'Vysotsky. Thank you for being alive is a domestic attempt to create a unique biopic.
Biographical paintings about musicians are similar. Especially those that show the viewer the whole way of becoming a star: problems in childhood, innate talent, first concerts, fame and so on. Others tell us local stories of a day in life. There are more unique situations, and the story itself is more associated with the musician. 'Vysotsky. Thank you for being alive from the second category, and tells about Vladimir Semyonovich Vysotsky’s trip to Uzbekistan.
Vysotsky at the peak of his popularity. He drives foreign cars, his concerts collect the Houses of Culture, and a loving woman waits from work. Unfortunately, the singer has health problems, which will not prevent him from going with his team to the Uzbek SSR, where he will give a concert.
As many have pointed out, this film is not about Vysotsky. I'm not saying that reality has been twisted and shown to the bard in a "dark light." The main characters here are people from the KGB, not a singer. The whole film, like a secret order of Freemasons, they follow Vysotsky, participate unconsciously in his life and plot plot while against the background of Bezrukov trying to play a poet. On paper, the history behind the scenes of the committee that follows the most popular musician of the Union sounds good. Vysotsky is in poor health, but he is forced to speak to the public, and at this time the KGB digs for him. Intrigue, drama and emotion. This has never happened, and the film has set the trend.
This movie is an emotional mess. You have to arrest the singer, you don't have to. The chief KGB officer is quite a human character, tossed between "orders and common sense." But what he really wants is unclear. The Vysotsky team is constantly on the nerves and tension. One makes the singer perform, the second begs to leave, and the third all according to the axiom of Escobar. Vysotsky himself even looks like himself, but instead of makeup and graphics, they would devote time to his character. He occasionally appears in the frame, says a couple of phrases and walks away like a guy skipping university lectures. What can I say about him when I hardly see him? But his appearance sets the film's charisma. The minute 'pants scene' is the most memorable scene in the film. There Vysotsky put on his wife's pants and is indignant about it. That's funny. However, for the authors, Vysotsky is like a trump card in the sleeve. You have to take care of it to the last.
In the end, I’m not going to call it a bad movie. But the poet's songs are criminally few, as is Vysotsky himself. It was worth paying attention to other stories from life that better reveal the singer. The concept of the evil committee appears in every first biopic. The universe will not collapse unless there is a secret hand of the repressive machine. The film was made for one scene, which overgrown a meaningless story around. After viewing, the viewer will have a negative or completely neutral attitude towards all prototypes from the film. The film about Vysotsky should be great, and not "well, for once will go." I don't know why you want to watch this movie?
The film, which from someone’s light hand got the nickname “Thanks for not in 3d”. I postponed it for a long time and frankly did not want to watch it, because I am not a fan of Russian films at all, and I do not belong to the Vysotsky generation at all. I also knew that many people did not like the film, that it was sawed down by critics and most of the close artists. On the Internet, Bezrukov was impossibly harassed for playing Vysotsky - as if he had done something truly terrible. I cannot accept or share any of this negativity. It's a great movie. All the arguments against him, which I have not been lazy to read, are either ridiculous or biased. Famous and respected people resent the film for: - removed They didn’t make it like they would if they could make movies. - Vysotsky is not real, but actually Bezrukov The script was written by my son. There is no respect for the great Do you understand? Delusions of envious and not very sane people. How did they not pay tribute when the film was made? It's not a tribute?! Vysotsky was not ashamed by any shot, in every scene he behaves confidently, directly and honestly, looks death in the eyes and never stirred. The general complaint of the film is that it was shown as a drug addict - so forgive me the truth! You shouldn’t have shot, then it wouldn’t be in the movie. But even this is shown with dignity, without black. The claim that makeup was created on the basis of a death mask – so she was forced to do? For those who do not know what a death mask is, it is a very rare procedure, it seems to happen. A cast is taken from the face of the deceased and, according to ancient tradition, this is done as a working material for sculptures and other people of art who want to work on the image of the deceased. You mean understand? The mask is made exactly for what was done in the film. Who do you have to be to roll a barrel on this? Yes, there are a couple of things that I didn’t really like – for example, the main role in the film is not in Vysotsky, but in the KGB colonel. But anyway, it’s a good character, it was interesting to watch him. Vysotsky’s girlfriend is played by Akinshina – a good actress, but a bad person, since the age of 14 she slept with a sweaty smelly Cord, in films she always plays ass and prostitutes, and then suddenly an honest Soviet woman. Playing well, no complaints, just hard to abstract from her reputation. But that's okay, it's really little things. The film is a very high-quality, stunningly recreated image of the Soviet era - how did they even manage to remove all advertising from the streets? All this neon shushara, which I believe should not be, as there should be banners on the Internet. Apparently computer work, because in a real city so much from the streets to shoot would hardly give. The film has a beautiful work with lighting, these sparkling highlights, flashes of light, the sky. It's fascinating. And the ending is cathartic.
I remember perfectly well how in 2011 the film Vysotsky: Thank you for being alive.
If you expect from the film the entire biography of Vladimir Semyonovich Vysotsky, then you will be disappointed. Because the film is not about her, but only about one episode of his life - when in 1979 he suffered a clinical death while touring in Bukhara due to drugs and heat. Some say it was just a deep fainting, not a clinical death. Why in the whole life of Vysotsky, the creators (including his son Nikita) decided to film her most disrespectful episode, is unknown.
About the Vysotsky. Now it is known that he was played by Bezrukov. From the point of view of makeup, Vysotsky is really amazing. Looks like a face, looks like a face. But he missed his voice, generally. Vysotsky had a hoarse and rude voice, like Dzhigurda. Cinema Vysotsky has a soft voice like Bezrukov.
But there's another problem with him. It will sound strange, but Vysotsky in the film is not perceived as the main character. I mean, he's there, he's talking, but he doesn't really affect anything. The film is more about his friends who organize his concerts for Vysotsky. Do you know what their relationship looks like?
Friends of Vysotsky hotly discuss his health and the cancellation of the concert, and Vysotsky himself ... sleeps. One of Vysotsky’s friends tells him about the importance of the concert, while Vysotsky lies on the couch and listens silently. Vysotsky's friends are discussing surveillance of him, and Vysotsky ... somewhere. The film pays more attention to the KGB, his girlfriend Tatiana, friends, anyone, but not Vysotsky himself. And this is very strange, a film like Vysotsky, but he is perceived here as a secondary character. Sometimes there was a feeling that replacing it with archival records and nothing would change.
There are, of course, a couple of moments where Vysotsky is revealed. When he first communicates with his parents. Or a really funny scene, like when he was selling carpets in Bukhara or when he finally had a normal conversation with Tatiana. But this is not enough for the whole movie.
But since the film is about Vysotsky, can you at least listen to his songs? Bummer again. You know what they look like here? Vysotsky goes on stage, greets everyone, opens his mouth and ... the camera takes us to Vysotsky’s friends in the back room, then to KGbshnik, then to the audience, and then when the song ends, we are returned to Vysotsky. Creators, are you normal?! Imagine this would make Bohemian Rhapsody, for example. Freddie Mercury enters Wembley Stadium, opens his mouth, and the camera takes us to strangers and only at the end of the song returns to Mercury.
Other songs are performed by his friend Seva, performed by Urgant. In the film, only one Vysotsky song sounds normal - "The Ballad of Going to Heaven" and then in the credits. In the film itself, Vysotsky will never sing. The song "Summer Night City" by ABBA, which plays in the Vysotsky tape recorder, has more screen time than all the songs of Vysotsky himself combined.
In general, about Vysotsky in the film almost nothing is told. Not about his theater career, not about acting, not about songs, not about his personal life. The feeling of the film is that Vysotsky was just a small amateur bard who was engaged in some illegal concerts.
You may ask, what is the film about? It is about his friends who are trying to take him to concerts in Bukhara and about KGB officer Bekhteev, who is trying to catch Vysotsky in order to blackmail him before the upcoming Olympics. At the same time, Vysotsky suffers from drug addiction.
In this regard, I must admit, the film is very interesting and even tense. Because you really don't know where this is going to go. I especially liked the fact that Vysotsky’s friends are shown as normal characters. They're not trying to make money on him, they're really concerned about his health. However, it is strange why they, knowing about Vysotsky’s addiction to drugs, did not take morphine with them. Why should I bother poor Tatiana? Yes, they are dragging him to Uzbekistan, but they remind him that he wanted it and then there will be an Uzbek Politburo. And the story of the KGB officer is also interesting.
The only problem is that everything shown in the film was not. Vysotsky just lost consciousness, but he was brought to his senses.
Conclusion: I will repeat the question I asked at the beginning. Why is the film about Vysotsky, exactly about this?
Vladimir Semyonovich Vysotsky is one of the greatest Soviet singers. He wrote about 600 songs in his lifetime. His songs were about war and politics and everyday life. He was an actor in the Taganka theater. He played in a bunch of movies, he created Gleb Zheglov. His work is studied by a separate science - high science. Vysotsky’s personal life and relationships with all wives are a separate topic for novels. Yes, Vysotsky was censored and had tense relations with the Soviet authorities, but this did not prevent him from driving a Mercedes and traveling abroad. Yes, Vysotsky did have problems with drugs, but they did not begin until the end of his life. And even so, Vysotsky is not Sid Vicious and not GG Allin, who became famous not for songs, but for the fact that stoned people on stage did all sorts of shit. We love Visotsky because he is first and foremost a chic singer. You could make a series about him.
So why, of everything that could be filmed about Vysotsky, the creators decided to shoot only about his drug addiction? It's like making a movie about Mercury and showing that he only slept with men and the background mentioning that he also sang. Or make a movie about Pushkin, in which he will only smoke, drink and shoot and someone once mentions that he also writes poems.
5 out of 10
Film by Peter Buslov 'Vysotsky. Thank you for being alive' I hesitated to watch for a long time - I was not interested in the personality of Vladimir Vysotsky. The other day I decided, hoping to see a detailed biography of this artist.
However, the whole plot revolves around one event in the life of the hero - his clinical death. Although Sergey Bezrukov and the voice of Nikita Vysotsky recreated a very colorful character, I found the film boring.
Although there is tension and empathy for what is happening on the screen. Then pouring Vladimir Semyonovich, who is about to fall on the stage, cannot but touch the emotions of the viewer. Team conflicts and constant difficulties with performances look realistic.
But, I noticed that the authors arouse the wrong emotions: throughout the plot, we, impatiently, together with Vysotsky, expect a dose. It's like a happy solution to the problem. And in fact, despite the temporary relief, he sinks even deeper into the quagmire of addiction.
I didn’t see much depth in the film, although it looks like it exists.
6 out of 10.
about the hunting line, brilliant Smolyakov, based on the plot on checking in trouble and freedom from the mask
The authors of the film ' Thank you that alive' offered absolutely stunning kgb-shniks - Smolyakov (not crossed) and Ilyin (used to step over). Goes in their performance, whipping up the main tension, the storyline ' Wolf Hunt' - Vysotsky and then, after the deepest scene of eavesdropping - literally, soaking up the dried desert of the soul! - Vysotsky's prayers in the hotel room and after their final meeting, forcing Smolyakovsky Kgb-shnik to rethink his life creed, Vysotsky and his sacrificing friend from a professionally slammed trap - at the cost of his career and, very possibly, his freedom! During the film, the path of his soul unfolds, it was done actorly genius, very powerful!
In the final scene, when Smolyakov freely, cheerfully, buffoonishly (as a child of spiritually pure life reborn in him!) reads Pushkin's Easter & #39; I let the bird free at the bright festival of spring' - so much of everything great from Russian literature: and the resurrection of his transformed soul, and letting go to freedom to live and create, and pray, and even to be sick as they were tormented by fate, in the person of Vysotsky ALL Russian poets ruined by the authorities.
As Bezrukov says at the beginning of the film without makeup in the interior of Taganka, we play on Vysotsky, everything ' e e m' Vysotsky. It is the hero of Smolyakov ' does ' in the artistic space of this film Vysotsky by the force that changed, turned the life of the antihero, led to repentance, spiritual renewal, happiness of the will he himself found and, finally, in the words of the last verse of the Poet, ' justified before the Almighty' the fall and weakness of Vysotsky as a person.
Vysotsky’s son neither idealizes his father nor shames his misfortune with the truth, but says with this film statement that having found himself in knots, in drug chains, the father did not betray his creeds, remained a Man, a Creator, a man and an incentive for others to the same depth and height of spiritual and creative living of his life.
And the fact that the plot is based on a critical situation that manifests everything is both high-rise and Russian (' a friend is known in trouble'!) and in full accordance with the existential direction related to Vysotsky in world art and his own work.
Well, the fact that the son of the poet wanted a living resemblance is so irresistible that not only Bezrukov, but we all frown on this mask, let’s just understand and forgive humanly, like those who have ever yearned for the loss of loved ones!
Although it is indisputable that the talent of actor Bezrukov without the fact that fettered his rich facial expressions and spirituality of the face with his incomparable with others who played poets, mystical immersion in the living current of the Spirit of the Poet - let us remember him Pushkin, Yesenin and Sirano! - would give us a wonderful, worthy duet with Smolyakov! Smolyakov, who took on this talented, albeit ambiguous film, almost the lion's share ' doing' Vysotsky through its impact on another person.
I am not a fan of his work and do not know anything about his life, I know only a couple of songs, not a fan of his - such a manner of behavior unlike anyone else and such a hoarse, but easily recognizable tone of voice ... But I'm really excited about the movie. Good, strong, lasts two hours (02:08), but absolutely not long and very interesting. The screenwriter of the film is Nikita Vysotsky, the son of Vladimir Vysotsky.
Of course, the first thing that catches the eye is the incredible makeup, which is on Sergei Bezrukov, who, in fact, played Vysotsky, before each shooting day imposed 6 hours.
About the game of Sergei Bezrukov I think, do not talk, because it is simply unmatched, I applaud standing.
The film takes place in 1979, when at one of the concerts Vysotsky becomes ill with his heart. He is going through clinical death.
Not much and not the most pleasant period in his life. But it's true. And let it be, but not a drop of embellishment. After a year, Vladimir Semyonovich will not be at all.
But nevertheless, in the film we can see how bad he was, but he still performed, and the pressure from all sides was very affecting him, but he struggled to hold on as much as possible, and as if nothing happened to go on stage, to his beloved audience, who, as the first time, waited for him eagerly, not knowing that he was very sick and help to relax, and cure only drugs.
I also really liked the lines of Vladimir Semyonovich Vysotsky, which sounded at the end of the film and I just couldn’t help but put them in the conclusion of my review:
... And smiling, my wings broke,
My wheezing sometimes looked like a howl.
And I was sick of pain and powerlessness.
He just whispered, “Thank you for being alive.”
And my patience burst in me.
And I passed on to you with death.
She has been around me for a long time.
I was only afraid of hoarseness.
But I know what is false and what is holy.
I realized that a long time ago.
My path is one, only one, guys.
I am fortunately given no choice.
It is good that Vysotsky played Bezrukov in a mask, because without this there would be a lot of lamentations about “not like”. I mean, yeah, I guess you can't say anything. The actors played quite themselves, Leonidov irritated to grinding teeth, the role is enchantingly disgusting.
The whole problem of this biographical film is in a weak plot. By God, he leaves some unpleasant residue, although, it seems, we are not shown anything new that we do not know: the KGB “herds” a talented person and is afraid that he will be blamed on the West, and meanwhile, the personal case of this talented person becomes fatter. Here also about drugs, and about the “friends” attached to Vysotsky, who were only interested in his fees. What didn't come together? Is there too much negativity per square meter? Nevertheless, Vysotsky is not only drugs, a mean environment, the inability to respond to attacks in his address, fainting. It is primarily music, poetry. Songs. What prevented this film from becoming more musical and touching on the moments when the poet created his creations? You could tell a little bit about drugs. But no, they talk about her over and over again. It seems that in the life of Vysotsky there were no pleasant and positive moments, but one continuous longing. Not very convincing and love Akinshina. Or rather, not quite clear this love line. It is neither disclosed nor reasoned. The feeling that was introduced only to contrast with the scoundrel friends of the main character. Was he not loved or respected by anyone else? It's hard to believe.
There are no complaints to the picture and the operator. Bright, stylish, beautiful, in the spirit of time. Beautiful views of the vile eastern sun at sunset. Colorful landscapes of the city, bright colors. Everything is fine with the form, the internal content suffers. It seems to me that with such actors and such a budget, with such costume artists, makeup, with such an entourage, it was possible to shoot something more heartfelt and deep, to better reveal the struggle of the musician with the KGB, his inner world. But we have what we have.
You want a scary story? Well, here you are for dessert: there was Volodya Vysotsky, spinning - spinning guitar on stage. Really, the poet was amazing. But behind his talent lay the duality of nature. The desire for vodka and pills was used. Realizing that Vysotsky is not just dangerous for the Soviet system, they decided to sew a puppet out of him, which would tell in the West how good it is to live in the USSR, and we have songs about how lousy it is in the West.
Bezrukov has not been an actor since 2007. Some doll that they put makeup on. He forgot how to speak normally. A strong voice, like a gnash of metal, does not allow you to watch this film.
The whole movie is hammered at us with the idea that Vysotsky was an anti-Soviet, against whom they desperately fought and finally, when he became ill, they decided to finish off. Thanks for confessing. Now tell a fairy tale who was not satisfied with Tsoi and Talkov. It’s much simpler: you can’t live in a country that loves to lie. It's torture. And sooner or later, you'll die. A hero, a traitor. A book of poems will remain of him, let us say of a thousand. But there will be nothing more and no one will need Bezrukov’s mask. We don't need one like that. He's with the people.
5 out of 10
Critics hang labels, and the Spectator willingly picks them up and then trumpets to the right to the left: “rubber muzzle!”, “I look at the screen – I see the corpse!”, “Where is Vysotsky?”, etc.
The age of information brought convenience and at the same time drove us into the laziness of thoughts. As a result, it is easier for us to read the article, or just watch a video about a recently released kinchik and trust the opinion of the talking head that went to the session for you and made up her opinion. Someone ordered, someone biased, someone purely personal ... But that's someone else's opinion. Even the best critics of their time can not perceive the film as you do.
And so it happened with the painting “Vysotsky:” Thank you for being alive.
Yes, the film is sponsored by the first channel in the person of Constantine Ernst. He left 4 days before the next election. And one of the central figures of this picture is a KGB colonel (the organization that is shown in this film quite smoothly, without hyperbolizing from myths).
All these factors create the image of a stereotypical custom domestic picture, which the fuck did not give up to the ordinary viewer and it was created only for the purpose of making millions of dollars on behalf of the national idol. Yes?
How is the film different from life?
A stupid question, which apparently still need to give the same obvious answer.
Amazing difference number van: the film is 2 hours (extended 3-4)!
How to show his versatility of personality in 2 hours, without missing any of the slightest characteristics that have been deposited in the people's memory?
How to show a living person, and not an image from the TV screen, which gave us only one side of his personality - censored?
As for me, the creators in the person of screenwriter Nikita Vysotsky (son of Volody) and director Peter Buslov found a simple and effective solution: to reveal an ambiguous volumetric personality through the attitude of secondary characters to him.
Thus, we get the director of the theater on Taganka, which seems to have fired Vladimir, but until the last he does not leave the troupe.
The administrator of the Philharmonic, who seems to fear for his skin, but seeing Volody’s human attitude to him and his colleagues, he risks his career and freedom for the sake of a famous friend, without demanding anything in return.
Here is Major, who tells how Vysotsky came to their service and sang his songs. And how magical and priceless it was. He loves you and respects you.
As a member of the Central Committee of Uzbekistan standing up applauds an empty microphone on stage, after Volodya in a semi-fainting state was led backstage.
And yet, we are shown the very Vysotsky. Who exhausted, tired, a year before his death, is experiencing a creative crisis.
In each scene, he tries to write at least one new line. But he can only do that in the final. When he flies on a plane and only a straightened pack of cigarettes and a pen woven from an IV by a recent roommate (either sitting or military) remain at hand. A drip gifted by the people... He has someone to live for.
We were shown the Actor, the Artist, the Lover, the Son, the Singer and the Poet. Little? I guess so.
Amazing difference number to: the film shows artistic reality!
No one seems to have gotten used to this fact. And in historical films, we should have meticulous reconstructions, not history, which reflects the atmosphere and characters of their time.
The same applies to biopics... right? (so everyone liked “Bohean Rhapsody” with its 20 minutes of frame-by-frame remake of the LIVE AID concerto).
Guys. The image on the screen is always a modified reality, which must be perceived a little abstracted.
And when the authors prioritize the interest of their audience, and not a full-fledged reproduction of the songs of Vladimir Semenovich, as for me it makes much more sense than to complain that the songs in the film are given in fragments, and the roles in the cinema and theater did not show at all. A film should be a film, not a museum!
Mass cinema is a spectacle that fascinates. No, explosions and mega-super-duper effects are not required for this purpose. The old-fashioned way of acting is to create an action that will draw you emotionally. Even if you do not chew your elbows, you will look with interest at the events that, albeit embellished, but really happened.
Many complained about the fact that in the film from the environment of Volody there are often collective images of the producer, doctor, love... Firstly, many names of living people have simply changed, and secondly, we return to the most important task - to show Vysotsky's personality in 2-3 hours fully! Collective images, and accordingly complex relations to Voloda, are ideal for this purpose.
After a full 8 years since the release of the film, I can draw one faint conclusion - the expanded version of the film in 4 episodes nobody watched. Sorry. Yes, the film was incredibly cut and thrown out whole piles of material, which showed the theater, and the stage and poetry of Vladimir Semenovich. But still in the theatrical version was that everyone somehow overlooked, while wondering who is hiding under the mask. Artistic. Everyone forgot that the screen is not life and that you need to feel and experience, be involved and understand Vysotsky as a character first of all.
I want to see in the future pictures, the script in which is also filigree built in terms of internal and interpersonal conflicts, and the cast works as a single coherent organism.
This is a Russian film of which I am proud. I highly recommend watching the extended version. Watch this movie! For we've forgotten what it is.
Peter Buslov presents a picture under the slogan “Two hours of real life”. I do not know how true the facts shown in the film, but they look quite plausible, unlike Vysotsky. Bezrukov was turned into Vysotsky due to animation, and frankly, sometimes it is directly noticeable. The face doesn’t seem to express emotions at all. It seems that in the main role wax doll. There are no claims to the game of Bezruky, because it is not visible, but sometimes in the eye, facial expressions, Sasha Bely is still recognized. What can be said about the performance of other actors, it is pleasant to look at Akinshina, Panin, but I did not understand the vital need for the participation of I. Urgant. Perhaps this is a step to attract an additional audience. In principle, all the characters look quite voluminous, the only thing I do not understand the reaction during the clinical death of Vysotsky, it was not very similar to shock.
And now about the film itself, I did not have enough life circumstances, why he got hooked on morphine (the film mentions this only in passing), why Vysotsky has such zeal to perform, even in a near-death state, the film omits all the details that would help lay down at least some point of view about the character. As a result, we are given only the result: a drug addict who injects for nothing (the film does not show how Vysotsky creates in a state of drug intoxication). The creative success of the artist can only be guessed. Our attention is given only to a concert in Uzbekistan and a confusedly written poem on the plane. “So why is this extra information, and everyone knows who Vysotsky is, and why is he a genius?” And I don’t know, and I see on the screen an ordinary drug addict, whose poems and songs for some reason everyone loves, and who for some reason has many friends. But he wasn't like that. In the film, we see only a small period of time, over which there is a rather double impression of the character. In fact, a few flashbacks would be enough to correct this situation. Yes, the timing would take not two, but two and a half hours, but then the question arises whether it was worth releasing the picture as a full meter, maybe it would be better to make a series, for eight episodes. In this case, the heroes would be better revealed, and about this "disease" Vysotsky would have told us more, showing the two sides of the medal.
Despite the many downsides, this film is not a bad one. The eye is pleased with the shooting, rather vital dialogues and the public’s love for Vysotsky. To look at the picture, it is still worth, at least in order to once again hear the brilliant poems, the brilliant poet.
The film is remarkable, first of all, the main character - the impressions of him are completely special and unprecedented. The notorious fifteen-layer make-up, which on the main character “every time imposed on six hours”, together with advanced computer technology give a completely monstrous feeling of a non-human (subhuman, evil spirits, demon – I don’t know what else to call this creature), which, temporarily hidden chewing gum and false legs, pretends to be ordinary homo sapiens.
The nightmare is exacerbated by the operator’s obvious and continuous attempts to shoot this something from certain angles, where its inhuman nature is not so noticeable; it seems that the camera moves a centimeter wrong there, and the monster will feel that he has been exposed, will tear Vysotsky’s skin and jump into the lens.
To sum up: as a horror film - very good, as a film about Vysotsky - no gate.
Of course, I was very late with my review, the passion for the film settled down long ago - well, okay, the more impartial and objective my opinion will be.
What do we want from the movie? What do we expect when we go to the movies or turn on the computer? If it's drama, we want our hearts touched. If it's comedy, it's fun. If it's a thriller, let the nerves pass. If the lyrics are tears of tenderness. In short, we're waiting for genuine emotions. That's the main reason you buy a ticket for a session, unless you're two pimply teenagers and sit on the last row. This movie is 100% emotional. Emotions are genuine, you worry for him as for a native - for the one he has become for us all thanks to his songs, sincerity, talent, purity of conscience. I am a person who is not envious, not evil, I do not count other people's successes, so I do not care whether Vysotsky is played by some Vanka Pronkin or Sergey Bezrukov, if he plays him brilliantly.
What touched the controversial part of the biography of the poet - well, it's not about the same film! If you don’t know what to say, review it again!
The technique of shooting and in general the picture is also wonderful. The scenery, the nature - excellent. I don’t understand why everyone writes so many words in reviews, if I can put it briefly: great! Magnificent not only from the magic of time, names, events ... but also from the comprehension of oneself through the Greatness of Man - Vladimir Vysotsky! For the first time in my life, I sat in front of the screen until the end of the credits!
P. C. A very powerful finale. Akinshina Okanoka special thanks for the trembling lips.
Bravo! Russian filmmakers have proved that not only Americans can mock the classics. It’s not so bad for Conan Doyle and the new Sherlock Holmes. And ours did it almost according to Pushkin – meaningless and merciless – using a meaningless scenario and a merciless son.
The great poet - in the film he writes poems almost in the final credits with snatches on a pack of cigarettes on a plane.
Fearless and hated by censorship, the artist invests all his strength in coven concerts and is ready to die not for an idea, but for an extra ruble.
An unforgettable actor is the only role played in the Bukhara market when buying a carpet.
Favorite singer - none of his songs do not sound in the film as a whole until the credits appear.
And the film is not about anything at all: after all, even the very idea of the need for the KGB to collect ticket stubs to prove something there is ridiculous.
The worst lies are half-truths, that is, truths shown in part. It seems to be true, and there is nothing to object to, perhaps, it was, but ... such a truth is worse than lies - after all, the film does not show neither a poet, nor an artist, nor just a free-thinking person, and after watching it, the new generation will quite logically form the opinion that Vysotsky - "and, we know, this is such a drug addict-sabashnik."
Abominable, by God, and ashamed of his son - how could he bless such a movie, I'm sorry.
Vladimir Vysotsky is the golden voice of Russia for centuries. The film by Peter Buslov “Vysotsky”. Thank you for reviving the legendary life of the singer and poet. The acting group is decorated with Oksana Akinshina, Sergey Bezrukov and many other artists known to the pretentious audience. The idol of the 80s is the personification of a rampant life and irresponsible behavior, both to his health (drugs and drunkenness), and to people who love him (Tatiana’s experiences). In the inner self of Vysotsky two heroes are fighting. Talent and desire to wear your body to zero. Second wins. The body dies and the talent lives forever.
I saw the movie in the theater back in 2011, and now I stumbled across it and want to write everything I have left over the years.
For 5 years, even the urge to revise it did not arise, this already says something. A film about some junkie and his fellow criminals who cut cabbage on it. About a man who burned and created, who was an idol of millions, whose songs were sung and these songs were so powerful that it was immediately clear that this was about us. About who created great images on stage and in poetry, about whose aphorisms are always in our culture and are always used in communication. About how this man fought with his ailments and so on and so forth. It's not about this movie.
Just a gang half-head arranges a match in the cities of the Union and at the same time does not even bother to organize these tours in a human way, namely to take the main tourer that without which he can not perform. Spit the whole session.
Pro ' super makeup' I won't even write. Shame on you.
But I know that it is false, and that it is holy, and I have understood it long ago.
I really, really like this movie.
Not that.
This is my favorite movie.
Not likely.
I sobbed the entire first viewing (at 16) and I can’t help but cry now, even when I’m watching in fragments.
Yes, but I'm not sure.
From the mouth and actions of the main character comes a very close to me truth, and everything in the film – music, the work of the cinematographer, actors, the plot make it lively, real, almost tangible.
You know, I don’t care about the entourage, history, KGB and the whole Soviet Union, long dead people, before this film I did not know who Vladimir Vysotsky was. Because this film raises a theme so universal and timeless, no – age-old that it fits any time, any setting. The main thing is that there were people who carried such an idea.
But I will not argue that the totalitarian state more vividly and uncompromisingly asks this question: live or survive?
This is a film about honesty and open attitude to life, about purpose and humility, about real values, about love, oh God, how it is about love, about life, about joy, about the ability to accept, about the care of souls and careless – to the body. All of this embodies the main character and I do not understand people who say that this film tarnishes his name. This film shows him as an angel, but still real, alive, flawless, but not perfect.
And the whole film is the best staged verse, the lines of which are given in the title of the film and this review. If Vysotsky wrote this, then the film is about him, because the screenwriter and director did not retreat from the idea of the poem one step, nowhere.
And the best thing about the picture is that it's reassuring, despite the lines at the very end, yes, no, very much looking at them! Death is nothing, only a part of existence, and it is very foolish to run away from it for those who know things more important. And in this film they triumph, fly, incarnating in burning roots, an untied tie, the hand of the pilot who takes off, lines on the burn of cigarettes.
10 out of 10
In the yellow hot Bukhara, in its central part, a misfortune happened out of the schedule.
It so happened that about Vladimir Semenovich Vysotsky - a talented singer, poet, composer, actor of theater and cinema was filmed (and, of course, will still be filmed) a huge number of documentaries, and not one feature. And when the first news about the upcoming biopic began to appear in the mid-2000s, I was only happy about it. After all, biographies give the viewer, unfamiliar with the hero of the picture, a chance to “discover” it for himself. So, I “discovered” Edith Piaf, thanks to the film “Life in the Rose Color”, studied the biographies of many Russian and foreign writers, composers, scientists, politicians. Vladimir Vysotsky for many citizens of the former Soviet Union will remain his symbol, a man of the era, an outstanding personality. And so when the screens came out at the end of 2011 the film Petra BuslovVysotsky. Thank you for being alive, I did not hesitate to watch it.
Unfortunately, the film left a double impression. On the one hand, the First Channel staged a very cool advertisement for the project, and this largely contributed to the commercial success of the tape. I was pleased that the youth, who had not previously known the work of Vysotsky, somehow, met him. But I was disappointed that with the filing of the screenwriter, producer (and also his own son) Nikita Vladimirovich Vysotsky the image of Vladimir Semenovich was transferred.
Every movie usually starts with an idea. And why, instead of showing Vysotsky as we know him: a friendly, bright, lively artist, Nikita told us a story about an unfortunate poet-addict, who is surrounded by people who earn money on his behalf, I still can’t understand. Of course, in the life of Vysotsky there were ups and downs. And the story of the clinical death of July 25, 1979 in Uzbekistan on tour is not a myth. And the fact that Vysotsky suffered from alcohol and drug addiction is true. They say nothing but good about the dead. And here we see a patient, almost broken by drugs and the oppression of the KGB, a man who suffers from the fact that he can not write poetry. And plus the fact that Vysotsky on the screen is presented in this state, we are shown, in addition to his relationship with a student (while his beloved wife Marina Vlady is in Paris). However, let it remain on the conscience of Nikita Vysotsky. In my opinion, to make such a film, exposing my father as such, should not be.
No less important news related to the film was the main intrigue of the creators - who plays Vysotsky. But despite the loud statements of Konstantin Ernst that they will not even write the name of the performer in Russia, and there is no actor who could embody the poet on the screen, it was like PR. It took me only the first minutes of the appearance on the screen of the main character to see under the mask of this complex makeup. And there was no feeling that Vladimir Semenovich himself was present in the film (no matter how the creators assured). In principle, to the work of Sergei I treat well. Remembering his roles in theater and cinema, I understand that he is a bright, lively, emotional artist. Therefore, from the fact that in the piggy bank of Bezrukov’s roles among Pushkin, Yesenin would have added Vysotsky, it would not have been worse for him from this. But the problem is that Bezrukov simply did not reveal himself as an actor. In his performance, Vysotsky is a sluggish, helpless character. And makeup (which looked like a death mask) simply did not allow the actor to express emotion, constrained the movement of the facial muscles. And if you consider that Nikita himself voiced the role of the father, it becomes clear why screen Vysotsky is so far from the original. This was the weak point of the film.
The film looks much more interesting if you imagine the main character of the KGB officer performed by Andrey Smolyakov. Honest, loyal to his Fatherland, Colonel Bekhteev, in his determination to punish a gang of speculators, looks very advantageous against the background of a sluggish and sick Vysotsky. And when I watched Smolyakov’s hero, he was not associated with the antagonist.
As for the other actors, there was someone to look at. I was very happy for Oksana Akinshin, who got a complex image with which she coped. Dmitry Astrakhan received the Nick Prize in the nomination “Discovery of the Year”. Because he was not only a talented director, but also a great actor. Ivan Urgant instantly ceased to be a leading cheerful person for me (as he is presented on television). Andrey Panin, who became a movie villain in the 2000s, was a completely different character. Of course, his distinctive voice has not gone away. However, the role of the eccentric doctor, he succeeded. Even the singer Maxim Leonidov in the role of his namesake - Impressario Vysotsky Pasha Leonidov, was in place.
Very successful, in my opinion, was the soundtrack written by Ruslan Muratov. Although some things reminded me of Hans Zimmer's music. It is worth noting that “Vysotsky”. Thank you for being alive, in principle, thought about it, and was shot for a modern audience brought up on foreign films. Hence the similarity with American paintings due to the soundtrack, editing, Hollywood finale.
"Vysotsky. Thank you for being alive is a very controversial film that divides the audience into those who liked the film and those who were disappointed. There is something to thank the creators for. But in the place of producers, I would not talk about the revival of Russian cinema (although the film performed well, having collected a significant amount of money). But this picture I would call a bad gift for fans of Vladimir Semenovich Vysotsky, which will forever remain in the memory of many millions other than that in the film Buslov. And it is even more insulting that Vysotsky’s own son simply made money on his father’s name, forcing the viewer to “dig into someone else’s underwear.”
6 out of 10
No fish, no meat... There was a movie about the artist (like...)
Yesterday, for no reason, took and watched “Vysotsky”. Thank you for being alive.” After viewing, questions arose:
1. Why did we watch it?
2. Why did they take it off?
And if the first somehow still approximately you can answer something like: “It happened by chance”, then with the second, everything is more difficult. Although, I think the answer to the first one is also suitable.
With amazing pleasure created masterpieces “incriminating”, but that’s who in this film denounced the authors? Vysotsky? Hardly... I doubt those who listened to his songs when they saw the artist on the side of his addiction would say, ‘God! This is disgusting!!! and all attempts to listen to the songs of Vladimir Semenovich will stop. I also doubt that those who have not listened to him at all will somehow assess his work, his personality, after watching this film. Vysotsky in the USSR is an unshakable block, created, including the red hebney, in order not to disturb the image of the Soviet artist by his base needs. Who was Vysotsky? Outside? No, he was not, he moved freely outside the country, returned. Dissident? Well, if it's about drug use and left-wing concerts, what's the drama? These are criminal articles and it is logical that they tried to put it in its place. However, he was quite successful and everyone, from small to large, listened to his cheerful and not very works, hearing each his own. This is a great artist, cult among bards, unique in the number of satirical and humorous songs that people would like so much. Therefore, it is not clear what the authors tried to convey, showing the suffering of drug addict Vysotsky in Kazakhstan (Seriously? in Kazakhstan, the suffering of a drug-dependent theater artist on Taganka? Well, come on, the USSR after all...
Let us assume that the efforts of the authors expose the work of the special services. But the hell in the movie is not so red, the romantic shit turned out. For all my imagination, I cannot imagine a situation where a KGB officer, imbued with a conversation with a drug addict artist, would raise his eyes to the sky and go, sunny, away from his "dirty" affairs. Funny, naive, stupid and implausible. And, given that all this is implausible, it begs the conclusion that the whole story is made up (as for the “eyed” KGB officer).
In addition to all the disgusting makeup, ridiculous wigs ... Everything is crooked, low-grade, with a claim to quality, to monumentality. But the claim remained a claim.
I have no answer to the second of the two questions. I don’t understand why this film and films like it were made, I don’t understand why they applaud so much, who applauds? Why it was impossible to remove the biography of Vysotsky, to show him from all sides, not to destroy, but not to make a superhero? Why not just make a good fantasy movie to make it fun to watch? Surely in the life of Vladimir Semenovich was a lot of episodes worthy of reflection in the tape. For some reason, I remembered the great movie The Doors, a biography of Jim Morrison. Probably, this film is pleasant to watch (despite the different details of the personal life of the singer and musician), because his memory was approached without vulgarity, with respect and, because, it turned out to show the epochal personality. With respect to memory. It seems to me that if Vysotsky was alive, if he had seen this creation, then nothing but hellish anger would have caused him. But in the meantime, he is probably just offended ... for the fact that such people as these came to replace him.
I wonder if it's permanent now? Or will things get better?
I'm less than half a century - more than forty.
I'm alive, I'm keeping you and the Lord.
I have something to sing in front of God.
I have something to justify myself to.
I hesitated to write a review of this film for a long time. Just because I could not understand what he was talking about, and could not formulate his attitude towards him. The first time I saw it, I was horrified. The theme I chose seemed disgusting - all this politics, intrigue, Vysotsky, depicted as a drug addict - with a gray face frozen, without a single emotion, as if he had already died, all this running around him. . . Even if that was the case, why show it? I left the theater disappointed, I scolded the film.
And then suddenly I watched it again.
Like she fell into a hole. In the pit of misunderstanding, condemnation, rejection. After all, in fact, the film is about this - how hard it is to live when pressure is on all sides. System, envious, detractors. Secretly condemn even close friends, relatives. Maybe not in secret. No matter what you do, no matter how you live, there is always something to reproach you for, and if you are known throughout the country. What does this atmosphere do to people? How difficult it is to resist, but it is impossible what is there! That’s what the movie is about, what’s impossible. He knew that he had fallen, that he had fallen, and that he had fallen. But I repeated it over and over again.
I'm going down my throat, I'm going to put poison in my veins.
Let him eat, let him die, I outwitted!
Why? The answer to this question is: ' I am not looking for an excuse. I just have to pee. Just write to make it work. That's what I live for.'
This is my point
This is a film about life on the edge, on the rupture, about a life that could not end otherwise, which could not develop otherwise. And that’s where it all came from, we were shown. Yeah, dirt, nasty, nasty. There are almost no poems and songs, almost nothing is said about his work in the theater, about what he was like. But. But we all understand after this phrase - ' That's my meaning ' I do what I do, and I will do it no matter what, and when I fail, I have to write anyway, but write because it is from God, he gave me the gift, and I must use it to the end, to death. This is the only thing that matters.
My path is one, only one, guys.
Fortunately, I have no choice.
If we talk about days after days and imagine who they are,
As they look like they love us, anyone can draw a picture with a plot. The picture is not complicated. We only need for a while to resemble, for example, a firebird ... in which relatives and people who love us pull out bright feathers.
Vladimir Makanin.
Yeah. This movie is about loving Vysotsky. And partly about you and me. We love him, too, and most importantly, we made this movie about him.
I would like to write this review:
Whose heart was not cut, his call, his scream, his wheezing? To the whole world the treasures of the soul are given. A genius is always a sender. But is it possible to survive by giving infinitely? You always need someone who doesn’t just take it, but gives it to you: I tortured you with myself, and you’re still with me. I thank you. I live only by your patience. Loyalty. I pray for you. God, let them be well. And if I get lost or forget, then again, from the very beginning, everyone. May it be well for everyone who loved me, for who I am alive, even for those who have left and forgotten... Lord, give me strength to say how much I love them.
And he takes what he sees with his generous heart: patience, loyalty, forgiveness, love, help. And the pettiness of friends, smallness, grayness, weakness, selfishness, vulgarity as if he does not notice. Even in enemies and traitors, he can see the good. This is not the standard of the poet, but the ideal of the righteous. He takes many times less than he gives, and gives everything, puts life on the altar of service, is so honest that his heart seems to be torn out and knocks on the palm of his hand, everything is visible in him - and blood, pain, and the light of each blow. Not for yourself, not for yourself. He's sick and he's healing everyone. Myself - strength, courage, truth. He writes and sings like he prays.
And in the atmosphere of shallow fuss, in the process of insatiable, and sometimes frighteningly indifferent pulling out the feathers of the firebird, sacrifice, tolerance, selflessness, and heroism are suddenly revealed. It is as if, having fallen into his aura, people take over from him the direct habit of being a man without lying. Only if a person is small, then his feat will be small, but he will not cease to be a feat. A feat of acting like an honest person? Judging by the finale of the film, where the transformation of two opposite, but equally broken by the state machine people – the captain (the hero of Andrei Smolyakov) and Leonid (the hero of Dmitry Astrakhan), yes, a feat. And Vysotsky is inspired by him so that on the plane on a torn pack of cigarettes writes poems of great human growth.
That’s what this movie could be about if it was actually shown.
What was missing was an important ingredient — a sense of the real, the authentic, the intonations with which he lived, sang and spoke. I'm not talking about the notorious mask. It is impossible to play Vysotsky in principle, neither in it nor without it, because his energy cannot be faked by any acting tricks, his power will not flow from the screen. It will be a film about the environment, or about the environment. But then the environment acts so (or does not play at all like Akinshina) that you do not believe in: “I live only by your patience.” Loyalty. Lord, give me the strength to say how much I love them. The almost mystical story of the poet’s “first death” was turned into an entertaining adventure with wiretapping, surveillance, chases, denunciations, interrogations and even a failed rape. Rosanov’s instructions that one should not open, call loudly, what should be in secret and silence. Don’t say, “Look away, you don’t love.” Love is modest, she is not looking for a scandal, she is not curious, she is able to understand about pain without detailed, under the clothes of peeping, illustrations.
So... The response was as follows:
We all love him. Not just in your own way. There is something in common in all our ideas about Vysotsky, in his perception. Answering the question “what?” is like solving a national mystery. Vitality, amazing vitality and optimism in spite of everything, even unfreedom, death. Persistence with an admixture of rebelliousness, dash. Passion, the spontaneous power of the soul. Sacrifice with shades of righteousness and wonderworking.
Who is a poet of the people? A representative of the ideas and opinions of the majority? Nope. It's better to talk about politicians. I think that the one in whom the individual and the people do not fight (who have become tired of “poet and mob”), but live in the unity of the heart. People’s tears, joys, aspirations, fears and victories. People's poet hurts everyone. And expresses the general in such a way that each will take only his own. What are the "roles" songs? Vysotsky has everything true. And the main truth is destiny.
When I saw the movie, I tried to say, ‘Peter Buslov about who? Yours or our poet? If you do, then you will be able to share your story with someone who is not the author. And if ours, did he deliberately build his personality in accordance with the voice and taste of the people (to please everyone) or spit on any intention and turned his heart to the category of nationality?
Buslov’s film did not last until Vysotsky, because his nationality is shown by purely external methods in the cinema. They clap standing up, call, tear to pieces, buy tickets in packs, listen and listen.
However, let’s be honest, let’s turn on the light in the hall: who would have reached Vysotsky today? To speak about him in the language of the same truthful art that he carried, you need a pure film project, free from the gloss of budget and the gloss of producer names, not “cloning” him, but reanimating us. We need other WE. In whom he lives, and not present Vysotsky. Who lives half as he wrote and lived. Or just yearns for a life whose finish is horizon, not success.
P.S. At the discussion of the film at the Jazz Cinema Film Club, I asked whether anyone knew the cinema biography of a great personality that was adequate for her. No answer. Andrey Tarkovsky, “Andrey Rublev.”
And it all began with a wide advertising campaign under a loud and bright "neon" sign: "Vysotsky". Thank you for being alive.” The main advertising move: “Who played the role of Vladimir Semenovich Vysotsky?” And of course, a large galaxy of famous actors and other people.
But what happened?
The film begins with the KGB's "bloody dungeons." Where the insidious head of the special service exposes the unclean employees of the Ministry of Culture. Next, the viewer is shown the main character. Vysotsky has serious health problems, and no less serious drug addiction. The situation in the country is tense due to the bloody and insidious "Gabni", general corruption and "good" friends of the hero who love to make money.
In the forty-fourth minute, the viewer finally hears an excerpt from Vysotsky’s song, then a cover version of another of his songs performed by Mr. Urgant (Who would you think?) sounds, who cannot play anyone but himself! It can't do that. Well, not given to man.
Towards the end of the film, the director and scriptwriter came to their senses and began to show the viewer that everything was not so bad. In the KGB, it turns out, decent people work, and Vysotsky is not just a drug addict, but also a famous poet, songwriter and a good soul man. Who would have doubted that?
Wysotsky's songs are terribly lacking. There are almost none in the film.
The theme of the brilliant creativity of Vladimir Semenovich is completely not disclosed. Music, songwriting, concerts, popular love and recognition, fame outside the USSR - all this is pushed deep into the background and shown, as if reluctantly. And I’m not talking about the fact that Vysotsky actively starred in films and played in the theater. It's not mentioned at all. Of course, all the creativity to fit in one film will not work, but to make more emphasis in the direction of music, the authors were simply obliged! But judging by the interview of Nikita Vysotsky, the author of the script of the film and the son of Vladimir Semenovich, such a task was not worth it. And it's depressing. Yes, to show the older generation that Vysotsky was an ordinary person with his own shortcomings and advantages, this is certainly good, but if you replace Vysotsky in the script with any other character, then this will not change much for the film itself. Except, of course, the cash register! Money, money and more money!
In my opinion, any film is made primarily for a new generation, for a contemporary, if you like, and what does this film carry? Drugs, KGB, totalitarian USSR? This is a strategic mistake by the authors. Deliberate! After all, you could show drugs and special services, and everything, but the main emphasis should be on the work of Vysotsky! The sad thing is not that this film was made, but that this is the first and last feature film about Vysotsky in the next 10-15 years, at best. How do you show this film to your children and grandchildren and say, ‘We had such a great musician.’ Well, no! Absolutely not.
With such chronic inability and helplessness in our modern cinematography, it is possible to spoil and distort any famous person and historical event, without any Western propaganda.
For this film more suitable titles: "Buslow, why did you shoot this?", "Boomer 3". Requiem, Logging is looking for talent!
Of the pluses, these are well-played secondary roles, such actors as Andrei Smolyakov and Andrei Panin. But that doesn’t save the movie.
I was very impressed by "Vysotsky". So much so that I went out the second time a few days after the first viewing. Before that, I had a very blurred idea about Vysotsky - several songs that are on the ear, and a couple of movies with his participation. And then I realized the scale of personality. Immediately after the film, I re-read everything I found about him on the Internet, read poems. Genius! I wonder why he hasn’t been included in the school curriculum. There are amazing moments in the film... The scene of clinical death is a masterpiece. How people's reactions have shown!!! It's simple, real, no pathos. Prayer of the Holy Spirit is shaking. The scene in which Friedman burns the stubs of tickets, the scene in which the kgb-shnik tears the papers - you realize that the good beginning in a person still wins! The concert, when he couldn’t sing, but only spoke, even though he was teetering on the verge of life and death, you know, this is the real dedication, this is how to work if you want to achieve something! By the way, I was probably one of the lucky few who did not fall victim to the PR campaign that preceded the film. Since there is absolutely no time to watch TV lately, I did not know anything about the topic with complex plastic makeup, and therefore all my attention went to the perception of the meaning of the film, and not to unravel the personality of the actor hiding under the mask:
Akinshina's game - talented, bright! I read an interview on the Internet with Oksana Afanasyeva (the prototype of Tatiana from the film), and I think that Akinshina really played 100% of this particular Oksana.
Many commented that in this film Vysotsky was shown as a weak character. I really want to argue, although, of course, everyone sees his own. I think the movie is about strength of mind. The ability to love and forgive even those who benefit from you. About the ability to work, giving everything, when the body does not allow you to do it. Decision-making skills. It's about the courage to say what you think in a country where few people decide. A film about the art of living. Not to pretend to be alive, but to be alive with all the advantages and disadvantages, with the acceptance of what is around, with the living of every moment, with gratitude for every second of life and creativity.
Oh. Afanasyeva says in an interview that Vysotsky took drugs in order to feel normal physically. So in the film, in my opinion, it is shown that he did not escape from reality (this is usually done by drug addicts), he sought to return to reality! To return to normal, to write more poems, to sing more songs, to give more warmth and love to others, to enjoy life. Only strong people can live in reality.
But I know what is false and what is holy.
I realized this a long time ago.
My path is one, only one, guys.
I am fortunately not given a choice.
I believe that the main task of this kind of film is to attract the attention of the viewer to the life and work of great people. After watching "Vysotsky." I reread his biography, learned some amazing poems that I saw for the first time in my life, and listen to his songs. And now I can safely say that the film is worth the two hours spent.
I do not want now to disassemble the acting, the work of the director and cameraman, the scenery and the budget - this will be done by everyone who will write reviews. I just want to say that this picture is about a Man with a capital letter, who had his own principles, a view of life and an irrepressible desire to do something more. He knew how to love, respect and thank people who did something for him in life (during the scene where Vysotsky prays for loved ones, I could not hold back tears), and they, in turn, were ready to go with him to the end.
In general, after the film there is a feeling of great faith in the best, in the ability of people to change. And that no matter how difficult the road is, if it is yours, you can pass it.
10 out of 10
I love Vysotsky. But this movie made me feel really bad. The attempt to reduce everything to the level of a Hollywood action movie succeeded. Calambia Pictures presents: the hero is pressed, he is weak, but still fights. Everything resolves, villains repent, the plane takes off safely! Happy and.
And it would be cool if it was some fictional hero.
But the film was shot about Vladimir Semyonovich Vysotsky!
The one who played in the Taganka theater! The one who wrote brilliant songs with meaning. Yes, in the end, the one who played Zheglov in “The meeting place can not be changed”.
And that's what his strength was.
Not that he could breed "through morality," as shown in the film. And not that he was a "cheesal" tourer, but with principles!
I do not think that Vladimir Vysotsky himself, if he were alive, would like this film.
What did I know about why Vysotsky died so early? That's exactly what my father told me.
“Vysotsky lived to the fullest. Break it. They don’t live that long.
And that was enough for me to love him and honor his work. Now I was told that Vysotsky died of drugs. Why would you do that? Even so, I don't think it was worth showing.
Personality realism? I will not be surprised if tomorrow Buslov will make a film about Tchaikovsky, where Peter Ilyich will close up kissing men, the whole film will suffer from unrequited, same-sex love and somewhere in the background to write “The Nutcracker” and “Swan Lake”.
The worst part is that we are going to do that.
Leaving the cinema from young people heard the idea that “it turns out Vysotsky was a very cool man in life.” Getting in means. And before that, they didn't know.
They didn't listen to songs. “The meeting place cannot be changed” was not seen.
So now you'll see! And a biography will be honored. And the lyrics.
That’s what I see as the positive role of the film.
Only for God’s sake, it would be better if this budget was invested in the promotion of “Meeting places can not be changed” and showed it in theaters. That would be a real memory.
That would be a real tribute to talent. And so it's just speculating on a great name in pursuit of the box office.
Love for Vysotsky resulted in a strong but thoughtless desire to return the hero, whose departure was perceived as a national tragedy. They wanted it hard and they gave it back. As you can.
Vysotsky is on the screen, but the time and environment for the poet and singer is no longer suitable. Instead of a live hero, a brand turned out, thanks that by some miracle the creators abandoned the usual for producers of the first channel of hidden advertising. They tried to revive the simulacrum as they could, even concealed the actor Sergei Bezrukov, who was so clearly coming out of Vysotsky, tried to convince the viewer that he was resurrected by your beloved in cinema and in life and even in the credits we will write him as Vladimir Vysotsky. But all these tricks have nothing to do with cinema. All this marketing, as dead as the idol, could not help the situation.
Because it's actually the same thing. Mashed according to well-known recipes "masterpiece" aimed at the widest audience. That's what the first channel producers are good at. Real fans bought a big name, ordinary viewers bought advertising. In the film itself, the authors competently arranged love, gangster and spy stories, from above, as Oksana Akinshina was pricked with a cherry and everything was abundantly sprinkled with carefully restored objects of nostalgic life of Soviet citizens. There is no place left for Vysotsky, and let him lie on the Persian carpet half dead.
Instead of a film about a great artist, we got some kind of television commercial stuffed with horns. Instead of a story of creativity and struggle, overdose and clinical death. Instead of pride, shame. What motivated the creation of such a script the son of a great singer, I can not understand. Unless he wanted revenge...
The film left a very blurry impression. This is probably why my review is neutral. I can’t say the film didn’t impress me, but I expected more from it.
I thought it was a crazy idea, which was taken as a basis - a few hours torn from the life of Vysotsky. I wanted to see a film about a great poet, musician, to see in it the same Gleb Zhiglov, passionate, emotional, decisive. But it didn't work out.
Undoubtedly, Bezrukov is a good actor, and always plays by five points. But he is more suitable for lyrical heroes like Pushkin and Yesenin, but not Vysotsky. There is no such thing as passion and madness, an unfinished image.
Comrade Urgant wasn't impressed either. He's a comedian, he has to make people laugh. Even his face is not serious, you look and immediately want to smile. This is good, someone plays lyrical characters, and someone makes people laugh, everyone should have their place in the sun. This is not the case.
In general, you can watch the movie. But they made him so boring. Expected more.
I was at that movie the day it premiered. There were fewer seats in the hall than in the stadium at the final match of the World Cup. And the second time I came to see this movie a week later, there was the same picture. And every time in the finale, when the song was played, no one moved until the last chord subsided.
In such a film, it was very important that the main image was transmitted from the first frames of the appearance. And as soon as Vysotsky appeared on the screen, it became clear: yes, it is HE.
He is exhausted, driven, but never broken. On the stage, when in the hellish heat his heart is ready to stop (this is coupled with the consequences of the addiction given to him by the doctors), he, almost dying, continues the numbers. “The only valid reason for an artist not to appear is death. We're alive. So there is no change...
Infinitely loving Tanya, taking terrible risks, breaks straight from Moscow and brings him medicine at a critical moment. And his friends are not perfect in everything, but they are with him. And in one of the monologues, Vysotsky openly says how he loves everyone he knows endlessly. Extraordinary love of humanity - in my opinion, one of its main features.
The resurrection of Vysotsky is one of the most powerful moments of the film. I will leave out the circumstances in which this happened, but is it so often that death, having already taken a man, brings him back, giving him a year to finish the unfinished thing?
Indescribable emotions in the finale, when Vysotsky enters a duel with a kgbshnik digging under him, and more from its outcome and consequences.
All these two hours I watched the film and saw in front of me a live Vysotsky, although I naturally could not see him live. But this movie is a time machine, a resurrection machine, if you will. He's back.
And before I announced the identity of the starring actor, I decided for myself that this information does not interest me and will not interest me. The actor was only the point of materialization, the nucleus for the descent of the spirit, the image of a great man. It was not an actor, it was Vysotsky himself. He was revived in this film by the love and memory of millions of people.
My attitude to the work and personality of Vladimir Semenovich Vysotsky is very reverent. I love and know a lot of his songs and poems, I know not only the main points of his biography, but also something more subtle. I can listen to his brutish voice, touching the soul to the very bottom, every song of his, not a countable number of times. Everything about the life and work of this person is close to me.
I was waiting for this film, I wanted to see it, followed the information on it. I was hoping... I was hoping my son wouldn't let me make a bad movie about my father. I hope the filmmakers remember who they were making the film about. I hoped that it would be a movie that would show the genius of Vysotsky as a person, as an actor and, most importantly, as a poet. What did I get? . .
Where's the actor who played Hamlet, Galileo, Clamp, so that whole performances were performances of one actor? Where is the performer who made the stadiums freeze, laugh, cry, go crazy with delight? Where is the poet who wrote the most brilliant lines: "I breathe, and therefore I love!" I love you, and that means I live!
Instead, we see a certain alcoholic and drug addict, who through illegal concerts (as a result of which people go to prison) siphons money from the people, who cannot resist their environment, which milks them.
And in fact, Vysotsky in this film is not! Or at least he's not the main character. The main character is a KGB colonel, performed by A. Smolyakov. What did the filmmakers want to convey? How did a poor poet get pinched and rotted by evil uncles in grey suits, preventing him from creating? And as then the most important pursuer of talent, after one conversation and a quote from Pushkin, he is sharply re-educated and imbued with the fate of the bard. I understand that this was the main idea of the film, and not the memory of Vysotsky.
Although the actors tried. Sergei Bezrukov Honestly, I feel sorry for him. He took away the main instrument of the actor – face, facial expressions. He could only shine his eyes and slouch “under Vysotsky”. And then they took the name. The idea to write in the credits “Vladimir Vysotsky” is, sorry, complete nonsense! What did the creators want to say – that Vysotsky would approve of all this? That’s what I doubt...
They played well Astrakhan and Smolyakov. But the most impressed Oxana Akinshina. The episode with her and Vysotsky after clinical death is the only one that caught on and caused positive emotions.
I didn’t understand what Vanya Urgant was doing in the film about 1979 from the TV of the early 21st century. In the film about Vysotsky is not at all appropriate.
The conclusion is disappointing. The film was made solely to survive as much money as possible at the expense of a well-known and beloved name. The creators achieved this goal - all generations went to the cinema. From grandmothers who last visited the cinema 30 years ago (" This is a film about our idol), to tenagers (thanks Basta in the trailer and the same Akinshina).
About all this situation very accurately said Vladimir Semenovich in 1973, in his poem “Monument”. In it, he guessed not only what ugliness will be put on his grave, but also how it will be reflected in the cinema.
I didn’t dream about it, I didn’t dream about it.
And I thought I was not in danger.
To be all dead dead.
But the surface on the cast was elusive,
And the grave boredom came through.
From my toothless smile.
I would not recommend watching this film to anyone who loves and knows the work of Vysotsky, or those who do not suspect who it is (probably there are such). The first advice is to listen to the recording of Vysotsky's songs in the author's performance or watch "The meeting place cannot be changed." Second, this film will not reveal why Vysotsky’s songs are still relevant.
4 out of 10
There is such a thing as popular love. Liu-bov na-ro-da. It cannot be bought with money, hypocritical charity, beautiful face, empty promises, power, power; even with the mind one can buy admiration, but not love. You can count on it only by giving yourself, completely, with guts - to people. You remember the lines: 'Poets walk with their heels on the blade of a knife and cut their barefoot souls into blood'? That's how people's love comes about. Can you show me a man capable of that selflessness? Vysotsky not just ' died of drugs ' This man burned and burned himself, and his acquaintances added oil to the fire, he burned with an obsession with truth. Vysotsky became something good for people in difficult times for the country - for the truth he spoke, for the tears and laughter he caused. He still (although the ease of times is relative) remains an example for people who have an idea of nobility, of honor ... what to say. And instead of showing this, poking him in the nose with such an unimportant vice, spending two hours of tape on the most miserable time of his life, on the accumulation of his problems. It is as if they took a scalpel, and abused the human body, taking all the most unpleasant things to the eye and said: '. It's pork. Vladimir Vysotsky was a man of rare will to live - not just in the context of problems with medicine and the KGB - but in the matter of life and death, the Hamlet question. To see people through and endure, and to succumb to this unchanging flow of life, and to love it, with all its defects, poisoning the soul. He set himself a difficult task: to make people a little better. And you know what? Successful. Take a pencil and paper, try it yourself.
I watched the movie a long time ago. Many, perhaps, will tell me that I do not know what I am talking about, that the film is laudably realistic, that Vysotsky is shown from different sides, and even watching the movie is not boring (there are chases, well, all sorts of interrogations). Well, although it is bitter, for you connoisseurs of art, he remains what he appeared in this film. It has as much relation to this man and his talent as Bezrukov has to Yesenin and Pushkin. It would be hard to be more vile ' honor ' the memory of a person. This film is another sore on the face of Russian culture. I don't know, it's a mystery to me what moved the poet's son Nikita. I will not say anything about this, I do not like slander. Maybe it was just that at some point the situation in writing the script got out of hand, he didn’t notice it for some reason. God be with him.
I don’t care that I didn’t look at the work done on the painting from a pseudo-aesthetic standpoint, because it doesn’t smell like art. If you wanted to know the impression left by the picture in me, and I am sure not only in me, here it is, and it is still fresh. And finally, two more lines:
': I don't like to get in my head.
Especially when it's spit & #39;
This film is not just about a man. This film is about the Legend, about the whole Epoch, which is identified with the mention of the name of Vysotsky.
I know less than I would have liked about the sack. I read his biography, but I didn't read it. I've read his poems, but I only know a couple by heart. But nevertheless, I genuinely respect him and his work since childhood, as if absorbing it with my mother's milk. His contribution to our culture, to our cinema, to music, to literature, is simply his contribution to the perception of our history. For a long time there is no country called the USSR, but there are people, people, talking about whom borders are erased. Vysotsky is one of these “border eraser”. Geographical, political, national, even temporary. The memory of such people should be transmitted and stored in the mind, in the heart.
I’m just as sorry that I didn’t get to the cinema as I am that I’ll never see Vladimir Semyonovich’s concerts live. I am as envious of the white envy of those who went to this film in the cinema, as I am of those who heard and saw Vysotsky during his lifetime.
The filmmakers did an incredible job. They recreated the atmosphere of the USSR in great detail. From queues to empty streets of Moscow, from carpets to the KGB. Interiors, scenery, people - everything from there. But first of all, you need to pay attention to acting. After 2.5 years, of course, it is known that Bezrukov played the main role. There were a lot of jokes about it, but let me tell you guys, did you ever see how he played?!? And yes, a lot of makeup, computer shooting took place, but still Sergey can express deep respect for the work done. Andrey Panin. I still can't believe he's not with us either. An actor of really incredible talent. For some reason, most of his roles were not very good people, but with this role of a personal doctor, he opened up as always without flaws. Andrei Smolyakov played the KGB-shnik, who was “forced” to follow the musician during his stay in Uzbekistan. A good character, revealed beautifully. Vanya Urgant is actually not a bad actor, that he was all over it is unclear, he coped with the role, in my opinion, great. And you can write about a lot of good actors who are involved in a good movie. I don’t know what else to add about the film itself – 5 days in the life of Vladimir Semyonovich Vysotsky just need to see with your own eyes. I would like to continue with others.
I’ve seen comments like, “Here, I’m not familiar with his work, but after the film I can’t even feel respect,” and “No film” and so on. I take a deep breath to calm down and think constructively. Yes, there were drugs in Vysotsky’s life, but the film mentioned, and in the biography you can read that he began to use morphine not out of whim, fun for the sake of interest or something else. Health problems, and pushing the environment, which in general had a lot of money from him - that was one of the most important reasons for addiction. And watching the film, I absolutely did not lose respect for the personality of Vysotsky, but on the contrary strengthened this feeling. Despite all the pressure he put on him, he remained true to his principles and his convictions. He did not lose his strength of character and spirit. And most of the Geniuses were sitting on something. And they all gave themselves to the creation. Vysotsky literally almost died on stage. The moment in the film, when the full hall after listening to the recording of Vysotsky’s song got up and applauded, does not need comments about the popular love for the artist. You won’t find this anywhere else and never again. There are no such artists now and I don’t think there will be any more. After his death, a year after the events of the film, the concert was disrupted, but no tickets were returned, and on the day of the funeral, even the roofs on Taganskaya Square were filled with people. Vladimir Vysotsky died during the Summer Olympics in Moscow. Therefore, there were almost no reports of his death, however, Vysotsky was buried, it seemed, all of Moscow.
Then it wasn't just a man who left. Gone is the genius.
And it may not be my best review, but I just wanted to say thank you. Eternal memory and respect, Vladimir Semyonovich.
P.S. And smiling, my wings broke,
My wheezing sometimes looked like a howl.
And I was sick of pain and powerlessness.
He whispered, “Thank you for being alive.”