I liked the film, I think it correctly reflected the time when power passed from the hands of inept people to the hands of people who were criminal and even more inept. Ordinary people made their choice or did not make it, but otherwise they were all on the sidelines and fell under the distribution. Honest people did not lose each other.
When the events of the autumn of 1993 took place, the author of these lines went to the first grade of high school, Sergei Shargunov was not much more – only 13 years old, but years later, when he became a prominent prose writer of his generation, he managed to capture that time as if he had witnessed this first serious collective psychotrauma of the post-Soviet years. As for Alexander Veledinsky, who was then almost the same age as the heroes of Shargunov’s novel, it is not surprising that he wanted to film it, especially since he had already shown his talent in screen adaptations of literary works (among which not only “Geographer Globes Prop” by Alexei Ivanov, but also “Savenko’s Teenager” by Eduard Limonov and “Abode” by Zakhar Prilepin).
The professionalism of Veledinsky is already visible at least in the way "1993" is mounted, how tightly stamped events, both personal and all-Russian significance, as stunningly read by the director of the metaphor of Shargunov's novel (which is one finale in which the heroes, reconciled, together build their new home from coffin boards). Personally, for me, some complaints are caused by musical and dance numbers - either visions, or dreams of the main character (I do not know if they were in the book - with the text a sign capped, all of it has not yet read). The red thread of both the novel and the film is quite obvious - the creators undertake to show how the events of October 1993 plow not only the country, but also an individual family, dividing husband and wife on opposite sides of the barricades (literally).
Despite the fact that the sympathies of Shargunov and Veledinsky on the side of the hero Tsyganov (who finally came out here beyond his dull and gloomy type and created a solid and dynamic image, showing it in a complex development), they do not ignore the opposite side, fully revealing the psychological depth of those who occupied it. The country of October 1993 is depicted by Veledinsky and Shargunov as deeply traumatized by the shock therapy of market reforms and a situation of ideological and moral decay. Almost Germanic for sure, however, without meticulous mania of the director of Lapshin and Khrustalev Veledinsky reconstructs the bygone era extremely authentically and completely immerses the viewer in it.
Now it is possible to look for the causes of modern ideological clashes in the distant 1993, however, the director is concerned with the tasks, primarily of an artistic nature (creation of full-blooded characters, non-fake types, the image of confusion and vacillation of people vainly looking for themselves in a new reality). Veledinsky’s film is not much about the social and political marginalization of the former Soviet intelligentsia, two years earlier defending the White House during the August coup, and now on the side of the Supreme Council. It cannot be said that the hero of Tsyganov harbors any special illusions about, for example, Rutsky (it is significant that Veledinsky uses in the film a fragment of an interview with him, where he states that “a politician should not change his beliefs every hour”, although he was a supporter of Yeltsin two years before), however, he is burdened by the memory of the cultural reality in which he lived, was in demand and was engaged in his own business.
Now he cannot find a common language not only with his wife, but also with his teenage daughter, with cynical nihilism denying all the values of the adult world (in particular, the rhyme symbol is very effective: Bryantsev’s wife cheats on him with an unusual “new Russian”, almost intellectual, expert Ayn Rand, and her daughter is quite fond of a prosaic young bandit). The true love and ideological closeness that Bryantsev found on the barricades (let us not forget that for Shargunov, as for his literary teacher Eduard Limonov, the revolution is also romantic), will be short-lived and tragically lost. Carefully recreating a complex crowd of events on October 3, 1993 (the culmination of the drama). Veledinsky builds his picture on the principles of a musical work not only purely technically (to perform the script score begin individual characters-instruments, and subsequently the whole orchestra of the film crew enters into action).
In fact, the music itself plays in "1993" almost the main role, Veledinsky creates a kind of acoustic dichotomy: clips for the songs of "Aquarium", groups "Zero" and "Hummingbird", which the characters watch on television, embody new liberal values (so Fedor Chistyakov at the beginning of his song, which no accident also became the soudtrack of the film trailer Veledinsky, sings: "I return once in the evening, smoked hashish, / Life becomes beautiful and insanely good" - than the anthe anthemn of the democratic slogan of 1990s), listens to the old man's in the social reality of his daughter.
It is curious that the most radical in meaning and performance are the songs of the group "Mongol Shuudan" (in particular "Anarchist Battalion"), sounding right on the barricades. In order to show that the opposing sides are still parts of one whole, Veledinsky forces the characters on both sides of the barricades to perform Tsoi’s Cuckoo. Despite all the thoroughness of the reconstruction of the era, Veledinsky made at least one noticeable anachronism: one of the young rebel students dressed in a T-shirt with the symbols of the NBP – a party that Limonov organized only a year after the October events of the 93rd.
Because of the eternal spectator perfectionist demands, I would like to say that Veledinsky’s film is not ideal, but as an aesthetic study of the most serious cultural trauma in the post-Soviet history of Russia, then forced into the social unconscious and never received proper artistic study in Russian art, as the first attempt of this kind, it, like Sergei Shargunov’s novel, lays the foundation for a complex reflection of the causes and consequences of the political crisis of 1993 and the role he played in the further development of our country.
It's a sleazy movie about time. I confess, when I saw the trailer, I felt inspired, so I decided to get acquainted with the original source, after reading which all the enthusiasm disappeared and expectations from the film were minimal and just the minimum expectations this film justified.
First, I want to describe the main differences between the film and the book. The main difference and the main plus of the film is the reduction of all the graphomania that was present in the original sources. Many storylines have been cut or shortened. Some storylines have combined to save the message and thus remove the extra characters. As a result, the main emphasis finally shifts from thoughtless allegories and indistinct secondary storylines to the main character. Together with the excellent acting of Yevgeny Tsyganov, the main character played with new colors. And thanks to the compression of the remaining storylines, the progression of the main character, changes in his position and attitude to the events taking place around, both in the family and in the country as a whole, is finally clearly visible.
Also, thanks to the compression and some changes in the storylines, two more characters of the book were revealed from the new side, namely the wife of the main character and his neighbor Jans. The last plus is the addition of a storyline with the opening of a business and a reworked ending of the book, thanks to it, the message of the work is read much easier and visible to the naked eye, plus all this is supported by surreal visions of Victor.
Despite significant improvements in the story itself, in the film compared to the book, the main disadvantage of the original source was pumped into the film adaptation. A brief description of the events of 1993. Although the film tried to draw the line of this split (both in society and in the family) by introducing a storyline with the business of the wife of the main character. However, if you do not know the context, if you are not familiar with the events of '93, then everything that happens will remain dark. Neither the causes of the conflict nor their further resolution will be explained to us. The ending of the film looks a little foreign and rather hints at modernity, our time, but not in 1993.
To sum up, 1993 is rather an author’s story, an author’s interpretation of the events of those years and what followed them. The film is also a reimagining, but it is already a book, despite the fact that it was written not so long ago in 2016. The film can hardly be called spectacular, large-scale scenes are not large-scale, but rather stingy. The events of those years, as I wrote above, are described superficially. The only requirement for watching this movie is your minimum expectations. Otherwise, it is better to watch a documentary about the time.
'1993' - a household sura, imposing a century-old seal on any desire of a Russian to understand history and politics
Alexander Veledinsky is very good at images of strangers. In "Geograph Globes Prop" he drew a cut of a whole generation of intellectuals lost in the wilds of the Russian province. In general, the same theme is key here, in the film, nominally released for the 30th anniversary of the events of October 1993, and in fact, of course, about us today. Tired of politics, exhausted by quasi-fighting, offended and insulted, people disappointed.
The transition from Homo Sovieticus to Homo Deceptus is not an easy process, and the course of Russian history, moving from a new hope to a much denser state of Russian longing, does not contradict this. But even here, 1993 is not a cornerstone date. Even if you see it as the triumph of real democracy or the first violation of the “good” constitution, you still stumble about 1991 and 2000. Even the default of 1998, the chances of remaining in the people’s memory seem to be higher.
But for Veledinsky and Shargunov, whose Talmud became the basis of the script, the material of 1993 seems more interesting. Whether for the sake of PR of its originality, then because of a deep desire to understand the motives of Russian apathy, so often turning into an incomprehensible thirst for rebellion, and then again fading back into its usual state. Or maybe just because of the popular nostalgia for the 90s of those who have never lived there. 1993 is really a perfect fit.
The main characters of 1993 are a husband and wife, divided ideologically, but still merged into a single life. He, played by Tsyganov, shoots a homemade pistol at a poster with Yeltsin, seeks popular justice and is not particularly versed in the red-brown varieties of the opposition. She (Ekaterina Vilkova) is, of course, far from “murdering them all to hell,” but Michael Jackson’s concerts, open borders and belief in non-communism are somehow closer to her.
Separated almost the whole film by lovers, work, simple misunderstanding, truly one he and she become only at the end. Disappointed by politics, who saw the gunpowder of a civil war in the war of opinion, they find comfort in each other, mentally saying to themselves and to another: “Oh, they are all far away.”
In this dichotomy, Veledinsky manages to escape direct political utterance. Even if the director has his own opinion on shooting at the White House or storming Ostankin, any interpretation of him in the film is nothing more than your illusion. That is the strength and weakness of the film. 1993 remains "out of politics" even though the whole film is surrounded by it.
What is more important is that ‘1993’ is becoming increasingly unified. Around VDNKh and around Barricadnaya, people listen to the same Tsoi, make the same posters, and want the same thing in general. To make it all right. This is the essence of Russian longing and at the same time the exit from the endless circles of its inferno. Here is the formula of the Russian soul, which anyway does not exist without the phenomenon of hope, about which Tarkovsky shot and wrote Tolstoy.
Where is the space for creativity? Inside. That’s why Russia has survived the red 70th anniversary, which is why we have been so strong in internal emigration exercises ever since. So it remains a simple Moscow plumber (and he is also, as often happens, a doctor of science) to dance like Leonardo and Raphael, loudly mouthing “we are not pathetic bugs, super-ninja, turtles.” Well, or Michael Jackson on the moon, here each his own.
After all, 1993 is no masterpiece, and as a movie, this work of Veledinsky rather did not work out than vice versa. Any analysis where the conclusion duplicates the goal has a certain doom. That, however, the trait is very Russian, so native and cozy for our historical process. And for good political intentions, better soil and not invent.
Sucks? It sucks. So we take someone's hand and ask, 'Fast, maybe...' Another Russian emigration, no matter where, in the kitchen, in Yerevan or just for a couple of hours on the other side of the screen.
The authors open to the viewer not the most pleasant pages of our history. They clearly show how ruthless the time of change is for ordinary people. And how in such a difficult time to save face and remain human.
The plot of the film is extremely simple and airy - a husband and wife try to adapt to the conditions of life in the new system. But if the husband (Eugene Tsyganov) for this purpose decides to knead shit in the dungeons of the Moscow sewers, then his wife (Ekaterina Vilkova) without shame jumps through the beds of rich peasants. As they say, everyone survives as much as possible, the main thing is that then they all come together at home behind the TV and talk about everything as if nothing had happened.
Every scene makes sense. It was better before, and it will only get worse. Or it will not be - the main thing, as they say, that everything stands and there is money, and otherwise we will break through.
The film is diluted with inventive musical numbers. The artists sing well.
Historical events are surprisingly exciting. It is as if he had been there himself.
But all of the above doesn't matter! After all, the main diamond of this film is Alexander Roebak and the role he plays.
Alexander Roebak creates an image of a complex, multifaceted person who seems to have everything in this life, but the trouble is that in the pursuit of material values, he seems to have lost something inside himself. He stopped being himself. Forgot who he really is.
Alexander Roebak in this film masterfully conveys all the tones and semitones in the character of a dashing entrepreneur from the nineties.
Oh, and with what savor he drinks Russian vodka - it is necessary to see!
In general, the film is recommended for viewing.
To make a movie about the 1990s without black and porn - as the long-term practice of Russian cinema shows, the mission is almost impossible, it is not even worth trying. But Alexander Veledinsky, known to the domestic viewer before for such projects as “Geographer Globe Propyl”, “Live” and “Brigade”, the plots of which are inscribed just in the 90s, apparently holds a different opinion, having made another attempt last year to prove the opposite. And, I must say, he almost succeeded, which frankly was a pleasant surprise, given that it was done for relatively little money.
The title of the film "1993" speaks for itself, pointing to the well-known political events in our country in the summer-autumn of 1993 (dispersal of the Congress of People's Deputies and the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation; October Putsch); The shooting of the White House, the Yeltsin coup, etc. – who likes the wording more? The basis here was the novel of the same name by Sergei Shargunov, whose position on many issues to a wide audience and without any books is known, since he often walked on TV (remember at least his program “Twelve” on Russia 24). He, together with Veledinsky, wrote the script, which, in principle, went only to the benefit of the film, because who knows better than the author what to leave and what to cut in a new – shortened – form of reproduction of literary history? As performers of the main roles were invited such famous artists as Evgeny Tsyganov, Ekaterina Vilkova, Alexander Robak and Maxim Lagashkin, who, immediately note, generally coped with the tasks, creating a good acting ensemble (for Tsyganov - and quite one of the best roles in his career), and without the composer decided to do, filling the musical range with multi-genre compositions from the stated period.
Now for the main thing. Let us admit that there has been no normal weighted assessment of the October Putsch in Russian art cinema. The topic hung in the air for obvious reasons - the people were divided into two roughly equal camps, and too little time passed to take sides. Some critics reasonably noted that this did not happen now (a good analysis of the film is on the channel “Taganai”, known for the most part for its military themes), because the socio-political events in “1993” are given a minimum amount of time in almost two and a half general timekeeping; a clear line of the authors in their statement on this topic is not traced (although it is clear to the naked eye that Shargunov, and with him, Veledinsky, as a director, are on the side of the besieged adherents of communist ideology, socialist construction, in fact, the Russian Federation, and not enough to convince everyone in this case, and in the end). At the same time, it is necessary to understand that the tape calls the viewer to discuss the problem, consciously not giving specific answers about who is right, who is guilty, and, in principle, should be characterized in a completely different way - as a drama of a small person who is not able to influence global processes, against the background of the fateful events of history in our country at the end of the last century, if you will - as a modernized version of Alexey Tolstoy's "Walking Through Torment", a civil war in miniature, when even in a single small family close people are on opposite sides of the barricades in a direct and portable sense. "I'm not sure yet." And in general, who would even today, with the existing and revered Yeltsin Center, allowed to take a categorical position, blaming the first president and his liberal associates for everything, because it is clear that if you unwind this tangle further, you can agree to a lot (even though the vector of the state in recent years has sharply turned towards the glorious Soviet past). Therefore, abstracting from the claims made, Veledinsky’s work looks quite advantageous: it is interesting to observe what is happening on the screen, despite the long duration, the script is not stupid, the atmosphere and spirit of the era are conveyed wonderfully.
If we consider “1993” as a personal drama, the hero of Yevgeny Tsyganov is somewhat similar to the hero of Nikita Efremov from “Healthy Man”, with the difference that if the trigger of reflections and life throws of the latter was the crisis of middle age, then Victor “Science” from the picture under review turned out to be in a much worse situation – turning first from the light hand of “democracy” and capitalism from a scientist to a plumber, after the events near the White House and Ostankino, he simply plunged into apathy, in which many millions of his fellow citizens are still today. How can you not remember the final chord from the cartoon of my childhood – “We are not pathetic bugs, super-ninja turtles ...” And although Veledinsky’s work did not receive the Golden Eagle for the best film (only for the best script and the best supporting female role for Alexandra the Child), and objectively cannot be called ideal because of a number of controversial moments and shortcomings, I will remember, I am sure, this movie will be for a long time, like 1993.
1993 - don't lie! Why is everything so bad and false?
Oh, how surprised I was to choose the Best Film of 2023 not only by some venerable critics (Valery Kichin, Leonid Pavlyuchik), but also by the Guild of Film Critics and Film Critics. The best of the best was named “1993” by Alexander Veledinsky.
The film is based on the novel of the same name by Sergei Shargunov, released in 2016. The definition of “motive” should not deceive: “1993” and there is “a family saga against a burning house” (as the writer defines the genre, but the director agrees).
Everything was done in the film to show the anti-people power that was then in force. Let’s remember the sadistic policemen beating the hero – electrician Viktor Bryantsev from the emergency service – under the portrait of Yeltsin (where the police themselves admit that they are fascists), or the same policemen chasing very young nationalists – Natasha and Alexei. (It is obvious that their prototypes are real Natalia Petukhova (19 years old) and Alexei Shumsky were not taken by chance.) It is important for the director to show that they, almost children, were killed by the “bloody Yeltsin regime”. Petukhova was killed on the night of October 3 to 4, 1993 in the 111st police station of Moscow, where she was taken as a wounded woman from the Ostankino TV center. On the face and body abrasions and bruises, teeth are broken. And the policeman, drunk to insensibility, is in the dungeon, from which they remove the uniform, and in it they go to prostitutes to try to arrange a so-called “subbotnik” with them? And, of course, not without the cookies of the state Department. Who feeds Yeltsin supporters who gathered at Gaidar’s call at the Moscow Council for free? It's not clear! They were in a small but rapidly growing queue for the burgers and sprites delivered by a close McDonald’s. It is good that the director did not take a note of Shargunov’s anti-Semitism: “The people in the Gulag built, and you rotted them.” People are not for you! Drinking blood from the people! “Do you have a velvet?” cried the old lady next to Victor and flexibly bent down, apparently looking for something to throw. It's from the Yeltsinist-red-brown dialogue. (Note who is next to you, on which side of Bryants.) Only xenophobia remained (“Khasbulatov placed his Chechens in the hotel “Russia”). This is a crooked and one-sided picture of the world.
Okay, with objectivity about the events of the fall of '93, everything is clear, but does bias prevent the talent to make a good film?
I am the only person who has seen not only the movie but also read the book. Let us leave aside the question of whether the novel is bad or good. But, like any conscientious prose writer, as the author of texts tailored according to the proven patterns of masters, Shargunov creates his own “system”, his artistic world – figurative and eventful. There is almost everything in its place and almost nothing contradicts each other. The director begins to turn out the logic and meanings of Shargunov, invent a noticeably different life, and... It is a sturdy house, even if it is clubbed, but it builds something leaky and flimsy from the coffins. And more than that, he begins to move from realistic writing (both the book and the film are 80% ordinary family life with household chores and hard work on the heating pipes and in the sewers) to surreal writing of visions and dreams, developing a separate “space” line: the lunar rover, the Moon, Michael Jackson, Tsiolkovsky. You are always amazed how Veledinsky breaks the structure of Shargunov’s novel and brings things into it that not only lead away from 1993, but some wild and accidental.
What did Shargunov actually write? The novel of passion and jealousy, where the fire is inside everyone, and in them – father, mother and daughter – the family, the ring of three, and outside – around that charred, black house, symbolizing the fire of the whole country.
The Bryantsev family of Shargunov is amazing. There, love sweeps from the first page, and spills out – well, it is impossible to keep it in the tight confines of one family, one couple. Almost immediately, when Bryantsev arranges a grandiose scandal, not finding blood on the sheets after the first intimacy with his future wife, it becomes clear that the female theme for male characters and, accordingly, the male for women will be the ninth rampart to roll on the plot narrative. There, human nature and nature in general will be more important than any other cataclysm. There, the goat Asya will be celebrated not only with a goat Socrates, but also with a love to transfer his goat life not to the barn, but in the house, and even certainly in a chair with mandatory TV watching. There, copulation will take place either on the meadows with white mushrooms, which will be crushed by the butts of loving ones, or on the banks of rivers.
Therefore, the novel is bad or good - it does not matter, but it is clear to a glass of clarity why, for example, the characters end up in the village (and then suffer from it for 15 years) - because Bryantsev demanded to move away, suspecting his wife in a "relationship" with a neighbor on the landing. For the same reason, Victor and Lena find themselves together in the same job in the emergency service - because of mutual jealousy and distrust. Again, in Shargunov’s logic, “village suffering” and an attempt to overcome them are understandable and understandable: the young are built into a new environment – that’s why the goat and the garden, and it is quite logical that in the novel there were no barricades in August 91, Bryantsev did not and could not be – he grew carrots for the goat! (“... the appearance of the State Emergency Committee they took indifferently.” They went into the garden in the morning. The Soviet Union was dissolved in winter, but the Bryantsevs did not feel it. The answer is, “Don’t talk to Lena.” She'll live with her in the house like she doesn't know her. If he is lucky, he will move to Olesa, he reflects moments before Bryantsev’s deadly stroke.
What about Veledinsky? He keeps his family, so Bryantsev does not die (but Olesya, on the contrary, kills (in the novel only wounded). Scenario mess, which arranges in his “collective farm” Veledinsky is amazing. Not only in serious things, but also in small things. Imagine, the key move to the countryside, in many ways turning their lives... is not explained. ("Why did we move? - Why didn't you stop me? You're a man! Well, through his knee, the director breaks the gardener Bryantsev and sends him to the White House in August 91 to defend Yeltsin. It is clear why - for the sharpness of the plot: at first, they say, he was an idiot, and got smart and went to the company of Makashov-Barkashov-Terekhov, who went to smash the city hall and Ostankino. Dramaturgically, I get it. Well, come up with a new legend for the hero (and not just hang a poster leaflet with Yeltsin in his workshop of the August 91 model, which Bryantsev at the end will tear off the wall and try to shoot from his sampal). And the funeral business of Lena... That's where Veledinsky fell from the moon. The cemetery mafia is the most terrible – both Soviet and post-Soviet. They will say: this is fiction, the fruits of artistic imagination. No, gentlemen, Bunin has already explained everything: “You can write about an apple tree with golden apples, but not about pears on the willow.”
What does an intellectual dream of? He wants to talk heart to heart at the bread table.
What is a story with a capital “I”? This is continuous smoking, drunken talk and drunken fights. Actor Tsyganov plays a Soviet intellectual, who after the collapse of the USSR began to repair the utility networks of Moscow. What does an intellectual dream of? He wants to talk heart-to-heart at a good, salty table. This film shows the fragments of the Soviet intellectual elite, which until 1993 lived in a drunken frenzy. In the movie, people are constantly smoking, as if asking the smoke: “Tomorrow, what does it have for me?” Director Veledinsky understands the meaning of drunken showdowns and conversations, since he so clearly showed: “The main character is not an alcoholic, but a thinking intellectual.” In October 1993, a story was created, where the main characters feel this, and they can not find words for their feelings. The hell happened in 1993, but the intelligentsia drank, and the young boys became bandits. Victor and Lena are the husband and wife of Satan. Back then, everyone lived in poverty. People like Lena (played by Vilkova) tried to start a business. People like Victor (played by Roma) tried to drown out their loneliness in capitalist Russia with alcohol.
The year 1993 is the year of Yeltsin, but for some reason today it is haughty like a dog. The main characters cannot explain in words what happens to their thoughts in their heads. Therefore, some go to beat Ostankino, others defend the President. The desire for big money is manifested through the hero Jans. His words stuck in my heart: “All my life I was afraid.” I was afraid of communists, now I am afraid of bandits.” Power is the fear of the weak against the strong. I thought the film was kind of ostentatious. Namely, he came out on the 30th anniversary of the events of 1993, and the fact that there is no clear position of director Veledinsky: “What happened then?” The film is bland, like all modern Russian intellectuals.
I liked the movie and didn’t like it at the same time. The Soviet intelligentsia sought the meaning of life in alcohol and cigarettes. He did not like his callousness: “The entrepreneur is the pledge of the middle well-to-do class.” This is a film about politics and a simple family that constantly watches television.
The center of Moscow and the shooting of the White House is the history of Russia. The 144-minute timeline shows one thing: “The director couldn’t fit the drama of October 1993 into a short story.”
Shergunov is a writer and a good man. And his novel "1993" is about to fall. But Veledinsky’s film turned out even better. Because the optics in the film are inverse to the novel: Shergunov’s hero is seen through the putsch, and Veledinsky’s putsch through the hero. And from this it is clearer why this deliberately doomed adventure (driven by individuals frightened of their own swing) became possible at all: the new government, having shifted the arrows of economic development, forgot about the “railway workers”, those who serve the highway itself (wherever it leads). That is why the “workers” who were dullly removed from contentment suddenly found themselves together with the “education” of science and culture, which was deprived of the very meaning of their existence.
Such is G. G. Tsyganov (finally he was allowed to lean out of the already mocked role of an elegantly tired Russian gentleman, with the face of a junior researcher of the Soviet Research Institute) - a low flight of thought, but an engineer to the bone, desperately trying to find meaning in turning the state from the "Lunokhod" to the counter. Such is his wife, instantly and sincerely - since the previous putsch - transformed herself from a "faithful traveler" into a "female survivalist." And so is their daughter, whose puberty coincided with the change of the anthem, coat of arms and flag, to which the survivors themselves cannot explain whether this changes the values they instilled in her for the previous 16 years.
In fact, with his film, Veledinsky tried to explain how by October 93 in his rejection of the policy of Yeltsin-Gaidar-Chernomyrdin, those who under the Soviet government were guided by guaranteed but caloric poverty, and those who lack of freedom prevented the realization of ideals could come together.
They and others were destroyed by fire.
Russia's squalid 1993 didn't deserve such a wretched movie about itself
Exactly 30 years ago, what came to be known as the White House Storm happened. If you are not a historian, then it is probably quite difficult for you to understand what exactly happened then, why and most importantly for what.
In honor of the round date, the feature film 1993 was released on Russian screens. Its director and screenwriter was Alexander Veledinsky ("Geographer of the globe propyl"). And the main roles were performed by Evgeny Tsyganov, Ekaterina Vilkova and Alexander Robak.
The story centers on a man who works in an emergency sewer service. At the same time, a few years ago he was a significant scientist and was engaged in the development of the rover. He has a wife who also works in the emergency service, and a teenage daughter.
Despite the fact that the title of this film promises viewers to immerse themselves in the internal political conflict of Russia building its statehood, 1993 will be much more focused on everyday family history. A man is a kind of philosophizing intellectual, disillusioned with politics and just trying to adjust to new realities. His wife craves more, wants to do business and even has an affair with a big businessman. And their daughter entered into a love relationship with a young guy who takes his first steps in the world of crime. And the main character has a rich friend, a neighbor - he lives a beautiful life, but is afraid that at any moment he may die.
If you plan to watch 1993, hoping to understand the sad events of that year, you can bypass this film. No one was going to understand the contradictory nature of historical events here. But there is a pretty clear message for the viewer: public revolt is pointless and stupid. Such uprisings do not change anything, do not affect anything, but for specific fools participating in them, it is quite real that they can turn into death.
This ideological component is not surprising and understandable. But why all the other aspects of 1993 are so squalid is a much more intriguing question.
The fact is that among the first frames of the tape are created with the help of special effects views of Moscow. And it is so cheap and disgustingly done that it is simply impossible not to notice. Moreover, in one of the frames there is a photoshopped photo - also taken on the knee by a person who does not know how to do it, but he was very asked and he tried as hard as he could. (In general, these are not important things at all. But it is indescribably shameful to do so in 2023.
The characters in general are so flat and superficial that it becomes just a shame to watch it. There is a strong feeling that 1993 was created on the basis of very, very vague ideas about the 90s and what life people lived at that time. It's as if you were told to write a script about the Crusades, and you would quickly come up with a story based on your superficial knowledge of a couple of articles online and a couple of YouTube videos. Since you would be afraid of frankly messing with historical events, you would focus on the characters’ images, their love story, stories of jealousy, deception and something like that. Since you are not familiar with the era, and you are lazy to immerse yourself in historical textbooks and study someone’s biography, your heroes would turn out to be ridiculously stereotyped and empty. Someone would be good and suffer for being so good. Someone would be bad, influential, but in the end will be worthless and defeated. Well, someone in the middle would rush and eventually join a good sufferer. . .
1993 is not even a foreign, but an alien attempt to understand the Russians and their dashing 90s. A scientist does not look, speak or act like a scientist. A businessman is the same. Emergency workers are similar. And the policemen are. Everyone is philosophizing, thinking... None of their words sounds like a lively dialogue, none of their emotions seem sincere, none of their actions have much meaning.
Alexander Veledinsky in 1993 was 34 years old. That is, he lived in this era and should have very vivid memories of the 90s. Wikipedia says that in 1993, the man studied at the Higher Courses of Scriptwriters and Directors and was an assistant to a deputy from the Communist Party. And if the communist past of the director in 1993 was reflected, then his existence is absolutely not. Perhaps he went down to the subway and saw former scientists looking for any job other than 'intimate and Herbalife'. But it feels as if his life path has never crossed with the poor of the 90s, nor with the businessmen of the 90s, nor with the bandits of the 90s. But he remembered well that in 1993, Michael Jackson came to Russia, that there were “glasnost booths”, that then everyone was very enthusiastic watching TV with Yeltsin and trying to figure out who was better: “white” or “red”.
I really want Russian cinema to turn its attention to the events of the recent past and disconnect itself from the glorious Soviet achievements. But if the alternative is squalid movies like 1993, it's better not to.
Let me ask you, why do you smell so bad?
The scent of the jacket is disturbing.
- Well, it smells... It's known: by profession. Yesterday, cats were strangled, strangled ...
M. A. Bulgakov \'Dog heart\'
More tragicomedy than just drama. The element of the comic is present. Although the specifics are such that it is not to laugh often.
Soul cinema turned out at Alexander Veledinsky. It is neither fresh nor sour; it is just right. It is spicy and salty, but with moderation. Sad with the fun here overflows, rolls. You can't say - solid minor, black, complete, \' throw a grenade, extinguish the light\' And so this author distorts the fate of people. All in the spirit of that time - the historical year 1993. When the power swung, when the country was ready to fall into the abyss of the beginning of the last century in a second peak, when there was enough intelligence to straighten out, rise, shake off and go on. The vertical state in front of us. Human vertical. All and all. From the president to the hard worker. The top is in personnel documentation. In the prose of life, in the manure... Oh, I'm sorry for the opprobrium. Sad? Funny? As is. Tragicomedy. In Russia, so often. Tragicomedy.
A bright head, a learned husband, a polymath Victor (Eugene Tsyganov) adapts to the new realities of time. Decline in the country, \' closure \' science forced \' in labor \' to succumb - in the depths of the cloaca - in the sewer daily to plunge. Emergency service. Just like that? Not really. Look wider. The whole country is an accident. And he, therefore, repairs, twists, twists, etc. There is trouble, there is trouble. Don't get bored. It was all over the years...
And his wife Lina (Ekaterina Vilkova) is also ... \'avralikha\'. Emergency dispatcher. Nearby. The same boat started to float. She wants that... - \'something like that\' But what she doesn't know. I wanted to move from a Moscow apartment to a forest suburban wilderness one day and here they settled in a log log log log log cabin as a family forever. A fifteen-year-old daughter is with them, a goat giving milk. Why did she move, she doesn't understand? Blame minute overshadowed \' bad \' head. And now she wants the breadth of business - business with wealth. However, what exactly is the case, in what field, in what \' topic \' - she herself can not say. As a result, \' winds \' it from \'barina \' oilman to the grave cases of the ace in mockery of the author. Fun!
Immediately in front of the viewer and the new generation of the turn - teenagers. The young man is a straight road to criminality \' washed \'. Medvedkovsky. Boys in puberty arrive - condoms, gender relations - the primacy of the issue for some, the timing of critical days - a burning topic for others. And as the onset of these 39 days - the unexpected death of a parent. Here the obvious fun of the fathers of the writers is guessed - that's right, they say, when \' broke \' girls ... Comedy? Tragicomedy?
It makes no sense to retell further story collisions. The picture is full of fun. They're worth seeing. And the subtext of catching on. And Tsiolkovsky is interesting. And about \' Fascists\' in uniform - wow... And the team of Brigada is inexpressibly good in its diversity ... How not to celebrate Janis? It's a miracle!
\'1993\' is about life \' before and after\' What happened and what happened. Everyone tried himself in \' pleasure\' and came to a natural result for himself. Right? Or was I wrong?
The picture was not optimistic - maybe building a little happiness and cash as an idea in the film, but the final credits do not leave any illusions - sounds sobering muffled composition Dead season (the best of the album is Healthy and eternal, giving you to understand what won, and what it will do). The ice cream scene, in my opinion, was added not to show a better life, but to denounce the feast during the plague, the general hypocrisy and surrender to the disaster. If you notice, people in line for ice cream one by one say 'Can I have chocolate?', 'Give me chocolate!', 'And here's chocolate!' That is, all changed shoes, taking one 'chocolate' side.
It is noticeable that the whole film is permeated with the thought of a choice between reconciliation with a changed reality or its change – Bryantsev, talking about the adaptation of his family to new conditions; Rutskoy in a TV program with Karaulov, who argues that a politician should not adjust his beliefs to a changing reality, but should change the reality in which people live. IMHO is a film issue that has not been fully resolved. Building a summer toilet out of the coffins of fallen dreams is a nail in the coffin of the present dead era. But the dead will be resurrected and old conflicts will be exposed.
Present in the film and the theme of the superfluous man – Tsiolkovsky-tax driver, nuclear physicists in transitions, engineer-handyman. These motifs are familiar to us by 'Geography'. Speaking of Tsiolkovsky, the dreamy optimism of Russian cosmism is also present in the picture, because for a reason, for two and a half hours of timekeeping, the lunar sonata sounds twice and talk about the resurrection of the dead (Fedorov, Tsiolkovsky) and the development of new planets begins. This is associated in the film in a single construction with the prayer of the creed, also promising the resurrection of the dead. In my opinion, a beautiful tribute to the memory of those who died for the beautiful future of cosmic optimism that has never come to this day. Being a materialist, I consider this a beautiful move, reflecting the striking synergy / eclecticism that is still present in the soul of many compatriots (belief in Blavatsky, faith in God, is adjacent to scientific thinking) and in this case this move is very appropriate (crossed from the left shoulder).
The disadvantage of the film is the poorly written character of her daughter – she listens to Diaghilev and Letov, herself being apolitical. Yes, for sure, such people could be present among fans, but in this case, the music of Siberian punk here turns into a cardboard decoration of the era, although this sound must be dietetic.
Another unpleasant moment was the motivation of the main character and his new teacher friend to join the protests in Ostankino – a real intellectual. They're there because ' it's a story. With capital letter I'. Not because of the sunset, the dawn died' not to defend at least some power of the people, but because you want to touch history.
In general, I would appreciate the film as a story about disappointment in the opportunity to influence the unfair course of history, about disappointment in cosmic optimism and about overcoming the ressentiments caused by this dissatisfaction with the help of a construct of philistine happiness multiplied by the asceticism of the Russian household.
9/10 movie. Those who expected a revolutionary agitation – look ' Miraclework' Nevzorov and understand that to make a film pamphlet on state money, exposing the very foundation of this very state, is almost impossible.
Mikhail Lifshitz spoke of such a thing as the irony of history – the indirect path to progress, the path through revolutionary tragedy. Let us hope that we are witnessing the historical irony of dialectical victory through defeat.
An incredibly important film about modern history!
Did they shoot a decent picture not about the exploits of the USSR, but about the historical period, which plays a main, not a background role?
Due to the good work of the operator and artist, the atmosphere of the era looks qualitative.
It is a pity that the source feels too much. Thick metaphors (especially the final scene), characteristic and appropriate look in the text of the book, here look too pretentious.
The understatement and abandonment of some of the storylines closed in the novel spoils the overall picture.
However, this is a great chance to look at the banal truth - each side of the confrontation consists of the most ordinary people, almost indistinguishable from each other.
During these 30 years, the vast majority did not even think of the LND defenders camp as possible friends, relatives, etc. This is clearly shown here.
There are no clear political statements, as they do not exist in the everyday life of an ordinary person, only GG’s own worldview.
It is good that the final was not specifically made to squeeze a tear from the viewer. The tragedies of destinies can be understood through the acting work and dialogue of the characters, without obvious deaths to sad music. And the idea of the need to participate in History is perfectly conveyed through the background.
The film makes you think, rethink events, and what could be more important for an educated person?
The truth at first prevents this constant jokes and hamstrings in conversations with everyone. So the authors show the supposedly real characters of people, forgetting that these methods are already pretty tired.
The film has almost imperceptible promo and, in general, the feeling of appearing on screens below the radar, despite the support of FC and the participation of the channel & #39; Russia 1'. The trailer promises that the viewer will see some absurdist grotesque, but apparently this is the idea. And something similar, like ' funny tintz' about the 1990s '1993' trying to pretend somewhere the first third of the timekeeping. But in fact, the film turns into one hundred percent and quite heavy drama with an admixture of art house. I will add that I am completely unfamiliar with the original source, the novel by Sergei Shargunov, and in general I learned about the book exclusively from the trailer of the movie.
So, the former scientist Victor (excellently selected for this role Yevgeny Tsyganov), in the USSR responsible for something electric, which is a little more fully revealed in the process, in 1993 he works as a plumber, with a combination of interest and fatigue watching historical processes and trying to determine his place and the place of his family in this intricate developing historicity. The viewer from the first minutes is delivered a set of chronotopic signs, quite carefully given, the flowering of glasnost and 'ninety' here and the young bandit Egor already in ' Medvedkovskih', racing on a scooter ' Carpathians' - later he will move to Ford Taunus, whose brothers really flooded Russia at the earliest stage of the conquest of the country with foreign cars, here and impoverished scientists combining the study of the loss of stability with the sale of calendars in electricity, and much more. Among others, for example: the wife of the hero (Ekaterina Vilkova) is fiercely looking for her place in the new Russia and wants 'business', but does not really understand which one. The old money is still in use, ' while accepting'. On TV, absolute pluralism and sings BG, and in general the flowering of Russian music, perfectly expressed in the soundtrack.
From the first shots, it catches the eye that all the characters, including the main one, communicate with phrases-jokes, which sometimes causes a feeling of slight annoyance throughout the first third of the film. There are also good ones like ' oscilloscope smell' but still. Due to the constant flow of jokes and the demonstration of the irony of almost all the characters, in the end, the first third of the film did not particularly suggest that I would leave the theater, to put it mildly, positively tuned to what I saw.
In the process of unfolding the plot, the question ' for red or for white' is raised several times and in general, for whom someone is asked repeatedly. Everyone, literally everyone, is looking for their way and wondering what’s next and where the planning horizon is. For young people and more advanced - this is a concert by Michael Jackson, for older and more down-to-earth people - this is ' until the fall I would reach' In the same first, overclocking part of the film, '1993' sometimes not very related episodes crumble in places - here I will try without spoilers, but one of the scenes at the beginning could be completely removed from the film without any damage to the plot or the disclosure of characters, and this is 10 minutes of timekeeping.
Everything gradually changes with the development of the plot, which by the middle of the film becomes very dense and linear. Comic disappears from the events, the violence literally increases in scope, by the end turning the film into a completely infernal journey through October 1993 Moscow to the very events of October 3 with the height of that very immanent violence.
The film certainly exceeded my expectations. The topic revealed by the plot is interesting to me and, perhaps, the comedy first third should work for those who are not aware of what, in fact, the film they were lured to with a cheerful trailer. But something seems to me, there will be only a few in the cinema, and I am not sure that this comedy will help keep them in the hall until the final credits. Some unambiguousness of the tone of the film and the mood of the characters, in fact, is excellent, leveled by the very end of the film and this is the very feeling with which I eventually left the theater.
Infernal trip through ' historical events' leads the hero to his own vacuumization, as the only opportunity for him to save himself. To the question of whether the hero found the answer for himself, for whom he, in the end, each viewer can answer independently, asking this question personally.
The film by Alexander Veledinsky, based on the famous novel by Sergei Shargunov, is good because of the fact that of the two main versions of the events of the autumn of 1993, it takes one as a basis - the one that for three decades was expressed by the side that lost in the armed confrontation, but won in the struggle for souls and minds. The truth of this side, which came on the evening of October 3 to Ostankino to demand justice, is now expressed in cinema, which remains the most important of the arts.
The main character Viktor Bryantsev in the brilliant performance of Yevgeny Tsyganov, who once worked for space and even left his fingerprint on the Soviet lunar rover, and now, in the 93rd, eliminating accidents of Moscow’s communal systems, comes to Ostankino, as the heroes of Victor Hugo’s novel “Les Miserables” came to St. Denis Street. For truth and justice. Despite the lies and aggression of ordinary people pouring from TV screens, including her own wife Viktor Lena (Ekaterina Vilkova), who wants to fit into the market reality, which Viktor himself does not want to fit into.
It is Ostankino that becomes the battlefield of good and evil, and here the hero does not argue, as before, that good has already died, but fights one evil with another. Everything here is sharpened, everything is clear, without shades. Evil entrenched on the other side of the ASK-3, armed to the teeth "knitaz", opened fire to kill. When a young woman, an elementary school teacher, dies in Victor’s arms, whom they have just met and who has come here to get in touch with the unfolding story before their eyes, no doubts about the spirit of “everyone is right (wrong) in his own way” no longer bother him. Only pain, bitterness and anger remain, which Victor takes out later in the train on random hooligans.
Ostankino is the main setting of Veledinsky’s film, everything else is just the background. But the background itself is shown reliably and vividly. There are TV programs, where Karaulov* interviews Rutsky, and Alexander Lyubimov from Vzlyad, and the notorious Michael Jackson, who comes to Moscow on tour, and sectarians, and demonstrators protesting against Yeltsin’s policy, and glasnost booths, in which you can say everything you want on the air. And all these cases are family and adolescent problems (wine, cigarettes, first love, first sex, first disappointment and all that), and the confrontation between fathers and children. Here is the perfectly reproduced life and atmosphere of that time: from the yellow tape recorder "Romantic" standing on the table to the advertising of the fan factory, which older people remember well. But all paths invariably lead there – to the White House and Ostankino, without which the film would not be a film with a concise and much-talking title “1993”. And in the course of events there is a change in the tone of the film from ironic to tragic.
Like Shargunov, Veledinsky, acting as a documentary filmmaker, saturates the picture with real people of that time and characteristic types: television and real Makashov, a “rebel” deputy on the barricades, Cossacks, nationalists, communists, anarchists – who else! The famous phrases of the defenders of the House of Soviets, which went down in history, are also given absolutely verbatim, illustrated by the footage of the chronicles of events. For example, Makashov’s: “There are no more mayors, no peers, no...” he said after the capture of the Moscow City Hall, or Rutsky’s call to “form detachments and ... storm the City Hall and Ostankino.” The so-called assault of the TV center with glass gates broken by the army ZIL, and the subsequent shooting of demonstrators, are also shown in detail. And many, many other things that an inquisitive viewer, if he wanted to know, has already learned - read, watched, or perhaps he himself was a witness or participant in those events.
The tragedy of the civil war is felt especially acutely when one sees activists from both sides, the Soviet and Yeltsin, who came to the call of their leaders. It seems that these are the same young people with the same hairstyles, kissing in public and listening to the same songs of Viktor Tsoi, who seemingly have nothing to share, but who became enemies during the war unleashed on the streets of Moscow.
The author of the novel “1993” Sergey Shargunov called it “Family portrait against the background of a burning house”. Although the actual burning house takes up little space in both the book and the film, the most dramatic events unfold in the evening of the third of October, when the House of Soviets was still white, not black with soot. The most, as they say, “heat”, takes a third of the film. But it is this third, being the culmination, that makes the greatest impression. The characteristic sound and bright brilliance of deadly tracers, the battered bodies of demonstrators falling to the ground, the Molotov cocktail launched by one of the rebels into the building of the television center, from which its corner lights up, the murdered foreign reporter with a camera lying next to him, the Yeltsin Batters shooting people literally at point-blank range and traveling around Ostankino Square in search of new victims - plunge the viewer into the heartbreaking reality of those days, forcing the participants to relive and empathize again. All this is shown with almost documentary accuracy.
Victor Bryantsev comes to Ostankino, a truth-seeker and fighter for justice, who recently preferred to drink the old-fashioned way for women. Here, but on the other hand, on the part of those who came to defend “democracy” at Gaidar’s call, is his wife Lena, with whom relations without politics have long ceased to be trusting. They didn't meet. But Ostankino seemed to plow the soil on which their marriage grew. And in the end, there is hope that many survivors and many aware, they will begin to build a completely different life. Maybe not as prosperous as I wanted, but my own – honest, measured and free from imposed stereotypes.
The painting, dedicated to the memory of all those who died in the autumn of 1993, will become a remarkable monument to them, erected on the days of the 30th anniversary of the October confrontation.
___
Andrey Karaulov included by the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation in the list of foreign agents