I went to this movie for a long time, unacceptably and incomprehensibly long. Such solitary, isolated, that place, that mood, things, if they are OK, of course, cut, resonate, the inner world of the bean feed. And dramaturgy, that is, a frame for lyrical lace, really convinces, does not fail.
What about the south, the diversity of flora and the richness of fauna, when I have a drizzly sweet stem on a cold earth? And when the gray haze of fog dissipates, the landscape no longer looks gray, does it? My eyes just blurred. Snow against the waves. Have you ever thought that a wave of incoming stylist for coastal stones is? From dull it makes them bright and fresh. Life is in stones. Oh, come on.
I don't care how much I watch on TV. That cross. Is this the aesthetic of the backyard, austerity? In the words of a companion of my precious, extraordinary kindness: When the artist is hungry, he is evil, and will squeeze out all his power of talent. And it's gonna blow it all into the dark. Like a nail. And it will stay there for life. If you're full, you're not. During this bad-tasting wind with neural networks, when a long pink marigold knocks on our paneled eurodoors, we suddenly see an original joint of the door. And something like that. Isn't it wonderful? Zumer with a player in his ears will say, "Soviet Vaib." But we, the old bat, will grin at the tongue of this bird.
On the surface there is a point that the trainee, having decided to keep silent about the content of the message, thought about his skin purely, as under the hot hand of the polar explorer would not get. However, the one who transmitted from the Great Land and so zealously insisted that the polar explorer be necessarily informed, did he think about his future state, clearly difficult, from this all the subsequent days of agonizing waiting? Does he have a good head, actually? And did not the young intern himself judge sympathetically about his partner in this regard? We are not told the motive for his actions. Maybe there was both. That's how good an idea is. Ambivalence of interpretation, the subject of rotation in the minds of inquisitive viewers.
However, this is not what I want to end with. But silence and silence. It's a good thing they're long. When we hear the noise of the wind piercing, the splash of severe waves, radio interference, like a noise. Something is happening inside the characters. Fighting.
Popogrebsky skillfully immerses in this contemplative, meditative. Read it. But a quiet boot does not reach, naturally shocking in the extreme quarter. Of the small, somewhere unobvious decisions, there are two such moments, and the second does not paint the hero, of course, a damaged mind - a coma is growing, rolling into a dead end itself. Which, of course, blows away a certain category of evaluation, fundamentally weeding out the cozy decadent hipstoy. For which, for the full range, I especially want to shake hands.
The hero overcame his deadlock in the wall, it is not a secret, not the essence. And in a global sense, we keep silent carefully. Let's pull the "spit" and be silent expressively. Silence, silence. A view of the ship by the spit. The sea has finally calmed down.
9 out of 10
It's a good movie. I had a lot of experience in the Kurils. Well, let me tell you, gentlemen are not fans of this movie. It's true! Wonderful work of the actors, just an excellent "inhabitation" in the image. Those who criticize slang - they all say as they should, and the slang is put in communication. There are small "jambs", but these are just small things. The film fully conveys life and relationships (well, in the film a little hypertrophied something), the essence of life on remote weather stations. The plot of the film is absolutely not invented - it could well be someone's fate. . .
Excellent directorial work and the work of artists. Apparently, they had to plunge into the skin of the meteorologist of the polar station. We can say that life is recreated almost to the slightest detail. It's a beautiful polar station, that's what it looks like. This is exactly what it is.
Sergey Puskepalis (he has the kingdom of heaven) just perfectly played the role of the head of the weather station. His impeccable play conveyed all the drama of the situation, and, albeit somewhere there is a director’s vision, but nevertheless, apparently, the preparation for the film “in the field” was able to take up the deepest, in small details managed to convey the spirit that “soars” at all such stations.
Yes, there are some incredible scenes. But this is all fine dust on the truth that the actors were miraculously able to convey.
There are scenes that were shot just to copy my life. And I can say with full confidence that this is just a masterpiece that captures in the slightest detail the whole life and, in part, but mostly true, the relationship among the station staff.
I revisit this film from time to time, and again and again I find myself, the years I spent in this region. Everything in the movie is just the truth. I can tell you with complete confidence.
The North is equally beautiful as it is severe. He does not forgive mistakes, he does not like the weak in spirit and weak in body, he is ready to reveal within you what you never suspected. When the north envelops you, then you realize that the person who came before it is fundamentally different from the one who is in it.
So, ' How did I spend this summer' what is the movie like? On the one hand, this is entirely festival cinema, but this does not prevent the film from being understandable to a simple layman, even though deep thoughts are hidden inside the picture.
Structurally, the film is reminiscent of Asian festival films, in which an elderly Japanese man can watch the fall of cherry petals for an hour and a half, or how water flows. The film is very measured, smooth, meditative. And if you are used to bright pictures, where a bunch of special effects and every meter of film is full of action, then the movie can seem wildly boring. However, if you are satisfied with chamber stories, then you have come to the right place.
Yes, the film is very chamber. Although it would seem that there is a lot of space, endless waters, ice and snow around. However, if you shift the film into a theater format, it will not lose its value, the main thing is to choose the right actors.
Debuting in the epic film 'Black Lightning', Georgy Dobrynin did not reveal himself as a dramatic actor, so ' How I spent this summer' became a real field for him to test his acting abilities, and George gave his all. Duo he served Sergei Puskepalis, about the merits of which it is useless to tell, just look at the filmography of Sergei and his role.
If you start to pick up analogies, then I can remember such a film as “Lighthouse” and “39”, closed space, two diametrically opposed characters, and indescribably harsh conditions. The hero of Puskepalis is a man burned by the Far North, he is verbose, cruel, brutal. While Dobrynin’s hero is more down to earth, he is still a student, he is insecure, has not really seen life, perceives the North as just a site on the planet. The main characters throughout the tape are gradually attached to each other, or rather even rubbed, until there is a plot twist that puts everything upside down. And the characters begin to play in completely different tones.
Here it is worth noting that the plot begins to flirt with the viewer, from the drama the film turns into a real thriller. The situation is heating up. And involuntarily put yourself in the place of the hero Dobrynin, because I personally have not seen the North live, for me he is just as new and alien. I ask myself, what would I do in this situation, would I lie?
The film itself is not rich in color, but very beautiful. Footage can be saved and instead of wallpaper taken to the desktop. The work of the sound director is amazing, if the music in the film is not very expressive, then sounds here play a big role, they create an atmosphere of complete immersion in the events.
' How I spent the summer' only at first it seems a tough male drama, where the weaker sex has nothing to do, but there are experiences of heroes, there are dramatic and tragic moments that can not be missed. This is a very high-quality Russian film, which is better not to pass.
The impression after watching - I spent two hours of my life on incoherent nonsense.
The task of creating a high-quality work of art, obviously, was not set. The goal was to win at the film festival, yes, and, obviously, it is not art that wins at the festival (just as highly artistic works deserve to be appreciated by the Nobel Prize in Literature, but political agitators). Here, the creators spent a lot of time to understand the tastes of the festival jury, and succeeded in this.
But not in making an interesting, catchy, deeply true film.
Heroes are unreliable throughout screen time.
This is not how people of science behave.
I spoke with people of science, including those working in the far north.
None of the employees, even interns, do not waste time, tasks are more than hours in a day.
No executive is as irresponsible as shown here in the film. Managers do not abandon the process without management in the name of personal interests. Aside from the fact that this is a case, it is incomparable with the work of a scientist. At all. No way. Responsibility for the process is above personal interests.
That’s not how you get crazy.
The human mind is my professional field.
You can go crazy if you lose all the supports in general, this is true, but in the film the older hero loses only one support (family).
He could not lose himself in a second as a scientist, as a man & #39; (a person capable of coping with survival in the harsh environment), as a boss.
He could have fallen in the mountain, yes.
But he couldn't go crazy.
No.
The filmmakers did not bother to ask about the material, arbitrarily invested in the behavior of the characters some of their ideas about people and their relationships, and, in my opinion, these ideas are sinful schematic and immaturity.
This is a statement from the jury.
But the desire to create a work that will delight in such tastes and perceptions, also does not cause respect.
A film that proved to me that domestic cinema can be good. It's so incredibly nice to hear the original Russian speech in a good movie.
A film about the North. Read about how it was shot, right here on the KinoPoisk in the facts - the film can even be called a documentary. During the filming, 80 hours of footage of the nature of the north were filmed, which suggests that the film is about the north, which helps to understand Paul’s motivation, which some did not understand. Social deprivation led to mental changes, and he misinterpreted Sergei’s behavior. Popogrebsky (director) is a professional psychologist, this must be taken into account, so the motivation of the characters is logical.
The stated genre of the film is a thriller/drama, but I wouldn’t say it’s a thriller. Probably many people were confused, because the action of the film develops slowly, and it does not look like a typical thriller.
This film should be enjoyed – shots from the north, the general minimalism of the film – there are few heroes, dialogues, music, all this creates a special background, a unique atmosphere. I also want to note the work of the actors - they played naturally and were very pleasant to me.
Such films, especially Russian ones, are rare. Cinema isn’t for everyone, but it’s a good movie and doesn’t have to adapt to everyone. I recommend nature lovers of the north.
Russian cinema is constantly under the yoke of ruthless criticism, sometimes very biased. When our compatriots try to blindly copy Hollywood, it always leads to disappointing consequences. Sometimes high-quality Russian blockbusters do come out, but this is rather an exception to the rule. Much more interesting is the territory of the author's cinema. Things are much better here. Films are successfully shown at foreign film festivals and receive positive reviews, but sometimes cause bewilderment among ordinary viewers. So it came out with the picture Alexei Popogrebsky.
This film tries to maintain a balance between art house and the mainstream. The picture is positioned by many as a psychological thriller, which is not entirely correct. It has characteristic features of the thriller genre, but does not occupy the main role. It is in many ways an existential film, a deep philosophical drama. As a result, the viewer gets a complex and multi-layered work, and not what he expected to see initially. It is not for nothing that many Western critics compared the tape with the work of Andrei Tarkovsky, especially its visual part.
An island in the Arctic Ocean. The polar station and two polar explorers. Experienced boss Sergey and young intern Pavel. People represent two different and different worlds. In fact, the classic theme unfolds before us: fathers and children, only more veiled. It is also a generational conflict, as seen from the behavior of the main characters. Motivation and actions of the characters are not always clear, but the structure of the film is such that it is easy for the viewer to identify with the characters of the tape and put himself in their place. The picture subtly comprehends the nature of human fear. Isolated space paints an atmosphere of despair, when a person has nowhere to run.
I really liked the visual design of the tape. Static manner of shooting, allows you to enjoy the landscapes of the Far North. Beautiful footage of the frozen sea, steep rocks, desert plains. It's done just fine. You see and enjoy the wildlife. The cold atmosphere consumes you completely.
The main problems of the film are very superficial characters of the characters, some actions cause bewilderment. There are poorly thought out plot moves. And a deep thought will appreciate not all. It is very difficult to recommend it.
The film was a breakthrough in the career of a young actor Grigory Dobrygin. He showed a confident game. Greatly got used to the image of a careless student intern. And although the character of the hero is not fully disclosed, this does not spoil the positive impression. Sergei Puskepalis, who plays the chief of the polar station, gives the image of a quiet, strict, sullen man. It clearly traces the archetype of the father. I want to praise the actors for a very high-quality acting.
How I spent this summer is a very unusual and specific product of domestic cinema. The author’s picture, combining elements of both a psychological thriller and a deep existential drama. Dimensional, slow and quiet narrative allows you to subtly feel the atmosphere of the Far North. A complex and multi-layered film that will not suit everyone.
7 out of 10
At the polar station, a trainee Pasha arrives to the dense Sergey. It's hard to be a polar explorer. Especially the two in a narrow society. Here the water is turquoise, and they shoot without warning. The last straw is a terrible radiogram. What is written in it, only Pasha will know.
At the Berlinale, Alexei Popogrebsky’s film “How I Spent This Summer” leads in an independent poll of critics, but at the last moment inferior to the “Golden Bear” picture by Kaplanoglu “Honey”. However, we get 3 Silver Bears at once. For the best camera work – Pavel Kostomarov. For the best acting – Grigory Dobrygin and Sergey Puskepalis.
Why did they put up silver and not give gold? Let's talk. From the century, Popogrebsky's strength was the gathering of life intonations - which he showed in the film with his inherent elegance. The images of both heroes are surgically accurate. I'm especially happy for the intern. Don't I know this young man at home trunklucted from his slippers straight into life? Pasha is me in the army in 1986. Painfully, I know the situation when petty lies suddenly suck you into a funnel of untruth, and the life of others turns into hell. Oh, that lovely amalgam of cowardice, callousness and unmotivated aggression! In the picture, the situation is aggravated by the fact that the new generation lives in a virtual world. Pavel came to the station not only from slippers, but also directly from a computer shooter. There conflicts are solved by annihilation, which the young man tries to do in reality.
Chukotka is beautiful again. Masters and dexterity Kostomarov, who filmed it on the number so that everyone thought that the film.
The usual structure of the film is turned inside out. As a rule, in the movie the main character is a good man, and here he is a stinking stinker. The plot inverter generates cognitive dissonance in the viewer. And this is very good, but the most savor of the film lies in its ideological background.
You can fool around and say that the idea is this: “The Pepsi generation, who know the world through the screen of the display, put in their pants, and the heirs of the Great Past shone in divine glory.” Well, I'll do that. I'll be right somewhere.
Now on to the controversial merits.
The filmmakers like to talk about the geographical uniqueness of the film. Like, Chukotka. But the fact is that almost half of the decent Russian cinema is filmed on Chukotka. Remember the color of Russian cinema of the last 12 years. These are all examples of militant escapism and material austerity. The scene is either a provincial town, or a Kazakh steppe, or a northern lake. The heroes there are simple schemniks, moving away from noisy cities into the distance of existential space. Anti-urbanism cements the dynamics of such films as “The Island”, “Return”, “Paper Soldier”, “Wild Field”, “Morphine”, “Exile”, “Cargo 200”, “Yuryev Day”, “Once in the Province”, “Outside”, “Moon Pope”. Therefore, in this respect, the film is by no means new and suffers from the imagery once found. There's nothing you can do. "We're alive sharp and instantaneous."
The capitulation to reality is seen in the fact that the bearer of virtue in our author’s cinema is almost always a very exotic hero. Millions of office managers, stolen goods dealers and football players can nervously smoke on the sidelines. But the forgotten polar explorers and wild doctors do not rule in a childlike manner. They are all stern but virtuous. They don't shave, they give out the backs of the head. Wordless and cool. Death is trampled on, they bring themselves to the slaughter for the sake of broadcasting the good news.
And here we come across a strange analogy. Archaeologically, How I Spent the Summer is related to Zvyagintsev’s Return. In fact, the trainee ("Son), transformed by experience Paul, returns to the Continent, and the mentor ("Father) remains on the Island to die, goes into the sky-high mound. One gets the feeling that the best Russian cinema is trying to find the image of the Hero. And this image is "Father."
However, the style of Popogrebsky is a double-edged thing. The prosaic observation and contempt for pathos that brought him fame can alienate the teenager. And the teenager at the cash register is a terrible force. The picture is released on April 1 on 105 copies, which is a royal gift for the author's film. Let’s see what happened before, the chicken or the egg. Whether the “Russian art house” suffers, that distributors pinch it, or suffer from the “Russian art house” distributors together with the audience.
Many people writing reviews of this film call the main character Pasha different bad words. Somehow: infantile, mean, lost his face and so on. In his defense, I would like to make the following arguments:
1) Do a simple thought experiment. It's not Pasha, it's you on an island with a big, feral man. There's no one else. Just the two of you. A man can fire a gun at any time. Because he's in a bad mood today.
2) Sleep a few nights in a row not on the island, on the shore of the Arctic ocean, but at least in a park on a bench. It is advisable that a man with a gun occasionally shoot at you. How does it feel? Do you want to do something good?
(3) I think Paul ' bad ' did ' important ' from the point of view of the second main character, the work is not because he is lazy or not serious person. What you do at the station is easily automated. That's exactly what Pasha did. Will you cut down a tree not with a chainsaw, but with a hacksaw just because bearded people don’t know the words 'smiley' has this been the case since 1935? From the point of view of Pasha, it is simply irrational to build work in the 21st century in this way.
(4) Who likes to work with business men who do their own business during office hours? Are they putting their responsibilities on you? While he's fishing. All in, all in. It's economical.
It's easy to talk about moral principles sitting on the couch at home. Are you sure that you will act morally under any circumstances? Judge not, lest you be judged. . .
Alexei Popogrebsky’s film “How I Spent This Summer” combines genres of psychological drama, an isolation thriller and a philosophical parable about the insignificance of man and the greatness of nature. The two meteorologists are representatives of two different generations, as well as polar worldviews and approaches to work. Experienced Sergey with the habits of the army “grandfather”, or a lover of the radio station “Shanson” and a young intern Pavel with the appearance of Robb Stark, an earring in his ear and rocking in headphones. The confrontation that occurred in the second third of the film and became the main dramatic conflict, in fact, stated at the beginning. The incident plot "explosion" is nothing more than a logical consequence of the gradual escalation of the situation, primarily on the part of the searcher for a reason for conflict Sergey. Wild in the bosom of nature, the bosomman, with all his appearance tries to show his superiority over the intern, who personifies modernity and freedom. Archaic and disciplined Sergey, who has long been away from his wife and son, probably for a long time retired to the polar station. Apparently, in the “big land” he could not find a common language with his own child and therefore decided to escape. Here, the evil rock sent him another boy, who was going to become a scapegoat and receive slaps intended for a completely different kid. The very title of the film grows out of a phrase thrown in contempt by Sergei Pavel and demonstrating all the deliberate uncouthness of his character.
Alexey Popogrebsky deftly balances between high-brow festival cinema and genre action film. In its structure and subtext, How I Spent This Summer is more like a European film than a Russian one. The plot and stylistically the tape echoes the wonderful film “Zero degrees Kelvin” by Norwegian Hans Petter Moland. It organically combines an interesting scenario, worked out characters and existential subtext. Just as it often happens in Werner Herzog’s films (it is no coincidence that the jury of the Berlin Film Festival under his leadership awarded the film three awards), the basis of the foundations in How I Spent This Summer is the landscape. Static camera for atmospheric music for a long time admires the grandiose mountain range, passing through the fog, like a mythical golem and dominating Paul who got into trouble, thereby personifying a ruthless fate. The vast expanses of the Russian north eventually begin to produce a stifling impression on the verge of claustrophobia, because the heroes are hermetically packed into the landscape and unable to escape from its clutches without outside help. Paradoxically, the harsh nature of the tundra not only resonates with the cramped world of polar shacks, but also rhymes with it. Latitude around, but not to conquer it. There's nowhere to run. That's why it's so tight.
Stepping confidently along the path of suspense, Popogrebsky leaves plenty of room for various interpretations of what is happening. At the end of the film, it is difficult to say for sure whether the conflict was self-made or false, and in general, much of what is seen begins to resemble the Schrödinger structure of Michelangelo Antonioni’s Photomagnification, where it is not completely clear what is real and what is not. There may be real danger, or there may be phantoms generated by the fog of the tundra, like the ocean of the planet Solaris. Maybe it was, or maybe it just seemed.
How I Spent This Summer is a relatively old movie, but I’m only getting to it now. This is probably for the best, because 5 years ago I would not have taken it as it should.
The story told to us is a kind of modern interpretation of “Fathers and Children”, about the different attitude to the world, life and work of the adult and young generation – a hard worker Sergey, for whom work is life itself, and a young intern Pavel, for whom life is a computer game, the same “Stalker”, whom he chases in his spare time. He has headphones on his ears, an alarm clock, and even on the island he walks with an unloaded gun.
“Heated up” the relationship with a story about two meteorologists, one of whom shot the other, Sergey somehow provokes Pavel to such behavior — missing the moment, the trainee then just afraid to say about the disaster, afraid of harsh retaliation. As a result, this misunderstanding, but rather a different attitude towards life, turned into a drama. The director left the ending of the film open, and here I tend to think that Sergey remained alive and healthy, because you can irradiate yourself from RITEG, but you can not spoil food.
I would like to mention the atmosphere of the film. Many viewers say that it is protracted and monotonous, but it should be. This is the Far North, outside the window every day the same landscape, even to diversify your days really will not work – the island is small, and do it not much. I was wondering, how long would I last in this situation? And you?
8 out of 10
What else to do in plus 11, meeting the last day of summer, how to watch a long-promised movie, where everything unfolds against the backdrop of the summer beauty of the Russian North.
'How I spent this summer' - 2 hours of questions and admiration of the Bering Sea. And also - throwing between the desire to break open new spaces and thoughts about the importance ' here and now'.
One of the heroes - Sergey - a local old-timer, a person experienced, but inside as if already closed, hard. The second is Paul, he is a student, came to practice, craving adventure. I will not retell the contents, but there, spontaneously, thousands of kilometers away, one event intervenes in all plans, after which they both change. Or open up, you don't even know. And the psycho-thriller action begins.
In the end, the film turns out to be a real psychological study. And at some point, I wasn't exploring heroes anymore, I was exploring myself. It’s like asking yourself the question ' why don’t you leave, why is it so calm and so cold when there is a tragedy in the family?' Or at a certain moment you plunge into the skin of Paul and really beat to change and get out of the usual moral suit.
This is a film about human consciousness, emotional stability and trust.
All under the subtle musical accompaniment and all against the background of beautiful landscapes, huge pluses and the highest marks of the subtle artistic taste of those who were responsible.
9 out of 10
Looking at this tape remains a rather ambiguous impression. Unlike most thrillers, this film does not give the viewer a question or an answer. The viewer himself must find the answer to the rhetorical question posed by the film.
We are presented with two heroes, completely different people, from the very beginning it becomes clear that any spark will provoke their confrontation with each other. Both characters are at the limit and see what is happening in completely different ways. Their actions are ambiguous and you can understand them only by scrolling the plot several times in your thoughts, standing completely in their place.
Replacing the psychological thriller with a more mystical and dramatic version, the director tries to force the viewer not to look at the situation, but to become part of it, thereby understanding every action of the characters.
Landscapes of a place on the edge of light, like a metaphor for the position of the heroes, seem to emphasize human weakness and hopelessness in this tape.
The action of the picture takes place in the north, the island of Archym. Sergey Vitalyevich, experienced meteorologist, head of the polar station and trainee Pavel are forced to spend the whole summer under one roof as part of testing new equipment.
Acquaintance with the main characters and the scene of the film occurs without backstory or summing moments. Pasha is sitting on the shore, listening to music with headphones, thinking about something.
The film is not full of many phrases and dialogues. The script is very concise and, at the same time, capacious. The game of actors who, against the background of the emptiness of the north, the minimum number of scenery, in a duet, were able to create a bright, full of strong emotions, colors, matter. The same applies to the soundtracks for the film: the emphasis on natural power, on landscapes and the role of the North – it was important to choose music that did not stand out from the overall picture. The creators of the film managed this: there are no musical works with lyrics in the film and the music very organically fit into the film.
The main storyline is the relationship between Pasha and Sergey Vitalyevich in a certain critical situation. Confrontation of two generations: Sergey still enters all meteorological data obtained on the "term", pencil, on paper, checking them on the calculator, while Pasha, being an advanced user, easily uses a computer and a special program. For Pasha, practice is one great adventure. The reason to replenish the treasury of impressions and interesting events, although, contrary to his expectations, practice on the island, where side by side you have to live with a serious, categorical head of the weather station all summer - this is gray everyday life with a clear schedule of the day. All he has to do is have fun, jumping on empty rusty barrels and rocking on an old abandoned radar and sometimes playing computer games. For Sergey, on the contrary, it is a responsible and demanding full commitment, work.
Everything changes at the moment when once again, transmitting weather data to the big land, Pasha has to take a heavy message that needs to be conveyed to Sergei Vitalyevich. The young man is faced with a choice - to tell everything and witness an unexpected reaction or to remain silent. "Lie, but don't twist." Events unfold in a completely unexpected way and their dynamics throughout the climax leaves the viewer in suspense. In this context, it is worth noting the role of actors. Grigory Dobrygin and Sergey Puskepalis fully revealed and got used to the role under the sight of the camera lens of Pavel Kostomarov. All emotions sweeping through the faces of the heroes are as natural and authentic as possible. The viewer is given the opportunity to fully experience and pass through everything they see on the screen.
The idea of the film is that no matter how different people are, if they find themselves in the same boat, in a critical situation, behind a radical confrontation of concepts, sooner or later they find a common language and even become close to each other. All human qualities are exposed, float to the surface.
The brightest, saturated scene in the tape is the farewell scene of the main characters. Final. They've been through a lot together. We've been through it. Sergei Vitalyevich pushes Pasha away, grabs him by the lapels of his jacket and just growls at him, but thereby he only shows how he became attached to him. How much did they become?
If you have not seen an outstanding performance of actors for a long time, with a minimal number of replicas and virtually no music, but you really want the plot to absorb you completely - I recommend watching the film How I spent this summer. You won't regret it.
This is my first review, I was looking for a film similar to 'In the Wild'. And I came across this work of Russian cinema. I was pleasantly surprised by the reviews I read, seeing in them contradictions, someone liked, someone did not. After watching the commercial, I was convinced that I should watch this movie and... I did not see him until 3-4 months later.
I'll start with acting. Grigory Dobrygin and Sergey Puskepalis perfectly revealed their characters throughout the film. I won’t make spoilers, but I will say that Grigory Dobrygin’s game caused a storm of emotions in me. The character of Sergei Puskepalis did not cause a storm of emotions, but I understood him as a person and I think that in most cases I would have behaved the same way. I see myself in his place.
A separate place is occupied by landscapes. This film is contemplative, the work of an operator at the level of National Geographic. The angles of the mountains, the figures of the main characters, the view from the window to the ocean, looking at all this, I envied these people, thinking that it is unlikely that I will be able to visit where events take place.
The soundtrack is selected exactly as it should be chosen. The music was great throughout the film.
It's a great story. For the first half of the film, I just enjoyed the views and the life the characters lived. The second half I was inseparably watching the actions of the heroes, they keep in suspense until the very end.
I liked the movie, and I like it all.
8 out of 10
Russian cinema has not gone anywhere, it remains with us, as does Cold Chukotka.
Before watching the movie, I didn’t even know he had won any awards. Although it does not matter, modern festival cinema is akin to modern fine art, mercilessly watering the canvas with defecation of paint either with the help of hands, which is not fashionable today, or with the help of other parts of the body.
Many people criticize the cinema for its static nature, for its protracted nature, and compare it with Tarkovsky. I was never particularly stressed by the fading footage, if they allowed me to savor what was happening on the screen, but in this case there is nothing to savor. The life of polar explorers is shown very scantly, no close-ups, no coziness, juicy pieces of fish, books, games, television, burning logs, even a bath turned out to be some fake, without a light; but we observe the removal of telemetry data several times. All this can certainly be tolerated, but further events paint a picture that is absolutely incredible. Well, I don't believe that in the long years of people working in such conditions, no directives have been developed for such emergencies. Just think about this nonsense: through a young trainee to send in writing to your friend the news of the death of his family. Further, the real Shakespeare begins with his series of incredible accidents, because of which Gulybin warmed up with absolutely everyone from whom he could receive an ill-fated message, starting with a radiogram that accidentally fell from the table (a very fresh solution); because of which the student, having two alarm clocks in his arsenal, managed to sleep for measurements. The script is sucked out of the finger through these very accidents primitive and incompetent.
What about acting? Garmash would have played better, probably. But how do you even play crazy? As a result, a complete lack of empathy, any sympathy for the characters.
How is Gulybin? asked a voice from the radio station. I don't know, maybe he killed himself somewhere on the ice. What about the measurements? What the hell with them?
This film was badly damaged by excessive advertising – many reached out to watch, focusing on the genre of “thriller”, and felt cheated. This is more appropriate for “psychological drama”. It shows life in a remote corner, the very way of which can quickly push for inadequate actions, and there is already to madness not far away.
The head of the weather station was so far from his family that the emoji sent in the telegram does not understand, but well remembers what fish and in what form they love. In his desire to finally stock up on a delicacy, he violates the instructions, and leaves “on the farm”, in fact, an unprepared person.
Pavel is a programmer, the purpose of his stay at the station is to translate the system of long-term observations into a computer program. It is not clear what kind of wind brought him here, but it is clear that he does not understand the local specifics - in such conditions a person should be able to do everything and participate in all affairs, and not hide behind one task. Pavel, due to the lack of impressions, plays “shooters”, not yet knowing that soon he will have impressions, do not indulge in the most. The trainee did not imbue the rhythm of life in this harsh region, so in a critical situation he does and says the wrong thing. He's an ordinary young man of millions, but the Polar Station is not an office in a big city, you can see the person immediately. As a result of his cowardice, a situation is created when no one understands anything - neither Sergey, nor those who are in touch, Paul alone knows everything and is silent, increasingly bogged down, as in a quagmire. This waiting, when everything will be clarified and how it will end, is too painful for many viewers.
A separate topic in the description of this film is the views of the North, they are shot chicly, the atmosphere itself is quite convincing. After watching, I read the information about the shooting with great interest - it was a whole expedition! The current polar station with a radio, a building in 1935, a barracks without hot water, a specially formed purely male team, real operations for the transfer of meteorological data, bears - this is all impressive, but this information only complements the already formed feeling that there is "not fake."
The main disadvantage in my opinion is too long. But this may be to blame and the temperament of the viewer, my clearly not for those conditions.
If we talk about films that show absolutely inaccessible places and situations to millions of people, then here I remember the recently seen “Gravity”. The harsh North is almost as far away from me as space, but this film convinced me much more.
9 out of 10
“How I spent this summer” is an unusual and beautiful film, at a measured pace revealing the story of a young guy Pasha, who decided to spend the most memorable summer of his life in Chukotka. The picture is replete with beautiful and picturesque landscapes, pleasant music, so from the aesthetic side I have absolutely no complaints.
The plot is also quite interesting, and the acting game of Grigory Dobrygin and Sergey Puskepalis clearly succeeded. But in my opinion, there are a few unnecessary and sometimes incomprehensible scenes in the film. For example, I didn’t really understand the situation with RITEG and poisoned fish. Throughout the film, Paul does many strange and inexplicable things.
Still, the impressions of the film remained extremely positive. Of course, a big role was played by the fact that I really love the nature of northern Russia, and here these breathtaking landscapes turned out to be just right in place.
The film is going on long enough, perhaps it is still somewhat delayed. But this fact, you can say, on the amateur.
Both characters are verbose, but the director still gives us the opportunity to open the veil of their emotional experiences, although much here is built on the principle of “think it yourself.” But there is nothing wrong with the fact that the film makes you think about something, so it can be attributed to the pluses. The director does not lay out all the background, but only hints at something, he only gives us a part of what we must understand ourselves.
I can say with confidence that this film will not be liked by everyone, fans of any action movies or comedies will definitely not be delighted with it. It is for that part of the audience who are not expected from films thrills, but reasons for rethinking and spiritual food.
It is heartwarming that this film was made in Russia. This suggests that Russian cinema still has a chance to get out of this deep hole to the horror of Americanized and uninteresting cinema.
Probably every viewer of the film has to ask the question made in the title - and his assessment will largely depend on the answer found. A chamber, intimate almost movie about the relationship of two polar explorers on a weather station remote thousands of kilometers from the nearest living soul is deceptively recommended by a thriller - hardly, however, being them in essence. Although nominally Chekhov’s gun does not remain hanging on the wall, it is in vain, but events are too slow to develop so that “How I Conducted...” could be enrolled in this genre category. Well, if not tightly stuffed with thriller suspense intrigue, then what to take for the main core of the film?
We can reasonably assume that such a core is nature itself. That is, a movie about the harsh north, about the difficult life of no less severe meteorologists in vatniks - and about how extreme natural conditions inexorably affect their mental health. It is no coincidence that the film from the very beginning is taken to bombard the viewer with a series of contemplative and mesmerizing shots of the polar region (filmed, by the way, with considerable skill - every second can be safely printed for a turn in National Geographic). Quite quickly, however, it is found that for all the pastel beauty of the landscapes, nature in the film is assigned only the role of a suitable frame, within which the main events will develop.
After that, there is a risk to believe that the only subject of the film is the rabid idioty created by the main character. Intangibly similar to Jesse Pinkman from the TV series “Breaking Bad”, a young weather trainer Pasha manages again and again to confidently take such bars of inadequacy of behavior that only abruptly takes. Therefore, when the second polar explorer, the older and more experienced Sergey, finally weighs Pasha a few slaps, one is surprised only by their small number and modest amplitude. If we dwell on such an interpretation of the film, then the assessment threatens him with disappointing - who, rightly speaking, is interested in two hours to look at the conflicts sucked out of a finger, which hardly any decent viewer will want to try on himself?
However, if you dig a little deeper, it turns out that it would still be worth trying on. After all, cinema, by hyperbolizing Pasha’s infantilism, demonstrates the potential disastrous consequences of cowardice that would simply not have manifested themselves in normal, non-polar conditions. And those innocent weaknesses of the category of “I will tell you something to avoid unpleasant conversation”, which many of us tend to forgive themselves in the refined conditions of civilized society, can easily turn into an epitaph under slightly harsher circumstances.
In the dry residue we have a leisurely, beautifully filmed psychological drama with an original script. Given the relative scarcity of modern Russian cinema on high-quality films, the above factors should already be enough for viewing. However, whether you like the film or not will depend primarily on how much you agree to accept the chaotic-hysterical behavior of the protagonist for the truth of life - and, perhaps, dare to admit to yourself that a piece of such Pasha can be found in any of us.
7 out of 10
Another Russian film, which, apart from feeling wasted time, left nothing behind. A young guy on a summer vacation comes to the island, which is located in the northern and Arctic ocean, to undergo an internship at the local polar station. There is only one uncle in this polar station. Experienced polar explorer. Soon, this guy receives a radio message that an accident occurred with the wife and child of this uncle, a polar explorer in Moscow. And actually the whole film, this young straight man can not dare to tell all the polarist. As a result, when he tells everything according to circumstances, the polar explorer takes up a gun and begins to run around the island for the poor guy.
Filmed by Alexei Popogrebsky. He is a director from a cohort of young authors who are trying to make films about real life in our country. How I Spent This Summer is only his second film. The first picture “Simple Things” I personally really liked. It was an easy and unassuming story about the relationship between a doctor and his elderly patient. Alas, in his second film, this lightness completely disappeared. “How I spent this summer” is much more, the author’s film with claims to the laurels of Tarkovsky and Antonioni. Most of the time we are shown the different beauties of the northern island. The director pays a lot of attention to the ocean, which is starting to piss me off. I don’t watch our modern movies very often. But it so happened that in the “Return” of Zvyagintsev and in the “Island” Lungin and here I try to charm with beautiful views of the water surface. And in general, it seems that all these films are made by the same operator.
Unfortunately, for this picture, everything in our world is known by comparison. For a short century of cinema, have already managed to shoot, a lot of great paintings and that if I did not watch the films of Tarkovsky, Sokurov, Herman, probably “How I spent this summer” would seem to me very exciting and deep. To date, I have been bored watching this movie. What the director wants to say becomes clear almost immediately. As they say, the meaning here is three pennies. A young fool, out of cowardice, commits terrible deeds that lead to a tragic ending. But from this story Popogrebsky is trying to torture almost the second Stalker. But the trouble is that Popogrebsky is never Tarkovsky. Therefore, all two hours we observe, one continuous, meaningless, not skillfully presented and most importantly, absolutely unnecessary, searching for the deep, the depths where there are none. Cut down Popogreb film, once and a half, due to meaningless scenes and it would be much more watchable. The only thing that may be interesting here is that the action takes place on an island in the northern and Arctic ocean. And in general, the life of the characters in this place, in my opinion, is the most interesting and informative that is in this film.
And a couple of the main actors, do not save the situation, and quite the opposite. After not a bad game of Sergei Puskepalis in Simple Things, Popogrebsky decided to make him no more, no less than a folk actor, such as Leonov, Papanov, Burkov. That's the type he's trying to embody here. Looks like a simple good-natured Russian man, but inside a wise man. But before the aforementioned masters, Puskepalis clearly lacks neither acting talent nor, most importantly, charisma. Well, the young actor Grigory Dobrygin here is not remembered at all. His hero is very pale, despite the fact that in the plot he has the main, and moreover, a very characteristic full reflection and inner tension role, which this very Dobrygin clearly does not pull.
In general, in all respects, a weak movie, but in the context of modern Russian cinema, just a hand does not rise to give it a very bad assessment.
5 out of 10
A good movie: nature is like watching the National Geographic channel, the actors are one hundred percent hit in life: very talented, very honest. And that's all. The picture has meditative contemplation, the confrontation of man and harsh nature, the confrontation of two characters, a psychological game, but there is no main thing - continuous nervous tension, encroaching on you mystery and a dynamic, truly exciting story, from which goosebumps run on the skin. Yes, I may be objected that the cinema is not the audience, not everyone understands, but if you call the film a thriller, then drive a suspense, please! This is the law!
And here? The first part of the film we just watch as a seasoned meteorologist kicks a young intern. This is interesting, but I would like more. Then the story begins slowly. It's getting good, in places. But the expectation of something grinding is not justified. Of course, there is an imminent brutality of one of the characters, then jokes with radiation turn out to be, of course, bad, but everything somehow quickly deflates, and during the final credits you say to yourself, like Sadalsky in the cartoon “Last year’s snow fell”: “And that’s it!” It will not be enough!
In short, the film is beautiful, intelligent and has great potential, but it can’t present itself properly. It has enough qualities to please critics and receive awards, but it does not have a clear and strong plot to please the audience and take the box office. I'm not very good at Russian cinema, but I have an opinion that it's deep in some places. "How I Spent This Summer" is one of its best manifestations, a picture worthy of great respect. But as long as these best performances are in the absolute basement of the audience, we cannot say that our filmmakers are able to find an approach to the audience. Americans are doing a lot better.
The first time I saw How I Did This Summer was a few years ago. Since then, I managed to revise the film, since then I have been following the work of A. Popogrebsky, G. Dobrygin, S. Puskepalis and P. Kostomarov. This film made me believe that in modern Russia you can make a good movie, that we have everything for this. But no matter how many new Russian films I watched after “How I conducted ...”, they do not leave such a strong imprint in the soul as this picture. Perhaps because the film is made in such a way that the viewer can immerse himself in it, he can not just understand the picture, but feel it.
A large amount of time in the film is devoted to filming the landscapes of Aarchym and life at the polar station. Thus, the rhythm of the life of the heroes in Chukotka is perfectly transmitted. Cold, silence, fogs, rusty barrels, fish, water, polar bear, the last shots, where only light is visible in the window of the house, and day follows night, night - day - all this shows how far the completely different world of Aarchim is, what unity with nature and with itself can be achieved there. Without a doubt, the camera work of Pavel Kostomarov deserves the highest marks. It seems to me that the film cannot but make you dream about traveling to Chukotka.
Separately, it is worth writing about the music of Dmitry Katkhanov, and about the sounds, and voices from the radio room. All this is so well selected, so natural sounds that in combination with the camera work gives the full effect of immersion.
The acting in the film is also beyond praise! No wonder at the Berlin Film Festival, Grigory Dobrygin and Sergey Puskepalis received prizes for “best male role”. In my opinion, Grigory Dobrygin, for example, does not “play” at all, he lives the life of his character, is himself – a young guy, and funny and serious, who went to the end of the world, faced difficult conditions there, with the world of people, much more experienced and adults, faced with questions of life and death. After all, Sergey Puskepalis is an adult, director, actor, and Grigory is just beginning his journey. Maybe that’s why the movie looks so harmonious. Gregory is close to me, perhaps because of his age. Sometimes I recognize myself in Paul down to the slightest nuance of behavior.
As for the plot... In some places he seems a little far-fetched. Sometimes I want to shout to Paul, “Why are you doing all this?” On the other hand, hardly anyone can know how to behave in the place of the hero. The main thing is that Paul, as it seems to me, by the end of the story still learns to look fear in the eyes, acquires an incredible (albeit sometimes terrible) life experience, gets to know himself better. Sergey learns to communicate with a young man, seeing him as a person; he remains strong and courageous, no matter what. The essence of the film is not even in the plot, its twists and logic, but in the feelings that the characters experience.
Already in the title of the film, the use of incorrect coordination of words in the phrase (stylistic figure) is noticeable, but this technique reflects the essence of the main character - his superficial, philistine attitude to life.
This art-house work of A. Popogrebsky is designated in the genre of “thriller”, but in fact we face a psychological drama, but it contains some part of the suspense conveyed through the details of the characters, their actions, their close-ups, extensive icy, cold landscapes that also heat up the narrative.
This film exposes human shortcomings: cowardice, indifference, stupidity, and the viewer can only think: “Should I do this?” How long is this going to last? The picture reflects human weakness, and it is so mean, vile and settled for a long time, deep in the young intern-Paul Danilov. Also, this film is about the conflict of generations: a young technician-practicer, completely careless, cowardly, unreliable and responsible, dedicated head of the station - Sergey Gulybin. Throughout the film, there are only 2 actors in the frame and only occasionally voices are heard from the central base. Many people compare this film with the creations of Andrei Tarkovsky, but it seems to me that it is similar to the directorial manner of Lars von Trier: to put the characters in a seemingly ordinary situation, which in ordinary life will seem not so immoral, from which in ordinary life you can walk away, forget, but bring into the atmosphere something unusual and something that you can not escape. In Trier it is, for example, "Dogville" - the whole game takes place on the site of the film, and the city serves only scenery, "Melancholia" - the problems of the married couple against the background of the impending end of the world, and in this film it is the endless expanses of the Chukchi Peninsula, the polar station where the main characters work.
Now for the actors.
Bright, memorable game of Sergei Puskepalis, whose hero carries so much kindness, love, devotion to family and work. He wants to really worry, his grief, when he does not yet suspect it. By virtue of his age, Grigory Dobrygin showed us a very memorable hero, like half of today’s youth: he needs adventures, and for this he is ready to go for anything. Together, these 2 actors created a disturbing, tense atmosphere that began as a normal day at the polar station and ended so sadly.
But in the picture, as if a separate role was played by the camera of Pavel Kostomarov, which spoke more than the actors’ play: these are landscapes, their transitions from bright to dark, terrible, gloomy. Also, the views of the characters, conveying their thoughts, feelings that were so clearly recorded by the operator. Excellent work.
In general, the film left a positive impression, there is something to think about, there is something to understand for yourself. The film teaches a lesson to anyone who wanted to do or did what Paul did during his anger, his indifference. But the timing of the film seemed too long: too long pauses between shots, between scenes.
I hope that Alexei Popogrebsky will make even more such films, which will not only take high prizes at international film festivals, but also contain the same deep meaning.
Thus,
The action takes place on a small island, lost somewhere in the expanses of the Arctic Ocean. History is silent that in addition to the desire to write an essay about real and extraordinary events pushed the guy to go to such a harsh place. There are a lot of interesting phenomena and places in the world and perhaps it was not worth starting with such an extreme. But.. it is possible that the theme of the essay was imposed on him, or the guy really lacked the thrill ' on which he counted ' as stated in the description. He will have something to write about when he returns home. .
For some time, Pavel does his usual business at the station, measures various weather indicators, and sends them to the central base. Eat, sleep. He tolerates some drill from his temporary mentor Sergey. Mushtra, though, can be called a stretch. Rather, he was tired of this heavy routine for several years, alone and lives only hoping to go to his family as soon as possible, and it seems that this is not far off. But bad news comes by radio, and Paul receives it by the will of fate. Sergei's family is dead. Immediately transmit the radio message, the guy does not dare, and begins to postpone it waiting & #39; suitable & #39; moment. With this begins the whole chain of events in the film, which more and more drives Paul into a desperate situation.
Now about how it actually looks. The movie is really a bit long. Static views from the window for several minutes, walking with a camera hanging somewhere near the shoes or opposite the face to music or without. I won’t say that these scenes made me sleepy, but at some point they began to bother me. If in the first third of the film they somehow fit on the dynamics, then there is a feeling ' a stick in the wheel', preventing to follow the events. Everything is already developing quite rapidly, a tactical war is unleashed between the heroes, and the director continues to cram his boring inserts with a similar landscape. Maybe so that the viewer does not forget about the harsh climate of the Arctic, maybe giving time for a smoke break. But. In parallel with these annoying 'views' follows a really interesting, addictive plot. I will say that there is a significant role in acting.
The hero of Dobrygin really plays, and naturally, not zealous with grimace and emotions on his face, at the same time not sliding into the other extreme, indifferent log. And the hero of Puskepalis, on the contrary, had to play a gloomy, feral man, but he was able to squeeze more out of the character, filling it with heavy and sometimes peaceful glances, different moods. Humans are not robots, and no matter how it is, not many people can go through life with one mask on their face. If at all possible. And the film shows just such a piece from the lives of two living people. That fear towards Sergei, at first glance, seems far-fetched, but if you drip deeper, everything falls into place. They are alone on this remote island, cut off from the outside world. Sergey dreams of seeing loved ones, salting for them char that they love so much, presenting an early meeting, and waiting for his news that crosses everything. And to inform her should a young bolt, who not so long ago and fined, sleeping over and without making important measurements. All these circumstances did not allow Paul to utter more than one word: 'Vitalych' on which he stopped watching as the bloody knife of Sergei deftly opens the abdomen of freshly caught char. It is this scene with the fish in my opinion and is the defining moment when the boy realized that to say this way in the eyes for no reason will he succeed.
The film tells a really interesting story, which almost never ceases to believe. And this in tandem with acting, makes it very realistic and deep. The atmosphere of alienation also succeeded, the water around, snow-capped fields and mountains, wind and glowing iron. Real hopelessness. Some will say that they have seen it many times. But damn it, there's never a lot of great stories. Everything, like it or not, is part of the natural cycle, and inevitably returns to the past, borrows ideas, situations and other finds of the past. What matters is how they are presented today.
You never know who the world will end with when the world falls apart. You can never guess how you will behave in an unusual situation, we are all sure that we are brave, but everyone can cowardly.
We were taught a lot in childhood: to say thank you and please behave decently at a party, give a seat in the trolley bus to the elder. But we weren't taught how to tell people bad news. If your colleague has a terrible tragedy, it will suddenly fall on your shoulders to become this broadcaster of grief. How will you behave, what burden will this responsibility fall on you, change something in your head or leave you indifferent?
The heroes of the film, so different, so different from each other will connect not only this polar island, they will forever tie together one end of the world, but for each their own. For one, staying on the island is a responsible job, for another – a time of boredom and idleness. One does not know what "smiley" means and to what automation the technique has reached. Another does not realize that wandering around a polar island without loaded weapons among hungry polar bears is unrealistically dangerous. Fate is really a real master of human destinies and so likes to confront such different people in the same conditions.
Pasha. Cowardice is treated
The main character of the film will suffer the fate of a messenger who should bring bad news. Going to the Arctic, he certainly expected incredible adventures and thrills. Walking aimlessly on an empty polar island, he looks for fun at a radioactive generator and rides on an abandoned air defense radar company, not realizing that it is not nature and detachment from the outside world that will create harsh conditions for him, but an ordinary human tragedy. And to return from this island will be very different.
Sergei Vitalyevich. Escape from loneliness in yourself
He lives the memories of his great life on the great earth. Waiting to return to his family: his wife and son, who are destined to die without waiting for their father. He will not receive this news immediately, but will accept it with courage. When there is nowhere else to return and only total loneliness without a family awaits on the mainland, he will understand that this island and solitude are his salvation for today.
The Arctic. The world we didn't know about
Special thanks to the director and the entire crew wanted to say for not being lazy and not afraid of harsh conditions and went to shoot in real conditions. The landscape in this film I would call the third main character in the film. He’s definitely the third player in this drama. He like no one conveys the mood of silent scenes and the severity of male glances, aimed somewhere in the distance. These landscapes, by the way, can be easily found on Google Maps. The end of the world, where, as well as in large cities, the fate of people and characters are tempered.
Infection with despair against the background of the Chukchi nature
I’ve been watching How I Did This Summer, and what can I say? Impressions were not that controversial, but the film is definitely not for everyone.
While some laughed at the “anacoluph” name, others questioned the quality of the painting itself. In relation to this film, by the way, the most logical to say proudly - KARTINA. Yes, not everyone understood and felt it, not everyone managed to understand the depths of the drama. Personally, the story touched me, I do not deny. However, the visual component should be mentioned separately. Seventy-eighty percent of the film is based on a long show of the beauty of Chukotka and the emotions of Grigory Dobrygin. Whether it was worth diluting the script with a mix of sunset and the rustle of the radio - I do not know. At first, I waited a long time for expectations to come true and see what I would like. Action, drama, maybe even tragedy. “At first” developed slowly, the thought came to mind when watching that it was in vain that this in essence art house was so popularized – I repeat, the movie is not for the majority. You will also have to get used to the sagging first half of the session, to ice and negotiations with the first or first. However, it was slow and very vital.
The second half of the timekeeping on activity fully compensates for the first: here will finally reveal the real acting talent, and the power of episodes designed to instill in the viewer a range of feelings from fear to tearful regret. I was struck by the above Dobrygin: the guy has a bright future for serious roles. However, Sergey Puspekalis held out in a difficult way.
What's in charge? The film was remembered, entered the soul, picked deep and sat far away. That’s what it means to leave a meaningful mark on someone’s heart. Although, in my subjective opinion, "How I Spent This Summer" is not a great movie. But a hell of a good one that I wouldn’t mind revisiting someday to refresh some lost experiences. To speak about it better from the height of more intense years of experience. Maybe the movie needs to grow, somehow mature. In any case, thanks to Alexei Popogrebsky for a worthy promotion in Russian cinema.
I have long noticed that to make a drama that is strong in its emotional intensity, you need to involve a minimum of actors, a maximum of limited space and more realism in the details.
This is exactly what Alexei Popogrebsky’s latest film “How I Spent This Summer” is. The main characters are two who are alone on an island in the Arctic Ocean. The plot of the film is simple - two employees working at the station - station chief Sergei and trainee Pavel. The watch is coming to an end. Their only communication with the big land is radio. And one day there comes a message that Paul, who received it, could not immediately convey.
But behind the apparent simplicity lies the drama of both characters, their feelings, experiences. The director shows in detail the life of the heroes, the beauty of the region, the moment of butchering fish, as if emphasizing the realism of the situation in which two people fell. Moments when Sergey is angry at Pavel prepares the viewer, giving him the opportunity to imagine, understand what will happen next, how the characters will behave in a difficult situation.
And the ending – on the one hand, completely logical and expected, but on the other hand – for some reason believed that everything will end differently.
Probably, they say correctly when they compare this film with the works of Andrei Tarkovsky - perhaps there is something in this: there is a special relationship to detail, very accurately conveys the mood and feelings of the characters through them. For some reason, looking at this film in addition to Tarkovsky, Zvyagintsev’s film “Return” came to mind – there is something in common between these films.
Be sure to advise everyone to watch - such films make you think and although they look hard, there is not even a thought at the end, and I wasted 1.5 hours of time in vain. Not for nothing. .
Impression from the cinema is difficult, - so, perhaps, it would be most correct to say.
Overall, I think the film is beautiful. For modern domestic cinema, even a bold film, I would say. Excellent camera work, installation is not tense, that neither the frame, then a separate picture, acting work is dense and in relation to the script do not cause questions.
It's hard to see a movie, yes. But strong.
I’m not going to break it down in detail, repeating what I’ve written many times before. But I will stop at one point.
Having read a lot of different reviews about cinema, I do not really understand the search for logic in the actions of the hero Dobrygin, dissatisfaction with the allegedly insufficient disclosure of his character. I think it makes perfect sense. Showed just as much as you need: an ordinary modern guy. In principle, not bad, educated, somewhere romantic and gentle, but at the same time not having hardened by really difficult living conditions, weak, infantile, not wanting to grow up. In general, as they say, 'the guy, of course, is excellent, but unreliable and very shitty', - a portrait of a typical middle-developed representative of the generation ', the notorious media sapiens, brought up on the Internet, computer games and pseudo-content film blockbusters.
And the logic of illogical actions, indecision, cowardice of such a person is quite understandable. To understand it, you do not need other touches to the portrait, as it seems to me.
10 out of 10
Director Alexei Popogrebsky, who does not have a dozen films at the moment, gave us this film with a very strange name in 2010, judging from the point of view of the rules of the Russian language. The author uses anakoluf in the title and uses it very successfully, because his main task is this anakoluf performs brilliantly. The audience is interested, as they say, from the first line.
So, before us is a certain island of Aarchim in the Arctic Ocean, on which the polar station is located. The head of the weather station Sergey Gulybin and a trainee, a kind of boy from the city, for whom the practice is already coming to an end, work and live on it. Sergey approaches work with all his professionalism and responsibility, because for him it is a common thing. He's clearly not bothered by these constant sorties to check the same thermometer, radio binding for data. By the way, this radio is the only connection to the outside world. But Pavel, a trainee, has days of monotony and gray: listen to music here, listen to music there, run on barrels, ride on the radar, play S.T.A.L.K.E.R. ... And one day, when the chief goes to the southern cape to catch a char for the family, the whole station remains on Pavel. It is at this moment that he receives an emergency message that led to a series of various events that in all their glory reveal the characters of the characters.
First of all, the film reveals the psychological component of the characters. No wonder the film genre is a thriller, which he is beautiful and justifies. This is not the thriller that foreign cinema constantly feeds us with, with a bunch of maniacs and sharp movements, absolutely not, this is a thriller with a psychological tilt, where it becomes uncomfortable not because someone stands behind with a knife, but because Popogrebsky opened the human gut. Absolutely do not notice the transition, when the peaceful coexistence of two people turns into a conflict, and armed, leading to dangerous situations.
The director uses everything to a minimum: a minimum of dialogue, heroes, music and even actions. If you remember, as such dynamics we do not observe. There is a shortage of dialogue or music in some films, but this is a special case. It doesn’t feel like anything is missing here. Dialogues are really small, but the viewer should not be strained in any way, on the contrary, freedom from words opens up a sea of other beautiful advantages that made the film interesting and even unique.
Throughout the film, the viewer can admire the beautiful views of the northern edges of our Motherland. The cold expanses of the fictional island give the sharpness of the growing tension between the characters. The initial coldness of their relationship is emphasized by snowy landscapes of frozen nature, which we would not have seen if it were not for Pavel Kostomarov, a cameraman whose work the Berlin Film Festival praised the Silver Bear for outstanding artistic achievements. And only after watching the film, you can understand why Kostomarov was given this award. The picture was shot smoothly, without excessive shaking, which could only worsen the perception of the film. In the presence of actions, the operator grabs only the necessary, without showing anything superfluous in the frame. The perfect job.
As mentioned above, there is little music in the film. It pops up when Paul is wearing headphones, and begins to spread to the film itself as a backdrop for action. The melody itself is dynamic, with a predominance of guitars and drums, if you add words to it, you get a great composition for the group, playing alternative or rock. The composer of this picture, Dmitry Katkhanov, was able to create stunning music that conveys the atmosphere of the film. But most of the timekeeping is subordinated to the sounds of nature. It seems that you are watching a film about the wildlife of the Far North, and it is really interesting.
Gregory Dobrygin, who played Pavel Danilov, without words can show all the oppressive states of the hero. The viewer can see in Paul a coward who worries only about his life. Yes, it is. Paul is afraid of his boss, who has lived alone on this island for a long time. The boss is rude, sometimes cruel to the guy, and Paul does not understand and does not accept such behavior. He is simply not used to such treatment, and he has no choice but to spend all his time anywhere, if only not next to Gulybin, less catch his eye. Therefore, he is afraid and does not immediately tell about the emergency message, because he is not sure of the consequences that may arise. Paul is driven by the usual instinct of self-preservation and survival.
Sergei Puskepalis plays the station chief honed and natural, as if he were himself and not his hero. If you analyze the behavior of his character, you can come to the conclusion that Gulybin has forgotten how to communicate with strangers, and Danilov’s idleness and his non-compliance with all norms simply irritate Sergei, an ordinary human feeling. On the island, there is nothing for him except work and radio, periodically transmitting news about his family. Paul also acts as a troublemaker. All this together leads to the appearance of such an attitude of Sergey to the intern.
The film is multipolar, as it makes you talk about different themes of the existence of people, more specifically, two people on an isolated island. True, it will not be interesting to everyone, only a certain circle of people, because some viewers have not yet matured, and others are not able to perceive such a movie properly, so it is impossible to advise everyone vying for it, but it is worth watching. How I spent this summer" - one of the best examples of modern cinema in the country. The film deserves all the awards it has received.
At the end of the film, the director put his author's emoji, the meaning of which will not be clear to everyone. And it is not surprising that during the viewing there were more than once associations with the film “In the wild” and Zvyagintsev’s paintings, which after watching left a similar melancholy sediment inside.
The silent drama that unfolds between two strangers, but due to circumstances, relatives, simply cannot leave the viewer indifferent. And if first the gut protests against the action (or rather, inaction) of the main character, then the protest smoothly flows into understanding and partly agreement with his action.
Where else, not far from civilization, in difficult conditions for life, is it possible to reveal the character of man so truly? In the absence of people around it is extremely difficult to make important decisions on which human life can depend. And before condemning (or vice versa praising) one of the main characters, it is worth thinking: what would you do yourself in such a situation?
Separately, I would like to note that the landscapes and magnificent camera work bring great aesthetic pleasure from viewing.
Undoubtedly, this is one of the best Russian films shot in recent years.
9 out of 10
In my field of view Russian films are extremely rare, especially recently, when I was completely disappointed in our cinema, which contributed a lot to mega-thrash like “Yulenka”, “Dead daughters” and “Inhabited island”, as well as a host of unideal and talentless comedies. Alas, but the fierce guilt - except for the "Country of the Deaf" and "Brother", just the guilt - except "In motion", "Despicable swans" and accentuated arthouse "Collector" Grymov, can not remember (" Island" and "Return" have not yet seen, but I plan to see). However, after reading the summary of “How I spent this summer”, I decided to pay attention to it. And, you know, I didn't.
Finally in Russia made a film, the picture in which at least is not inferior to Hollywood counterparts. In addition, the operator worked hard to fame - furiously please the location of the camera, the abundance of static frames, scenes with nature ... There’s a lot to praise the operator for. In general, the film almost immediately reminded me of Kim Ki-duk’s painting “Spring, Summer, Winter”. And again spring, of course, adjusted for the plot. Here is only here "The Arctic, the Arctic, the Arctic ..." And the Arctic again. However, there are many common features, if you look, you will notice for yourself. Of course, the script of Popogrebsky’s film in places sags strongly, almost breaks, unlike the Korean picture, but in general the director has worked very well: melancholy, nervousness, beautiful visualization, appropriate and sufficient audio accompaniment – all this is there. Unfortunately, there is a delay - the film is more than two hours, despite the fact that with such a scenario to meet in one and a half times would not be. Both actors with their roles coped uncompromisingly, convincingly, there are no claims to them and there can be no.
In short, very strong directorial, camera and acting work, but it is a pity that the writers slightly missed their share of creativity - there is not enough sharpness, dynamics of the development of a good plot.
I will not advise everyone to watch, since the film is still peculiar, but fans of, let’s say, festival cinema “How I spent this summer” should like it.
7 out of 10