It's not the Queen of Spades, it's a cool pike The Queen of Spades is an example of a very modern film production. Not in the best sense of the word.
First of all, the length of the film is confusing. Ralph Fiennes, for example, managed to fit Eugene Onegin in an hour and a half (and did it very well, in my opinion). Bertman and Spirin barely fit “The Queen of Spades” in three hours, although this is not the most epochal work of Pushkin.
And the duration is not always bad. As you know, happy hours are not observed. It is bad that to become happy while watching "Lady of Spades" is not an easy task.
The film is incredibly stretched. But not from excess source material. From unnecessary, far-fetched, absurd scenes that were absent from the original work, like the part of the 87-year-old Countess in the bath.
If in the original work the Countess is shocked by the phenomenon of Hermann and does not utter a word, then in Spirin and Bertman the old woman sings in the bathroom, remembering lovers, repeating the same names over and over again (apparently, the idea with ghost memories seems to the authors very bright and original).
Unnecessary replays (and fictional characters like the comedian prince singing songs to himself in the mirror) increase timekeeping tremendously. The cyclical nature of some scenes suggests that the directors either laugh at the viewer, or fulfill contractual obligations for timing, or, much worse, hate Pushkin, opera and audience + are completely devoid of a sense of proportion and can not stop in time, repeating just played mise-en-scene again.
Repeats are very tiresome, sound exhausting refrain and painfully burden the already leisurely action.
The second big downside is that the scenes don’t match the characters. Directors don’t know how people feel. They do not know how to work with actors so that they believably play and transmit their feelings from the screen to the viewer.
In the world of living people, a young, ardent, hungry, rushing person will never be able to explain himself in love, standing as a pole near a beautiful girl, the object of his adoration. There was no explanation, again. Pushkin described the meeting of Elizabeth and Hermann after the death of the old woman, a brief confession about the “mystery of the three cards” and the disappointment of Elizabeth because of the true passion of her gentleman – money.
Bertman and Spirin see the date in their own way. Adding to the laconic dating scene unnecessary episodes, meetings, night rendezvous. As a result, the simple, clean, clear plot of the original grows into a confusing, unnecessarily complicated “version”, which, like repetitions, tires with its meaninglessness.
Finally, the final piece.
The final - in the book, in the movie, and in the production - the main part. The finale of "Lady of Spades," the climax to which the viewer was led three agonizing, exhausting hours, turns out to be a sour cartridge. The gun doesn't shoot, the popper doesn't clap, there's just no final. If you do not read the work and distract yourself for a few seconds, then it is unlikely that you will ever understand what happened at the playing table at Herrmann’s.
The key, most dramatic scene with the bet and wagering of the third card is simply not felt. The scene is lost, the most acute moment of the entire narrative is reduced to an episode that, literally, can be blinked.
In Pushkin, the countess, appearing to Hermann, opens three cards to him, setting the condition: "Marry my pupil." The reader knows that the old woman abused the girl and sees here remorse, and not the "saving of honor" and the consequence of night dates.
In addition, the Countess sets Hermann a condition: not to bet more than one card per evening. Pushkin prepares the denouement gradually, creating a three-act tension, without breaking the entire construction of the story with three, one after another, drawn cards (so do Bertman and Spirin, simply destroying the finale and disrupting the denouement).
Why stretch the secondary episodes and ruthlessly destroy the finale? What did the audience lead three long, tedious hours?
The denouement of the “Lady of Spades” from Spirin and Bertman is like a fantique without candy. A blanket.
Although there are no complaints about the fantasy.
The picture is good, the technical part is good. There is no soul, dramaturgy and understanding of the work, but in relation to purely craft tasks, the film does not cause complaints. Some scenes are even beautiful. The sound is good, too. Attention to various soundtracks creates a pleasant atmosphere: the singing of actors sounds in the living space of voices, whispers, rustling fabrics, the crackling of candles and card decks - the atmosphere in the film is.
There are some successful scenes, for example, the struggle of two motives, two parties: the desperate, evil party of Hermann and the enthusiastic, inspired party of the prince in love.
But such moments are few, and painful repetitions a lot. Lots of negligent doubles.
Scenes with a modern city are permissible, after all, people’s passions do not change, but replacing Pushkin’s Petersburg with metropolitan views is unforgivable freedom. Pushkin is the northern capital.
Given the absolutely disastrous finale, to break the jackpot of the audience’s sympathies at the “Lady of Spades”, alas, is unlikely to succeed. As well as interested in the creation of the classic.
