The film is a collection of novels based on the works of Mikhail Zhvanetsky, and there is no coherent history here. Each novel has its own heroes, who occasionally appear in another novel, but this does not play a special role for the entire narrative as a whole. Therefore, it makes no sense to list characters and actors, there are many of them, and all, by the way, are famous.
The picture was shot by the TV channel “Russia”, which for me personally, frankly, is a kind of sign of anti-quality. Well...here the canal rosseushka gave very clearly. However, the situation was saved by individual acting work.
In general, I am very impressed that I can not clearly say whether I liked it, whether I recommend this film. I can't make up my mind. I was thrown from a huge admiration / novella with the educational methods of Mashkov and a telephone conversation Khamatova / to some squeamish disgust-disappointment / novella with a drunken Efremov and the captain of the steamer Makovetsky /.
I really liked Porechenkov, although his role is generally dumb. Incredibly, just incredibly admiring the acting talent of Madianov, although the novel with him about the meeting at the distillery sounds ridiculous nonsense. You know what I mean? Here literally coexists artistically beautiful and hulkingly disgusting ...
For me, the absolute favorite here is Timofey Tribuntsev and his collective image of a popular singer of the mid-70s, singing about rye, wheat and stars, and flaunting in a la Russian-Belarusian shirts, then in near-Gypsy colored shirts. It's something unimaginably delightful! I laughed in my voice. But! You must understand that in this case I am not objective, because I love both Tribuntseva and the Soviet stage.
In my opinion, the film should be disassembled into short films and arrogant upstarts like me, show only the good ones and excerpts of their bad ones. I think this picture needs to be seen, if only to form an opinion. And, really, some of the actors' work is so good that it's worth seeing.
Collection of novels by Mikhail Zhvanetsky about Odessa. . .
Apparently, Sergei Ursuliak closed in Odessa (after the success of the Liquidation) or this is some new political order, if the two main TV channels started on the New Year to show this corner of Novorossiya. Is there something else coming after Crimea? Or the option - it is necessary to somehow help Mikhail Zhvanetsky, who in the final appears as a guru, a light and a leader.
You can explain the more prosaic already nostalgia - even an epigraph about it. How does it sound? A time when we all lived badly, but all right? Neither is obvious from the film. What's wrong? What's good? Why this choir singing Soviet songs? Is it about false or, conversely, true collectivity and symphony?
In some ways, a similar concept can even be seen - Soviet life, broken into communal rooms and episodes, is combined in a gaggy choir and final frames of a general feast. But I don't mind. I don't believe it! For the first twenty minutes I tried to figure out what the movie was about. And I realized only at the moment when I caught a familiar phrase Zhvanetsky. Some rhythm and excitement caused and even one joke in the performance of Mashkov. But he did not add meaning and harmony. And the closer the credits were, the more you think, and why all this was filmed, since Zhvanetsky managed to somehow translate into scenes he himself, Kartsev and Ilchenko? The famous head of the transport department was killed. And also a deliberate South Russian accent, which from the first minutes began to strain.
God is God, Caesar is Caesar, stage is pop, cinema is cinema. Conditional plus one - it is worth opening the Internet and digging up the original records of Zhvanetsky. Of course, if anyone loves him, then all his humor and satire were not for average minds before. And now more so.
Probably, here we are witnessing an attempt to cross an insurmountable barrier between the world of Zhvanetsky’s stories, completely fictional, and cinematic reality, which the viewer cannot completely abstract from life.
In other words, Zhvanetsky’s story was ridiculous precisely because the described dialogues and situations in reality can not happen, Zhvanetsky has a phantasmagoric environment in which people interacted paradoxically, while mysteriously avoiding the disasters that would certainly happen to them (and to us), if these people were here. The wonderful stability of the developed world of feeble-minded fascinated connoisseurs of Zhvanetsky’s creativity, although there are many critics in his address.
However, in this movie you can not get rid of the idea that what is happening on the screen is partially plausible. The claim to vitality made the Odessa steamer repulsive. Why? Perhaps the actors are too serious, while all the dialogue had to be performed with a smile, or very convincing, hard to get used to images, they are material, they have clothes, personal belongings, acquaintances and work, plans and experience. Spooky.
When you watch a movie, you realize that some characters are absolute oligophrenes. So much so that the medical commission in the USSR did not miss work for any money, even passers-by would call 02 and demand a certificate of sanity. Perhaps Ursuliak did not catch - Zhvanetsky made hints, warned, and this is how it was necessary to present his stories. The director inadvertently revived the cartoon monsters, and they entered into a battle with common sense.
Picture, editing, sound I liked, easy and unobtrusive. But playing with text is a nightmare.
PS: Maybe everything will change in the course of the film, but there is no desire to watch.
What happens if you bring together director Ursuluk, actors Mashkov, Makovetsky, Porechenkov. Most of the choir will say "liquidation." There you go.
These and a couple of dozen very famous and simply popular actors, the director collected for the adaptation of the legendary miniatures of M. Zhvanetsky in conditional Odessa.
Here Makovetsky in the role of captain, and Garmash as the main funeral team, and Chulpan Khamatova, demonstrating how badly the telephone service worked in the USSR (by the way, and now so), and a wedding for the whole yard with a huge number of relatives, friends and neighbors.
The viewing experience is very controversial. Who's this movie for? Obviously, the target audience is the older generation, because the film is about the time when we lived poorly. But good. However, the older generation either relies on their memories of the program “Around Laughter”, or simply on their memories of very funny miniatures played by Zhvanetsky himself, as well as Kartsev and Ilchenko. Alas, what 30 and 40 years ago seemed ridiculous in the era of censorship now looks like a slight nostalgia. Yes, sorry, but the fans of Petrosyan will not do either.
The younger generation, who understand humor very directly, will generally find it difficult to break through several layers of metaphors and comparisons, and ironic messages.
The only salvation is to look at it as a light New Year’s cabbage, a “tree” from wonderful actors who confess their love for “that country”, their past and, of course, Odessa.
6 out of 10
History knows many good films with a very low audience rating. Take Tarkovsky's "Stalker." The audience in the Union left in the middle of the session. They spit, scolded the director and regretted the money spent. That doesn’t make Tarkovsky’s film any less of a masterpiece than it really is.
In the case of the “Odessa Steamboat” I think there was a noticeable discrepancy between the expectations of the public and the author’s reading of the material. The film was shown in prime time and during the holidays. A significant part of the audience intended to “fight” Zhvanetsky’s hokhmas performed by famous actors. And who said that Zhvanetsky - it's just to beat the belly? Who defined him as a "people's satirist" over whom both old and young, everyone and everywhere, must laugh? Zhvanetsky is an elite writer and his humor is filled with meaning, and sometimes he has a lot of bitterness and sarcasm, resentment for fellow citizens of their unhappy life. Who said that Sergei Ursuliak is a national idol? I don’t think he’s a director for everyone. He is essentially an elite artist as well. He chooses difficult topics for his works and talks about them in difficult language.
I consider the episode on the plane especially important when a citizen has a terrible dream that the crew does not know how to land the aircraft. This is the quintessence of the subconscious little man. A simple citizen lives. He listens to fairy tales from those in power that everything is fine, that “the flight is going normally”, when suddenly in a moment of need, in a moment of severe danger, it turns out that there is no essential for survival, and in general the commander of the ship offers an ordinary passenger to sit at the helm to save everyone. Of course it's a joke. But a joke with a deep undertones. This is generally about the mythology of power and the naivety of the layman, and in Zhvanetsky’s humor, I think this is one of the central themes. Of course, many episodes in the film are remarkable in their own way. However, from the story in the plane at first you can precipitate from laughter, and after a fit of fun - to think.
To laugh or not is a personal choice. Thinking about content is personal. You don't have to bother. Don’t say the movie is bad. The film is not to blame.
Cabbage on the knee of angry pensioners. Zhvanetsky wrote down not because he was rustic, but because the era from which he ate (I do not want to write “parasitic”) has gone. Both Soviet and Old Odessa. With the new Odessa is not the same association at all.
They wanted to eat, they took the UG for the state account.
It was necessary to take normal interludes (the plane is generally a cruelty, the liquor factory is irrelevant), not to overplay (about the steamer, the phone, the apple), to be nicer (wedding), to remove the anti-Soviet as much as possible and instead of an inappropriate chorus with a parody of Soviet songs to release some “Jewish KVN” with Odessa chanson.
That's the question that torments me. Something went a bit “for Odessa”. In one year - "Odessa" (I did not watch, but I condemn - I read the criticism), this "Seafer", now here is a remake of "Green Van" (I do not even think to watch). You ask, if you still shoot in Rostov - so shoot for Rostov. There's a texture and a saying. And Kuban is also not abroad, if you want a Little Russian element. And Crimea is so exotic that the “Caucasian Prisoner” was filmed in one eye. And the Caucasus, even Russian, is colorful (and white hat, and dark nights...) And the gloomy north is no stranger to humor (", The Irony of Fate) Why are you obsessed with Odessa?
The film was frankly tense and causes more toothache than sympathy and laughter. It is clear that the authors set the task to embody soft lyricism and nostalgia for the good naive times with the task of fulfilling the ideological order for moderate but clearly readable anti-Sovietism. Without this seasoning, no film about the Soviet era has a chance to see the light of day. But the problem is that it's been possible to put a bunch of talent together and make a failure. The fate of the “Liquidation” or “Irony of Fate” “Odessa steamer” clearly does not shine. It’s not that it will not be reviewed – many could not watch it until the end, this is evidenced by the reviews of many of my friends who switched the film after the first 10-15 minutes of watching. I did not like the frank banter of the creators who grew up and received free education over time, which can no longer stand up for itself and reproach the lie. Scenes with poor telephone service and emergency on the plane so clearly do not correspond to the reality of the time that the viewer feels himself an accomplice to something shameful. He's embarrassed to laugh at these scenes. In fact, it's dangerous to fly in airplanes now, and then everything was pretty reliable. Those who lived and flew at the time will confirm. The civil aviation system in terms of the level of qualification of flight personnel and the quality of work of technicians did not cause any fears and aerophobia. It’s like playing Russian roulette. But the authors are not laughing at the present time. All their sarcasm is aimed there, at their Soviet youth and their past. Why? Money short? Or mind? The phone scene has also been pushed to the point of absurdity for the sake of laughter. The young really get the impression that “in the scoop on the batteries knocked”. Yes, probably there were problems with communication, now there are no fewer, but these problems were quite rare, and they were due to the level of technological progress that was around the world, and not our backwardness and cunning. Zhvanetsky constructed a fictional situation, but in the cinema she became a type, a generalization of the picture of reality. Everyone had to recognize themselves there, but somehow no one recognized them. With my hands on my heart, the phones worked perfectly. The scene with apples is so heavily replayed that it turns from a comedy into a scene of domestic abuse of a child. So much aggression and so little soft humor. About the scene with the participation of Mikhail Efremov, even different opinions are not noted – everyone noted its frankly oppressive effect and dislike of the actor, known both for his domestic drunkenness and his hatred of Russia in all its historical times. But even those scenes in which you could read soft irony and lyrics, shot with breaks in pace, with failures right along the plot. Between the lines - voids, failures of pace, failures of rhythm. There is no sense of a single action, instead hastily stitched individual phrases and lines. Actors are clearly difficult to play, although they are so professional that they seem to be able to create dynamics without editing glues. They had no sympathy for the heroes. There was no inspiration, as they once said in the USSR.
Separate sadness is perceived openly mocking scenes with the choir, a symbol of the Soviet system, the sullenness and old age of which were strongly emphasized by the dreary and slightly ferocious faces of the singing. Caricature reinforced the bulging display of identical orders - a hint of Brezhnev attributes and the erection of this image in the symbol of the era. The heroes of all the plots are some Zoshchenko types, provincial philistines, or a little cretin, or alcoholics, or amorals. The whole background is woven so that the young believe: what a joy that they were not born in those nightmarish times. If even contemporaries draw them in this way, rejoicing that they have ended, how can they not be believed? It is clear that the ship Odessa, but the heroes there are all-Union. Either stupid Naryanmarians, or lustful Caucasians, or semi-criminal dentists, or eternally drunk proletarians, or stupid leaders. If this is all that the creators of the film saw in the work of Zhvanetsky, they are worthless. And against this background, in the crowd of senile relatives, young people are trying to create their happiness, the hopelessness of which is already shown in the examples of older heroes. The best scene of the film was the final frames of the scenery analysis. All this quasi-Soviet reality is the fiction of the creators from beginning to end. Yes, Zhvanetsky was not accidentally silent in the film against the background of the analysis of the scenery of old Odessa. His figure was not just sad - it was tragic. His Odessa was destroyed not by his contemporaries, it was destroyed by him and his like. Those who write and those who laugh at what is written. Zhvanetsky was with the country in which he succeeded so well in ridiculing. Thought he was struggling with his flaws, he helped destroy his house. Who, of course, loved in his own way. The film became an unsuccessful cabbage performed by professional, but indifferent actors. The “Odessa steamer” did not sail, it sank on New Year’s Eve like the “Titanic”. Only he drowned to the sounds of the ship's orchestra, and this one - to olives and herring under a fur coat. Whatever you call a ship, it will sail. It took time for good and talented comedy movies. The era of evil and cynical dodgers who lost their talent in the pursuit of money that does not smell. It turned out that sometimes it smells of shame and loss of what is not measured in money – love and respect. I wish they hadn't made this movie.
Do you know who was the best person to describe this movie? Zhvanetsky in the final shots! Look at his face! You can see how much he regrets that he got involved with this. I'm sure he insisted on this footage. Even when you read Zhvanetsky, it's not so... You need to hear his voice, his intonation, his pauses. . . And what Ursuliac did... Did someone laugh?
I don't care about Odessa. It is said that “before historical materialism” there was a certain cimes in it. Let it go. And if the stirring of restless creativity once again threw Ursuliac on this worn-out laughing ground, then this is the karma of his cockroaches. Not mine.
Another thing is Zhvanetsky. It's been a long time. The living author of the idioms of the great and powerful. And here I can no longer remain in purple, because I am in the subject - by the simple and natural right of a native speaker.
If you do not change the batteries in the remote for a long time, it begins to brake. And when you jump through the channels, the delay in switching is enough to expose your sense of humor to a sudden test - there are plenty of laughers on TV. But among those over whom they joke, there are no longer only “fathers of the nation”, but simply coherent people. “Funny” today are mainly freaks, idiots and drunkards. For relatively "normal" puffed the topic of sex.
Next to this closed and apparently incestuous farm population, the world of Zhvanetsky’s characters appears as a continent. There's a lot there. But there are no stupid lipstick who twist words and accents to laugh. Zhvanetsky doesn't laugh at fools. That’s probably why it’s not funny either.
Michal Mikhalych is mainly about how two (mis)understandings collide. His famous works (Raki, Associate Professor Awas, etc.) are purely dialogic, even if it is a monologue. They have a clear jazz rhythm with characteristic variations of the theme. In the intense internal dialogue, the obsessive repetitions about “today three, but yesterday...” are ridiculous, because it was not stupidity that was guessed behind it, but a serious struggle of recognizable passions. On the stage, the richness of the author’s intonations (or those consonant with him by Kartsev-Ilchenko) always supplemented the texts with subtle psychological nuances.
None of this is in the film adaptation. Her characters are noticeably dumb. And that's the big failure. Instead of hysterical neurotics (the textbook “Jews”) Ursuliak slips at best brake sluts, at worst - some evil psychopaths. By the latter I mean Mashkov (with carrots) and Garmash (funeral orchestra). As a result, instead of sparkling tantrums, dental gnashing sounds.
A separate black ingratitude from me personally for perverting the elegant thing about Babu Yaga. The author did not even realize that the main character there is a stunned child. That’s what he should have done.
But where is it? There is a lack of playfulness. It was as if each role was recorded separately. The power of the chic speech swing has deflated. Actors simply don't get into rhythm. Crown elastic, like serving in tennis, "perseverative" dialogue Zhvanetsky turns into a boring parrot. The live contact drive is gone. Maybe the author should have moved the genre towards buff?
Especially since he made at least one sad attempt in this direction. A choir of respectable pence from some poor boarding school in funerary style performs "fervent" Soviet songs. What is this about, musical you? Marasmus sarcasm? Or did the director, deaf to the melody of his speech, indulge us in a concert? Where is the dance then?
I think that pop shot turned out to be a control for the film. Congratulations to Ursuliak on his debut in the essentially silent genre of “fun pictures”. I am sure that the film adaptation will be a pass. And if Zhvanetsky approved this, out of respect for the master, I will pretend that I have not heard anything like this.
I consider Zhvanetsky a great writer of the level of A. P. Chekhov. Therefore, it is a shame and a pity that the brightest images were not carefully studied in the selection of actors and preparing the latter for us to believe and feel the “something” that is in this nervous soil, in these running to the sea streets of the city in our south (in the film politically correct “in someone’s south) and someone’s north. The author gave the most accurate intonation and dramaturgy in his audio recordings “Stories and Odessa dachas”. Listen and catch (I'm the director). You won’t play “Uncle Vanya” or “Hamlet” over your sleeves, without understanding the essence of what is happening and the inner world of the hero, portraying the same “evergreen tomato that grew under glass and ripened in a box.” How was it possible to make a brutal drunkard out of a nervous choleric intellectual who loves his son, who got the rein under his tail (2 apples)? Or so fail in the pearl of world humor and drama “How to joke in Odessa”, where only the Resident looked worthy? My God, why is it all so fast and crumpled in the style of “Maestro, cut the march”? Is the closing of the "Official" and this incendiary benefit a kind of farewell to us of a great contemporary, leaving as remnants of greatness, intelligence and real joy of this poor country? Kryuchkov, Efremov and the Chairman of the LVZ meeting pleased, but this is so little and this is so not funny. Mikhail Mikhailovich, do not be sad – you will be able to read for a long time and then “citize” all your life, adding “like Zhvanetsky...”. And the filmmakers want to remind: “You will not see – you need to hear.” And stop walking!
On the first day of 2020, the TV channel "RUSSIA" showed a new film Sergei Ursuliak"Odessa steamer", based on the stories of the satirist writer Mikhail Zhvanetsky. To be honest, I respect the work of both of these people. And given the powerful cast of the film, consisting mainly of those with whom Ursuliak previously worked, I thought that it could work, at least not bad. Unfortunately, the expectations were not met.
I think we should start with the film format. Of course, it is difficult to surprise the viewer today with such a genre as an almanac. Gaidai’s films “Business People” (according to the stories of O’Henry) and “It Can’t Be!” (according to the works of Zoshchenko) and Bekmambetov’s film series “Trees” come offhand, in which several film novels developed in parallel. But here everything looks a little strange, sometimes annoying. As soon as the storyline began, as immediately given the denouement and we move on to other characters. Only the appearance in the frame of the choir and singer (with the appearance of either Obodzinsky, or the soloist of a typical VIA) performed by Timothy Tribuntsev was a kind of bridge in the film when moving from one scene to another. The bridge looked like a foreign body. Therefore, it may be in the format of a sketch show adaptation of Zhvanetsky’s stories would look advantageous. But for a full meter it turned out so well.
It would be inhumane to speak for the quality of humor (especially since humor is a subjective thing). But to me, the film was never funny. Moreover, it is insulting for the “Liquidation”, shot by Ursuliak back in 2007. Here was felt and Odessa flavor, and Odessa humor. What's here? That the captain in the performance of Sergei Makovetsky none of the subordinates does not want to listen, the pilots of the plane do not know how to land the plane and for this request appeal to passengers, the hero Mikhail Efremov first asks his cellmate (Alexander Yatsenko) about the events of yesterday and only then realizes that he is in the police. About the painfully long and annoying dialogue on the phone of the characters Khamatova and Puskepalis, which boils down to the fact that Puskepalis hears the interlocutor well (about which he constantly repeats in the phone), and she does not, I am generally silent. Again, with such transmissions-screen adaptations of anecdotes as “The Town”, “6 frames”, “Give Youth” and others, there are no special problems. After all, when you watch them, you realize that situations can be delusional and absurd, but most importantly, they will be funny. Here you do not expect to see delusions (and he is), besides not funny, setting yourself up to watch a modern comedy in the style of old films (even the credits of the “Odessa steamer” decided to do as in “Diamond Hand”).
There were no questions about the actors, in principle. As part of the task, they coped well (the other thing is that the script itself was weak). Therefore, even such a gallery of stars of Russian cinema could not save the film from disaster.
If the song of the actors and was appropriate as the final chord, the appearance in the frame of the very Mikhail Zhvanetsky (who appeared in the frame and went away without saying a word) caused bewilderment. Why did you have to show it that way? Wouldn’t it be better to put the credit with words of gratitude to Mikhail Mikhailovich, than to indicate his presence in the frame and that’s all? Same thing about the final shot. I understand that due to the difficult political situation between Russia and Ukraine, it is not necessary to count on shooting in Odessa itself. But why was it necessary to show the viewer that the entire film should be shot in the fake Odessa, built in the center of Moscow? It destroys all the magic of cinema.
General conclusion: it is a shame for such a weak, not funny, secondary to the chic "Liquidation" film.
3 out of 10
Here's the great Ursuliak and missed. We shot on Zhvanetsky, but it turned out not funny at all. Apparently, it is not for nothing that the author in the final is so sad.
The first two stories were especially funny. The only thing that turned out to be really successful was the scene with the training of the hero Mashkov of his son’s “ideot”. Everything else is either bad or bad.
The actors played who in the woods and who on wood. For example, Sergey Makovetsky is very bad here. He's terribly annoyed by the crookedness. Odessa Chaplin from him, as well as Statem actor. Sergey Garmash is not at all Garmash - without a zest, although the funny hero asked for it. Forever drunk Roman Madianov plays himself here - the always drunk Roman Madianov, but plays well. He is the best “alkash” of Russian cinema. But Chulpan Khamatova managed to play once and well, and bad - a completely disgusting scene with an Odessa accent on telephone negotiations, and then a very funny scene of flirting with the hero Porechenkov. Irina Pegova turned out to be a complete fool from the alley. The scene with Efremov is not clear to what and for what? How could Ephraim be shown to be so ridiculous and unfunny? How?
This picture is a visual guide to how a good cast can sound and loudly poop.
In addition, throughout the film does not leave the feeling that they wanted to remove the “Liquidation 2”, and because of the sanctions removed “Odessa steamer”. But why are there so many squirrels?
I would like to start the review with the final. From a very precise and poignant finale. The wonderful director Sergey Ursuliak showed that there is no country, that life, those people and relations. He did not pretend that we were in Odessa, filmed in Taganrog. These decorations of the “Odessa courtyard”, disassembled by workers against the background of the skyscraper on Mosfilmovskaya, this is our history and our life.
I am not an expert on the work of Mikhail Zhvanetsky. Well, I know of course his percussion miniatures, for example, about the head of the transport department, but not all. But I understand perfectly well that it is more difficult to film a miniature, which sometimes consists of two phrases, than other novels. And the director had a hard time. Therefore, the manner of theatricality and phantasmagoric nature of what is happening is the only possible. And you either take it as I do, or you don't take it at all.
Which I especially liked. After watching the trailer, I specifically found the miniature “Two Apples” in the author’s version. But played by Mashkov, Khamatova and a very expressive red boy, it acquired a special brightness. Well, how not to get mad at such a “sea wolf”, which the sea is kneeling? And in fact, he is a kind “sea seal”, as instantly he rejoices in the small “success” of his own child. I liked Ursuliak’s curtsey of his own “Liquidation” in the form of a confrontation between Mashkov and Porechenkov.
A wonderful singer of Tribuntsev. Did they pay attention to the poster? Honored Artist ... ASSR. The details of this film need to be looked at. They're surprisingly accurate. And the flight crew that walked through the hall of the polar airport? He's like Mimino. And this is the feeling of Ursuliak’s love for our films. Misha Efremov was singled out separately even in the credits! Oh, bravo! He deserves it for his game. Lika Nifontova may have slightly gone overboard with the heroine’s cartiness, but she played the type perfectly. Oh, I remember all of them (such people)!
Songs are wonderfully chosen songs. And a choir of veterans singing about youth. This is stronger than the current rapac, which they now like to insert into films.
How many stars have fallen,
It's so up!
It became a song under the sky.
I just listened to the words of this song, what a deep meaning there. Well, thank you to Ursuliak.
I won’t bother with what seemed less successful. Fantasmagoric what is happening, with all the seemingly vitality, it is not easy to realize cinematically, decomposing the roles. We can easily forgive one who reads Zhvanetsky.
The screening of Sergei Ursuliak’s new film on one of the federal TV channels ended, millions of viewers waited for it as a gift for the New Year holidays, but their hopes were only partially justified. The director took on the time-consuming task of creating a coherent narrative from the mosaic of Mikhail Zhvanetsky’s miniatures, using a powerful cast of masters of our cinema, real bison of their business. To bet on acting, on linking shock episodes in the image of Odessa - a unique center of Russian and Soviet humor, Ursuliak succeeded largely because he created a perfect image lost in the whirlwind of Maidans and the chaos of revolutions, sung by Babel.
However, the director of “Russian Ragtime” and “Long Farewell” is probably more nostalgic than ever, for this he uses the reconstruction of everyday life and hits of the 70s, he seeks to capture the myth of Odessa, as in “Liquidation”, but without a sharp plot, completely pressing on the comic pedal. Episodic, but memorable roles of all actors without exception, a bright performance of miniatures, sometimes no more than five minutes long, should have created a high concentration of humor (by the way, Zhvanetsky's satirical texts were not used intentionally, this was a director's strategy), but this turned out only in the first half of the picture (especially in a high-classly executed, mounted and played episode on the steamer - the best scene of the film).
Still, a high degree of humor, laughter to the point of colic is very difficult to keep for an hour and a half (only Gaidai could do this), but still “Odessa steamer” was successful precisely because it is organic in its use of common places and stamps about Odessa – yet the director creates a myth, not broadcasts reality. Invitation Kryuchkova, Makovetsky, Mashkov. Dobronravova is Ursuliak’s attempt to re-enter the Liquidation water, so many things don’t look so fresh. But how great looks Khamatova in the role of Odessa, as if she was born to her! Emphasizing the sunny atmosphere of the city, the heat, the hospitality, creating the effect that the city itself gives birth to its characters, as if it were a living organism – all this was difficult to achieve, given that the depicted Odessa is long gone. Therefore, in the final, the author of miniatures Mikhal Mikhalych himself is so sad, his humor is eccentric, but always deep, contains many sad overtones, the main of which is that time passes irretrievably.
Heat, summer, sunshine, the joy of this film at least partially compensate for the lack of snow and the New Year atmosphere of the New Year 2020. Zhvanetsky is, of course, a master of humor, observation, creating comic situations, pure elements of humor and satire, but he is not a genius - this is not Zoshchenko, not Bulgakov and not Babel, so it is difficult to demand any special metaphysical depth from the film, because Ursuliak is not Chaplin, not Fellini, and not Woody Allen. However, the “Odessa steamer” leaves a good impression precisely with its sadness under the mask of comics, excellent acting work and clear direction.
One of my favorite miniatures of Zhvanetsky - the call Baba Yaga is read by the author so brilliantly that it is simply impossible to outdo it, as well as the miniature of the meeting of the distillery performed by Roman Kartsev - this is just a shine that even in his time in "Fitila" Kalyagin and Tabakov together could not adequately execute (what to demand from Madianov and Dobronravov?). Those who watched the new film of Sergei Ursuliak on the federal channel on January 1, gained a lot in addition to good emotions, this is primarily a high-quality, performed not at the level of a theatrical cabbage, a comic spectacle in which the editing, directing, skill of the performers and director rested like a stone wall in the format of a television film.
If the “Odessa steamer” was shot for a wide screen, I think that it would be better, there would be no need then these tired in a good movie middle plans, this is a deliberate lyse of the image, this is the final collective performance of the song about Odessa, pushing the degree of nostalgic pathos beyond good taste. “Odessa steamer” of course lacks halftones of real cinema, a lot of it is clumsy, the film, of course, does not reach the level of “Liquidation”, as well as to those films about Odessa that explode, and do not produce stamps and myths about it, such as Gordon’s “Prince Lights”.
But for a one-time fun viewing on TV with the whole family, this good TV picture is suitable like no other. And don’t watch “Odessa Ship” alone, otherwise you will feel like a stranger at this film festival, which happened to many viewers with whom I discussed this tape. Humor unites, laughter humanizes, most comedies are for family viewing. This applies to Chaplin and Woody Allen, especially to this picture of Sergei Ursuliak, which, rightly, we will not judge too harshly, because it gave us unforgettable moments of unity with other people.