When they tell me that modern Russian cinema is “everything”, it is terrible and all that, I always have worthy examples in the piggy bank, such as this film by Mikhail Segal, which allowed us to once again enjoy the acting of the magnificent Alexander Zbruev, an actor of the era of our parents, but already familiar and warmly received. I remember when I was very young, sitting next to my parents in front of the TV, watching with interest such films as “Poor Sasha” and “Everything will be fine”, according to which the actor fell into my soul, although I probably did not understand the meaning of the plots at that time, but already from that time in my head entrenched quotes, funny moments and music from these two pictures. The earliest appearance of Alexander, unfortunately, I did not find and now it will be difficult to dive, but in turn already “guardian” and “It was the fourth year of the war ...”. I'll try to do it.
As for Alekseev, this movie tries to reveal such a deep topic as love. But with the help of a person who most likely did not experience this feeling at all, but used a successfully borrowed quote for his:
Have you noticed that when we try to define love, we say, ‘Love is when...’ and begin to enumerate some properties of this state? Well, for example, when you fly on wings or when you do not sleep, and so on. That is, we describe properties all the time, not definitions. There is always “when” and we cannot say “what it is.” From my point of view, love is to understand what a person really needs at a given moment in time and give it to him.
Alexeyev is our Russian Forrest Gump, but only in more realistic conditions, who has spent his entire life in different places and mastered many professions: whether it is a weapons engineer, a bard or even an actor. Of course, he had a lot of girls to whom he had an easy approach, but with all this variety of colors, he never found his love and did not know what it means. The hero of Alexander Zbruev is already retired, lives in a remote provincial village, dressed modestly (even very much), looks even worse. Suddenly he gets into a road accident, being a pedestrian, and the plot with his participation gets on TV, and he is invited to the studio, remember, so to speak, the intense years of his youth and at the same time show how strongly his music responded in the souls of millions.
It's a strong story, and it's not even about Alexeyev. That quote that I gave in the text, walking through the plot from scene to scene, just tried to reveal us the screenwriter and director. Love is really what a person can and wants to give to another person for free (this is the main thing), especially what he needs most now. The most real love is still more about the attitude towards someone, and not something in common that is born in tandem. Such a film of course could not capture the attention of a vast number of viewers, but a cozy corner still found and huddles there to this day. At least in my heart, the story is reflected accurately and continues to give exactly the same emotions as the first viewing.
I'll start at the end. “Je vais, je vais et je viens entre tes reins Je vais et je viens” (translated: “I go, walk and enter between your thighs”) – this hymn of all romantics, late 60’s, chanting “eternal-final love” between a man and a woman, pathetic (I am not about the music itself) sounds at the end of the film with an Artemev trumpet from “My Among Strangers.....” And that's sad. The fact is that there is no “man and woman” with their “eternal love” in this film. The main idea of the film is a twist, which I will keep silent so as not to splear, which we only learn about in the last minutes of the film. And at this moment, according to the director, apparently the immortal music of Serge Ginsburg "Je t'aime ..." Moi non plus is supposed to split us into atoms. . . Oops. Alas, the music works (it’s Serge Ginsburg after all), but the hidden message of the filmmakers without the music does not. I'll try not to peel. The main character of the film is not the “main character”, but the main character is a girl who was shown to us periodically throughout the film, and she loved the main character all her life, and embodied the words about love that our hero (who is not a hero) uttered. They play poorly in the film: nominally. Not really bothering. And there's almost nothing to play. Because of this, there is no empathy for anyone. The film is reminiscent of the New Year’s comedy, in which, by magic, innermost dreams are fulfilled, only this is a drama, not a comedy. The new genre is "New Year's drama." The authors managed to stuff Tarkovsky into the narrative, and the “bloody shit”, and even Makarevich himself (!) played along in the movie. The main character (who is not the main one) - the actor Zbruev - alas, no, so not interesting. The main problem with this film is the wrong register. A swing at a "great movie" (or "another movie"), because there is an idea in it. But, the implementation of the plan is a “new year” film, in which Zbruev and (himself) Makarevich starred. I do not like when the shortcomings of the film try to hide behind the indisputable masterpiece, in this case, this masterpiece is the composition “Je t’aime”. “Moi non plus” by Serge Ginsburg, not the movie itself. If you have nothing to do, you can look.
For me, this film represents a magical initiation of love that lasts forever. Similar to Spielberg’s story in artificial intelligence, when Julia initiated love from a robot. The girl was at the junction of her stage of growing up and readiness for love, the correct magic phrase about what love is and the image of a young man with the image of a dissident in relation to the surrounding society, who has complementarity to her unconscious dreams and unformulated desires, which have already matured “in their cocoon”, but have not yet flown out in the form of a beautiful butterfly. And here the result is the flooding radiation of love that flared up in it - apparently "real" and unconditional. In the ray of this love, she spent her life, first keeping the object of love in sight, then, apparently, like all people who lost touch with it because of the need to perform another basic life program. But love doesn’t disappear, and it burst out again when that person reappeared. Here, already possessing knowledge and experience, she materializes her connection with the object of love and, as it were, worship before it in a way that is suitable for this case. And this love ignited bliss in him, and so did their merger, the last and first in life. . .
I’m not sure if that was the author’s intention, but I’ve seen this film many times and that’s how I explained the magical appeal of it to me. After all, judging by the superficial characteristics - nothing special happened, the character - it is not clear why the author chose and I at first intensively looked for signs of his genius - which I did not see - but thought that something was wrong with me.
Then this atmosphere of my mother’s life is very appealing to me for personal reasons – she is brilliantly conveyed. And the hero - yes - a weak, not very clean and pleasant person. . It's probably even worse, because -- for example -- he has a son, and you don't see any connection to him -- that says something. Just got into the orbit of magic ... anyone can get there, apparently, and so can we. Respect for the filmmaker.
Zbruev, of course, is great. And it's good. And the rest, it's a chorus-rosh shot at an ant drawn on the fence. From the gun volley.
We are shown a certain Alexeyev - once a bard, and now an old man - well, through flashbacks and not only talk about his fate. Well, we see that the old man was once a young, bright-eyed young man, and this in itself is a plot, because aging is strange and mysterious, even though we are used to it. But no, in the finale, the director seals the painted ant with a stupid - in the context of a swing - twist, and it turns out that the film is not about that. I wanted a movie about that.
The design turns out to be interesting, but purely mental - or skewed to an inevitable fall.
And in general, this is a story about how Tarkovsky philosophized between takes, over a cup of tea, and then his words went around the world for decades and foreign fates changed.
After the passage of time (I watched Alekseev a couple of weeks ago), I am not indignant, as it was immediately after watching, but I understand that yes, in the end, the real story is told subtly and skillfully, but ... the viewer is unlikely to want to understand why he instead of one story slipped another (albeit smart) - unless he is going to write a review of VK.
And yes, to some extent, the film reflects on the theme of the bard movement, which I, for example, in his heyday, alas, did not catch - but, as knowledgeable people say, does not reflect very deeply. Rather, it is a universal movie about how people converge and diverge - not about Alexeyev.
The film is about an empty egoist who retells and rehearses other people’s ideas and words all his life to please the girls. Unprincipled type, mimicking ideological, liar and hypocrite. His words are at odds with his deeds: talking about the importance of sharing and giving in relationships with people, he spends his whole life trying to get under himself. As a result, the dude wastes his life, and finds himself on the sidelines of public life. But the feelings he evoked—even by stealing words, even if spoken without understanding—resonated in someone else’s heart. The film is melodramatic, "about love", for couples. It sags a bit in the middle, but the tie-up and junction are done perfectly. He will be paired with “three thousand years of desires”, ideologically developing the same theme of selfless altruism in love.
The star of the bard song of the 1960s Nikolai Alekseev sells mushrooms and berries somewhere on the roadside near Tula and in general, he does not expect anything from life for a long time. One day he receives a telegram with an invitation to Moscow for the night broadcast.
And so the sad tale will continue with a fairy tale about a man with an ordinary surname and an incredible fate. He was appreciated by Brodsky and Okudzhava, he drank tea with Tarkovsky and Solonitsyn, applauded young Efremov and young Tabakov, built a machine gun steeper than Kalashnikov, had problems with the KGB because of Gagarin, and also wrote songs that the whole country still loves and remembers. After all, which only happens in a fairy tale. Or is that a story again? Take care of it.
But the further the journey through Alekseev’s life, the clearer the thought that this chambered, leisurely, sung in a low voice film is not what it seems, and the main thing is yet to come.
The guarantor of this guess is partly the director himself, Mikhail Segal. The creator of parallel worlds and alternate universes, he is one of those who can laugh with one eye and talk about love without falsehood.
As for Alexander Zbruev, his Alekseev is so good that he can focus space around him like a magnet or the very Gioconda, the mystery of which, unlike the mystery of Alekseev, no one has solved.
The film is very trying to be soulful, but it does not succeed at all. The only glimmer is the ending, which justifies everything that happens in front of her. But there is nothing before it that can be of any value to the viewer. To get to the end, you have to endure a performance. We don’t understand anything about the characters, they all look like mannequins who say phrases like ' with brooding faces; if you want love, you should just love' The actors are terrible, and everyone, even Zbruev. And apparently it's not about the actors. Apparently, they just have nothing to play, so you just have to play a smart face and say thoughtful phrases (or vice versa). It reminds me of how students try to read the poems of some silver poet with expression. All the characters are empty, looking at them you will not learn anything about their life, character, habits, you will not find examples of such people in real life, they are just phantoms. Who is this Alexeyev? Just a slightly cheeky, free-spirited young man, like any modern hero in a film about the USSR. But the impression is that none of the creators understand themselves, what reinforces the behavior of the hero, so the actor himself does not understand what to do in the frame. Maybe that’s why all the characters in this movie are so thoughtful and meaningful – they’re just trying to figure out how to play them.
But the title, description and low fees of the film promised an atmospheric film about a small man. But about the person did not work out, and what happened and it is difficult to say.
4 out of 10
A film in which the protagonist and antagonist are the same person
I watched this film more than a month ago, but all this time I was trying to find the right words to express myself in a voluminous and extremely correct way. Words and did not pick up, it seems, but not to tell about my strong impression I can not.
The biggest difficulty for me is to do this time without spoilers, which can completely spoil the impression of viewing, and without them it is bloody difficult to adequately talk about the plot. But what to do, you have to do with a synopsis.
In the center of the story is a lonely elderly man, forgotten by everyone, useless, living in the wilderness and representing a classic image of a small man for Russian literature. He is the same Alexeyev who all his life only dreamed of fame, of significant deeds, of popularly beloved creativity. And now he is invited to the radio as a cult bard of the second half of the twentieth century. They invite Alekseev to remember the past and tell the story of his life to radio listeners, and most importantly, to us - the audience. And he certainly agrees.
But the film is not about idols of the past, not about Russian rock and even, in general, not about the hardships of fate and oblivion. It's a love movie. About the real selfless, demanding nothing in return and able to exist without nourishment and hope for many silent years. About love that happens not only to the good, smart, talented. Love is something that everyone dreams of, but not everyone is capable of. ' It is a desire and an opportunity to do for a loved one what he most needs at the moment & #39; A film about this idea and an illustration of it. But we will only find out in the final. In the meantime, we enjoy the story, the picture, the sound, the acting. Everything is at the top.
The camera work is beautiful and fascinating from the first frames, creating a magical combination of successful angles, interesting images, fascinating dynamics and gentle flower color. The soundtrack is lyrical, nostalgic, organic, but does not come to the fore, in short, the sound is solved optimally. Zbruev and Kapitanov equally successfully cope with the role of Alexeyev in old age and adolescence, respectively. And in this tandem, Zbruev just acts as the protagonist, although one involuntarily wonders whether Zbruev’s impoverished old age or even exceptionally natural charm makes him sympathize and sympathize with a person who should no longer evoke sympathy for objective reasons. But this is food for thought.
The film was directed by the little-known Mikhail Segal, familiar to a narrow circle in the collection of short stories ' Stories' and the expression ' about what to fuck with you?', which has already become actually winged. It is obvious that the director has grown significantly in just 2 years between 'Stories' and 'Alekseev' and presented now (now it is in 2014, yes) to the audience a full-fledged good-quality film.
For me, this film became one of the best statements about love that I have seen, heard and read in my life. Look, I really recommend it. You are waiting for a very cozy and sensual hour and a half, which will make you think about life guidelines and - what the hell is no joke - change course before it is too late.
9 out of 10
So you're awake. Alone again, with his thoughts. Are these your thoughts, or just echoes in your head once and with someone past conversations?
Who are you? Yeah, it's not what it used to be. Time spares no one. But have you been yourself before? As one star “hero” sang, “don’t bend under a changing world”, and you bowed. Although it happened at the time when you considered yourself at the height of fame and saw the white road ahead and “eternal youth”.
Today, of course, you hardly regret it, just whine about the villain-fate. You lead a quiet life of a hermit, a sufferer for a sullen past. You feed life, and it’s time to prepare for death.
It may seem that your path will not change anything: what new ideas and creativity can we talk about - in the wilderness of a country and a soul untouched by real experiences?
A little girl’s look through the eyepiece of her camera and words from the past will wake you up and bring you back to life. You will rejoice, but the main thing that you said, you will never understand. - Je t'aime je t'aime.
“Life does not cross the field,” as the old saying goes. So how do you live without painful pain?
Here is Alexeyev Nikolai Vasilyevich, a man who at the end of his life was on the roadside. Literally and figuratively. An engineer is a musician with claims to the intelligentsia. And in the end, the underengineer and the undermusician lost from everyone, lost in himself. Is he an intelligent person as he positions himself? But I'm not. After all, the Latin concept of this word, as one well-known site says, means: to feel, perceive, notice, notice; to know, to know; to think; to know, to understand. But is he? Nope. In fact, his life is a cliché of jagged phrases and phrases. And besides, not their own, like the quote about love heard in the dialogue between Tarkovsky and Solonitsyn. Besides, this scene of the conversation between the director and the actor gives us an insight into the genius of these people. Their true philosophical attitude to life, to words. After all, brilliant people say brilliant phrases, others quote their words. After all, in fact, the girl in the country fell in love not with Alexeyev, but with a phrase uttered by him, issued as his own. He has carried these words and love through time. The materialization of this quote.
Do I feel sorry for Alexeyev? Partly. After all, the story of Alekseev is about millions of people trading on the side of the road (life). People seemed to go forward, looking for happiness, but gradually, step by step, went aside, turned out to be unnecessary to anyone.
The story about the man Alexeyev, where the protagonist is Lydia Arkhipova. It's just a good movie about a difficult life.
P.S. I think in twenty years the picture will be difficult to see and understand.
10 out of 10
After watching the trailer frantically rushed to download the film.
I really want to watch a modern movie about the era of my parents’ youth, for some reason this time is intensely ignored by cinema (poor TV series do not count, the hope was on the cinema).
As a result - the most terrible boredom, another assurance that people in the 60-80 years did not live, but simply dragged a dull existence under the yoke of the bloody regime.
Without a bloody gebney, of course, did not do, although this line is rather crumpled and not painful (like all the other sufferings of Zbruev).
But contrary to many reviewers noting the flaws in the script, I see the editing problem first. The film looks like the source material from which you need to mount the film - twice as short.
Because the material is actually good: both by the work of the artist and cameraman, who quite reliably conveyed the life of that time (and thank you for the pleasant color scheme of the film, so rare nowadays), and by the director’s work with the actors. I want to note the magnificent casting: most actors have faces of that era, which happens quite rarely in modern historical films.
Almost all actors work well, but the editor (and this is the director of the film) forgets to make a “cut” in time. He's put so much into this shoot that he can't physically cut his stuff. As a result, there are constant sagging, longitudes filled with nothing but the always strained smile of the radio host and the old Zbruev, who hung in his intelligent sweetness. Young Alexeyev, of course, beautiful cat eyes, but you can not hang on them constantly, there must be something else in the film.
In general, in my opinion, if this material was well edited, the viewer would forget about any inconsistencies of the script and just watch the film. And when there is no action, you begin to fidget on the spot and leave the reality of the movie, at the same time berating its creators and understanding their mistakes.
PS I see that the official criticism is full of rave reviews. Not surprised, everything, as usual - the more murky, the supposedly thinner and more intellectual.
It happens that in life we meet people whose fates miraculously intersected with significant historical events and with those people who created these events. It happens that such people could unwittingly influence these events without realizing the great role they could play. Such a person is discussed in the lyrical tragicomedy “Cinema about Alexeyev”.
Nikolai Alekseev, a lonely old man living in the countryside and selling mushrooms and pickles on the track, once receives a telegram with an invitation to speak on the radio. When the radio broadcast begins, Alexeyev is asked to talk about his work, and the hero involuntarily plunges into distant memories of his past, about the women he loved, and about the people whose fates influenced his life.
I think that “Cinema about Alexeev” would hardly have noticed, if not for the participation of a talented actor and a real legend of Russian cinema Alexander Zbruev. I am sure that many viewers will hardly be able to recognize him in the unexpected image of a decrepit lonely old man who could not imagine that his music and songs could leave a bright memory of his work. At the same time, I want to note the play of Alexei Kapitonov as a young Alexeyev, with his mischief, confidence and irresistible desire to find true love.
Director Mikhail Segal created a thin multifaceted intellectual film about unique human destinies, which sometimes do not develop as their owners would like. The director shows us the main character in different guises, which unites one thing - his work. Throughout the film, the hero rushes between important historical events and influential characters in search of love, some truth, not seeing how close both were.
The script of the film is characterized by both ordinary simplicity and unexpected genius. The film begins with a car accident on the track, as a result of which the main character Alexsev almost dies. A few days later, he receives the telegram with an invitation to speak on the radio, where he talks about the past, creativity, while indulging in memories of different episodes of his life. The viewer may ask, what is all this about? Just to get to know a forgotten musician? It is the unexpected, although slightly tricky ending that reveals all the cards and leaves a pleasant impression from the film.
Result Honestly, before watching, I expected to see a simple lyrical drama about nostalgia for the past, but in fact, you are waiting for an intellectual drama about human destinies and how the mistakes of the past can seriously affect the future. Therefore, "Cinema about Alexeyev" can be safely recommended for viewing.
Nostalgia for the past years of the USSR and love, ordinary simple deep!
There are two parallel lines in the film. The hero is rather expressed in a kind of image of the Soviet Union, a man-era, whose time has irrevocably passed and in this world he has only a place on the outskirts somewhere near Tula. But he is remembered and called as an honored guest to speak on the program. As a symbol of respect for old age.
In general, there is a lot of symbolism in the picture, it is on every corner. The old and the new echo: scrawled "Caste" on the closet, a guitar with "Nirvana", guests from Asia in the old apartment of the hero, a children's choir with a French song. The hero himself is just as symbolic, with a simple surname, with a free disposition in search of the meaning of life and a special philosophy of love, taken by him from older people and transmitted by him to the masses. But just as the Soviet Union went against the current of world politics, so the hero, in the end - he grew old and moved away. Symbolic of his guitar efforts on the show and constant silence, he has nothing to say. It is like an exhibit, and the building is like a museum, a museum of old ruins like him.
But do not rush to turn off the movie in the middle, watch until the end. Yet the love line here is also built up strongly, it is not noticeable, it is like a spider weaves its web quietly peacefully, luring you into it and distracting from its insidious action. You'll get the answer to the question of what love is and I think you'll be as shocked as I was. A pleasant ending to an initially boring picture. Thank you very much to the creators!
The film from the director Michael Segal with a very unexpected ending, which became the main impression of this film. The picture itself is a leisurely (if not to say tedious) journey through the life of a man with the surname Alexeyev, in whose face the features of both individual famous bards and the entire generation of sixties as a whole are guessed. The role of the hero in old age is touching and with feeling played by the wonderful Alexander Zbruev, in his youth - Alexei Kapitonov, who is very similar to Zbruev externally, but inferior to him in charm, depth and empathy to his hero and absolutely does not cause sympathy.
Alexeyev lived, worked, started relationships with women, wrote songs. He did different things, good and not so good. Life probably gave him the opportunity to become a real person as a person and as an artist, but he did not take this opportunity. Apparently, there was not enough character, strength of spirit, inner burning. Alekseev walked around the perimeter, the edge of the fates of great people of the era, borrowed their phrases and thoughts, but he did nothing and did not create. Or did he? That's the movie. And what a loving woman can do for someone she loves.
“The movie about Alexeyev” for me was divided into two parts: almost the entire story told with all its shortcomings and inconsistencies and the last 10 minutes, which make you look at this story differently and many things put in their place.
The first and most part of the film is perceived as a collection of clichés associated with the period of the Sixties, while in the center of the picture is absolutely superficial and unconvincingly revealed the image of a provincial womanizer with a guitar, whose position, both vital and civil, looms rather vaguely. I want to make a reservation, this assessment applies only to Alexeyev from the 60-70s. There are absolutely no comments about Alekseev performed by Alexander Zbruev, you imbue the modern hero with involuntary sympathy and sympathy, episodes when the former “celebrity” intelligently asks the real residents of his former apartment to take the lyrics of already forgotten songs from mezzanine or overcomes on foot with great difficulty one or another ladder on the way to the starry hour on the radio, are very touching.
Young Alexeyev is a bard from Tula, writing some “provocative” songs and, as it is presented, has become a symbol and landmark of an entire generation. The actual value of the hero’s work is difficult to determine, since the film presents short excerpts of songs that are something collective of all the author’s songs of the time. But the music in the film about the musician (oddly enough) does not play the most important role.
Alexeyev, once hearing from the corner of his ear a statement about the essence of love, carries it like a banner, reciting at any opportunity, while not particularly understanding the essence. For a girl who falls in love with a bard, the idea that for a loved one you need to do everything, while understanding what he needs, becomes a life motto. The image of Alexeyev, who, in principle, is not much to love (grandmother, informer, with dubious life principles and guidelines) and the bright, sincere and naive feeling of a young girl, carried through life and pushing her through the years to act with a capital letter, at the end of the film are superimposed on each other and it turns out something like poetically flying out of a broken jar of cucumbers at the beginning of the film: beautiful and meaningful, but the object are cucumbers.
It's hard to judge films where the idea is clear by the end. On the one hand, it is good that it exists and is revealed quite original, on the other hand, the director risked that the viewer simply will not watch the movie, considering it a boring biopic about a non-existent bard with quite an ordinary fate.
For Zbruev's game, good shooting quality and ending
6 out of 10
I don’t know where the hype is around this movie. Yes, sometimes nothing, but not a great ribbon.
After the same Tales, I was very much warped by the verbal side, not at the same level. The dull bard wool offers only texture, the messages are completely empty. Flirting with introductory Makarevich and Tarkovsky is also not at all cute.
Another alternative USSR. It’s a great message about what’s good.
Alekseev, of course, is shown as a vile human being, but at the same time he is not a stilt, but a whole character, while all around is a mole plain.
Ah, it's not hard to fool me. I am happy to be deceived! (c)
There are such films with which fate does not obstinately bring you down: you learn about them frankly late, for some reason you are completely uninspired by the description and the presented trailer, there is no time, as evil.
And then you watch the movie and regret that you saw this wonderful film so late that so much time wasted.
And there is an itchy feeling inside the skull, you need to watch the movie again, let someone else watch, be sure to tell about the film.
Here "Cinema about Alekseev" - this is exactly the film that is worth talking about - this is a new soulful film.
There is no wildest inner tear in him, just as there is no strong, positive hero for whom the heart hurts.
But there is a routine, from which many teeth are gnashed, and there is such a nondescript, so ridiculous, such an ordinary type - he is a little funny, a little self-serving, a little mean and so weak that he does not want to wilfully pull himself - "Oh, no, you can't look like this, what are you?!"
Behind the choice of this character lies a cunning trick - he - Alekseev - alive.
Yes, unpleasant, yes, perhaps, and banally not interesting at the level of usual empiricism, empathy, but it blows a reality that does not always successfully fall on the right lines and is not always aesthetic in its frankness, but at the same time there is a dynamic in it.
The final scenes from Alexeyev’s youth are direct confirmation of this. The hero of Zbruev, Kapitonova, understands everything, feels the bitterness and severity of his own mistakes, but is not able to see the lifeline that the creator unobtrusively throws him. You are too immersed in yourself, Alexeyev, I believe in my head when young Lida looks at him with devoted eyes, says strange, naive things.
“Cinema about Alekseev” is quite simple, intuitive, nostalgic and so strange – native cinema.
Apparently, Mikhail Segal manages to really subtly read the very national code to which some of our young, and not so, directors appeal, vulgarizing everything in their creative path - both the past and the present.
Segal also creates a small retrospective of one single life - Nikolai Alekseev, a small man, a once successful weapons engineer, a bard, and now an elderly hermit selling mushrooms and "twists" at the curb.
The whole film is a journey, first the journey of old Alexeyev to Moscow, to a program dedicated to the bards of the sixties, then a journey through the pages of memory of this simple man, where everything was - except for love, which is so much said in the film. What an irony.
“Love is not when, but what”, once overheard definition, the creator Andrey Arsenyevich, begins to wander with young Alexeyev through life, sometimes so ineptly translated not by and not when you wonder how everything can be simplified and devalued when you are a real theorist, and with practice everything is not set.
Alexeyev experiences his own mediocrity quite dramatically. Brokenness, fatigue, cynicism - all these manifestations, like sisters, reach for each other, without retreating one step.
Growing up Alekseev does not bring the expected results - he is still a modest engineer, secondary in his work, the recognition still bypasses him, but meanwhile, his performance with the composition "Deserter" makes it clear to the viewer that not everything is so bad that the joyful songs about pine forest and the sun are replaced by important themes filled with mature lyrics and own experience.
Of course, intricately lie frames with “KGB Denunciations” on the text of the swan song – such repentance, comprehension of their own insignificance. Such a subtle reflection that there was no place in the course of the action.
The find of the film - actress Tatiana Meist - charming, beautiful, incredible. Such a soft voice, such a lively look, an attractive plasticity of movements. Concentrated charm.
The more surprising her appearance next to a man like Alexeyev, who without much legibility throughout his youth told the same back story about love, used the same tricks and tricks to frown on another pretty lady, simply relying on - "it will work or not work."
From the point of view of historical correspondence - then there are much fewer claims to the picture than to stylistic counterparts in the shop. Without too much gloss, everything is quite simple and yet authentic.
The undoubted advantages should include the work on the selection of actors. I don’t know how noticeable it is, but the actors were selected amazingly – the girls seemed to have come off the pages of the publications of those years, such faces could be seen in the documentary filming of the mid-60s, strolling through the streets of the city, hurrying somewhere. And it's not about costumes or hairstyles, or rather not only in them.
Faces are organic, without catchy signs of modern times. This in films seeking to show the historical canvas of time, is quite rare, and here is an amazing hit on the target.
The work of the operator - Eduard Moshkovich - is amazingly charming.
There are beautiful close-ups, and amazing artistic work on nature, a scene with an autumn forest during the festival - beautiful to the devil, just a postcard from the past.
Similarly, beautifully scattered broken fragments of jars, falling leaves and mushrooms, a girl, with a stack of dark curly hair lying on the grass.
And yet, Michael Segal’s film turned out wonderful.
Despite all the inconsistencies and obvious failure to get into the bowl of audience interest, the complexity of audience interpretations, where the most insidious ideas and analogies swarm, everyday truths and platitudes of love and peripetia, the film compares favorably with the fact that they are accustomed to shoot new creators who understand in all periods of the life of generations - both historical and cultural.
It doesn’t matter whether it’s a real story or based in part on someone’s biography, because The Alekseev Cinema is a movie about each of us. Alekseev becomes a collective image, as in the best traditions of Russian literature, a small man who was not destined to become “someone”. The latest film by Mikhail Segal, balancing between open satire and genuine sadness, tells us about long-forgotten dreams and aspirations that are now stored in the mezzanine in their once and now stranger apartment.
The director, whom many people know thanks to the film “Stories” (2012), which was distributed among the people with quotes and individual video excerpts, remains true to his style. The same calm tones of brown, blue, gray colors. The same close-up attention to detail: mushrooms floating in the air, drops on foggy glass, rays of the sun breaking through the window of a wooden hut, eyes looking directly at the camera. The same satire with the predominance of sarcasm, which allows you to talk about the unpleasant realities of modernity, without going to a depressive art house, shading everything, albeit harsh, but humor.
Despite the fact that in the “Cinema about Alexeyev” Segal manages to touch on a lot of topics, from the life of pensioners to selfishness, the film is clearly divided into two intertwined parts of different colors, mood and content. The first part of the film takes place in the present time, and the second is a recollection of the young years of Alexeyev. As for our days, rarely appearing recently in the cinema Zbruev perfectly plays a lonely pensioner, somehow making ends meet. Initially, it seems that we are waiting for an acute social drama, but especially astute viewers will be able to guess what the catch is, after the first memories of Alexeyev. If the shots with the elderly Alexeyev touch their closeness to reality, when many people are forgotten as unnecessary in the changed modern world, and the intrigue of someone else’s life, full of extraordinary events related to Tarkovsky, Gagarin, and who knows, maybe Vysotsky, takes possession of all your attention, then the narrative of that very life does not coincide with the horizon of expectations. Gagarin is just a phrase, Vysotsky is just a portrait, and Tarkovsky is just one tea party and then standing in the corner. Meet Asya, another failed concert - you notice that you start looking at the clock. You put a "minus" to the director until you realize that the problem is not in him, but in Alexeyev. And the point here is not even that other people's memories are boring and uninteresting for us, but that they really are, because life is a "legend of generations." Alexeyeva is just a bloated soap bubble. “Thank you very much for taking time in your busy schedule and coming,” leaves an echo in our hearts, feeling how life turned out to be unfair to Alexeyev. And how different "in a tight schedule" sounds at the end.
The film “Cinema about Alexeev” is like a kaleidoscope, in which everyone can see something of their own – the director managed to achieve success in targeting a wide audience. For some, Alekseev’s story will be a film about lonely old age, for someone about the Soviet Union, for someone about bards, for someone about the lost dreams of youth, and for someone, of course, about love and how we need people who love us. But even in terms of love, Segal is sarcastically inexorable: children sing Gainsbourg and Birkin's song about love. Not only is the song in French, but it’s also about love that kids can’t understand. This is an accurate allegory of Alexeyev – he talks a lot about love, poetically, with inspiration, but for him it is just a jagged text that he is unable to comprehend. It is paradoxical that Alekseev, an absolutely unremarkable and empty man, a slob and loser, unable to create something of his own and merely copying the ideas of truly talented people, whose narcissism knows no measure, receives as a gift the very love of self-sacrifice, about which he so often told everyone.
The picture is amazing. It's a pity, not for some reason understood by anyone.
Personally, I liked the tape the most: a rare reception in general for cinema, to focus on the main character odious qualities - not to use a priori the sympathy of the viewer. That is, we will say the opposite to Coppola’s “Godfather”, where the bandit is no longer a bandit due to these sympathies, where the film is made so that the viewer is ready to justify his gangster qualities for the sole reason that he is the main hero and he is instructed to sympathize.
Segal also very successfully portrayed mediocrity (this is the same main character). And not against the background of this mediocrity - a petty soul who put all her life and down-to-earth pietic talent on borrowing some glimpsed ephemeral sacramental "truths", such as the one shown by "Tarkovsky". The richer and more touching in this contrast looks the antithesis secondary heroine, who perceived his pseudo-principle “for love to give what is necessary and at the right time” as a guide to action, and – in the end – the synthesis finale: Alexeyev received what he wanted all his life and at the right moment, what causes the benevolence of the viewer, his willingness to forgive his worthless snitch life, and in general to imbue with it – love. Which is exactly what the author wanted.
Great movie. We are waiting for more masterpieces from Michael.
For many years, they wait and do not shoot, and Segal took and shot - a personal, defenseless, gentle and even awkward movie. In fact, he admits to us that the ideal of his life stuck in the sixties, where everything was simpler and more soulful. If I may put it that way, Michael Segal compared himself to a jar of pickles, which is so gracefully broken by the Rapid at the beginning of the film.
I think it will definitely benefit him. Scenes of the Soviet past are made in a funky manner, when no one remembers how it really lived there, so you have to watch the film “Styliagi” as a hint. That’s where I think these interiors, dresses and promotional quality Olivier salad grow. And then Alexeyev destroys this obscenity: “This is a delicious thing – food.” From this absurdity immediately becomes somehow warm and pleasant, at home - like a spoon of fatty sour cream, from which any, even poorly cooked borscht becomes softer to taste.
The main seasoning of this film, of course, are the acting works of Zbruev and Kapitonov, which turned out to be amazingly (and even suspiciously!) similar to each other. The life-giving warmth of their faces has the same strong effect on the viewer as the act of the main character of the film, for this rhyme a special thank you to the director. And if Segal himself is afraid that a similar story could happen to him, then I assure you that he is not - after all, the cucumber bank is already broken, there is no way back, no more conservation.
Just enough, perhaps, to use the characters from the previous film “Stories” – the second time will not roll.
8 out of 10
“Love is to understand what a person needs at the moment and to give him that.”
The first thing a viewer like me will do after watching a movie is google to find out who the main character is, bard Nikolai Alekseev. I was born in the '80s. Okudzhava, mentioned in the film, I remember Nirvana, even Makarevich Andrei, who also sings, I remember. I don't remember Alexeyev. No wonder. For viewers like me, losing an unknown bard in the Tula forests is easy. For me, even Bulat Okudzhava lived for a very long time, approximately just behind Mozart.
I once came to Peredelkino, in 'Village of writers', watch the room rented. The hostess told me on the phone how to get there. I passed the station, the sanatorium, at the fork turned left, then to the right ... and saw on the pole a crumpled sign with an arrow pointing in the direction of the pine forest darkening at dusk: “Museum of Bulat Okudzhava”. I didn’t go any further, I thought I was somehow thrown into the past. I later removed the room, and by the sign (which was turned in the right direction) I always walked with awe.
When I read the criticism of the film, I drew attention to a large number of negative reviews of real bards: the film is weak, the atmosphere of bard creativity is not transmitted, there was no article for drunken shouting of Gagarin’s words, etc., etc.
Wait, but the movie is not about bards. The main character himself, with all his life, proves to us that the film is not about bards. And bards aren't about bards. Bards are not whiskers!
So what's the movie about? Everyone will decide for themselves. But I think it's a love movie. Banal? Not at all. Love, not as something understood by man, but as the greatest miracle. This man, Alexeyev, was believed to have sailed against the tide, was not like everyone else, was a loner, always looking for an answer to the stupid question: “What is love?” And they kept turning away from him like a plague. I have lived my whole life.
At the end of the film, there is a key point - Alexeyev's look at the lens of the camera filming his journalist. That's love! The timeline of this film is an inverted line of that look.
This turn of the head is a welcome to the future. That's hello to us. Everything will disappear, everything will turn into nothing. The most talented Bulat Okudzhava through the centuries will turn into a crumpled iron tablet with an arrow, Kurt Cobain into a sticker on the guitar, even Andrei Makarevich, who also sings, will one day fade into oblivion, but Love never ceases. That's what's left of them. The ability to carry love through time and give it to people is creativity. Yes, the bard Nikolai Alekseev is a deserter. He deserted from the service - giving people what they need at the moment. He sang about love, but there was war. He carried Tarkovsky’s will into the world, but he listened to his empty room. Every one of us should come home from watching this movie and honestly say, ‘Hello Mom! I'm a deserter! Not on the shield, but in disgrace. I don't know what you need right now. You're dying of blood loss and I'm just praying for you. Your soul is dying, and I cry that I am ready to give blood for you, every last drop. I do not understand, and I do not try to understand, because love is not an imam.
What do you need right now, Spectator? I don’t know, but the director ventured to suggest that you should see this movie.
10 out of 10
From the very beginning, the film takes a sad chord and does not let go until the end. We see the poor life of a pensioner, a random event in his life that forces him to transform his past.
For most of the film, I couldn’t have imagined that I would end up giving it such a high rating. Alexei Kapitonov’s play did not impress me much, Alexeyev’s personality was not revealed, events are shown in pieces, confused and without a certain sequence.
Often, even too often, a young hero speaks of love. Hearing the words of Tarkovsky, he enthusiastically repeats them to every girl he meets. But what exactly is love?
This is the first movie I’ve seen to answer that question. This is the first love movie I’ve seen. The finale strikes to the core, turns everything inside out and makes you forget about all the imperfections of the picture. What are the right words in the description for the film - ' Life can be lived again if someone loves you'.
Sad to tears and at the same time insanely light. Thank you for this movie.
As pink as the title sounds, I think the main idea of the film is to explain what love really is. And the creators of the picture succeeded. Tarkovsky's phrase in Segal's film: "Love is, to understand what a person really needs at a given moment in time and give it to him," which Alexeyev picks up and carries through life, and there is a red thread of the plot. However, the bard himself - a balagur in his youth and an innocent grandfather in old age, knowing the theory, never applied it in practice. What a paradox!
And here is a woman who loved Alexeyev, the very embodiment of this idea. Accidentally seeing his bard aged, forgotten and no one needed in the news story, she understood, she felt that now he is so necessary, and ... gave a man the life he dreamed of. I also want to celebrate the parental love line. Realizing that the mother here and now needs an adventure with Alexeyev, the adult son helps to translate it into reality, all the same to the principle of Tarkovsky.
In general, “Cinema about Alexeev” by Mikhail Segal is simple, soulful, but with meaning. I saw the work of this director for the first time, who pleased with the bright images and the presence of the soul of the heroes. The acting is wonderful. Alexander Zbruev perfectly showed a man forgotten and, as Alexeyev thought, no one needed. But Alexei Kapitonov “painted”, in a good sense of the word, his Alexeyev from Yesenin – an easy and loving poet-pove.
I highly appreciate this film. According to the rating scale "Kinopoisk"
Where's the love? Love is selfless, selfless, not waiting for a reward?
A. Kuprin. Grenade bracelet.
“Cinema about Alexeev” is a 2014 film directed by Mikhail Segal (“Stories”, “Franz + Polina”). I haven’t seen the director’s work before, but the film was intrigued by its annotation.
Alekseev (Alexander Zbruev - the current, Alexei Kapitonov - in his youth) - a once famous bard invited to a night radio program, during which we learn about his unusual life: acquaintance with Tarkovsky on the set of "Andrey Rublev", the invention of a new machine gun, involvement in the KGB. He is a man of whom Brodsky and Okudzhava spoke with respect and admiration. But by old age, he remains alone and lives in some remote, small town.
The narrative goes parallel. We see Alexeyev on the radio station, then return to his youth. And, of course, it becomes very interesting how the life of the person about whom we hear so much good. But despite all the seemingly unusual cases, his life runs its course. Following his life, you begin to wonder how he became a famous bard (and we will hear only one song in his performance in front of a large audience) and why he is admired. And you don't find the answer.
"Je T'aime" Moi Non Plus
Alexeyev in relations with girls causes me simply indignation. He is exactly the same, or rather his behavior does not change.
Just talking about love.
Love. We always say when, not what. Tarkovsky’s arguments about love will become almost a life position for Alexeyev, while he will wait for love and actions from the girl, and he will prefer to talk more about what love is. He will not seek his own definition of this feeling, he will merely repeat Tarkovsky’s words. It’s no wonder he’s alone.
The beautiful song “Je T’aime... Moi Non Plus” that sounds throughout the film seems out of place at first. This song is all about France, and it seems that there is some dissonance with Russian culture. But later you realize that first of all it is one of the most important songs about love, it is a symbol of love and no other song can replace it.
I love you... I don't have you either.
Alexei Kapitonov - young Alexeyev - a new face in a big movie. He fits in very harmoniously and is a worthy pair of eminent Alexander Zbruev. It would be interesting to see Kapitonov in other ways.
I want to celebrate a wonderful work with color. The film begins with a falling jar of cucumbers, falling bright mushrooms and berries, a very warm color reproduction that is present in all the episodes telling about Alexeyev’s youth, even the cloudy weather does not depress. Very contrasting pictures of the real life of Alexeyev, it is gray and uninteresting, and he is absolutely alone, which conveys the color. And this crumbling bank interrupts Alexeyev's routine life.
The camera job is very interesting. Frozen panoramas make you admire the moment: whether it is just a city wall or a horse in the street, shown through a narrow window of the hut.
The name of the main character is one of the most common, and I think this is not accidental. He is not the main character of this film, although the movie is about him. The main character is another person, but who, you will see for yourself.
Having lived with Alexeyev his youth and seen his old age, you do not see the one to whom the program is dedicated. I was wondering if I was watching this movie for nothing. Throughout the film, there is no sympathy for the hero, and the admiration of Makarevich and other people begins to irritate. Because that admiration is incomprehensible.
But the finale completely reverses everything, changing the attitude to the picture. And you know you're looking for a reason. And you understand that a movie is simply necessary to remind you of the most important thing, about ...
Movies are like movies. Sweet, kind...it seems like one time. A little embarrassing the presence of some absurdities - images of individual characters, incomprehensible behavior, and logical connections. But everything is smoothed out by the overall good mood of the film. And of course, Zbruev's game is delighted. It is unclear how old his hero is. I feel like I was trying to show you an older person. The ending makes you think, a little bit. And not quite about ' self-sacrifice' but rather that the image of the main character, Alekseev himself, remained incomprehensible. In my opinion, not the most ' noble husband' on earth ...
6 out of 10
I think the people who wrote most of the reviews did not understand the main thing. That this movie is not about Alexeyev. You don’t have to watch this movie waiting to see the story of Forrest Gump. There is no need to separate the old Alekseev from the young - his old age is a consequence of his youthful behavior. Here the story of how Alexeyev lived and how he came to such a life is perfectly shown. And that somewhere in the background or around the corner hides the true hero of this film.
Everything here is very well filmed and shown. What are you waiting for ' Breakthrough', then you begin to doubt whether he will, and the ending so in general turns everything around and you understand that this is the main idea, to show somewhere behind Alexeyev the main character of this film.
This is a great story to watch at home with your loved one. And perfectly goes through the whole film phrase about love, death, blood and music. And the way one person talks about love all the time, not experiencing it for anyone, and the other just loves.
Thank you so much for this beautiful film.
There is an accident on the side of the road. The victim is a pensioner who sells pickles and root crops, gives an interview to the local news crew after the accident. The viewer gets acquainted with Alekseev, who lives on the sidelines of life somewhere in the Tula region.
The original plot of the film directed by Mikhail Segal “Cinema about Alexeev”, which made me swallow the film in one breath, surprises with many things. But the main value of the story is the ending. The finale is brilliant, turning upside down the idea of the life of Alexeyev, he makes me throw away all the notes during the film, everything that seemed so important before the catharsis.
The format of the review does not allow to reveal the secrets of the plot. But the power of this picture, fortunately, is not just in the finale. The life of a modern village pensioner Alekseev, who received a telegram from Moscow with an invitation to an interview with a fashion radio station, is interspersed with numerous flashbacks. These deviations in the past life of Alekseev are clearly dated in their expositions, and the life of a young Soviet engineer in the dash of a novice bard turns out to be laid out on shelves even before the denouement. Alekseev’s past life is shown as vividly as his present existence, easily flowing on the screen through a conditional time line.
Alexeyev’s past life is full of arguments about love. From episode to episode, the characters break their spears, trying to answer the question - what is love? The young Alexeyev is lucky - he is next to Tarkovsky at the time of brainstorming the film crew "Andrey Passion". Tarkovsky gives out the cherished definition of “love is...”. But it is one thing to know the definition of love, and another thing to love.
Crossing the conditional line of time, the director combines the past life of Alekseev with the filming of “Andrey Rublev” Tarkovsky, with the viewing of the play “Five evenings”, with disputes in the company of intellectuals in 1972, with the test at the training ground of the wonderful superautomatic Frolov and with participation in all sorts of KSP. But love is becoming less and less, knowledge of the universal formula helps only in fruitless discussions, where the main thing is to appear, not to be. Old Alexeyev has long thought about the meaning of life, love. The guitar was long forgotten in a sold apartment. But suddenly he gets an answer from the past to the question - what is it after all - love.
Russians are a nation with higher aspirations. Direct confirmation of this thesis is Russian literature and Soviet cinema, propagating, if I may say so, traditional values and asserting moral ideals. By Russians, of course, we mean all the peoples who inhabit our vast Motherland and come into contact with the culture and history of Russia. Why such a voluminous introduction? To the fact that Nikolai Alekseev, “about whom the movie” is just a man with higher aspirations, despite the fact that many will not agree with this. After all, the character is controversial, in all respects contradictory, but lively and interesting. There is no doubt that Alexeyev wanted neither money nor fame for himself. He dreamed, if to speak pathetically, to be necessary and useful, to leave a mark in history, to excite minds, like Yuri Vizbor and Vladimir Vysotsky. Did he get it? Indeed, it is difficult to create illusions about this. I, for example, assumed that in the end the hero would just wake up and suddenly come to him fame will be an ordinary dream. My assumption was wrong.
Nikolai Alekseev is a lonely old man who lives in a remote village and sells mushrooms on the roadside. The director shows us the unenviable position of the Soviet technical intelligentsia in modern Russia. That’s true, but that’s not what the film is about. In his youth, Alexeyev worked at an arms factory, where he developed secret weapons, and wrote songs. In fact, the hero should not cause sympathy: he denounced his colleagues, is polygamous and, apparently, mercantile. But Alexeyev’s actions can be justified. But about all the qualities of the hero, the viewer can, alas, only guess. Nikolai Alekseev is like a collective image of the generation of the 60-70s. In fact, he reminds me of my own grandfather.
Throughout his life, Alexeyev carries a phrase about love, brazenly stolen from Andrei Tarkovsky himself: “Love is to give a person what he needs at the moment.” However, the hero does not follow so much a meaningful rule for him. Having married for the sake of a Moscow residence permit, Nicholas goes into all seriousness. Still, I do not want to jump to conclusions, because I did not quite understand the sequence of events in Alexeyev’s life. Everything is smeared and uncertain.
A big fan of Evgeny Bazhenov’s reviews, I absolutely do not have time to watch a bad movie. In fact, it's not that hard to get around bad movies. Sometimes I want to appreciate some “masterpieces”! And I've learned for myself that it's much easier to scold the bad than to promote the good. Why doesn’t anyone, for example, talk about Alekseev’s Cinema and praise Russian cinema, which is still soulful and profound? It's kind of masochistic to go to the movies for a modern Russian comedy and then feel cheated. However, the most insulting thing, "Cinema about Alexeev" in our cinema did not go, although I decided in advance to go to it.
Michael Segal is not a very prolific director. I hope the situation will change in the future. “Stories” is one of my favorite films, which the director has earned full confidence and high ratings anticipation of his new works.