And the series turned out to be excellent, despite my disbelief and censure of friends. The old movie, with Bystritskaya, is certainly good, but! In this film adaptation, I am impressed by the maximum approximation to the source, that is, to Sholokhov’s novel, in contrast to Gerasimov’s film, where a 19-year-old (from strength) Grigory plays a 42-year-old actor. 42, Karl!!!! you can see that. "Dad" ) Bystritskaya at that time, too, is far from 19. This fact makes me very sad. For the cinema as a whole, for its meaning, this, of course, is not important, but it is for comparing the film adaptations and the proximity to the novel that is important. In the series, there are many dramatic scenes, also as close to the novel as possible and played to break. It was from this work that Evgenia Tkachuka, a wonderful, talented actor, noted for herself. And people are ordinary, which is more realistic than beauties and handsome people, when their images are already half the success of even the most mediocre film. Who has not seen - try to look with a fresh look, without blurring with Gerasimov's film, which many have watched 5 times and perceive as a sample and truth in the first instance, on the principle: here! and the grass was greener, and the water is wet ) Conservatism and art are not things together.
After this series, Ursulyaka watched Gerasimov's 3 episodes (on rewind). It's Communist agitation. The tragedy of people’s lives is in the background. Well, then Gerasimov could not otherwise. And Sergey Ursuliak is good.
Like an illustrious brother, the Rivers know the Quiet Don
At first, I confess, relations with Ursulyakov "Quiet Don" I did not get along. So much so that I was puzzled. Immediately christening after watching the first series of the picture “typical Russian cinema in the worst sense of the word”, I pronounced: “This is worse than Bondarchuk!” How good was Isaiah, how perfect was the Liquidation! However, a very good friend of mine and, concurrently, a Sholokhodist urged me to hold the horses and continue watching. Alas, the fact that in the first series I got only a brawl Petro and Stepan Astakhov on the observation road was the only one. My eyes beat. New faces, modern appearance of familiar, spiritualized by predecessors places. In addition, I was able to put only prominent diligence in approaching the case and a lean approach.
Without the long epithets, the second and third series seemed better. But with the fourth series went very nothing! The war started. As I said, “War rules!” (but only in cinema, of course, damn it!). From now on, I no longer found in myself a misunderstanding of the high appreciation of this work. But she, the assessment, and really almost on par with the adaptation of Gerasimov. Now and then I only say that Sergey Ursuliak's "The Quiet Don" is truly a good work! And when Sergey Vladimirovich already had three paintings from different authors behind him, his creation was doomed to be compared with them. But, hand on heart, it is appropriate to compare him only with Gerasimovski, but I do not want to do this either. I’ll just recommend two of these “Quiet Dons” without comparisons.
I mentioned in passing the painting by the author of Isaiah. As there, and here Sergey Vladimirovich Ursuliak does not single out neither red nor white, nor (as is the case only with the "Quiet Don") insurgent army of Cossacks. The director rather just shows the characters in the middle of terrible events, when the country cracked on the knee. In a civil war, there can be no truth. It's an eternal argument. Those who say we are still divided are right. A civil war is a war in which there is no moral winner. Everyone lost. I would say that first Nicholas II brought the country to death, and then Lenin ruined its corpse. The idea of communism is a stunning utopia. But the civil war in principle already gave the answer to the main question: what can not be brought to civil war! And the events of 1991 condemned this remarkable utopian idea, and it is now foolish to return to it. It's easier to leave everything behind.
So did Sholokhov. He described people, not an idea. People who fought themselves. Some imposed what they did not yet understand, others defended what was no longer there!
That's how Ursuljak is. But in addition to conveying the writer’s thoughts, the director had the task on the one hand to modernize “The Quiet Don” so that it was understandable to the viewer, on the other hand, so that it was not perceived as I perceived the first series. Polina Chernyshova, for example, said that at the time of filming she looked only at the 2/3 version of Gerasimov, so as not to copy Bystritskaya.
So, well, if I go about actors, then since I have already said about Chernyshova, I will say about another woman of Quiet Don. In my opinion, if Polina Chernyshova played more Cossack than Aksinho, then the daughter of the director Darya Ursulak played more Natalia, than a Cossack.Grigory Melekhov did not get into my audience heart at first, but even in the first series I began to look at the character. And in the end, I will say that Peter Glebov (Gerasimov’s Grigory Melekhov) is certainly good, but isn’t he? The whole spectrum of book Gregory was reflected by Eugene and it seems that in some ways even surpassed the classics! Sergei Makovetsky (Pantele Prokofievich) and Konstantin Zeldin (Grishak's grandfather) are just stars, they do not need to be represented. I especially liked Konstantin Zeldin. The best Ilyinich is here, and this Lyudmila Zaitsev!... Petro (Artur Ivanov) and Darya (Anastasia Vedenskaya) I even liked their book versions!. I just can’t tell you all about it...
Yes, in some places, the film adaptation turned out to be such that one could expect something else. No Shtokman here, no Bunchuk with Anna Pogudko. There are no evacuation events on steamers. There is no enrollment in a gang that sets the task of combating prodravravre... And some of the characters that are, Ursuliak strangely drank. I won't tell you who, because spoilers... But anyway, this is the best since Gerasimov “Quiet Don”. And if the task was to attract young viewers to literature, then I think it was implemented correctly! .
I have long mocked the series Ursuliak, because the reputation of the theme is severely spoiled by the perestroika crafts Bondarchuk with foreigners of different orientations in the role of cossaky and English as the language of the film. Well, of course, eclipsed everything and covered her eyes and blocked the road of the block of Gerasimov's Quiet Don. But the wife insisted and decided to watch this movie.
At first, everything was rejected. Cossacks appeared to be some stupid men from the sokha, stagnant and short-sighted. Dissolute lustful Cossacks, Grishka Melekhov without meat in his head, living only by instincts. It's all petty. Figures of the heroes are squats and earthlings, passions are small and dung, sweaty desires and thin squabbles. The series lost to Gerasimov literally in everything, the Cossacks looked half-literate cattle, Grigory suffered from bullshit and it was clear that he was not the master of his member, Aksinya appeared as a lustful slacker.
Quiet Don 57 was an epic canvas in which epic heroes of cosmic scale acted, Shakespearean passions burned with supernova plasma, in the fire of which galaxies burn, the characters of incredible beauty and power walked fiery roads between universes and stars from the Milky Way crumbled under their footsteps. And here ordinary village men and women mated, jealous, fought, killed ugly, viciously. It's bad!
But then suddenly I picked up and decided to read the book again. And all of a sudden, two amazing things came out. The first is that I haven’t read the book before. Apparently, only excerpts from the school curriculum. And secondly, Ursulyakov's Quiet Don is much closer to the book. And the meanings, and intonations, and the motives of the heroes, and the scale of these heroes. These are really illiterate men and women who fell into the whirlpool of war, revolution, fratricidal civil strife, who sailed along these waves, not knowing where to get to and changed sides a hundred times. And everything they had was just that - ordinary, small, human. And it was about the tragedy of a small man in the flames of the collision of eras that the meaning of the book was.
And everything turned upside down. I realized that it was Gerasimov who had “spoiled” the book. In quotation marks, of course. He gave everything an epochal scale, why the heroes were forced to grow to Homeric proportions. In addition, short, in comparison with the series Ursuliak, the timing forced him to rigidly simplify the whole action, tearing out many threads that sewed a large patchwork of the book. But the film became more solid and solid. Especially since the book is actually pretty shitty. In it, Gregory, in fact, is only one of the heroes and can disappear for a couple of hundred pages, as if he is not needed here.
Ursuliak, too, had to be cut and stitched, because if you remove the text - you will need a series of two hundred. Some heroes of the second plan, he combined several into one, threw something away. And it didn't always work out well. For example, Aksinya in the series looked like a lustful bitch, walking from a loving husband to a young cotton. And according to the book, Stepan beat her with a death battle for not being a girl - and it was not her fault, her father raped in his youth. And she hated her husband initially, and Gregory was the first love in her life, which is why she fell into him so fiercely as can only adult women who fell in love for the first time already when the time of love is long past. Well, the double final Ursulyaku failed - in vain he did it, only blurred the impression.
But the rest of the film is not better than Gerasimov! And Tkachuk is beautiful here. The real, book hero, his growth from a cocky honosh punk to a man disfigured by life, he conveyed perfectly. Unlike the same Glebov, who played an 18-year-old boy when he was already over 40.
Separately, it is worth talking about Makovetsky. In Gerasimov’s Pantelei film, Prokofjic is an angry, tough, predatory old man with unquestionable authority. And Ursuliak Makovetsky holds this image somewhere in series three. And then, apparently, the director weakened the reins and Makovetsky gradually began to play Makovetsky - actually a comic character, a cunning old man with the fee of a tribal rooster. The most interesting thing is that in the book he is, and then again with me a cruel joke was played by the correlation of the series not with the original source, but with the second source of the name Gerasimov. But still Makovetsky in my opinion could not keep my self within the framework of the role.
And another observation. Gerasimov’s Quiet Don was rigidly verified ideologically. Gregory's confusion in choosing a side there was clearly presented - he was lost. There can only be one side! In Ursuliak, the exact opposite is true, the red ones are served either by scoundrels or by lost ones, and every one of them. There are no positives among the reds. Now we take the book and see - and Sholokhov has the same! The book is amazingly counter-revolutionary! Cossack, grandfather's, linear, fastened - that's what Don held on Sholokhov! And the hostility to the sergeants, atamans, generals and other bourgeois in him, of course, through, but it is a hundredfold overlapped by the darkness, heartlessness and animal malice of those who went to the side of the reds. Most of them came to the Don to change the lives of those who lived there before them. Even those who seem to be a positive character come out strongly not very positive. Sometimes Sholokhov catches up and suddenly inserts several poster phrases into the narrative about the better share and victory of the revolution, the irrepressible red truth, etc. But it is so noticeable that these phrases are sewn into the canvas artificially, crudely, on top of living tissue. So here the Ursulyakov version is closer to the source than the Gerasimov version.
The movie was pretty good!
After reading the Quiet Don, I seem to guess to whom the famous “Ilf Petrov” dedicated the famous “The sun broke down, the rays spread across the white light.” Old man Romualdych sniffed his garment, and he was already bewitched.
When filming a large-scale work, whether it is ' War and Peace', ' Quiet Don' or ' Walking through the torments', it is impossible to fit all the vicissitudes of the plot and all significant images in a limited amount of screen time (the version of the series for a couple of hundred episodes is not considered - filmmakers will not pull, viewers will not appreciate). And the director inevitably faces a choice - what to throw away and what to leave behind.
Gerasimov half a century ago and Ursuliak today chose different answers to this question. Different, but in my opinion equally successful.
Gerasimov focused on history, focusing on key historical episodes. The Kornilov mutiny and the Novorossiysk evacuation, episodic appearances of allies and grand dukes, agitators of the Esdeks and white and green. The picture of the events of the civil war turned out to be holistic and vivid, but the history of the Don Cossacks became just one of the threads of this tapestry.
Ursuliak came from the other side - he focused on the images of individual people, and a very limited circle of people - the Melekhov family, and to some extent their closest relatives and neighbors (Astakhov, Korshunov, Koshevy). The rest of the characters are either ruthlessly thrown out of the plot (Shtokman), or brought to the periphery of the film (Kotlyarov). But as a result, each of the characters got an order of magnitude more screen time than in the film adaptation of Gerasimov, the characters turned out to be bright, lively, multifaceted. They can be sympathetic, they can be condemned, but it is difficult to remain indifferent. And the Civil War, which reflected in the fate of the residents of the Tatar farm, is perceived not as a detached historical fact, but as a terrible and not so distant in historical scale catastrophe. . .
I understand perfectly well that some viewers will like Gerasimov’s approach and not like Ursuliak’s approach, but quite the opposite. But the fact that both of them transferred Sholokhov’s novel to the screen, brilliantly revealing one of the facets of the novel (at the price of loss in the disclosure of other facets, but what is there to do?) – of course.
Drama TV series Sergei Ursuliak “Quiet Don” is the fourth adaptation of the novel by M. A. Sholokhov, filmed in 2016 at the studio “Moscino” by director S. Ursuliak.
The epic novel about the life, traditions and fate of the Don Cossacks is remarkable for me because M. A. Sholokhov wrote it from the age of 23 and despite the young age of the writer, the work turned out to be incredibly capacious, by the way, it was for him that M. Sholokhov was awarded the Nobel and Stalin Prizes. The novel is multilayered - the events of the work capture several storylines that unfold against the background of the First World War, Civil Wars and the Revolution.
In the film adaptations of the novel by M. Sholokhov (1930, 1958, 2006), the directors tried to focus on one of the ideas of the novel or the theme of war and the tragedy of the Don Cossacks unfolding against the background of it, or the love theme of Gregory and Aksinya - Intimate-chamber novel about the love of Gregory and Aksinya (according to Sholokhoved by V. M. Litvinov), also the script had to be written carefully, based on the ideological convictions of that time. In the 2016 version, S. Ursuliak tried to combine both ideas of the novel.
Sergey Ursuliak filmed “The Quiet Don” for two years and, reading about the creation of the series, delving into the filming process, I was struck by a lot of facts – for example, that the creators of the series bought a part of the field for sowing it with sunflowers for filming the meeting of Aksinya and Grigory in the summer, also to create a series was erected such a number of scenery that the scale corresponded to the whole Don village, etc.
In the film, the life of the Don Cossacks was worked out at a high level, S. Ursuliak was advised by local residents on these issues, and articles also claim that they were even present at the shooting. The villagers provided the director’s group with pots and glasses, cast-iron pans and brass kettles, tablecloths and curtains, harmonica and chests, pins and thimbles and even a Cossack earring, which is worn throughout the film in the ear of Pantelei Melekhov. The actors learned to speak and laugh properly, dance and walk, swim in the Don and be baptized, sculpt dumplings, fry eggs and cut watermelons. Young actresses learned to spin and milk cows, to carry water on the horse. And men - to cut checkers and shoot with rifles. Also throughout the film, the main theme is the wonderful music of the composer Y. Krasavin, which gives completeness to the video series.
One of the most powerful scenes is the shooting of Peter Melekhov by Mikhail Koshev – a turning point for Mikhail, after which he completely loses his “human” face and is characterized by increased rigidity in actions and lack of moral principles. Also in this episode, S. Ursuliak shows the true face of the Civil War, when his brother went on his brother, with the help of a director's reception - before the shooting, memories-frames that connected him with Mikhail are carried through Peter's head.
Also very touched by the scene in which Pantelei Melekhov receives the news of the award of Gregory for the feat, and he fatherly, very sentimental, proudly tells the whole village about the feat of his son. A touching, sincere episode performed by S. Makovetsky, it can be revised indefinitely.
Also leaves indifferent the moment when a photo of the Melekhov family is taken in their house. A picture of an exemplary, large, friendly family, from which only one person will survive later - Dunyasha's beloved daughter, and in the middle of the film, in this episode, the inevitability of death hanging over this family is felt.
Many of the actors who were involved in the filming are unfamiliar to me, but the performance touched many. One of the most striking characters, in my opinion, is the image of Pantelei Melekhov, created by an outstanding actor – Sergey Makovetsky. Pantelei is the head of the family, who, with all his soul, in his own way, cares for the well-being and honor of his family, and with the breadth of his soul, sincerity, anxiety, causes tenderness. I do not know who could convey this image more accurately than S. Makovetsky. Also touched by the image of Natalia, Grigory’s wife – interesting external data, to become, restraint, as well as the inner qualities of the main character, perfectly conveyed by Daria Ursuliak, when without words and tears the actress conveys the feelings of her heroine.
But Grigory Melekhov performed by Yevgeny Tkachuk absolutely did not like, in this image I did not feel the strength and power of the Don Cossack and the image of Peter Melekhov (Artur Ivanov), Grigory’s brother, much brighter, richer, more colorful against the background of the main character. And in the course of the plot, the desire to observe the fate of Peter was much stronger. I also perceive the image of Aksinya, whose experiences, performed by Polina Chernysheva, did not cause either sympathy or faith in their sincerity. Therefore, when watching the series, I mainly focused on the secondary characters, the game that admires – Arthur Ivanov, Sergey Makovetsky, Daria Ursuliak, Alexander Yatsenko, Grigory Melekhov’s mother.
The film tears the soul, there were episodes in which rolled tears. The film epic of S. Ursuliak really evokes incredibly strong emotions, makes a lot to rethink and overestimate in the course of watching the film, convinces of the cruelty and senselessness of war. A book, a film is an encyclopedia of human lives and hearts, where everyone will find an answer to the questions that interest him, the relevance of which will never disappear.
TV series ' Quiet Don' Sergey Ursuliak is one of my favorite TV series both because I love this director and his projects, and because the story of Mikhail Sholokhov takes by heart. A lot of contradictory comments were written after the premiere of this series and mostly all of it was compared with the film adaptation of the famous Gerasimov. I’m not going to do that, primarily because it’s wrong. Time goes by, new opportunities appear in the cinema that allow you to more interestingly reveal the plot and brighter show pictures of the lives of the main characters. That's why they're making new remakes. . .
First of all, this film adaptation of all the closest to the book and who read, I think will agree with me. . .
Secondly, it is a very integral picture masterfully directed, beautiful, atmospheric work of the operator, magnificent musical accompaniment and costumes. . .
And thirdly, a magnificent cast!!! Sergey Ursuliak gathered in this series the most talented young actors who play very realistically and professionally: Evgeny Tkachuk is simply unmatched in the role of Grigory Melekhov... how he changes from a reckless young man to a St. George’s gentleman and a Cossack torn by doubts. . .
Good as Aksinya and Polina Chernyshov. Daria Ursulak, Aleksandr Yatsenyuk, Nikita Efremov, Anastasia Vedenskaya, Timofey Tribuntsev, Alexander Gorbatov - in general, the whole color of modern cinema from young people is collected ... About the role of Sergei Makovetsky is just a separate story, so believable to play lame Pantelei Melekhov is not under the power of anyone, in my opinion.
I recommend everyone to see who hasn’t seen it yet. You won't. . .
After reading the novel Quiet Don, I decided to get acquainted with the three screen versions of this work, which were most interesting to me: the films of Gerasimov, Bondarchuk and Ursuliak. Bondarchuk’s canvas turned out to be disgusting, Gerasimov’s film is good, and Ursuliak’s painting is magnificent. I will say at once: the film adaptation of 1957 is objectively good, but it did not impress emotionally at all, but the series of Ursuliak touched the soul very much. I will try to figure out how he did it.
First of all, I will talk about casting. The selection of actors is mixed. In parallel with the delightful solutions are very controversial. Getting into all male characters is almost one hundred percent. Grigory Melekhov performed by Evgeny Tkachuk is the best embodiment of this character on the screen. Glebov was already over forty at the time of filming, so it was very unpleasant to look at him. Moreover, Gregory in his performance has not changed completely throughout the film. That at the beginning he had sad eyes, with a heavy and manly look of a bunch of wrinkles and a heavy gait, that at the very end he was exactly the same. Tkachuk throughout the series shows the development of character, aging in the eyes. Well, in emotional scenes Eugene is inimitable. Makovetsky as Pantelei Prokofievich is also great. I always knew that Makovetsky was a great actor, but with this work he moved to a new professional level. The other male roles are beautiful too. However, there are problems with casting for the roles of Aksinya and Daria. And the problem is not as an acting game. They play pretty well. It's about their texture. Well, I don't get the impression that Polina Chernysheva is Aksinya. Perhaps it is the age of the actress.
The novel itself was carried very carefully. Despite the fact that the director changed the order of some events, he managed to preserve the atmosphere of Sholokhov. Very much contributes to this brilliant music and excellent scenery. The series was filmed on Don - very close to the scene of the novel, and it helps to create a great atmosphere. The timing of 14 episodes of 40 minutes allowed to accommodate the most important scenes and at the same time add scenes aimed exclusively at creating an atmosphere.
In the end, I want to say that this series is not worse than the movie of 1957. Having talked to different people and read different reviews, I came to the conclusion that the series is scolded, first of all, by the same age as Gerasimov, who watched that film for decades, and now do not want to see anything new in what they are so much used to. Personally, I watched all the film adaptations in a volley, and I liked the 2015 series more.
9 out of 10
General impression: “The Quiet Don” is an epic novel in four volumes, has been filmed many times, but to confess, I have not watched any film until today. Do you have to start somewhere?
The series consists of season 1 and 14 episodes lasting about 43 minutes. From the very first to the last moment I was absorbed in watching, and as soon as the story was over I felt such pain and emptiness, as if my heart had been ripped from my chest, dreary and sad. But on the other hand, watch a story in which war, love, family relationships are famously swirling, become part of the series, and then get the residue from the finale... Perhaps this is the end of the stories with which you live your life.
Particular attention should be paid to the actors, of course, most of all stands out Yevgeny Tkachuk, he played Grigory Melikhova. The character is colorful, it is difficult to describe what is happening in his soul, throwing not only in affairs of love, but also in war. Evgeny played so that only a glance was enough to understand what the hero wanted to say. His temperament and temperament burnt everything in his path. A great acting game is when you enjoy the actor in each of his frames, especially when you need to show the maximum versatility, that Eugene is great.
Of course, an important part of the story is love. And in addition to the great feeling of Grishka to Aksinya (Polina Chernyshova), there is also a legitimate wife - Natalia (Darya Ursuliak). Two completely different women, one (Aksinya) is passionate and sensual nature, and the second (Natalia) is a calm and measured girl in her answers. But the most interesting thing is the love for two different beauties. Of course, I like Aksinya better as a character, but Natalia also has her own personality. In the course of the plot, you understand that there are no right and no guilty, there are victims of circumstances. And actresses cope with their difficult roles, showing a difficult female share.
Visually, the tape is very beautiful! They shot everything in the Rostov region and the colors of nature, as well as the change of the year attracts and pleases the eyes. But you also pay attention to the scenery and authenticity of the time. How the characters talk to each other, how the life is arranged, how women are dressed, hairstyles, all this creates a historical atmosphere, helping the viewer to bring closer to the setting and chronology of the plot. Characters grow up, which means that they change and attitude to them also changes.
A separate solo is the music in the picture. The composer of the tape Yuri Krasavin, did a great job. The melody touches the strings of the soul, perfectly combining with the actions of the characters and the plot, the music also acts as a hero. A storm of emotions floods when watching, and when you hear touching notes, so carefully selected for the situation, the heart breaks.
The series is worth watching to pay attention not only to historical and political aspects, but also to dramatic moments. I assure you, you will be captured by the narrative.
' Quiet Don' - a novel that takes by the soul, a novel that, of course, you will not fully understand at 17, reading it on the school curriculum. The classic, which, rereading at different ages, you discover anew and to tears imbued with events from the pages, experiencing, understanding the feelings of each hero, understanding Gregory, restless and facing a constant choice between different truths. The novel is simple, drawing life as it is, rough, lively, and therefore heavy, forcing you to think and rethink again and again what happened in the country and with people at that not so distant, but terrible time.
Why such a literary introduction? To the fact that just this ' life severity' the series of 2015 still did not last. It is fair to say that there is a lot of good in this film adaptation, too. The actors in general are well selected, the actors playing Petro Melekhov, Mikhail Koshevoy, Mitka Korshunov perfectly coped with the role. Especially Arthur Ivanov (Petro Melekhov), well, very well conveyed the character of his hero! This is how he appears in the pages of the novel - with a bright mustache, a mischievous light in his eyes, laughing and devoted to his family and his Cossack roots.
Sergey Makovetsky (Pantelei Prokofievich) also played well, although the hero was made somewhat too ridiculous, comical and therefore completely unserious.
Daria Melekhova is a complete failure. No trace of that sinful brightness, vicious arrogance, assertiveness and black & #39; semicircular eyebrows & #39; that distinguish this heroine in the novel. The gray, unremarkable presence on the screen, even the scene of her suicide does not cause any feelings inside.
Aksinya (Polina Chernyshova) is not bad. I liked it more than Bystritskaya, although the latter looks more like a Cossack, what to hide.
Gregory (Eugene Tkachuk) was unexpectedly struck. The first few episodes are a disappointment, and then a pleasant surprise. The actor well conveyed the inner change of the hero - from a young, carefree guy who easily throws Axinje 'Bitch will not want - the dog will not jump up', to a frowning, crushed by spiritual heaviness and pain, a man gray and tired of his soul (and in fact at the end of the novel he is only 30 years old).
The other actors are neither fish nor meat. It looks good, but it doesn't. I can’t help but say how constantly my eyes clinged to the snow blonde (may rival Daenerys Targaryen) Dunyasha – well, how?!
The music didn't really catch on. Not bad scenes with the nature of Pridona.
But the most important thing for which I can reproach - the directors somehow translated the entire film adaptation into a family-love epic. 80% of the time - love scenes, family drama.Yes, family and love line Sholokhov is also important and one of the main. But the main thing is still a man in the fire of the Civil War. The war itself, dirty, fratricidal, terrible in its anger, when a brother kills a brother, and a matchmaker’s kum, a painful search for truth and truth, innocent victims and revenge on those with whom he once shared bread and salt and drank vodka together. Military scenes are some light, almost not bloody, made casually. The turning points for the main character are not catchy, pass by and are forgotten in five minutes. I did not see in the series of war as such, neither the First World War, nor the Civil, and without it ' Quiet Don' not ' Quiet Don' and so, a good adaptation of a love story in wartime.
8 out of 10
For a good performance of the main characters, for a detailed follow-up to the book (although I never saw some characters), for a good overall quality in comparison with what ' riveting ' we usually have in Russian cinema. The finale was very shook, although it was made, again, not according to the book.
The series is not for depth, but for familiarization.
I liked the series because I am not a fan of Sholokhov in general and of canonical versions of his works in particular. The director, however, mostly picked up the right book images, asymmetrically turned the plot sideways, which may be good, but the series makes an impression and this is the main thing. As a hater of our modern cinema, it is enough that I ended up watching all these 14 episodes and was generally satisfied.
Alternative Grigory Melekhov, of course, at first stresses, but over time I fully recognized his right to exist, Evgeny Tkachuk played perfectly, it is unlikely, however, that I will see him in some other film. Sergey Makovetsky is always beautiful, a brilliant actor, always with pleasure I watch him both in movies and on stage. The images of Aksinya and Natalia may be controversial, but very convincing. This is about the game, not Sholokhov’s heroes. From school, I was still bothered by the question of how a girl of easy behavior can be a symbol of a work claiming to be elected by a nation. I am not talking about Sholokhov.
As it turned out, I watch the director for the third time, there was Liquidation, where I can review pieces with Makovetsky to infinity and Life and Fate, which I had to watch to compare with the book and I can not say anything good about this. I will not blame the director, but I do not see an excuse for him.
As a result, the story turned out not about the processes in the country, but more about restlessness and animal passion, but probably it is necessary. It's necessary. Komsomol said yes. The series looks good, but only for those who do not regret spending 10 hours on it.
Nature is beautiful, yes. It wasn't Warner Brothers. Fans should not watch this series.
Atmospheric, quite close to the book, but the main advantage is the acting. The only BUT is the orientation to the female audience, a brightly marked romantic line and faded events of the front, political struggle, despite the fact that the Quiet Don, after all, primarily tells about the tragedy of the Don Cossacks against the background of the events of the early 20th century, a change in personality as a whole on the example of Gregory, and last but not least - a love story. In the novel, all the facets of the characters’ personality, their experiences – both patriotic, universal, and romantic – are organically connected into a single whole, in the film most of the important events are indicated by the background, the prelude for the formation of the relationship between Gregory and Axinha, and not Gregory as a person.
What I liked was the cast. Grigory – perfectly fit into the image, it is controversial to compare Tkachuk with Glebov, both of them are so charismatic, so soulful embodied on the screen of their hero that you do not want to arrange a competition, you just want to enjoy their work. And certainly weaver on the head, if not two, played higher than Rupert Everet, which in this role is seriously impossible to look at, well, God.
Axinya is, in my opinion, the best. A beautiful woman, moderately grown and lived, but with the same charm that she reeked from the pages of the book. Bystritskaya is too rough compared to Aksinya-2015, IMHO. But in Polina Chernyshova there was some zest, thanks to which Gregory stuck to her for life.
Natalia slightly pumped up, as it seemed at first, with appearance, but the actress pulled the role. That's what she seemed in the book - modest, faithful, calm. Although the 1957 version, in my opinion, wins, Daria Ursuliak, to be frank, did not impress.
But the one who impressed - it's Mishka Kosheva! Getting into the image is 100%, the hero’s experiences are perfectly conveyed, even taking into account the plot omissions, the character is visible, the actor falls in love with himself, although the role is more negative. It was a pleasure!
I must say that the entire cast is well selected - and Daria, and, for example, the old Cossacks, although, of course, many characters in the film adaptation are shown in passing or excluded. Nevertheless, a very decent work, which I even want to review, I recommend.
A new adaptation of one of the most popular beloved Russian classic novels was waiting for most of the audience, despite the open hatred of the same majority for sequels and remakes of classics, both Soviet cinema and pre-revolutionary literary masterpieces. The reason for the positive expectation of the new “Quiet Don” was not only hatred of the version put by Bondarchuk Sr. and finished by his son, after which it received devastating reviews related to claims about the selection of actors. The personality of Sergei Ursuliak, who became famous for several successful projects, in particular, showered with laurels “Liquidation”; gave everyone hope for a worthwhile film adaptation, and I am sure that if a director of at least an average reputation took up this project, and everyone would say that another “rape of the classics” was being prepared. Sergey Ursuliak in an interview claimed that it was unprincipled for him to shoot a full meter, or a television film, in addition, it may have been decided to shoot a television series based on the amount of information in the novel, which is required to be transferred to the full extent on the screen, but in the end we saw that for 14 episodes, which is twice the timekeeping of the version of Bondarchuk , for some unknown reason, it was shown, perhaps even less important book events (I say, as a person who read the book from beginning to end and remembers everything that is happening in it), because I was not impressed by the book in her version. The reason lies, perhaps, not only in the presence in the novel by Mikhail Sholokhov of descriptions of frank and cruel scenes: the TV series is disgraceful and does not give a single reason to call themselves vulgar or bloody - the authors seem to say "Sorry, claps, but 12+" - enough screen time is devoted to vocal numbers and other art (although, of course, it would be impossible to show Cossack village festivities without costumed creative scenes), but, unfortunately, giving preference to the fact that it will be very important to see the novel, all the fans who are very happy to see the episodes). Perhaps the presentation here is more intelligible than in the Soviet adaptation of 1957, shot by Sergei Gerasimov (which also had a lot of understatement, but in general the production was performed at a high level); and the visual, perhaps the richest among all the four productions of the “Silent Don” (although, of course, if Ursuliak shot a movie, he could afford to show more spectacular battle scenes, but not to do with the beautiful scenery of farms and Don landscapes); but I can not even describe the most dirty elements of life when I read them, but I can not even see the most of my favorite things, but I can not even describe them when I see the most of my life. As a result, the result achieved by Ursuliak while working on the film adaptation of “The Quiet Don” can be called good, as a decent TV project focused primarily on schoolchildren, and not necessarily tenth-graders, but also younger children, even if they are still far from studying “The Quiet Don” under the program.
The first significant drawback is that nothing is said about the Melekhov bloodline and the monstrous sexual crime in the Aksigny family (as described in the novel on the front pages), so the viewer who has not read the book will not understand why she mentions her father in the first passionate embrace with Gregory. Instead, at the beginning of the first series, funny scenes from the life of the Don Cossacks are shown, and during the series there is a vocal and musical accompaniment performed by the latter. The whole first series tells about the novel between Gregory and the married Axinya, and about the debate of Gregory with his father because of this, the second series tells about the return of Stepan, the collapse of his wife's love affair with Gregory and the forced wedding of Gregory and Natalia (the beating of Axinya Stepan and the fight of Stepan with Gregory did not really show, although these are not the most important episodes of the novel), the third - about the escape of Gregory with Axinya from the farm and the attempted suicide of Grigory, and then the return from the family. The action is shown only since the fourth series, and then in small quantities. Pleased inserts from the silent adaptation of the "Quiet Don" of 1930 in the fifth series. The first bright episode with the depraved Daria is shown only in the sixth series, and, again, it will be unclear to a person who has not read the book who she is - her name is not even mentioned there. Aksinya's betrayal is not shown in as much detail as Sholokhov described - as far as I remember, she first pushed this mistress away, and then accepted him - it is immediately given here. In the seventh series, finally, there is a division of the Cossacks into red and white , during which the confrontation within families is visible. And in the ninth series there is nothing but the relationship of red and white, moreover, without action, but only with the behavior of one of the red, survivors of the death of relatives, and talk about power. Not a word about the relatives and love relationships of the heroes. In the tenth series, they smoothed out the scene with soldierly debauchery, in which Grigory participated as actively as possible, and OK, they did not show scenes of orgies because of 12+, but why did they remove the touching episode where Gregory turned away from the one with whom he was lying and remembered his Aksinha? And what caused a special indignation - the complete lack of information about what Natalia did to herself, learning that Grigory is again courting Aksinya - if you can forgive the lack of "blood", then at least dialogue about her terrible act should have sounded.
So, what is the final result of the project: visually, despite belonging to the rank of a television film, this version is better than all the previous ones; its timekeeping is much more than that of each of the old films on “The Quiet Don”, but for some it is a plus, for others the opposite; the complete absence of obscene and cruel scenes. I am sure that I would not be the only one who would prefer a movie for 2.5 hours, to which after the movie distribution an expanded television version of 10 episodes would be released (as it was with the Admiral), and would be glad to see a visually richer spectacle, at least at the level of the new “And the Dawns Are Quiet Here” (also showing an expanded version, only from 4 episodes). Of course, this result is higher than the silent film of 1930, shot with low technical capabilities of Soviet cinema of the time and showed 1/10 of the events of the novel. The series is good, but according to the book Masterpiece I would like to see an on-screen Masterpiece. Despite all the shortcomings:
I didn’t expect anything special from this film adaptation, as I used to be skeptical of each of them. It is very difficult to transmit on the screen what the author of the work wanted to convey, and if it succeeds, then it is possible to units. The previous two films don’t really exist for me. I do not in any way detract from the skills of those actors who starred in the first one and have great respect for the work of the director who directed the second one. But they did not shoot about what Sholokhov wrote. I read this book at the age of 23. To say that she caused strong emotions in me is probably not to say anything. I didn’t expect anything special from her. After all, it was written in Soviet times, and therefore had to be thoroughly permeated with Soviet ideology. I would like to stress here that my attitude towards the Soviet regime is not unambiguous, but in no case directly negative – it is simply not objective to look at the assessment of any historical events through the prism of the ideology of the victorious side. Heroes were on both sides, scoundrels were on both sides. As always. It's just that in that period of our history it was all the more dramatic that we were killing ourselves. Russian man of a Russian man, each other, brother of a brother, son of a father. And despite the Soviet censorship, the book was able to show it all. But the Soviet adaptation - no. It clearly demonizes the opponents of the coming Bolshevism. And clearly missed the very essence of the story - deeply personal experiences of a single family, individual people caught in the whirlpool of events of that terrible time of civil war.
The film adaptation of Sergei Ursuliak, which I saw 7 years later, made me relive all the strong and terrible emotions that I experienced reading the book, even though I thought that this was no longer possible. For me, there is no fundamental difference in the literal external correspondence of the characters, which everyone also represents differently. The main thing is that I believe the actors who play them. I believed them. I believed watching the game of Sergei Makovetsky, Evgeny Tkachuk, Polina Chernyshova and others. Their play, the work of the director and the music accentuating the severity of the events that took place forced them to internally gather their strength before watching each series to plunge into the experiences of those terrible days, those crucial events for our country in the whirlpool of which ordinary people turned out to be – with all their inherent advantages and disadvantages.
This book is about real life and real people. And Sergey Ursuliak's series is about the same thing. I don’t believe it’s possible to make a better film of this story simply because the emotion that the book evoked and the emotion that the show evoked is 95%.
Being under the aura of Gerasimov’s film, I thought to criticize Ursuliak’s film in poop and right, and honestly with this attitude sat down to watch. But after the third series, my opinion began to change, and after the last one I was satisfied with what I saw. And I will tell you why, films were shot at different times, respectively, completely different generations of actors are engaged in them, and modern actors simply do not understand what was the norm for Glebov, Bystritskaya, Dmitriev, Gluzsky. And this is reasonable, it is impossible to demand in the first quarter of the 21st century the faces and mentality of the second half of the 20th century, respectively, and they look different. The second view of Sergei Ursuliak on the topic is different from his predecessors, which is why he stretched the film to the series, where he tried to bring the event as close as possible to the novel. True, for some reason, Shtokman did not show, and after all, he is a key figure in the beginning of the discord in Tatarsky, and there is no Kalmykov line. But in a different way he showed the events of the Don Republic led by Podtelkov and the origins of Melikhova’s fluctuations. In the third, the actors were clearly trying, even if I did not always like how I played, but it is my thoughts - in general, as indicated above, different times - the characters look different, accordingly, it makes no sense to criticize.
Now to the merits of the serial presentation - for me, of course, this delays the film, but gives a deeper understanding of the images of the characters, in particular, the relationship of Peter and Grigory Melikhov, doubts in his brother is Peter's pain, he is just a conservative, as a father and his desire for the abstract Truth of the younger brother is not clear, he has the Truth covered with centuries and blessed by the elderly. And Gregory is rushing, perhaps without the revolution he would have reconciled himself, settled down - but the changes in the country tore his restless soul, not only personally, but also socio-politically. Makovetsky very well showed Pantelei Melikhov - loving sons, but not understanding the younger, and therefore pitying the restless soul. The inner conflict of Natalia, her suffering and love are also shown more deeply. Of the minuses of the heroes, only Mitka Korshunov, Efremov did not turn out a hero, although he tried - a villain must be able to play, although I liked the actor himself in the film.
In general, very good work, which can be criticized for some shortcomings, but in general we must recognize successful.
I didn’t think that after the wonderful adaptation of 1957, I would be able to appreciate some more film adaptation of “The Quiet Don”, it is very rare now you can get to a really high-quality and soulful film. The film adaptation of Sergei Ursuliak was a pleasant discovery for me - I enjoyed watching it. I liked the play of young actors playing Grigory, Aksinha, Natalia, Peter, Daria, Dunya – all of them, in my opinion, understood their heroes and were imbued with their history. The role of the actors, playing the parents of Grigory and Natalia, was also very liked. Loved the music, nature, scenery – they all reflect the spirit of the time. Even the outward dissimilarity of some actors to their book heroes could not reduce the pleasure of watching - they played too brightly, thoughtfully, vividly and interestingly. I found only two small drawbacks for myself: in my opinion, there were too many military scenes (you could squeeze them slightly) and there was not enough Mishatka’s son in the final scene – it could have turned out more emotional. But overall, I was pleasantly surprised and pleased.
For those who have not read the novel and have not seen the 58th edition.
In our country slowly, surely begin to shoot good biopics and historical series about the war. In general, we shoot a lot about the war on a large scale and every year we see a couple of new films and 3-4 series in the cinema. But this is a special case. The 4th film adaptation of the most powerful novel by Mikhail Sholokhov about the civil war. Special also because there is a film by Sergei Gerasimov 58, so beloved by the older generation. And third, special because there is a film adaptation of 2006, Sergei Bondarchuk ... failed miserably.
In general, before the start of viewing, we have a stunning novel, a good and most importantly beloved film adaptation of the Soviet time and a couple of trailers from Russia 1 with Evgeny Tkachuk (Grigory Melikhov) which is known to the viewer except for the role of Mishka Yaponchik (which he coped with perfectly, but from a Jew thief to Cossack, it is somehow hard to imagine...). All this was very, very not encouraging, and all around and heard “why do they take at all”, “why spoil the book”, “there is already a good film”, all in the spirit.
What's out. On the way out is a well shot, beautifully shot, strong piercing film. There is no film, because each series looks choppy and a sense of integrity, which is so not characteristic of the series, is present in full.
The aforementioned Tkachuk perfectly copes with the role of Melikhov Junior, he accurately conveys his experiences, his feelings, his stubbornness and strength. He makes you doubt with him, you don’t love him, you don’t understand him, and at the same time you empathize with him. So he was able to create a character. Similar to Sholokhov's character? Not exactly. Just as bright? Perhaps.
In general, all the actors with the main and secondary roles in this film, in my opinion, coped. Very well played Melikhov senior Makovetsky, coped with the roles and Alexander Yatsenko(Mikhail Kosheva), Artur Ivanov (Peter Melikhov), Nikita Efremov (Mitka Korshunov). Regardless of the length of the role, each actor gave everything and tried to play to the maximum. If you look for something to find fault with, then personally I did not like how Polina Chernyshova (Aksinya) revealed her character, well, she did not pull her image, especially against the background of the refined Daria Ursuliak (Natalia) which made you empathize with your heroine the whole film. Well, perhaps Anastasia Vedenskaya (Darya Melikhova) has outplayed and added a lot of inappropriate sexuality.
The series does not seem long, does not bother but still clearly lacks battle scenes, all the same Quiet Don is not only about feelings and emotions, it is also in direct and about the war. And here it is missing, to shoot full-length battles we have not learned, and their place is occupied by love scenes. In addition, it is worth noting the selected music and the main musical theme to be the whole film.
To summarize, I want to say that the creators of the picture coped. The film conveys the main meaning of the book. The film does not depart from the book and “free will” is so unnecessary sometimes there. Yes, the film will not arouse enthusiasm among the old generation, people who “grown up” on the Quiet Don of 58 with Bystritskaya and Glebov in the lead roles, the film is unlikely to arouse delight among those who have read the book several times and presented the characters in their own way. But! This film is for the present, for the present generation. For those with nothing to compare. Again, film adaptation does not change books. Tkachuk doesn't lose to Glebov, he just plays differently. But the main thing that plays, like others, is good.
The series is for those who want to try to feel the feeling of the Civil War, to look a little into the horror of that time, to understand what it is when "brother goes to brother."
The series is for those who want to see a beautiful story of feelings, love, those who just want to enjoy, rare in our time, a good performance of actors – look, you will not regret it.
8 out of 10
At school, I was “The Quiet Don,” as they say, “niasililil,” limiting myself to watching two episodes of Gerasimov’s film. The book waited on the shelf for 19 years and finally waited. This book shocked me, really worthy of the Nobel Prize. Hot on the trail decided to watch the series, which in the year of release did not pay attention. I was preparing to watch without much fear, because I believed that Sergei Ursuliak would at least not do a bad thing. It turned out to be even good.
So, the creators of the series, having wisely decided that it is impossible to embrace the immense, focused on the dramatic relationship of the Melekhovs-Korshunovs-Astakhovs. The lines of the Mokhovs, Bunchuk, Knave were cut off, the Listnitsky line was severely cut, the death of Pantelei Melekhov was shown in another way. In general, it is justified, yet timekeeping and budget are not rubber. The war is shown as if dashed, and, in my opinion, too ennobled (at 12+, apparently, wanted to fit in). Sholokhov, describing the details, did not spare the reader, so that everyone understood that this should not happen again. Well, so be it. There used to be censorship restrictions, now financial and commercial.
The ending, compared to the book, is rather pessimistic. With Sholokhov and Gerasimov, the finale gives Grigory hope for a new life. But we know how it all ended, we know that after 1922 there were 1930, 1937 and 1941. So I personally support this final.
Now for the main characters.
Grigory Melekhov (Eugene Tkachuk) wonderfully showed the evolution of his hero: first he is a young reckless guy, then a dashing warrior-Cossack, then a restless, desperate man. The attitude towards the actor has changed from "Well, in principle, similar" to "Yes!" This is the real Gregory, only this is how it should be.
Aksinya (Polina Chernyshova). This choice surprised me, frankly. Sholokhov’s Aksinya had a sensual, alluring beauty, from it emanated the very “flavor of a bad drunk”, which attracted men. And here it is not clear what Gregory found in her, the actress, though pretty, but not that. In addition, by the beginning of their relationship, Aksinya experienced rape by her father, regular beatings of her husband, starting from the first wedding night, the birth and death of a child. That is, she is older than Gregory, and Stepan she has something to love. In the film, all this “baggage” was left behind the scenes, it turned out just a kind of young woman, who came to mind, and she deceives an unhappy husband with a young boy. In general, not impressed, although it is clear that the actress tried, the role understood. When I read that she was born in 1993, everything fell into place. The role is too complex, for it it is necessary to “mature”, “acquire” acting and everyday experience. By the way, in the second half of the film, when the leadership in the tandem passes to Gregory, they look more convincing together.
Peter Melekhov (Artur Ivanov) is right in the eye! Best supporting role in this film! In general, the duet Grigory-Peter is one of the most convincing in the series, scenes with their participation take right for the soul.
Daria (Anastasia Vedenskaya) although not similar in appearance to the description in the novel, in General liked. It turned out to be, let's say, a woman of easy behavior by calling. Unfortunately, they were behind the scenes of the relationship between Peter and Daria. It is a pity that the film did not include a scene when Daria comes to the location of the unit to visit her husband, she could clarify a lot.
The discovery for me was Nikita Efremov, who played the role of Mitka Korshunov. It was a pity there were few scenes with his participation, there is nowhere to turn talent. And such a charismatic scoundrel could turn out!
You can talk about the rest for a long time, in general, the acting ensemble liked it. There were bright, outstanding works (Sergei Makovetsky), there were also those who did not spoil things, and thank you for that (Nadezhda Lumpova, Daria Ursuliak).
Bottom line: within the existing budget and timekeeping, a good, careful film adaptation turned out. To study the novel on it, of course, is not worth it, too much circumcised, but in general, I think, the spirit of the novel, its modern reading managed to convey.
8 out of 10
I remember I began to read the epic novel twice: the first time I did not go beyond the first paragraph - I did not pull the syllable, it seemed to me cunning; the second time I already overpowered, although there was at least some skepticism. I'm so overpowered. Then I couldn't recover for two weeks. I laughed at the beginning, then I cried, I cried straight with my heart. I never loved that time, it was ugly, it was painful and hurtful for Russia, for people. And here are these very events, and even such love, and friendship and everything - life, in short.
The premiere of this series did not watch: neither the actors on advertising, nor the character itself was hooked - disappointed, and did not start watching. 'Stupid Girl'. I watched it a week ago with the 5th episode. Somehow I was hooked, hooked not to tell. Well, everything here: the actors, and their play, and landscapes, and characters, and music? It was as if God had created it and put it where it needed to be. This music did not give me peace after the end of the series. Like the whole show. Touched, yes. I do not want to cry at all, but here again - as from a work - I so gustled with my soul. I didn’t even start watching the 1st series. It's been a week and I can't help it again. It was all very close to my heart. All losses, sufferings, experiences as their own.
Here's the thing - there's not a touch of fiction, you literally smell it at the subconscious level. There was nothing to invent.
Of course, the material itself is just shivering, but it still needs to be submitted correctly. Ursuliac and his team managed to do that. I heartily congratulate them. There is nothing to argue about – it touched, so they coped, so they understood what was what. Thanks. To re-read such a giant (in every sense) as ' Quiet Don' difficult, and feel again want. That's it. Thanks.
I finally watched the show in May and didn’t regret it. Filmed qualitatively, the actors play perfectly and it feels that this is a Russian film based on a great work of Russian literature, and not an attempt to do something “like theirs.” Magnificent pauses, musical themes of the characters and well-noticed details, individual phrases, shots that are remembered for a long time.
But the problems, of course, are not small either. First, there is a lack of battle scenes, of course, Ursuliak deliberately focused on human fate, and, probably, the budget was limited. But Quiet Don is an epic novel, and it is wrong to limit it. And then, except for the ribbons on the papahs, it is not clear that the Cossack uprising is not entirely white, and in general the whole policy is like roaching cockroaches, and lumps moved, worldviews were redrawn...
Second, there is little left of Sholokhov’s heroes and his text. Perhaps Grishka is most similar, although Tkachuk, of course, is physically small for Melekhov, but his eyes look noble. And yes, Makovetsky is magnificent in the role of Pantelei Prokofievich, his game and built image can generally be taken as a benchmark. But it's not all that smooth with the others. Natalia is shown not to be meek, but rather to be a douche, low-spirited one, which she was not; and at least a scar would be painted on her neck, since Daria Ursuliak quickly forgets that it is necessary to bow her head to her side, and sometimes it is completely unclear why she is crippled and what ugliness she has. Daria somehow takes love for her husband, which Sholokhov did not even have in mind, and it is also unclear why before she died she says that she did not love anyone, with her in general a lot of things have been remade. Why is she drowning in other circumstances, why is there no scene with her drunkenness after receiving a medal for murder? Daria is completely different. The relationship between Axigny and Gregory is shown not so much as an all-consuming old age, but as an affair from boredom. Aksinya constantly howls that Stepan ruined her whole life, that she will love Grishka for everything, and how Stepan tortured her, why she took so long with Listnitsky... And, of course, all “Cossacks” lack “scale”, they are painfully flat. Special claims to completion, Ursuliak Melekhov - a living corpse, which has everything in the past, Sholokhov - before him a whole peaceful life, a new future.
And the last one is a torn temporite. It seems that the director and screenwriter were terribly carried away by the pre-war and pre-revolutionary part, and then suddenly remembered that they did not fit into the television timing and cut the remains, as God puts on his soul. Sholokhov, of course, also has such a moment, but Ursuliak is completely confused. Pantelei dies behind the scenes, Stepan disappears somewhere, even at the very beginning the child of Daria and Peter disappears. Axigny's murder scene blurred... The retreat of the Cossacks to Constantinople is not shown, and it is completely incomprehensible how Gregory, fleeing with the Cossacks, does not turn out to be with them, but again with the Reds in Poland.
I could have done better, but thanks for not ruining it.
The film turned the whole soul inside out. Everything human is so naked, so simple. Without any confused philosophical self-inventions. This is the merit of Sholokhov.
Stunningly recreated the psychology of a man in the image of Grisha Melikhov. All the darkened sides of the male soul were illuminated like spotlights. Weaver - more than ' able to play '. Special talk, amazing timbre. Words spoken through a lump in the throat. Facilitation, gestures - to play a living person is more difficult than ' to perform ' role. A game that deserves an Oscar.
The image of Koshevoy Bear is played brightly, transparently. All the vices of the hero’s soul are reflected in the face of the actor.
Music very harmoniously accompanied the feelings and actions of the characters, and landscape scenes. Nature in the film, it is worth noting, echoes the feelings of the characters, just as in the novel. And this gives the cinema a special expressiveness, touching and penetrating.
Incredible ending scene. Anyone who dreams of living a Christian life.
The general conclusion is to weep and shout bravo to Sholokhov, Ursuliak and the actors!
Probably the best movie I've ever seen. Understandable to the Russian man, making his way to the most remote corners of the soul.
10 out of 10
All the actors played penetratingly and piercingly. Thank you for that interpretation! I have never noticed the transition from what is in the book, to what ' based on ' - everything is organic: from speech to action. Gregory is not cardboard, not poster, but real. At first arrogant, as they say, in his youth, and not particularly cute as a person. Then rebellious, battered by life. Or even killed... And women's images and destinies! All the young actresses played so that you believe that love is everything in this world: joy and great sorrow. But the main thing - you understand that all wars are meaningless, you understand why our ancestors before the war in the countryside could not eat bread to eat, why the villages were depopulated. But what exactly is impossible to understand - why did they kill each other: brothers, Cossacks of peasants, Cossack men, whites - reds, reds - Cossacks and peasants?! Why didn’t you have the wisdom not to succumb to civil war provocations? And they did not share the land during the war, after which there was no one to work on it! Then what?
Many questions, many answers, but one thing is always the pain of watching this movie. We were shown how in a few years you can destroy everything that has been created for centuries. . .
Thank you to everyone who made this movie!
After viewing - a sense of universal grief and sadness. I don’t know whether foreigners will understand this film, whether our young people will understand it, but one thought is especially clear after watching: we need to protect each other, no matter how different we are. We have lost too much in favor of ideas with unknown consequences. Do not destroy the world with violence! Let us build and love each other!
There is no film of life, passion, real feeling, which breathes the novel.
Stretched in the film quiet, calm, endless mother Rus. Milk rivers wash the jelly banks. Hey, geese swans, what fairy tale have you flown into these dispassionate lands? Joyful Cossacks sing good songs in chorus. Girls in expensive holiday handkerchiefs with brushes are lying in the grass. Where is the mere tattered sitter, where did the intoxicating air of freedom that saturated the pages of Quiet Don disappear? Probably, realism began and ended on the dirty nails of Aksinya, embracing her beloved Hrishu on the white sheets.
Gregory Melekhov was very organic. He was the only one who did not play, but was a free Cossack who loved a woman and his native land. The rest, no matter how hard they tried, remained urban people who tried to get used to the image.
Speech in the film just cuts the ear with its deliberateness. Axinya is some tired, anxious girl. Makovetsky remains faithful to Chekhov, Dostoevsky, but not Sholokhov’s novel. He is too intelligent and subtle for this role, although he works hard. And these doors painted with fresh paint in houses, and then wiped under the old days, as in the School of Repair.
And the general impression of the picture is the anointed heroes, pure lubric. There is no life, passion, real feeling in the film that the novel breathes.
That's a great show. Successfully conveyed the era, and the local Cossack dialect, and songs.
Actors are good! Separately, Makovetsky is one of the most characteristic and interesting actors of Russian film production, infinitely talented and multifaceted.
Ursuliak qualitatively and professionally shot the series, as in the old days they filmed - "Eternal Call", the old "Silent Don". Close-up every face, eyes, in them you see the character, emotions, temperament of the characters.
...
Yes, there was a terrible, troubled time. The new government pitted the people, fratricide began. Deprived people of ideals, of faith. They took the land they had washed with blood and blood.
10 out of 10
I've watched 1.2 episodes so far (I hope to see everything).
I liked the method - shown from the inside - the viewer becomes an accomplice to the action, a witness to the hidden. . .
But: somehow everything is modest - well, not so poor lived the Cossacks ... although the attributes (I would say artifacts) are collected well and taken in detail - the eye pleases.
The general impression is that actors try to play conscientiously, but unfortunately they do not live.
By the way, by the details - suspiciously good horses - just a miracle - I can't believe how, I remember Sholokhov's Gregory bought a horse for the service - they chose, bargained - as a result, the horse commission rejected - I had to show Peter's horse later. .
Pantelei Prokofveich - a burning brunette with Turkish blood, light as a jockey - received a prize from the tsar in his youth for winning the race. As mentioned in one of the reviews above, I see Mashkov in this role. . .
Well, involuntarily compared with the first film and you realize that there were great directors and great actors. . .
In general, it is worth looking at conscientious work. .
A screen adaptation of Quiet Don. Part 4. Soap on motives
It is funny that all three full film adaptations were shot by directors named Sergey. No less amusing that the three directors of the very first (but incomplete) film adaptation of the surnames began the same with two letters PR. Ironically, it just happened... It doesn't matter.
Ursuliak has established himself as a good serial director, “Liquidation” glorified him, and now he ventured to take on “The Quiet Don” by Sholokhov, to challenge the previous screenwriters. And... what happened?
And the soap came out based on motives.
The longest screen adaptation with the most stripped-down content was released.
As a result, a multifaceted voluminous novel with a bunch of actors left horns and legs.
It is understandable that the whole novel is useless to shove into the narrow framework of cinema. But involuntarily the question arises, why leave only the most-most main characters, depriving them of the background?
After all, the novel is not only Melekhov. It's not just Vyoshenskaya. The whole Don Cossacks, the whole world, in which, as in a mirror, a turning epoch was reflected.
What's here? It’s a modern Russian TV series. Incredibly boring chewing personal relationships against the background of nothing. Seriously, they didn’t live long enough, and then suddenly everything went to hell. Historical events seem to take place somewhere in a parallel universe, leaving their mark on the chronicle. There is no connection or motivation of the characters.
However, judging by the interview with Ursuliaom, he himself the novel is not that he did not understand - he, apparently, diagonally read it.
Okay, excessive simplification can be written off on a modest budget (but why take it then, not on Senka the hat). But the actors...
No, weaver, I think he's tolerable. Outwardly suitable, but in play and charisma. No, it's not good for the main character. Ideal (for me) would be apricots from three PR.
But Chernyshov as Aksinya is a failure. She's plain, she's gray. It is very far from Bystritskaya and Cesarskaya.
Makovetsky... No, as an actor there are no complaints, but his Pantelei came out some kind of buffoonish, unserious.
Of course, the selection of actors for leading roles is better than in the Bondarchukov series. But to put it mildly, it's not a fountain either. And this is with the loss of atmosphere, epic...
Separately, I note the music that did not sound in harmony and did not fit. Even though the bear was sitting down on my ear, even to me the alienity of the music was obvious.
In the end, it’s just a weak typical series, which many are rattling on our TV today, it suffers from the same shortcomings, wields the same cliches and cliches. Only the shadow of the novel lifts it slightly above the everyday slag, but...
But Gerasimov’s version is better in all respects. Bondarchukovsky is second only to the selection of actors for leading roles (and then, I would look at Ursuliak in the circumstances there).
However, if the series aroused interest in the source and Gerasimov film adaptation ... Well, so be it. Time will judge everyone.
In 2015, in honor of 110th anniversary from the birth of the famous Soviet writer Mikhail Alexandrovich Sholokhov, the TV channel "Russia" showed a new adaptation of his immortal novel < Quiet Don .
This time to enter the fourth time in the same river tried Director Sergei Ursuliak , put before that for the "Russia" "Liquidation", "Isaev", "Life and destiny". To be honest, I liked his previous projects, so I was even glad that he took up the new production of Quiet Don (although the situation with the previous version and its Oscar-winning creator suggests that a talented director does not always manage to keep the stamp). Did I like his adaptation? In principle, yes (but with great reservations).
Firstly, the structure of the series raises many questions, since at some points Ursuliak focuses close attention (singing Cossacks songs, a scene with Cossacks and watermelons, horse racing between Listnitsky and Korshunov), but at the same time much of the book was thrown out and did not enter the series. And therefore it was a shame to watch how in the final series the creators had to walk “gallop through Europe”. For example, a viewer who has not read the novel will not understand what Grigory Melekhov did for a year before he returned home, and what kind of armed men were with him in the woods. Still a bad attempt to make the viewer think for himself.
In the series (which takes place from 1912 to 1922), each new time period is accompanied by a corresponding title. But even those who have read the novel can easily get confused by these temporary jumps in the series, as they sometimes do not correspond to the events in the book, and alternate quite often. Perhaps a voiceover would save the situation, but alas.
Secondly, small plot discrepancies in the series, shot “based on motives” – quite normal in cinema. But the ending that Ursuliak showed still gives me vague feelings. For me, the fact that there was no meeting of Gregory with his son is a minus of the film adaptation. But the scene in which Melekhov in his vision meets relatives and other farmers who have passed away, working in the field, deciding to join them, I was very moved. And the director’s idea to show instead of a weak hope for a happy family life (which was in the book, and in the versions of Gerasimov and Bondarchuk) the tragic hopelessness in the scene of Gregory’s return to a ruined, almost uninhabited chicken is not without common sense. In general, the finale takes its originality, but repulses not canonical, and therefore it is very difficult to evaluate this scene.
Third, the cast, for the most part, caused mixed feelings.
Grigory Melekhov ( Eugene Tkachuk) - first shown by a personality that develops. Glebov in the film in 1957 was good, but he did not look very good in his 42 years as a young guy, and played the same: powerful and hardened nerves. And Tkachuk played a “green” crazy guy who eventually becomes a fearless Cossack. He also played very emotionally and vividly.
Aksinya ("Polina Chernyshova") - did not work out, because the youth of the actress (who was 20-21 years old at the time of filming) and the lack of much life experience affected the role. Although she is a good actress, the role is too complicated.
Natalia (Darya Ursuliak) - no matter how skeptical I was about those relatives of directors who play in the frame, the daughter of Sergei Ursuliak coped with the role (which can not be said about Alena Bondarchuk in the previous film adaptation).
Pantelei Prokofievich Melekhov (Sergei Makovetsky) — 50:50. If you judge acting, it's brilliant. Well, the fact that the image of Pantelei was comical... Well, in the "Liquidation" of his Fima, too, was not taken seriously (although there and without Fima-half-the-wild was someone to laugh the viewer). But with Lyudmila Zaitseva (Ilyinichna), Makovetsky got a beautiful duet.
Petro Melekhov (Artur Ivanov) and Daria (Anastasia Vvedenskaya) are another good tandem in the series. Perhaps at first I did not like Daria very much (the actress did not stand out, compared to others), but by the second half there were more scenes with her, and there was where Anastasia would turn.
Mitka Korshunov (Nikita Efremov) is the most important find of the series. A cruel sadist and a monster – this is how he was depicted in Sholokhov’s novel Natalia’s brother. And here I can’t help but pay tribute to Efremov – Mitka liked him much more than Boris Novikov in the 1957 version. Novikov didn't really stand out in that movie at all - so, human function. And Nikita, embodying in his hero features not only Korshunov, but also fellow soldier Grigory - Chubatoy, for a long time cuts into memory. It is a pity that they did not introduce the story of Mitka’s unsuccessful matchmaking on Lisa Mokhova into the series.
Mikhail Koshevoy (Alexander Yatsenko) is another central character, remarkably spelled out in the film. It is obvious that Yatsenko goes from friendship to the enmity of his hero with Grigory in the series, and he perceives the gap painfully (which indicates the talent of the actor). An unfortunate omission is the absence of Stockman in the series. Because it is not clear why Kosheva, Kotlyarov and other Cossacks would accept the ideas of Bolshevism. It turns out that everyone left for the German war, and already in 1917 there was a split among the soldiers (for no obvious reason).
When watching, it was completely incomprehensible to introduce the character Liki Nifontova to the series. I have nothing against the actress (given her role in Poirot's Failure and Liquidation), but she looked obviously superfluous in this series.
Given the unhealthy tendency to portray whites as purely patriotic and noble officers ("Gentlemen Officers: Save the Emperor," "Admiral," "Sunstroke"), there were fears of seeing something similar in the new "Silent Don." Fortunately, the fears were in vain, as the director deliberately abandoned all ideology in favor of screening human destinies. But I cannot but note that for the first time Ursuliak transferred to the screen an episode from the book that could not have filmed the Gerasimov in his time - the conflict of Gregory with one of the Red Guards detachments that occupied the farm. And after the demonstration on the screen of the arson of the farm by Koshev and the punitive action by Korshunov, you inevitably come to the idea that in the Civil War all are “good”.
For me, Ursuliak’s Quiet Don was a good attempt to touch the classics once again. The series definitely has something to blame, but it did not cause such obvious rejection as Bondarchuk’s version. Is Quiet Don fair to win Golden Eagle in 2017 for Best TV Series (more than 10 episodes)? I think it's fair. But whether it will become a classic, as once the film Gerasimov — a big question.
8 out of 10
Thank you to the creators for this work, thank you for giving the opportunity to touch and see what we missed without reading this, as it turned out to be to our shame, a great work of Sholokhov.
Thank you for tearing out all your feelings. Several times I looked at my eyes and sweated and my throat clenched. Although men, it would seem, do not have to cry during watching movies, and even TV series.
And I am so bitter now, watching the series, that I lost all these people, that I came here, registered and want to write a few words, too, commemorating all these wonderful people who were grinded by the civil war.
During the viewing, each man will ask himself questions about women - about how they love some, and take others as wives, and about their career - how they rush between the Reds & #39; and the Whites & #39; And relations with parents - what cruel and touching our fathers and what an all-forgiving love mothers and how we always return to our home, lick our wounds.
But just as I did after reading Dr. Zhivago 39, I had one clear thought: Bolshevism was the worst thing that happened in the 20th century.
Thank you again to the creators of this film, because thanks to them, all those who did not find time to read the novel, will be able to watch a beautiful film adaptation and think about the most important things in life concerning family, love, homeland, politics, life and death.
SINGS
Bravo, maestro! you succeeded in the impossible - you brought my favorite book to life!!
Quiet Don is my favorite book since childhood. Not because of the school curriculum, but because we are direct descendants of the Don Cossacks, who accepted Soviet power, like Kosheva from the book. My relatives honor and remember traditions that have been established for centuries, have a pedigree since the 1600s, when their ancestors came to the Don, (the native was from rich and educated Cossacks), especially an aunt-historian, so I was explained from childhood. And I love historical works that allow you to immerse yourself in another era, and when it comes to home warm places only a little more than a hundred years ago. The book was always struck by the slowness, the descriptions of nature are so accurate, nothing has changed. I read it, read it, and decided to take on the film. Comparison with the series 2015 is subject to the film 1957, but as long as I did not watch it – inaccuracies, a slightly incorrect reconstruction of the Cossacks of that time. For example, shooting on the Donets, the Cossacks eat black bread. And the actors, in the Soviet way, try, the film wants to be perfect, but something is missing, probably soul.
And then, hurrah, there was a series that brought the book to life. He looks like a book is read – long, thoughtful, admiring the landscapes and trying to feel the atmosphere of time. There is no confusion, clumsiness, the director also took into account previous mistakes. Well done, dear Don, which is great. In the rooms of whitewashed houses kerosene, and by the end of the viewing, I remember my good great-grandmother, who lived for 90 years, she had the same kerosene, and she also seemed to be talking, cooking kaimak, ryazhenka and nests of yogurt ... Her childhood coincided with the childhood of Mishka Melekhov from the book, Sholokhov was not much older and lived 100 km away. She told about that time, and coincides with the film - small things, life, expressions. This is probably how it was.
Of course, there are complaints when it comes to such a serious work, not without them. Actors playing Grigory and Axinho at first do not play very well, but then they enter the role and everything is perfect. Natalia, Pantelei Prokofievich and Ilyinichna in the actors are beautiful, alive, as it should be! Here Daria did not come out very well, Petro is also not really how it turned out. I think it's a cat! There is no evil, war is war. And also, well, why, why did not Grigory and Axinho play at least somehow black eyes were mentioned more than once in the book.
But anyway, thank you so much to the creators, thank you for watching it for free. You've made my week as you've been to your favorite places! Bravo!
This film, by the way, is not about the love of men and women, not a retelling of facts, not even quite about the senselessness of war, but about love, first of all, to the native land. Which is like a red thread.
Ursuliac, in my opinion, progresses with every film. At least remember his life and destiny. And after Quiet Don, for me, this is the best director in a serial format.
The task he took on here is not that it is not even easier, it is more difficult. Screening classics ... is the highest bar for a professional. In addition, this is a very difficult path also because there will be many viewers who will not accept the film adaptation because they see the book and the characters in a completely different way.
Quiet Don - about the turning years in our history. Turning. Scary. In addition to the massacre of the Civil War, the strife between people even from one farm, even before the events of 1917-1918, is aggravated (but this is nothing compared to how the farm disintegrates as a result of the Civil War). Society seems so divided that war is even a logical outcome of these accumulated contradictions and problems. Besides, it's also about love. The main character, Grigory Melekhov, is a collective image. The man the reds took everything from. The end of it is one, and we understand what, even though Sholokhov did not show this in his work. Every character here is a tragedy. And it is surprising (although surprising - it is a classic) how much it is still relevant.
Throughout the film, there is a sense of epochality on the screen. And yet tragic. Especially I would mention the wedding scene, everyone is racing on harnessed horses in brigs (even more carts)... The music is playing, and it's all slowed down in an interesting way. It is a feeling that the creators wanted to show this departed from us irrevocably, inevitably doomed way of life, to allow them to penetrate.
In general, there are many very strong scenes and episodes in the series. Really strong when emotions go overboard. For example, when the Melekhovs receive a letter from the front, in which they are mistakenly notified of the fate of their son in the war. From this point until the end of the 5th series – well, very powerfully shot.
Another indicator of high-quality cinema, directing and acting is that you watch and empathize with what is happening: you laugh, you are sad... but then you think... here someone has already rolled to the throat. This is the most important thing for an actor and a director - naturalness, lack of impression of playfulness, sense of reality of what is happening.
If we talk about roles, then here the best hit in the image is Grigory Melekhov performed by Tkachuk. I actually think this is his best role. He was good in Mishka Japonchik, but there is a slightly different movie and a different scale. And, of course, Makovetsky in terms of acting is simply indescribable, I do not even know how to voice his impressions here.
The only downside for me, though small, is music. It is wonderful, but the main composition is too much, which causes a feeling of pathosity.
The movie turned out very good. I think this is the best film adaptation of the Quiet Don to date.