You know, there is such a toy - a ball, and inside something funny - a snowman, a boat, a hut ... Turn over this magical object, shake it properly, and it will snow or the gold pollen will rain. And to the light of life is everything, brighter, even more fabulous than it was. The world created by the magical director's wand Taisia Igumentseva, is just as hermetic and just as inverted, shaken to the state of a fairy tale. Discharged from society, from urban civilization, from the world of dead iron, people are immersed in openly utopian, sometimes idyllic even (despite the apocalypse and the flood), conditions, locked as if in a decorative jar. And in the jar of that, lovingly decorated with all sorts of vintage stuff, life is quiet, temperless (even the triangles of love are rounded and do not hurt). It has no railways, telephones, cars, computers, the Internet and other fuss. All of it is sweet, innocent, sleepy from the outside, quiet from the inside (remember at least the final lullaby), intellectual and philistine, Oblomov. Many reviews reproach "Give the Ends" that he is naive stupidity, that the idea is all on the surface. Living spirit or decorative reigns in the film, sham or authenticity, simplicity or elementary? Most likely, everything is there, if there is no deception. And the truth in the case of the focus, and the soul forget-me-not in the porridge of the axe, and artificial, “thing” in a spontaneously living, pouring solid waterfall ...
On the one hand, what could be better, what is more desirable for art now, than the human ark of conciliarity? Who's doing that now? On the other hand, a decorative belt of aesthetics is thrown over the ark of this, like a ribbon-bandage for a surprise gift. So beautifully tied that starting to untie, you think: rather than stop, suddenly inside is not so beautiful and playful. Stylistically, this movie can be characterized as the famous futuristic cow walking on the violin: a rough eccentricity, a game, a zaum, which, hiding tenderness, even more emphasize it. Sweet as a woman’s whim, stylistically tactical absurdity, in which one should not look for real drive, madness and freedom. However, deviations in childishness, naive, simple simplicity do not leave a feeling of sluggishness and coquetry. The world of decor, the world of things does not conquer the world of people, and in the end there is a good feeling that you are watching a dream with your eyes open, as if the deaf walls of the city have spread, all the walls between people have collapsed, and a world under heaven and a real star country appeared. And the giggling buffoonery was replaced by mystery. This impression is not immediately visited. There are a lot of scenes where the “buff” does not get to this very mystery, but still... During the finale, a line from Mayakovsky’s Mystery-Buff swirled in his head: “Revolution, holy laundress, with soap all the dirt of the earth’s face washed away.” In the film Igumentseva is not a revolution, of course, but broken bogs of heaven. But the mystery of inner liberation is undeniable. The answer to the question is whether there is a paradise on earth: man is the builder and guardian of his promised land.
And the movie "Give Ends" about how we are all alike and close; in extreme situations, and in general, perhaps indistinguishable. The worse it gets, the closer it gets. In other words, it is about the similarity of people, about those lines of communication between all of us that most of the filmmakers, writers, stagers today or even cut, or torn and bleeding.
Each of us in his own way is afraid to live, does not live, does not give himself and others much. Either he hides, or saves, or he is afraid to splash, not to convey to some great “later”. Or does banal fear take to add brightness, sharpness, intensity, contrast, warmth, kindness, creativity... but what else do we owe life! Ninety percent extermination of humanity, pushing the film action is a fabulously magnifying glass. So magnifying that everyone sees himself and others as if on an X-ray. And when there are no barriers and partitions between souls, when they are washed by the flood to a state of childlike transparency, it turns out that all people in their souls have in common the desire to love, the desire to raise, the desire to create and be happy ... and certainly together with everyone. Here and now.
This is a story about the foundations (or foundations) of the unity (or brotherhood) of people (cows, dogs). That’s why the film is rare in modern times idyllic tonality, harmonic sound. Synodality, according to the teachings of our Slavophiles, is an integral combination of freedom and unity of many people on the basis of their common love for the same absolute values. This understanding of conciliarity is akin to the ancient Russian concept of “lad”. He is a common love, when everyone loves the same thing, strives for the same. The film clearly wants to unravel the "common code" of Russian life and Russian culture. But solving this has nothing to do with a socially significant or politically pointed statement. It is most likely reduced to admiration, to an attempt to at least a little touch the roots, to find them. Or just talk about your family with love.
The aestheticization of the cathedral principle, the abundantly decorated paradise of Taisia Igumentseva, of course, loses in energy, in confidence, in passion to films in which the spirit of division reigns, their name is Legion and Lars von Trier. But this is a winning loss, because Giving the Ends is a rare film that does not want to know and understand individualistic solitude, separation and isolation. Cinema, without any evidence convinced and convincing in the original community of people, in the inviolability of communication lines.
And I realized, he's a student. And dangerous. If at first Taisiya took us in rebellion, then here she tries to seduce with aesthetics, and the content was both lame and (only plus the nasty feeling that they are trying to bribe you with sweets, dragging you into a murky business). But to use the absurd and burlesque, you need experience and skill, and not only a sense of absurdity and burlesqueness of what is happening.
There is literally no frame in which you do not see how the director learns. I may not be a connoisseur of film theory, but in this tape everything is literally imbued with a tried-and-tested academicism. Talking weather; costumes of heroes - like the lyceums of the beginning of the scene; the way the cow goes, the lamp staggers on the wires. But I want to watch movies, not how anyone learns.
Decorativeness is supercharged. She's screaming. All these beauties should frame the pearl, but the stone was stolen. Poverty is not even meaningful, but expressive. Dialogue and action slip by somewhere, leaving them deceived. The movements are hypertrophied, the colors are perfectly adjusted. Everybody dances. It's tinkering. Nothing's happening.
The development of heroes is absent, their conflicts and elections are not seen as significant. As a result, the picture does not affect the feelings (except, perhaps, perceptual and aesthetic-intellectual), and this is inexcusable for an art product. Paper soaked in the rain, aquarium glass screen, fake vacuum. A complete story has failed.
Igumentseva strongly resembles a child who has not yet learned to speak (although the first cry impressed the shooting fathers of the movie:), so we learn about his needs through the crooked mirror of the hysterical symptom (demonstrativeness, monstrousness, demonstration ...). If you are generous, you can believe in a child and expect that the practice will be better. But the director is not our child, and we have no obligation to give him a second chance.
She tried to make things and events speak for herself, but she has nothing to say yet. Impression of personal immaturity, presented as a farce.
I have a good attitude to Russian arthouse, even despite its traditional “black”, but this film is an exception to all the rules, firstly, it is a fairy tale without any “black”, and secondly, I did not like the picture.
Very few residents of a certain village suddenly find out that the end of the world is coming, after a little lamentation, they decide to celebrate this business, so to speak, say goodbye to life, it is there that masks break off at the table, feelings are exposed ... or maybe this is just general hysteria. . ?
I did not see any drama and did not find anything to laugh at, all this mental “striptease” more like some small drunken brew, there is no tear at all, everything is so trivial that you wonder why all these machinations with the end of the world, when it comes to drunkenness, adultery and lover of “cutting the truth”, any morality is more transparent than tears, even become boring.
I will not recommend the film for viewing, since until the end, most likely, it will be watched only by ardent lovers of art house and perhaps even some will like it.
Who invented you, star country?
The words of this popular lullaby are very ambiguous, against the desire of the director, sound in the context of the film “Give the Ends”. New Russian directors have learned to imitate life. Now they set about imitating art and ... someone else's style. They chose Eastern European cinema as their role models. Taisiya Igumentseva with the diligence of an excellent student learns the topic - "a subject in the space of the films of Emir Kusturica" or "How I spent the end of the world and the global flood, in the company of a bust of Lenin, sitting in the toilet and did not drown, because "shit does not sink." Vasily Shukshin, through the mouth of one of his heroes Yegor Prokudin, determined the parody of people bred into the main characters of the film Igumentseva - with a very capacious word, "Wonders" in the letter "M". World cataclysms or “complete Kirdyk”, directors of world cinema arrange on the screen with enviable regularity, but rarely with such meaninglessness. Having chosen the genre of the parable, the director forgot about one thing that the parable is not only a “long story in an allegorical form” (with the lengths of the film everything is in order – there are), but also a story containing moral instruction (wisdom). Little wisdom will exchange wives to understand that his own knows how to cook scrambled eggs, and the neighbor's wife - not. The characters of Igumentseva and her screenwriter Alexandra Golovina live outside of society, outside of time (it is impossible to determine where and when the action takes place). There is only one explanation: the village is a generalized image of Russia, where, if anything, a moonshine apparatus is invented, where they nostalgize for the past, and Russia itself is an anachronism. Solzhenitsyn's formula - To live not by lies, put into the mouth of grandmother Zina, does not find a response, but simply "does not work." “Give the ends” is similar to the poster of the film by Emir Kusturica, painted by a village film mechanic, part-time artist (such posters are hung in the film in the house of a local film lover Nina). Whether it was worth pouring tons of water on the heads of the heroes to find out about them “the whole truth” – shit does not sink.
1 out of 10
If von Trier was shooting Melancholia in the style of Love and Pigeons
"- What about the movie?
Well, it's kind of Russian arthouse, but it's very kind.
- Oh, then this is the author's sur, so you can try.
Before the New Year a little more than a month, football fans are in mourning, and the next equator of the week brought us the usual trails to “Other cinema” in “Pravda-cinema”. This Wednesday, we were offered to evaluate the film “Give the Ends” by Russian director-debutant Taisia Igumentseva. In 2012, at the Cannes Film Festival, the aspiring director received the prize of the Cinefondation program for the short film “The Road to ...”, this year at the same film festival “Give the Ends” was completely criticized, but then at Kinotavr he was nominated for the best film, because viewing was expected with special eagerness to understand who was fair.
In order to avoid long departures from the main topic, I will say right away - the cute title of the picture is a play on words and nothing more, perhaps not the most successful, but "so saw the author." Narrative in a semi-fairytale genre about a certain village N, which can only be reached by ferry. There are few residents in the village - 2 families (one with children, the other without), singles - grandfather with a cow, and grandmother with a dog, and two charismatic recluses - a physicist-inventor and a widowed minister of muses, bringing creativity to the masses. Simple everyday situations and feelings of the characters are played out as if mirroring the average family. But suddenly, like an oracle, the “blue screen” announces the end of the world, which is coming little by little, and tomorrow at midnight. Further events begin to resemble von Trier’s Melancholy, Vladimir Menshov’s Love and Pigeons and any feature film comedy of positions and “unexpected” clichés at the same time, if all this is actively mixed and the resulting mixture is brought to light.
The performer of one of the main roles Maxim Vitorgan explains that “the tape “Give the ends” should be treated as a naive art – a rare for domestic cinema author’s style, which does not tolerate too strict approach and high-brow criticism.” However, the proposed caricature of the apocalyptic theme wears the mask of peaceful satire, not thoughtless fun (as it may seem), it is this that attracts and distracts from the shortcomings.
I don’t want to talk about the actors and their play for a long time – it was good, but in such a tape important, oddly enough, the rhythm of events and their active development – the rest is a matter of perception of the viewer. In the end, the ending of the plot leads us to the morality of the fable that, although we are all dogs looking at falling water and every day may be the last, but eternal values and family return a sense of integrity and meaning.
The final song - "Who invented you, star country", the childish smile I did not go for another 2 hours after watching. Indication for use: look to lift the mood, if you really need to distract and unload the brain, if the window is November, and before the New Year even more than a month.
The young director – Igumentsova, having won the prize of the Cannes festival last year, received a monetary reward to her magnificent recognition. The cash prize went to create the first full-length film. A promising director (and we can talk about this based on the same prize at the Cannes Film Festival for short work) is always an exciting event. And, if you remember the short film, for which the prize is given, then a promising director in the square comes out.
The story told in the film is well into the mainstream - the coming apocalypse. Then there are small details: about the apocalypse learn residents, well, a very sparsely populated village. Everything was fine, and after the announcement on television about the coming global catastrophe, everything does not change very much. Yes, the villagers are trying to find the truth, themselves, a soul mate or just happiness that you want to enjoy in the last minutes, but everything that happens on the screen looks kind of sluggish.
Trying to live to the fullest in the last hours, the villagers don’t really change much about it. Something happens in their souls when the end of the world makes itself felt more clearly. At first, people run to their houses, but gradually everyone is under the same roof, with each other. And at the end of the film happily exhale and throw off their backs this heavy load, which piled on them in the form of the end of the world.
Formally, the film tries to show that people under the influence of special circumstances first choose new, but false values, and when the intensity of passions reaches the limit, they realize that they were wrong and true, true values were those for which they lived before the beginning of all this mess.
The language of the film is not bad. I feel the love with which the film was made. It is interesting special entourage created in the houses of villagers: each house is truly original and furnished with proper attention. But, unfortunately, it seems that when the script did not work out properly, and it had weak characters of the main characters, the director together with the artist simply filled the gap with the entourage, which still captivates and makes you look with interest.
Every corner of any house you want to see, and in some of the houses are valuable and interesting posters announcing film screenings, and in some heap of unknown junk that was dragged into the house by the husband to his beloved wife. Listing all the "sweets" is pointless, you just need to watch the film carefully.
But the main failure of the film are the characters of the main characters. It so happens that there is not one main character in the film. All the villagers were in the spotlight fully, a little bit. Even the candy cow got as much time as the inventor. Whether because the attention was evenly distributed, or because the film itself did not assume the complexity of the characters, but all the characters turned out flat: they live in the same dimension, and at best it will be a vector, and for some it is just a point. Each hero wants to take, shake off and devote at least twice as much time to learn how, why and where he lives. And most importantly, I want to see the characters in a real action that could reveal and show the real characters. But if we assume that this is not the main goal of the film, and most importantly the good that brought people the end of the world, the film still comes out weak.
Among the villagers there are heroes who are almost non-actors. They are like a scenery that should help in understanding another character. But in this case, it is just a crutch that is not very necessary.
After watching the film, you remain dissatisfied, as if given a chocolate bar, allowed to unfold the packaging, but the sweetness was taken away. I don’t want to say in this case that next time it will be better, because it is the first steps that determine the next path. In this case, it is somehow ghostly and incomprehensible.
The title of the film by Taisia Igumentseva is deceptive - this is not a black comedy at all and the mass death of the heroes should not be expected. The plot can also deceive expectations: “the end of the world in Hollywood”, “armageddetz” and “melancholy” will also not be on the screen. As well as the shocking scene in the style of Emir Kusturica, which was signaled from the festivals by some film critics.
If “Give the Ends” with something can be compared, it is with the late Soviet tragicomedy, in which “little people”, eccentrics and eccentrics timidly seek their happiness, which, as usual, unbearably want to catch in your hands at least a little, when it seems that all is lost.
The characters of the picture (two unhappy couples, two nimble boys, a military grandfather with a cow, a lady with a dog, an inventor and a tragic dreamer) are at first terribly annoying, then you somehow get used to their redundancy, and in the end you do not want to part with them.
Of course, there are no such villages in Russia. Cinema is a fairy tale. No laughing, but with a smile. No werewolves in epaulettes, drunks, gopniks and killers. The rain washed all the dirt away. Only those who are ready to create, love, believe and care for others remain.
Good movie! It looked easy and interesting. After watching, there was a pleasant mood and a desire to roll many fragments in thoughts, to reflect. Of course, this is not a real Russian village, this is not realism, heroes and events are symbols and allusions, there is no social. To some extent, it even looks like a fairy tale with a taste of Kusturica style.
Of the advantages - a magnificent picture and scenery, curious details and successfully found "chips", a beautiful acting and bright images. Of the minuses – the feeling that not “pressed” in the sense of some fragments, I would like more vivid strokes, then to quote jokes and some moments from the film. In this regard, Taisia's previous painting "The Road to" was more successful.
In short, it’s not a breakthrough or a sensation, but it’s certainly far from a failure. This is a good strong middle peasant, which was especially pleasant to watch against the background of other tastelessness, which is abundantly fed to the audience by domestic cinema in recent years. I am sure that Taisia will have many more worthy projects ahead – as a director she has great potential and a great team of professionals to help!