Everything is simple, without ideological flippers and gender slobs. This film is very relevant in our country. On the basis of "you are a man or not a man" so do very few, despite the seeming brutality and sportsmanship. uniform. A psychological drama for its viewer, who can overnight "leave" from a rich ideal life. The film did not have much effect on me. I have a family with protection and a real man's word. ..it's okay. It's a good movie, but not bright. 🤝
It's minimalism. Furniture occupies only twenty percent of the total space.
The plot is simple and understandable at first. We have a married couple, their minimalist home ("furniture only takes twenty percent," remember this) and a silly little conflict that instantly reveals all the accumulated problems. A deranged neighbor throws garbage on the site of our heroes, and after a natural question of the owners raises his hand on the woman. Her husband at this moment is silent and the skirmish ends with general, but not yet voiced discontent. “Not defended”, “weak”, “not a man” and so on in the list.
The family is not typical in many ways. The main character Gleb solves issues diplomatically, giving the primacy in rude showdowns to his wife; a man is also engaged in household chores (surprise), they consciously do not want children and all of them (an even bigger surprise) arranges. Of course, until the end. After the incident, Gleb himself burys himself in self-flagellation, and Pauline, his wife, is filled with passive aggression, recalling all the already available evidence that her husband is “not a man.”
It is good, catchy quickly, if you have already thought about such contradictions before. If you thought about it tightly, and it is better to see it with your own eyes, you can also assume that it will definitely not work here, and this is an excellent ground for the development of history.
The film is good and relevance, and contradiction, and pleasant subtexts. In the course of viewing, the thought jumps from judgment to judgment. The nature of aggression, the harmfulness of imposed labels, the issue of diplomacy in solving problems, the need for balance and much, much more. To tolerate, resist, treat with understanding, punish – with these concepts few people are managed competently, and the film this case and disperses. On a simple everyday situation, an excellent acute social drama is played out, which I would like to recommend for viewing. The educational function of cinema is not obvious, but a look at the problem from the outside is always useful.
Almost to the final scenes it seems that the film is definitely good, but absolutely transparent. There is, of course, the mystery and shadows of the famous guns, and the scope for interpretations is revealed only at the end, but how. You cling to the phrases, you want to remember scattered little things, and individual visual solutions are pleasantly looped. The picture is very good, and I want to recommend it.
It's a heavy movie. Pure psychology. The story of a driven male ego that tries to come out, to express itself.
The husband looks successful, status and realized. Businessman. Gleb cannot protect himself or his wife. Hitting an asshole, defending your brute physical strength - this is not about him.
Someone's gonna call him a rag and put a "Not a man" stamp on him. On the one hand, moralists will be right, who always and everywhere know how to do it. On the other hand... Let’s be clear: Gleb is just a head steeper than 90% of Russian men. Especially those who bring home a pitiful penny, throwing them to his wife with the words: Here, here you are 30k for the whole family, do not deny yourself anything.
What about Gleb? He's a real earner. He has his own business, a cool car and a chic cottage in the style of minimalism. In addition, he is also a handy guy, household: he will hang up the curtain himself, and even cook dinner. It's just gold, not a husband.
Only with self-esteem, he has the fullest kaput. His problem (fear of getting on the scoreboard) is quite solvable, but instead of solving it, he drives himself into the grave, completely devaluing his own successes. And they do.
The wife also puts oil on the fire. Of course, she can be understood. She wants to live with a strong man. Know how behind a stone wall to be weak, to hide behind his broad back, to protect. It turns her on and on. Normal female desire.
But!
Your husband is not like that at all. And you know that. Well, then why do you climb on the edge, provoke conflicts, knowing perfectly well that your man can not hide for you. Accusing her husband of weakness, she forgets that she herself has not gone far. Her reluctance to have children is nothing but pure cowardice. Double standards.
And the most important cowardice of both was that they could not openly discuss with each other all that they had accumulated.
Gleb had to honestly tell himself first, and then his wife, that, yes, he is a mattress, weak, cowardly, afraid of physical strength and on the list. Acknowledge that weakness. At least for a start.
And then let the wife decide for herself: if she needs Jason Stetham Rushen Edishen, then, sorry, an expense. We part with each other and no longer torment each other with the fact that the harsh reality does not coincide with wet dreams.
Everybody's good. But at the same time, blaming someone will not turn my tongue. Everyone has their own truth.
Great movie. I advise everyone, especially the strong half of humanity.
Manly one of those movies, the true viewing of which begins after the credits. The issues raised are extremely relevant in modern realities. The most important of them – and what does “male” mean? Is it a man's way to punch or make enough money? Is it manly to hit a woman? Allow your woman to decide for herself and behave like a man? Is it a man's way to do things to a neighbor? Aren't they afraid of a fight, recklessly substituting their head in a manly way?
The authors do not give answers to them, because unambiguous answers to such questions cannot be by definition, they all have their own.
Other questions raised are more unambiguous and the authors answer them themselves:
Is it worthwhile for a woman to consciously go to the ground knowing that physical strength is not her husband’s strength? Judging from the film, no, because to expose your loved one to the blow is still not good.
When the hero Lapenko, after experiencing failures and humiliations, tries to bull at random people, waving a gun, he put himself on the level of gopniks. Each of us has a hidden desire to humiliate others and rise at their expense, compensate for our weakness? The answer is yes.
Do weapons make you stronger and more confident? The answer is no different.
On the pros and cons of the painting itself.
Actors playing and casting on top. Everything is in its place and you believe everything. The picture is pleasant, not obtrusive camera work.
Of the minuses.
Throughout the viewing, I never left the feeling that I was watching a short film stretched by a full meter. Perhaps purely subjective, but still.
But the most important disadvantages are scenario illogicalities in the behavior of the characters and some moments. The most obvious for me:
- The hero Lapenko has a country house for several tens of millions and an expensive car, but at the same time there are no cameras in the yard or an alarm button of some private security.
- What will a law-abiding citizen do in a situation where the plot of the film begins? Feet in the hand and to the precinct write a statement for beatings. Further, a person like Gleb will not be difficult to hire a lawyer who with a guarantee will push the case beyond the desk of the district. A neighbor with such behavior probably came to the attention of law enforcement officers and a serious lawyer can cause him a lot of problems.
- Why the next day after the incident, the neighbor in a human way communicates with the main character, apologizes and admits the joint, if he initially did it out of envy of his well-being?
- If the very pragmatic hero Lapenko so wanted physical violence, then why did he try to set up a friend who, although he served, was clearly not a street fighter? It was possible to find a couple of sports guys, give out a balaclava and “three hundred thirty each” so that they would forever discourage the neighbor’s desire not only to throw garbage behind the fence, but even look obliquely in his direction.
I will evaluate this film in several ways.
The issues raised and the relevance of the topic – 10 out of 10.
Artistic side – 6 out of 10
Acting and casting - 9 out of 10
Scenario – 5 out of 10
In any case, the film turned out to be worthy and very relevant.
After watching the picture, there was an unexpectedly large review, but with spoilers! The film consists of many layers. Layers of social structure, psychotypes, behavioral stereotypes. The ambiguity of what a man means is very well shown, because hitting a woman in the face is not at all masculine, but the actions taken by the hero can also be classified by this term. He suffers from the fact that he did not rush to the abuser to protect his wife, but he lacks the life experience of such conflicts to develop any algorithm of actions or reactions to them. Subsequently, without understanding how to be and what to do, the hero makes a lot of mistakes, but at the same time does not find an answer to his question, continuing his experiences and looking for a way out of this situation.
Is the drunken hooligan who threw a garbage bag on the site and hit the wife of the hero, yes, in his actions, of course, but at the same time the environment of the main character is exactly the same, that is, hungry for actions similar to the actions of the offender? And it turns out the right people, the right actions and models in this movie are not.
You can see that the hero is “positive”, as they say about promising, but non-charismatic and non-masculine men. It seems that his wife does not love him, but rather agrees to him. Presumably, he's the opposite. And it makes you do rash things. It is these actions that lead to the great, and maybe the terrible. The hero would be so reflexive if they punched him in the face, and not his wife, perhaps, but not for long, and the conflict would be resolved at the first conversation with the offender. But here is another, the damage has been done to his depressed male ego over the years, and the question arises how to achieve satisfaction in order to rehabilitate himself before his wife and his oppressed conceit. Hence the moral torment that already exists outside the female line, and exists exclusively in the paradigm of personal male egoism. After all, all the outcomes of the classic reactions “male” were calculated by the hero in the beginning.
And another leitmotif of this picture was the stratification of society. The film shows inter-class strife, envy, domestic instability. It is she who provokes, irritates the young guy to do something to the rich living next door. The hero is a successful entrepreneur who broke out in people, bought an expensive car and built a beautiful cottage. But there is one problem: the environment. And it's the hero's most common. That’s another layer, which also overlaps with the term “life for yourself.” The wife of the hero does not want to have children, he agrees to this, but clearly would not mind. And at the same time, the abuser, most likely working from morning to night, living poorly with a family of two children. He's nervous, he's drinking, he's hating himself as a man who can't give a better family. He probably feels hopeless or has already accepted it. Seeing that someone lives a completely different life, irritation and envy begin to ripen in him, leading as a result to a rather hooligan (throwing a garbage bag on a neighbor's site) act, but speaking nevertheless about the presence of brakes in the desire to calm his life's troubles at the expense of others.
The film is good and versatile. But it does not implement only one technique that appears in the film, namely, an alternative narrative. They should have finished, giving the picture freshness and innovation.
The film is very sad – not the plot, but the fact that its creators failed to gather the characters and their motives and show something realistic through the prism of cinema.
The protagonist is incomprehensible. He seems to be a successful businessman with a house worth 30+ million and a big black car, but does not know how to solve conflict situations. How did such a man create a profitable business? He can not deal with either a stunned neighbor, nor with the same employee, nor with his own wife, with whom he knows how to communicate in two ways - either include a pointer or a mattress. The average is not given.
The wife of the main character - why is she, a beautiful, working woman, tolerates a man, clearly on different waves with her? Their intimacy is similar to random, she is unhappy with his inability to harness for her. Well, if you tolerate sloping in the yard is normal, then yes.
In just an hour and a half, the characters themselves do not know what they want to be. A businessman can not think of a way to punish the abuser, the wife can not accept it or leave.
The only healthy grain of this picture is the wife of the nasty neighbor, who cultivates him as a husband and endures beatings and indecent behavior, even without admitting that something is wrong with him.
The rest is very bad.
I will not hide, the film was very liked - despite all the ambiguity of the main character and despite the frankly blurred ending.
Anton Lapenko played almost flawlessly, showing a very complex image: on the one hand, a clearly positive hero, but at the same time a weak person. And this weakness is not in the inability to fight, but primarily in character. A person who pours alcohol on his life’s failures cannot be tough when necessary, lives with a woman who clearly does not suit him, hesitating to break up – these are certainly signs of human weakness. Can you despise him for that? Nope. Man is what he is. He is neither a scumbag nor a villain, but he cannot cope with his problems.
Is there a way out for the main character? Someone in the film wrote that he could find a good coach or choose another wife. Yeah, it's all possible. But forming a different character at 35 is almost impossible. And to change a society in which such men are at best condescending, and at worst - despised for the "baba" nature, too, is almost unrealistic.
Perhaps that’s why the finale of the picture was so indistinct. The hero seems to be trying to become more courageous, but all this manifests itself in a set of meaningless, and somewhere – frankly stupid, bordering on risk to themselves and others actions.
The rest of the actors – Ekaterina Shcherbakova (Polina), Sergey Vasin (Arthur), Polina Sinilnikova (Tanya) were very liked in the film. Like the main character, their characters are hostages of both their own characters and social foundations, sometimes forcing them to behave differently than a person would be better off.
The choice of each of the heroes of their life partners is an obvious mistake. But this mistake is largely dictated by social prejudice and upbringing. At the same time, they are all obviously aware of their mistaken choice, but prefer not to change anything in life.
For one, social status (a wealthy young businessman husband) is extremely important, despite the fact that she clearly despises him for his weakness. But if you have a money man who managed to create his own business at the age of 35, build a beautiful house, etc., then you, in turn, are a successful woman. It is not customary to leave such men and where?
Another in his youth admired the manifestations of “strong” character, “nobility” (a person did not abandon her with a small child, married, returned to her from the army, etc.). Without realizing that behind all this can be banal self-admiration and internal complexes.
The third one chose a “butterfly” that can be beaten with impunity, called Tanka, drunk in her presence, and she will not say a word in response. After all, he did a great job - he was not afraid of fatherhood, took her and her child to wife at a young age, although he could still walk and walk. He showed masculine "nobility" and "responsibility" instead of finding a suitable person for life or trying to improve a lot in himself. But now you can score on everything and prove your “coolness”, making small evils settled in the neighborhood “bourgeois”.
Well, the main character Gleb is a soft man who loves children, also clearly unhappy. But his wife is a beautiful, well-groomed, not stupid woman (despite the fact that she sometimes behaves like a habalka). "Pregnant" - as they say about such. This is what a self-respecting businessman and manager should have. It does not matter that in character he would be much more suited to a woman similar to Tanya - Arthur's wife. But it does not have the gloss and ambition that is in Pauline.
So it turns out that absolutely all the characters in this film are unhappy, and none of them sees a way out for themselves. And the movie, in the end, turned out to be much deeper than just a story about a weak man - a "coward" or some generally accepted gender attitudes and their impact on our lives.
This movie is about how it is painfully difficult for most people to admit their mistakes, break the usual patterns of behavior, stop torturing themselves and the person who is nearby. How hard it is to get out of that deceptive ‘comfort zone’ when you feel like you’re just floating comfortably with the flow, but you’re actually slowly sinking to the bottom.
Very good Russian cinema. Not without flaws. But I watched and listened to the heroes almost without stopping.
9 out of 10
Do you have a wife, Anon? Well, or girlfriend, it doesn't matter. How great it is to be nice to her, to communicate trustingly, to go to the grocery store and look for goods at a discount, right? And what if I say that everything has its own price, and it is so common in life that you are not only a romantic companion for her, but also the head of the security service of the beauty salon Alla / Natalia / Christina / (insert another name)?
What would you do if your lady of heart had a conflict with a man not burdened by chivalry? What if that bastard slaps her in the face? And you do not answer me with a question, what does it matter, your woman is right, she is wrong, after receiving a face in any case, she will expect only one thing from you: retaliation against the offender. And just try to do less than bruise him or knock out a tooth, otherwise you're not officially a man to her, but a frail eunuch. . .
How rare are films that pay great attention to the small details of our lives. And yet it is not in vain that they say that the devil lies precisely in these notorious details. One of the great thinkers of modern times said “you can never relax with a woman”, who does not agree – watch this film. You may have a profitable business, an apartment, a cottage, a car, the Soviet-style pleasant face of Anton Lapenko, but all this will be in the background, if you just do nothing in a conflict situation. A woman doesn't care how cool you were when she chose you, she cares if you're cool now. At least, it's cool from her subjective point of view. Another thing, go find a woman who will not react to the joint of the main character Gleb. So that the point of view is subjective or already for statistical reasons is objective - the question ...
The moral of this fable is simple: the difficult question of who you are in this world and what you are eaten with must be answered before you have a woman, not after. Here’s a friend of the uncomfortable Glavhero coped with this task, so when Gleb outlined to him the essence of the situation, Kostya immediately understood what to do, what not to do, who is to blame, who is not to blame and most importantly, where the boundaries are. Therefore, although he fell because of his friend, he was not confused either in the process or in the end. He knows for a long time who he is and why. And Gleb did not know, and the conflict did not really give the correct answer, and so, only hinted in passing. Now our respectable businessman is thrown from one extreme to the other, the shore is red, the shore is white, and there is only one water around. . .
Amazing script, amazing directing, bravo, the Kulagin brothers, for nothing they stuck in a short meter for so long. They were not very good there, in my opinion, and now it is clear why: the expanded, extensive canvas is their native format. The actors are all good, they understand their images thoroughly, but I especially note Katya Shcherbakova. Vai, what an obstinate tigress, there she is, a woman who will lift to heaven and then drive to the grave. Having a fleeting passion with a lady like that is fine, but marrying her? The main character clearly doomed himself to trouble long before the conflict with the slap.
The human orchestra Anton Lapenko gave a very convincing performance in a very psychological thriller on the topic of gender stereotypes (not what you think).
Well, when analyzing the film, therefore, it is necessary to divide into two dimensions: 1) Lapenko and 2) actually, the plot.
1. In Lapenko, I confess, I did not really believe - after watching the trailer. It seemed to me that - yes, he is, of course, a cool actor, but - it seemed that a serious role would somehow be buried under the associations and, attention, stereotypics, which Anton over the years of his brilliant activity hung from head to toe (in the thriller anyone can play, but give us Guidon, Hornet and Engineer - only Lapenko). “No,” I thought, “without laughter I cannot watch this movie.” Smog. Because Lapenko was able to naturally and convexly play a non-comedic hero, so much so that all the main "amplois" naturally remained on the sidelines. That is, “Male” you can watch at least because of Anton – who, no matter how you turn, is a living legend and phenomenon.
2. The plot is interesting, thought out and psychological - and I may be wrong, but it seems that no one in the cinema has ever understood the topic of "musculine stereotypes" so in detail (well, that is, it flashed here and there, but to do this, with a hammer past a nail on a finger - this, it seems, has never happened yet). In general, the topic is interesting and important for reflections, given the global revision of everything in the world. They talk about female stereotypes, don't they? They say. Well, now we're talking about men. What conclusions to draw is a matter for everyone, but the film, most importantly, asks questions, and asks them deftly, folding not two and two, but a bunch of decimal fractions (assessment of stereotypes as such, assessment of the inconsistency with them in society, the role of others in the formation of a psychologically (dis)comfortable environment, the difference between neighbors literally on the same street, within the same entrance, types of thinking, this very neighborhood, the multi-tieredness of “cultural” space, and so on). And at the end of the day, a lot of the film comes down to talking about family models, which is also an archival topic. Well, in the end and on the second point, the film is recommended for viewing - but (since we're talking about stereotypes) I don't know whether all, or only men.
Me-ta-pho-ra!
For the sake of “ambiguity” and “multiple significance”, the authors flushed down the toilet the opportunity to make a serious film. After all, this is manipulation: to offer the viewer a false dilemma - either you are a bandit or you tolerated.
Life is in the middle.
The authors shoot absolutely serial content - when there is no sense in the frames, they mean only what they mean, but suspense, intrigue 1 time holds attention. So you can make 10-hour movies. It doesn't work. That's not how movies are made. Now the road to the series is straight - such content is loved there.
As for the film, the authors developed leitmotifs - both in the direction of non-resistance and in the direction of resistance. Reflected. And at the end, you can judge the quality and level of the film. Here, the authors did not cope with their own idea, (of course, in an interview they will probably tell you that “that’s what they wanted”, in fact – they did not understand how to give the hero a way out.
Absolutely a sense of wasted time. Speculation on imitation of “raising a serious topic”, without trying to seriously comprehend the phenomenon.
The sound is not artistic (directly from the venue).
The operator is average.
An actor with comedic talent here is sweet and unexpressive. He's thinking about the camera that's filming him - why?
The director directs more or less live actors. The script is unfinished. With endings, many have problems, so there are few good films.
3 out of 10
Not only do women have cockroaches in their heads.
I am sure that every man in his life at least once passed some stages, which passed Gleb (also known as our beloved Lapenko). A “controversial” situation is perfectly presented when a very rational act (to get away from a conflict created out of stupidity) finds condemnation in the environment.
“Beats, means loves”, “he did not serve – not a man” and other proverbs – archaisms that still poison life and give a distorted understanding of reality.
There is no male or female action, there is adequate and inadequate behavior. Responding to violence with violence is inadequate. Not paying attention to fools - adequate.
It would seem that everything is simple, but the human essence and primitive instincts spoil the picture for people.
I do not want to evaluate the acting, camera work and editing - all this is at a good level, here it is worth paying attention to the message. I would have swapped the last two scenes, which is probably the only thing that spoiled the impression. You can and should watch.
The film raises a very good theme of the correct distribution of roles in the family: the husband is the protector and breadwinner, the wife is the mother and keeper of the hearth. When people think that the whole basis and life should consist only of a successful career, home and expensive car, they are mistaken, because fate can throw them and completely different trials. So here Gleb life throws a test in which he must prove himself a man.
From time immemorial, we have been taught that a husband should protect his wife and children, just as a wife should not frame her husband and take care of the safety of her family. But everyone should also watch their language and not provoke inadequate people and psychotics to aggression. Yes, there are times when a quick conflict is easiest to settle with a simple Russian tumac. But not everyone can fight back properly, because not all of us are like John Wick.
Many people actually behave at times as if they had never been paid for their antics in their youth, and this very sadly affects their behavior in adulthood, because the “God” mode is activated. Some, like Gleb, do not know what to do and rush around, trying to use their usual weapons - language and connections. Others, like Arthur, are walking around. Not everyone can be the middle ground, everyone wants to be the king of life. But life puts everything in place.
It was unusual to see Anton in a serious role, but he did very well.
8 out of 10
Sometimes it is better to do and regret than to regret not doing.
I consider it superfluous to paint what everyone wrote before me: about the plot of the film, about ' but Gleb’s life changes dramatically when you have to face a blonde neighbor...' – I will immediately move on to claims.
It was possible to make an interesting film about a typical domestic conflict, which grew into something more than the flaming cheek of the hero’s wife and infringed pride. Instead, the tape shows the throwing of the cowardly GG, who could avoid conflict simply by responding by force to force: yes, he would lose and get a black eye, but he would have remained with his honor and dignity. And when in such a situation you show indecision and start chewing snot, it is natural that the offenders will continue to brazen and hurt you: we are animals. Just with smartphones, cars, beer and houses ' million for twenty' Honestly, at one point I seriously thought that Gleb his ' the enemy' just pee.
Hero 'nyunya' not only in a situation of direct conflict, threatening at least a fingal: he can not fire an employee who is in the middle of a gorilla. He is not able to calm a neighbor who is constantly making noise. The hero is weak not only in body, but also in spirit - this is his main problem. Gleb can not even gather his strength to talk to his wife and tell her that he wants children!
He is not able to stand up for himself or his family. What conclusions are drawn from this in the film? Nothing.
Why is this movie made? Unknown. What did the authors mean? What needs to be done immediately and on the spot? Or is it the last thing to do?
Now to the obscure moments of the film, which raised questions:
- Why can the heroes afford a house ' for 20 million & #39; and a German car for 10, but could not put a security system (there is even no camera)? Why didn't they hire security guards? Just put serious men in suits at the gates and these men break the fingers of all garbage throwers through the fence.
- Why is one man able to shake the usual way of life of the whole family, and two other men can not give him a punch in the head?
- Why did the filmmakers cast the hero’s wife in a negative light solely through a slurred dialogue that could be skipped? If she is such a terrible mess and still everyone remembers a certain case in the supermarket, then show at least a short flashback that would reveal Pauline as a character!
- Why is Gleb, besides being a nunny and a weakling, a traitor? Wife calls the police after another incident, testifies to employees, and the husband denies everything and makes the faithful idiot?
- What kind of cheap symbolism? Through the annoying wasp, the director wanted to show the negative and 'animal principle' which still penetrated into Gleb?
The only character that is written from beginning to end, does not cause questions and that you believe - the wife ' the main villain' Typical unhappy girl, not stupid, but naive hostage of an abuser, who has a level of intelligence like a stool.
In summary: a completely empty movie, in which the meaning is much less than in an ancient short film 'Drift'.
Spend time on this film, even if you are the most loyal fan of Lapenko is absolutely not worth it.
Since childhood, we have been taught stereotypes: That's how you do it, that's how you live, that's how you achieve it. And we're willing to scratch the other's eyes out, helping him get rid of the mottle. Of course for him. It's not comfortable with the log, and there's also this morsel! It’s a tough movie, especially for those who have gone through the 90’s with their humanity. I'm not going to retell the story. A little background on the main characters. In general, they are much deeper than it seems, for this they are pleased with the comments and additions. Pauline is one of those whose glass is more half empty than full. A woman who knows exactly what she wants. From others. Stereotypes of ideals imposed on her by the public. She doesn't want children. Why? Doesn't feel confident in your husband? Or maybe the other way around? Nobody knows that. Even her. Gleb, Bread and Bread. A model of a family man who bought a car, and built a house, and started a business, and knows how to cook, and respects his wife, and loves children. Just a girl's ideal and dream. Any of Pauline's friends would happily jump out for Gleb. But Gleb somehow chose Pauline. Whether it is a child trauma, an overbearing mother, violence - we guess for ourselves. Kostya. Hard as Bones! A sample of a possible variant of "masculinity", which a little dries (or rather flows) Polina. Combat rooster with army experience. Strong in words. Masculinity is expressed in the command of the wife: "Get behind the wheel, or I've had a drink!" Tanya - beauty - long braid. A Russian woman. Mistress, mother, gentle, kind. The exact opposite of Pauline. Her glass is half full. She looks for positivity in everything. He even protects the alcoholic husband who beats her. "Hitting is loving." But like all the characters, it is not so clear. Why is her husband beating her up? Maybe it's for what? The fact that she immediately offers to go to you with the first person she meets, then flirts with him, the fact that she flew in at the age of 17 already hints at something. But maybe she just wants to run away from a humiliating life with anyone, but doesn't see the possibility yet? Positive is the only form of self-defense. King Arthur is a Gopnik with a difficult fate. He is offended by all who, according to the opinion imposed by society, are more successful than he is. He replaces his mental pain with physical pain. Of course, this does not help, but he knows no other way. And unfortunately, neither his wife, nor the main character, nor anyone from his entourage can help him in this.
Two worlds have met. What is it and what is it going to do?
Anton Lapenko in the title role certainly attracts a mass audience, accustomed and loved his projects and humorous, atmospheric and interesting notes in the blog. I want to see how he will play in a big feature-length movie and also in a dramatic role.
But that’s not all that’s in this movie. I would say that such an idea quickly fades when you get closer to the plot. The film raises a variety of topics for discussion. What can cause heated arguments and even quarrels, if you look at someone, or a long internal dialogue. This dialogue will constantly evaluate the actions of the protagonist, tell how it was necessary to do the right thing and why.
It can not be otherwise, since the theme of this film is not answered, philosophical and dreamy. It is quite alive, modern and even painful.
Therefore, the game of Lapenko here can not overshadow the inner heat of emotions and events in the film, which are sometimes shocking, especially towards the end, when you want to watch the film with your eyes bulging and covering your mouth with your hand from the light horror that runs through the body.
Many people talk about false or true masculinity, but there is much more. In my opinion, Anton perfectly showed this average successful man, throwing and trying to resolve the internal and external conflict of which can not leave anyone indifferent. In general, the selection of actors is extremely successful, everyone in his place looks as organic and necessary.
Perhaps an unoriginal idea, but it makes you think about a lot. . .
This is probably not the first film to reflect on what it means to be a man and act like a man. But here the creators managed to recreate the situation and circumstances affecting everyone. And the director does not dwell on the fact that violence should be answered only by violence or, on the contrary, always avoid it, the viewer sees the situation from different points of view, in particular, the view of a man and a woman. Also, an interesting point is that in addition to this, there is a certain alternative reality in Gleb’s thoughts, where the natural & #39; fight, be a man' answers the rational & #39; but what will be the consequences, and what if...', albeit after a conflict that does not end so quickly.
After all, it all begins with the behavior of his wife, Polina, who begins to be rude and & #39; climb on the horn & #39; and the main character simply does not have time to stop her. And then, after that, he is already under pressure from both sides, his wife and friends who are surprised that Gleb behaved in this way and did not intercede and Gleb himself, who is trying to change and settle the conflict, but all his attempts are broken about an aggressive neighbor. And like, yes, you can understand your wife, you want to feel safe, and this is normal, but not wanting violence and fearing for your health is no less normal.
Speaking of the rest, it is quite unusual to see Anton Lapenko in such a role, but he copes with it just fine, you believe him, he is always interesting to watch. Despite the debut in the full meter, Maxim Kulagin feels confident here, there is good camera work, and the whole film, although it goes quite slowly, but everything happens exactly as it should and the inflating atmosphere in the right places is perfectly sustained.
As a result, it turned out to be a great picture that makes you think about a lot and maybe even change something in your picture of the world. The film turned out, atmospheric, tense, deep with the excellent work of Anton Lapenko.
7.7 out of 10
The first full-length film with Lapenko that I watched. In short, the story tells how a man copes with the fact that he did not stand up for his wife, who was given a slap in the face as a result of a quarrel – a drunk neighbor threw his bag of garbage on someone else’s plot.
Immediately I want to note that the film is not bad and touches on thousands of unexamined topics – what it is to be a man and what it is to solve issues in a manly way, I am sure that all the artistic shortcomings in this film will eventually brighten up post-film conversations, because the film really wants to discuss. The authors were able to find the nerve and the right circumstances that will be understandable and interesting to men and women. I liked that the director showed two points of view – the view of a man and a woman, and at the same time expanded this topic, adding an alternative reality, which we see through the projection of the thoughts of the main character, when in contrast to the instinctive and natural “entry” is put ratio, miscalculation of moves “what if”, but after the conflict itself, which, nevertheless, has not exhausted itself.
However, this film is not only about what it is to be a man, but also about what it is to be a woman, because the women in this film also give a slack and then look for an excuse for themselves - it can be an abusive relationship where the husband beats his wife, and she tolerates such an attitude and even stands up for her abuser; or another situation where a woman requires a man to show a traditional role of protector, but at the same time is neither the keeper of the hearth, nor the mother of his children, but only provokes an even greater conflict.
As it seems to me, the wife of the main character does not want children because she does not feel safe and this desire in a strong man is natural for a woman - yes, he built walls for her and gave her a financial cushion, but can he risk and shed his blood for her - after all, even that subscription to the gym was her idea, but she did not want to see a pumped man next to her, but a strong one, and these are two different things.
And then I come to the main disadvantage of this film – lack of work. It’s not just about dialogue, it’s okay, on the other hand, there will be a wider field for interpretation for viewers when the film is over and it’s time to discuss this thorny topic on which the film is made. I am talking more about the problems of the film, about the development of the theme, which I did not find, the camera shot actors all the time, and the director was content with macro shooting, but the topic itself is broader and concerns the whole country and generations. The groundwork for the deployment was – two spaces, a cottage / forest and a city – why not contrast them? After all, defense is born where private property is strong, that is, the same cottage or farm – for most of history, a person was on the ground and enjoyed the benefits of his work, on which his life depended, courage, individuality and drive came from this. In the modern city, his works are used by others and a man as before rarely has to protect his goods, but only to look for better ways to offer them to more people - here the rationale and intellect defeat brute force, and the man weakens, walking on the trajectory of least risks, he ceases to believe in the afterlife, in honor of him, he does not need a continuation of his kind, as before, to ensure his future. He is aware of it with his mind, but the craving for it still remains in his blood, both in a woman and in a man – and this we see at the end of the film.
In the end, we are given interesting circumstances, but not the space in which actors could exist, then they, even simple lines would be filled with great meaning, if the director accompanied them with broad plans of the unique era in which we live, if he gave a retrospective to the past, because the husband and wife, who want children, also when they were children, probably assume that they too grew up outside the city, so they came back here to repeat this experience and put themselves in the place of their parents, or they feel something that forces them to leave the city - show traffic jams, dust, dust, because the youth, who also lead the old way of life, who are not living as young people, because they are already living in a dirty city, because they are still living. It is good that the characters were given development, given backstory, but they are not “the same” in themselves, but grew up in the environment that formed them.
As a result, we have a story, not bad, but very simply told, which makes this film passable, because the elaboration of the drama does not allow the heroes to develop to a greater extent, does not allow their words to introduce an even greater context and meaning, because the authors preferred to deal with this story, like the architect of that house – minimalist. For the mass audience, this may not be a loss, but for an actor who has ambitions, for Russian cinema as a whole experiencing another lost chance.
Maybe it would be better to make a comedy out of this, I don’t know, and to invite Alexei Smyrny to the screenwriters Inside Lapenko, it could be more significant and significant, but it turned out that Lapenko has a wonderful and beautiful world inside, and it is minimalistic and, in general, simple. . .
Watched with his wife today the Russian film “Male”.
So, the film begins with the fact that a company comes to a new country house - the owners of the house are a married couple Gleb and Polina, and with them two girlfriends of the hostess. The company rests well - they drink wine, the owners, having secluded, enjoy life in its entirety, in the frame even a bottle of a real Ossetian moonshine appears. Happy family, beautiful couple, everything is fine and wonderful.
Without putting off the idea of the film in a long box, literally in the first ten minutes, one of the friends tells Pauline that Gleb is a real man - business was not afraid to make up, the house - here he almost built himself - a brave man, you rarely find such now. Suddenly and unexpectedly there is a conflict between Pauline and some drunken man. In their rather emotional conversation, there are the most vivid expressions of the Russian language - mats.
During the conflict of a young lady with a drunken eccentric on the letter m, Gleb is engaged in the preparation of a barbecue. He is called to the arena of battle - that is, one of the friends, Pauline, feeling male support, awards the interlocutor with flowery epithets and suddenly (why would this?) gets on his beautiful face. This moment is the cornerstone on which the whole plot of the film is based. How should a man behave in this situation in accordance with the opinion of society? I think most men would say they would punch an abuser in the face. Someone with a fist, someone would use improvised tools that can give confidence in their own abilities. But that's not what the main character does. He takes the women away and leaves himself.
So, Gleb's fantasy paints him different scenes of the development of the situation. In fact, the subconscious is trying to justify the behavior of the hero in his own eyes. And the hero finds salvation in alcohol oblivion.
This case leads to a deterioration in the relationship of this previously seemingly happy couple and leads to an internal conflict of the hero himself - his oppression that he could not show masculinity at the right time, could not protect his squaw.
Let’s try to think about the causes of these conflicts. So, the conflict between Polina and Gleb. What do we have in the dry residue? Polina is childfree, she does not want to have children, she does not want to cook food, and, apparently, she does not earn money either, the breadwinner is Gleb. He learned to cook to please his woman, he at her insistence quit smoking and enrolled in a rocking room. Not by her own will, but by her, so to speak, order. That is, in a couple, a woman does not fulfill her female social roles, part of which in this case is performed by a man. This raises a legitimate question. If a woman is not fulfilling her roles, she probably shouldn’t expect a man to perform male social tasks. Or not? I think the authors wanted to say just that. I may have misinterpreted their message. Continuing the theme of social roles. Indeed, in society, the old social models have deteriorated – a woman is the keeper of the hearth, a mother, a wife, a cook, and a man is a breadwinner. The opposite is true now. But the notion that a man should protect his woman is unquestionable. I think so too, but in today’s world, where many things are upside down, this imperative doesn’t always work. That’s what the authors wanted to tell us.
What can be said about the inner conflict of the hero? First, there is one good rule – after a fight, you do not wave your fists. And our hero tried to wave. Why? According to the imposed public opinion, such problems can only be solved with fists. “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” Or you could turn the other cheek. It would be easy not to worry about the situation and forget. Let’s say you step into a pile of shit, then you can just go on, or you can pick this pile of shit with a stick for the rest of your life. Despite the fact that the choice in this situation seems obvious, many choose picking in this very shit. What the hero of the film does successfully.
What parts of the film I would like to draw your attention to.
Weapons. Many believe that weapons can protect them, even if not, weapons can make them stronger and more courageous. What comes out of it, you can learn from the movie. I once argued with a colleague about this, I believe that weapons can, firstly, “pull” a situation in which their use will become necessary, and, secondly, as one Negro said in the movie “Romeo must die”: “It’s not guns that kill idiots ...”. A gun will not make you stronger if you are weak, it will make you weaker. Because you will be counting on her, not yourself.
Two. He has a conflict with his neighbors and what does he do? He urinates in a cup and pours urine on the neighbor's door. I found this scene very artificial and far-fetched. If in a fit of anger the hero simply urinated on the door, it would be more plausible. I understand why the writers needed this scene. Because if you douse your neighbor's door with urine, what do you expect? That's right. Neighbors will smear the door with shit. That is, on your petty mischief, there is always a cooler dirty trick.
At some point, reflections on the eternal questions: “Who is to blame and what to do”, lead Gleb to a natural from the point of view of psychology answer – Pauline is to blame. The human ego is looking for any leads for self-justification, although there was certainly some truth in the accusations made by Pauline. In general, without such a situation, which, so to speak, unearthed the old boil and extracted all the pus and dirt that had accumulated, our heroes could live a long and almost happy life. But such situations allow you to understand yourself, to understand who you are – the Trembling Creature or John Rimbaud. The main character as a result of long throwing and thinking determined.
In the finale, Gleb makes the decision that his masculine nature, buried many years ago, makes, or maybe just speaks in it. Perhaps if Gleb had consulted a psychologist, the film would have ended very differently.
Each viewer must answer the question himself - was it really male?
My wife and I watched the film with pleasure, after the film discussed the psychological aspects of the film. It was a good night. Therefore, I recommend you to see this picture. Maybe put yourself in the hero's shoes and try to answer the questions this film raises. You can pay attention to some problems in your life and solve them before it’s too late. Thanks.
The fact that for the first time in my life I decided to publish a review says a lot to me. Perhaps this film touched some of my deep layers, maybe made me think again about eternal questions, but most likely this film just convinced me. This is a rare phenomenon in Russian cinema.
The film is all about nuance. Lie somewhere in one place - the frame will collapse, everything - there will be no faith in what you see on the screen.
And here every little thing is thought out, the images are written filigree.
The main problem of the film I see is not the inner torment of the hero about his masculinity, the creature I tremble or have the right. The problem of choosing a person for his life partner. After all, if this intelligent, clearly not stupid man who wants children, is able to provide for a family who likes to cook and make his woman pleasant, would find a party to match, but this would not be all.
Polina has an antediluvian (I do not want to offend anyone, but I would say provincial) idea of a man. Where men are expected to be machismo and high primativity. Not for nothing in the first minutes we are informed about this by a simple chain: ' rocking ' - muscles - sex.
By the way, it is funny that the authors again in trifles reinforce the image of the habalistic, provincial Polina, by what by habit 'karniz' she calls 'gardina'. This is a very accurate nuance, as in the regions these concepts are often confused. In general, I have not even heard any cornices (I am a Siberian myself, I know what I am saying), only 'gardine'. The image of Polina is very accurate both in replicas and in external manifestation.
Gleb’s achievements have been devalued throughout the film. Once again, sex is a clear indicator. 'But the curtain hung' — says Polina, when tired Gleb refuses to intimate. For her, a man is someone who will give a drunken cattle a face, is always ready for intercourse, not burdened by internal experiences. And here's the question again: 'How did Gleb choose such an inappropriate woman?' After all, there are a lot of women on the planet who will appreciate the fact that a man in the house can fix everything, cook and cope with children.
Gleb's image is accurate, too. Doubting his masculinity, what does Gleb do in the first place? Smoking. Although he gave up the habit painfully. But society, culture has formed in us the image of a tough man with a cigarette. The creators fill the film with a lot of small things that eventually form a complete and reliable picture of what is happening.
And of course, another motive is revealed. Unfortunately, even if you want to live civilized and beautifully, and at the same time want to do it not in Switzerland, but in your home country, you need to take into account that society is marginal. No one is safe from such a neighbor. And that's very sad. I do not know what should happen in order for the general level of culture, education and everything else to allow us to live in Russia not as a man, but as a man.
Considering that I am very loyal to the national cinema, I would highly appreciate it. I recommend it to those who are looking for worthwhile films in Russian cinema. To those who think it is impenetrable chthony and black – do not recommend.
8 out of 10
His beard looks good. It was quite a serious character. In some places it looks like the heroes of Alexander Ilyin. But more intelligent than that.
Before that, I thought Lapenko was too comedic. He and his works received too much attention from minor humorous programs and their hosts. That is why there was no great interest from reputable film companies and producers.
Only independent young writers and directors with a small budget can be interested. In our case, it's even good. There are no rushing chases, expensive special effects, explosions, destruction of private property on a galactic scale. But there are almost two hours of suffering and emotional remorse about what we do and how we live on.
The main idea is there, but it was blurred with household soap all over the screen. Whether it is the fantasy of the hero, or it is all in reality, but it is quite boring. The whole story about her husband and a local hooligan, a lot of talk and incomprehensible symbolism in the form of a bag of garbage under the windows. He made the whole fuss go off. Gopnik is a separate co(s)mic character.
To someone the main character seems to be a mummy and hen-heeled, but not everyone can kneel in the ribs, and he was able.
The only plus is morality: take out a weapon - shoot.
"Male": Rules of life in the modern Russian world "Male": Rules of life in the modern Russian world.
Deservedly famous for the satirical series “Inside Lapenko”, which combined postirony, nostalgia for the Soviet style and humor in the best traditions of “Monty Python” and “The Fry and Laurie Show”, Anton Lapenko appears before a wide Russian audience in an unexpected role of a tragic hero in a stylish outside and philosophical inside the film “Male”.
The plot of this drama is incredibly simple – a hero named Gleb successfully develops a start-up, built a house in the style of modern minimalism and is happy in a relationship with his girlfriend. And his brave new world would be just perfect, this is how it presents us with a pedanticly verified picture of cold tones, but both old-up and house and girl are surrounded by the flavor of modern Russia, where, according to sociologists, 80 percent of the population daily face domestic rudeness.
Full-meter debutant Maxim Kulagin, probably familiar to the viewer in view of the authorship of several short films with the megastar of Russian show business Alexander Petrov, successfully combines the comedy of positions, appeals to the viewer by introducing hypothetical “conversations on the stairs” in the style of “if, then...” and uses profanity. But most importantly, “Male” uses ambiguity when the attitude to each situation changes directly during a separate scene. Here, for example, a “friendly” Gopnik, a narrow-minded and “cute” neighbor – a native of the people, to whom the “intelligentsia” in the person of the main character of the film should listen. And after a moment of screen time, the “people’s” representative shows his true face, his “simplicity” is synonymous with cruelty, and politeness only demonstrates the weakness of the interlocutor of the “intellectual”.
If the Sundance festival was held in Russia, then the "Male" would be its opening. The traditions of external simplicity, sustained visual style and constant appeal to the life experience of the audience are alien to modern mass Russian cinema, preoccupied with the problems of “Tree 15”, reshoots of Soviet screen hits, abstract toothless stand-up and endless “old songs about the main thing”. Meanwhile, “Male” wants to talk to the audience about the important topic of internal and social self-determination in a space where the “strong” is always “right”.
If we talk about the cast of “Male”, the main star Anton Lapenko predictably turns out to be a brilliant dramatic actor. Predictable because the ability to work virtuoso in the genre of comedy automatically assumes a high level of skill and no less talent. In addition, it should be noted and Sergey Vasin, responsible for the embodiment of the image of the antagonist-gopnik, outwardly similar to the hero of the movie hit “Bitter!”, but showing the lowest sides of the modern “proletariat”.
For Russian cinema, “The Male Way” certainly represents a discovery and a furor. And the point is not that “Male” can be viewed from the angle of fem-subpoenas or debunking gender stereotypes (which, it would seem, is obvious from the name) or to see in the work of Kulagin some allusions to modern Raskolnikov. “Male” in this case is a variation of “humanly” and for a little more than an hour and a half, the director systematically and pedanticly brings to this question – “how about in human terms?”
The work of Maxim Kulagin touches on the topic of domestic rudeness, which turns into a total culture. A topic that official public debate at least ridicules, but certainly does not reflect on. “Male” causes a reaction similar to the one that Sergei Taramaev and Lyubov Lviv were able to achieve with their festival drama “Winter Way”. The film was equally unexpectedly successful, received by critics around the world and also turned the problem of specific relationships between the characters to the scale of the universal tragedy of misunderstanding, rejection and alienation.
“In a man’s way” is the tragedy of life in a world where rudeness is totalitarian, and power is not in truth, as the hero Alexei Balabanov bequeathed, but in animal simplicity and readiness not to love, but to rot your neighbor. At the same time, this is a drama, a personal drama of a hero, in the place of which everyone who builds his life in accordance with human rights, the principles of equality and the ecce homo maxim can turn out. After all, the director of the picture deliberately uses an ordinary situation - a bag of garbage was thrown at your site. What to do?
As befits the best examples of cinematography – drama is a skillful tool for the final open question. In any situation, it is easier to accept and pretend that nothing is happening. This is especially easy in a beautiful private house, where there are shelves for wine bottles and a fashionable acoustic system, and running in the mornings will preserve physical health. But the moral is more important. And the finale of "Male Way" will give everyone a ringing slap in the face, not calling for action, but branding it with inaction. This film will not leave you indifferent, even if you are not interested in independent cinema and certain aspects of the rules of life in modern Russian society. If you just love Lapenko as a character, then this is a great opportunity to look at him from the other side and see that the most courageous and important deeds in the world are done with quiet glasses.
A successful middle-aged man stumbles upon the relics of gender - the need to "be a man." Strong psychological drama. Without soap and combat speculation. Target casting, point. The characters, as well as the situations, are well known. Reflexive supply does not reduce the degree of tension at all. And yes, the authors are clearly impressed.
The situation is sharpened by quasi-Buddhist overtones. It is as if the hero had heard of the “Four Noble Truths” and was willing to curtail his desires in the name of approaching “bodhi” – enlightenment. In the arrangement of the house, he loves minimalism, and the landscape of his dacha disposes to contemplation. The wife has more royalties and claims, but in some ways she jumps ahead of the locomotive, proactively abandoning another “fussy” attachment – children. The couple lives peacefully, does not touch anyone and expects this attitude to themselves.
An-Net. Around all the same world with the plebs that is gambling in the squirrel wheel of samsara - he does not need enlightenment. And the two-meter fence of the country paradise is a weak defense against expansion from the outside. We have to do something. To do that, you have to leave heaven. Being a man is always a little dangerous. The hero will have to realize this and accept - to include in his incomplete picture of the world.
The plot is not flat and concerns many aspects of the conflict coexistence of people “cultural” and “bad”. Some of them lie purely in the psychological plane, something is connected with national ethics, but many of them rest on the dead ends of an unreasonable social system. It is good that we have an honest, uncontrived film that returns to society its artistically accented portrait.
Male director Maxim Kulagin tells the story of 35-year-old Gleb. Gleb is an example of a successful man who has a beautiful wife, his own business and an expensive country house. However, after he does not find the courage to deal with a drunken neighbor who hit his wife, his ideal life changes dramatically.
In my opinion, the authors of this tape raised on the screen a very relevant and interesting story, which fully immerses in thinking about what they saw and possible revaluation of their own values and actions. Gleb’s fear of a fight with a neighbor and inability to stand up for his wife is the main engine of this story, under the influence of which the authors of this film explore the concepts of masculinity and the standards that society has set for this concept. What is remarkable, in fact, the main villain of the picture is not a drunken neighbor or other people with whom Gleb comes into conflict, namely his wife. Hunting and exploiting her husband without giving back. Feministic women may disagree with this portrayal of the protagonist’s wife (and they will be right). However, this is the necessary lever in order to tell a story about what consequences can lead to if you “lead” a calm and respectable person.
This film became a full-length directorial debut for Maxim Kulagin, who had previously shot only short films. However, from the very first shot, Kulagin shows complete confidence in the full meter. The picture turned out to be very solid and measured. The narration of the tape is sustained in the now fashionable trend of gagility, which perfectly suited the emotional detachment of the picture and how subtly Kulagin withstood the suspense on the screen.
Definitely one of the main advantages of this tape can be noted excellent acting Anton Lapenko. This is the first and main dramatic role of the actor, in which he once again proved that really strong dramatic actors can grow out of comedians. In fact, acting out the image at the level of natural emotions. The other actors got a little lost in his background. But they did their best on the screen.
9 out of 10
It is a really worthy film that makes you think about a lot and maybe even rethink your values and principles after the end. The authors of this tape shot a very atmospheric, deep and strong film with powerful dramaturgy and great acting work of Anton Lapenko, which allows you to look at it from an unexpected side.
The film touches on a very important topic in my opinion. Most men have situations in life when you need to either respond to a rude person and get into trouble, or “act flexibly” and avoid conflict. Each of us has a red line, beyond which such care is impossible. And Lapenko unexpectedly well played a man who never defined this trait for himself and until the end of the film tried to reconcile himself with the “insulted male” and the modern urban man, not adapted to open conflicts.
A life drama from the life of modern middle classers. Catch them before they're all gone.
At 35, life is just beginning! But it could end at any moment. Before deciding on a serious act, you need to weigh all the pros and cons, think, estimate, measure KPI, efficiency and in any case do not go to provocations. And then, after buying time, you see, maybe it's on its own? Alas. Not at all.
The main character of Anton Lapenko turned out gloomy, untalking and slightly depressed. The actor perfectly embodied on the screen such brutal rubbish - a mixture of the leader of the gang "Iron Sleeves" (Zdarov, father) and a touching Soviet engineer.
But, of course, Gleb is a man. In any case, the friends of his civil wife are sure of this. We bend our fingers: the head of a small company, which means with money; he built a chic cottage, which means a household one; he cooks dinner and runs for wine, which means he also loves it. Sitting in a luxurious cottage girls and not happy for their girlfriend. But the legend of the man quickly evaporates, with the appearance on the site of an unidentified flying bag with garbage.
Throwing waste is done by a drunk neighbour-gopnik. The girls, heated with wine, poured over the fence and began to gawk. Most of all, Gleb’s wife was ruined, for which she received from the Gopnik. And in front of Gleb himself. I wish he hadn't. I mean, I wish Gleb didn't show up at all. But late. It is necessary to somehow resolve the situation now, the girls are waiting for the denouement, the wife with a burning cheek is eager for revenge, and the Gopnik himself in impatience scratches his fists. Time to figure it out! And certainly in a manly way.
Dear Teenage Nineties! This movie is about us and maybe for us. Every minute, throughout the film, I felt like it was about me. Even though I am a woman, I have experienced every second of what the main character has experienced. And if you had a fragile teenage psyche at a time when absolute evil reigned in our life, if you walked around looking around and experiencing animal fear when meeting those who personified this evil, if you held on to the key in your pocket to somehow protect yourself, if you humiliatedly asked for forgiveness only for what someone did not like, if you cried for powerlessness and lack of understanding what can be done here, then you absolutely need to watch the film and understand that you / we were absolutely right in your fear. And that's okay. It is impossible to cope with such evil, ' saving face' - literally and figuratively.
Is there a way to beat him? Think of Schwartz's play 'Kill the Dragon'. It is important to understand that the dragon is inside. Understand that in external life everything will go as before. And it's about you, how you live. That's manly. Whether you are a boy or a girl.
As far as gender issues are concerned, they are probably present here, but I was not touched by this line. Probably because I got into the narrative right away. I don’t rule out that this is just my feeling, and the guys were just filming about the problem of gender. It's also great. If this is a hot topic for you, I highly recommend it. You want a man? Learn to cook: )
But I still tend to think it was a song for teens in the nineties. A low bow to the writer.
I am so happy that people of my generation make such amazing films.
Since time immemorial, an interesting formulation has been cultivated in society ' a real man'. In the dreams of beautiful ladies immediately pops up a well-groomed man in an expensive suit, for hours, 90% with well-groomed bristles or smoothly shaved, with a short haircut. He is verbose, prefers to solve problems himself, is physically developed and has an incredible self-control even in the most emergency situations. In fractions of seconds, he makes competent and the most correct decisions, knows how to think through all moves in advance and get away with it. He has the necessary connections and loyal and reliable friends like him. He is skilled in hand-to-hand combat.
This image is actively promoted in cinema. The most exemplary examples are Dominic Toretto in the series 'Furious', James Bond and all the heroes of Jason Statham. In Russian - Sasha Bely (even with a detailed description of the psychotype in one of the series by an employee of the FSB), as well as a lot of the main characters of the series on NTV.
In the film released in 2022 by Maxim Kulagin & #39; Male' in the center of the plot lies the projection of this concept on the plane of ordinary everyday household. There is no catastrophe, no one kills anyone, no fighting. Everything is played around a standard and common situation - a conflict with a neighbor on quite harmless grounds. Such moments in our lives are often close and, frankly, practice shows that people have developed rules of behavior that minimize negative consequences for both parties.
The main character and ' guinea pig' for the filmmakers - 35-year-old Gleb. Smart, wealthy, tactful and modest young man. Standard layman, gray mouse. It combines two of the most favorite qualities of women - delicious cooking and earns well. He holds a leadership position, a respected person at work. Most likely, he was an excellent student in school, and the business inherited. Quite a pleasant person, does not cause irritation at first. Buys a country house, comes with his wife and her friends for a gathering, but then there is an incident that determines the further narrative of the film.
On the stage there is the next most important hero of the film - Arthur. At its first appearance, it gives the impression of an ordinary scumbag. Total disgust. Gopnik, drunken cattle. Throws garbage on the neighbor’s site, reacts aggressively to comments, as a result, he slaps his wife Gleb. Looking ahead, I will say it deservedly.
Gleb's wife is Pauline. The most caricatured, grotesque and mediocre hero of the film. Throughout the film, she remains who she is. A narcissistic, hysterical and provocateur. Mentally unstable, lazy, prone to unreasonable aggression. Typical content with an exorbitant HSV. With her husband she is comfortable, full and warm. His concern turned her into a man lying on the couch in front of the TV and lifting his legs while his wife vacuums. Does she love him? Not really. It is she who is the root cause of the husband’s mental breakdown and his further experiences that go into psychopathy. Does it fix at the end? Nope. Does he draw conclusions? Definitely not.
There are also a few minor faces in the film. Arthur's wife, allegedly a victim of a tyrant, but she makes it clear that Arthur is not an ordinary marginal, but a much deeper and more complex character. And Gleb's friend is a model family man, a hand-to-hand theorist, a narcissist and a know-it-all. Very funny hero - confident, uninhibited. Always ready to help. That’s probably who he is 'a real man'. But whatever.
From the heroes to the plot. Probably every man had a situation in life in which he saved. It doesn’t matter whether it’s fighting, helping or just making an urgent decision. After self-disappointment, images appear in the head ' what if...' leading to deep despair and depression. ' I'm a trembling creature...' This psychological state was shown in the film. For an hour and a half, we see the gradual madness of the main character, who did not succumb to provocation. No, not Arthur. Spouses. It was she who in all events was a real trigger, a real psychic attack on both Gleb and Arthur. What if it wasn't for her? We fought and broke up. Just like the title of the film ' male'. Arthur would have sobered up and nothing would have happened. In addition, the revealing moment was, in my opinion, not Gleb’s monologue to his wife (the usual cry of powerlessness), but their dialogue with Arthur after the incident. This revealed the real Arthur. Not a drunken body, but a guy with a difficult fate, perhaps a former orphanage or military man, who periodically has breakdowns. Polite with the saleswoman and able to admit his mistakes. A person who can stop in time and has a sense of justice. And at the same time does not recognize the pressure in his address, unlike the same Gleb. Throughout the film, he became much closer to me than finally mired in his fantasies, aggravated by the abuse of his wife, Gleb.
So what do we end up with? And in the end, we have a qualitatively filmed, but meaningless psychological drama. It looks interesting, but does not give answers to any of the questions posed. To hit or not to hit? How do you put your wife in her place, and is it worth being with her and trying to change her attitude? How to get along with a neighbor/husband who is an alcoholic, but who is sober-minded, wonderful person? And who the hell is it, 'a real man'really? Instead, we see the ordinary degradation of the little person in front of an equally small problem. A chased beast is dangerous? Does the cup of patience last forever? Something like this flashed in the end, but we saw a lot of films about how a weakling after long humiliations destroys all the offenders in the final. The idea is very good, but could not be implemented. A swing on a ruble is a penny blow. But for the cinematography and directing work and the acting
5 out of 10
The film began to impress from the first minutes - each frame is built with taste, with the rule ' Golden section', beautiful color correction, stylish interior, good acting, strong transmission of emotional intensity to the viewer.
The plot is a treasure for a psychologist! Many women and men of Russia can see themselves in every hero.
There are three types of families in the film:
A family where a woman behaves like a habalistic man and suppresses her husband (Paulina and Gleb), a family in which the husband is a tyrant and beats his wife (Arthur and Tanya), and a harmonious family where there is a balance of male and female (Kostya and Vera).
Polina from the first shot behaved like a man: began ' mark the territory ' and insisted on sex with Gleb, when the friends came to visit. The depreciation of his own husband, the discussion of him with friends, the desire to make him a superhero, an alpha male - led first to the fact that Gleb began to feel like a real hero only in the company of Tanya, which, just excessively praised the man, deified him. She was in the eyes of Gleb the personification of femininity, which you want to protect and protect.
Arthur in the film was in the role of the ativator of the soul pitfalls of all the heroes, thanks to him, the purulent wounds of the soul of Gleb and Polina were opened. The garbage bag symbolized the garbage that the family of Gleb and Polina tried to hide behind the beautiful facade of a stylish house.
The end was a little disappointing, as I expected a more environmentally friendly solution, so that families with similar problems could take an example - how to get out of this situation, how to stop a woman from ringing eggs and as a man to believe in his strength, even if he can not fight.
The end is tragic, and the questions hang in the air: ' and what is the other way out of this situation with the imbalance of Yin and Yang, who should take the first step, and how to change and not try to change a partner, what should be done to find harmony in the family?'
Perhaps you just need to look closely at the behavior in the family of Bones and Vera?
The film is not easy, after the second day I come to my senses. I recommend watching, but people with a healthy psyche and resistant to what will not see ' Happy End'
If I am a person, am I a good person?
If good, will I rejoice in the failures of the one who hurt me?
Will I offend you? Will I find excuses for my bad actions?
Is it possible for a person to defeat a deadly animal in the element of this animal without becoming an animal himself?
And will you be able to choose when ' to be an animal' and when ' to be a human' if you have already tried, what is it like to be an animal?
A lot of questions came to my mind after watching this movie. Questions are not simple, but you need an honest answer to yourself in order to try to understand something about yourself, and not to fantasize. I will immediately make a reservation, I will only talk about the plot component and the issues raised in it that I managed to consider. I think there are more of them.
I thought this film was very deep. No kidding, this is one of the deepest films of our cinema in recent times, for which a low bow to all the people who took part in it! I am sure that I will be returning to this film. It is remarkable primarily because it leaves a lot of room for interpretation, such films are terrible to discuss after watching together.
The film is a revelation, an attempt not to say, but to talk to the viewer about a very difficult topic - the topic of violence, its conscious and, more frighteningly, unconscious cultivation. How violence breeds violence, how it lives in each of us, and whether violence has any justification. And how easy it is to lose human form by choosing the wrong partner to live together.
I do not compare at all, but during the viewing persistently appeared in my head 'White ribbon' Haneke, it's like I'm watching a movie about the modern generation of those Protestant villagers.
A lot of questions that I want to voice here rather for myself, as a formulation, as the name of what we must not forget to fight:
Did Pauline understand the essence she was calling for and from whence she insisted that her husband be someone he wasn’t yet? Did she know what she really wanted? Did you understand the consequences?
Did she realize that 'male behavior' doesn't come at the right moments, but rather reflects a person's attitude toward people and life in general? - She probably felt it in the scene when she was wiping the blood out of Glebu's nose in the bathroom. That's when she realized something. But this is what was left behind the scenes, unlike the fact that she was very scared and ran away. I think at this point her former husband ceased to exist.
Gleb. A person who has achieved success, kind, responsive, civilized. What was he afraid of? The answer to this story does not give us, here we can only guess. But one thing is for sure: he did not understand who he chose to live together. But why did he choose a woman who behaved this way with him and in many ways did not share his approach to life?
To do this, I will have to make assumptions about how such alliances are made in people like Gleb: the strongest negative childhood experience associated with violence, after which the attitude was formed ' Such pain should not be inflicted on anyone under any circumstances and such pain should not be allowed to cause me again'
And, once again, assuming that this experience was presented by an authoritarian, demanding, non-host mother, it becomes more clear why Gleb chose a woman like Pauline in the first place. It seems important to reveal the image of Gleb.
Next, when the first encounter with a neighbor occurs, Pauline sets in motion the process of reviving evil. This is painful for both: he resists, but loves, she wants to win (it is obvious that she does not ask for protection at all, but creates situations in which you need to determine the winner and tries to win at any cost, along the way receiving proof of her husband’s love in the form of the heads of defeated enemies – quite poetic, but the essence reflects).
Well, then the whole process is interesting, as the closest person lowers Gleb down the hierarchical ladder to the very bottom of the depths of the world ocean, where the pressure on the heroes from all sides is so great that collapse (even in the waters of the world ocean) is simply inevitable, and what will happen as a result of it - I highly recommend you to look in the film itself and decide for everyone: how is it in general ' male'?
9 out of 10