Somehow it so happened that I watched this version after the film adaptation of Bortko. Why Cara cut almost half of the film itself, it is unclear whether the censorship managed to cut the film, or editing work simply disappeared. Well, without mysticism, however, Bulgakov is alive and sees everything.
I don’t know why the film has received so many negative reviews. Bortko, on the contrary, I think stupidly copied the findings that Kara managed to record in a 3-hour film. There's only about two, but Kara won. I loved it, especially when it was funny. It is impossible not to laugh when the variety entertain Muscovites.
The acting game was generally amazing: the professionals played at the level, only Gell came out some pretentious. But Vertinskaya, Filippenko, Gaft - top class! I think the director paid more attention to the text here, because every sentence of Bulgakov is important. Sometimes it seems that he just became the prophet when Woland appeared to us in the person of you know who and punishes for heartlessness, banditry and bureaucracy. You can't hide all your sins. After all, according to Bulgakov, only love is eternal and under the name of Margarita he indicates the face of his wife, who gave him peace. In general, the Gogol case lives and reigns.
'So who are you finally?' - asks in the epigraph of the novel in the words of Faust. I am only a part of the power that wants evil, but always does good.39 Alas, today much is not so, because under the guise of good, great evil is done. And one thing that remains from the time of the 30s is the housing issue, which killed good in people. I have never seen the most accurate metaphor.
But something I have gone far from the picture: it is still possible and necessary to reconsider. There are many intersections with the personality of the authors and prototypes of picture heroes, which were very coolly copied by actors of high standard. The only reason it was so hard to cut the film. I'll have to watch the full version. But that's cool!
9 out of 10
Yuri Kara is the first director who created the film adaptation of the novel “The Master and Margarita” in Russia (in the homeland of the author of this work).
Unfortunately, the film suffered a difficult fate due to the difficult situation in the country in the 90s. Despite all the difficulties of creating the tape, the picture was still removed. Even for this titanic work, you can already praise the filmmakers. So, what tape came out? Consider three aspects (following the novel, the actors and the overall design of the film).
Follow the novel
The film follows the work of Mikhail Bulgakov well, and there is also a scene from the first version of the novel (the trampling of the face of Jesus Christ by Ivan the Homeless, painted by Woland in the sand). And here it is important to know that the film has two versions: full and stripped. And it is necessary to evaluate the follow-up to the novel by the unabridged version of the picture (this version is available only in a very low quality), since although it lacks some moments of the work of Mikhail Bulgakov, they are not so important than small storylines that are absent in the incomplete version.
Actors
The performance of the roles was excellent. And this is not surprising, because the heroes of the novel by Mikhail Bulgakov were played by Soviet actors of the first magnitude. The only drawback in terms of acting is the rare replay of Alexander Filippenko as Korovyov-Fagot. In my opinion, the most accurate hit in the image is Mikhail Ulyanov, who played Pontius Pilate. He was able to convey the essence of the prosecutor’s personality, combining a cruel tyrant and a vulnerable man who knows how to compassion.
General design of the film
Thanks, above all, to a colossal budget of $ 15 million, the film has excellent scenery and costumes, which, due to good camera work and proper lighting, gave birth to a stunning atmosphere of the novel “Master and Margarita” (except that on the robe of the cat Behemoth clearly saved). I especially liked the design of the scenes of Ershalaim, to which the same spirit adds the magnificent music of Alfred and his son Andrei Schnittke.
Thus, considering three aspects, we can conclude that this adaptation of the novel “The Master and Margarita”, in general, is very good and made as worthy as it was at all possible in the 90s. The only drawbacks of the film are, as mentioned above, the rare replay of Alexander Filippenko and the improper image of the Behemoth cat.
8 out of 10
Undoubtedly, the famous novel by M. A. Bulgakov “The Master and Margaritta” is one of the brightest examples of the heritage of Russian literature. At the same time, it is quite difficult to film it because of the specifics of the work itself. Nevertheless, the 2005 series more or less got to the heart of the novel, and even provided it with a wonderful atmosphere and bizarre notes of storytelling. No more than that. But, nevertheless, a miracle came from the bowels - another adaptation in the form of a 2-hour (originally - 4-hour) film, and even with a rather chic cast. It was the latter that forced attention to this miracle, for at once such a small timekeeping for a rather extensive work is striking. And for good reason.
I understand that the film was brutally cut, and that there is an allegedly full version of the film on the web. But, firstly, it is unrealistic to watch because of the incredibly low quality, and secondly, even this is negligible enough to fully convey all the most important moments of the novel, so that you again want to pick up a book. But come on, we got it. And I will judge the most common version - 2 o'clock.
And I wasn't worried. Although the authors tried to fit more or less significant moments, all of them were hopelessly spoiled by ragged editing. The dialogues will suddenly be interrupted, on the contrary, they will resume from the middle, then the character is there, then he is sharply absent, and so on everywhere! The funniest thing is that for some reason, the 1st part of the novel about Woland’s adventures in Moscow was shoved into a short duration to a large extent (though without many interesting moments), while in the second part the famous Satan’s Ball looks more or less whole. What happened next for some reason fit in 5 minutes. That is: the death of the heroes, the adventures of Korovyov and Behemoth (this was generally cut out), flying at a full moon, meeting with Pontius Pilate fit up to 5 minutes! And it looks awful. A frame from here, a frame from there, the characters say a couple of lines, and the film generally ends on the half-word. And when the credits are slowly floating on the screen, there is nothing but scratching your head with bewilderment.
This is especially fun with some characters. For example, the “story line” of Gella, Likhodeev, Behemoth, Korovyov and the Homeless simply breaks off, and the first one appears in a couple of scenes, and no one is going to explain who she is.
In short, watching this film is recommended for those who do not want to read the novel due to laziness (but the teacher does), but it will be enough of a brief content. Even if they don’t understand the ending.
Another and more serious problem of this film is the actors. Don’t be fooled by the cast, because you won’t see such disappointment anywhere else. Now it is clear why the film was kept on the shelf for a long time, because who wants to look at the terribly overplayed Garmash, at the absolutely terrible Vertinskaya (the director forgot to tell the actress what to do, otherwise how to explain the eyes on the woman’s face that are forever extended from misunderstanding? As she says, “God, God.” Others, oddly enough, seem to be trying, but at the same time, misunderstanding of what is happening is easily guessed by their faces (Kuravlev and Durov are an example of this). But Gaft with amazing accuracy conveyed the “charm” and mysticism of his character, so it’s just nice to watch him. Good out of him came Woland, that's for sure, especially with an ever-ironic grin on his face. I also liked Rakov, who exactly conveyed the essence of his character. Well, it is worth mentioning Fillipenko: his “Cows” turned into an ever screaming and crooking clown, which by the way only benefited, because almost he turned out to be the most interesting character of the film (he appears the longest).
"Master and Margarita" is a big disappointment. Torn editing, torn pieces instead of intelligible scenes, forever lost characters ... Not so I would like to see another adaptation of the famous novel. However, staying indifferent to him is quite difficult. It’s the fault of several actors and a schizophrenic melody that plays throughout the film about and without. It's a little nice!
It's not recommended to watch. There is hope for a full-fledged directorial version that will not be released. And will they? Does that make sense?
I really like the film adaptation from Bortko - I review it every year at Easter. I recently heard about this film, which caused a lot of scandals because of which it was released only in 2011. After seeing an impressive acting ensemble, and some actors later starred in Bortko, I decided to watch it and found the full three-hour version on the Internet.
I was amazed at how horrible the film was. Actors play terrible. Gaft for the role of Woland is absolutely not suitable. First, voice. Basilashvili has a low voice and is more suited to Satan. Gaft's voice is higher, and he looks like a pea jester here, not Satan. Now Harmash. Maybe he would have been suitable for the role of Ivanushka the Homeless, but he constantly shouts - and when he asked Woland if he had ever been to a mental hospital, and when he demanded documents from Woland, etc. It's also too harsh.
I will not list the shortcomings of the film further. I didn’t notice anything about it.
I read the book in school, a long time ago, so not counting, and now I decided to look before reading. I watched version 94 and then 2005. And then again on '94.
Yes, considering the three times longer, the 2005 version is much more detailed, but the actors! In '94, the real bright types. Exalted Homeless (Garmash), Korovyov (Philippenko), satanically laughing Woland (Gaft), textured Pilate (Ulyanov) - especially his conversation with Kaifa, and which ' real ' NKVD-shniks, with his ' Where is the toilet?' Infantile Gella (Zakharova) was also more to the place. And magic cream? He really looked magical. And the interiors? Great interiors in '94! In the first half of the 2005 version, I was wondering what the grayness was. Only Margarita (Kovalchuk) pulled everything out. That's a real find. Only the second half began to outweigh, but with this there was a feeling of protractedness.
But in my head happened ' editing ' - the first part - the 94th (almost all), plus the second half of 2005. And I'm fine.
There is a lot to say, the review is not enough. But I'll try. Well, to start the conversation, Bulgakov's novel I know well, in his youth he was very impressed with me, but now my favorite book I can not call it - because of disagreement with the position of the author on many issues and images of the Master and Margarita, I personally unpleasant.
At one time, this film was only available in the form of a long, terrible quality, unfinished cut, and watching it in this form, I was very disappointed. He seemed to me protracted, stupid, with characters that do not fit into the image. Since then, I managed to forget it, watch the series Bortko and also thoroughly forget it, and so I watched the film Kara in 'brief', the official edition.
Well, this version isn't that bad. Not as good - but not as talentless as she is sometimes branded.
Good stuff. Firstly, yet Gaft externally - perfect casting Woland (another question about the game, here, in my opinion, he did not last, he was not "infernal", except for particularly good moments, and in the most unfortunate - the explanation with the table - was a typical Sidorin from ' Garage'). He is gorgeous in open-shouldered clothing and satanic laughter suits him very well. I really liked the two characters in the Bible. Pilate is an old warrior, a cruel and calculating man, unable not to appreciate the possible consequences - and on this and burned, did what he had to, and did not forgive himself. And Levi Matthew is a dear Durov, a touchingly devoted elderly disciple of the young teacher, so vividly grieving for him. Not bad and beautiful disembodied tender beauty of Yeshua, and - absolutely carnal, sweet to the edge - Judas. Thirdly, in the abbreviation, the film looks quite alive, and the most unfortunate moments, apparently, were not included in the short version.
Medium or controversial. Marguerite was overly scolded, in my opinion. Yes, it did not always fall into the right tone, but for the most part it did not cause dislike. And that is not a young girl - I do not see any problems in this, the Master is not a boy either. Korovyov does give the maximum of buffoonery, but he, damn it, was - overplays not the actor, overplays Fagot himself, it's normal. In general, Satan’s ball also more or less fits into my idea of him, a bunch of naked women, in general, are clearly spelled out in the canon, although perhaps it was worth giving them in some kind of treatment, because they are all dead sinners, and these are obvious that ordinary living women who were given money to spin a little in front of the camera naked. Master -- well, fine. I do not like the character very much, so whoever and how he played ... arrogant weakling as it is, well talented, but this is not a reason to be such a whiner and fig. And Homeless-Garmash, well, too zealous and too much ' from soha' but still interesting.
Bad stuff. The final is kind of ragged, right here crumpled, timekeeping was not enough, found something to save. Hippo. Nothing. Nothing. Even in the form of a cat, it is not black, but with white spots (the cat was not found black, or what?), and in the form of a person - faded, dull, where is his wit and energy? Kuravlev gave something completely unnatural ... and this, alas, became common for him in the future. I didn’t understand why the devil at the ball at Satan forgot about the kind of incarnation of evil Richelieu and Peter I ... I was somehow offended for them, honestly. Grim Azazello - in the middle plans he somehow has a normal eye, and 'fang' - just a shame. Some stupid Marguerite dance before the flight - why is he here? How can a woman who finds herself in her situation dance and fool around so calmly as if she’s just waiting for a girlfriend’s visit, rather than throwing herself into the pool with her head? This is the time to save the final!
And the worst thing is that there is no controversy with Bulgakov. There's a lot to do. Pilate would have ordered the crucifixion of an ordinary man—everything would have been beautiful for him, apparently—but he crucified God (the God-man, the incarnation of God, the opinions of confessions, as is well known, were divided)—and nay, he suffered for two thousand years until this very God deigned to remember him. And the same Varenukha - why, in general, is he so? Lied on the phone that he wasn't there? Nonsense, nonsense, I also have the crime of the century. But this is the textbook ' they will offer everything themselves and give everything themselves' - Yes, right now, they ran away to give what naivety. Or ' royal blood' as a sign of nobility - what is this savage prejudice in the work of the enlightened era? But no, no controversy.
In general, this is, of course, not a masterpiece, but quite a watchable screen adaptation.
I recently watched this film adaptation. I began to watch, was full of enthusiasm, and by the end of the film was very disappointed, even did not watch. The actors were good, but even they did not save the film, and some even worsened.
For example, Voland. In the performance of Gafta he is kind of frivolous - he is too sarcastic, often grins. And there is no such thing as Woland. In general, not the Devil, but some petty demon. Basilashvili coped with this role much better, he Woland turned out exactly as I imagined him - wise, calm, majestic. . .
Or Page, aka Cows. In PhilippenkoAzazello turned out many times better than Fagot. He didn’t play badly, but he played too much. And after Fagota played Abdulov, this character became one of my favorites in this novel.
What about Margarita? I personally liked it in the performance of Anna Kovalchuk many times more. At Vertinskaya it turned out to be some inanimate, fake. Besides, it's vulgar. For example, remember the moment when she talked to Nikolai Ivanovich, sitting on a windowsill? There. Both in the novel and in the film adaptation of Bortko, Margarita simply, so to speak, laughed at her neighbor. But she didn't act like a girl of easy demeanor. And Vertinskaya before the pile of the fifth point turned in front of him. Why would I do that? What to say, Vertinskaya did not manage to get used to the role of Margarita, she did not have the devilishness, the charisma that was in the role of Anna Kovalchuk.
And then there's the master. Although he was played by a great actor, whom I love very much, but this role was also not successful. The master in his performance turned out to be dry. I was also disappointed.
And Homeless? Yes, even the performance of Garmash! He is a good actor, but he played Ivanushka as if he were a regular at a psychiatric hospital. It would be better for him to play such roles as Shorts in 'Kamenskaya'.
I didn’t like Satan’s ball either. Some kind of ... erotic, or something. Such a moment, which in the novel and Bortko turned chic, turned almost into an orgy. And besides, why were Hitler, Dzerzhinsky, Stalin needed? Firstly, they were not in the novel, and secondly, at the time of the plot in 'The Master and Margarita' they were still alive.
The only thing I liked about Kara’s movie was Yeshua. And then Bezrukov played it better.
This film was shot in 1994 and has been on the shelf for almost 20 years. Only in 2011 it was released, and in a very much reduced form. Cut him cruelly and pointlessly. Sometimes pieces of phrases were ripped out with meat, which makes some scenes look strange. The ending was cut almost completely, which significantly worsened the impression of viewing.
I enjoyed the casting. Not a single mistake. It's been extremely successful. Valentin Gaft is ideal in the role of Voland, Filippenko is very organic in the role of Korovyov, Vertinskaya is good in the role of Margarita, Ulyanov looks great in the role of Pontius Pilate. Very good shooting. There is not that unnatural glamour in clothes that appeared later and filled the entire Russian cinema. Everything looks natural and relaxed. Heroes live on stage. There is not that far-fetchedness and falsehood that is present in the adaptation of Bortko.
Willingly or involuntarily, but the director very accurately conveyed the whole invertibility of Bulgakov’s worldview, where evil replaces good, and good is so pathetic and helpless that it does not cause any sympathy. Man sells his soul to the devil, and in order to somehow justify himself, he seeks to prove, first of all, to himself that there can be no other way. Where is the fearless writer who denounced Bolshevism in Heart of a Dog? He's gone. He went to serve for the glory and honor of the new government. And the new government gave him thanks. He was fondled by it. His plays were performed in many Soviet theaters. But his conscience could not be completely destroyed. She constantly reminded the writer who she served. And then he decided to write a novel-justification of evil. The evil in this novel is not entirely evil, and sometimes not at all evil. What can you do with your good? What is it worth and what is it needed for? Evil is all-powerful and good is powerless. The new age needs a new gospel. The gospel of Satan. A gospel where the opposite is true. The gospel is a mirror. God is pathetic and helpless. This is not the Lord Jesus Christ, but the mad preacher Yeshua HaNotzri. He calls all people good and this causes only bewilderment and doubt in his mental abilities. He is not capable of anything, and therefore he must turn to the devil in all matters. In the interpretation of the image of Jesus Christ, Bulgakov turned out to be an evil parody of Leo Tolstoy’s teaching on non-resistance to evil by violence. The devil is omnipotent and tolerates God only because he cannot get rid of him. He would have destroyed him, but he could not. And then, quite naturally, a huge queue of petitioners for various issues is lined up to the devil. People sell their souls not even for the opportunity to become young again, like Faust, but only for a fashionable rag, which will soon disappear for a few chervonets, which will turn into cut paper. And if so, what is wrong with a talented writer selling himself to Mephistopheles for fame and official recognition?
The main villain Woland is not a villain at all. He's smart, noble and even kind! He's a real gentleman. He has a great sense of humor. He's always perfectly dressed. Can he be compared to the schusher who squirts under his feet? He is the prettiest character in Bulgakov’s novel. It is to him that Margarita turns for help. Because there's no one else. And it's not scary at all. The main thing is to transcend your self, forget about honor and dignity, and you will achieve your goal. Yes, everyone is afraid of him, but honest people do not need to be afraid of him. Because he only punishes crooks, bribe-takers and rascals. Is this not an excuse for the repression of the late 30s? And Woland somehow very much resembles Comrade Stalin, as he is portrayed by convinced Stalinists. Honest, fair, incorruptible... And if you have arrested someone close to you: a husband, sister or daughter, know that there is no smoke without fire. These people secretly hated the Soviet government, but cleverly disguised themselves as decent inhabitants.
In the Master, it seems to me, Bulgakov portrayed himself. A man completely emasculated and internally broken. A man who wants only one thing – peace beside his beloved woman. He is no longer interested in what is happening. He's tired. He should finish the affair and leave. Go to the heroes he invented.
Journalists have a hackneyed comparison: everything that has been on the shelf for the nth number of years should look like red wine – if the quality of the product has become worse over time, then the product does not stand up to comparison. And vice versa.
In April of this year, the film “The Master and Margarita” by Yuri Kara was released on the screens of cinemas, whose exposure reaches 17 years. Yes, the shooting of the picture ended in 1994, but for all sorts of reasons, the film adaptation of Bulgakov could not appear on the screens. Then the director will quarrel with producers and distributors about the timing (does not want to cut his own work to a two-hour format), then the descendants of Mikhail Afanasievich will veto it. And evil tongues and at all find in this situation a shaped devil: they say, the devil himself does not let the tape to the viewer. Understand it as you like: whether the film is so unsuccessful, or on the contrary, the devil is portrayed extremely truthfully.
The second at the end of the viewing seems more like the truth: Woland performed by Valentin Gaft is really great. Such a cynical intellectual, weary of an evil genius, who looks down on everything and everything because of remarkable experience, tired of his own affairs and from people - in his eyes still a passion burns, but already there is a subtle reluctance to great adventures. The cast in “The Master and Margarita” is generally a topic of a separate conversation: the roles are distributed among the masters of the great Soviet cinema, not yet used to cheating on roles in numerous TV series and passing films, which in the 94th just began to flood the screens. Mikhail Ulyanov is very convincing in the image of Pontius Pilate, Nikolai Burlyaev is much better than Sergei Bezrukov as Yeshua, a young Sergey Garmash, similar to Mayakovsky, as if created for the role of Ivan the Homeless. And even 49-year-old at the time of filming Anastasia Vertinskaya is quite Margarita.
The usual reproaches against any film adaptation: “It was not so in the book!” Or, “They threw out my favorite episode and it’s so important!” They can be presented to the film by Yuri Kara. We can also say that the action jumps with some abnormal speed, not giving a break between scenes, and the viewer has to laugh at the tricks of the satanic retinue already in the midst of an episode from Ancient Judea. But what to do is a cruel film distribution framework. More than two hours of screen time, judging by the examples of recent years, can be allocated only to Cameron, Nolan and Fincher, but not to Kara, even if translated into the language of cinema “sacred cow” of Russian literature. In defense of the director, I will say that the episodes he missed have no decisive influence on the content, although the line of Yeshua HaNotzri, after all, is implemented in a somewhat gnawed form: Bulgakov, no matter what he says, scenes with Jesus and Pontius Pilate are the core on which the merry heads of Moscow of the 1920s are already strung, here – alas, on the contrary.
But the most amazing, at the same time beautiful and terrible in Yuri Kara’s film is the numerous “hellos from the 90s”. Now we have already forgotten what topics sounded the most in those years, forgotten what was considered the norm, and what was a deviation from it, a shock. "The Master and Margarita" to some extent revives these memories: for example, at the ball at Satan, among the other guests there are Lenin, Stalin and Hitler. Of the last two, Margarita says, “Are these still alive?” and is told, “And they are here as special guests.” Such a free interpretation - a) in favor of the political discourse of those years; b) as a tribute to Soviet traditions - even in the cartoon about the myths of Ancient Greece, Soviet animators no-no and inserted a swastika somewhere, symbolizing a terrible evil.
Or the amount of nakedness. Even now, domestic directors are much more modest than in the early 90s, so that naked bodies on the screen of Kara appear both to the place and out of place, and sometimes in excessive quantities. This fact has to be put up with as a given, the benefit is still Bulgakov the same scene of the ball suggests a solid nude - if you consider this a minus of the film, you can just not watch it.
It is better to see once than to hear a hundred times. “The Master and Margarita” by Yuri Kara is an unusual example of cinema, occupying an intermediate position between the “good old” production of the USSR and the “new wild” born in the Russian Federation. If this tape were released on the screens in the year of its creation, it would cause outrage, most would call it tasteless and thrash, but in 2011, the viewer, tempered by such selective slops as “The Best Film” or “Hitler Caput!”, will perceive Kara’s creation almost as an art house. The film is saved by actors who, according to old memory, do their job at the highest level, the music of Alfred Schnittke (one of the last works of the great composer in cinema) saves the proximity to the original text. Still, the brilliant phrases invented by Bulgakov sounded great and “worked” even in the TV series Bortko in 2005, and here many of them are at heart, compensating for numerous minuses and costs.
Moscow. 20s. Patriarchal ponds. On the bench sits the poet Ivan the Homeless and together with the chairman of MASSOLIT Mikhail Berlioz discuss the existence of Jesus. They are approached by a reputable foreigner who poses as a black magic consultant and is interested in their conversation. The young poet and his interlocutor even imagine and cannot imagine who they happened to meet and what it will result in the future.
Same Moscow. Same years. The young Master writes a novel about the notorious Roman procurator Pontius Pilate. His beloved Margarita considers this novel brilliant, but one critic does not think so and it is he who becomes guilty of the fact that the Master and Margaret are separated, and the Master is deprived of freedom. And Margarita is ready to do anything to get her beloved back.
According to the idea, the film should be given time in equal proportions as Woland and his retinue, and the Master and Margarita. But it turned out that the film could be safely called: Woland and KO. Not that I do not like Woland and his retinue, on the contrary, they are unusual and interesting characters, and what they did in Moscow, so generally my description defies. But they're not the biggest heroes. The master and Margarita are the two components of the whole novel. Bulgakov managed a slightly unusual way to show true love. They do not care where they are or what is with them, they only care that they are together.
The cast is definitely good. With the exception of one but - this but - Anastasia Vertinskaya (Margarita), which is not only not at all suitable for the image of Margarita, but also overplays at every step. Compared to her Kovalchuk in the film adaptation of 2005 is a perfect one. The master seemed to me a little older, although this is ' older' fully compensates for the beard on the face Victor Rakov, who perfectly coped with his role.
After reading the book, I was not able to determine which image of Volanda (Valentin Gaft or Oleg Basilashvili(2005 film adaptation)) is better. Both images are so different. Woland is more cunning, more domineering, more sarcastic, but at the same time it is worth noting how smart he is and how intriguing he is. Basilashvili is calmer, older, but at the same time it shows how powerful he is. There is little to say about the Behemoth (cat) since they showed little to him, and it is very sad that he and Fagota-Korovyov (Alexander Filippenko) did not travel around Moscow. But Fagot-Korovyov was given enough attention. Philippenko a separate 'Bravo' for the excellent performance of such a cunning jester. Vladimir Steklov separately 'Thank you' for the performance of the incomparable Azazelo, it is a pity that again they paid little attention to such an interesting and unusual character.
Well, the game Sergei Garmash (poet Ivan Homeless) does not defy description at all, he always managed a little crazy characters, and here is a hot-tempered poet who no one believes.
Are you a writer?
I am in admiration! Oh, my God, what a great movie! Yes, he is averse to the scoop (especially from the opening credits - for the font that the name is written, Artemy Lebedev would shoot the designer), but what a movie! It is absolutely (or almost absolutely) amazing. Play actors, music, entourage ... Gaft is simply inimitable, I almost fell in love with him. Not 10, but 9 for two reasons. These reasons are the cat Behemoth and Margarita herself. The cat itself in the book is a gorgeous character. At the same time, he almost does not take part in the action - and thank God, because his fat nasty uncle plays in a cat costume. Margarita turned out ... not Bulgakov Margarita. And most of all, I didn’t like how her nudity was concealed: first she was in some tulle, then at a ball, in a sado-maso suit from a sex shop. Another whip in one hand and handcuffs in the other, and the image would be completed. What is the excessive chastity in a film in which naked people walk in crowds? Everything else is amazing and amazing. Just bravo. What a shame that modern cinemas so rarely show old movies. I would love to go to old movies to see them on the big screen, but, alas, few people agree with me: there were ten seats in the hall, no more. Original
More than love One of the most famous works in an almost perfect screen embodiment, which is really rare and deserves special attention, it turned out to create the authors and performers of this variation 'The Master and Margarita' Bulgakov. A really impressive approach to the elaboration of actions, events and even the selection of actors, arouses delight, and the decoration makes a work of really great cinema! Immediately I want to say that the movie was mounted in a shorter version, and a full review would like to do after the release of the disc with a three-hour film, but the theatrical release turned out to be wonderful, albeit with various reductions. The thing is that the script adaptation has already fixed the most significant and interesting in the book, diluting artistic visualization and creative additions, erasing the surplus. You can analyze and compare the scenes, both with the book and with other variations of the production, but do you need to? The main advantage of the film is that it was based on an early version of the novel, which still has a lot of interesting, deleted as a result either by censorship or by someone else. So, for example, there is also a brilliant scene with the trampling of the image of Christ in the sand, a phrase worthy of applause ' here in the Kremlin, an unclean force was hiding!' but there is no scene of the meeting and sentencing by the Sanhedrin, just during which it was possible to launch the initial credits, instead of the already boring kind of flying over the city and other similar techniques. As in the book, the action begins immediately. For the first time on the screen we see a decent and correct embodiment of Woland - Valentin Gaft coped perfectly, approaching the image with the maximum expressiveness of the presentation of such a hero, combining all his very controversial features from the novel. The same applies to Viktor Rakov - for the first time the Master appears as he should be, both in terms of the emotional expression of the hero and in terms of external and age criteria. In general, you can praise the casting almost indefinitely, the magnificent Korovev performed by Filippenko not only clearly follows all the twists of the book image, but also eclipses even Abdulova in the same role with his charisma. An assertive and restless draughtsman, with persistent and even nasty manners, deceiving a bunch of all sorts of citizens, is just amazing! Magnificent Garmash in the role of the poet Homeless, brilliantly coped with the incarnation of Yeshua Nikolai Burlyaev, much before him to some Bezruky. Steklov, Kuravlev, Durov, Ulyanov and many others brilliantly play their screen images. Eyes run away from such outstanding and strong actors, ideally chosen for their roles. And even the choice of very secondary and rarely flickering heroes is really successful - there will be Igor Vernik on the part of Judas, and the magician Amayak Hakobyan as the host in ' Variety'. The only casting misses are the completely ruined character of the Cat, whose vision in this production is not too suitable for contrasting images, and again not the most successful Margarita, not drawing attention to herself in the second part of the story, leaving all interest in the storyline of Woland in Moscow. In the part of Margarita - this is the problem of any of the productions, it is not possible to choose such a successful embodiment of the image. The hippopotamus is devoid of aristocratic manners and its signature scenes, the only significant one is the phrase pro ' pure alcohol' and it is presented in such intonation that the scene loses its emotional flavor. In Margarita, however, sometimes slips false emotions and some internal framework that does not allow you to express feelings to the maximum. However, in the film of Yuri Kara, the whole romantic line of relations is presented rather not by the second plot that manifested itself from the middle, but only by an additional story that tends to the center of the narrative due to the importance of its heroes. And although the force of passion twists the characters, demonstrating a film about love for all time, where these sparks and flames of feelings are even much more than love in its earthly understanding, attention is paid only to the technically necessary, without preponderance towards their dialogues and relationships. In visual manner, as well as the general style and method of presentation, this production is very similar to Bulgakovskiy 'Fatal eggs' Sergey Lomkin, filmed a year later. It is even a pity that the picture of Kara did not film an episode with horsemen in the sky, which would even become a connection between these paintings, which would really be desirable. Having added a lot of interesting things and preserving even rare moments, for some reason they completely forgot about the finale, crumpling everything with a boring transition to measurements. At the same time, all the most important things have been preserved - and the dialogues on the Patriarchs, and the phrases about ' second freshness', and the whole line of Levi Matvey, and how colorful the ball turned out! The Sabbath was a triumph of the diversity of eroticism in Russian cinema, with an impressive scale and a set of interesting historical personalities. The changes made also gave a significant visual plus staging. So, for example, flying out to the ball, Margarita does not pronounce the word 'invisible' for stealth, and the flying witch is seen with horror by all citizens. The scene with the invitation and transfer of ointment, on the contrary, is correctly shortened without any disputes and bickering. And the film manages to bring something new and unusual, successfully fit into the entourage, and save almost all the main motives, scenes and even phrases. Thanks to the Bulgakov dialogues, the relationships of the characters turned out to be rich and interesting. With a very decent director and a brilliant cast, all this is decorated in a powerful and exciting production, instilling pride in the possibilities of Russian cinema and the presence of outstanding talents in our country! Of all the adaptations 'Masters and Margarita' this is by far the best and most impressive. Although not as perfect as we would like, we will wait for the full version, maybe it will give even more impressions. And even though the almost perfect casting, you remember that the best Behemoth Cat was still in the TV series Bortko, Yuri Kara’s film admires much more than any other version. And the significant advantages side-by-side with the bright advantages of the picture easily cover most of the minor shortcomings, leaving very strong positive emotions when watching, the desire to see this film again and more than once, and impress the work done and the resulting magnificent result! 8 out of 10 Original