Give the country coal! The continuation of the wonderful tape of Leonid Davidovich Lukov “Big Life” turned out to be no less emotional, and, at the same time, more “homey” due to the fact that the heroes who fell in love with the first part appear here as adults and much experienced, but did not lose their craving for a bright happy life. Paradoxically, it is the maximum approach of the characters to simple, not “picture” characters that gave the impetus to the “opal” of the picture at the highest level. Even before the film was released, the film was severely criticized in the press, and about it the Resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) of September 4, 1946 “On the film “Big Life” was adopted, which noted “a primitive depiction of all sorts of personal experiences and everyday scenes”, it was said about the need to “show the scope and importance of restoration work in the Donetsk basin”, it was indicated that the characters of the picture “are shown by backward and uncultured people with very low moral qualities”, etc. Extremely interesting is the speech of I. V. Stalin at a meeting of the Orgburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) on the question of the film “Big Life” on August 9, 1946:
“What is depicted there is certainly not a big life. Everything is taken in order to interest the undemanding viewer. One likes an accordion with gypsy songs. It's there. The other one likes restaurant songs. There is. The third one likes to talk about things. And they are. A fourth likes to drink, and there is a worker in the film who cannot be made to wake up unless he smells vodka and hears the ringing of glasses and then jumps up quickly. And it is. There are love affairs, too. There are different tastes in the audience. There is not much about reconstruction, however, although this is a film about the restoration of Donbass, there the process of restoring Donbass takes only one-eighth part, and all this is given in toy ridiculous form. It just hurts when you look, do our directors who live among the golden people, among the heroes, cannot portray them properly, but must necessarily stain them? We have good workers, damn it! They showed themselves in the war, returned from the war, and all the more must prove themselves in the reconstruction. In my opinion, the words of the leader are the best characteristic of the picture, because Stalin literally put the whole film on the shelves. However, his assessment is extremely negative, and for me, all the listed “cons” go to the film only in the “plus”, because “varnishing” and pomposity have not yet benefited any tape. Here's what Stalin says next:
“The film needs to be fixed. I don't know how to do that. If it is technically possible, it should be done, but what is left? The gypsy must be thrown out. The fact that eight girls who accidentally appeared turned everything around in Donbass is a fairy tale, it is an unthinkable thing. That too needs to be fixed. The fact that people live in terrible conditions, almost under the sky, that the engineer who runs the mine does not know where to sleep, all this will have to be thrown out. This may be the case in some places, but it is atypical. If you call the movie "The Big Life," it will have to be radically remade. You'll have to introduce more artists (although the artists are good). The whole spirit of partisanism, that we do not need educated people, that we do not need engineers, must be thrown out. What's left there? So the film can not be released, 4 700 thousand rubles are missing. If you can fix it, please correct it. But it will be very difficult, everything must be turned around. This is going to be a new movie.
In 1946, the fate of the painting was decided. In rental it was released only in 1958 - in the midst of the "Khrushchev thaw". In 1963, shortly before his death, Leonid Lukov edited a new directorial version, in which, in addition to removing all the fragments where Stalin was shown (portrait in the frame) or mentioned (in the text), he reduced two songs performed by Mark Bernes to one verse each, and the total chronometer of the picture was exactly 100 minutes. 100 minutes of an interesting, unusual, bright film action, with the head of immersing the viewer into the world of an unprecedented labor feat, the exceptional value of which was that people worked “like the cursed” not for themselves, but for the country in which they believed and loved with all their heart.
I would like to compare you with a nightingale song, with a quiet morning, with a May garden, with a flexible hillbilly, with cherry, cherry, and far my hazy, most distant, most desirable. How it all happened, what nights, three years I dreamed of you and met yesterday. I do not know any more sleep, I keep my dream, you, my dear, I will not compare with anyone. (" Three years I dreamed of you), lyrics A, Fatiyanov music N. Bogoslovsky