Andrei Konchalovsky’s film, in my opinion, is made openwork and thinly, from barely perceptible images and symbols, the director speaks to the viewer on a sensual level. A film about war, about the Holocaust, about compassion, about not ostentatious heroism without loud phrases.
There are no torture scenes or walls of gas chambers in the film, but there is an indescribable atmosphere of grief, longing, minute-by-minute pain and injustice. How sad it is if now our viewer, in order to feel the tragedy of the situation, needs to show pits with corpses and rooms drenched in blood. Andrei Konchalovsky is a real artist, so he does not speak such a language, he does not cause primitive feelings (someone jumped out or shot - the viewer was scared), he talks with the viewer for a long time and gives him a chance to dig into the bowels of his soul, to reflect on what he saw. For the same purpose, a black and white scale is taken to leave room for imagination. The size of the frame 4:3 simultaneously refers us to the time of action, and also works on the state of narrowed space: the chamber, the barracks. Although periodically coming to the end of the film at the time of the interview of the main characters knocked out of the atmosphere, it looks more like a cheap tv reception.
The story itself consists of three lines is quite interesting with a good message. Of course, the heroine of Yulia Vysotskaya, the princess, who sacrificed herself first by hiding her two Jewish children, and then saving a Russian woman who had something to live for, for the sake of her daughter, who remained outside the walls of the camp. The message that the most important thing is that the children are beautiful and apparently very relevant now for the Konchalovsky-Vysotskaya couple (knowing the tragedy that happened in their family not so long ago). This film is probably the director’s confession.
Personally, I really liked that the actions of the heroes are not full of pathos, not emphasized by tragic music, on the contrary, life in the camp, hunger, going to the gas chamber for them everyday actions, this is their life, which at that moment did not even have hope for liberation and cessation of suffering. It is their daily hell in which it is possible to live and survive and look at the superior race, which is worth heaven. And of course Konchalovsky could not but draw an analogy that the Communists did the same thing, cost their paradise on numerous bones and sacrifices.
I believe that this film should be watched, at least a little stir the soul.
8 out of 10
Three people represented by a member of the French Resistance Olga, a French collaborator Jules and an SS officer Helmut testify to a certain outsider. Under the influence of tragic circumstances, the fate of each of them developed differently, and recalling the terrible events of the Second World War that touched the heroes, the authors of the film tried to consider how the worldview of these different characters, similar only in one thing - each of them sought to reach Paradise.
After “Ida” and “Son of Saul”, touching on the topic of the Holocaust, received the “Oscar” for the best foreign language film, in Russia, finally guessed what kind of cinema should be sent to prestigious international awards. Alas, a good thought came as always after, besides, this topic is a little stuck in the teeth, and therefore the film remained in the long list. We appreciated the film only at the Venice Film Festival (well, our Golden Eagle does not count), where Konchalovsky was awarded the prize for best director. In fact, the film caused mixed and rather controversial sensations. Yes, the plot and the final feint looked fresh and unusual. Static camera operator Alexander Simonov builds textured and expressive black and white frame. Acting is quite at the level - although Vysotskaya, alas, is not always convincing and sometimes loses to her German colleagues. But at the same time, during the viewing, there is a persistent feeling of inorganicity, fragmentation of the action and unnecessary complications of the material are noticeable when Konchalovsky tries to give his brainchild depth. All these philosophical reflections, the strange episodes with Himmler in the image of Sukhorukov and the annoying mention of Chekhov make the narrative cumbersome, disintegrating into separate elements, and the attempt to create a complex parable does not always justify itself, since many key scenes like the finale look somehow artificial. It is not always plausible to look and psychological metamorphoses of the characters, which often occur not in flashbacks, but in words during the scenes of testimony, among which, however, the Frenchman occupies a strange place - he is not as full-fledged protagonist as Olga and Helmut, his presence in the film lasts for a short time and in general he was clearly needed only to show the subordination of Europeans to Hitler. But the biggest question is why, as we get closer to the finale, the play of the characters and the pitch itself do not build up a confessional tone and the emotional explosion that follows, producing the catharsis that is vital in such a story? In fact, “Paradise” is not at all bad, glad that the thoughts of domestic filmmakers are moving in the right direction regarding how to shoot a serious movie, it remains only to defeat directorial pretentiousness, demand the maximum from the actors and be the first to find original ideas.
7 out of 10
I have been waiting for this film since the New Year, but for some reason our local cinema did not dare to show this picture, so ' Paradise' I only saw it now.
' Schindler's List', 'Life is beautiful', 'Son of Saul' - how many films have been made on this heartwarming theme of war, in particular, on the theme of World War II. And the plot in each picture is unique. The plot of this picture is unique in that it can seem difficult to perceive not because there are full of intestines or severed heads, and not because there shamelessly show all the charms of life in a concentration camp, but because throughout the film the characters conduct dialogue-confession with the camera, while giving answers without questions.
For a good half of the film, the director makes us frankly miss and look forward to when the taste begins. But for those who love ' hotter', the film can be a complete disappointment, because all the most interesting Konchalovsky has prepared for the final.
Looking at this picture, you can draw different conclusions, but the main one is Paradise for everyone. Even in Nazi hell, you can find a place for Heaven and become a happy person.
The film tells the stories of three people. Three different but related fates.
All actions are explained. Each of them is tragic in its own way, there was something good in each. Each character had their own life.
Jules did what his job required, he had a family, but he wasn't a perfect family man. Working according to time was rough. But all his actions were logical, probably he did not do anything beyond cruel, let’s say no more than others.
Helmut is more sublime than Jules. More sophisticated. He was also doing his job. And he was very attentive to her. But he met a girl he once loved and did something he might not have done. It could have affected his career.
Olga is an aristocrat. This is not the external part, the external part has long been lost, probably remained in pre-revolutionary Russia, this is an internal state. She is full of dignity, even in the difficult conditions in which she fell.
In a sense, Jules did what his work and his natural needs required of him. But did he live it? Rather existed. Helmut in this sense is similar to Zhulya, but when he meets Olga, his life begins to be filled with meaning and he begins to come to life, unfortunately too late. Olga, of course, the most lively character, she hides children, but for sure she could not do this and would have avoided her difficult fate. Even at the end of the film, she is true to herself when she gives up her place of salvation.
What does Konchalovsky want to show us? There are many layers in the film that you can think about.
Why is the film called 'Paradise'? Perhaps this is to show that all the characters went to heaven in the end? And so we don't judge them for that? We could have called it a different movie, and we expected and thought which one was where. As some people actually think, if you read reviews about the film. But Konchalovsky gives the answer - paradise. Maybe he's trying to show that it's not worth judging, everyone had reasons? Maybe the Germans of that time shouldn’t have judged the Jews, or maybe they shouldn’t have judged who’s Jewish and who’s not, but now we seem to know the answer, but then it was different. Maybe the characters in this film should not judge who is in heaven and who is not. It's deliberate, it's logical. Perhaps this is what the author is trying to tell us. To help, so to speak, to see the biblical truth again?
This movie is for thinking. Rather, the film is not for the wide screen. It gives another look at a topic about which a lot has been filmed. You can treat it differently, but the approach in it is somewhat not standard. I think that makes it worth a look.
Heaven on earth. About the film by Andrei Konchalovsky
“Paradise” by Andrei Konchalovsky is an unusual film about the Second World War. The director highlights three personalities, three opinions and three philosophies. French collaborator Jules, high-ranking German SS officer Helmut and Russian Princess Olga try to express, defend and justify their position before a certain interlocutor who is free to let or not let the hero into paradise.
Jules works for the Germans who occupied France. He is interrogated by a sophisticated aristocratic emigrant from Russia who works as an editor of Vogue magazine... and shelters Jewish children. Critics noted in the image of Jules an important quality – the usual. He is an average man, with good and bad inside. Somehow he usually serves the Nazis, is fond of the unusual Olga, hides a bloody hammer from her, seeing the fright of the woman. Somehow he usually tries to get tickets to the circus for his young son between interrogations and torture, and also usually refuses them when he gets a chance to spend an evening with a Russian aristocrat. He asks why Olga is hiding these Jewish children. And frightenedly stops his son when he begins to criticize the fascists. But it is Jules, filled with the most banal, everyday conformism, ready to work for someone who just pays, before the gates of paradise speaks not about the idea, but about the family. Sorry for the pain he caused his wife and son.
And here's "true Aryan." Helmut does not feel remorse. On the contrary, he is as obsessed with the idea of a “German paradise on earth,” a “merciless and beautiful era,” an idea so “perfect” that humanity is not yet ready for it. Interestingly, the German Kingdom of Heaven (Himmelreich) is in tune with the combination of the Third Reich (Drittes Reich). Helmut sees himself as a superman and serves this very kingdom immaculately. He servilely says of Hitler: "I can't even imagine that he knows of my existence." In Helmut, like an outburst, from time to time, something “non-ideological” wakes up: he tries to save Olga, who got into a concentration camp, with whom he has been in love for a long time; he is fascinated by the work of A. P. Chekhov and dreams of continuing his dissertation about him after the war. At the same time, Andrei Konchalovsky subtly introduces the reasons for Helmut’s ideological loyalty to Nazism: the topic of antisemitism Chekhov, who was rejected by his fiancée, a Jew by nationality, who was eventually destroyed in a concentration camp, and Adolf Hitler himself after the victory dreams of doing art, because only “culture is eternal.” In other words, every thread connecting the hero with humanism is broken, every positive fact is turned upside down. For example, Heinrich Himmler, in the charismatic performance of Viktor Sukhorukov, says: “In fact, the genius of our idea is that the SS corps consists of super-decent fathers of families: pharmacists, butchers, bakers ...”. We recognize such a “super-decent” performer in the head of the concentration camp, where Helmut is sent to deal with possible corruption. The head of the concentration camp enthusiastically talks about the successes and difficulties of his work, closing the window along the way, because with the wind the smell of extermination furnaces bursts into it: “106 barracks, each with 700 seats, and I shove 1200 there. And it turns out”; “My rate of destruction is 10,000 a day. And we do it [laughs].”
Surprisingly, the monologue in front of the doors to Olga’s paradise performed by Yulia Vysotskaya seems insecure and confused. And the heroine herself during the film repeatedly shows her weakness and vulnerability: she cries for a stolen piece of soap, which Jules supplied her, desperately convinces Helmut of the nobility of his Nazi idea, when she feels in him love for herself. Of course, Olga is a symbol of doubtful, chaotic, but resistance to evil. She cannot rationally explain her actions to save someone. But the root cause of his choice in favor of good still says: Evil grows without help. For good, you always need effort. In order not to lose this last hope ... that there, beyond the edge of evil ... there will be a miracle ... that love exists.
Film critics noted the closeness of Andrei Konchalovsky’s Paradise with European, primarily Italian, paintings about the essence of Nazism L. Cavani, L. Visconti, B. Bertolucci. But at the same time, the film has an undoubted connection with Soviet cinema (“Ordinary Fascism” by M. Romm), and with Russian classical literature: for example, Olga’s worldview and actions are surprisingly similar to the choice of some heroines of F. M. Dostoevsky. The film itself is primarily about morality. It is easy to erase the fine line between good and evil. And that, despite everything, it is still possible to preserve it.
If you are tired of stupid comedies, completely disappointed in Russian novelties, you are tired of wasting time and, finally, your brain wanted ' heavy' food for thought, then on 'Paradise'!
This is a unique case for Russian cinema: the director, already at a venerable age, shoots not just a significant picture on an important topic, but, I do not fear the word, a masterpiece! ' Paradise' is just a perfectly made from a professional point of view picture, where the plot is thought out to the smallest detail, although it touches not new for cinema themes of fascism, genocide and all the horrors of war (first of all, last year’s Oscar-winning ' Ida'). And the more difficult the rather beaten (no matter how twisted) story in a new way to present. Konchalovsky also got a unique product and an ideal option for going to the cinema alone (for those who, like me, often sin).
P.S. In my opinion, the director continues the best traditions of Russian cinema when it was a world-class art! And I very much hope that ' Paradise ' will attract attention not only in Europe (in Venice he already received his silver lion for directing)!
The death of millions is just a statistic; the death of one person is a tragedy.
Deep..impressive, making you think and experience the film. . I will say that I am a historian by profession and it is usually difficult for me to watch historical films. It touched the soul, seriously.
I am a patriot of my country, but honestly I am sick of 'hur-patriotic pictures' If you’ve seen the movie 'Bunker', you’ll appreciate it. A look at fascism from within fascism itself. Looking through the eyes of a convinced fascist. The film reveals how people themselves believed in the idea of building a German paradise on earth. . . No, they weren't scum, freaks and idiots. But how does the camp director speak with such indifference about 10,000 burnt daily? Because they didn’t consider Jews human. How is that possible? the Democrats shouted. Yeah, right. You saw Olga in the barracks, you saw these crazy women and men. They break when you're hungry, tired, sick, you just lose control. We're all animals by nature. By the way, only now I wondered how Hitler was a brilliant strategist (scumbag, moral freak, but a brilliant strategist). Poisoning people, forcing them to fight for food, forcing their instincts to dominate – and now they are ready to destroy themselves! But isn't it a brilliant idea?
A man can only think of the soul when he is full. I'm sure of that.
I love movies that show people falling down the social ladder. How do you have to be a strong person to adapt to life in the barracks after luxurious pitchforks and appeal to 'You' I admire Olga! This is the strength of spirit!
About the second main character. SS colonel. Do you not see that he believes Hitler passionately? Because under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, his country and his homeland were brought to their knees. Devastation, hunger, humiliation. And he's a nobleman. He couldn't help fighting. He did it with all his dedication, as he could, as he was trained, and he believed that he was doing everything right, he sought to create that very paradise. . .
What about the victims? Did he think about them? I hardly believe in altruistic love for humanity. We are all inherently selfish.. and the death of Jews, who lived well during the depression, when Germany was simply starving, was perceived by the Germans as a slap in the face. and he took revenge, but cruelly, but terrible.. but is it worth it to blame him for this?
He realized that heaven is impossible for everyone, understood and experienced terrible torments of conscience.. like many German veterans. and I am not inclined to blame them. But they didn’t know what they were actually doing. People, especially hungry people, are terribly suggestible. Hitler is a genius orator. .
It happened the way it happened. Both positions are understandable. No, I don't excuse the fascists, but you know, I can understand them. You cannot blame ordinary citizens, ordinary soldiers. You need to shoot and destroy puppeteers. Well, that's how it was done. Hurray to the Nuremberg Tribunal and the film is a must-see!
Not to say that it pleases me or changes my ingrained ideas, but still.
And how not to watch the film, which received a prize in Venice, included in the shortlist of “Oscar”, named the best film of the year according to Russian film critics “White Elephant”.
The topic of the Holocaust, although it seems to be exhausted, still remains relevant and immediately tunes to a certain mood. I went to the cinema with this attitude and the goal at all costs to penetrate and empathize.
I tried, but it didn't work.
The picture is presented somewhat banal, in a deliberately old-fashioned style - an artificial black and white image, a static camera.
I was missing 'meat' not about violence, but about the very spirit of tragedy. The concentration camp looked more like an entourage, and the characters simply conveyed the position of the author. Heroes reflect, constantly talk about Chekhov, hysteria, wait for their end and do not cause special emotions. A little frightening theatrical manner of Vysotskaya - kind of good, but at the same time a little parody.
' Raisins' in the film - long monologues-confessions of the main characters, who constantly comment on everything that happens, looking at a certain interlocutor, whose identity is revealed only at the end.
In the end, the film is uneven. I would like to work on it again.
My good friend (part-time young actor) after watching the film at a special screening exclaimed with delight “This is a film that everyone needs to see!”, ... but it seems to me that it will be interesting only to fans of the director, and it is unlikely that he will become part of the mandatory program of the film lover.
The film is complex, heavy and full of different themes and painful exclamations... it is also full of interesting images, even if you look towards the secondary characters. However, the film can not be called holistic and fascinating ... it seems to be assembled from an arsenal of chic ideas and finds, starting with color solutions and stylization, ending with strong visual and semantic images.
And yet... the pseudo-documentary narrative in Paradise is nothing more than a stylistic exquisite, which delights as the filming of one shot in Birdman... Here in “Paradise” in the first two thirds of the picture, the camera moved five times from strength (including depicting a semblance of documentary filming on a hand-held camera in one frame). Further, the movement began to invade the static world of the picture more often. Perhaps emphasizing the emotions that “you want, do not want”, but should burn out your soul.
The intertwining of the three main characters seems slightly far-fetched in relation to the Frenchman, since he is stated here only to make it clear that the pasted monologues-exprompts are testimony at the trial of purgatory. And in general, such monologues have always been white threads for stitching the plot. And it looks quite artificial light in the final... because the viewer has already understood after the death of the Frenchman.
I wouldn’t single out “Paradise” as the best work of Andrei Sergeyevich, I would just recommend watching this film if you like “Siberiad” or “Middle Circle” by Konchalovsky... or if you are not left indifferent by his lectures, books or interviews.
Ingenious I would call the scene where the hero of the German from the forest are shadows (visual and sound). And then in dialogue with his drunken comrade, this scene finds a strong semantic impression.
7 out of 10
Not even that it succeeds, but rather - not often there is a desire, because on the subject of Nazism and the Holocaust has been said a lot, told a lot of interesting stories, written a lot of touching books, so there is a sense of saturation with the topic. Given her emotional color, she is just one of those, which ' there are many '.
In this case, the film, being just in the scenery of the war, tells the story of several people who, at first glance, are almost in no way connected.
Firstly, it is shot in 4:3 resolution, in h/b tones, to better emphasize the atmosphere of that time and its own history in particular.
Secondly, the director will pay great attention to the details of the exposition, simultaneously characterizing the characters. For example, the moment when the main character got shoes, how from the German streets smells of corpses, what happens to a man in a concentration camp and other details, which in the film are enough and they work to create an atmosphere (the atmosphere) very well.
But behind these scenery, this hard, inhuman, oppressive exposition, which is given so much attention, there is no history.
For example, there is a film ' The Boy in Striped Pajamas' which tells the story of how two boys became friends, in what conditions and what it led to.
There is a film ' Book Thief' which tells about the power of spirit, kindness, hope and many more positive qualities, using a little girl as the main participant in the events of the child.
Not to mention the Schindler List.
In 'Paradise' everything is different. Firstly, the film does not have a pronounced main character. That is, formally - it is Olga, but it is so only because she is given the most screen time, otherwise she is only a participant in circumstances, without conflict, not counting the conditions in which she has to survive.
The same goes for almost all the other characters in the film. All of them are simply actors reacting to external circumstances.
It may seem that this is enough, given the idea of the film, which is formed on the last frames of the picture.
But the characters don't make the movie interesting. They are almost exactly the same set of the film, they perfectly complement the overall plan, but none of them have a real conflict with the outside world.
And so there's no history in the film, there's no one to really empathize with. It is clear that this is a terrible shock for people, but just to show it, supplementing the participants of the events and uniting them with one common idea, the potential of which is many times more than they pay attention to it - this, in my humble opinion, is not enough for a good movie.
There is an idea in the film, but it is presented through the prism of perhaps one of the most obvious themes in the context. The film has a good exposition, against its background lost interesting characters. And most importantly, there is no interesting, touching story in the film that you want to remember. It's bad for any movie.
Watched the movie an hour ago. I don’t want to write about scripts and stuff. I'm not a film critic. I'm the man in the audience. I’ve forgotten what a good Russian movie is. I confess that I went to the film 'Paradise ' out of respect for the Master. Even after reading negative and dismissive reviews. Expect to see the mix 'Night porter', 'Schindler's List' and 'Life is beautiful'... But my expectations-the feelings didn't come true.
Black and white. Though I'd call it a gray movie. This film is not about the French Resistance. It's about people. You and me. That we're like this. With fears and ideals. Accustomed to cruelty, to pain, to humiliation. But that's not the point now.
A fine, for me, brush stroke of the Master.
Helmut, like a yellow-mouthed young man, looks happily at Olga, who was brought to him from the barracks. Olga, aged, exhausted and skinny - in his eyes the same bright and confident Russian princess Olga. Loved and desired. Helmut is in love, he loves.
Another movement of the brush...
Olga tells us when and why she decided to marry the prince. She recalls how he was blindfolded to find/catch everyone, and they all ran away to drink champagne. And her words ' I knew I was going to marry him... seeing how pathetic he looked with his arms spread out...' And in this stroke the whole essence of the Russian woman. It doesn’t matter if you’re a princess or not.
The third movement of the hand of the Master.
Rosa calls Olga and hands out a letter she wrote to her daughter and asks Olga to send it. Olga in a kind of confusion, rush returns the letter with the words ' you will tell yourself... I will go for you... I have nothing to live for. .'. She's confused. She doesn't know what she's doing or why.
Rose's eyes. ..
And at that moment, something breaks in the soul.
Sukhorukova did not recognize at all. Just caught something fleetingly familiar. And his grotesquely false statement about Hitler's dreams. It was supposed to look like this. Exactly. Lies. Hypocrisy. A grotesque clown. And Helmut's reaction. A true believer in Hitler’s ideal idea. Including after death. 'Just humanity is not ready for it yet.'
It doesn’t matter what the heroes did before the barracks. It doesn't matter how Helmut got his regalia. These are images of everyone who created hell and who passed through it.
This is German pedantry in a neat sticker of photos of dead bodies and military events. This is the desire to survive the women in the concentration camp and their cruelty.
But despite all this, even in the worst of conditions, we still have humanity.
" What do you think Chekhov would say about what is happening in the world today?
- Nothing. He wouldn't believe it. (c)
It so happened that from all the variety of domestic films of the past year, critics and members of the jury of the Golden Eagle - a new film of the living classic of Soviet cinema was recognized. It is worth noting that the stylized black-white “Paradise” of Andron Konchalovsky managed to ride through European and some Western festivals by that time, having managed to get a heap of secondary awards. Although, by far the most important for the future biography of the film will be its nomination for the main prize of last year’s festival in Venice (where, it is worth paying tribute to it – it competed with more than worthy directors like Kulhoven and Kusturitz), as well as the attempt to nominate it for the Oscar award (which American film Academy cut to the root – not even including the Russian tape in the list of applicants). Many dissatisfied reviewers of the film, did not fail to note the fact that the director again took the lead role of his wife (who had previously helped to arrange a career), and that say “cookie” Julia Vysotskaya did not cope with her assigned role. They also wrote about the discrepancies between historical facts and the events shown in the film, and also noted that Anton Pavlovich’s bride went to the gas chamber not at the age of 67, but at the age of 83. And other stuff that I don't think makes any difference to the picture. At least if it were otherwise, the director – who is also the co-writer of the script – would have taken all these “little things of life” on a pencil. However, Konchalovsky’s new work must apparently “pass the intermediate region of the brain, settling into the heart” (or, as the master’s younger brother says?). In other words, it is a film of feelings and emotions. He should touch the viewer and make empathize with the heroine, who turned out to be in spite of the name of the tape, not at all in paradise conditions. But it's like the author's idea. Life, as usual, made its own adjustments. And instead of a heavy and serious picture of the terrible life of prisoners of Nazi concentration camps and a deep story about ambiguous heroes who had to find themselves on opposite sides against their will, not even barricades but ideology, Konchalovsky’s long-awaited Paradise turned out to be a terribly flat and extremely infantile, uneven picture. The relative success of which can only be explained by the big name of its creator, who celebrated the half-century anniversary of his first visit to Venice last year.
Frankly speaking, having returned from Hollywood to his homeland, Andron Sergeyevich ceased to be the author of a big movie. Personally, I am not an art house fan. However, for the time being, he produced quite competent, authorial, but at the same time designed for a wide audience of paintings. For example, the same "House of Fools" about a psychiatric hospital that was in the epicenter of the Chechen war, or became a verdict to the domestic show - business "Glyanets". But then something happened to the director. The much-hyped "Christmas" blockbuster "The Nutcracker and the Rat King" turned out to be a complete nightmare. And almost amateur tape “White Nights of the Postman Alexei Tryapitsyn” – a weak and tortured attempt to repeat the style of his “Asi Klyachina”. With his prizes from European, and especially domestic film forums, Konchalovsky has nothing to prove to anyone. However, he is not going to do that. For he has long entered the history of our and world cinema, leaving his best works in the last century. With great directors sometimes there is such a metamorphosis - shooting in his youth large, outstanding, even great pictures - to old age they slide into small and unremarkable productions, unable to add anything to their filmography. And it happened not only with Konchalovsky, it is enough to recall his overseas friend and colleague Francis Ford Coppola.
If we go directly to the “Paradise”, then we can say very little about it. As the good that still in the film is, you can call the game involved actors. Both our and European performers, the Germans and the French, play beautifully. And some, like Christian Klauss, do it partly in Russian. No matter how hard they tried to hurt Vysotskaya, but with the role of a young Russian princess in exile, she coped perfectly. Creating an image of a weak, doubtful and fearful woman of torture and pain. A separate aspect is the long monologues of Olga, who calmly or almost sobbing tells sitting in a robe at the interrogation table, a certain listener about the suffering she experienced. About how she was in the French Resistance, how she helped hide Jewish children and how she tried to survive in a concentration camp, suffering from hunger and fear of physical punishment. By the way, the same monologues “for life” are led by some other heroes: the Commissioner of the French police Jules (Philippe Duhen) – against the will forced to cooperate with the fascist occupiers, as well as a young German officer – idealist Helmut (Christian Klaus) – by specialty Slavic and a fan of the work of the Russian writer Anton Pavlovich Chekhov, who believes in the chosen course for Germany, considering the destruction of the Jews – the only possible solution. Among other characters, it is worth highlighting the fat commandant of the concentration camp Krause (Peter Kurt) - to which Helmut came with an inspection, as well as a friend of the latter - officer Vogel (Jakob Diehl) - also a great admirer of Russian literature. Of our performers, I will highlight Viktor Sukhorukov, who did not fit well into the image of Himler, and Vera Voronkova, who played the barracks caretaker, a Jewish woman Rosa, with whom the main character did not have a relationship ...
But in view of the uneven distribution of plot time, the story of the French commissioner seems unsaid, and the officer who demanded a deeper disclosure, the Slavophile, gives way to the main character, about whom everything is generally clear after the first hour of the picture. So it turns out that the script written by Konchalovsky himself, paired with his protégé Elena Kiselyova, is uneven and poorly balanced. In addition, full of clichés and infantile dialogues. There is nothing bad to say about the director’s work with actors – all artists play at a high level. But the task of a film director is not only to work with the performers, he must control the entire process. The film as a whole doesn’t seem “mature.” And the very decision to make the film stylized to the chronicle, causes completely unnecessary associations with the “Schindler’s List”, while Andron Sergeevich (with all due respect to him) with Steven Spielberg to compete, of course, is not able. Having seen nothing good in camera work, I will not say kind words about the musical design of the picture. What an Oscar!
Three stories about people somehow involved in the fate of two children. Each of them tells their own point of view on what is happening, each has its own truth. They are all different – a French collaborator, an SS officer, and an underground girl with Russian roots – but they all played a role in the fate of two children from Paris. It is time for them to answer for their actions. That’s how they respond to this film. Actually, the drama was supposed to be, but I saw only a superficial vision, did not touch me tragedy, did not take my soul. And here's why.
Let me start with the most complete character of the SS Helmut. He, in modern language major - German aristocrat, did not smell gunpowder in battle, for which only the Knight's Cross was incomprehensible, a fan of the Aryan theory of the purity of the nation, but loving Chekhov and the heroine Olga. A strange combination of character, and what it is based on is incomprehensible, does not repent of what he did, it is not inherent in skepticism and criticism of the policy of the Reich. Except that the sight of the victims of concentration camps in the photos upsets him, but apparently has a delicate soul and knows how to feel beautiful. His friend Dietrich, who managed to fight and understood the disastrous path of National Socialism, seemed to me more sympathetic. At the same time, Helmut’s actions turned out to be the most understandable, at least it was clear why and why he did this or that.
Olga is probably the most controversial figure, a sophisticated aristocrat who ended up in a concentration camp, but I did not see any tragedy in her figure. The actions and words were dictated by her beliefs, according to the director’s plan, and on the screen I saw an exalted person who did not convey the atmosphere of horror reigning around. The line that she stopped starving is completely out of the picture of sacrifice when you see why. The feeling of playing the heroine did not leave me until the end of the viewing.
Inspector Jules is shown as not understanding why he suffers as a collaborator, but he really does not understand, in his opinion, he is a good family man and honestly performed the job of a policeman. Except that he had a sexual attraction to the heroine Vysotskaya. The most controversial figure, besides shown sketches, which increased the impression of incompleteness.
Konchalovsky once sharply made a deviation on the aristocracy of the main characters, only noble people can sacrifice themselves for the sake of another, they have a sublime sense of beauty and duty, and the rest of the crooks (as the head of the camp) and adaptors (as a block). And for me, the behavior of these not sublime people just conveys the drama of the people, the tragedy of war, they have not been to Villa Mancini, must adapt and survive every day to earn their bread, feed their children and take care of orphans. For all the sacrifice of the heroine Vysotskaya in the film, she was happy to transfer custody of the children to Rosa (by the way, Vera Voronkova, who played Rosa I liked), not a manly business every day cares about someone and survive for someone. I agree that Olga’s actions were akin to a feat, but this was shown as a cardboard.
And most importantly, I did not see any physical or spiritual violence against the characters, the simplicity of the narrative remained simple. “Life is beautiful” wounded the soul (although it was filmed in color), “Schindler’s List” captured the globality of the tragedy, “The Night Porter” (even if I did not like it) but gave the drama of survival in a concentration camp, and Astrakhan in “From Hell to Hell” showed spiritual violence and suffering in the most heartbreaking form, about “Son of Saul” I am not talking anymore. But in Paradise by A. Konchalovsky for self-admiration and template I did not see anything that would touch the strings of the soul and heart.
There is no greater love than that, if one lays down his soul for his friends.
The movie is amazing! I really liked it. I haven’t seen a movie like this for a long time.
In stylistics, it resembles the neorealism of the 50s, in depth and some allegory – Tarkovsky’s films. Although, of course, the author is original and unique, and all comparisons can be made with a great stretch.
It seems to me that the film “Paradise” Konchalovsky has reached a new qualitative level. He did, in my opinion, what he was going all his life, summarizing with this film both life experience and artistic experience.
The fates of three different people are shown during World War II in German-occupied France, including through their monologues. This is a Russian emigrant who helped the French Resistance; a French collaborator who served the Germans diligently; a German SS Obersturmbannführer, inspired by the idea of building a paradise on earth, but by the end of the war began to realize that the implementation of the idea, to put it mildly, is wrong. Did it come to him that the idea itself is absurd, left behind the scenes?
All these lives, briefly intertwined, tragically ended. However, the Russian aristocrat Olga – sinful earthly Olga – repeated the feat of the Russian nun Maria Skobtsova (in the world of the poet Elizabeth Kuzmina-Karavaeva), going to the gas chamber instead of another woman. But if this action was completely natural for Mary’s mother, then for Olga, preparing for the escape organized for her by Helmut, this decision was an illumination from above: this is the path to True Salvation. “There is no greater love than that a man lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13).
And the Lord accepted her into his abodes.
The performance of all actors is above all praise. Vysotskaya played amazingly. And I did not recognize Sukhorukov at all, only in the credits at the end of the film I was surprised to read that he played Himmler.
May God give health and creative strength to the Konchalovskys so that they will continue to please us with their magnificent work.
P.S. It was sad that there were only 6 people in the cinema. Yeah. This is not a movie where you can have fun eating popcorn. People have stopped going to serious movies.
“Paradise” is Andrei Konchalovsky’s latest film, which, like his earlier film “The Middle Circle”, dedicated to Stalin’s repressions, lacks uncompromisingness. We can say that “Paradise” is for those who have not seen Nemesh’s film “Son of Saul”, which offered an innovative approach to depicting the Holocaust, who invented a new film language adapted to the image of the unimaginable.
“Paradise” is more reminiscent of Pavlikovsky’s “Ida” than Konchalovsky himself wanted: the same psychological anemia, the same inability of actors to express emotional states, the same variety of plot cliches, a lot of illogicalities in the behavior of the characters and brilliant camera work, a wonderful black and white image that does not correlate with the content and has become pure stylization.
Cinema dedicated to the Second World War is diverse - from the naturalistic horrors "Go and see" to the grotesque satire "Amarcord", but only one taboo in the image of those years exists in cinema, and Konchalovsky violates it, cinema should not be insensitive and boring. That's how it turned out.
Bergman’s monologues of the heroes in the camera are another miscalculation of the director, what the Scandinavian genius managed to do in “Sacrament”: to tell, instead of showing, few people succeed, for this it is necessary to have an unsurpassed training, obtained through many years of work in the theater, it is necessary to feel the actor, his plastic and intonation existence in the frame should not be pretentious, unnatural, just the same as it turned out for Vysotskaya, who frankly does not know how to play. Not really. She knows how to play, but to exist in the frame - no, she does not have organics that allow to merge with the character, live his emotions.
Monologues significantly weight the narrative, deleting it, although in the image of the unimaginable the most important thing is a merger, a complete immersion (what Nemesh did in “Son of Saul”), Brechtian techniques do not work here. But it is worth noting that the director certainly succeeded in the SS line, clearly inspired by reading Jonathan Litell’s recent novel The Charity Girl, which also depicts a Nazi intellectual, an aristocrat, a fan of classical music and Russian literature. Such an anti-fascist film has not yet known, and the scenes with its participation look very convincing and emotionally rich.
Konchalovsky misses the goal also because he sews his film from three unequal patches – a convincing narration about a Nazi, a small excerpt about a collaborationist (which generally looks unconvincing, because it does not reveal the characters and looks like a tracing from a French film dedicated to the Second World War, in the spirit of “Lacombe Lucien” by Louis Malle, this is the most stamped fragment of the film) and episodes involving a Russian aristocrat who, due to the unnatural performance of Vysotskaya, also looks unconvincing. Thus, of the three fragments shuffled together, only one works.
In addition, political correctness and the absence of an uncompromising drive in the depiction of Nazi atrocities, insufficient gloom in the visualization of the life of the concentration camp, a straightforward arrangement of psychological accents, multiplied by the final pathos of trembling at the gates of paradise, which lacks religious, Dreyer’s conviction, gives rise to a calculated film made according to the canons, I would even say, according to the patterns of anti-fascist cinema.
“Paradise” resembles “Schindler’s List” with its Hollywood elaboration and calculation, manipulation of the emotions of the audience, in contrast to the uncompromising, going to the end “Go and see” and “Son of Saul”, Spielberg, like Konchalovsky, allows himself halftones, unacceptable, when depicting absolute evil. This is another reason Paradise failed – it’s too Chekhovian (Chekhov’s name comes up in the film) to be a Holocaust movie, too nuanced, so we have another Ida shot in Russia, but not a masterpiece not even close to Son of Saul.
Moralization film on the theme of the “tear of a child” in the scenery of barracks and gas stoves. Quite dull and deeply secondary. Relatively fresh is the brightening and romanticization of a stupid Nazi, including through the likeness of communists. Another surprise was the immodest “promotion” of the Villa “Mancini” in Tuscany – after all, it is in it that our patriotic filmmaker lives today. But since the amateur reviewer has more freedom than the staff reviewer, I will respond only to what really hurt me. Moreover, the director, apparently, also does not let go of this topic.
Any hero of ancient myth had to trace his lineage to the gods of Olympus, otherwise who would take him seriously? So in Konchalovsky’s film, all the program maxims are pronounced by people from the “higher class”, “aristocrats”. The word itself, along with the title titles and the epithet "birth" sounds in the film every 5-10 minutes. Are we being rubbed with another myth about those who will come and clean the Augean stables for us?
Meanwhile, on the centenary of the bloody civil mess, it is worth giving her credit for one thing - it eradicated the caste society of "men" and "masters." Don’t say thank you, the price was too high. But millions of Soviet people tasted the luxury of social justice. Some of its remnants we still use. Of course, the Moscow majors from the court families had and still have their own view of what is happening. But for some reason, they soon found themselves in Hollywood.
Today, Konchalovsky’s nostalgia for castes goes to indecency far. And this tramples not only the memory of the victims of the fratricidal citizen, but also the basics of genetics. After all, the aristocracy is a group within which assortativity (that which causes the non-randomness of marriage unions) operates on a formal basis - title. From the fact that the natural attraction of smart/decent people to each other fades into the background in the creation of a family, genetic selection is blocked – there is a real “irreproach” in any sense of the word. Buckingham won't let you lie.
On the other hand, the children of aristocrats grow up under the constant pressure of social norms and learn to behave as they should. It's not genetics. This is a training for high self-control and restraint. Keep a stiff upper lip – The upper lip of a gentleman must remain firm. That is why not only the imitation of Sharon Stone prevents the actress Vysotskaya from conforming to the template of “aristocratic”, but also a lot of what may seem quite appropriate on a culinary talk show, but does not befit a “princess”.
Of the rest, the speculative rinsing of the name of Chekhov, who, by the way, being from the peasants, could not stand aristocrats, was wowed. With many references to Palich in essence, only one thing was said - "he would not believe in what is happening." As if someone else could have imagined such a thing. This is not another Konchalovsky film.
One last thing. Deadly sick "man" Chekhov until the last tried to go at least a military doctor to the war with Japan. How quickly the birthed aristocrat in the 91st was at the airport, we also remember.
I am often asked how I can fall asleep to the horrors of a la ' Texas Chainsaw Massacre', ' Call' or 'Spell'.. But the fact is that I am not afraid of liters of blood from food dyes, staged torture, ghosts and effects in the style 'BU!'. What really scares me is war movies. But not licked Hollywood ' Pearl Harbor' where artificially beautiful plans with heartbreaking music dictate the viewer the right emotions at the right moment. And such as 'Life is beautiful' Benigni, ' Pianist' Polanski, and now ' Paradise' Konchalovsky. Especially terrible effect in this case is the black and white format. As if in reality the world has lost all colors: it has become dull, hopeless and gray.
However, Konchalovsky’s story demonstrates not the actual war itself, but how it makes people: those who decide fates and those whose fates decide. And this is really scary. It is frightening to look at the Germans who ironically boast that they have exceeded the plan by sending more people to the gas chamber in a day than necessary. And they believe that in this way they will create a superior race and a so-called paradise on Earth. It is frightening that tuberculosis-infected prisoners are summoned to the gas chamber on a list, and they calmly gather and silently go to their deaths. It is terrible to look at the main character, whose condition during her stay in the camp atrophied so much that after losing her shoes, she, without flinching, removes her shoes from another prisoner who has just died, and later she begins to believe in the idea ' Paradise'. It is terrifying how people on both sides of this hell are being revealed. Surprisingly, neither of them feel much. Scary, it was all real. War is scary.
Sometimes it is very useful to watch such films. And it's us who are overzealous. Because in these moments, you begin to appreciate what you have and what you do not value every day.
In general, go to it. 'Viking, 'Attraction', 'Assassin' and 'La La Land' there is no going anywhere, a'Paradise' we all need.
For me, this film was very painful. This immediately unequivocally says that there is a message, there is meaning, there is power - if it hurts.
It's really wonderfully shot. Narrow monochrome frame, amazingly beautiful compositional solutions, beautiful work of props and artists. Quality and professionally done, there are no complaints.
The acting work impressed Christian Klaus, a very promising figure. But Julia Vysotskaya made a mixed impression. Of course, this is a strong actress who created a well-developed image. But her final decision - and the related final monologue - didn't convince me. I don’t know if it has anything to do with the twist of the story or her acting, but something really bothered me. But the rest of the image is very convincing. And it is valuable that all three central heroes are given in the present in development, you can trace how their worldview changes, gradually we learn their history, their lives.
As for the film as a whole, this is not a new story, and the further it goes, the harder it will be to make films on the subject. Already was 'Schindler's List', 'Pianist' - of course, will be compared. But in terms of the impact, this is a completely extraordinary movie. At the moment of viewing, you feel nailed to a chair. It's pressing, it's loading - and it's good and right.
To sum up, it is a very strong and well-made film. For some time I feel proud of Russian cinema.
8 out of 10
While it became popular to justify the title fleetingly thrown in the film phrase, Andrei Konchalovsky put ambiguity in the capacious word, giving three letters a powerful semantic load. Heaven. What is heaven? Heaven is a sarcastic grin for those who have lost hope of survival. Paradise is the past that has disappeared into oblivion. Paradise is a terrible ideology, elevated to the absolute and sweeping away everything in its path. Paradise is the last refuge for the repentant soul. Paradise is not clearly shown, it is not pointed at once with a finger or a word. But it permeates the film from the inside, becoming a consequence of the described hell. And among this nightmare there are three completely different worldviews, three life bordering on each other.
Jules. French collaborator. Jules symbolizes a weak man, submissive to the approaching, resigned to the state of affairs, floating with the current, who is afraid of an opponent of the regime emerging within him, who is weak before his own feelings. His life is as gray and inconspicuous as the feelings experienced at the sight of this character. And all that remains is pity.
Helmut. High-ranking SS officer. Helmut represents war. The struggle of imposed cruelty and humanity. The bravado of propaganda is ready to yield to the nauseating feeling within, in large part because its understanding of “paradise on earth” does not converge with the terrifying reality. He begins his journey, zombified by a higher purpose, but the consequences of what he did in a quiet shadow follow him, appealing to his conscience and showing that the road he is walking on leads to the wrong place. Helmut is like a grenade that is about to explode from the accumulated contradictions. He travels a long way from darkness to light, escaping from love, finding peace in humility, soothing himself with the fact that the world is simply not ready to become perfect.
Olga. Russian aristocrat, member of the French Resistance. Olga begins her journey with a sense of self-importance and a sense that every situation will succumb to her, but she quickly realizes how cruel reality is. The once majestic nature sinks to the bottom in an effort to get rid of pain. Turning a blind eye to the baseness of some actions, she is driven by the idea of survival at any cost, because in the struggle for existence there are no rules. And only the realization that for someone life is much more valuable, and a person can become something more than a pair of shoes, changes her consciousness.
The film is unconventionally presented, by wedging into the narrative the monologue of the heroes who in all terrifying details describe their feelings and thoughts. Scenes of special cruelty are shown half-frame and described in half-word, but this is enough to play on the imagination of the viewer, who himself will think and finish everything. Immersed in a pressing void, sounding the background of inevitability, the black and white picture gives the impression that the film came to us directly from those terrible and distant times, absorbing all the horror of what is happening. If this, for any reason, is not enough, the viewer will be “finished” by a frightening combination of violence with the mundaneity of life, when tickets to the circus are ordered between tortures, mountains of mutilated corpses in the photo are viewed under unobtrusive entertainment music, and a person dies in the midst of the beauty of virgin nature. It's a movie that doesn't need a lot of blood to terrify. He doesn’t have to write sentences to get the message out. It was enough for him to simply bare his soul and be truthful so that the viewer, holding his breath, comprehended the described.
I don’t want to talk about a movie that I don’t think is bad. At least because the topic stated in it is very important for us now. Power, violence, victims, which turn all participants in events. This movie should have been made.
The path of each character is very unusually traced in the structure of the film - the action is interspersed with interviews that give three characters to some higher forces and the viewer. And we see what each of them is doing. Another big plus of the film is the black and white image and frequent static plans. They allow you to abstract from feelings for the heroes and comprehend what is happening in documentary mode.
(And here's the bad stuff) Perhaps this detachment was facilitated by the rather cardboard play of the interviewed Yulia Vysotskaya, who was clearly losing to her German colleagues. And the appearance of Sukhorukov (whom I love dearly) in the role of Himmler generally looked more like: “And I also have Sukhorukov”, causing some embarrassment for everything that is happening. Yes, with his intuitive help, the director managed to convey the absurdity and maniacism of the Wehrmacht. I even started to think of Molokh Sokurov. But then the scene ended. That's it. To be honest, this voiced “multi-layeredness” seems to me more like the many shades touched upon by the director, which he simply shares in terms of his awareness of human souls and the psychology of fascism. I know that, and that. And about Chekhov 100 times you need to tell the viewer, or suddenly he after the first 5 misunderstood. The audience was a bit upset.
It turns out that I scold more than I praise... But it's my expectations of Konchalovsky. Still, I wanted more subtlety and artistry. Even in deliberate theatricality it is, if it does not break into pathos. There were hints of it, and I would accept it. I must admit that watching the movie is interesting. But here comes the finale. And the ending ruined everything. If from the ideological side everything was more or less expected, then the artistic embodiment is depressing with its vulgarity. And each subsequent plan worsened and worsened the situation. After such an ending, it begins to seem that everything deep that you saw in the film, you took solely from yourself, and not from the picture.
I want to believe that “Paradise” is the necessary first pancake that will help and motivate us to talk about patients, still not meaningful topics. I will not be revisiting it.
Apostle Peter, take your keys.
A worthy paradise knocks at his door ... (N. Gumilev, 1915)
1. The topic shown is not the subject of Russia and Russians. In Russia, she doesn't do that. This situation with the Jews was not created by Russia during World War II. It was created by Germany together with America and Great Britain, as well as the whole of Europe, helping Hitler to take power and appeasing the aggressor. Also in the creation of this situation, apparently, the Zionist movement took part through Jewish-owned banks located in England and America and controlling the development of Hitler and Hitlerism. These are the Warburg, Morgan, Rothschild dynasties and others. The Holocaust was provoked by that part of the Jews who professed Zionism, built the state of Israel (build it began much earlier than 1947).
Therefore, the Jewish theme in the sense in which it is presented in the film is not a theme of Russian culture. The responsibility for the Jewish catastrophe lies partly with Europe, since representatives of Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Hungary, Czechoslovakia were in Hitler’s army, and therefore shared his ideas. So today’s Europeans should feel guilty about what they did. But not the Russians. The Russians, on the contrary, helped another part of the Jews who were in the USSR to survive, not to be exterminated, evacuating many of them to the eastern territories of the USSR: to Omsk, Alma-Ata, Novosibirsk, Bukhara, Ufa, Kuibyshev, Frunze, Tashkent, etc. Russian Jews should be especially grateful that Hitler was stopped, otherwise the fate of European Jews would have awaited everyone else. Jews should be grateful to Russians because they understand the high price paid. I have never heard such an expression of gratitude. Instead of all this, there was the mass aliyah of the 50s to Israel and flight to America: instead of participating in the reconstruction of the war-torn country, mass adhesion to those who organized this massacre and who received the maximum benefit from it.
Be that as it may, the topic of guilt before Jews is not a Russian topic, and it is raised in the film in connection with the Russians, even with the Russian aristocracy, wrongfully.
2. The paradise of the Germans is not heaven with God, it is the paradise of Nietzsche with the Superman. According to Nietzsche, “God is dead” (see “Thus spoke Zarathustra”). And proof of the materiality of these ideas for the Germans is the fact that even during the First World War, both the Bible and the mentioned Bible of the Superman Nietzsche were often found together in the bags of murdered Germans. World War II was a continuation of the First, and the Third Reich - the reincarnation of the IIth. Opposed to this paradise, the paradise of the Russian emigrant is a weak similarity of paradise in its European understanding, in the Catholic and Protestant sense, with purgatory and an anthropomorphic God (Raphael, Michelangelo, etc.) instead of the Trinity, as well as with Western legalism and satisfaction with God for sins, which is the decisive act of the main character of the film. That is, the differences declared in the film in the understanding of paradise, the understanding of the meaning of life are not problems of difference of faith, these are problems of different forms of Western humanism, which reduces the intensity and depth of the issues being solved, reduces everything to a solution on a European scale only, using only European solutions. Therefore, the depth of coverage of the film is no different.
3. At the end of the film, when the heroine makes the final decision, you realize that she takes the blame and responsibility for what is happening in Europe, as a representative of Europe, not Russia. Knowing the facts, you do not believe it, you understand that this decision is not in the Russian cultural tradition, not the Russian cultural and historical question.
Why Russia participated in the filming of such a shallow, not expressive, frankly not our film in view of the lack of depth of posing questions and their solution, is unknown. Our audience won't believe Konchalovsky. And you'll be right.
4. So, much has been said about the fact that Konchalovsky stopped being a liberal and became a patriot. You can see from the movie that that's not true. Konchalovsky poses questions typical of the European layman, and solves them in a completely European way. Consequently, it has not advanced beyond European humanism, romanticism, or perhaps sentimentalism. Anglo-Saxon humanism was at the origins of this war, German sentimentalism and romanticism were the components of the German national character, which was used to unleash it. The challenge is that such a great war will not happen again. The solution of this problem by means of Konchalovsky is impossible. Mentally, ideologically, ideologically, he is on the side of those who unleashed this war, and not those who won it and is doing everything to ensure that it does not happen again.
3 out of 10
In the film ' Paradise & #39; Andrei Konchalovsky tells about the fate of three different people who intertwined during the Second World War. These people are completely different from each other, each has its own moral values, its own truth. The only thing they have in common is strict adherence to their principles.
There are no positive or negative characters in this picture. The same characters can first repel, and after a while to cause sympathy.
Frenchman Jules, for example, appears before the audience as a loving father and husband, for whom happiness in the family is the most important thing. However, for this he is able to go on terrible, cruel acts.
Helmut comes from a noble family, an SS officer. He is inspired by the service to his country and the desire to die for an idea. However, he is not alien to human feelings, like love or fear.
Olga is also a member of the aristocracy. She was arrested in an attempt to shelter Jewish children. The heroine herself admits how much fear she feels, but this does not prevent her from doing brave and noble deeds in spite of this.
I want to talk about the atmosphere of the film. She came out very heavy, gloomy and oppressive. Without showing grand battles or blood, the horror of war is felt while watching the tape. Stunningly natural acting, deep grief in the eyes of people, the reflection of fear and hopelessness on their faces - all this looks frighteningly realistic.
Despite its duration, chamberedness and slowness of the narrative, the tape looks in one breath. The camera work was unexpectedly outstanding. The camera takes really unusual angles, which makes the film more interesting to watch. I would also like to mention the final plot twist. Perhaps many viewers will be able to predict it in the middle of viewing, but this does not detract from its unusualness.
As a result, ' Paradise & #39 is a truly atypical film about the Second World War, the main advantage of which is a deep disclosure of the character traits of each of the characters. This film can hardly be recommended to everyone. 'Paradise' is not suitable for viewing for the sake of rest or the desire to kill time. If you like tapes that suggest thoughts, and calmly treat pictures with a heavy and oppressive atmosphere, you should familiarize yourself with this tape.
The key to understanding the idea of the film is the word ' corruption', so modern that immediately ' pushes' content beyond the Second World War. And when Nazi aristocrat Helmut speaks in disgust of the pre-fascist era of prostitutes with lipstick on, the director’s plan becomes even clearer.
So, the film is about the fact that in troubled times - chaos, the fall of morals - there is a tempting hope for simplification, for the organization of society according to understandable rules, for the creation of Paradise & #39 on earth. But instead of heaven comes hell. Hell is for everyone – those who are declared enemies, those who at first enthusiastically begin to build paradise, and those who simply survive by obeying new rules that are not particularly welcome.
Great idea, who's arguing? The parallel with the present times is justified. But how did the idea come about?
Badly embodied! Vysotskaya, alas, plays weakly and is simply not suitable for her role by age.
Unlike Helmut and the French policeman 'mir' Olga, her backstage is completely undisclosed. Is she an aristocrat by blood or only by marriage? Definitely not an aristocrat. What happened to her husband? Psychologically ill-prepared decision Olga to go to the gas chamber instead of the senior barracks. Including because ' fail' disappear from the viewer’s field of view Jewish boys, about whom Olga was so concerned at first. But it would be enough to look Olga in their direction when she returns from Helmut to the barracks.
A terrible scene in a German concentration camp. For a moment (but not for a moment - on the whole stage) it seemed as if on the screen a Soviet film ' about the fascists'.
The monologues of the heroes are evidence of the weakness of directing, didactics instead of playing. In addition, the content of these dialogues does not add anything particularly important to the content of the film.
Yes, didactics is the main drawback of the film. The authors tried to hide it, but failed. Here Helmut suddenly declares to Olga that he approves of Stalin and if he were Russian, he would be on his side. That time! This is said by a staunch Nazi, confident of ' guilt' Jews. To the Nazis, Jews and Communists are the same thing. Such a puncture occurs because of the desire of the authors to hint at the fact that in terms of simplification of reality, the Bolsheviks and the Nazis are similar at will to arrange paradise on earth (on blood). And it turned out a declaration (authors!), not supported by the logic of the image.
What I would like to thank the film for is the excellent performance of Christian Klauss, a young German actor who constantly plays in the theater in Dresden. With better directing, he could brilliantly play the contradictions of his hero, Nazi and Chekhov fan. He should be given the task of playing with his eyes, his facial expressions. And Konchalovsky seemed to demand only action and words.'Take a shower and go to bed!' It's the woman you love. He's covering her with a blanket. But you can't see a face. As a result, Klauss played only one side of his character perfectly - the Nazi side, and the other, the human side, he was allowed to play only in a grotesque way. His implicit aversion to Nazism erupts with vomiting in one scene and hysterical screaming in another.
On 'skeleton' ideas failed to build 'meat' compelling story. Pamphletism is a real scourge of modern Russian cinema. Idea ' if not revolution' pours into 'Battalion' and 'Sunstroke'. Idea ' the people are wild' - in 'Viking'.
Probably, real artists should doubt more and work not for the evil of the day & #39, but for eternity.
It's impossible to explain... It is necessary to feel ...
This movie is about war. But there will be no battles, battles, blood of fellow soldiers, orders, shots. This film is much deeper. Multi-layered. Harder. This movie is about people.
The story unfolds in one of the concentration camps, where the Russian princess Olga enters. She was arrested because she was hiding Jewish children in her home. In a concentration camp, she meets Helmut, a high-ranking SS officer. There is love between them. This story is also intertwined with the confessions of the heroes, recorded in a documentary style. This gives a certain entourage to the overall atmosphere of the film. In addition, the plot is influenced by a large number of other cellmates of Olga, who often bring her trials.
The plot of this picture is very confusing. Each of the heroes goes his way for all the time that is in the concentration camp. The development of images does not stop for a minute.
The director in this film was Andrei Konchalovsky - the famous Soviet, Russian and American film director, People's Artist of the RSFSR, winner of many prestigious film awards. Director of such films as: “Tango and Cash”, “Uncle Vanya”, “Roller and Violin”, etc.
The main role was played by the magnificent and inimitable Julia Vysotskaya. Also, the roles were performed by: Peter Kurt, Philip Duquesne, Jean Denis Römer and others
The script was based on the story of the real Russian princess Victoria Obolenskaya. During World War II, she hid Soviet and British oppositionists in her home.
The picture was shot in an unusual scale for a modern format: 3x4. In addition, black-white shooting is used, which also adds a taste of antiquity to the film. Paying tribute to the traditions of films Tarkovsky, his old colleague, with whom they together decided to make hyper-realistic films, Konchalovsky does not embellish the shot, but shows everything in this film as it really was.
Also, in modern cinema there are few films in which so much attention was paid to the composition of the frame. In the film “Paradise” was carried out this work, and also, importantly, completed for all 100. It's hard to argue with that.
Now, as for my personal opinion.
The film touches on a huge number of problems. The problem of man in society and his status. Is there a way out of any situation? The problem of the past and the future. Heaven in the soul, on earth and in heaven. Of course, all these problems are intertwined, making up a large string of meanings, metaphors and epithets. Idea theme. The subject of the correctness of our actions. The subject of despair. That's what this picture is all about.
Verdict.
I think and hope that the painting by Andrei Konchalovsky “Paradise” will be the best picture of 2017. This film has already won its “Silver Bear” at the Venice Film Festival for Best Director.
It's a must see. We have been waiting for this movie for a long time.
'Paradise' is the story of three characters – Olga (Julia Vysotskaya), Helmut (Christian Klaus) and Jules (Philippe Duquesne) – their confession.
Olga is a Russian princess, fashion editor of a glossy magazine, accustomed to living in luxury, without having to blink an eye, finds herself in occupied France, unable to swim with soap, not to mention lipstick; saves Jewish children. Helmut is a German aristocrat, permeated from head to toe with the idea of the majesty of the Third Reich and the need to establish a German paradise on earth; a fan of Chekhov. Jules is a French collaborator, a typical representative of the middle class, able to adapt to any regime and any situation; has a wife and a son.
Olga hides Jewish children from the Nazis, but at the same time fears pain, so she believes that she will tell them everything during interrogation. Helmut hates the Jews because they have turned their beloved Germany into Hell, but at the same time does not allow one Jewish woman, the wife of a disabled German, to be taken to the camp. Jules causes his wife pain and suffering, but at the same time repents of his actions.
Olga is no longer afraid of pain. At first it is scary and painful, and therefore it is no longer scary and does not hurt. She wants to be taken from Hell. Helmut does not take the smell of corpses from the ovens and is convinced that Chekhov would not believe in what is happening in the world. He still believes in Paradise and human equality on earth and continues to fight corruption.
Helmut does not believe that the German is superhuman. The world is not yet ready for perfection.
The movie is heavy. The black-and-white picture in 'square' format weighs it even more, reflecting the grayness of that war era, but thereby increasing the contrast between good (white) and evil (black). The only thing that spoiled the impression of the film is the gatekeeper of paradise, speaking in the voice of Konchalovsky. In my opinion, Andrey Sergeevich acted too confidently, assuming a huge responsibility.
It is necessary to warn immediately that the heavenly places or their own, but as an image of the director Andrei Konchalovsky can not be seen on the screen. They cannot be felt, let alone touched. However, it is one of the few significant films that ultimately reveals a given topic. Having set the task of creating a film - an appeal to the viewer, Konchalovsky carefully and consistently achieved success. One gets the impression that the director’s goal was to build only a solid foundation for thinking about Paradise. He left the right to create a superstructure to us. In this regard, tete-a-tete with the three main characters at the gates of Paradise is, in essence, an intimate conversation with the viewer - with each of us.
The unhurried and sometimes inert exposition of each of the three confessions does not bring anguish to the observer, largely due to the effect that arises before him ' keyhole'. Here the skillful combination of scenes “alone with the character” and “alone with his memories” draws the viewer with each frame further into our universal past. Therefore, the film “Paradise” looks in one breath, despite the importance of its timing and even more – the theme raised.
The theme of the film is not new to cinema. Initially, there was a desire to compare “Paradise” with many creations of this genre. But every minute you watch it, you realize that the movie is original. This is not Schindler's List - there is no desire to cry (except for one moment), because the director deliberately omitted in his film the speculation of human emotions. It deserves respect, because the temptation to make another heavy, but obviously successful movie is always great. This is not the "Son of Saul" - we are not talking about the physical, even if behind the scenes, but about the deeply moral and also deeply hidden within each person. Most of all, already with the final credits, a comparison comes to mind with the work of Andrei Zvyagintsev “Helena”. Through other stylistic and visual techniques, Konchalovsky achieved what his namesake managed. Revealed the theme of salvation of the soul.
Princess Olga (yes, so ironically the name of the main character was assigned by the screenwriter and with this social article) performed by Julia Vysotskaya. At the level of the role played, the actress fully justifies the surname saved during marriage. Her aristocracy in the film - as it should be - without pretentiousness and snobbery, uninhibited and alluring with inner freedom - an aristocracy of spirit, but not blood. The character embodied by her suggests the earned, hard-won nature of Yulia Vysotskaya’s talent, which, in turn, makes it even more valuable.
And, yes, the movie Paradise is layered. The desire to review it again arises about ten minutes after leaving the hall. This desire is caused by the vital necessity of aesthetic enjoyment of individual scenes (there are many). And finally, the need to think of some misunderstood moments. For example, not everyone will understand the storylines of the officer and the collaborator – their spiritual dilemma. This is largely due to the fact that 95% of the attention is focused on the character of the Russian princess. And here is another curtsey towards the actress.
The only drawback is the final, or rather one of its moments. I would call it "the light at the end of the tunnel" if this film was allowed to be ironic. After all, it is possible not to pay attention to the moment that the final voice of God is the voice of the people in the person of its individual representatives. But light! Light is too theatrical and looks like an excessive effort by the director to become clearer and thereby expand the audience of the film. In the Academy gathered sensible guys and therefore should not deprive the film of the signature author's gloss. The final light is something that should be corrected or removed from the film altogether. Although, a second later, the title musical theme of this absolutely outstanding film saves our overly picky souls.
9 out of 10
"Paradise" is a nasty movie. No wonder he's so fond of criticism. This film is an ideal expression of the philosophy of tolerance, including tolerance to evil, which dominates modern society. This film can draw a line under the modern rethinking of the results and causes of World War II. A reinterpretation, in my opinion, absolutely criminal, setting the stage for the next holocaust. This new “truth”, a new sympathetic angle of view from which to look at the executioners, who by the end of the war, being in the concentration camp, began to think about its expediency, began to experience some torment of conscience, having already destroyed several million people; the now popular position of equalizing and reducing the “paradise” of the Nazi and “paradise” of the Soviet to the unexplained term “totalitarianism” – these are all these points that very soon (if not already) will become a common place in the assessment of the Second World War – this is all the reverse side of today’s celebration of the Russian society, which will not be repeated at the 9th of May and the year, and will not lead to the good time in Berlin. Both of these extremes are the very opposite of the idea of genuine humanism.
After watching Paradise, you will not be able to answer the question of why this war was won by a country that initially had no chance of winning. And this is his lie (despite the fact that all the events of the film, probably, to some extent, took place in real life). Obviously, Konchalovsky himself did not understand these reasons. I did not understand what Tarkovsky showed in Ivan’s Childhood and Herman in Twenty Days Without War. That which made this impossible victory possible, out of which grew the miracle of saving the whole world from annihilation. If you have not yet realized this, then instead of answering, I recommend reviewing and experiencing these two great films.
Nevertheless, it is impossible not to note the picture and sharpened visual style of “Paradise”. As well as scenes that are absolutely horrific in their absurdity and improbability (mainly due to the low level of acting): these are almost all scenes in the women's barracks, and this is simply ridiculous, in my opinion, the ending that ruined the entire film. There was a feeling that the last 20 minutes of Paradise was shot by Mikhalkov. The nauseating, atmosphere-killing pathos in the final scenes ooze from the screen so that I felt almost physical rejection and the desire to immediately escape from the hall. Apparently, I really have a very poor understanding of cinema, because I do not understand how this film could be loved not only by Russian film critics.
Every movie that comes out deserves to be seen. This is the only argument I can make in favor of going to Heaven.
I am sure that there will be reviews, both positive and negative, which succinctly and clearly explain to a potential viewer what Konchalovsky’s new film is, how a work of fiction is good and what is bad. There will also be those who explain the symbolism, cultural references and express in one sentence the whole meaning of the film. Unfortunately, I'm not. But I can talk about the advantages and disadvantages 'Paradise' as a simple viewer who loves cinema and Konchalovsky’s films in particular. I hope that my review will encourage those who bypass art house, black and white films, documentary films and so on to go to the film.
1. ' Paradise & #39; lasts 2 hours 10 minutes, but mounted so skillfully and talentedly that you do not feel time at all and only at the end you begin to understand that about 2 hours have passed.
2. ' Paradise' beautiful film, many unusual angles.
3. The colorful characters that make this mono-dialogue film so special.
4. The screen does not show the horrors of torture, extermination of people, i.e. there are no scenes where the viewer would fight vomiting. All the horror behind the scenes, it is in our memory, in our confidence in its specialness and greatness. Konchalovsky did not waste time and effort on recreating scenes that we have already seen perfectly, everything is limited to photos, words and faces of survivors. And that's enough.
5. Replicas of the characters can be traced to quotes (not as ' Caucasian captive' of course, but still).
6. If ' Paradise & #39 was shot according to the standards of a big-budget Hollywood film about war and resistance in France, the heroism and self-sacrifice of the characters would be much larger, more detailed, brighter. That is, on the very fact that the main character: - the princess from Russia, who fled from the Communists, joined the resistance, saved Jewish children, and then got into the camp, it was possible to remove such a historical militant that would not yield ' Inglourious bastards'. But although the action itself remains behind the scenes, we understand this and think it out ourselves, going beyond the plot. That's pretty good.
As you can see, there are reasons to watch the film for those who usually do not go to such a thing. As a bonus, you can add that the viewer of such films is quiet, calm, popcorn does not chew, coke does not suck, rarely laughs, yawns and looks at the phone. Therefore, sitting in the hall is comfortable (I do not guarantee, but in theory it should be).
8 out of 10
To this day, World War II remains the most terrible tragedy that humanity has experienced. It remains a tragedy not only because of the colossal loss of life, but also because of its consequences, the repercussions of which we are forced to endure even seventy years after its end. It was a terrible time that poisoned the human soul, turning people into anything but people. What had to go through the participants of these events as ordinary people, managed to convey Andrei Konchalovsky in his psychological drama “Paradise”.
Synopsis Three fates intertwined during the tragic events of World War II. Olga, a Russian immigrant who joined the French Resistance Movement, is caught by the Nazis. To avoid torture, Olga seduces the French collaborator Jules, who leads her case. However, fate still takes her to a concentration camp, where she meets a high-ranking German officer Helmut. Once in love with Olga, Helmut makes a desperate attempt to save her.
Of course, "Paradise" is attractive, first of all, talented "play" actors. So, I would like to note the performance of Yulia Vysotskaya as a Russian immigrant Olga, who actually sacrificed most of her life for justice, because she simply had nothing to lose. I also really liked the game of Jacob Diel as a close friend of Helmut Vogel, who, despite his commitment to Nazism, is well aware that he and his associates are the most common killers.
Speaking of directing, I cannot call myself a fan of Andrei Konchalovsky, since I noticed that the author’s independent film is really given, devoid of pomp, pathos and Hollywood. According to its artistic characteristics and filming style, the film resembles “Ida”. Black and white image, documentary and unusual mystical presentation of the material allow the viewer to understand the characters more. I liked that Konchalovsky didn’t make Paradise one-sided, making some characters exceptionally good and others exceptionally bad. As it seemed to me, the director tried to show how the tragic events of World War II were perceived from different points of view, so that the viewer could not only understand, but feel this time.
In the script of the film there is no coherent plot. It consists of excerpts of the main characters' memories of their past lives, in which we can understand why they went down the path they chose. Throughout the film, the main characters give interviews. This is how we learn about Olga, who joined the Resistance Movement in 1941 and was arrested by French collaborators who sent her to a concentration camp. We learn about Jules, who is actually ashamed of his cowardice. Finally, the story of Helmut, a convinced Nazi, which even the love for Olga could not correct, becomes very interesting. In fact, all these interviews turn out to be a kind of “heavenly judgment” that must decide which of them truly deserves Paradise.
Result Of course, “Paradise” is not a picture for the average viewer. To understand it, you need to know history, you need to have a little patience and you need to be able to understand what you see. The film is attractive for its artistic features, including the style of shooting, various kinds of scenes and, of course, the most unusual idea of the plot.
10 out of 10
“Paradise” by Andrei Konchalovsky was shot in black and white, and I think this is not just a tribute to the era to which the film relates. The plot of Paradise itself is a presentation (both by means of cinematography and directly by monologues to the camera) of the principles of ethics of each of the three main characters, their ideas about what is black and what is white. Only three people, and how different are these ideas! And most importantly, there is no such thing that one is completely different or similar to the other. Even complete antipodes in some matters may suddenly be like-minded in others, and vice versa. That is why the characters are attracted to, then repel each other in the strange dance of life.
Each of the heroes of Paradise not only declares his ethics, he lives in full accordance with it. All three are sincere, natural and convincing, and this applies equally to the characters and actors.
The German aristocrat Helmut (Christian Klauss) in the new form of the SS Standard Fuehrer is happy to serve his country, revive and strengthen its greatness and glory. He is faithful to his oath and duty and observes the law. For example, he scrupulously understands what the minimum percentage of Jewish blood is enough to send a person to a concentration camp, and severely chastises overworked non-commissioned soldiers who dragged a woman into a truck who did not meet instructions. In Greater Germany, there is no place for police arbitrariness, all violence is used strictly within the framework of the law, but what is prescribed by law must be strictly executed - and the woman's husband is taken to the camp.
The law must be obeyed by everyone, there are no exceptions for anyone, even for their own. Standartenfuehrer, without flinching, sends to the execution of the commandant of the camp, after conducting an audit, finds a violation of the law: distortion of accounting for the theft of jewelry and other valuables by the staff, as part of the approved procedure seized from Jews killed in the gas chambers.
At the same time, Helmut is not a soulless machine, romanticism is no stranger to him, for example, he knows well and quotes Russian classics as a memory, since he wrote a dissertation on it at the university. Just in his creed written such words, and he builds his paradise according to them.
French police officer Gilles (Philippe Duquesne) has his own faith and truth. He does not wave at the state level - that for him is far and alien, his paradise is a cozy home for his family, prosperity and respect, and if for them you need to break the knees of a prisoner who does not agree to give confessions with a hammer - so it is the service. A true hedonist, Gilles does not give up the little joys of life, and no matter what their price is, if it is paid by someone else.
The Russian woman Olga (Yulia Vysotskaya), who came to France with a wave of white emigration, has a third fate and a third truth. Her world isn’t confined to a family she doesn’t have, or a nation she’s left behind. It belongs to the world and to no one in particular. Olga is also by her origin an aristocrat of the highest standard, like Helmut, and somewhere in another life they in exquisite outfits circling to music in the light of the seaside sun and catch each other's eyes.
They will all meet in this life, in the same one in which some people decided to build paradise for themselves at the expense of hell for others, and gradually turned the whole world around them into hell.
The principles of each of the three will be tested, each in its own way, of course. And two of the three will keep their principles to the very end, and the third will not keep, refuse, change, betray. Only suddenly it will be found that no matter how fervently a person believes that the teaching he professes is the only true and leading to salvation, while all the others lead to death, this faith does not save him from mistakes, and the stronger the faith, the greater and more pernicious these errors. And when a man stands before the last and greatest judgment of his life, he will be judged not by his words, but by his deeds.
In Konchalovsky’s film, the audience is like the jury on this trial: everything that is said is said to their face, everything that is done on the screen is presented as testimony or evidence. And everyone is free to make his own verdict, and the director, of course, makes his own.
And it does not matter that there really is no ship and will not be, none of us is waiting for a white light at the end of the tunnel, and the tunnel itself will be short – only two meters deep. White or black is what will remain alive after the dead, and if you have the opportunity to look at your paradise from the outside, you should do it while there is still time to fix something.
8 out of 10