Screenwriter Yuri Arabov, in his own way, predetermines the plot of the novel by Fyodor Dostoevsky “Meek”. He introduces a new hero to the story, the priest. Together with the Unknown, he passes through the plot, becoming a witness to the events of the past. This form of presentation of the plot is new in cinema and, of course, admiring its creator. Another finding of Arabov – allusions with “Crime and punishment”. It is worth looking at to answer the question: what?
The director of the film “Cage” Ella Arkhangelskaya very accurately conveys “Dostoevsky’s Petersburg”: gray corners, diseases, decline of morals and poverty. The value of human life is here equal to twenty rubles in assignations. Here's the price of the bride.
Actors and performers
One of my favorite actors, Daniil Spivakovsky embodies the image of a confused person on the screen. He's pathetic and cruel. The usurer endlessly pours aphorisms, confident that he knows everything in the world. While promising his wife a trip to the sea as a way to get rid of problems, he calls her an angel, a soul, and saves on candy and a carriage. In the end, he arranges a test for her, finding out whether the girl can succumb to a sense of compassion and go against the will of her husband.
Elena Radevich talentedly reveals the inner struggle of the main character, endowed with the typical psychology of the victim. The meek woman blames herself for all her husband’s actions and, believing that she deserves punishment, locks herself in an iron cage for animals. Under the weight of circumstances, the girl sees salvation only in death.
Yevgeny Kulakov successfully “trying on” the role of a priest who, participating in cruel events, approaches the final with a corroded soul. Returning to the monastery, he cannot remember a single prayer, mutters that he has been to hell, and does not understand the words of Scripture.
Interesting play of supporting actors: Dmitry Nagiyev and Irina Rakhmanova. They create expressive images of the cynical usurer Moser and the cheerful maid Luceria.
Verdict
The film "Cage" is attractive as a psychological thriller. The film is looking for an answer to the question: which is stronger – money or love? And the conclusions have to be made by the viewer. As a zealous fan of Dostoevsky I put the film
An attempt to transfer to the screen the story of Fyodor Dostoevsky called “Meek”, which cost 700 thousand dollars and one script from Yuri Arabov, better known to the public for his active civic position, rather than film works that have a worldwide resonance. The funds of the taxpayers of the Russian Federation (the film was produced with the support of the Ministry of Culture) were spent on the picture, a striking combination of the fundamental lack of directorial interpretation of the classical work and the inability to formulate the main idea of the literary source.
The heroes of the “Meek” are the nameless usurer and a poor girl, whom he took as his wife, wanting to get rid of poverty and humiliation from her patron aunts. This short story of Dostoevsky is based on his special understanding of Christianity, as the doctrine of denying material values and recognizing the comfort of life almost the product of hell (which is not surprising, taking into account the biography of the author). In other words, if a writer professing European humanistic values, for example, Charles Dickens usurer, beneficent beggar, would be an example for imitation, the Orthodox Dostoevsky help to the neighbor is devalued if it comes from an individual secured (not blessed), therefore - corrupted by material existence and unable to make anyone happy.
Director Ella Arkhangelskaya visualizes this idea Dostoevsky, giving it the appearance of a cage in which the usurer puts his wife. Cinematically, this is done absolutely clumsy, at the level of a student of mediocre talents. First, Ms. Arkhangelskaya considers her viewer a dark person and unable to read meanings from screens, so the concept of the cell is directly pronounced by one of the episodic characters, which proves the complete incompetence of the filmmaker. And, secondly, this is the only sophistication and innovation (albeit banal) present in the "Cage", which is otherwise dull in its contentlessness and lack of temporite variation on the theme of the chosen story.
For almost two hours, the director diligently imitates the confused style of the original story written in the first person, but the inner torments of the hero and the psychologism inherent in all the works of Fyodor Mikhailovich are treated literally, and the character of the priest listening to the confession of the main character is introduced into the narrative. In other words, the essence of the contradictions, the conflict of the literary source, consisting in the confusion and revaluation of the value system of the usurer, is simplified and primitive to the simple verbalization of the events that happened to him (although it is worth admitting that the tandem of the financier and the clergyman is very touching in the sincerity of their relationship and at the same time comical in how shamelessly the first behaves in relation to the second).
Whether the screenwriter has compiled such a text in which the main logic of the narrative is absent, and the scenes are not worked out and balance on the edge of metaphor, but do not pass into the space of meanings, thereby turning into an ill-conceived surrealism like that which was in “Under the Electric Clouds” by Alexei Herman – pretentious and devoid of any justification (will be in the “Cage”, for example, a horse living in a mansion and a financial businessman, called “the same Juda who betrayed Christ”). Whether the director made his own edits to the written, which violated the structure of the script, and thereby deprived him of meaning, turning the story “Meek” (albeit controversial in the religious and moral component for a person who does not profess Orthodoxy, understood from the standpoint of foulness) into a mix of incoherent scenes, with the help of which the creators of “Cage” for some reason insist that the wife of the usurer, behaving towards him not gratefully, but boldly and brazenly, deserves the admiration of the public (#34; guilt, he wants to grow up and be an old man).
Richard Ayoady in “The Double” virutously gave Dostoevsky’s novella a modern sound, perfectly adapting it not only for the silver screen, but also to current realities. Arkhangelskaya and Arabov, allowing themselves unjustified liberties (for example, sex in the film is expected to become evil, while in the story it is quite clear that the characters did not have problems in the intimate sphere - "Proud are especially good when ... well, when you do not doubt your power over them, eh?"), claim moralism and sublimity, some messianism, but are not able to put it in technical techniques, or justify the substantive part of the film - according to their logic, the heroine is almost holy, whereas according to all that is happening, she appears with a fat maiden under a groom / maid.
If the creations of William Shakespeare are desecrated by modern directors by their dislocation in the interiors of a conditional dumpster and costumes a la T-shirt in combination with a hussar uniform (as we saw in Hamlet with Benedict Cumberbatch), then Fyodor Dostoevsky undergoes a more sophisticated procedure - from what he wrote, a philosophy is removed, replaced by a declaration of content, and the emphasis is on the dampness of the corners of St. Petersburg, poverty, wild morals, the chanting of special religious morality and a priori condemnation of any well-being. “Cage” consists exclusively of the above attributes, which exhaustively testifies to its quality and value.
Of the entire creative team of the film, the operator deserves praise, demonstrating high professionalism, worthy of the best examples of European cinema - "Cage" is visually beautiful and it is impossible to say that this is a modern Russian (read, poorly shot) film. And also great in his role Daniil Spivakovsky, he is not only highly hygienic (which, again, cannot be said about the vast majority of Russian actors), but also, thanks to his talent, easily steals the show, forcing him not only to empathize with the “negative” hero, but, as a result, completely neutralizes the entire idea of the director, changing the tone and idea of the narrative.
Thus, the only reason to watch the film is the skill of Spivakovsky and the visual series of “Cages”. Because if you prefer intellectual cinema based on classical works, then this picture does not belong to the selected segment, speculating with a set of common places associated with the name of Fyodor Dostoevsky, trying to claim a certain “spirituality”, which not only looks very pathetic and comic, but also, due to the complete inability of the director and screenwriter to adequately read and according to the writer’s plan to adapt the bibliographic source in the 16:9 format, discredits the author’s Russian-language cinema.
With great pleasure I watched the “Cage” of Arabov and Arkhangelskaya. It is very good that there is no follow-up to Dostoevsky’s text. Lobotomy of text. Only the actors and then transformed in their own way. Interester who either wants to feel like a benefactor, or get a piece of simple human happiness. Manipulating-Blessed Meek, which is either a victim or a manifest trigger in the life of the Interester. The priest as a cesspool for the streams of consciousness of the Interester. And, of course, the standard of evil Moser: a brilliant dialogue with the Interester about the sacred role of finance.
Absolutely free treatment of heroes and plot bribes. The film is about imprisonment, about the fact that many freedom is harmful and contraindicated, about the predictability of existence both behind the iron bars of the Cell and outside them. The lack of static in the experiences of the characters leads towards the sinister author’s vision of the plot. But, there are no miracles... and in the finale - only a mystical drenched dirty loneliness.
I have doubts about whether to watch this movie. Based on the fantastic story of F. M. Dostoevsky “Meek”. What's it like? The most realistic Dostoevsky was ranked as a science fiction writer. But curiosity won, and the inscription “with the financial support of the Ministry of culture” interested. The story “Meek” – one of the most beloved by me in Dostoevsky, I read for a long time, but he so amazed me that forever imprinted in memory. All the techniques that Western literature of the 20th century ascribed to itself were already in Dostoevsky’s hands, they simply were not defined. Like the flow of consciousness. That's how the story is written. Non-communication is what the story is about. People can’t understand, feel, hear each other, and this causes so many tragedies on earth.
The hero really loves his wife, but his doubts about her make him keep his distance, show coldness. And when he removes all doubts and decides to change everything, it is too late. What's fantastic? Fiction is the talentless fantasies of the filmmakers who dragged a young priest and a stupid cage into the film. Obviously, this replaced the absence of Dostoevsky’s psychologism in the film and the completely absent motivation in the actions of the characters. Instead, scenes were invented, such as washing the floor with a dress, being imprisoned in a cage, etc. It is amazing when someone thinks he is smarter and more talented than brilliant writers and tries to remake them, correct them. Gentlemen, should you try to invent something of your own, and not distort what people have long recognized as classics?
The actors seem to play great, the only problem is that they have nothing to play. There are no characters in this film. So Daniil Spivakovsky plays acute schizophrenia, runs with his eyes bulging, faces are terrible and each next act contradicts the previous one. And the heroine of Elena Radevich suddenly, amid her meekness, will show such resistance and look with such frank mockery that the image breaks down literally into molecules. The hero of Nagiyev is also perplexed. However, in this film it does not cause him. There is nothing left of Dostoevsky in the film: no idea of the story, no bright, very reliable images, no atmosphere. There remains a small part of the plot, distorted by the authors’ own perception of the film.
Oleg Strizhenov refused to appear in advertising, said that it would be better to eat hay. That there could be such bad movies, he could not imagine. He also starred in a Dostoevsky movie. But White Nights is a great movie. It is unlikely that the actors of “Cages” are poor to act in anything. But they're not ashamed. Obviously, this is a time of total unprofessionalism, a time when money is most important, including honor and conscience. And the Ministry of culture finances such films is not clear for what reasons, and the money budget, so the people.
Postmodernization of classics, or something about alloys
I am a part of that power that eternally desires evil and eternally does good. Faust
Oh, that Russian classic... It got tired even in school, when picky teachers tried to drum into our foolish heads radiant images of all sorts of Catherine and the social motives of Dead Souls. But Dostoevsky with his soul-wasting passions was a real punishment. Growing up, we became a little better versed in life and realized that classical Russian literature is really a storehouse of our collective wisdom, here teachers did not lie to us. Pushkin, Gogol, Dostoevsky, Chekhov, etc. are our national unspent assets, as inviolable as our territory. But perhaps that is why those large numbers of people who are over the throat of the hugeness and independence of Russia, again and again encroach on the Russian classics under the guise of its modernization and “creative rethinking”? The case of “Dead Souls” by Pavel Lungin, “Viy” by Oleg Stepchenko, “Dubrovsky” by Alexander Vartanov, now – “Cage” by Ella Arkhangelskaya based on Dostoevsky’s novel “Meek” – these are examples of the surge of interest of the current filmmakers to the immortal Russian literature of the 19th century. But is this interest unselfish or does it have social motives no worse than Dead Souls?
Yuri Arabov belongs to a galaxy of famous and prolific contemporary screenwriters, without whom it is difficult to imagine modern Russian cinema. Much collaborated with the captain of art-house cinema Alexander Sokurov, who wrote scripts on the acclaimed and very controversial “Doctor Zhivago” Pasternak, “Kolyma Tales” Shalamov, original scripts for the father and son of the Proshkins (“Miracle”, “Horde”), Arabov does not blame the Russian people for the troubles of the country. He doesn't even blame the intelligentsia. A is exclusively power, economic and political system (see, for example, his speeches at Echo of Moscow). But this means that the whole spiritual system, the whole tradition to which this power belongs (and there is no power, which is unknown from where it came from), is to blame, and of which Russian culture and Russian Orthodoxy are a part. And therefore, the origins of evil are logically sought in the history of the country – in the Horde yoke, imitation of which made the Russian princes a ruthless law-in-itself, and in the endless sacrifice of the Russian person, which not only does not allow him to live well, but does not allow him to live at all, and in the intolerable orthodoxy of Orthodoxy, which too well “knows how it should” and tends to impose this knowledge when necessary and not necessary.
The new project “Cage” is exclusively the brainchild of Yuri Arabov, who invited Ella Arkhangelskaya, who has not yet had time to star on the Russian film olympus, for his embodiment. In writing the script of the film, Arabov used a technique already tested by him in the Case of Dead Souls and Lenin’s Testament: peremptory alteration of the original source, submission to his fantasies not only the plot, but also the ideas of the author of the book, ultimately – unceremonious use of the classical text to popularize his own vision. Producer Alexander Piskunova delicately called this unceremoniousness Dostoevsky and Arabov, but a man more simple-minded and direct, perhaps, will call it otherwise: a complete disrespect for the classical tradition, turning samples of Russian literature into bare material for their experiments. The usurer Arabov is no longer a “man from the underground” of Dostoevsky, a petty-vengeful and mired in misanthropy soul, striving, however, for breadth and nobility, but just a St. Petersburg entrepreneur who decided to diversify his joyless life with the love he once heard. Similarly, the meek in Arabic is not an innocent soul suffocated by the impossibility of love, but simply blissful, too unfree inside to send her husband to hell.
And it would be good if Arabov dared only to modernize Dostoevsky, putting his plot on the basis of current realities. Oh, no, the advanced metaphorist goes further: with the help of his innovative fusion of the past and modernity, he demonstrates, first, the worthlessness of all these mental anguish and throwing at Dostoevsky, and secondly, the impotence of Russian Orthodoxy. And this despite the fact that the topic of Orthodoxy is not touched upon by Dostoevsky in the story! For such experiments, it would be more logical to take Crime and Punishment or The Brothers Karamazov. But these works, of course, are too well known and laid out along and across. It is much safer to exercise on secondary things, the very plot of which few people know. This includes, for example, a young and naive priest, whom the hero through confession directly forces to participate in his sin. Throughout the film, this same priest eats, drinks and sleeps with the characters, while being completely unable to interfere in any way. This metametaphor, if not beautiful, is very transparent, isn't it? True, it remains completely incomprehensible why the usurer, being according to all these atheists, after the suicide of his wife runs not somewhere, but to the temple for confession. But these are trifles, much more important is that the priest is not a violinist, he is necessary, and if Dostoevsky does not have one, then he should have been invented. Well, the harmony of the composition, the unity of details, careful attitude to the source - are these things important for the modern free creator?
What happened with Arabov and Arkhangelskaya, it is impossible to call the film adaptation. And do not hide to the creators of this fantasy even behind the salvific "motifs" , since the motives of Dostoevsky here and with a magnifying glass can not be found. Despite the high technique of execution, the excellent game of Spivakovsky and Nagiyev, on the well-created St. Petersburg background, in the new history, the main thing is missing - that which animated even the most difficult visions of the St. Petersburg prophet, aroused interest and excited thought without will. That which is elusive, elusive, but still present in other new films based on the works of the writer (“Idiot”, “Demons”). This incomprehensible thing is a deep understanding of Dostoevsky’s suffering, the suffering that is not only inherent in the Russian soul, but is immanent to it, its generic feature. If this understanding is not close to you, then you have nothing to shoot, but even read Dostoevsky is not necessary. Except when you set out to show how disgusting Dostoevsky's fantasies are, and how the suffering he shows is nothing more than a blank. But, as you can see, the realization of this goal causes the opposite reaction. In the Dostoevsky-Arabov alloy, the components are not equal, and the larger absorbs the smaller, structures it and puts it at the service of its goals.
What the distributors promise: on the poster flaunts a promising phrase: "from the author of the script "Faust" Yuri Arabov." These words prepare the viewer to meet with something philosophical, multifaceted and ambiguous. At the same time, the vivid scenes of the trailer are intriguing with emotional tension and interesting dialogue.
Let’s see if that’s true.
Why you should watch
Director Ella Arkhangelskaya managed to bring to the screen an unusual, deeply psychological and, in some ways, psychedelic atmosphere inherent only in the works of Dostoevsky. There are no happy people, there are no beautiful landscapes. Each hero, like the city itself, is presented as something completely unsightly, cold, with a crumbling facade and an icy core.
This atmosphere is greatly complemented by the sound design of the picture. So, if the scene takes place in a cemetery, the eerie creak of old grave fences sounds in the background. You are literally transported to the place of events.
Unfortunately, these are all positive aspects of the picture.
Why not watch
First and foremost, it's serving. The film is confusing from the first minute. At first, it’s hard to know if everything is real. Not bound by chronological frameworks, the hero freely interacts with the environment and reacts vividly to what is happening. And there's no explanation. As a result, half the film the viewer does not follow the plot, he tries to understand: by what rules the hero lives inside the story?
The characters came out lopsided. The unknown is a constantly frowning, extremely harsh person. Every word, every movement of which speaks of cool temper and inner malice. Throughout the picture, he speaks in a pathetic, sinister whisper. All this works on the brightness of the image, but not on its reliability.
Distrust of the characters is exacerbated by the lack of scenes that reveal the characters from the other side. The funny thing is that these scenes were originally in the movie. I made this comment after reviewing the trailer. The picture lacks a very important episode for understanding the hero. And here already begs the most important claim - to the editor of the picture, Maria Sergeenko. In the second half of the film, the narrative becomes more and more ragged. Eyes cling to the uneven gluing of loosely related scenes, the feeling of imminent tragedy that was initially induced disappears.
Conclusion: "Cage" is a picture, the target audience of which, it is extremely difficult for me to determine. These are clearly not fans of Dostoevsky’s work. After all, it has long been known that the book in many ways surpasses any screen adaptation. These are not theater fans, because in the theater there is always a sense of involvement in the events that are happening right in front of you, a feeling that cinema is not yet available. This is not a mass viewer, which such a manner of presentation of the plot will certainly confuse. And the plot does not imply a frivolous attitude. Of course, there are deep reflections on life, religion and psychology. Actors show strong emotions. But, the perception of the film is ruined by a strange presentation of the plot and weak editing. It is easier to read the original. Reading it will take you even less time than getting acquainted with the picture.