. And a lot of these little hamstrings. But they're not evil or very bright, in my opinion. Unobtrusive. It’s not about Americans being bad, it’s about us being different.
And also - by Russians are understood Jews, directly Russians, Ukrainians, Armenians - Russian-speaking people with a Russian mentality.
What caught me:
+an unexpected image for Nagiyev. Surprisingly, I think it happened. . .
+ For me, very much to the place came the reasoning about the queue, standing in which you can understand that you do not need what you stand for. Well, that's just the subject.
+ Beautiful actors and talented actors. (It is a pity that all the wooden ones are beautiful.) And talented - yes ... talented;
+Some stories ' clumsy '. You look and you think it couldn't have happened. . .
I still have a sense of honesty from the film.
I really liked the presentation of the actors in the credits;
I'll watch the second part! You can multiply as 'Christmas', gentlemen. Just don't joke low, don't have sex.
I was looking forward to the release of this film. My interest is due to the participation of Dmitry Nagiyev, one of the best Russian comedians at the moment. The appearance in the credits of the artist Stoyanov also stoked my interest, although for me he is not as interesting as Nagiyev. There were some good jokes in the trailer.
The film “Goodbye, America” is a few unrelated stories about Russian people who moved permanently to the United States. All of them are well accustomed to a new life and do not experience any problems. Only Armenian Armen had a problem with the visa, but he successfully solves it, because in case of deportation, “what will he say to Vazgen?” It doesn't matter who he is, this Wazgen. The film tells about the attitude of the characters of the film to Russia, their homeland. They are all different, each with their own life experience brought with them, so their attitude to the once abandoned homeland varies. Someone is frankly nostalgic, but for some reason can not return, someone even got rid of the Russian name and surname and hides his Russian origin.
The idea of the film is clear and the benefits of such films are never disputed. Love for the Motherland, it is like love for the mother, and what we will become if we do not love our mothers. I know by whom. Ghouls are rootless. But still, the creators a little too much with this very longing, in some episodes it was a lot and the impression of these moments of the film remained ambiguous. I found Stoyanov’s hero too naive, an adult man, even in a foreign country, should not be so simple. Too much here too, with common clichés and cliches about Russian behavior in America. What one episode of toilet paper is worth, it was one of the dumbest moments in the movie. I thought the number of novels in the film was too great. Because of this, there was a kaleidoscope of stories on the screen, and the fact that everything was filmed in about the same place and at the same time of year, it was sometimes unclear that another story had already begun. Because of my bad memory, I constantly confused two young heroines involved in parallel stories with each other. Perhaps it was because of the large number of individual lines in the film that the ending was somewhat crumpled and indistinct.
I do not share the general enthusiasm for this tape. And there are many reasons for this, which I will point out below. Sarik is certainly very slow but growing as a director. But so far this is not enough to call the picture suitable for at least a one-time acquaintance.
Plot. The viewer will be shown the different fates of people who once moved from Russia to America for permanent residence. All of them face certain problems and the realization that they are strangers. . .
The writers followed the path of least resistance and could not come up with anything original and unusual. Characters intersect with each other accidentally or only when they need something from each other. Dialogues are filled with universal boredom and longing for their native lands (the characters say the same thing in different words). There are almost no interesting situations, but there are scenes with an attempt to cause a tear in the viewer. At the same time, I have not seen for a long time that such an artificial technique caused many people the reaction they needed. The final picture is logical, logical and predictable.
Atmosphere. All participants in the events taking place in the tape are completely template. Here you and Nagiyev, who once again plays himself (his image is already pretty boring), and a man married to his job, and a family with a capricious girl. There is even an Armenian who loves his homeland from afar. You can only trust a family with a child born in the United States. It really shows the harsh reality that the guy already considers himself an American and does not understand his grandfather, who came to visit them. Grandfather, by the way, is also a kind of classic man who is afraid of ringing the phone and the toilet with all sorts of bells and whistles. The authors even tried to create humor. It didn't work out very well, to be honest. The acting does not cause much delight, but you do not experience any disgust at the same time.
Music. Musical accompaniment can not be called genius, but frankly failed I would not christen it. The fact that the melodies did not annoy me while watching is an indicator of a certain level of composers for me.
Result. In the dry remnant, we have an empty picture with cardboard characters, a boring plot and endless arguments about the homeland. Now in the cinemas another lull in terms of premieres, but I would still not recommend going to this film in the movies. For Andreasyan this tape is almost a genre standard. I am sure she will find her fans. I feel that very soon the new creations of the director will become quite watchable, but in the meantime...
4 out of 10
I read the laudatory reviews about the film and decided to write about what I liked and did not like the film by Sarik Andreasyan ' Goodbay, America'. The idea of the film, probably, as many write here, was to show how hard it is to live in a foreign country far from their native places. However, looking at the characters of the film, you can not say that they live badly - they are well dressed, they have great houses, they are all in good physical shape, look great. The idea of nostalgia for native land, generally nowhere in the film does not sound ... except that the whim of a pregnant heroine about the desire to try fish, like a grandmother. Heroes of the daughter’s family (Stoyanov) generally lived in America for at least 12 years (Stoyanov’s hero says that he has not seen his grandson for 12 years), and during all this time they apparently did not come to Russia. The hero Armen, who is trying to gain a foothold in America with the help of a fictitious marriage, also does not yearn, only when he talks about apricots growing on the streets of Yerevan, and even then, for a short time. Grandfather Victor, who came to America to see the family of his daughter, is such a typical Russian grandfather, whose childhood was spent among carbide and nuts with bolts, the attempt of an elderly person to imitate the young, to be on the "#39; their wave"', to talk in their language always, that in the movies, that in real life looks ridiculous and ridiculous. The only truly true moment seemed to me a dialogue between son-in-law and father-in-law - grandfather Victor about the upbringing of his grandson. In addition to everything I have already listed, logical transitions within the same idea seemed very clumsy to me, for example, when a hero who does not understand his pregnant girlfriend (the story of a fish-fish), tries a pancake and suddenly sees through ' I understood ' I want to talk about why I liked the movie more than I did not. A beautiful picture of a one-story America, like Ilf and Petrov, gave this film a flavor. And of course, the ocean. Beautiful heroes, Nagiyev, Yaglych play well, but Stoyanov was, in my opinion, unnatural, cardboard, overplayed, as if the director set him the task to portray an extremely small character, a gopnik, in other words. Operator's work is bad, did not like ' frozen' frames, ' talking heads' The musical accompaniment of the film is not so. In conclusion, I can say that surprisingly, my husband and I watched the film, not feeling the desire to leave, we were almost bored.
“Gudbai, America” is a new film by Sarik Andreasyan about what is happening on the soul of a Russian person in a foreign country.
Having watched the film in the cinema, with full immersion in history, I can say that the film makes a positive impression rather than vice versa. The film is very emotional (sometimes too much, as, for example, in the same film “Earthquake”), sensual, sometimes ironic.
Goodbye America is a movie that doesn’t have a protagonist. Before the audience of the fate of several families, different in nature, but united by one common act - "moving to America." Someone has taken root and considers this country their home, someone desperately rejects local rules, someone does not accept this country completely.
What I liked:
* Very impressed by the hero of Yuri Stoyanov. An ordinary Russian man of his own age. Due to his age, it is difficult to put up with the rapid course of life. Everyone knows them. Yuri Stoyanov very harmoniously fit into the idea. The hero of Dmitry Nagiyev also evokes extraordinary sympathy: an intellectual who misses his homeland. It is in his character that self-irony is noticeable. Other heroes also conveyed their stories well, but they failed to outshine D. Nagiyev and Y. Stoyanov.
* Very good lines. For those who at least once moved to another country / city, the film will find a response undoubtedly.
* The clarity of the film's idea. “Where you were born, there you came in handy” along with “Be able to accept the rules of the game.”
What I didn't like:
* As it would be clear that the film needs to accommodate morality, but in some places Sarik Andreasyan again “oversteps”. Sumburity of the development of events, for example, in the story with a fish (so as not to make spoilers on the plot) causes a flurry of positive emotions at first, but by the end - a little depressing. The underlying idea to the viewer is clear, as well as the idea that the time of the film is limited and you need to accommodate the very “morality” quickly and clearly, but still, the transfer was not the most successful.
In the end, Goodbye America is a movie about many of us. Without any cunning, this film will not be revisited many times, but, once – still worth it! Many people rush to other cities and countries, not knowing what is behind it. Perhaps the creation of Sarik Andreasyan will push someone to the right thoughts. At least call your relatives!
The new film from the director Sarik Andreasyan “Goodbye, America” absorbed all the clichés and canons of the genre called “kinostoris”. The script is based on several conventionally interconnected short human stories, united by a common problem and a central connecting character. In Andreasyan, this bundle is provided by the theme of a difficult life in a foreign country and the hero Nagiyev, an all-powerful either a music teacher or an undercover FSB agent sent as a guardian angel to help compatriots-immigrants. A man forced to live behind a star-striped flag bar, without the possibility of returning to his homeland.
The film is similar to Love Actually (2003), to numerous Christmas trees, to the international comedy Without Borders (2015), and, in particular, to the dilogy Mother, staged by the same Andreasyan. In fact, your attitude to these films and the genre as a whole will depend on the assessment of this particular film. “Goodbye, America” is a kind film, without claims to be included in all sorts of lists of “best of the best”, which is sure to find its audience. Such “light” pictures with simplified reality sometimes really want to watch, although then very quickly forget about their existence.
It so happened that in the lyrical comedy “Goodbye, America” was more lyrics than comedy. The corresponding mood is set immediately and diligently maintained until the final credits. Here you and the sublime framing poems of Yevtushenko-Brodsky, italic displayed on the screen, and touching, with a tilt in the aching anguish of history, and a moderately sad soundtrack. For the comedy component is Yuri Stoyanov, whose character effortlessly pulls the picture out of the viscous and sweet atmosphere of melancholy.
However, the same problem, characteristic of Andreasyan’s previous paintings, persists: he clearly underestimates his viewer, oversimplifying the material and the form of its presentation. The language of the director is simple and completely straightforward, understandable to everyone and for the same reason scant. The widespread use of all kinds of genre clichés leads to unnecessary excesses with pathos, the formation of a sense of neglected naivety and unreality of what is happening. There remains a different degree of elaboration of stories: some are detailed and logically finished (the story with the Russian grandfather performed by Stoyanov, the story with the grandmother’s fish), some are fragmentary and superficial, clearly not pressed (the story of Novikov-Newman).
A detailed answer to the question “Where does the Motherland begin?”, sounding in the picture repeatedly, you will not get. All the key messages on this central issue of the film are as old as the world. Homeland begins with the most delicious in the world grandmother's cake, the main ingredient of which is parental love, child carelessness and happiness. Alas, all this is irretrievably lost as you grow up, so wherever you live, wherever you move, whatever oceans you cross, the worldview of “good where I am not” remains forever by your side. Homeland is memories that anchor us to a particular place on the planet. Finally, the Motherland is absorbed into the blood with the generally accepted values and norms of behavior in the place of birth, with the notorious mentality of an infantile, selfish hooligan child who is used to living according to the laws of his own “want” and the concepts of street brotherhood. That is why you can leave Russia, but it will never leave you.
Elderly Viktor Sergeyevich decides to visit his daughter in the United States and find out how she lives in this alluring country. He discovers with horror that his grandson Pavel, who has long called himself Paul, does not understand the simplest things in life that every boy in Russia has known since childhood. And, of course, Viktor Sergeyevich will want to dilute the “Russian spirit” not only the life of his grandson, but also his daughter. The new neighbors of Viktor Sergeyevich will also be handed out: Armen, who wants to gain a foothold in the United States through a fictitious marriage, Igor, who tries to disown his Russian past, as well as a skilled adventurer Grigory, who will prove to everyone that Russian roots decide everything. Hold on, America!
Sarik Andreasyan is a talented director, no matter what prejudiced attitude some viewers have. A person who does everything not because of, but in spite of, deserves respect. Moreover, each new project is markedly different from the previous one and he is not afraid to experiment.
Goodbye America is also an incredibly fun experiment in which Sarik is helped by great actors. Sarik has tried many times to make films that look like they are American. And now it’s time to change places and make a film about America as if it’s in Russia. And here by all means - characters, situations - the director tries to show us that to realize the dream of many and move to live in America does not always promise Russian people happiness. The truth is that good is not where we are not, but where we are. A great look at the issue of homesickness and the fact that our man remains our always, even Pasha call him, even Paul.
Well-written jokes that create a fascinating comedy of positions, play with bright colors in the performance of luminaries of the comedy genre. Incredibly charismatic Nagiyev can easily make anyone laugh, and when he interacts with a favorite of the public Yuri Stoyanov, the humor goes to a whole new level. Watching the funny twists and turns of these characters is incredibly interesting. But not by them alone.
Yaglych, Sailor, Gryu, Tokhatyan – all of them give incredible emotions, each of which will find its response from the viewer, as colorful characters will remind you if not yourself, then familiar for sure. And all together, the characters on the screen in a comical form prepare a sensible message to the viewer: you can take a person from Russia, but Russia can never be taken from a person. This should be remembered by every compatriot who blindly wants to go to the United States.
A cheerful, bright, light comedy with tears in its eyes (because of nostalgia) very skillfully dispels the autumn blues in which we are all in connection with the pandemic and restrictions. The film is not boring, with good humor and interesting stories. We all like to hear stories about how our compatriots settled abroad. And here we are directly shown and in a pleasant form. Interesting cinema, adult cinema, actual cinema. Sarik could.
You can go anywhere, but your country will remain in your heart forever.
Everyone has the right to choose their own destiny, and many sincerely believe that a better life, prospects and hopes await them abroad. Since childhood, we are used to watching Western films on TV, where we are shown clean streets, huge mansions and cool offices where you can work and get good money as a simple clerk. Naturally, over time, many of us have only strengthened our thoughts about moving abroad and implemented it in practice. However, reality is sometimes not quite the same as we painted it in our imagination, which is clearly shown by the new tragicomedy “Goodbye, America”.
The film itself is conditionally divided into several plot directions, which are intertwined with each other by an unobtrusive through-line that makes the story whole. The creators decided to deliberately show us the example of several human destinies at once in order to create a global, voluminous illustration of what our people face when they go to America, the homeland of modern democracy and hopes for a better life. Only after leaving your hometown, it is sometimes very difficult to drown out your soul, which requires nostalgia, return to the origins and simply soulfulness.
I liked that one of the main roles in the film was played by Dmitry Nagiyev. In the past few years, he has continued to delight us with his strong, extraordinary dramatic roles, but in comedies he continues to be a frequent guest. And since “Goodbye, America” combines both drama and humor, Nagiyev’s participation becomes more than justified.
Dmitry played here the so-called “through” character named George, who combines several stories at once. So George, like the other characters of this film, came to America and tries to help compatriots who also moved to the United States to solve their problems. Someone needs help with documents, someone asks him for other help, and George tries not to refuse anyone. And despite the fact that he seems to feel well abroad, but the longing for his homeland and he has not gone anywhere ...
Interestingly, the plot was written partly on the stories of real people who left for America, but did not cease to feel longing for their homeland. By the way, that is why the very first title of the film was “Homeland”. Here we have a hero who has come to the United States and tries to give up everything Russian, including his name, but it’s not that simple. We also meet a girl who is building a successful life in America, but she needs to talk to her beloved grandmother. Each story has its share of irony, comedy, and light drama, as we remember that laughter and tears always wander around as a couple. This is what real life is.
In summary, Goodbye America is a film that is far more interesting and deeper than you might think. The creators turned out not just another comedy for one viewing, but an interesting and resourceful study of human stories related to immigration to the United States and homesickness. We all make our own plans, sometimes they are associated with moving, but the impulses of our soul can not be drowned out. Enjoy your visit.
