Unforgettable drinking with a museum director, or high-level connections decide everything.
In turn, we have a new Eldar Ryazanov, only in a female image. Absolutely wonderful, light, witty and topical melodrama about the fact that there are no barriers to real feelings, especially if you have brains, money and connections at the highest level.
In strength and energy, it is similar to the film “The Island” (2006) by Pavel Lungin. It is strange that “2 days” is also not popular.
In the estate-museum of the fictional Russian writer of the XIX century Peter Shcheglovity, officials come with an inspection. Fedor Bondarchuk plays a charismatic Muscovite, deputy minister, and Ksenia Rappoport is a village literary critic, who owns a chicken coop and a goat named Nastasya Filippovna. There are two different things.
The estate has a romantic history. The Russian writer, who lived in it all his life, brought up three children with a local peasant Akulina, was in love with a romantic principled girl who left him in a monastery after learning that he killed a man in a duel. She left to make up for him. That's such a great feeling. Peter gave half of his fortune to the widow of the murdered man and chose solitude. He wrote two novels, Two Days and The Fisherman's Notes. Well, solitude, the peasant Akulina was nearby. Men are like men.
The namesake is our capital official. This novel has no future. He is a hardened politician who has seen everything, she is a sarcastic intellectual who hates pontifices and capital life. But, in the irony of the universe, it is such unrealistic relationships that often give rise to long, six-decade-long family unions. God has a sense of humor, what do you think?
Bondarchuk, of course, is devilishly beautiful. How he gets drunk, hangs, jumps on a horse, seduces the main character - you can review it on repeat. Playing a real man. Authoritarian, charismatic, cynical and cunning. And the scene in which he's in white family wiggling ass, pretending to be a duck? Priceless.
The screen chemistry of Fyodor Bondarchuk and Ksenia Rappoport is real. Filmed in Abramtsevo, very beautiful locations. And in the bath steamed, and in the pond dived, and at a beautiful table in nature sat. Lovely to see. Surprised, the film failed at the box office. With a budget of 1.7 million dollars collected only 616 thousand. Our audience does not trust domestic love stories.
I do not remember how I learned about this picture, probably interested in the description of the plot and the cast.
Deputy Minister Peter Drozdov, played by Fyodor Bondarchuk, comes to the village, forgotten by God, in order to build a new residence on the territory of the local museum named after the same God-forgotten classic. And it seemed that nothing could shake the decision of Drozdov, except as a local literary critic Maria performed by Ksenia Rappoport.
I agree, the film is a fairy tale, both at the beginning and at the end, but the director is a woman, and they tend to believe in miracles, so let’s forgive Avdotje Smirnova for her innocent prank. I liked the rest of the film – well-written dialogues, revealed characters of the film’s characters, familiar and warming locations of our native Russian villages away from major cities. Acting at a high level, both the main characters and secondary. I will also note the operator’s work from a positive side. The script is great, somehow he stuck to his heart. Perhaps this was facilitated by the brilliant play of Bondarchuk and Rappoport, as their feelings I unconditionally believed and felt myself in the role of a male character, as this can happen to anyone when you want to forget who you were made, and remember what you really are.
And the fact that a self-confident official so broke in the arms of Mother Nature, so it happens to everyone. The only thing that is unclear is how he changed his position, which was occupied by another respected person in the ministry.
Beautiful melodrama. I recommend...
Peter Sergeyevich Drozdov, an official from the Ministry of Economy visits the estate of the writer Pyotr Shcheglovitov, where his difficult relationship with the obstinate, like all our intelligentsia, Maria Ilyinichny, an employee of this museum, begins.
Avdotya (aka Dunya) Smirnova essentially made a film about herself as a representative of the class of idealistic lingerie, with whom her wife Anatoly Chubais has to patch the budget (a rare self-irony in such cases, but museum workers do not look at all blue stockings). Hardly surviving, with the tenacity of donkeys, representatives of the intelligentsia defend their not very well paid work. They are also characterized by stereotypes - an exaggerated value of culture, an inadequate attitude to bureaucracy (both in the other direction in the sense of grovelling, and in the other - the perception of power as Moscow ghastles and liars).
The budget-paying official, as he should, is glossy, cynical, brazen, although he earned an ulcer while driving around the country.
But the meeting changes the perception of the heroes of each other. He turned out to be a secret alcoholic and romantic, fearful not only of Putin (who called him), but also of his mother. She, for all her integrity, is not arranged in everyday life, is unhappy in her personal life and by and large her principled and honesty are not convincing to anyone (a remarkable episode when this couple in different ways tries to reason with the strapped children-guests).
And then the attraction of the sexes comes into force. However, remaining within the mainstream and most of the laws of romantic comedy, Dunja Smirnova and the screenwriter ... unfold both the political and value context of the love story. It is programmed to echo the story of the writer Shcheglovitov. He, as it turns out, had two loves in his life: the aristocrat Sophia Dorn, whom he knew for two days, and then only corresponded, and the serf Akulina, with whom he lived all his life and had three children.
Modernity has clearly made adjustments to the existing love triangle. Modern political and economic elites create marriage of convenience and convenience (with great prospects). On the contrary, the intelligentsia left at the bottom of the social ladder (or on another planet – “report from the moon”) still pretends to store some values and love. In some ways, these are shrines, which are symbolized by the park in the manor, in which neither a tree nor a need can be met.
Masha and Akulina (by social status) and Sophia Dorn in one person. But Sophia Dorn is mentally closer to her.
Peter Sergeyevich Drozdov is the implicit but reincarnation of Peter Shcheglovitov. However, this is not quite a hangover and a duelist. But with shrines and he is bad - there is no love, the classics are not relevant and harmful, the museum is ineffective.
Therefore, the developing novel answers several questions:
1) Can a politician be from a different era?
2) Are the masters from above able to negotiate not only among themselves but also with the people?
I'll have to watch the movie for the answer. For many, however, it will not be difficult - the movie is certainly not an art house, but a smart romantic comedy.
After watching Two Days, that was the only exclamation that came to mind. Here's why. First, a high-ranking official behaves like a kitchen intellectual, I do not believe that a person who has reached such a high post in the bureaucratic hierarchy can reflect in this way, for him, the benefit is a postulate of life, and then he is ready to sacrifice everything for the provincial museum and his not quite adequate employee. Secondly, I do not believe this employee - she poses as a Turgenev lady, but with a quite selfish bias, and it is strange to look at her "breaking" when the hero offers her a hand and a heart. In the third, the thoughts of the hero himself are not entirely honest, changing the ministerial chair to the governor's and at the same time portraying himself as the "hero of our time", and not chopping wood for his beloved woman also characterizes him not in the best way.
From the whole film blows some kind of artificiality, where the museum is a scenery, and talk about the sublime is only words. Which is empty. And the emptiness in the actions and actions of the heroes is only emphasized by their dialogues. Mary is not quite able to appreciate Peter’s actions, and Peter does not understand Masha’s wishes. Some kind of parallax of action. And by the end it only intensifies, even casting aside Bondarchuk's hero motives, Rappoport's reaction is not natural. I want to ask you, what do you want?
Two great actors Fyodor Bondarchuk and Ksenia Rapoport played below their capabilities, in places they approached a good game, but alas, they were not impressed. As Irina Rozanova and Evgeny Muravich did not look.
It seems that the plot is not poorly composed and the characters are spelled out, but in general, a very commercialized movie with a set of actors turned out. Behind the external actions there is emptiness.
When in Russian realities about seizures, ruin, physical and spiritual poverty, there is simplicity, when they stop savoring the dirt, finding humor in ' harsh Russian heart' it is then that the so-called ' rest of the soul', nothing connected, however, with boredom, about which Pushkin wrote.
Solar narration, with a simple plot, charming characters (in which, as they say, you will know your neighbors - without this they would not be charming), touching comic of completely cardboard situations, and uniquely high-quality aesthetic presentation (some thanks to the operator for shooting nature, somehow truly he came out), leaves an impression pleasant, even tender.
The main idea is simple and creative ' love awakens in a person ... man' and it does not pretend to open your eyes, does not poke truths in your forehead. It just exists, and it warms the soul. And it is good that the love in this film is not just between a man and a woman - it would deprive him of charm - but rather in the whole environment, in the care with which everything is done in it: characters, dialogue, music.
Touching Rappoport and Bondarchuk bring life, and the frivolous attitude of the director and screenwriter to ' tragic monologues' - humor.
That’s how a cute Russian movie is made. Russian in spirit and simplicity.
Two happy days were with me, Ili, how Peter Sergeevich and Maria Ilyinichna met.
Fairy tale. A fairy tale for adults. That's how I would describe this film. Personally, I was interested in watching the film “2 Days” primarily because of the acting work: because, in my opinion, it is the acting work that makes this seemingly simple movie interesting and “tasty”. And also because of the special atmosphere, from which, as from the predawn fog of late summer or early autumn, events “swim out” in which there was a place for melodrama, comedy, and satire “on the topic of the day.”
The main characters. Peter Sergeevich as Fedor Bondarchuk. Often, Bondarchuk’s characters in different films are similar to each other – they are wealthy (very rich), successful and arrogant egoists. It is all the more interesting to see him as a character who, in the course of the plot, descends from his, in this case, ministerial Olympus and turns out to be a normal person: at times funny, at times pathetic, at times cute. It turns out that he looks good not only in designer costumes, but also in stretched old pants, he touching, like a child, eats soup (although there are no hangover children...). And, of course, behind all these metamorphoses of Peter Sergeevich is a woman. Namely, Ksenia Rappoport in the role of Marya Ilyinichna - a delicate romantic nature, a maximalist truth-loving and by profession - deputy director for science of the museum house-estate of the writer of the "third row" Shcheglovitov. Xenia’s film heroines are usually fragile sublime women who have character and inner core. Perhaps here her Marya Ilyinichna sometimes looks too clumsy and awkward, sometimes I want to call her a fool, but the fact that the heroine causes sympathy, respect and sympathy is unequivocal.
I would also like to highlight the strong and bright acting works of Evgeny Muravich (the director of the museum), Irina Rozanova (Larisa Petrovna), Boris Kamorzin (the governor) and Gennady Smirnov (Victor is an assistant to Peter Sergeevich). Their characters are real, “live”, recognizable.
And in conclusion, as for the ending of the story, the resolution of seemingly insurmountable plot circumstances is perceived by me as a fairy tale, to believe in the reality of which I really want, although very difficult. At the same time, the positively ironic open final gives hope that Peter Sergeyevich will still be able to tame the obstinate Marya Ilyinichna, and they will be happy.
6 out of 10
There are projects, creating which, the authors initially understand that this film is not designed for the mass audience.
I think that Avdotya Smirnova knew that the film would fail at the box office, because her “2 days” is not for those who came to the cinema for “entertainment”.
The film is a reflection on the lost, gone, irretrievable!
Why does the soul hurt when it looks at the beauty that is turned into a dumpster? Does it hurt everyone?
The film "2 Days" has everything: a beautiful script, fantastic acting, good directing, a great cameraman! There is nothing but the future.
Canula in oblivion "family cinema" in Russia. (It is in Europe and America that families still go to the movies.)
And such a movie should be watched in the circle of the family, discussed and argued to hoarseness!
I am sure that this film will not be studied in VGIK (and should!). Unfortunately, I studied in this institution and firsthand I know how and what they teach.
But if there was a Miracle, then “2 days” would be credited at acting courses in all film universities!
If there was a miracle, “2 days” would be shown on TV on all channels!
If a miracle happened after this movie, we would be kinder, wiser, more honest!
But the miracle did not happen and, alas, will not happen.
I am sincerely glad that Avdotya Smirnova is not focused on the generation of "Pepsi"!
And we will be raised up to God’s mercy.
P.S.
The only conditional minus of the movie "2 days" - HAPPY END.
It was impossible to “break” the genre (melodrama should not end in tragedy!), but in life (not in the movie) the story of “2 Days” would have ended quite differently.
This is a completely different movie!
I don't believe it!
As Konstantin Sergeevich would say. And I'd be absolutely right. I don’t think that in this film, the lack of soul of the actors is a director’s plan. Everyone is not working out a role, but a fee. Stay here, come here, say it. The number of cranberries is skyrocketing, but at the same time an attempt is made to show what happens differently, but this is not a tragedy of a person out of place, but just one of the steps according to a script algorithm. And although they began for health, as usual they finished for rest. Beginning with the drama, albeit clumsy, but still shown the tragedy of Russian culture, the mysterious Russian soul, the hatred of the lower classes and the neglect and squeamishness of the top, everything slid into a banal women's novel with a brutal but at the same time intelligent peasant who will not bow down, but will not offer paradise in a hut. Consider a demotion from deputy minister to governor. But the museum is saved, along with the beloved woman.
What you like. Humorous moments, though unrealistic. Do not behave like Deputy Ministers, even when a little relaxed. Moreover, they are not left unattended and will never get into sweatshirts outside their family. And they will not fraternize with unfamiliar people the next day, even if they relaxed the day before.
That I didn't like. Too much background. There are too many excursions at a certain interval, and climb into the frame and at the same time completely ignore the directly atypical behavior of the actors of the first plan, focusing on the speech of the guide and not even looking around. It doesn't happen. Well, what a household, the main character. The scenery was clearly made to untie, and a person very far from the subject.
But although the movie and one-time look still worth it. For the sake of a few monologues, for the sake of understanding the situation of culture and its workers who suffer from their profession in very general terms. For the sake of understanding its place in the value system of modern “successful” people (episodes in the ministry and with the governor), and in the value system of ordinary people (episode with a wedding on the territory of the museum) and in the value system of museum employees, graduates of art schools.
8 out of 10
Their acquaintance began with a quarrel, and it ended. She is a boorish, idealist and just a Russian intellectual. Maria Ilyinichna (Ksenia Rappoport), who wholeheartedly hates Muscovites. He is an important official who came from the capital, “manicured” deputy Peter Sergeevich Drozdov (Fyodor Bondarchuk). Their discussions raise the most topical, but already slightly annoying topics, why turn into cliches: “Your classical literature does not teach anything”, “You will send your children to England to study, right?”
Nevertheless, the whole film is flooded with soft sunlight: around the nervous relationships of the characters, the silence of the estate of the fictional writer of the “second row” reigns. - Peter Sergeyevich Shcheglovitov.
There are no saints like Prince Myshkin, such decent as Tatiana Larina. The main characters are contrasted with literary characters called Drozdov in the scene at the table. Both of them are imperfect, but over the course of the film, they change. But if the decency of Maria Ilyinichna really corresponds to the image of Tatiana, then the “sanctity” of Peter Sergeyevich remains controversial throughout the film.
The namesake of the writer Shcheglovitov is trying to understand whether it makes sense to finance the writer’s nest, where there are still no queues. In two days he gets acquainted with the life and customs of people who are trying to preserve the museum. They have to work and raise cattle to survive. Maria Ilyinichna breeds chickens and milks a goat, named after the heroine of the novel by Dostoevsky & #39; Idiot' Nastasia Filippovna. But in this occupation, they find the same consolation that the heroes of "Uncle Vani" found. In it, they are looking for eternal salvation, forgetting, which will help them cope with external threats to the world around them. Labor for them is not only a way to survive, but also an occupation that helps the heroes to abstract from external adversity. Sometimes it begins to seem that this is a fairy tale about Cinderella, but with an unhappy ending: it is clear that the future joint life of Drozdov and Maria Ilyinichna is doomed.
Since the film is made by a modern director about modern life, it raises a number of problems. These problems are not new, they are present at all stages of development. One of them, the most important, was raised in their works by many writers and, nevertheless, it remains relevant to this day - it is the lawlessness of officialdom. The reluctance of higher authorities to understand people and meet them, their disdain for culture. But the employees of the museum behave wrongly in relation to the “guests”: they run and grovel in front of officials, which reminds the characters of the “Inspector”. The film also raises the issue of small salaries. Moreover, this is not only a problem for researchers of Shcheglaritov’s work, it is relevant throughout Russia in all spheres of human activity. Hence the impenetrable drunkenness, which has become an abominable symbol of Russian life.
Avdotya Smirnova made a film that I do not want to review. There's just a little bit of it, and there's no certainty. Even how the relationship of the characters will develop, tell the viewer voiceovers.
The film "Two Days" is a delicious cake of many layers.
Oddly enough, the first thing you notice is the highlights, numerous references to Russian literature, which warm the soul of those who know. The main place of action is the museum-estate of the fictional writer Shcheglovitov. In fact, the film was shot in Abramtsevo. This estate was a favorite place of Russian creators of the 19th century. At one time, the estate belonged to S. T. Aksakov, to whom N. V. Gogol, I. S. Turgenev, F. I. Tyutchev came. When the estate belonged to S. I. Mamontov, artists worked there, for example, V. M. Vasnetsov, A. A. Serov, I. E. Repin, M. A. Vrubel and many others. This is ridiculously depicted in the film: in the fragment where Peter is looking for a tree to relieve himself, it is clear that almost all trees are cultural heritage, since they were planted by famous creators. In Shcheglovitov’s novel, “Notes of a Fisherman”, which brought him fame, it is easy to guess “Notes of a Hunter” by Turgenev.
The writer himself is a typical representative of his time: brave, reckless, capable of eternal platonic love. And the love of the main characters is reminiscent of the beginning of “Poor Lisa”, where you do not understand for a long time whether a man wants to “gather and quit” or the feelings are real. They want to turn the museum into another economic center, the authorities want to destroy the purpose of life of many people, as in Chekhov’s Cherry Orchard. The situation with the deputy minister's marriage shows that some things have not changed, because this is a classic marriage of convenience, so convenient, so wrong. In “Two Days” many names from Russian classical literature are mentioned: the name of the goat Nastasya Fillipovna taken from “The Idiot”, Tatiana Larina from “Eugene Onegin”, Prince Myshkin also from “The Idiot”.
Then you feel the sour-bitter layer of cranberry berries. These are problems of which there are many. Any fragment, even the brightest, is permeated with harsh reality. If the characters with happy faces are preparing breakfast, still in the edge of the frame looms a yellow refrigerator and a collapsed village fence outside the window. If the guide paints lips, it is crooked and ugly.
At the same time, where the harsh truth is shown, there is good. If Bondarchuk’s hero gets drunk and the head of the museum explains how to apologize to people, we see how beautiful the evening forest is. If the heroine Rappoport shoots in the air and with the appearance of a chimera disperses a wedding on the territory of the museum, we see the beauty of nature (which is present in almost every frame), and the burning eyes of the falling in love Peter Sergeyevich.
The film touches on many of Russia’s problems. This is education, from which literature and culture in general seem to be displaced. It is also drinking that destroys fate. This is also officialdom: corrupt, cruel. This is the hard life of the cultural stratum, which for the sake of food has to keep cattle at home. These are, in general, fools living by their whims, and roads on which they reflect and realize what fools they are.
Barely noticeable as a sprinkle of tart cinnamon, other problems are mentioned. Stupidity and audacity of modern children, happily sitting on cultural monuments to play on the tablet, instead of listening to the tour. Disrespect for writers of the “third row”. Willingness to kneel in front of superiors. The vanity of museum visitors who look at works of art through the lenses of cameras, while discussing what to do after the tour, because they have forgotten how to emotionally perceive the beautiful. Insolence and disregard for culture, when in the legendary estate arrange a wedding, drunkenly breaking everything around.
But the bulk of the cake, sweet biscuit, is, of course, love. Not a modern movie, between the heroes of 18-25 years old, who are just beginning their career and life, but a real one, with a taste of bitterness of life circumstances.
Instead of the cherry on the cake, there are figures of a goat and a goat, lovingly yelling at each other. They symbolize Marya Illinisna, the typical villager, and Peter, the goat she loved, for love is evil.
The main character is especially impressive. Bold, where you need brazen, honest, bravely fighting for the cause of his life. In reality, there are few such women, even fewer in film and literature. The image of such a strong heroine is long stored in memory and leaves a mark on the soul.
And, finally, there is a lot of cream, berries and jewelry in the form of: magical music reminiscent of classical, high-quality acting, a wonderful script, good editing and impressive camera work. All this helps to go into the plot and worry about the characters as for living people. But this is too cozy and bright film to believe for a second that everything will end well.
10 out of 10
In September 2011, a new picture of Avdotya Smirnova “Two Days”, a comedy drama, which, it would seem, is not peculiar to the “evil” Dune, was released. In "Two Days" backbiting masterfully alternates with the brightest feelings. It's a combination of romantic comedy and social drama, with the former being better portrayed. When watching, I seemed to immerse myself in a good fairy tale, reminding all of us known motifs about cinderella or beauty and the monster.
Peter Drozdov, an official from Moscow, who was not badly played by Fyodor Bondarchuk, comes to the province of the forgotten writer, which has become a museum, with the goal set by the governor - to take the land and then build a residence there. Peter Drozdov, a responsible official who does not even think about saving the museum when he went there, begins to change his attitude to what is happening, or rather to its very purpose. This is due to the literary critic Masha, who works in the museum and with all her might “guards” it. Masha was perfectly played by actress Ksenia Rappoport. She is in great contrast with the hero of Bondarchuk: she is intelligent, beautiful, intelligent, he also seems callous, greedy, with a disregard for art, in general, in the words of Masha “Moscow man”.
Good work of the operator Maxim Osadchy, we see picturesque pictures of nature, attracting views of the estate, but in moderation, without unnecessary moments that do not carry any thought, on which in some cases you want to interrupt the viewing. Throughout the action, one style is maintained, which pleases the eye.
In addition to the main characters, who by the efforts of Masha, can make the perfect pair, there is an environment of each of them, which does not have anything perfect in itself. Officials and governors, despite the small presence in the picture, are depicted very vividly and clearly. They are greedy, coarse, greedy, completely devoid of conscience, Peter alone, under the power of love, turned from a monster into a man. And even one day he will say to his boss, “At least you need to have some conscience,” which is almost a feat for the hero. The employees of the museum, except for Masha, are uneducated, unbred, trembling before the authorities. Here, I think, everything is too exaggerated, even the impression that the director is unaware of the residents of small cities.
The work of Avdotya Smirnova I appreciated not quite unequivocally. The picture turned out to be successful, entertaining, it makes you smile without vulgarity, and later think about the concept of love in our time. The hero of Bondarchuk is undoubtedly a positive example for all employees. During the viewing, there is hope that officials will correct themselves, that the state will protect all preserved museums, architectural monuments, etc., and devote much more time to the culture of Russia and the cultural development of the people. But unfortunately, these are only hopes, and this is possible only on the screen.
At the show of romance between people of different classes, and a different worldview, Avdotya did not stop and showed the eternal conflicts of the poor and rich, the intelligentsia and the authorities. It is as if it has blurred the line between the people of the Cause and the people of the Spirit.
The painting “Two Days” is multipolar, clear and simple, it can be viewed by people of all ages. If you want to relax and get a charge of positive emotions, you should watch this film. After watching, you will have a pleasant impression.
I saw something like this a long time ago. Only the end was there... another.
By the way, a surprisingly good picture. The duet is pleasant, the dialogue is not sucked out of a finger. And life on the other side of the coin. Collision (as the capital-province is already accepted), rejection, complete misunderstanding and what can come out of it. One of life's scenarios. Unlikely, but...maybe. A fairy tale.
Why? Because "today" is Lida. It's a marriage of convenience, a reasonable strong family, it's right-left walks, "you won't know anyway." And Masha is probably "yesterday." If it was true that one could love a woman for years, be afraid to touch her, deifying her.
Beautiful outback. Life behind the fence (five thousand rubles), which can collapse at any time. And slam you down. Goats and chickens, a museum and cups from which he drank, classics of Russian literature, lofty, lost ideals for which someone is ready to dance naked on the table. Only bright colors, the eye pleases.
For some reason, when filming in our country, it is usually immediately clear what to expect. Moreover, the director touches on politics, life in the hinterland... – in general, not the most pleasant topics for us all. It would seem that there are two options: either an art house where everything is bad, or a comedy where everything is really good. That is, no reality and close.
However, having overcome myself after the plot, I did not close the window with the film. It seemed very atmospheric to me. Some kind of family. I don’t know, to be honest, what played here: maybe female directing, or maybe acting (by the way, a very good level, even almost without our inherent theatricality), but I watched the film to the end.
There are moments when it seems that the picture is balancing on the verge between black art house (yes, connoisseurs will forgive me) and Soviet comedy, but they do not strain, but rather paint the cinema, because this is a good attempt to find the golden mean, when life was shown, and like not everything was so scary.
The film is about love in every way.
Watch, enjoy, and maybe argue with my conclusions after watching.
For me, this movie is a purely personal, intimate author's statement, rather even an excuse, a confession. From the first shots in the character Rappoport I recognized Avdotya Andreevna. A false spirituality, moralizing, insistent demand from others to serve a certain "high" & #39; moral mission, a global humanistic goal, a contemptuous view of those who did not come up with lofty justifications for their activities - are these not characteristic features of the leading School of backbiting?
The viewer sees a goofy provincial picture of a strict lady, whose dull village life is invaded by the real ' man' and she immediately compromises all her principles, high moral ideals and surrenders under the onslaught of a real male.
Despite the apparent opposition of the main characters, they are not much different from each other. Equally uneducated and boring, they want the same thing - a love game with tantrums, calls, violent quarrels and reconciliations.
I may be deeply mistaken, but I cannot get rid of this impression. In my opinion, the parallel between the film and the life story of the director is obvious. I see in him a lot of self-admiration, coquetry and a complete lack of depth, meaning, which Dunya likes to seek from his guests. There is some irony in this.
The movie failed, a banal cardboard melodrama was released, in essence suitable only for an evening show on the channel ' Russia'.
Immediately after watching this movie, I wanted to see it again.
Fyodor Bondarchuk, who used to be hotly unloved by me... (and I had almost the same impression about him as the heroine of the film) just fascinated me. And Ksenia Rappoport falls in love with her spontaneity, sincerity. So charming in her clumsiness and so real. Yes, all heroes are not just additional characters, they are thoughtful images.
Good, high-quality, smart cinema is what we all lacked today. This particular movie seems to be missing. With that kind of humor. Humor is simple and so unlike this worn-out “camedi jokes” just below the waist.
Applause in the cinema is not often heard, only if caught alive and sunk into the soul of people. The titles of the film “2 days” went to incessant applause.
Avdotya Smirnova gives the impression not only educated, but also able to critically evaluate things, events and phenomena of women. I have long wanted to know what kind of films she makes. I saw it. And I can say that I got exactly what I expected, even much more than that. In addition, I was very hooked on the trailer, and Rappoport I treated before with great piety, and now I can say at all – I have a favorite Russian actress.
You know, I was surprised at how multifaceted and topical the movie turned out. In it, through the play of the actors, through their replicas, the image of Smirnova-harpy appears, which, although trembles Russia quite frenzied, but somehow very loving, like a cub of his - a kind of rude caress.
As you know, Vladimir Nikolayevich, I have long thought that Russian classics should be banned. Well, at school anyway. Adults should read, but children should not fool their heads.
- Why is that?
- Yes, because a young man comes into life with some wild ideas. This classic literature teaches nothing. There are no such men, such women, such relationships. No. A person who believes in all these ideals, nothing but disappointment in life does not wait.
Everyone got: those who “went” to Moscow, and Muscovites, and “blinkers”, and intellectuals, and ignoramuses, and oligarchs. Avdotya, who co-wrote with Anna Parmas and wrote the script for this film, very subtly and surgically gave a slice of life in the modern Russian outback and in the metropolis. I want to quote about 80 percent of the text, so it coincided with my inner reflections, and Masha’s monologue at the table is a song: I sometimes say about such monologues inside myself, but, alas, I don’t let them out.
If someone in this movie wants to look for a romantic comedy (this is everyone’s business), he will find it, but the main beauty here is, in my opinion, that it is very close to our realities and sharp social, which should cause some kind of response in the soul – protest or consent.
-- He has an intelligent face. You look like you've got a country like a poop under your nose. You're going to send your kids to England, right? And the fact that without the culture that you have not yet sold or destroyed, that without Russian literature there will be a nation of crooks and criminals, you do not care. You don’t drink, you take care of your skin, and you left nothing to the people except vodka.
- And without us if your museums will be in line?
I admit, I went crazy for a while at the beginning of the movie. Being a Russian philologist by training, I could not understand what kind of Russian classic is Peter Shcheglovitov. I even had to go on the Internet and reassure myself — there is no such writer — it is a collective image of the author of the 19th century. In general, the arguments of the characters not only about culture, but also about literature in particular, are quite entertaining. All these divisions into writers of the first, second, third order. Just like Peter Drozdov, I considered Leskov to be a second-order writer until our wonderful teacher r_l convinced me otherwise.
Just a few more random comments. I really liked the scenes with the “walking on the knees” of museum staff in front of officials. Oh, Dunja, damn it! And I really liked the work of the operator in the scene with the collapse of the shed. The eye of Rappoport peeking out among the boards is beautiful.
-- Oh, finally! I was wondering when we would get to the most important thing. In our country, an intelligent person should be dirty, ragged and beggar - live in shit and eat shit. But spirituality!
Actors. I don’t have any complaints about the main or secondary actors. I have a small claim on the part that the hero of Bondarchuk does not look like any scum. But here I fully agree with the position of Smirnova – movie characters should be charming, even villains and crooks. Probably, there are no such officials as Peter Drozdov, but how do they need Russia?
Totally. For many, I am sure this film will be a revelation. There is no modern Russian literature or Russian cinema, and everything that is done is low and unworthy. There is, gentlemen. Got it!
10 out of 10
The paintings of Avdotya Smirnova, in which she appears both as a screenwriter and as a director, are characterized by a kind of “reportage”-characters do not have proper development, the template is read out with full confidence that this is a new word in the genre, and “the life of the people” looks caricatured to the point in the teeth.
There were no exceptions to “Two Days”, in which the outstanding talents of Ksenia Rappoport and Fedor Bondarchuk appeared in a simple wrapper of a ladies’ novel. If at first the director declares some claim to reflect on the great Russian culture, which is in deep crisis, then closer to the middle everything slides down to the simple story about Cinderella.
There are no complaints to the picture - everything is filmed well very juicy, technical and beautiful. Some dialogues are absorbed into the soul, but for the most part – pure scenario “water”. There is no feeling embedded in the picture of the “soul”, unlike the fresh “Coco”, the film seemed to be shot in a hurry.
Average melodrama with good potential, excellent artists and very technical shooting.
This picture was recently viewed. I will try to explain my thoughts briefly.
The story is this: a Moscow (federal, as he calls himself in the film) official from the Ministry of Culture comes to a provincial town, where there is a museum dedicated to the work of Peter Shcheglovitov, a “third-row writer” who was in great friendship with Turgenev, to negotiate the transfer of the territory into private hands. There he soon falls in love with Maria, the deputy director of the museum, who changes a lot in his life.
For some reason, in some reviews, the heroine of Xenia Rappoport is called “nervous”. That's what Peter calls her. I don't think she's nervous. I thought she was quite proud. Wanting more than just an intimate relationship. And a federal official. And the point is not that she somehow brought up for a special or just because she is a great admirer of the fictional writer Shcheglovitov. In one scene, she stipulates that she “tried to build happiness on someone else’s misfortune”, but it did not work. And this contrasts wonderfully with the dialogue, which in my opinion turned out to be too clumsy and unnatural. I’m talking about the scene where Peter and his fiancée, Lida (very similar to Tina Kandelaki, by the way) are discussing their future relationship.
The film left positive emotions. Not the kind that cannot be put into words, but quite good. The province is not shown from the point of view of “festival conjuncture”, where people like to look at the so-called “drinking Russia” and corrupt “cops of shame”, which was so condo and unnaturally shown for example in the film “My Happiness” by Sergei Loznitsa. In the film there is a scene of a feast, but justified by the plot, and not standing as an end in itself for the testimony of the “dying outback” under the guise of what we are shown “truth-mother”.
The problems shown in the film are really relevant. And the sale of ancient property, where each tree is a monument (which was rather caricatured in the scene, when the hero of Bondarchuk runs out to clean up a small need, and on each tree it is written - "planted so-and-so ...", "gifted this ..." and very often - well-known surnames of the XIX century). Shown at the beginning of the film, this crowd of people - museum workers who are trying to appease the official and almost, sorry, do not lick his famous place. And one single woman, Maria, remains true to her principles and expresses her complaints and discontent to the official.
The main thing I would like to advise those who have not seen this film is to separate the two essences of a person: the director and the person as such. And not to try to draw parallels that Smirnova, the director, married someone who is always to blame for everything, and Bondarchuk, the main actor, so zealously acted on the side of the candidate who has now become President. If you do not try to see in the performers of the roles and the director of any parallels with their “real” position – which I do not support, the film as a whole turned out to be successful with some flaws.
p.s. I am very pleased with such works, when we do not try to shoot “Inhabited Island” (nothing personal, Fyodor Sergeyevich), trying to unskillfully keep up with Hollywood blockbusters and do not cook endless “The Best Films”, but shoot exactly such moral and actual wine, in which our Soviet cinematography was one of the best. I don’t care what kind of person was involved in the painting. For political reasons, I do not support many of them.
8 out of 10
The film was very high quality, where everything was at the highest level.
Scenario
Despite the complexity of the topic (social problems as a background for a romcom), the text and scenes were accessible to the viewer of any audience. The wit and smoothness of the dialogue was delighted. A good script for a smart person.
Actors
There's nothing to say. If not for the actors, then the text would not sound like this, and the film itself would be a simple social, boring and incomparable drama. The only thing, Rapoport in some episodes too exaggeratedly showed her character. And the fact that Fedor is pathetic somewhere - so it only looks even funnier. It really feels like a movie!! The one that introduces to a movie world.
Director
Only 5+. Everything is very, very competently put. someone said that it is superficial, someone said that it is tricky and about thoughts about the Motherland.
I understand this is what the author wanted. Well, that is, the genre does not allow to go deep, and the topic is just about the Motherland. Artificial landscapes are somehow at the discretion of the viewer. In my opinion, everything was harmonious in the film.
P.C.
I liked the movie. The film is smart, fused, interesting, with a beautiful acting. It is not designed to moralize or stupor the viewer with meaning and a heavy atmosphere. It's easy, smart, hard I'd say rom.com.
Disadvantages
I can’t understand why our films are so hard to make. The frames are long, the style is unentertaining! Maybe someone will explain, after all, romcoms should be even easier!!!
The main character of the film (Bondarchuk) divided literature on the 1st, 2nd and 3rd order, to the writers of the 3rd order, he also included the writer Shchelovity, in the museum-park of which he came to close it, and at the same time build up elite cottages. Art cinema of the 3rd order just begins with elite cottages and other things that inspired the last decade and what is now trying to replace a good script and deep, meaningful dialogue.
In general, the film turned out to be very synthetic and not sincere, and here it is not even in the fiction of the plot, but in general the heap of cliches of modernity, the personalities of the characters are not visible at all, only clichés, and the game of the actors is appropriate, they just play themselves and do not even try to get used to the images of non-existent characters constructed by the plot. In my opinion, the film was very superficial and shallow.
Deputy Minister for Culture Pyotr Drozdov (Bondarchuk) receives the task to go and look at the picturesque museum in the house of the third-rate classical writer Shchegovyi. To look, of course, not just for a reason, but in order to develop a specific plan for the dissolution of the museum and the creation in this rural area of another “House of Rest of the Young Official”. The employees of the museum do not know this background and are trying in every possible way to assimilate the big boss, thinking that they will finally get a piece of state funding. Only Maria Ilyinichna (Rappoport) fully understands what she openly declares to Petra. After the conflict between these completely different people, mutual sympathy arises, which threatens to grow into something more.
Very cute kinzo turned out, despite the obvious secondary and predictable storyline. No, really, what could be more trivial than a love story between a rich but not yet fully scrubbed official and a poor, clean and ideological museum worker? Opposites attract, love all ages are submissive, from the plague and from the sum do not deny and other folk wisdom stick out of this film like the ears of a hare from the cylinder of a magician. However, it is worth a little pulling on these "ears" and you will find a very cute and charming bunny ... um, what am I talking about?
There. First of all, of course, the film is good with the characters and actors who embody them. You can treat Bondarchuk differently, but such types he gets like no one else. Absolutely not template, really lively and contradictory person. And already Xenia Rappoport is generally admired in decent society, very deservedly, by the way. That's where she is. Not an ounce of falsehood - pure and flawless. This is a bad thing...
These two give the film an easy flair of romance, which is easy to smell. The main thing is not to sit down to watch the film “2 Days” with the thought: “Let’s see how Russian cinema will upset us again?” It is a pity, but sometimes negative reviews of local films can be explained solely by a pathological reluctance to see its bright sides in Russian cinema. “I’m allergic to everything Russian in the movies,” I often hear, and I’m sad.
If you have the above disease is not detected, then safely look at the picture “2 days”. She is nice, kind, positive and perfect for a quiet family evening.