Watched a chic film in 2011 - "Chapito show".
If someone hasn't looked, I suggest. This is a new approach to comedy. And at the same time nostalgic.
And after watching the film, you can find on YouTube the final song (Song of Popov), which was not included in the film (probably, because of propaganda & Roskomnadzor&) and dance to it.
Unlike incendiary comedies without meaning, here you can find a lot of meaning. I developed SRSG.
I'll go through the obvious. In musical inserts, you can notice a spotlight in the form of an eye. In another scene, an open eye flashes in the form of a tattoo on the back. This, the Mason brothers, is the radiant delta, the symbol of the Observer.
Our observer loves such references to him, for some reason he is pleased. The Observer is also the main character of the film. Characters are concerned only with their own drama, so for them everything is rather bad. Viewers see the big picture from four points.
This creates the necessary distance, does not allow to identify with the characters. At a distance, drama is often seen as a comedy. There is nothing sad about failing in a business where luck bodes well. But people manage to be surprised and upset.
Relationships between people often resemble a scene where Mamonov enthusiastically plays the guitar for the deaf, he does not know that they do not hear it, because he does not look at them, is too busy with himself. It's fun to watch. It's sad to be involved sometimes.
Having four novels inside the film teaches us something important. Those characters who take an episodic part in your drama, at the same time have a major role in their own, which is not like yours. Sometimes the most an outsider can help is to dig you out of the pebbles and try to plant you straight.
The best way to deal with your part of the drama is to look at the big picture. Disassociate yourself from your role. Then the theater turns into a circus, and when everything burns, the sadness burns, too.
I write after watching the first part. Perhaps my opinion will change, but in the first part it is.
The beginning made me uncomfortable. I was expecting something plus or minus black. At least a bunch of freaks like the one shown at the beginning. So unbridled anti-aesthetics, pathetic phrases about nothing, bare ass, monotonous reading of the text, inadequate actions. Stop! It kind of happened. And bare ass, and Cyberpager, reading his text with the feeling of a computer announcer, voiced the Charter of internal service, and loud accusations, and inadequate actions ... However, after some effort, history lets you into your world. You understand these freaks, and it is not clear how normal the people around you are. So they're abnormally uninteresting. They are not deaf, do not run with a mountain in a tie to the cries of a chanter, they do not break away from the closed world of simple and clear truths for the sake of some pigalite from the Internet.
I will note that the film is quite interesting. Plus plot recursion, turning the situation from different points, giving the same words different meanings.
To say that you really liked it would be to lie. History develops too much and evenly. With the smooth breathing of a sleeper in a lethargic sleep. It's like it's not a movie, it's an audiobook read by CyberStranger. Well, it's a good taste.
The whole world is a capito, and the people in it are clowns.
The Chapito Show is an amazing film in every way. Since the director (by his own admission, who has no reason to distrust) did not seek to make either a commercial film or an art house, he got something completely incredible, unfamiliar and indefinable.
If I had to define the genre of this film, I would call it a postmodern psychological epic. It’s not just a movie, it’s an encyclopedia of modern life. It is hard to remember how many topics of Shakespearean scope have been raised here. And my review is only a weak attempt to express in the written word what was expressed by the word spoken and the word unpronounceable.
The main technique on which the whole epic is built: episodic characters of some novels become the main characters of others - and vice versa. Often the same scene is shown in different novels – but from completely different angles, “different eyes”. This technique, as well as the second important idea, which we will talk about a little later, illustrates a very accurately observed circumstance of our lives: we divide people into important and unimportant – both for us and “in general.” The fact that it is stupid to divide people into “good and bad” has already been “long and well said” not in one book or in one film. Here, the writer and the director give us the opportunity to see for ourselves: everyone, except those we are interested in, does not matter to us, they are dust for us. The character in the previous episode, which we did not even notice, then turns out to be the main character, with whom real "passions" occur. The film’s authors amplify this effect with short episodes, which show a man with tears on his cheeks (for example, in “Love”, in “Cooperation”), who will never appear in a close-up (or even at all) in the film. With this, the creators seem to say: these are also people who live, experience as well as others – nothing less, nothing less important.
But that’s not even the main problem raised in the film (not paying attention to people is a consequence, let’s say right away). The root of everything is the fixation of each person on himself, his own life. Every human being (at least every human being) thinks of himself. The epic film is divided into 4 novels, each of which is dedicated to a certain feeling - and at the same time the type of relationship between people: love, friendship, respect, cooperation. But it is obvious to the viewer that the characters do not have these feelings and relationships: they want to experience them and therefore invent them where they do not exist. And they want it, of course, only for themselves - not for another, but for themselves. When it turns out that the desired feelings and relationships are in fact "no" / i>, the hero begins to blame the other side for what is to blame for both parties (or rather, apparently, no one) - it just initially was not. The picture, thus, perfectly shows the typical situation for most people – when they see not what is, but what they want to see – and when it turns out that it did not happen, they blame someone else.
The main theme of the entire epic is wonderfully reflected in the plot of the last novel (the promotion of the ersatz star) and the words of its hero (producer Sergei): “And did you think, are you yourself, or someone else?” Everything is a copy, nothing is real. We all live in an ersatian age.” What is interesting (returning to the first thought) in the last novel is not one pair of main characters (as it may seem at first glance) – not only ersatz star Roma Legenda and its producer Sergey – but also director Shpagin and host of the Chapito show Baretsky. This is clearly seen by the fact that it is they, not the first couple, who sing their "ariyas" in Shapito.
Special admiration is worthy of the climaxing accusations that the heroes put forward. It’s just amazing in the first movie (Love and Friendship). It is better to see it once.
Back to Shakespeare. The whole world is a theater, in it women, men – all actors. Watching the film, one involuntarily comes to the idea that the world is no longer a theater, but a capito, and people in it are no longer actors at all, but parodyists, clowns who themselves do not notice it instead of real feelings and relationships live as ersats, surrogates. The epic described an era by means of an era. Bravo.
If I hadn’t seen the same film called Dust, the review would have been positive. But... It seems that the authors have already told humanity about everything in their first picture, and then they told the story. I don’t know exactly what they did.
Alexey Podolsky, who looks very convincing and cute in the role of himself in Dust, is only a joke told twice in Shapito. It was in vain that I hoped to see anything else in his performance - the same strange character, not adapted to this cruel world, turned out.
The plot, again, unlike "Dust", claims some realism, and this only loses. With delirium, everything is clear, and in an ordinary novel, I question the actions of the characters and logic. Why didn’t you tell me what connected the “love couple” on the Internet? What did she like about him? What texts? If they're like the ones he said, there's nothing to catch girls on. The loneliness of his sweet girlfriend also looks implausible, especially after she easily and simply agreed to respond to the “lustful bitch”, and then she became her without blinking an eye.
In short, the conclusion is this: money does not paint the film. “Dust” cost $3,000, and with this movie they flew a couple of million. By the way, I'm still curious about where exactly $3,000 was spent. Beer and bribes to the police?
During the discussion of the film in the film club, I caught on to the image of neo-Tsoi and went, it seems, the wrong way, looking for a trend, type, time hero, antihero and herolessness. In fact, the words "type", "hero" should be dropped here. It's not realism, though. And Loban is not a realist, but an informal, magician, an opt-artist, provoking in something, deceiving in something, famously shuffling the essence and appearance, breaking the norm-system.
Shapito is a circus. And everything in it is not real (a sea of paper, a flame without fire, the shine of tinsel fakes, tricks for cookies, a flip on a tether).
But they come there for the present. So real that even children believe in it.
Something akin to this atmosphere of the real fake is in “Chapito” Loban. But there is another. His capito is a show, not a celebration. Tragifartic Absurdistan, which evokes the idea that “everything is unreal, except the unreal, everything is meaningless, except nonsense” (G. Ivanov). And in it, despite the abundance of rather confident masks, poses, songs, “all are losers in general” (as Loban said in an interview, only not about the film, but about us). Or, to paraphrase Mayakovsky, we are all a little clowns - white and red, harlequins and pieros, pierettes and colombines ... Gaidai once shot this way, who does not consider clowning and farce to be something low and average in art. In Gaidai magic, they became human, too human.
Is director Loban human? Or a manipulator of stilt-formula figures, forgeries, optical deceptions of people? The answer is probably rooted in the title of the film.
Friendship and Love!
What could be more valuable than these words? They are the main reasons and reasons, firstly, to be a person, and secondly, to be with someone. It often happens that without someone we are nothing. And the whole movie is basically the most human — crazy and funny — search for someone to own, someone to call your own. And his heroes are double lovers, incompetents of friendship, everything they have is twisted and twisted, a complete captivity. But that’s why it’s like people.
And as a result of each story, the heroes have a chance to become virtualized, remaining themselves and remaining close. Love breaks out. An old friendship is on fire. And instead of deaf bioaccessories, pathetic nicknames, Internet addicts, extreme sextourists, high-aged boys, subject pioneers, white Indians and other copies from the originals, we see just strange lovers and just strange friends. Even inept ones. But in love and friendship, who knows everything? For those who know and know how to, the mainstream is trying. Loban's on the other side. Where there seems to be no cultural, commercial or censorship filters.
P.S. (philological). And yet the aftertaste of the film is as deaf, sad and strange as a sigh under water, as the quote from "The Collapse of the Atom": "We are sliding on the surface of life for now." On the periphery. The blue waves of the ocean. The appearance of harmony and order. Dirt, tenderness, sadness. Now we dive. Give me your hand, unknown friend.” But this quote is famously scored by another, kicking mischief and permissiveness: “Vote low bass.” He put a pineapple into heaven. And the critic Mikhailovsky in my head itches subtly: "Aesthetics is Cain who can kill Abel - ethics")
From the very beginning, the film is gradually moving toward narrowing its audience. The audience is shown a story that could be called a love story, if it were not so believably naive. The main character Vera finds a mysterious interlocutor in LiveJournal and believes that this is true love. On the other side of the screen hides complexed, slightly balding Alexei Podolsky, under the nickname “cyberstranger”. Events add up in such a cartio that these two, despite the complete reluctance of Cyberstranger to meet in real life, go on a trip to the Crimea. Faith embodies a trembling exaggerated-self-suggested love, fully accepting Cyberstranger, when he in turn appears as an autistic complexed person who does not like to leave virtual reality. Such an image can only cause sympathy or irritation, but Vera is sure that she loves him and is ready to endure all his antics. At the beginning.
Observing the further events of the picture unfolding before us, we see a gradation of perception of the world of Cyberstranger: from a slight boring grunt, to complete identification with the role of the victim, and the behavior of a young child who was forced to go out into the fresh air.
Looking at such types of characters, we can assume that the film is frankly naive and does not carry any deep reflections, but from the very first minutes it is literally impossible to break away from the screen. The reason for this is either a masterfully staged script, with real dialogue, or just fantastic (literally and figuratively) camera work, or a decent performance of actors, but most likely all at once. Especially, from the cast, I want to note Alexei Znamensky, who incredibly sensually conveyed everything that is happening in the soul of a deaf, thirsty person, but about this later.
Against the background, bright, colorful, sometimes even phantasmagorically-perfectionistic shooting, in addition to the development of the storyline, there are surreal inserts from Shapito, (which does not allow the film to become terribly serious, but does not make it a comedy) inextricably linked with everything that happens in the main storyline with subtle symbolic hints.
Friendship
Lesha, a deaf bakery worker, tired of the monotonous life and the inviolable ideals of his comrades, decides to open new horizons due to his unique ability to speak without hearing, and starts with a film crew in the Crimea in order to learn something new in this life. But on the way, the hero has more disappointment in the immorality of others and only a meeting with Vera brings a ray of light into the hopelessness of what Leoshe has to face.
This part touches on the more important social aspects of human lives, while in Love everything is reduced to a “personal” level. Incredibly talented, the director summed up the whole story, symbolically showing his attitude to the current situation and the lifestyles of different heroes, while not imposing anything on the viewer (a scene where the Indians in flames stand opposite the pioneers).
Particular attention is paid to light electronic soundtracks that accurately convey the mood, as well as songs that sound in a capito, allowing you to more accurately understand the inner world of the character.
Also, a viewer who is especially attentive to the details can be amused by many moments, for example: three deaf-mutes with inscriptions on T-shirts, accurately conveying their image: the male (who radically commanded everyone), Pudel (the curly guy) and Sexy (whom the female part of the audience may find very cute).
This film can hardly be called both art house and commercial cinema. It is so sincere that there is no idea that it could be shot for a wide Russian audience, and Loban is not one of such directors. But at the same time, the film is brought to perfection, which is rarely found in independent cinema and that disarms even the most meticulous amateur to find fault with film works.
9 out of 10
I watched it on TV (!), which I don’t watch at all. I guess it's not an accident.
In the announcement, the film was positioned as an art house. It tempted and repulsed at the same time. Because this genre promises to be unusual - and this is what I love, but often behind this unusualness, unfortunately, nothing is worth it, a dummy.
The first argument won, and I looked. I fell in love with the first shot. I haven’t had such a great time watching.
The film is smart, deep, at the same time simple and touching. nothing superfluous. Very funny and ironic, although it seems that all the soreness and ugliness of the characters and plots is obvious, but I did not want to cry at all, there was no pity, and it was not disgusting. It was funny and touching, not over them, not over their ugliness, but with them, and in many ways over themselves. The most pleasant scenes were hysterics, repeated in each part!
Each film is good both individually and in conjunction. Love, friendship, respect, cooperation. The topics are filigree. Directing and acting at the height.
I want to review it again, I think it is one of those works in which with each reading you can discover new facets, new layers, new meanings.
The picture is multilayered in terms of heterogeneity of the pretension of the viewer, and what is especially remarkable, is interesting to each of the “layers”. For someone it is just a comedy, for someone romantic adventures, someone sees a lot in common, and others try to notice “milk between the lines”, and notice it.
As befits an intelligent director (again a unique phenomenon in our days, when the old smart stupefied), Loban placed a lot of symbols, which may be included in one main thing - the manipulation of consciousness. This method is a trouble-free option in art. It acts on an intelligent audience like nectar on bees. As for me, the main character of the film I have an eye on the barely distinguishable pyramid on the back of the stage. Alegorically, this is the “Watcher” in our understanding, and probably also the spinning spiraloid bodies that respond to it here and there - obviously images that absorb poisoned information, objects of manipulation. More greasy hints: emphasized phonogram Marilyn Monroe with a bear, but better perhaps - pregnant (did everyone notice it?) Elvis Presley, impudent and evasive - the spirit of the Washington regional committee.
For the same symbols, whole actions, entire plots of miniatures and novels of the film would quite fall. What is the “falseness” of human behavior, which, incidentally, is mentioned at the beginning? It is mentioned, but also comes to the whole celebration of the surrogate “Ersatz is better than the original”.
The thing should be viewed five times. I highly recommend it.
In general, the film caused only positive impressions and emotions. Very pleased with the creative duo: Sergey Pakhomov and Alexander Maslaev (although he was not as noticeable as in some of the films of the same name), but in general it is not about this.
The positive romance of a stuffed guy and a home dreamer, what could be funnier? Except for Tsoi's double or the wonderful Peter Mamonov. Mountains, landscapes of the Crimea, time (probably the last is already), when everything is calm there and only a rowdy ' Pakhom', arranges night adventures, sets this night.
I’ve never been a fan of this, but nature has taken its toll. This is my, definitely my childhood. Carefree time, catching ladybugs and butterflies - no negativity and nausea in the mountains. I am grateful to the entire film crew, for so subtly conveyed the beauty of the mountainous Crimea, because having been there once is already forever.
Moments of the intersection of characters from another novella as episodic personalities are generally quite psychedelic. Sometimes causing a specific dissonance in consciousness, thereby immersing in some even, I would say, trance.
Two hours passed simply imperceptibly, although as I said, not being a fan of such cinema, I penetrated into childhood memories or this film revived memories in me, who knows.
I definitely do. Childhood is so far away, and here again, so to speak, near. Perfect!
If you seriously approach the assessment of this film, first of all, I want to note the sincerity of what is happening on the screen (provided, of course, that the character’s mode of action implies this sincerity); with rare exceptions, all the actors seem irrevocably merged with the world. Shapito, and, therefore, no matter how reckless and ' wrong' actions they would not commit, all this will find a share of sympathy in the most callous viewer. In addition, this unity serves as an excellent linking story, in which the first, to confess, flat story rests on a much less ordinary second, and that, in turn, concerns the crossed third and fourth and creates a single polyhedron, affecting the main painful issues of our life and the focus of which is the Dark Ba..., sorry, Shapito.
Special mention should be made of musical inserts: Completely non-musical types with stupid voices sing very interesting poems, while producing the most non-choreographic movements. Personally for me, this is a brilliant satire to the absurdity of other musical films, first of all, painted ' Stilag' and in general, a good tool to stir up the original philosophical quadriptych.
Definitely, the film is rolling into a galaxy of cults, in which I unspeakably support it.
10 out of 10
On the Internet meet 2 people - a guy with a girl, after long correspondence and communication on the phone, they decide to meet. They do. Our expectations are justified — as you might think of all Internet addicts — both of these people are crazy. But the main thing is not that – the main thing is that the whole film is filled with these “crackers”. A revolutionary pioneer, a poet-neighbor, a guy in a hat on the beach looking for some weirdo. Some drunken people fight at night with cries of “I’m not here for the first year” And all this senseless absurdity happens under the terrible annoying music with words. There is also some nonsense on the stage of the capito show.
Then the couple goes somewhere, and we are shown the adventures of a pioneer, a gay and a deaf man. The meaning of the film is lost.
What I liked was how they showed the monkeys inside and out. And the actors were selected normally, suitable for their characters play.
At the end of the film, everyone is dancing to a cheerful song, and I immediately had a question: so was it a comedy?
In general, this film once again proved the weakness of modern Russian cinema.
6 out of 10
The film consists of four novels, the action of which takes place at about the same time (for two or three days) and in one place (on the Crimean coast), and on the one hand these novels are clearly separated from each other - first of all conceptually, and on the other - are intertwined very closely, so that it is not a film almanac, a whole film - albeit about four groups of characters. In the first part, the typical, downright perfect bitard Cyberstrannik gets acquainted with a very nice girl Vera, who was not lucky enough to get interested in him on the Internet - of course, an attempt at active recreation with carefully cherishing its complexes and isolation the creation of the Internet can not end well. In the second part, the deaf and very good guy Lesha, contrary to the advice of friends who believe that it is impossible to be friends with those who hear, goes to rest in the company of a very dubious bohemian, led by the eccentric Sema, and finds that the lack of hearing is not the only thing that prevents him from fitting into an alien circle. The third part is about Petr Mamo... sorry, about some famous and eccentric actor who, after many years of absence, decided to improve relations with his son, for which he went on a hike in the Crimean mountains; the son expects from his father approval, interest and assistance in the implementation in the theater, and the father from his son – will and interest in “living life”, and the establishment of relations is not too productive. And finally, the fourth part is devoted to the attempts of a young ambitious producer to promote Roma - the perfect double of Victor Tsoi (and Roma himself treats this with stunning calm), because, de ersatsu it is time to end the tyranny of originality, and ends also not too successfully.
Chapito Show is not in vain divided into two parts. In each of them there are twin stories: two stories about complexes that cause a desire to isolate themselves from society and aggravated by this isolation (only Cyberstrander systematically rejects the opportunity to enter this society, and Lesha tries to overcome barriers and finds that it is really difficult in society), two stories about the assertion of his personality and personality at the expense of another (only the actor father does not notice how he uses his son, and the producer does it more than consciously). All about unfulfilled hopes. But in addition, they are intertwined through one – it is not for nothing that their names are consonant in such a sequence; and the first and third story, “Love” and “Respect” get a denouement in which the characters manage to establish contact despite the discrepancy of the paradigms of life – through the deeper unity that these words define, and “Friendship” and “Partnership” end in a sharp conflict over differences. For if people are not alike, it does not take them in different directions; it hurts them. Here's about this dissimilarity and pain - and all "Chapito Show."
You may be wondering, why is there no mention of the Chapito Show? Oh, this place appears in all four stories, it's kind of a center of gravity, but more of it's doomed to failure, in a way a beautiful, but too ridiculous representation -- an illustration of the inner world of the main characters. And an illustration, literally. "Chapito Show" film is strange and sometimes (with such a very everyday realism of other scenes) surreal. Each character at a certain time sings on the stage of “Chapito Show” his inner monologue – and somehow these foggy vershees, set on techno-pop, are touching to the incredible. And I also want to say thank you to Andrei Sergievsky, the first and probably the last choreographer, whose name I found out and remembered, because the dances and numbers here ... no, it is impossible to describe, no!
And speaking of amazing work, let's move on to the actors. Amazing thing, none of them. except for Peter Mamonov, I have never seen before, it seems, never - so where did Sergey Loban unearth so many unknown talents? Are there many films where great acting work, amazing images number in the dozens? Not only are the main characters absolutely alive, but how good are not even secondary, but third-rate characters here! Old wise Jewish cameraman, Borov-producer of “Chapito-Show”, clearly became so after the era of the initial accumulation of capital and living conditioned reflexes of those times, housewife! And I’m not talking about the incredibly cute and real Verochka, about the tremblingly reliable (I personally knew exactly this guy) Cyberstranger, about the charming and tragic young producer... And Senya, the terrifying, charismatic Sen, who makes you shudder even on the screen? And how does Mamonov sing to the guitar and booze with the intellectual elite? . .
"Chapito Show" is a very sad, albeit stunningly funny film. Well conceived and beautifully shot. You don't want to miss it, I guarantee you. Take a look at it and see it.
In my opinion, Russian cinema is really scarce with films, if you do not even compare Western cinema, and watch just independently. On your fingers you can count worthy films released after the collapse of the USSR. And the reason for this is unknown, whether the government invests little, or we have not yet reached the proper level to make a good film, and not one for a couple of years. Every year, directors try something, how they experiment with filming something worthwhile, something different from other productions, and this is normal, because innovation is always welcome. And so at the university, in philosophy, I was advised to watch the film "Chapito Show", I had not even heard anything about it until that moment, they said only that the film is non-commercial and made in the style of art house. And so at leisure I remembered about this film, remembered just the title: “Chapito show”, as a result put it on download and waiting for it to swing surf on the Internet, and came across the fact that the director of this film, Sergey Loban, in addition to this is the director of the film “Dust” in 2005. I was a little interested in this, because a little earlier, I came across a video on the Internet in which a young guy gestures deaf mute displays the song of V. Tsoi “Changes”, and he was so specific and emotional that this video I was very hooked. And when I was showing it to my friends, one of them gave me a speech like this: "Good video, and the movie is also not bad, because this is the end of the film Dust, didn't you watch?" He looked at me like I had to see him. And then I once again joined with this film, and after a little reflection, I decided that I would still watch it first, and then what I planned, I would arrange a “Loban Day” for myself at the weekend.
And now, having looked at all the above with a bright head and under great impression, I write what I think about this. First, I would like to say a few words about the director or the director in general. Look, people are making films, trying, making a lot of films that become famous not because of ratings, but because of the amount, money, huge money invested in all this. And then some unknown guy, for $3,000, makes a cheap, non-commercial film that beats ratings and without any PR becomes famous throughout the country and beyond. And to something I am inclined, talent, as they say, you can not drink, if a person is given, then it is so. “Chapito show”, as it seemed to me, although shot in 2011, and saturated entirely with films of the “past generation”, which gives it some kind of shade, and when viewing creates an atmosphere of something incomprehensible, but quite pleasant. This film reveals a very large number of problems, and its title speaks for itself: Love and friendship, respect and cooperation. The film is about how a complex guy met a girl having met through the Internet, about a group of deaf-mute guys, about ordinary youth, in general about everyone who can be wedded, all the “steps” of human society are mixed up, reaching even to people with a non-traditional orientation. First, we are shown that everything is going well, ordinary people, a normal holiday in Crimea. Lesha, who apparently does not know how to behave outside the Internet, as it should. The guy who spent all his years at the computer, quite succinctly behaves at the resort, and his companion, cheerful girl who loves to have fun, is the complete opposite of him. A deaf-mute guy who leaves his best friends for the sake of a confident bunch of young people, for the new sensations he must experience, finally going beyond his narrow and predictable world. A guy with a father he hasn't seen for half his life. A young “producer” with Roma, a man incredibly similar to the well-known V. Tsoi. And they all go from Moscow to the Crimea, to the resort. And now with every minute of the film, new conflicts arise in all these characters, showing that each without exception "step" of social society is something dark, rotten to the bone and it is unlikely that something can be changed.
“You don’t feel guilty, but that doesn’t mean you’re innocent, it means you’re rotten.” The film, which shows what kind of people really are, and brings them together with every minute in one place - "Chapito Show", in other words, the circus of everything that happens, unobtrusiveness and contradiction indicate only that everyone has his own essence, and it is not much different from the essence of Alexei:
"Is it my fault? You didn't send me a picture, just the essence. Self-interest outweighs all morality:
“You use someone who believes you. It's dirty! This is manipulation! This is a collaboration!
And people do not even think that there is a concept that can not be violated, the boundaries beyond which can not be crossed, otherwise there will be no way back:
" - Where should I look for you? - Find us beyond your despair. "
The film is about how we are stuck in the IT industry, and it is not so difficult to spend more time with people, with something alive, and maybe then something will become lighter, maybe in this case, people will have some flame, kindness and care:
- I am not looking for new experiences and do not believe in their possibility.
- I do. Is that bad?
“And these are all in their mobile phones, tyrpyr, tyrpyr!”
And at the end, as a climax, we are shown all these people who gathered at the Shapito Show and the fire - as a conclusion.
Probably, it is worth at least once to make a film where there are no positive characters, where everyone is what he is, and show that the life in which we live is not eternal, to understand that time does not go by, we pass by, all that we do, and it is really worth thinking about:
When I was a kid, I thought that when I grew up, I would look like a princess. So I grew up. I don’t look like a princess at all, but for some reason I think that I can grow up a little more and still become a princess, although in fact I understand that I will soon become quite an adult and look like my mother, and everything that happens to me now will seem to me the best time of my life.
And as a result, everything is animated by the slogan of the film, which reads: “There are many remixes, and the song is one.” Although in reality, the film looks in one breath, Crimea fascinates with its landscapes, and really makes you think about a lot. I haven’t enjoyed Russian cinema in a long time.
Sergey Loban, apparently, from the breed of directors who already at the beginning of their career have their signature handwriting and in each subsequent film it is only honed. At least before the Chapito Show, I watched Dust at his place, and here I saw the same thing, adjusted for a bigger budget and a professional picture. And so – the same terry art house, conceptually exposing the vices of society. Saved Loban and craving for the image of freaks, moreover, multiplied it: instead of two or three poorly adapted to society originals in “Dust”, in “Chapito” blooms lush bouquet of fools for every taste. I will not be surprised if in his next film, Loban will invite Mamonov - actors equal in extravagance to Peter Nikolaich, in our cinema you can count on your fingers.
And the main thing that should be noted in terms of continuity is excessive, even immeasurable, ideological. She is the cornerstone of the "Chapito Show." More than three hours of screen action are strictly subordinated to the embodiment of the author's ideology - this is a mathematical polynomial, a differential equation, a complex mechanism where no element, whether it is a replica, an image or a plot, does not exist "just like that." That is, the subject of the image is more the reality of the author’s consciousness than the objective reality.
This in itself is neither bad nor good. Let us not deny the right to exist this facet of cinema, appealing not to emotions but to reason, and relying on the skill of not the actors, but the screenwriter. Right, to see how this cube-ruby is assembled is a pleasure. Well, who else can handle a film where the storylines of four novels overlap and one situation is broadcast from two, three or four angles? Making the form an end in itself, in general, does not bode well for art, but when watching films like Chapito, you somehow forget about it.
As for the costs of this method, the main one is familiar from the days of classicism: heroes from living people turn into schematic resonators, translators of author’s ideas. Moreover, in each of the novels there is a clear contrast: one hero is “normal” (girl Vera, deaf-mute Lesha, son of Mamonov Nikita), the rest are canonistic in their types of freaks. Add to this a certain predictability of the plot – for example, when the second novella in a row repeats the passage “you are the most terrible person”, there is every reason to expect it in the third and fourth.
Now for the content part. Having conceived a pejorative pamphlet on the topic of modern society, Loban approached the matter systematically: he tried 4 types of relationships between people, arranged them in order from the most important to the most superficial - "Love", "Friendship", "Respect", "Cooperation" - and consistently proved that success does not await us anywhere. At the same time, all the novels seemed to me quite different in ideological content and therefore independent. “Love” tells about the textbook, but very actual conflict of the renegade with the outside world, but ends for some reason with a flat morality that the virtual world should, they say, prefer the real. “Cooperation” denounces postmodern culture and – more broadly – the worldview of postmodernism in the same postmodern terms and with a full package of postmodern artistic techniques – looks interesting, but do not get rid of the feeling of viscous, crumbling on the teeth of intellectual jelly. The idea of “Friendship” is much more interesting: life does not allow you to become independent and equally open to everyone and everything, but necessarily drives you into some community / party, where you will be forced to divide the world into “own” and “foreign” and relate to “foreign”, to put it mildly, without sympathy. But “Respect”, to my taste, turned out to be the most “non-ideal” story – it is simply a father-son relationship filled with lively, (as much as possible) immediate emotions, which disposes of empathy.
As you can see, Sergey Loban does not torture much optimism about our era. But to distract from the oppressive experiences in the "Chapito Show" is simple - a funny group caricature, a crazy carnival, every second producing a cheerful thrash, will not let you get bored. The bright picture, unlike the gray-brown colors of Dust, facilitates the perception of this thrash, and this is perhaps the main reason why I would not recommend that film to watch, and this one I recommend. The second reason is that the Russian art house is rarely replenished with more worthy samples of the genre than “Chapito”. The third is the bold originality, almost pretentiousness of the style of the film (although it is she who makes it, as they say, “on an amateur”).
Well, the fourth - "Shapito" as a motivator to once again go to the Crimea.
7 out of 10
At the moment when I decided that Russian cinema is hopeless, that it is unlikely that something will ever be filmed in our country that can be watched without a disgusting sense of awkwardness, it was at this moment that one of my comrades urged, even demanded that I watch Sergei Loban’s film “Chapito Show”.
The painting left a strong impression. I cannot believe not only that it was created in Russia, but also that such a movie could be made in the XXI century. But everything in order.
“Chapito show” is a single work, due to its large timekeeping, divided into two films: “Love and Friendship”, “Respect and Cooperation”. The structure of the narrative allows you to watch them in an arbitrary order, but it is better, of course, to start with Love and Friendship.
The least I would like to dwell on the events of the film, so as not to spoil the plot with my own retelling. In short, the picture consists of four novels, in many ways similar and closely intertwined. The main place of action is the coast of Crimea.
A single girl goes on vacation with a gloomy, unsociable antisocial person, whom she previously knew only through correspondence on the Internet. An eccentric young company takes a deaf singer with him who is used to communicating only with his deaf friends. A father who has not seen his adult son for 8 years, persuades him to go on a hike with him. And, finally, the producer-loser, who does not give rest to the laurels of Andy Warhol, takes on the “promotion” of a young man like Viktor Tsoi.
For a very long time I have not seen such a multi-layered work that raises really important and interesting questions, at the same time so rich in the means of artistic expression.
Each of the novels is both a tragic and comic story about a man who is almost forcibly snatched from his small cozy world. The main characters, if not quite happy with life in their "shell", then at least feel comfortable in it. Forcing them, even for the best of intentions, to come out, the people around them hurt the heroes, destroy their entire mental organization.
At the same time, Loban’s entire film is a powerful blow to pseudo-intellectualism, relativism, postmodern art and postmodernism in general. Characters claiming their unique view of the world, the immensity and depth of their spiritual experiences, shocking their behavior, are empty, dead souls. The central place in each of the novels is occupied by the circus “Chapito”, where each performance is a delusional and unideal (however brilliant in the opinion of the director) eclecticism from different images – from “Space Odyssey” by Stanley Kubrick to “Yellow Submarine” by the Beatles.
Sergey Loban opposes shocking for the sake of shocking in art and in life - and this is a problem that is now acute. Imagery cannot be condemned - figurative perception is a unique property of a person. But it is impossible that alternating complex and vivid images, the author masked his own creative impotence, inability to express a single sane thought.
Here, it would seem that the passing character of the circus producer is important and interesting - a rude and uneducated person who delves not so much into what is happening on the circus stage (there is nothing to delve into!), as into how it would be more expensive to sell it.
This is the problem of modern pseudo-art. It does not solve anything talent, but everything decides competent promotion. Postmodernism is fashionable, it will be bought. The buyer, as well as the author, will look for something in this that is not originally there.
Another important question Loban raises in the novel dedicated to the producer Sergey, working with the double of Viktor Tsoi, is the eternal question of mimesis and creativity. Sergey seeks to fully recreate the personality of Tsoi in a single person, wants to make him live for Tsoi and write songs on his behalf. Sergey is rushing with the idea of an ersatz star he invented. And here, characteristically, he steps on the rake set by postmodernism. Sergey is convinced that the subject of art is actually an object of art. That is, art is not rock music, but a rock musician. And Sergey, by the way, a big fan of Warhol, is concerned not with creating music, but with creating his ersatz star. This is a very interesting moment in light of the fact that today the artist often says: “I am the art.”
The indicator of a good work is when you can talk about it indefinitely. You can’t just say that Anna Karenina is a book about love. “Karenina” is love, philosophy, economics, the realities of post-reform Russia, and the beauty of Russian nature. In this sense, "Chapito Show" absolutely fits the definition of a good work. Of all the thoughts expressed in the film, I focused only on those that I personally found most interesting. Meanwhile, the picture is replete with ideas, hints, subtle humor. Every time you notice another half-hint, another reference, you experience genuine pleasure, realizing that much still passes by you.
Any good idea can be ruined by a bad performance, but Loban did not. Telling four stories that occur at the same time, in one place, intersecting with each other, the director ensured that every detail was in its exact place. Every little thing has been worked out honestly, and there is not a single gun that does not shoot at its proper time. There are a lot of guns in the movie.
And finally, why does it seem so strange that the “Chapito Show” was shot recently? Because they haven't been filming for a long time. Quite unexpectedly, I saw in this film a direct inheritance of the traditions of the paintings of the best Italian directors - partly Antonioni, partly Pasolini, especially Federico Fellini. To see in a modern Russian film peculiar only for Fellini techniques, images, buffoonery was amazing and therefore doubly pleasant. I’ve always wondered if I can shoot like I did then. Can the new Eight and a Half come to light - intelligent, interesting, deep, diverse, moderately surreal, but without a touch of pseudo-intelligence? Turns out they can.
Worse, I'll tell you, "Chapito Show" was split into two films. It is best perceived if you watch all the novels in a row. But, since the creators decided that it would be more correct to divide the picture for rental, we will evaluate each part separately.
So, "Love." Love is now spoken by all who are not lazy. Here's Haneke for example (see Amour, winner of the 2012 Cannes Festival). They are expressed in different ways: someone is spiritual, someone is radical. Loban in his "Chapito" speaks unusually. The story told by the authors in the first novel is unorthodox, intelligent and — even strangely — interesting. Strangely, because the “morning feeling” seems to be all that can be said. Ahn no. At least, I’ve never seen a story about a girl, or rather, a “chorus girl” who dreamed of becoming a princess and trying to pull a complex fat misanthrope out of the virtual world. This story is played out by two brilliant lyceums - aspiring actress Vera Strokova and close friend of Luban Alexei Podolsky, who has already participated in Dust.
In Friendship, the story is also non-banal, and the actors are perhaps even more charismatic and simply interesting: here a real battle is played out between the straightforward and simple-minded hero of Alexei Znamensky and the brazen buffoon and jester, called by someone new "Bashirov", a dual and ambiguous in all respects the hero of Dmitry Bogdan, from whose mouth the most vivid and memorable quotes or, more precisely, the aphorisms of "Chapito": "Lutenna jour and a buffoon, Linn, a pioneer, always a pioneer, a friend of four!" Solondz, Gus Van Sant, Polyansky – let them hear this cry!
In the last quote and is all "Chapito": it is a bright, inventive and colorful showroom, combining Lynch with his theater "Silentio", and Solonza with his satirical almanacs, and echoes of style and themes Gus Van Sant, and Kubrick. But the “balaganism” here is not only a mixture of styles. The remaining components of the film are outlandish characters, clever dialogues, absurdist songs-inserts, optional episodes, constant intersections of storylines of novels ... and everything is done unusually organically and intelligently.
Meaning. They are here, in my opinion, with the ornateness of the form, very simple and generally understandable: there are no bad people and there can not be – everyone has both bad and good sides, and there are more good ones. Catharsis is only the road to spiritual transformation, tolerance is a necessary and important thing, and friendship and love are eternal things.
Chapito Show: Love and Friendship, unlike the second part, will still be more dynamic and more sincerely written. But we will talk about “Respect and Cooperation” on the relevant page of the Film Search. And “Love and Friendship” is a real modern classic, a film of the level of “ASSA”, “Needles” and other cult perestroika films. In the end, the restructuring did not go anywhere. She always was and always will be. And perestroika is not a specific historical event, but the renewal and degeneration of society and man.
10 out of 10
Lonely Vera after a long virtual communication with a certain Cyberpager meets him offline, although he stubbornly discouraged her from a personal meeting, citing the fact that such a turn in relations can spoil everything. When two opposites meet, the war of the worlds begins. She is a little carefree, so young, so fresh, and a little naive in her youth. He is a heavy, introverted, grumpy and rather passive elderly person. She wants action and unsuccessfully tries to stir up her unsociable companion, and he, in turn, strongly opposes this, closing behind the work of Borges and murmuring something about the meaninglessness of life. Vera literally runs after the quasi-philosopher, naively believing that she cannot live without this dull lump. But when she realizes that it is quite fine to be able to do without her companion, then Cyberstranger himself begins to run after Vera.
Novella "Friendship"
Lesha, a hearing-impaired young man, involuntarily quarrels with his comrades and decides to join a group of merry people looking for adventure. In the resort town, he finds himself in a world hitherto unfamiliar to him, full of temptations in the form of ecstasy and disorderly connections. This guy is probably the most appropriate character of all four novels. Indomitable Lesha involuntarily resembles a man depicted on the famous anti-alcohol agitation poster of Soviet times. The guy, whom hipster pioneers mockingly nicknamed Samantha Smith, sincerely does not understand why people poison themselves with drugs and why males copulate with their kind. He looks with curiosity at the world, and as a result, firmly notes to himself who is a real comrade here, and who imitates friendship.
Every novel has a certain boiling point. Tension is running high. Killing bass is on. One of the heroes begins to violently point a finger at his companion, cursing him for the fact that he appeared in his way. A real storm is beginning. There are many symbolic moments in the picture. For example, the storm personifies the inner struggle of the character with himself, and the burning tent - the death of the main conflict and the subsequent reunion of the main characters of a certain novel.
This picture, which blows nostalgic plume, pokes its nose into the main problems of the post-Soviet space: Internet addiction, hedonism, animal likeness, generational struggle, outright pofigism. Look at the people standing near the burning Shapito. What are they doing? Cleverly take out smartphones and film what is happening on camera, revelling in a terrible sight. This is the 21st century. Network “friends” have become more expensive than flesh and blood people, and homosexuality is perceived as fun. Every now and then flash fake blue flowers, cute unicorns and hypno spirals. Hipster pioneers dress up as cowboys and shout the names of cult heroes of the 90s (hello, Lynch!), quotes from Shakespeare are heard, the very opening chords of the symphonic poem “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” are heard.
All the main actions take place in the resort town of Simeiz, but sometimes you get lost and can not really understand in what period of time the story develops. Whether it is the dashing 90s, or our days (from some cities still blows sovdepiya). You can focus, but only if you pay attention to the details. The aesthetic component is simply stunning: deliberate kitsch looks very organic. What a beautiful soundtrack, ah, these wonderful "space" tunes! How great the acting work (separately want to note Znamensky, Bogdan, Kuzmenko and Podolsky).
“Chapito Shaw” is a virtuoso hallucinogenic phantasmagoria, half consisting of allegories and reminiscences, surprisingly easily cuts into the head and stubbornly does not want to weather out from there. Absurd, but truly brilliant.
I want to be consistent with modern trends, and I would prefer to cut my veins in the bathroom!
The world is a complex and multidimensional phenomenon. This is the Theme on which there can be no similar opinions: yes, at some point in life the views on the world may overlap and coincide, but then, in connection with the experience gained, one of this will grow his own, radically different from the previous, view of the world, the second – his own, and the third may not change anything at all, because he is either an old man or a fool. There are some general trends related to how one can look at the world – and it is from them that artistic styles, cultural trends, leading conflicts of the era, and so on arise. Everyone will not care about the one, but the general tendencies manifest themselves in each person in one way or another, even if it happens completely unconsciously or, on the contrary, more than consciously. It is from this that cultural customs, fashion and characteristics of a generation arise.
The twentieth century did what it had not done before: it abolished the so-called “big styles” by breaking down artistic currents into a huge number of components (Dadaism is not the same as Surrealism, but it is still the avant-garde), and the code of conduct (be it the Bible or the code of honor) was replaced by Mr. Psychoanalysis. A paradoxical situation occurs: on the one hand, a person enters a particular group of people (hello, Mr. Realism, who binds a person to his social circle), on the other hand, he remains autonomous and unique. Yes, he belongs to a certain group of people, but at the same time he is still himself, in himself, one such unique.
What's all this about? And all this to one primitive idea that the world around us is made up of contradictions. It is impossible to state anything for sure, including this statement: everything is debatable, everything is ambiguous, everything has to be either adjusted to the categories accepted in a given society so that people’s heads are not torn from such contradictions, or look for some other metric that takes into account the exclusion of itself. It seems to me that our world most fully expresses this genre as absurd.
It is absurd, for example, to what genre the film “Chapito Show” is ranked. Is it a comedy? Well, yes, it is, the movie can make you laugh. If you consider comedy from the point of view of the original definition of this genre (originally, comedy is something funny and hilarious, in which there is no happy ending and pleasant, virtuous characters; the characters should be as caricatured and buffoonery as possible, but they should not have what was in the heroes of the tragedy, namely, their own, individual rightness) – yes, the “Chapiteau” comedy. In terms of how comedy counts now - not once! It's a very, very depressing movie. Look at these stories, these people. Is CyberStrange funny? Yeah. Is he a monster? Yes! Who doesn’t know these guys, forty-year-old infantile bloggers who pupate in their fear of life! Is Mamonov’s character funny, I don’t remember his name? Yeah. Is he disgusting? Yeah, too! After all, how common is this terrible situation, when a father and son not only can not find a language with each other – they act with each other completely porky, sincerely believing that they do nothing like this!
Et cetera, et cetera.
Back to the absurd: the absurd is the aesthetics and guiding thought of the whole film, the main character and the supposed circumstances. I am convinced and continue to insist that the absurd as a comedy can only be fully funny in Europe: we live in a situation of absurdity. How deftly the film combines murderous seriousness, paradoxical chapito, incredible realism of what is happening and dancing on the stage of a local show – it all looks both funny and not so much. Because, oddly enough, it's all realistic, it's all true. Of course, with hyperbole, but life looks something like this – and the inner monologue of each person, and his perception of this particular reality. It’s both weird and evokes thoughts like “yes, yeah, damn it, that’s what I think!” – well, if a potential viewer finds a resemblance to any of the characters.
The aesthetics of the film in general play into hand: that is, on the one hand, quite specific and real Crimea (oh, who did not laugh at these drunk people howling in karaoke! and this wonderful grandmother-apartment housewife!), on the other hand, dancing on the stage of something quite avant-garde and extraordinary. Oh, postmodernism, we are all your favorite children!
It's a weird comedy. Depressive. At the end of the day, you wonder, "What's going to happen to all these people now?" And what will happen to me?, you will not unwind... until you see something relaxing. A comedy that doesn't leave a sticky chunk of hopelessness.
I watched the movie late and almost accidentally. Absolutely fascinated and now ' I incline to cohabitation' those who are close and dear to me.
A film of amazing authenticity and balagance. Surprisingly accurate ratio of this mess, the game, the joke and the complete authenticity. Genius choreography. Fantasticly accurate acting hit in all roles.
And for a reflective person, even professionally and especially amateurly, like me, the amazing result is a film that doesn't feel like putting moral judgments on it.
But I watched with amazement at the first viewing, from the first novella, as inevitably completely alien and even alien to me and not pretending to be real (a balaghan because, and the screensaver of the film directly says this), people quickly begin to evoke genuine and deepest sympathy to tears. Having experienced this in the first novella, in the next I already knew that I would get - and it came.
Very tragic. I wondered why the filmmakers called it a comedy. Then I remembered that my ' Cherry Orchard' Chekhov called a comedy and defended it - but Chekhov's play is about the same thing, about the loneliness of a person, about how people do not hear each other.
Remarkable in the film all sorts of shifts, the measure of taste in them is the subtlest, most intuitive, - respect and superrespect to the director. And over time, too – suddenly you notice certain absurdities, inconsistencies (for example, the chronicle of events & #39; Respect & #39; – the only novella where the final resolution of the conflict occurs AFTER the fire of Shapito) – and you understand that this is not a mistake, not negligence, but a kind of nonlinearity of the parallel world of art, which better reflects reality than photographic accuracy. And the fact that this PR world also pretends 'photographic' is amazing.
Deadly sorry for almost all the main characters, and complete catharsis, full heart empathy and the experience of this grief.
It’s cool that the characters of the film have the names and even surnames ' playing ' their actors, and with the full splendor of acting in the film somehow and the tongue does not turn to say – ' he plays ' (Even! Does 'Znamensky play Znamensky', 'Vera plays Faith' and 'Alexei plays Alexei'? However, Peter Mamonov quite does play the Father, but here too the chip - the essence of the image of the Father is a game-game, and Mamonov, ' playing ' this role, acquires the highest dignity of self-irony. And here - not play, but live, and at the same time - to the same extent exist in the sloppy and deliberately unreal space of the show, the capito show. How could it be done, how can such a thing get - I don't understand, but - it turned out!!
In the tragic space of the film, only the third novel, 'Respect' is optimistic - the love eyes with which the Son looks at his father on the train, after all he has experienced and thanks to this having found himself and the holy love for his father is indescribably great, and it is just a shrine of love ...
And yet, the finale of the first two novels - the counter glances through the flame, the flame first seeming - and deliberately made - theatrical, symbolic - but immediately correlated with the flame of fire. This is just the point where the spark of the film’s aesthetics, its “two worlds” & #39, is especially clearly carved, and the flames are kindled from this spark, the intersection and cross-section of unmerged, unconnected worlds. The fact is that neither according to logic 'realistic', nor theatrical logic (there is already balaghannost disappears, but theatricality remains) these people, still looking at each other - Vera and Alexei, deaf ' Indians' and ' Squad named Samantha Smith' - not that will not be included in the general panic of those fleeing, but in general there is no one and nothing for them except those they look at. And ' here' and ' there' they have one thing - death; probably they die, only in this, our world it would be at least a complete collapse of all former life and former man (well, if someone pulled them all out of the fire), and in the theatrical world - and direct death from this fire. But it turns out that this is inevitable, artistically unconditional and simple ' in the forehead' shown and undeniable - still remains a secret for us (moreover, many in their reviews try to extend the line ' Love of Vera and Alexei' or talk about ' Victory of friendship' Four deaf), and in the novella ' Respect' The schizophrenic showroom, in the center of which - Father on Diva Rock - occurs after a fire, after this climax and kind of fire, and all the fire, and not yet. I will return to what was said earlier: inconsistencies, anachronisms and shifts are an indispensable feature of this fabled, but exceptionally genuine and ... not at all ' game ' space.
Thank you to the creators of the film, a film that is truly and deeply capable of living in me and seems to grow, understand, feel.
This is a 2011 film I was told about by friends from different cities. “The best Russian cinema to date”, “our film, which is not ashamed”, “wonderful novels about the Crimea and those who hang out there”.
Love and friendship in the first part, respect and cooperation in the second, are wonderful topics for discussion against the backdrop of magnificent mountains and sea.
However, the characters of the novels are upset from the very beginning. First of all, myself, and then the viewer. Without empathizing with them, you see in them not heroes, but insects, “covering themselves with sticky lies.” They are freaks, participants in the dance of the absurd in the circus tent, which then will be burned to hell. They are also everyday characters of everyday life: a balding monster, gluing girls on the Internet, a deaf young man who can and wants to sing, a guy who dreams of becoming a director, and his friend is an aspiring producer. In general, you will not be able to worry about the heroes, but it is worth looking at life as a performance of the circus of freaks (us). The lines are good, the songs are great, moralizing is appropriate, the characters intersect here and there throughout the film.
I suspect that everyone who follows a good movie has a “Chapito Show” and that’s troubling: the collection of the film brought ten times less than the cost of its production. The almost complete lack of advertising killed the potential commercial success of the film. Who will give the director money for new masterpieces? Perhaps there will be patrons of actual film art.
So waited for this film, so hoped to see a new "Assa".
No, the idea, in general, is not bad, although not a masterpiece. Several novels connected by one place of action and the contact of the fates of the heroes are an idea, although not new, but not beaten, quite winning.
But implementation... It's flat, superficial, unconvincing. Outbursts of emotion are presented as deep feelings expressed with a clever kind of platitude - as philosophical reflections.
Some would argue that there was a lack of budget – the project was in financial difficulties. Someone may argue that this is the idea - to show a modern man in a sloppy manner. Someone will reproach me for not understanding the classical school and send me back to the paintings of early Bergman (forgetting that more than half a century has passed since then, and it is time to move on). Please, as you wish. But I do not like this cinematic infantilism.
The only bright spot of the whole show is Mamonov. Great, plus the whole movie because of him.
In general, the picture is better than “Moscow, I love you”, which I choke on recently. Better, but not by much. Exactly one Mamonov.
I write about the movie six months after watching it. Well, he's bothering me. This is the first movie that doesn’t let me go. This is the first time I have a situation where I don’t know what to say (and I usually have something to say). I think he was captured by feeling - and if we felt it - he achieved his goal.
It looks on one breath, puts into a state of light and light splint, sits in my head for six months, and I know for sure that something has changed in it.
The memory remains color and sound, or rather music that is fresh and sincere.
You're thinking about how to survive.
In this shitty world,
And I climbed higher.
I was thinking of building a new one.
Do you want to be appropriate?
Current trends,
I'd rather be in the bathroom.
To myself
Cut
Vienna.
(Music in the film is simply impossible to ignore.)
Special attention to the text - it is good, really good. References to Borges, a constant feeling of absurdity, a feeling of awakened conflict does not give rest when watching the film.
Sadly, people like us will eat this movie.
We are broken and not understood - this is the film.
We don't understand our desires - that's the movie.
We don’t understand other people’s desires, and that’s what this movie is about.
The most important point will be discussed in the chapter on cooperation. We live in the days of the Erzatz (Ersatz, or surrogate is an inferior substitute for something). And this word is used very often. In this regard, of particular interest is the image of a young producer, who, naturally, will eat.
In general, the film is very interesting in every minute of screen time, which is very, very rare. “Chapito Show” is a litmus test for your feelings: if you like the film, then everything is fine, go the same way, because you are doing everything right. Only this circus of freaks will still fail to burn.
I think the main recipe for watching this movie is "Don't you understand?" Feel it. And I think you felt it.
This film by the young Moscow director Sergey Loban came out of nowhere. Which, however, did not prevent him from thundering at MIFF-2011 so that this was followed by a whole trail of opinions, long before the release in the wide box office predicted the status of the cult and almost the main Russian film of the decade. And the jury of the Moscow Film Festival, headed by Geraldine Chaplin, even awarded Loban a special prize, which became a real sensation, because the MIFF rarely awards such non-standard from all points of view, preferring traditional genres. “Chapito show” is, indeed, an informal film from and to. And the point here is not even in a huge 4-hour timekeeping (such freedom in the States, for example, did not allow even Steven Soderbergh; what to say about our much more conservative film community), but in some separate components, such as the script, cast, genre affiliation, structure, etc. We often scold domestic filmmakers in the absence of original ideas, in the fact that they copy everything from Hollywood. So here it is, originality. “Chapito show” is an absolutely self-sufficient thing, analogues of which you simply will not find anywhere in the world.
Let's start with the script and the structure. Such an intricate plot design, which was invented by screenwriter Marina Potapova, would be envied by the well-known lover of the nonlinear structure of the narrative Alejandro Gonzalez Iñárritu. Formally, the "Chapito Show" consists of four independent novels (Love, Friendship, Respect and Cooperation). But they are independent to a certain extent. These stories are constantly intersecting, sometimes in the most unexpected places. Heroes of one novel can easily be in another, only as secondary characters. Sometimes it even sheds light on some intricacies of the plot, allowing you to see new meanings and facets in a seemingly familiar situation. It is difficult to convey in words the feeling, but, believe me, it is much cooler than contrived piling into one pile of the past, present and future, like the same Iñárritu.
Structure, of course, must work on the content, otherwise why it is necessary at all. But Loban and Potapova have no problem with that. Disclosing in individual novels the themes made in their titles, they pass through the whole film as a whole and a certain general line. And despite the fact that the “Chapito Show” is a comedy movie, homerically funny and almost airy, Loban talks about pretty sad things. His film is essentially about destroying traditional values. The values that remained for a couple of decades in the new Russia after the collapse of the USSR. Not for nothing in the "Chapito-show" so strong Soviet aesthetics, ranging from all these pioneering things and ending as if taken from somewhere in the 60s Crimea. And love is no longer love, just sex. And friendship is not friendship, but the joint use of alcohol and light drugs. And respect is not respect, but a meaningless word. And cooperation is not cooperation, but something more like exploitation. Viktor Tsoi died, Moscow Torpedo in the first league, and Crimea is now abroad. As the heroes of another Russian film said, the old suddenly collapsed, and nothing new came in return. There was a void. Loban's heroes poke around in this new world and can't find themselves in it. They are all losers in one way or another. Like most people from an old country that hasn’t existed for 20 years. Loban ends the "Chapito Show" with a huge fire, thus finally cutting off the connection with the past, with the old world and old values. Perhaps this is the way to say goodbye to them: not crying bitterly, but laughing and smiling. In the end, it is, according to the director, a cleansing fire, a symbol of rebirth. New values have not yet formed, but someday it will definitely happen.
Generally speaking, "Chapito-show" convincingly refutes absolutely all the arguments of people who like to criticize Russian cinema on what the light is worth. That, they say, we and directors are not talented, and the actors all go in circles, and new does not appear, and the scripts are bad and the same type, and the original ideas are absent, and we can not invent anything of our own. Still here, my friends. You just have to look. I have already mentioned the script and original ideas. Everything about the director is clear, too. But here are the actors: young, talented and most of them for the first time on screen. And yet they all look as natural in the film as possible. This was typical only for old Soviet comedies, where the actors almost lived their roles. Wonderful Vera Strokova, Alexey Podolsky, Alexey Znamensky, Stepan Devonin, Sergey Kuzmenko, Sergey Popov. The most colorful Stas Baretsky in the role of the owner of Shapito. Grandiose Peter Mamonov (the only famous artist here). And the real discovery of Loban is Dmitry Bogdan, who created the brightest, most shocking character - pioneer Senyu. In short, it is not serious after all this to scold our cinema. I haven’t talked about musical numbers yet. But what about them? They need to be seen. Like the whole movie. 4 hours of pure happiness.
Before watching this movie, I read that this movie is about the generation of the 2000s. At first I did not find myself in Chapito, not because the mirror was too crooked or vice versa too clear, just somehow there was no character with whom I could identify, but over time the puzzle began to fold. And I realized that yes, this is really a movie about my generation.
Our grandparents built communism, our moms and dads destroyed it, and we got full and unideal zero. As a result, we are a surprisingly infantile and lost generation. Not lost, but lost. We have no guidelines and we cannot create them ourselves, because everything has already been invented for us. All we can do is endless streams of ersatz and spears. And in order to make copies of themselves more convenient to replicate, we were all connected with countless wires to the matrix, the connection with which does not stop for a second. In fact, we are so bored and disgusting that we can retrain as homosexuals only on the principle of “why not?”
The quintessential, almost the manifesto of my generation can be a monologue uttered by one of the heroes at the culmination of each novella: "You are the scariest man who has enveloped himself in sticky lies like an insect that could believe you!" It is easier for us to throw everything at a friend than to admit that we are to blame for our own troubles and no one dragged us into these mountains by force.
Now it's about the movie. It is too simple, the plot moves are clear and predictable. This could all be a parable, but even before this genre of novels do not reach. Some senseless and grotesque inserts with songs did not inspire me at all, I did not understand why they were. These songs do not reveal the lines of heroes, except for the one about the Internet. But the actors all play well, despite the lack of professionalism.
From the novella:
"Love"
A rather funny story about the fact that behind every cyber-pager in the network hides an ordinary nerd. The truth remained unclear why he was needed by a cheerful and positive girl.
"Friendship"
I didn't really know what it was either. Or that an old friend is better than the new two. Or that the disabled are those who have no soul, and not those who have no hearing.
In general, the movie is good, there is something to think about after watching it. But there was not enough mystery...
Until yesterday, it seemed to me that in post-Soviet cinema there was hardly anything that could stand next to Sergei Solovyov’s favorite films. Ah, no. Receive and sign: “Chapito show”, director Sergey Loban, screenwriter Marina Potapova. Here you will have a related story of four novels (and this is one more than in the famous trilogy of Solovyov), and Crimea (and not gloomy, as in “Assa”, and in the exuberant summer colors), and even Tsoi (Oh, of course, not real, but there is nothing you can do...). Well, the through and here and there atmosphere of the circus and the theater of the absurd is just a control tap on my aesthetic cockroaches.
I began to watch cautiously. The main characters of the first novel “Love” even somewhat got on my nerves: a balding man of an indefinite age infuriated with his abstruse infantilism, and his young companion seemed far-fetched cheerful fool. But the truth of life took its toll: the inadequacy of the actions of a man who for some time emerged from virtuality into reality, quite consistent with the background of this character. As for the girl, some of her actions remained incomprehensible and far-fetched for me, but they can easily be attributed to the mystery of the female soul. The main thing is that this strange (and perhaps quite ordinary for our time) tandem looked killer. Exactly, as one. Though imperfect. It is as if yin and yang will not come into balance and will not freeze in their famous languid form. Imagine that picture? The creators of the film, apparently, presented, because such a rotating something from black and white stripes became a symbol of the “Chapito show” and flashed in the frame here and there.
The next story is about the attempt of a deaf guy to join a pseudo-bohemian group of “normal”. By “normality” is meant only that young people are hearing. Their leader is a mustachioed pioneer drug addict, perhaps the only character in the film who was so grotesque and noisy that every appearance strained me immensely. Probably, this was done for a reason - all this noise and noise (not only external, but also internal) is opposed to the quiet prudence of the main character. No, he is far from Lao Tzu in his life philosophy, but he is touching and honest, and the performance of the actor (Alexey Znamensky) is beyond praise. The scene "The Return of the Prodigal Son", when in the pouring rain, in a storm, the hero wants to return to his former friends, deaf-mute - damn good, although it would seem to be pop through.
If the second novel is the return of the prodigal son, the third begins with the return of the prodigal father. I haven't seen my son for eight years, and then he showed up on you. He wants his son to be just like him, with a motor up his ass. According to the idea, such a not wise character should immediately “position” in the mind of the viewer, as a negative character, but we did not take into account that he is played by the sweet Peter Mamonov. Oh! It complicates things. There is even an episode when the father throws his son in the middle of the sea who does not know how to swim and goes to the shore to sing blues for the deaf – you can see it as an element of learning in some Buddhist monastery, and Don Juan generally nervously suffocates a pipe somewhere in the side! In general, the ties of blood are only a formality, which brought these two completely different people together again.
Finally, part four. A young producer-intellectual undertakes to promote a double of Viktor Tsoi. It seems that the history is clear in itself, but on the other hand it seemed to me more philosophical than the previous ones. The producer's theory of ersatz stars and ersatz humans looks tolerable, but why is it failing? Even though it doesn’t matter, society has never accepted more important or revolutionary ideas. But I want to understand whether this young man is really an original but not understood philosopher, or just covers up his mercantile interest on the move emerging theory.
The answer to this question could be Roman Legend himself (a double of a rock star). If the viewer feels in him at least some grain “from Tsoi” (we are not talking about appearance, of course) – we through his own attitude to the philosophy of his producer will also be able to somehow determine. It’s time to say that personally, I really smelled something metaphysical in the verbose Roman. So what's he doing? We see that all this ersatz philosophy is up to one place for him - he just wants to sing, to perform. That is, not to breed demagoguery, but to act. So he abandons his patron and is served in the “Chapito Show”. Does everything seem to fall into place now? Don’t rush, the most important thing is ahead. After all, this young producer suddenly from all the characters of the film becomes the person who sets fire to the whole circus balaghan. He also went from thinking to acting. But if “Tsoi” everything goes out somehow by itself, simply, then the philosopher-producer constantly strains everyone and everything around him with unnecessary words and thoughts.
So it turns out that in the finale of the film, the viewer is closer to “Tsoi” with his short “Yes, damn...” than the producer with the allegedly intriguing “This gesture I wanted to illustrate the idea...” – somehow I do not even want to know what this idea is.
A special admiration for the authors of the film for the thoughtfulness of all these small details, when heroes from other parts are involved in the action of the current story. I really had to think about it.
Well, I can’t help but say a few words about the “musical pauses” that fill the film. Simple but wonderful songs, simple but charming dance numbers. The final song of the first series (" Oh her, about baby baby), which for some reason reminds me of the same Tsoi, but not “heroic”, but “stupid” – all day spins in my head.
9 out of 10
“Chapito Show” is a new work by Sergey Loban. The film is divided into two parts, each divided into two novels.
The main character of the first novel is a young girl who met a guy on the Internet. The hero of the second novel is a deaf guy who traded his friends for dubious company. The character of the third story meets his father, whom he has not seen for eight years. The fourth novel tells the story of a producer and a young man strikingly similar to Viktor Tsoi.
The characters of the four novels overlap. And if after the first two novels everything is not clear, then after watching the film to the end all the details agree. “Chapito show” is a parody of life, satire, slight irony.
I agree with previous reviews, there are many similarities to the films of David Lynch. The Shapito is the Silencio Theatre from Mulholland Drive, and there are singers in this tent. Dancing Marilyn Monroe on the doubles show, resembles a girl in a battery (a distorted image of Monroe) from Lynch's first work "Eraser Head". The main character of the third novel in the room weighs a poster of the film Lynch, again, “Eraser Head”.
After watching Sergey Loban’s film, I realized that there are still normal films in Russia. That in Russia they are able to shoot not only the same type of series about the wives of oligarchs, but good, pleasant tragicomedy. "Chapito Show" is easy to watch, the film does not burden the brain, but empty or stupid to call this film can not.
Loban Sergey and I seem to coincide. From "Dust" at the time I was just delighted. I've never seen anything like it before. My director, on the same page. So I guess I'm not objective, sorry. I really enjoyed all four novels! To catch each episode and pray, as long as it does not end - it has not been so for a long time.
Dialogue is brilliant! Landscapes are great! The sound director in general “Golden Eagle” caught. Music and scenery? One Shapito worth a lot, tarp economy burlesque! Directorial work, editing ... I strongly disagree that the film is delayed. Yes, here any frame succinctly works for the general meaning, every gun shoots! And this despite the fact that individually all parts are self-valued. So many characters, characters, overlapping storylines - enough for a good series.
And finally, the characters. Roles, as they say, and performers. Let’s face it, it’s the same!
Cyberspace is a product of the electronic age. A whining mattress with claims to Borges, who even before a full-fledged botanist is still growing and growing. His keen girlfriend. There are complete opposites between them.
A schizophrenic pioneer, a pleasure catcher, a romantic of same-sex love. This one's really cool, along with the hop company. Dmitry Bogdan special thanks for the image.
Deaf "singer" Lesha, touching and correct, with principled baked friends.
Superegoist Peter - they say, Mamonov here himself, contradictory, portrayed. That was great! Worse smile, Vera Brezhnev in “Yolka” for all its “unicellularity” even failed.
Creative major “producer” Seryozh, who reminded us how much bad money still exists in the world. His ward is a brutal Liar, especially at the end, a lonely avenger.
Don’t miss the episode with the owner of the show! Colorful personality, a particular kid. It is better not to fight with this.
Look at the whole movie, gentlemen! Maybe you'll match...
The film consists of 4 novels: love, friendship, respect and cooperation.
1) A love-young sociable girl goes on vacation to the Crimea with a person who spends all his free time on the Internet, because of this he has forgotten how to communicate with people and when he is struck by a new feeling of love for him completely loses control.
2) Friendship-deaf guy Lesha abandons his friends and the profession of baker and decides to become a singer and goes to the Crimea with a group of comrades: pioneer Senya (the most colorful character, flashes in all novels), loving pathos monologues about pioneers and blow into the horn, his girlfriend, sound engineer, who beats the girl from Senya and two gay foreigners. As a result, Lesha is angered by the bad lifestyle that the film crew leads and he calls for the help of his deaf-mute friends.
(3) Respect-father (Peter Mamonov) returns after an 8-year absence to his son and travels with him to Crimea. There they climb the mountains, swim the seas and the father (the famous director) is a little crazy. The weakest novel, similar to “Return” Zvyagintsev, the only plus in the film “Frost”.
(4) The young producer accidentally saw a man like Tsoi and undertakes to promote him. To do this, they also eat in the Crimea together with the cameraman who makes photo and video reports. As a result, both betray the producer leaving to perform in the Shapito show, and then comes the denouement, where all 4 novels naturally intertwine.
Of course, all the novels are related, several episodes we see from different angles. Separately there is a line Shapito-each hero sings a song to himself in the middle of the novels (in the style of the Boy Bananan of Assa), but at the end of each of them we see phantasmagoria and buffoonery in the show of doubles. Mercury, Monroe on stage with a bear, Jackson with a hole and so on. In general, it is an absolutely gorgeous film with incredible soundtracks, and a perfect answer to all those critics who claim that there are no good films in Russia. By the way, pay attention to the box office, and now think about how many producers will want to give money to Sergey Loban for his next film. That is why there are few such films in Russia, because they are unprofitable, and there is someone to shoot, and Loban is a great example of this.
10 out of 10
This is happening in Crimea. Love. Pussy misanthrope Lesha (Podilsky) and a sweet girl Vera (Strokova) meet via the Internet and go to rest on the sea. Friendship. Deaf guy Alexei (Znamensky) wins in the creative competition and together with a group of animators led by “pioneer” Maxim (Tiunov) goes to work. Respect. 8 years did not appear in the life of Stepa (Devonin) father (Mamonov) unexpectedly invites his son on a hike in the Crimean forests. Cooperation. Young producer Sergey (Popov) is trying to make Roma’s boyfriend (Kuzmenko) a new superstar from a surprisingly similar guy to Tsoi. The first concert will take place on the coast.
I deliberately did not write separate reviews of the two parts of this film, simply because I did not consider it necessary. The division of one whole work of the "Chapiteau Show" into two tapes can be explained only by the fact that so they at least someone went to the cinema, but one 3-hour film with such weak advertising support certainly would not go. So, believe me, it is advisable to watch the whole film in one go.
Meanwhile, the picture turned out beautiful. Surprisingly light, summer, pleasant to the mind and heart. Most accurately, the message of the film conveys its name – “Chapito Show”. Before us on the screen appears really chapito – bright short flashes, details of human destinies, all together forming a single canvas called “life”. I really like films that seem to be about nothing, and at the same time about everything at once.
Such an effect would hardly be possible if you played at least one famous top actor in this film. But no, the director did everything right, all these fresh faces, these Lyoshi, Vera, Maxim and Seryozhy - they are so vivid and natural behave within the framework of the plot that you are just amazed. The only more or less recognizable face in the film is Peter Mamonov, and he is a little out of the general rhythm. Makes the episode more thoughtful than needed. You can hide charisma.
I believe in Russian cinema. The last time I felt this feeling was especially strong after watching Mikhalkov’s 12. Then it weakened a little. But lately, one after another, the names of independent, young and very promising directors are beginning to appear in our cinematic spaces, making an excellent film about life. These are Zvyagintsev, Avdotya Smirnova, and Roman Karimov. And now Sergey Loban.
I recommend watching especially for those who do not believe that the film should necessarily teach, enlighten or educate. There are only movies in this world about life. It is pleasant to the mind and heart.
You need to see it all! Here everything is so simple, understandable, painfully familiar to everyone, old and eternal as the world, and at the same time so unexpected and subtly noticed, so unusual and piercingly illuminated that from the first frame imprinted on the screen irrevocably, turn into eyes and ears, afraid to miss any minute detail. These are not mindless Hollywood blockbusters, not glamorous (pardon) snot with sugar... This is the pure truth of life, our (unburdened) life, without embellishment, but in what original presentation! It is difficult to pick up words, they are simply not enough, it is necessary to see, necessarily ... The play of the actors is amazing, incredibly talented guys, it is impossible to come off, just sweets, and all, without exception. Texts, dialogues, monologues are a separate topic, all words are perfectly spelled out, so they do not fall into the eyebrow, but into the eye, neither more nor less, but just right ... Musical retreats are something! Awesome find! They are designed to explain the mental state of the heroes and slightly relieve the tension of the audience. However, they themselves, all together and each individually, are very deep! Similarly, theatrical productions in the arena of the capito show carry a hidden meaning, reflecting the thought of each story, hidden behind a funny curve and a ridiculous plot. This is a movie that inspires... A movie that makes you look at yourself from the outside. Cinema, after which you want to become better, you want to live, not exist, you want to see the main thing, and not exchange for trifles. A movie, after watching which, the brain even works against the will, boils, thinks, thinks... It's expensive, IMHO. 10 out of 10 The refrain for the film for me was the composition Karamazov Twins, which stubbornly turns in my head after watching, with the infectious words: "Born to crawl to the edge of the earth, born to fly will fly into space." Original