Reviews on series In the Forests and the Mountains (2)

It is difficult to talk about the film adaptation of the novel if you have not read the novel. I read the Melnikov-Pechersky Dilogy 'In the Forests' and 'On the Mountains' and this work struck me with its depth. The author acts not only as a bright writer of the Volga region, but also as a scientist, historian, ethnographer. Very convincing and picturesque, he tells about merchants, about the history of the Old Believers who fled to the Volga forests, about the sects of the Khlystovites, about the development of crafts and trade. And all this against the background of legends, legends, folk customs, a connoisseur of which was the writer. Truly ' Encyclopedia of Life'!
The author of the film adaptation of this novel was not on the teeth. And therefore, hiding behind the ruse ' based on the novel', they distorted the fate of the heroes, unreasonably introduced new characters, changed the plot of the novel itself, but could not convey its fragrance.

2 out of 10

I had nothing to do, so I included 'Culture'. For the next month and a half, I was bored, then crocheted, then occasionally looked at the lazy and completely unfamiliar with the Stanislavsky system of actors trying to recreate a colorful picture of the life of the Volga merchants of the mid-19th century. Yep. Here's my advice: don't waste time watching the sub-series 'In the woods and on the mountains'.
The original novels on which the script of the series was written are not familiar. But this is a minor disadvantage, given that the latter is concocted out of hand bad, and it is immediately noticeable. Here's why. First, the researchers proved the theory of “six handshakes” 39, according to which any two people on Earth are connected to each other through six to seven acquaintances. In the series, everyone - from small to large - knows everyone not by hearsay, but personally. That looks fun. Second, undeveloped characters. Take, for example, Alexei (Vorobyev). Well, tell me how a good worker and tenderly loving man turned into a freeloader, a spinner and a libertine?! There was a big change in one series. Such a turn of events remained a mystery to me. Thirdly, the creation of the series itself. This ' slicing' (!) is not made by God as it is. First ' pulled-pull' and then ' can't pull'... And - boom! - everything is mercilessly crumpled: the final episode 24, happy couples - you can hear the ringing of glasses - and the curtain ... The farce is over.

Mmm. Well, dear reader, I think I've already upset you. I think I shouldn't paint the weakest performance of almost the entire cast. I just want to highlight Kostolevsky, Gostyukhin and Steklov. I watched the show for the last time. In his episodes, almost insignificant, he did not play, but lived. I watched and saw a real Volga merchant. An amazing actor!

Unfortunately, everyone has prejudices. And mine - based on the fact that 'Culture' shows the best - requires eradication. After all, if this series came to me on 'Russia 2', I no doubt snorted: 'Another romantic labuda!'

2 out of 10

To Steklov.

P.S. I was also horribly struck by the depravity of women. Where does that fit? It's the nineteenth century! And even nuns (the tongue does not turn to nuns) - there! I'm ashamed of women.