The film “Close” by director Ksenia Zueva came to me at a time when I wanted to see something heavy, depressive and Russian. A week in the life of a Russian family, where everyone hates each other. And what a surprise it was that even with the task of making a heavy movie, the director, unfortunately, could not cope. Why? Let's figure it out.
According to the director, the main idea of the film is “Only death can bring family members closer together.” But the picture speaks of it only at the end. Throughout the rest of the film, the film's guiding idea is "family life is disgusting." I dare say that the film is not worth watching for the sake of an idea.
After all, the main idea of the picture is to provoke the viewer to emotions. The mother beats her daughter, then cuts her veins; the father beats her son and hates her wife; the daughter suffers from a lack of love and tries to find understanding in bad company; the grandmother, whom almost everyone thinks is crazy; goot (a lot of babble). All the shit of this family diligently pours out on the viewer for 1:44 minutes. Does it work for the viewer? Nope. I was more disgusted by the painting than by horror and misunderstanding. By the middle of the film, I was used to provocations and began to watch the movie as an unintentional comedy.
Why isn’t the film capable of generating emotion? The director does not disclose family members. They were bastards in the beginning, so they remained in the end. Heroes are shown only from one side, which is why you do not empathize with them and you do not feel any sympathy for the main bastards of the picture (the head of the family and his wife). All the crap that's pouring on them is actually fair. People are to blame, and attempts to compassionate them, as I said earlier, cause laughter.
I don’t recommend watching this movie, but I can’t call it a bad one. And yes, Pavel Tabakov will not be in the film. Don't be fooled.
The picture of Zueva turned out to be very sad, but it is not “depressive” to call it. The degree of tragedy is knocked down by abundant comic moments. The heroes themselves, however, do not have fun and almost do not smile, but they regularly say or perform such situations that it is difficult not to smile. Comism disappears only in the final part of the film, when "Close" briefly turn from tragicomedy into a series of percussion in all senses of the word dramatic scenes. Another thing is that these scenes, because of their primitiveness and straightforwardness, “work” not as much as the complex and multifaceted preceding episodes.
If the plot "Close" resemble "Dislike", then visually and emotionally Zueva's picture is similar to the early works of Valeria Guy Germanika.
To summarize, this is not a movie worth watching for pure pleasure and escape from reality. But if you are really interested in screen portraits of our compatriots and contemporaries from the outskirts of Moscow, if you are worried about the crisis of the modern family and if you want to see a worthy debut of a promising director, then you should watch this film.
Mother, after forty years of life, able only to bring people to tears;
A father who lets off steam on a loser son and a helpless elderly mother-in-law;
daughter, deceit and theft desperately trying to fit into the company of drinking peers;
The son, who has blown all the polymers, seeks understanding alternately at the bottle, then at the bed of his beloved grandmother;
Grandmother, which the family wants to get rid of, and she herself wants to meet death anywhere, if not in this house, saturated with hatred.
A Russian family without joys and prospects. The world is no less disgusting. Teenagers do not dry out, fathers of families dine with dumplings and vodka or get drunk in karaoke bars, the throat of Serov's song. You enter the entrance, you warm up from the Gopniks who came out to urinate. If you go to the police, they send you far away with an arrogant look. You get in the car to a stranger – of course, he turns out to be a rapist, but how else?
How do you make these people happy? Daughters for happiness enough sex in the corner, son - to drink vodka. The father wakes up to something human only after his wife’s failed attempt to commit suicide. In the morning, the family sits together at the same table, but Grandma is found missing and everything begins again.
In the last part of the film, a terrible formula is offered: if you want to awaken a Russian person, commit violence against his loved ones. Without blood on the face of his son, the characters of the picture cannot show compassion, understanding and love. They can't go on. Hatred in the house will return, if not because of household disagreements, then it will leak from the outside - the good of the world of freaks and inhumans depicted by the director only has this.
Too often, the director of this film undergoes comparisons with Zvyagintsev, winning somewhere through optimism and ease (and is it easier?), losing somewhere in the absence of meanings (and are they not more meaningful?). But the creative product of Ksenia Zueva, in my personal views, does not resemble the much-respected Zvyagintsev either in profile or in front.
It is not intended to turn dirty laundry, for a long demonstration to the viewer, although it will be several times very fleeting flashing in the frame. But unobtrusive enough not to callouse the eye as openly as others do. The goal is different, and more noble, from whichever side you look. A postcard film that should remind everyone about eternal values and so forgotten simple truths, awaken humanity and practically force them to turn to their loved ones. The picture is not exaggerated, not loaded with excessive drama to catch a stingy tear from the viewer. Everything is as simple and ordinary as in every second apartment of any residential building. And it is a pity that the film found so few of its viewers, because thanks to more people who witnessed a simple story of a not simple family, there could be a modest hope that a couple of happy families in each house of a provincial and not very town would be more. At least for a while, while what they saw was alive in their memory.
And although, looking ahead, I announce that my personal rating of the film will not be high, because there is some dampness in the finished product, however, I recommend watching for everyone. To draw conclusions, think, take a closer look and finally, having learned from other people's mistakes, come home to your loved ones with a cake, and not a portion of personal claims to all living things.
6.5 out of 10
Rarely. but aptly come across, which are difficult to clearly assess. And not because of genius and talent, but because there is understatement. Intentional or due to faults.
The theme of “fathers and children” and family drama is always relevant and worn down. But in this case it is good that there is no total misanthropy, like Zvyagintsev, or black, like Guy-Germanica.
The image of my grandmother reminded me of Luke from At the Bottom. At the same time, this is a counterpoint, a catalyst for events, and a litmus test for all actors. Such a move can definitely be praised. But he's the only one.
The actors liked the game - they really live the life of the characters and are as natural as possible. Only Nadezhda Ivanova outplayed one of the tantrums, but this is a trifle.
What is the real problem of this vital and powerful story is the lack of skeleton and integrity of the story. Yes, it is the same as “Arrhythmia”, but let’s be frank – Khlebnikov is an experienced director and has long been in the profession. But Xenia still lacks experience.
And this lack, which is replaced by emotionality, just spoils the impression and you have a feeling of incompleteness and incompleteness of the story. In fact, we do not see the beginning of the conflict. From the series of tasks on the acting tests - the proposed circumstances and forward.
In summary: one cannot give an unambiguous assessment. There is much to praise, but there is also some directorial immaturity.
A family that is bound only by a stamp in the passport, the name of the father and mother in the birth certificate is no longer a family. For there is more than just legal formalities: love, understanding, trying to shove your ambitions and your ego away. And there is a difference between the formal wearing of a cross on the chest and the desire to build your family according to the biblical commandments: “serve each other with love”, “love your neighbor as yourself”, “parents, do not annoy your children, so that they do not become discouraged”.
And if at least one member of the family can not find an outlet in his own home - this is also not a family. Something's broken, it's cracked. What can we say, if all family members are looking for solace, outlet, love, understanding not in each other’s arms, not in communication with each other, but in love. The husband is at the mistress, the son is in the dysfunctional family of his friend, the daughter is in the arms of a reveler and a walker, the mother is in the arms of a “white friend” with shards of glass in her hands, the grandmother is freezing in an old country house.
When watching and after watching the film, it seems that members of such a family will never be close. It is pointless to seek after what was not originally there - love, good parenting, mutual understanding, compassion and respect for each other and so on.
And a family that is brought together only by the tragedies that occur in it is no longer a family. And the convergence is short-lived. The discontents accumulated over the long years of the existence of this family will not go away, and more and more new ones will accumulate. And so, until the next explosion.
The theme of the film is similar to the deadened paintings “Leviathan” and “Dislike”, although it is true that they died out?
The film reveals the life and truth of ordinary life of many families: where the relationship of parents and children is transferred to the relationship of the latter with their children; where the difference of views of both parents on the upbringing of children is discussed only over a glass; where the attitude of adolescent children is built on complete rejection of what is happening in the family. Everything is as simple as ever; everything is the same as in other Russian films about the institution of the family; everything is twisted into a single knot until someone by his death unravels it.
A lot can be said about the director and the actor’s content of the film, but is it worth evaluating the film on this criterion? I don't think I should. Whatever film Ksenia Zuyeva or Andrei Zvyagintsev made, all dystopias in the style of Russian life, just with different names of the characters.
The film really does not tear the soul apart, does not drive into depression for awareness, does not break stereotypes, does not form a new generation – the film calmly and tactfully opens the door to the “ordinary”, which is already good. I will not say that the film is “beautiful” or “complex”, the word “talking” is better. The main idea of the film is “open your eyes, look what you are doing to your family”, because sometimes we don’t see the obvious things, and movies open your eyes to it. And if you evaluate the film from this point of view, then the picture is worthy of viewing - because sometimes there is no sense to dig deeply, since the main lies on the surface.
Why Ksenia Zuyeva is not Andrey Zvyagintsev, and “Close” are not close to me.
I will not hide the fact that I got to the film through a reference to Zvyagintsev, somewhere else in the movie announcements, hints of Arrhythmia ran, and I decided that as a niche spectator of the Russian social drama I should fulfill my civic duty and go. Ironically, Xenia's film was hidden in the very outskirts of Moscow, which was discussed in the film (in my case in Myakinino) and may even be good - a stubborn viewer will get, and a lazy one will lose nothing.
This trip was about how a talented (deep?) director differs from just a director. I will immediately make a remark that Ksenia Zuyeva made a film that causes neither rejection, nor anger, nor irritation, however, nothing at all. But passions rage in the arena: here you and veins are cut, and in clubs they communicate, and your face is broken and your grandmother leaves the house, but everything is past the ticket office, even, I am afraid, the cinema.
There’s a lot more to this movie than “Everybody Dies and I Stay.” Gai Germaniki than “Dislike” Zvyagintsev (and not only Love Lapshin unites them).
This is the rare case when I plot to the annotation and nothing else to add - well, except that with the "catharsis" here too too caught up.
I'm just going to try to tell you why, in my opinion, the film didn't hook me.
Once in an interview Zvyagintsev said (and I believed him) that he has no random shots, that even long scenes with nature they think and draw long and scrupulously in the studio. Before I gained this remarkable knowledge, I remember that every time everything inside me tensed up during these long shots: besides setting the overall tempo of the tape, almost always they found a sensual response in me. It's a little bit different than just a beautiful shot, and in my opinion, a beautiful shot in a social drama is often a slippery path to the lubok. I watched “Close” and did not see the internal subtext in the picture: admiring the shot, a decoratively laid handkerchief on my grandmother, a pastoral view of the village, a combed clean table with a matchbox, so pedantic, neat, dead – for filming. It's when you think about the details, and through the film, intent begins to flow through.
There are films where tragedy is on tragedy, pain is on pain, and there is no pain, there is - like a needle pricked, and you have already lost three electrical waves. The movie doesn’t get to personal. For example, the problem shown on the screen: an infantile disliked girl, resentful of her mother, suffers from compulsive gluttons, seeks approval and love in cool company - this is my story at 14, but it remained on the screen, behind the screen. It seems that the story has found its target audience, but recognition is not enough.
I can't even say that the actors played poorly, although there was a certain lubrication and under-disclosure of especially male roles (a greater emphasis on mother and daughter). No, it feels like, you know, the director hasn’t had a rethink of what she shows yet. I mean, yes, it's kind of a slightly more adult retrospective look at youth, it's a little bit edifying, but it's just a look from a new specific place, there's no way you can peel it away from that place.
This observation may be mistaken, but as a rule, a good director manages to untie from everything to shoot a good picture, and today the grown children look back at the past, “understand” something and “forgive” someone.
They looked around and looked around.
As for “dislike”, I would say that it is difficult to say about its absence / presence here, it is not visible behind the inertia of life. In a stationary state, a person does not like in general often (does not remember this, does not know) - and without any contradictions in difficult moments "loves" a little more out of the need to reduce his personal discomfort. Ksenia says in the comments to the film about the development of the characters, but I did not notice the development - I noticed only a natural movement towards unity at a time of common trouble.
5 out of 10