If the film had been made two centuries ago, there would have been no doubt. Quality, conscientiously executed ' order' PR workers Alexander I.
The accents are clearly placed. Alexander I is a thin, voiceful and transparent young man, the victim of a despot father. A handsome, idealist, who does not want the throne and is forced to accept the throne only to prevent trouble. Naturally, Alexander had nothing to do with the murder of his father, boiling at the slightest hint of such a development. Even consent to the bloodless removal of his father, he gave only under pressure from Palen.
Paul is depicted so that the viewer understands that it was necessary to remove Paul. Hot-tempered, inconsistent, dispensing opals by the thousands (not an exaggeration - the numbers sound in the film), irrational, depressed, stubborn as a donkey. But Paul is not evil, just a weak man who could not cope with the unlimited power that fell on him. Not without idealism, albeit peculiar, sincerely striving to do better for the country, although not knowing how to do it. . .
Still, the reserves of black paint went to the regicide. A swarm of burnt-out morons, led by a clever intriguer Palen, a kind of Mephistopheles of the Russian spill. What also fits into the logic of the hypothetical PR of Alexander I - in a monarchical state, few crimes are worse than regicide.
Why the filmmakers chose such a strange (although no one will argue – consistent) interpretation of the events of the beginning of the last century is unclear. Even in Merezhkovsky’s original play, the interpretation of events was less unambiguous and one-sided.
The film was shot well, in the traditions of Soviet historical cinema. Slow storytelling, carefully recreated details of the era, the complete absence of deliberate 'beauties', beloved by the creators of the latest historical films, an excellent acting.
Before proceeding to the analysis of this mini-series, you should say a few words about the author. Interesting person. Why "interesting"? Let’s say so: friendship with Mussolini led and praises Hitler and composed quite sober people, but statements in the spirit of “the Purpose of Western civilization is a holy war with Bolshevism” and to ascribe similar “aspirations” to the very existence of such a phenomenon as a totalitarian dictatorship (of course, the right) could only make a person with a truly non-standard mindset. Meet Citizen Merezhkov.
Now that we have said a few words about the author of the script, let us move on to the object of analysis. Alas, the author did not read the original play, but he knows the history of that period.
Learning about this series is impossible. The point is not that some events were missed (and there are also such in the plot, that is, no), but in how those that were not missed were presented.
It is difficult to identify what I would like to start with, since everything is immediately evident. But, since the autocrat is discussed here and how he held the country in hedgehogs, it is perhaps worth speaking about the displayed “cruelty”. What did the real Pavel Petrovich Romanov say about this part? First of all, because: (a) forced the nobles to compulsory military service and in general seriously reduced their privileges; (b) introduced a stick punishment for officers; (c) really tightly controlled the life of his subjects. At the same time, he: (a) equated Catholicism with Orthodoxy; (b) seriously facilitated corvée, thereby allowing the serfs to work more, roughly speaking, on their own subsistence; (c) in contrast to the ostentatious trials of rampant serfs under the mother, who really persecuted the landowners seen in cruelty. It is not known whether the Emperor Paul really intended to abolish serfdom (according to various rumors, who only did not try to do it), but, as with the same slandered Peter III, the regime with respect to the enslaved peasants was significantly softer than under his son, even Alexander II the “Liberator” and, moreover, his mother. What do we see in the series? Mass repression. Not a billion, but at least a hundred thousand exiled by Paul. Literally. Particularly surprising is the presence in this list of persons of peasant and other “sneaky” (poor, that is) estates, while in reality the references concerned only the close circle of Catherine II, and even in this case many returned from exile, some even elevated in rank. The latter is also mentioned in the series, but only for some reason relative to only one person. Not a word about Suvorov, for example.
Next - Mikhailovsky dash Engineering Castle. Let us say briefly: Paul moved into it just when he was brought to the end. No scaffolding at the time of the ascent of the imperial family beyond the powerful walls of the new residence was not in sight, but by some miracle they are still present in the series. Apparently, in this parallel universe, the castle has never been completed, and in the twenty-first century, they are guided tours ... although what am I talking about? And Palin said, There will be the twenty-first century; there will not be, unknown. "Let's wait and see."
Personalities. It's full of stitches. Most of all, according to the author of these lines, suffered Paul himself, the future Alexander I and, to a lesser extent, Anna Lopukhina. In short: Lopukhina was made a non-lover Paul, although the real relationship between them was close-friendly or even, rather, at the level of "daughter-father" to the point that Paul helped Lopukhina to organize a wedding with her lover. In the series, Lopukhina brazenly looks into the eyes of Maria Fedorovna, leaving his chambers with the appearance that they just had a passionate life-giving sex. Alexander was made a weak-willed individual, expressing all internal contradictions aloud and therefore incapable of even the slightest consistency in decisions, and only the iron hand of his beloved Lieschen is able to guide him. Until the eighth season of “Game of Thrones” remained as much as seventeen years. As for Paul, this is the apotheosis of the departure from the character. This is an unbalanced, hysterical, short-sighted, manic gray-haired Orlok with a crazy look and a voice constantly galloping on high notes. A Hitler of the late eighteenth century, he could only speak German in a scene. The bonus is the understanding that Merezhkov, describing Paul in this way, tried to show him sympathetically, while the author of the original text did not hide his enthusiastic attitude to the Third Reich. Nuff said, as they say...
Finally, I would like to mention something that was not shown in the series. As mentioned above, there was no entire line with Lopukhina: the character was simply simplified and vulgarized. There was also no real acquaintance with Palen: in the series he came to the attention of Paul during the embarrassment at the drill review, although in reality he was just one of those who was exiled and returned to the highest rank. The gift that the reason for his exile was much as cinematic, who is interested, read at your leisure sometime. The connection between Paul I and the Order of Malta is mentioned in passing, without much detail. No word (and no frame) was given to "war of castles and palaces." Finally, nothing was said about the occupation and annexation of Georgia, as in Russian historical textbooks. This is where the line on cruelty and despotism could be drawn.
Does the series have any good sides? Absolutely. First, the atmosphere. Old Petersburg, eternal, and therefore never aging, is present in every frame, this atmosphere, familiar to everyone who was born in this city and visited at least one of the museums, in one of the theaters, pours from every image, every landscape. It turned out to be one hundred percent. Secondly, although it has already been said that many images have been distorted, there are more successful examples. Most fortunate of all was Palen, a charismatic personality with a raucous character, and Maria Fedorovna, Paul’s loving and caring wife. The author of these lines, I will not hide, involuntarily envied the emperor, looking at them in pairs.
So, it turned out emotionally, but it is absolutely unclear what the author was trying to say to all this. That Paul was a bad ruler? But we never saw the board. That Paul, on the contrary, was a good man deep inside? But this is not the main defining quality of the historical character. To make assumptions about it personally, the author of these lines sees a failure. Finally, I would like to add that it is a pity that such colossal funds with such enormous potential are being spent so poorly. Yes, it is very unfortunate.
Poor, good Paul and evil, treacherous Palen or Eastern Tale in Russian
Historical drama. The final picture from the trilogy “Empire Beginning” directed by Vitaly Melnikov. Unlike the first pictures, I first saw this as a child, but only in fragments. But clearly I remember the finale - the death of the emperor, which made an indelible impression on me. If we say about the picture in a few words, removing the nostalgic mask - unpressed, but still good. Now, ladies and gentlemen, let me tell you more about this.
So, pluses:
1. The personality of Paul is one of the few paintings that tell about this historical figure. Everything we know about Paul is based on historical anecdotes. And I'm not kidding! He was so smeared with dirt that when the truth of his violent death was revealed a hundred years later, the public was shocked. And now there are people who sincerely believe that he was a real madman and a bloody tyrant. But in his short reign he issued so many decrees that many subsequent kings could not repeat. He improved the lives of the peasants, put the nobles in their place (for which they thanked him). In this picture, he was shown as an ordinary person, with his weaknesses. Although he was overcome by fits of anger, he still tried to become a good ruler worthy of his ancestor, Peter the Great. This is what sets this picture apart from all that is dedicated to it.
2. Excellent scenery – which is not surprising, because everything was filmed for the anniversary of St. Petersburg and on its streets. All that remains is to add the appropriate costumes and half the success of the historical picture is ready. In this regard, everything was done at the highest level, given that everything was filmed at the beginning of the zero years, and you yourself know what was happening in our poor Fatherland then.
3. Brilliant actors - what only Viktor Sukhorukov and Oleg Yankovsky are worth in the role of Pavel and Palen, respectively. Their relationship is just interesting to watch. Oriental tales about a good, naive sultan and a cunning, evil vizier immediately come to mind. How many years, centuries, epochs have passed, but the characters have not changed at all.
Cons:
1. Inauthenticity - yet, despite attempts to show Paul as an ordinary person, historical anecdotes still could not escape. Some scenes show the madness of the emperor. Well, about the final scene, I’m generally silent – it is clear to me, but for ordinary viewers who are not familiar with the context, this is more likely to cause questions. I will tell you more veiled what I am talking about - the reason for the behavior of some people is unclear.
2. There is no sense of wholeness, it concerns the time of the reign. In reality, he ruled for five years, and in the picture, he seemed to rule for only a few days. It breaks everything. They did not show the emperor at work. That's why it's not.
A bit about the main characters:
1. Emperor Paul I, played by Viktor Sukhorukov, is a romantic and idealist, a knight of the Fatherland, after the death of his great mother, who took the throne of Russia, and wished her prosperity. Undeservedly lied to. Victor was a real revelation to me. He was so persuasive and his Paul was so believable that I now consider Victor the best actor to embody that man.
2. Count Palen performed by Oleg Yankovsky is a Courland nobleman who rose to heaven thanks to Paul, and at the same time, the main conspirator. A cunning fox, and a cunning snake in one face. And he dares to make excuses. Yankovsky is Yankovsky, there is nothing to argue here. One of his best roles.
3. Grand Duke Alexander performed by Alexei Barabash is the heir to the throne and the son of the emperor. Much like his father. Still, there is a claim - why Alexander so quickly made a fateful decision - so in reality do not do. Alexis was persuasive.
And yet they did not mention the English trace in the conspiracy, although it was, and the British do not hide it.
As a result, it turned out to be a very good historical drama, worthy of occupying a good place in the pantheon of domestic cinema.
7 out of 10
It’s a shame, but it’s a bad movie with very good actors who don’t save anything.
Here the whole composition is knocked down to the bloody mother and the narrative is crumpled.
The whole story is devoted to the fact that evil people poor pussy Paul was not allowed to rule normally, and in the end and completely killed.
And the worst thing that could be done here is not to give an answer - WHY?
What exactly did Paul not like in this film? Why are they laughing at him? Why do they want to kill? Because he's building a palace? Because you came and yelled at the heir once? Because the nose is a snout? By God, the last reason seems to be the only one.
Twenty minutes before the final, caressed, exalted, raised from the mud in Prince Palen, something unconvincingly babbling Alexander about the good of Russia (as usual) and the promised constitution. What was he doing 1 hour 20 minutes before? What were the reasons? Don't want a snub-nosed monarch?
There is no reasonable answer to this question. It feels like everyone from Palin to the Guards is crazy. The left leg of each was scratched, and they decided to overthrow one king and raise the other.
Well, if they had shown Paul the mad despot, the new Caligula, then there would have been no questions. Or they would bring some new idea under the Russian revolt, meaningless and merciless. Some dark, demonic force among the people rose up and committed evil. Or even the old thought: we demand bread and circuses, and on the way we change kings.
But there is no single clue to this conspiracy or murder.
I don't care what Merezhkovsky wrote. It's your movie, your script. Why didn’t you come up with a story?
Everything goes downhill.
And the talented game of Sukhorukov, and the deep performance of Yankovsky, meaningful, unlike the script.
Alexander’s final decision not to give the people a constitution looks like a comedic gag: did you want civil rights? I don't think so, ha ha ha ha!
It’s really disappointing because it’s done well, it’s done well.
There is no meaning in what is happening. And so a good historical movie. Unfortunately, it completely deprives heroes of motivation and, as a result, characters. There are some carnival masks of the comedy del arte a la Rouss: the victim (a good king with bad boyars), the fiends and prince Alexei Vonnaby - Alexander, who stood sideways all the way, like Duremar: and I have nothing to do with it, nothing to do with it at all.
And all because you can not sit on one back, even a very large one, on two chairs. Either you have heroes, or villains, or ordinary people who are both at the same time. It turned out no heroes, no villains, no other species of living creatures, but very well played cardboards.
In the end, the question arises whether the garden was worth it at all. Better a vile, fat, colored, lustful German woman in the “Tsar’s Hunt” than this poor puppet Paul and even more puppet Alexander, who themselves do not know what they want: constitutions or sevryugins with horseradish.
Concluding the trilogy, Melnikov significantly changed the emphasis, talking about the connection of personal and collective guilt in historical mistakes in a slightly different plane than before: both parties are guilty and at the same time right, the executioner is the victim, and the victim is the executioner. Thanks to this formulation of the question, the characters of “Poor, poor Paul” turned out to be more versatile than in the other films of the trilogy: the guilt of Tsarevich Alexei and Princess Tarakanova was disproportionately less than the terrible price they paid for it.
The story of Paul I in the interpretation of Melnikov (and the script is based on the play by D. Merezhkovsky “Paul I” and his novel “Alexander I”) is the story of a madman, whom Pushkin in the ode “Liberty” is not accidentally compared with Caligula: the inadequacy of reactions, love of power, emotional excitement, the ability to severely punish and equally generously pardon evoke parallels with Ivan the Terrible and clearly testify to the mental illness of both monarchs.
However, unlike Ivan the Terrible, Paul I was not bloodthirsty and did not deal with his opponents as severely as the first Russian tsar (whether he executed anyone at all, or limited himself to resignations and exiles?), nevertheless, it is humanly understandable that the best people of his entourage want to remove an inadequate person from power. Another thing, what a dense tangle of selfish interests is behind this seemingly good deed!
And here the stylistic shortcomings of the trilogy play into the hands of the film: the crowding of characters creates the effect of a terrarium, a kunstkamera in which monsters can not share power, even a reasonable, balanced Count Palen (in the interpretation of Merezhkovsky and Melnikov) becomes a prisoner of these plans. The great success of the director can be considered an invitation to the main roles of V. Sukhorukov and O. Yankovsky, actors who balance each other’s play with different temperament and manner of performance.
Affected, inflated Sukhorukov, without a doubt, plays his best role here, congenial to his own personality - always working in a narrow register of the role of a person with oddities, the performer could not always realize his talent to the full extent, playing Paul I, he is imbued with his views on life, justifying their strangeness with fragile humanity, defenselessness and inadaptation of a monarch who grew up in his own illusory world.
Yankovsky plays a man of calculating, reasonable, trapped in his own treachery: you can never say exactly what is on his mind, and how sincere he is, up to the end, the viewer wonders what motives he was guided by, betraying the emperor. The scene of the last conversation between Palen and Paul I is the best in the picture, in it the viewer is amazed not just by the coherence of the actor’s duet, but by the genuine drama of the current situation. When the emperor asks Palin in the words of Christ addressed to the first apostle, “Peter, do you love me?” (John 21:15), tragedy reaches an almost physically intolerable point for the viewer.
Following the interpretation of Merezhkovsky, Melnikov makes Alexander I, the heir to the throne, a man torn by cowardice, love of power and a complex range of contradictory feelings for his father. It is unlikely that we will ever know how consciously the future emperor was involved in the plot against his father, but for the director, the human dimension, not the historical dimension of this tragedy, is most important. In the course of the story, as ghosts, there are stories of Prince Alexei, the violent death of Peter III, the crimes of Catherine II, confirming the cyclical nature of evil, revealing the terrible meaning of Schiller’s words.
The evildoer destroys, first of all, his carrier, becoming retribution later, when he does not expect it. The punishment is already in the crime itself. By doing evil, you harm not only yourself, but also others, launching the flywheel of temptation. As St. Philaret of Moscow said, turning in prayer to God: “My sin, with the help of Your grace, I can stop, and cleanse by repentance; but temptation, if it is my fault and passed to others, I no longer have the power to stop or cleanse.” This is the result of the historical trilogy of Vitaly Melnikov.
I was prompted to write this review by watching another historical blockbuster of domestic production, shown on one of the central Russian channels. I won’t mention its name, but I’ll say a few words. I sometimes get the impression that such films in our country are made by people who have absolutely nothing to do with cinema, history, or Russia. It is funny to look at the screen, where the Empress Elizabeth’s summer palace on the Fontanka (which has not survived to this day) is announced with the credits, and show its computer reconstruction for some reason on the Moika embankment – this can be seen by the cast-iron fence. And such blunders and inaccuracies on the screen pond. To be honest, we got all these pseudo-historical series, where the heroes of the XIII century are steaming in modern Russian, just don’t talk on the hair dryer.
Against the background of this ugliness, Vitaly Melnikov’s film “Poor, Poor Pavel” looks very worthy. At least it can be called a historical drama. To be honest, many years ago he did not make a strong impression on me. Especially when you consider that this picture was timed to the 300th anniversary of St. Petersburg, and I rather hoped to see an extravaganza of historical pictures glorifying the glorious city on the Neva. Instead, the director offered a rather gloomy plot, a monotonous narrative, sometimes protracted dialogue and, perhaps, excessive mysticism. Now I understand that in fact St. Petersburg here is not just another plan, scenery, but a full-fledged hero of the film. And if you carefully look at the picture, you can see how carefully, lovingly treated Vitaly Melnikov with his native city. Any appearance in the frame – whether it is streets, rivers, canals, embankments, bridges or squares – makes the viewer see its formation. After all, as we know Petersburg now, it was not always. It was built for many years, many generations, different architects, before the appearance of the northern capital was finally formed. And, perhaps, as one of the iconic symbols of St. Petersburg, Mikhailovsky Castle appears in the frame, and unfinished during the life of its first owner.
If we talk about the film itself, it was shot based on the prose of Dmitry Merezhkovsky. The main character of the director chose the most controversial and mysterious figure in the whole of Russian history, who in Europe was called only “Russian Hamlet” – Emperor Paul I. The film begins with the death of Catherine the Great and the coming of Paul to power. The Empress frankly did not love her son and did not trust him, considering him absolutely not ready to govern the Russian Empire, so in the last years of her life she hatched plans to enthrone his beloved grandson Alexander, bypassing the legitimate heir. But these plans were not destined to come true.
In my opinion, the choice of actor Viktor Sukhorukov for the role of Pavel was very correct. For some reason, when I once again see his name in the credits, or meet him on the screen, I remember him from two cult roles - brother and Emperor Paul. Of course, it was in this film that Sukhorukov managed to move away from the popular image of the bandit and play a tragic hero. It was tragic, because the fate of the emperor was unenviable.
Another main role - Count Palen was played by the unforgettable Oleg Yankovsky. I am always happy and interested to watch him play. I understand that it is difficult to compare the incomparable, but in terms of the impact on the viewer, this role of Oleg Borisovich is comparable if only with the role of Metropolitan Philip from the film Pavel Lungin “The Tsar”.
Interesting character of Maria Fedorovna performed by Oksana Mysina. The wife of the emperor is a foreigner by birth, speaks with a clear accent, passes a bright, memorable character in the film, but keeps herself with everyone restrained, dignified.
Separately, I want to highlight the work of the production artist, who, unlike some current "actors" from the cinema, did everything conscientiously, conveying not only the era, the soldier's temper of the emperor, but also interesting finds in the design of interiors, nature. The abundance of forests of perpetual construction, stairs, bread in the rooms from dampness, the knock of axes create an atmosphere of something temporary, unsettled, like the reign of Paul I.
Some blame the film for not being epic. But, in my opinion, epochalism was not necessary here. Paul the First ruled for only four years. His fate was probably predetermined long before his accession to the Russian throne, and the emperor always felt it. He understood that he had little time left, so he was in such a hurry - he wrote decrees, trying to implement the reforms he had planned, which did not please, first of all, the inner circle of the emperor. Almost all the nobles who once served Catherine believed that Paul occupied the throne illegally and did not want to put up with it. I will not assess the events that took place then, since I am not a historian, but the conspiracy did not arise from scratch. The so-called ruling elite, together with the heir Alexander, betrayed their emperor and organized a coup d’etat, where Paul the First was destined to play the role of a victim.
Having broken the door, the regicides broke into the room where the emperor was. This scene in the film is the culmination of the whole action. One against the drunken wataga of the conspirators, Paul stands unarmed, staring at his executioners in the twilight. "How will you kill them?" he asked.
9 out of 10
In the history of each country there is a set of key moments that determine for many centuries the paradigm of tragedies, successes and significant events. The victory in a very difficult and controversial battle with Napoleon echoes the military success of Alexander Nevsky. Pugachev’s rebellion and the Streltskoye rebellion intersected very interestingly with the two revolutions. One of the most tragic events was the death of Emperor Paul. In fact, nothing unusual happened - in fact, he just repeated the fate of his father. There have been murders of monarchs before. However, the death of Paul was the most significant and odious event. An active and functioning monarch was killed. Perhaps this is why Paul’s death is echoed in historical associations by the bloody and merciless execution of the royal family in the twentieth century.
Vitaly Melnikov's film captures two important historical moments - the ascension of Paul to the throne and then skipping many years focuses our attention on the conspiracy. The same conspiracy that would entail such a terrible death of the Leader of the State. Melnikov does not seek to make estimates. He just tells the story, almost retelling the contents of the school textbook. His two main trump cards are the performers of the main roles. Yankovsky is perfectly flawless in the role of Palen, but Viktor Sukhorukov reaches, perhaps, the pinnacle of his career, playing the role of Emperor. Looking at familiar facial features and listening to Victor's somewhat muted baritone, all his former characters are forgotten. Even both of Balabanov’s “Brother” works were probably played by some other actor from another universe. And here, at Melnikov, the reflection of His Majesty appears before us. Who would have thought?
However, some superficiality in the coverage of events plays a cruel joke with the creators of the tape. It turns out that the acting work was much more voluminous than the story told. Therefore, even with Sukhorukov’s magnificent performance, his Pavel is too limited by the script. Proclaimed a dangerous madman, in the face of mortal danger turns out to be a man of rare courage and a truly chivalrous spirit. Here it remains only to ask the creators of the tape why they did not add flowers to the cinematic portrait of the Emperor.
So, with my most positive attitude towards acting and the theme itself, cinema can hardly relate to significant events in the world of cinema.