The Russian Game of Thrones is here. It captures the spirit of the horde depicted on the screen. Obviously, the heirs of the merciless Mongols could not be white and fluffy. Obviously, they lived by robbing their neighbors and taxing everyone with tribute. Obviously, common Turkic motifs in architecture and culture have every right to be the basis for the creation of these incredible scale and elaboration of the scenery of the Golden Horde.
Each actor in the film seems to belong to his place and time. The dialogue is capacious and eloquent, while the film has something to laugh at.
The film ends as if the authors did not know where to stay, because the world they created is so vivid and convincing that it would be enough for an expensive first-class series. The result is quite capable of competing in the world box office.
I am surprised that he collected such a small cash register and there are many negative reviews on it.
Time will place its accents and ORDU will be watched and revised.
Men of blood and flattery shall not exceed their days (Psalm 54:24).
Eight years ago, liberal and anti-clerical critics poured mud on this film, calling it “a sham statement about spiritual bonds and a national idea,” but Andrei Proshkin’s “Horde” turned out to be more a reflection on unbelief than on faith, on the collapse of a godless civilization, and not at all on the bonds. The director, screenwriter and producers from the “Orthodox Encyclopedia” extremely meticulously and attentively approached the task of reconstructing the era, customs and life of the Golden Horde – rarely when you see such a convincing historical picture on the domestic screen. However, we are not at all an expensive costume film designed to entertain and collect a box office at the box office, this is a very thoughtful movie, disposing of reflection and uncomfortable reflections on what we often believe only due to a miracle.
Once the Grand Inquisitor in Dostoevsky’s novel “The Brothers Karamazov” argued that people need only “a miracle, mystery and authority”, and indeed the foundation of a godless civilization, according to the creators of “The Horde”, is this triad. The Golden Horde, its decline and disintegration, as they are shown in Proshkin’s film, are somewhat reminiscent of the last years of the Roman Empire: the same satiety, depravity (in one of the last scenes we even see gay Mongols), total skepticism, nevertheless grazing before the most tenuous superstitions, and ahead – imminent death.
I would venture to say that the Horde is an indirect, metaphorical statement about the modern West, which, like the Golden Horde in its time, dictates the conditions of Russia, but has long lost its power and power over it. The master of brilliant, accurate and complex images, for a long time a permanent screenwriter of Sokurov’s films Yuri Arabov recently delights the thoughtful viewer with capacious religious parables (“Yuryev Day”, “Miracle”, “Orlean”, “Monk and Demon”), in which he shows how complex the inner world of a believer is, far removed from the anticlerical liberal horror stories about narrow-minded fanatics.
In Proshkin’s film, the antagonist of the godless and corrupt world of the Golden Horde, only outwardly hiding behind Islam, becomes St. Alexis, Metropolitan of Moscow in a delicate and masterful, but not lubricously stilted performance of Maxim Sukhanov. Coming to the Horde to heal the mother of the great khan, Saint Alexis is forced to undergo a series of tests in order to make his prayer to God truly fiery and healing. For a long time being with the Mongols in fact in the position of a slave and steadfastly enduring all difficulties, St. Alexis evokes perplexed respect from his tormentors, but almost none of them changes. They believe him because of a miracle and nothing more.
Proshkin and Arabov deliberately almost do not show life in Russia of those years, they are primarily interested in the moral climate of the Horde, the decomposition of this seemingly stable world, and St. Alexis on this background looks like a messenger of other existence, living according to laws other than the Horde, he is in fact sent by God to the Horde for repentance of brutal nomads, the very breed of people (regardless of the ethnos), which the psalmist calls “male blood”. But they, with rare exceptions, are no longer capable of repentance, their hearts are hardened, which is why their seemingly unshakable civilization is dying.
The Horde is not so much a historical film as an eschatological one, it is about the coming demise of Babylon, built without God and against God. We know from the last book of the New Testament that in the last times Enoch and Elijah, who were taken alive to heaven, will come to earth to expose the godlessness of the civilization built by Antichrist, but they will be brutally killed. So it was and will be with all the prophets who accuse the world of sin, people do not want to hear the truth, and because what they build is inexorably destroyed. “The Horde” by Andrei Proshkin is about the inevitable retribution for those (and for us, if we do not repent) who do not want to hear the Divine exhortation and call for internal change, about the fate that befell hundreds of ancient civilizations, including Ancient Rome and the Golden Horde. “But you, O God, bring them down into a student of decay; men of blood and flattery will not exceed their days.” O Lord, trusting in thee (Psalm 54:24).
What's this movie about? Confrontation? About the Horde's malice with the carving from small to great? Nationalities? Russians and Tatars? And yes and no. Here about another...
Who is this movie about? The khans in a sophisticated strife pecking one another? The Greatest Mother who went blind overnight? The russians, slavish barking down to the ground? Forgotten rank, rank? About Venetian Europe, looking up, ingratiating? No doubt. Frescoes, one more interesting than the other here. But that's not the point. And that's not the main thing.
This is a movie about faith. About the human weakness and invisible power present in the world. I found her, I realized, so your path is covered with the fingers of a guide who loves you. Put yourself in the hands of your guide. It's better than a patron.
A picture in which the revived historical legend takes us six hundred years ago. In the old days. Rus is like a spike in the wind with the faces of ancestors. A tiny oasis with a palisade of logs surrounded by raids 'steppe'. And ' steppe', to the fractional sound of the chants, innumerable ' darkness' horse herds going to attack. Two camps. These and those. Two systems. This and that. Neighboring and feeding one another. Different faces. Different cultures.
The film is devoid of ' slaughter'. Non-stage-bearing ' meat cutting '. No clashes in fights. And after all, surprisingly, this not only does not impoverish the spectacle, but on the contrary, allows you to concentrate on the main director's thought. Think and think a little bit.
A rare pearl in the age of caramel cinema for viewers. An accessible form and a glossy costumed ball are an attribute of high art. Of course, this is not ' Andrey Rublev' Andrei Tarkovsky, but no less striking ' Island' Pavel Lungin. What is the uncompleted triad of these works?
Faith. Unifying molasses of fragrance like a graceful myrrh...
Interesting portrait of a person proposed for consideration, the director. Church hierarch through the eyes of Maxim Sukhanov in each of us. Who is he in this world? Lord of souls. Manager. His spiritual rank is the size of Olympus over mere mortals. Only a word, only a look and there is no precontroversy in anything. The rock, the cliff over the plains of man. But it's for everyone. It's for people. Outer portrait... What's behind him? What is hidden from those eyes? What torment? What lives inside? How stable is the platform on which he builds ' his people' in sermons and precepts daily? Does your feet feel support? Or so only, on a rolled, on the usual from day to day, the track slides, unknown to others in its ' rocking'? Does he believe in service? Or did the rust of doubts eat away long ago, exuded? And the dialogue with Ivan, regarding the created miracle, plagued the disease that came to the city, with a revelation into the inner penatum - ' and maybe by accident. . . ' So, doubt. So faith is weak?
Yeah. Doubt. The usual weakness inherent in each of us in contact with the frightening, unknown. What about spiritual power? What about the rank? Does the shadow of embarrassment darken the purity of the inner light? Is that it? There's only a man before us again. Small, scared, ordinary... Oh, that sounds familiar. Oh, how many times has that been? How many times do we have to go to such a crossroads? Him. Us. Everyone. Everyone.
So what's here? Away with calm. Fear? Fear? A test of righteousness by the Higher Providence? Yeah. That very moment of truth... And bits of comprehension of the character of this ' servants' without unnecessary overflows. Be it actions, emotions, gossip. Each of us is given the opportunity to imagine, to draw a portrait. Thank you to the author.
.. . But there's no choice. We gotta go. And God, whom he has served with truth or unrighteousness, is the only support.
Here they are, the captivating facets of this film. Here is a life-giving stream of thoughts conquering their own - maybe? And if? What really is? Does that mean?
For an attentive and prepared inside viewer, much will be revealed here. And myself, too. And every scene, every frame, whether the face of suffering in us, or the painful word, the echo of thinking again and again with questions. To talk to my other self. A' circles of hell', trials, the crucible of the devil's brazier here. And one who is young and small denies because of his weakness. The second, overcoming internal and external pain, washes himself with tears of grief, but takes the lot for granted.
. How do you forget that? How do you neglect them? How not to see? Fetish of emptiness ' cinema' modernity, there is little. Spirituality rules the ball. This is the university level. Hardly a lecture of professorial academism. With ' chewing ' to alphabetical, capital truths. Make it clear to everyone. So everyone can understand. That's right.
Did you? Got it? Are you aware?
And this is without all these historical pictures frescoes. Tatar ' choirs' enchanting. All of them, without exception, oh, how good!
A movie to watch and review over and over again. Definitely one of the quality tapes of the last decade. ' Gold Collection'.
An impressive poster conjures up thoughts of something great, forgotten in the centuries, and pulls to view, but the sudden screensavers of the Cinema Foundation and some Christian association from the first seconds make you doubt whether it was worthwhile to start watching ' Hordes'. It was.
I can’t say how reliable the film is from a historical point of view, but everything looks very convincing – the costumes and speech of the Mongol Tatars, the villages of the Slavs and human suffering. But before we talk about something specific, I can’t help but praise Andrey Proshkin for his style, at least in the first half of the film. The atmosphere and way of life of East Asia were conveyed so successfully that I felt as if I was watching a Chinese or even Japanese film. But this nation is much closer to us, both geographically and in time. About who are the Mongol Tatars, historians still argue, but one thing is certain - they came from the Gobi desert.
The film is completely devoid of boring images and concepts such as the fact that representatives of the Mongoloid race necessarily all karates or worship dragons. The cruelty is there, it is only present where it is needed in the plot, and more importantly - the creators were not even afraid to use comic scenes, which also went only to hand. Watching the frivolous friendly skirmishes of Mongolian ambassadors is genuinely amusing. It is surprising that such moments are intertwined with frightening scenes, where they demonstrate the terrible torture of slaves and those who for some reason did not please the Khan and his mother. And here we face the main subtlety that the director managed to observe: this film does not take sides. Neither the Slavs nor the Mongol Tatars are right or wrong. Both there and there are good and bad people who are mired in vices or their own stupidity.
Horrible Khan Janibek, meanly acted with his loved one, but he eventually penetrates to ' Slavic sorcerer' Sad fate Taidula, but in the episode with the Chinese magician it is perceived by a real witch; good Fedka, serving the metropolitan, but why does he suddenly turn against the Horde, if they are not guilty that the Bible is just a book, and not the source of some magic? Whatever our name, we are all flesh and blood, and within we are the same. Even Metropolitan Alexy, who is also probably not without dark spots in the past.
You can continue to praise the creators for these and other advantages, but it is still worth admitting that ' Horde' is not without major shortcomings, of which the most important is dirt. Literally. No matter how much the director tried to give the film credibility, with nauseating dirt and dung in places went too much. It is clear that slaves suffer, but a few hints were enough for this, not close-up scenes. Berdibek, whose face appears on the poster, appears only a few times. And as for the plot as a whole, there's not much he can tell us about the Horde, focusing instead on Taidula's disease. Finally, the Mongol Tatars repeatedly declare their Muslim faith, but not a single niqab will be seen in the film. Both men and women are dressed like most East Asian nations, dominated by Buddhism, Taoism, and other religious and philosophical teachings.
As a result, the Horde' is a film that stands out positively among other Russian films, where much attention is paid to the Middle Ages or the Renaissance, whether it is '1612', 'Tsar' or the shameful 'Viking'. However, we still strive and strive for the ideal, which at the time of 2019 remains a very painful topic.
7 out of 10
The film "Horde" begins very spectacularly - the entourage of the Mongolian city and Khan's chambers, harmonious costumes (something they, however, lack, what I will say later), the characters speak reproduced as possible ancient Mongolian language with simultaneous translation. Successfully created tension, dynamics of action that captures.
The part of the film where the horde is shown, you can put a solid four. Two things get in the way of five points. First, if this is the story of the fall of a powerful state, where is the wealth of that state? Where are the colored silk, brocade and gold of the Khans, the luxurious decoration of their city and tents? Not to mention the fact that it is not entirely clear how they live in a city in the middle of the desert without a single green blade of grass or a tree? What do the countless herds of their horses and sheep eat? Secondly, all the Mongols are represented by some kind of beast, they have no human feelings. Cruelty and cruelty is not the same as a complete caricature of people.
But nevertheless, both these moments somehow work on the integrity of the image of the horde, and you can understand them.
But with Rusya everything is very sad.
It is a shame that when we try to show spiritual struggle, drama, tragedy, we have completely forgotten how to base ourselves on the main thing – on the text and acting. And they stubbornly replace it with a visual series. Are they afraid that the modern viewer will not understand so stupidly if this “pop-supper” does not show a spectacular picture? Or have they just forgotten how to write dialogue and no longer rely on actors?
In the film “The Horde” completely, radically change the historical background, disgustingly humiliating Metropolitan Alexy – a real person, about whom not so little is known.
Instead of leaving the protagonist to who he is – the head of the Russian Church, the spiritual leader and adviser to the Moscow prince, a major figure in the politics of the time, the most educated man of his time – instead, Alexy is made a modest rural pope. Not too clever, not too deeply religious.
Instead of showing the strongest spiritual experiences, the struggle, the drama of one of the “powerful of this world”, the filmmakers act simply, walking on the easiest path. Replace spiritual problems with physical ones. Throw the hero into the mud and horse dung. (By the way, the actor could not even make up normally, after all the terrible tests, he does not even look thin, he has a strong elastic body.)
Even if you imagine that the Mongols could do this to such a “big man,” it would be out of the ordinary! And in the film it is shown as the most common. What difference does it make – a metropolitan or some unknown peasant! The reaction to his troubles will be exactly the same, from the Mongolian khans to the Moscow prince.
One more thing that clearly demonstrates what I am talking about. When one of the slaves asks the metropolitan: "Are you from what class?" (let us omit the term "estate" then was not), and he answers: "From the boyar", the interlocutor in response scoffs: "And then I'm from the princely!" - they say, did not believe. So, in reality, the “from what class” the interlocutor would be clear instantly without any questions! In his speech! The speech of a literate and educated man, a “man of intellectual labor” who read many books and knew several languages, would at that time be so sharply different from the speech of an illiterate peasant that it would be obvious to anyone. Recall much later Pushkin’s time: “And you call the dog wrong, and you beat not our way.” Yes, Pushkin, even now, say, a university teacher, it is not worth distinguishing anything from a worker with a secondary technical education.
In the film “The Horde”, as, alas, and in all modern mass cinema, such questions are not even thought about close.
The question is, where is Christianity in the film? Where's the Christian feat? Instead of seriously showing what is happening in the soul of a Christian against the background of the ordeal, we are shown only some fragmentary, poorly audible words of prayer.
In modern Russian cinema completely forgotten how to write scripts. Unfortunately, they don’t try to learn again. The main thing is “our answer to Hollywood” in the luxury of computer graphics, the main thing is to boast about how many costumes were made and how many months the scenery was built. Well, the visual component here is not bad. But until we understand that the main thing in cinema is a certain story and the ability to tell it, modern films will not be highly appreciated.
3 out of 10
For entertainment, costumes and the Mongolian language. And minus seven for making dirt and horse dung out of the life story of such a revered man.
Before watching the trailer, you can believe and be sure one hundred percent that the film will be amazing, but we all know how deceptive trailers can be. The theme of the Tatar-Mongol yoke in the Soviet, and then, Russian cinema has always been popular, and here, please, quite recently, many viewers had who is fun and who is disappointed, from watching a new historical blockbuster with elements of fantasy “The Legend of Kolovrat”, about which every second writes about how this film is similar to “300 Spartans”. Zack Snyder - again, who is respectful and who is contemptuous. The film, released at the end of 2017, judging by the trailer and reviews, is a purely action production, in which computer graphics and battle scenes rule; but the same was promised by the Viking trailer, however, in fact, the whole film was not so spectacular, and its plot is very doubtful, although the film can still hook, especially its religious messages. The trailer “Hordes” set not on the action movie, but on a beautifully shot historical drama, which promised to show a powerful story based on the events of the XIII-XV centuries, and the description of the film set up at least an interesting movie. In fact, we got a blanket in a beautiful wrapper, and I would question the rationality of spending the budget, since the latter is equal to $ 12 million, but there is nothing in the film that would look like such a huge amount for Russian cinema - there is no action from the word "very much"; the scenery is beautiful, but mainly only in the first half of the timekeeping, then the perfect poverty of the picture; and the script sculpted certainly not the most talented author, if there is nothing in the story he invented, except for an interesting idea, a joke in the beginning, a couple of empty and empty spaces. Immediately recalls the phrase from “Captain’s daughter” Pushkin: “Daughter is soon married, and what dowry does she have?” Frequent comb, broom, and altyn of money - God forgive me, with what to go to the bath. So this very book, which I quoted, was filmed in the USSR back in 1958, and did it perfectly, without any fiery scenes and golden scenery, and on a black and white camera, which at least kept flat - yes, poor, but with a soul, and the classics were not twisted. And what was filmed about one of the most tragic and painful for the Slavic people era can not be called otherwise than primitive and nonsense, although, again, the idea was really brilliant, as well as the plot of action.
At the very beginning of the film, we are already pleased with the beautiful scenery of the Khanate of the Golden Horde, in addition, at the beginning there will be a killer joke about a way to cross the threshold crawling, while not touching the threshold. But immediately hit the ears weak dialogue, there are meaningless events, such as the murder of the khan by his own, and tricks shown on the Tatar performance. The main plot will begin when the Tatars demand the arrival of the Russian Orthodox patriarch to the Horde, so that he returns the sight of the blind Khansha. The first reaction of the Patriarch surprised the unique dialogue:
You go to the Horde, do a miracle. Blind eyesight is restored.
- Maybe we need a legless man to walk? Or did you play with a handless hand?
- So what do I do to go to the grandmothers for a miracle?
The idea itself seems implausible, despite its originality: Muslim Tatars believe that a Christian patriarch will be able to heal their man, and that the patriarch is fluent in Tatar. So, the patriarch comes, and the first thing he sees at the gate before the entrance to the khan is two fires, between which everyone who comes to the khan must pass. The Patriarch manages to pass without harm to himself, and the young man accompanying him almost dies. After the events in the khanate, the plot slipped into incomprehensible what. Visually - solid dirt (not figuratively, but literally), zero standing dialogues and plot twists. And this is a film about the Golden Horde and about the Russian people who endured more than two hundred years of this yoke? Where, please tell me, the storylines about contemporaries of that terrible era, Where are the touching love lines and family tragedies? Where is the demonstration of the arbitrariness of the Tatars, cruelly treating those who were turned into slavery? I am already silent about battle scenes, because they are not observed at all – and even, arguing and acknowledging that entertainment is not the main thing, I will say that in our time, especially with such a titanic budget, in historical cinema on such a topic, at least sketches of battles should be present. As a result, a talentless plot, instead of gifts of emotions - disappointment, and, apparently, cut the budget - otherwise you can not explain such squalor. If the first 40 minutes it looked at least to some extent interesting, then then you already understood. Unfortunately, this is a very low result. It remains to wait for the release of the series “Golden Horde”, about which “Telepark” wrote a very encouraging article, and hope that the television production will impress more than the movie, which tried in 2012 to storm cinemas, but quite rightly failed at the box office – it is quite natural that such “Horde” can not enslave the Russian viewer and collect tribute from him by buying tickets.
The film is staged one-sidedly, not everything is so simple in life and I will try to explain some inconsistencies.
Strangely, the Mongols, who had conquered the richest countries by that time, are walking in tatters. When Batu Khan came to Russia, a third of the Mongol army were Nestorian Christians (Nestor once carried the teachings of Christ to the east to the nomads after the demarcation of the churches). His son was a Christian and married.
with Alexander Nevsky. The law of Genghis Khan prohibited the oppression and collection of taxes from ministers of any religion.
This contributed to the flowering of Orthodox culture and the great icons of that time were painted. Do not forget: from the west came the Crusaders carrying Catholicism, which considered Orthodoxy a heresy. When once again the crusaders approached the borders of the Novgorod principality, it was enough 500 Mongol archers sent by the son of Batu that the crusaders turned back. Baty stopped the massacre between the Russian princes, not because he was kind, it was not profitable for him to reduce tax revenues during the wars.
After all, there was no army stronger than the Mongolian, it went through 50 years of uninterrupted war with the strongest armies of superior opponents. The army with the strictest discipline, excellent supplies, intelligence and postal management. The Mongols were few about 40,000, but each had 3-4 spare horses, wagons in which they transported supplies, as well as collapsible stone-throwing machines with Chinese engineers. Therefore, raising the clouds of dust they made a terrible impression.
Genghis Khan was at one time a wise ruler, he did not insist that it will be as I said! He always listened to the wise advice of his military leaders and officials. The laws were also strict: stole, changed, chickened out - death. So the order was iron. And in Russia, the Mongols did not settle, the steppe was their home, because in the forests the rider with the bow loses the advantage.
When, after the passage of time, Khan Uzbek rose to the throne of the Golden Horde, he converted to Islam by force to impose Islam, which provoked the flight of baptized Tatars to Russia. And the Russian princes gladly received brothers in faith: a good rider and a sharp archer will always be useful in the squad.
The Mongolian compound bow pierced the knight's armor right through, because the Mongols learned horse riding and archery from the age of 3. They were hardy and brave warriors who knew almost no defeats. For example: a Mongol in long and fast transitions, changing horses could sleep on a horse, fed on dried meat and cheese (the prototype of dry ration). Yes, remember that they grew up in the steppes where in summer +40, and in winter -40 (sharp continental climate), and in extreme cases could drink the blood of horses making an incision on the neck.
And then, when the instructions of Genghis Khan were forgotten, they began to destroy each other, and finished off the Golden Horde of Tamerlane, inadvertently helping Russia to free itself from the yoke of the Horde. It is also strange that Tamerlane also stopped the penetration of the Turks into Europe by defeating the Sultan of Turkey.
Despite the inconsistencies, the film is worth watching.
Some people smoke for inspiration, others eat horse shit.
The movie is just nasty! But there were similar adaptations that managed to watch until the end. There's no Horde!
This work, in my opinion, is a complete discrediting of Arabov as a screenwriter. The presentation of history must be subject to structure. No, we are not talking about the American, but about the usual expediency of sounding and the order of presentation of information. You can show everything you want in this movie, but not in the beginning. But no, we're sculpting the exposition! Facts from the dusty archives found – was it worth it? Let's get it out in the first minute! And, voila, see the recklessness of the nomads, their changeability (they spared, after 5 minutes they slaughtered the prisoners). And nothing that this immediately kills the meaning of the trip of the priest to the horde. The Tatars will attack Moscow otherwise! And what could keep them from changing their mind again after helping? This is exactly what the exhibition tells us. Eat horse shit and go to Russia! So the backbone of history is falling apart. Only the head of the department of dramaturgy could not notice this.
On the other hand, where there is no exposition. The fact that the priests crawling on their knees from the Vatican (crawled) found only from Wikipedia. And about who is killed at the very beginning and for what, you will not understand at all, until, as in the “Land of Oz”, you put an Arab head instead of your head.
Before that, in Molokh, I also noted for myself the truncated professionalism of the creators. To throw a naked woman on the viewer at the very beginning of the film is somehow not aesthetic. And the fact that the screenwriter did not pass safety at the university became clear by how this very woman ran barefoot on wet stones in the rain over the abyss.
Is it possible that only balancing on the brink of a foul can attract the attention of the audience?
Poor Russian cinema...
Oddly enough, the negative review will be a lot about what I liked about the film. In particular, the scenes are beautifully written and directed. Each of them is not just an ensemble of “talking heads”, but always interesting nuances, curious and funny game additions that wonderfully help to reveal the characters. However, the characters are revealed not only because of this. The play of actors, both ours and Mongolian, is extremely plausible. I do not write "reliable", since historical figures touched upon in history personally did not have the pleasure of knowing, but I see in them the truth of life and mores of that society and of that time. I'll also note the good dialogue. Simple, without the grandeur and pathos of philosophy, but unusual, with a curious “confrontation” of questions and answers. The overall approach to the film is that the film could be very strong. It didn't work out - why?
No dramaturgy.
The story is linear, without a connection and denouement, beginning from nowhere and not really ending the narrative. It is unclear for whom and why this was filmed. Who was supposed to watch this? Russians? Mongols? Teenagers? Mature people? Women? Men? For none of these target categories do I, a seasoned marketer and advertiser, find motivation factors.
The plot is based on a very free interpretation of a very controversial from a historical point of view episode about the trip of Saint Alexy Byakont to the Horde. The canonical version continues to insist that he performed a miracle there, healing Hanshu Taidulu from blindness. But more and more historians are inclined to believe that he did not commit any miracle, and Taidula did not suffer at all, and under this pretext Alexia summoned her son, Khan Janibek, without publicizing his illness. But let’s leave this behind the brackets, and turn to the dramatic value of the plot. She's missing. Heroes are smeared in history, they do nothing in spite of or for growth, and until the very end of it, personally, I did not have a favorite to cheer for. There was no impatience for anyone.
There's no heroism. History itself, I repeat, is linear and monosyllable. Very, incredibly, extremely much dirt and fecal masses, which also does not add to the depth of the film. This habit of “old Soviet” filmmakers strives for realism, to show us “how it was”. Please understand, we don’t care how it was! How much "all this" surrounded the dirt, plunder, poverty! We need to idealize the situation. We go to the movies for a fairy tale - the Americans have long understood this, and when will you understand?
In short, for what is mentioned in the first paragraph, only
I knew when I went to see this film that I would look for a saint, I would look for an answer to a question that has been tormenting me for a long time, since the first years of graduate school. Can an ideal be recreated by means of art? Or is it inexpressible, inviolable (“You cannot grab your dream with your hands, you cannot hold your dream in your hands”)?
But I was also prepared in advance, knowing that the original title of the film “Saint Alexy” was proposed to be replaced by “The Horde”, and the director accepted the replacement, was ready for the fact that there would be a skew – and evil (i.e., the horde, albeit caricatured, small, understandable-simplified and understandable-dressed for the mass audience) will give more space than the radiance of human beauty.
As a result, now, half a week after watching, consciousness has completely cut off what A. Proshkin took credit for in all interviews – the Sarai and the horde with their computer graphics, with thousands of authentic (and let’s say simply chic) costumes and things, with organic actors, with a beautiful Rosa Khairulina and a kind of relevant message: the horde is still with us, in us – in politics, in power, in our Eurasianism, and in life on the quicksands of crisis and complacency. All this was cut off, only a difficult insight remained.
I am very happy that out of the 40 minutes that fell to our film club to talk about the film (for the first time - so little), the last was given to the one who really said. He said, Fishing. A word that is not afraid of mocking smacks and arrogance. Yeah. Sukhanov played the elder in the arms of the Fish. First the elder, trying to break out, move in his own way, murmur, and then as if dissolved in the Provident stream, suffering and a miracle washing. No self, only faith.
The story of his ascent to the cross of suffering, i.e., sacrifice, has two steps up and down. Step down, when under the proud nickname "sorcerer" he is only brought to the horde and must perform a miracle on display, to order ... on weakly as if. And he, as once Christ, whether truly believing in His equal wonderworking, or simply out of despair, spits on the ground and smears the eyes of a frantic blind hanshi with mush. Copying a miracle. Literally copying! And in this literality there is so much unfaith, in fact, so much doubt, so much hopelessness! Or even lies.
Nope. That's not how miracles come. Not by call, not by literal substitution, substitution, copy of His great wonders.
The second step of Elder Alexis is up. Climbing it comes from the bottom. From the depths of trouble, suffering, love, humility. Fedor should be executed. It's also his fault. And Fedor (Yatsenko is a smart girl) was a boy at all, did not live almost. Though weak-hearted, even pathetic, even dreamed of a fox coat and prayed to a foreign god when he baked, yet he is his own - the affection of the heart of the lord, almost a son.
And now flies up from a dirty puddle, from the depths of weakness and homelessness, the prayer of the elder is not so much about a miracle as about salvation. And not many through one (khansha, if he is healed, will save Moscow), but through one, whom the elder sincerely loves, all.
In prayer for Fedka, Saint Alexis reaches the height of humility. He asks with absolute faith. So few people can and can. We are ashamed to ask for it!!
I will quote Anthony Sourozhsky to explain more precisely what I mean.
“Many of our prayers are asking prayers, and people tend to think that petitioning is the lowest degree of prayer; then thanksgiving follows, then glorification. In fact, gratitude and praise are expressions of less profound relationships. At our half-faith level, it is easier to give praise or thank God than to trust Him enough to ask Him for something with faith. Even half-believers can turn to God with gratitude when something pleasant happens to them; and there are moments of elevation when everyone is able to sing to God. But it is much more difficult to have such undivided faith to ask God with all your heart and with all your thinking with complete trust. Do not look disparagingly at asking prayers, because the ability to offer them is a test of the reality of our faith.
The reality of faith lies not in the expectation of a miracle, but in the ability to “ask God with all your heart and with all your thinking with complete trust.” This is my discovery from the Horde film, not only about the horde, but about the test of faith, about the horde of doubt in us, about what to ask is to believe, about the fact that a miracle is not a fact in order to expect certainty from it.
P.S. I don't think it's about holiness. Thanks for trying!
Andrei Proshkin made a semi-historical, semi-mythological film about the barbaric orders of the Horde and the life of St. Metropolitan Alexy. The film can be considered historical, because it relies on the real event canvas of the XIV with a real metropolitan, the Horde khans, and the mythological tape turned out because of the still conditional description of historical facts, their distortion, excessive theatricality of what is happening, at times pathetic, beautiful dances and tricks. And this is the weakness of the film - in its duality, because of which it is impossible to enjoy either an accurate historical reconstruction or a flight of imagination of the director, who did not dare to undertake bold experiments, a complete separation from reality, a fabulous, fascinating atmosphere, leaving for his unique world of epics of the long-gone past.
The film has beautiful views of the nature of central Russia, the southern steppes, wonderfully made scenery of the Horde capital, especially when the roofs of its houses are covered with snow. Through the screen you can feel the coolness of Moscow with a chilly breeze, and the heat of the scorching sun of desert, barren lands, and a terrible thunderstorm with the strongest storm streams that fall from the night sky. And the recreation of an underground stoker, where captive slaves do not live longer than 3 weeks - this is one of the strongest places in the film.
Unfortunately, the plan of the director is poorly traced. Perhaps he says that it is bad to be like the Tatar-Mongols who kill their brothers for the sake of power, and it is good to be an Orthodox who noblely comes out of any troubles because God keeps him. Or even simpler and shorter, “It’s good to be good.” More complex thoughts do not fit here. After all, we do not see and hear the revelations from the metropolitan throughout the film, some of his spiritual evolution is not noticeable, he remains himself, despite all the obstacles and horrors. This is his strength, the courage of a Christian. However, it turned out that the scenario contains some compromise of Orthodoxy in general, a shadowy side of how saints are canonized. In fact, we see a metropolitan who has been summoned as a sorcerer to cure the blind hanshi, and who acts in exactly the same way as all previous sorcerers and shamans - whispers, speaks, squanders incense, smears with dirt and saliva. He does not tell the khans that everything is in the hands of God and it is not in his power to work miracles. He hopes that when certain spells are repeated, a miracle will occur that a deal can be made with the Supreme. And if you turn to historical facts, you can learn a lot of interesting, more mundane and less fabulous. But the belief in miracles has always been strong, especially in times of trouble. And such news spread throughout all the cities and villages of Russia, the myth deeply rooted in the souls of people greedy for miracles. And after several generations, a particular person with a “little” distorted biography was elevated to the rank of saints. For highlighting such an interesting side of Christianity, thank you.
The Way of the Elder or the Battle of Christianity and Paganism
In different ways, you can relate to the main character of the picture, Metropolitan Alexy. It does not correspond to the real man who lived many centuries ago and can mislead those who are superficially familiar with the events of past times. If we abstract from all these indisputable facts pointing to the inaccuracy of directing, focus only on his role in this cinematic reality, then we have an interesting image with an intriguing plot.
The main film is an episode with a miracle. It is important, first of all, due to the feelings that the elder experienced and the actions performed by him at that time. (Since Metropolitan Alexy in this film does not correspond to his historical prototype, we will call him Elder, meaning any person who may find himself in this position.) Call the Elder (although he is a Metropolitan) the righteous, whom we are used to seeing in the lives of not. It is much closer to the worldly, let us say in form, but not in content. In the episode with the miracle, we see his undisguised excitement, experience, despair. Would the Metropolitan of the Holy Life have gone so far? Nope. In the film, the Metropolitan behaves differently. Not only does he not perform miracles in the allotted time, so he is subjected to humiliation.
The idea of the film is based on the confrontation of the Christian attitude to human life, the stronghold of which is the elder, and the pagan, despising other people’s life, but loving power and profit. Khan, like all his companions, cannot understand the actions of the elder, who chose to doom himself to suffering, realizing that he could not save his people when they needed him so much. For the horde, the sense of conscience and compassion is completely alien. It contradicts the worldview to which they are accustomed.
Next, the film takes place in the climactic struggle of two galaxies. Khan seeks to break the spirit of the old man, feeling in this physically weak man strength, which is based not on the speed or power of the blow, but on love for people. The pagan spirit wants to tear apart, destroy Christianity. To kill the elder would be the easiest, the khan, knowing that he cannot break this man, begins simply to maraud his soul, blaming him for the death of people. The Elder sacrifices the most important thing in this world, namely, life on the other. Of course, you could say that there is life! Is it possible to call life that hellish place where convicts die in a few weeks? But putting aside cynicism, we must speak of hope, the importance of which cannot be neglected in any, the most intolerable circumstances.
As a result, at the most unexpected moment, a miracle happens. In essence, this does not cause a global revaluation of values in the Khan (for which he and all his descendants will pay later), but is a testimony to the greatness of the Orthodox spirit, which will be confirmed not only on the level of a single human life, but also on the scale of historical achievements.
XIV century, Ulus Jochi. Khan Janibek calls Metropolitan Alexis to treat his blind mother. For disobedience threatens to burn Moscow. Alexy, who believes in miracles less than any other character in the film, grimly goes to the Horde.
This is a very interesting film.
Well, everything came together: the theme is luxurious, the screenwriter is titled, the director is strong, the picture is juicy, the actors are good, and Rosa Khayrullina is simply incredible. And it is not necessary to steam with certainty: they speak mostly not in Russian (however, it is difficult to call the final version declared Balkar), the Tatars are spherical fascists in a vacuum, the Volga city is drawn from Symdarya, and in fact everything was not there, not so and hardly at all. In general, like, peplum compose, like, jallo.
Arabs and Proshkin Jr. decided to compose fantasy. Specifically, the story of the Orthodox Frodo, whom Sauron caught, and then squeamishly said – let him roll, you sloppy. And Frodo, that Fyodor Ivanovich, decided that it was better, of course, to suffer.
And it could have been a beautiful story. But neither fantasy nor fiction can be filmed here. It is corny, predictable and not too clever.
Therefore, “Horda” is interesting to watch the first ten minutes – and then the episodes with Khayrullina. The rest is boring.
Actually, I probably would never have seen this film if it had not been shown in our provincial film club, where the local intelligentsia periodically watches and discusses the new in modern cinema. As part of the screenings of "Mainstream Cinema", we saw this masterpiece from the studio "Orthodox Encyclopedia".
In recent years, our beloved rulers have seriously engaged in establishing spiritual bonds for the Russian people. They spare no effort or resources for this. So on the “Horde” from the state fund of cinema was spent $ 12 million, and returned from fees only three. A total of 9 million green money to promote the Russian state idea. And that it will be a propaganda picture, there was no doubt from the very beginning. The sponsors are Gasprom, the Bank of Moscow and the government of Moscow.
The fact that history, in the apt expression of one of the greats, “politics turned into the past” is well known to everyone. In all countries and at all times, official history has been interpreted in favor of the ruling classes. But it is interesting how it is implemented in modern Russia. It would seem that with the available resources it was possible to make a serious film, to show the formation of the Moscow state, combining the role of Orthodoxy and the great contribution of the Patriarch and the Church to this cause. To raise, so to speak, the patriotic spirit of the population and give directions to the spiritual search. It was finally possible to demonstrate Russia’s special path in the “world confrontation of civilizations.” That's the most appropriate topic. Both Alexy's personality and fate are more than fit for an ideological historical blogbuster.
But what do we see on the screen? The director of Killing Power 3 in his new film mainly shows the fictional adventures of St. Alexis in the Horde. We see his sufferings realistically filmed and rise through them. In the end, the torment and submission of Alexy, pleasing to God, lead to the fact that he (God) saves not only the main characters, but also elevates the entire state of Moscow. Thus, the film unfolds a parable about the leading mystical role of the spiritual Orthodox leaders of the nation in the historical struggle.
Sometimes it seemed to me that this picture is a direct advertising of the ROC business. It is as if we were told plainly: look what the right faith does. Our predecessor, Saint Alexis, not only passed through the fire, he healed animals, and saved the whole country from the plague. And we modern priests can do that! Come to us cars, shops, rockets to sanctify, and other various paid ceremonies to perform. Well, together we, under the leadership of the best, will lead the country to a bright future.
No wonder the working title of the film “Saint Alexy”. I think the Horde was named only for advertising reasons. Society is not so clericalized as to go on the adventures of a religious saint. For sure, many hoped to see in the film called “The Horde” the confrontation of Russian patriots with the black mass of “scumbags” moving to Holy Russia. In general, although kitschy, "freak Horde barbarians" are presented to the viewer. But Russian patriots were replaced by an Orthodox magician. The masses were clearly disappointed and the film failed.
I would like to wish further propagandists, skeleopektnik to shoot the same inconspicuous and dull movie. Unable not only to unite the nation with spiritual bonds, but also to arouse any significant interest in the public. And the awards of numerous festivals can not help. No matter how much a historical black woman is rewarded, she does not get better from this.
Horde is not just the first Russian and world film dedicated to the Golden Horde (read – one of the most important myths of Russian history and culture). From the first shots it is clear that before us is not a set of changing beautiful pictures illustrating the colorful and cruel Horde life of the XIV century, but something completely different, fundamentally new phenomenon in our cinema. This is not only (and not so much) a historical film: I think this genre definition for such works of cinema is too narrow. First of all, “The Horde” is the most serious cinematic reflection on the historical fate of Russia in recent times, convincingly embodied in a vivid metaphor.
The filmmakers took huge risks, retreating from the traditional theme of films dedicated to the Golden Horde - the creation of the empire of Genghis Khan. This story has been tested by time and experience and continues to be fashionable, while the much longer and eventful era of the gradual decline of the Genghisid state remains in the shadows. The horde appears in the film at the moment of fragile balance, to break which is not worth anything - whether it is the disease of hanshi Taidula or the failed plans of Khan Janibek about a new campaign on Moscow. You can not find in the film and a remote hint of a quick and decisive victory on the Kulikovo field. Instead of a military confrontation, which always wins for historical cinema, a struggle between two cultures, two types of spirituality, is unfolding before the viewer, opposite in everything, in its very essence. Former masters have to turn to former slaves for help.
Horde and Russia in the film appear as civilizations that had nothing in common already at that distant time. Therefore, the authors show the “real” The horde to tell us again: we were different and we were different. This is important to remember for everyone who speaks of “Asianism” in relation to Russia.
After the Horde, I had a strong impression that this was the case, and this also applies to the infamous rite of equalizing prisoners in the height of the cartwheel. For historical cinema, this recognition effect is especially important.
The great Golden Horde itself is metaphorically embodied in a strange and frightening image - the Khanshi of Taidula, a woman with a lifeless white mask face, perfectly embodied on the screen by Rosa Khayrullina.
The main character, Metropolitan Alexy, brilliantly played by Maxim Sukhanov, performs a double function: on the one hand, he must perform a miracle, heal Hanshu Taidulu from blindness, on the other hand, he is the man whose eyes and ears we see and hear the Horde, get acquainted with the new and mysterious Asian culture.
The study of the Golden Horde, with which the source of Russian culture is inadmissibly mixed, takes place simultaneously on several levels. Each of them with its own peculiarities: the relationship of power-subordination (great khans – dark, Baskaki, overseers), genders (Janibek and Taidula), unsacred-sacred (Mongolian warriors and all sorts of wizards, sorcerers, magicians, fortune tellers, their clash is shown in a beautiful scene of exposure of a Chinese magician, which, in turn, is contrasted with the episode with “real” acrobats in the final episodes).
Perhaps the most consistent thought in the film is about the curse gravitating over the power: showing imperious cruelty, Taidula goes blind, her sons and grandchildren kill each other, even in the young Moscow principality the weight of Monomakh’s cap on Ivan Krasny is felt. He is opposed by the image of Metropolitan Alexy, who is well aware of his responsibility and is ready to go to certain death for the sake of other people - after all, it is about him repeating the miracle.
This primordial Russian longing for a miracle (does it not connect the historical fate of Russia with the Christianity of the apostolic age with a subtle but strong thread?) and the ethical message of the film is dedicated. Metropolitan Alexy’s desire to help is sincere, despite the fact that Taidula is a newly converted Muslim, moreover, from the people of the conquerors and invaders of his homeland.
At the beginning of the film, the Vladyka appears confident in his faith, but only to almost lose it, and eventually find it in its fullness and depth. In the magnificent scene of this new acquisition, Metropolitan Alexy goes through a kind of repeated symbolic baptism - this time with rainwater.
In the Horde, the crisis of traditional beliefs, including folklore, is extremely plausible: the impotence of healers and healers before the mysterious disease of Taidula has not so much a material as a spiritual cause. This confusion and vacillation in the minds and souls is countered by the self-consciousness of Orthodox Christianity, which is born in agony, expressed in the maxim of Metropolitan Alexy: Who performs a miracle? God.
Horde does not claim historical truth. This is more of an artistic fiction. Harsh, tough, bloody and moderately smart film about many things. About what? For those who want to see large-scale battles or just a colossus about the descendants of Genghis Khan, this movie is not for you. There is no place for spectacle here.
Strange impressions. Andrey Proshkin’s film is interesting for its development. Unhurried, inflating, in some places making its way to the brain of bones. When you realize that the yoke was terrible, that millions of people were killed simply because they were of a different race or even height. What Metropolitan Alexei went through causes a lot of feelings, especially since the actor who played it had a very hard time. I didn’t feel bad about the director.
The horde does not show us its “greatness”, it does not even have fights of warriors, but the film has got into the head in separate scenes. This is a sign of the talent of the creators. At the same time, it is somewhat secondary, especially after IslandLungin or The King, but still slightly different matters are touched upon here. Power. The cruelty of the time. Vera. Fear. God.
That's probably what this picture is about.
Nice extra shot. The costumes and decor were very liked. The light is deliberately dimmed at times to feel the full shadow of the time. The Mongols have already spoken. It often resembles Kazakh, so even translation is not necessary. And even our Kazakh actors, in my opinion, are present.
On the further fate of the film I do not dare to speculate. Most likely, it will also sink into the abyss, like everything that was released in the 90-2000s, but today it was not useless.
6 out of 10
How well it all started, so incomprehensible and ended. However, I will probably not blame the authors of the picture for this, writing off the absolute misunderstanding of the alleged depth of this work to my “militant atheism.” They say that it is simply not possible to understand - hence the result.
Whatever it was, for me, the film clearly broke up into three different successive segments, and in such a way that there was no trace of sincere and genuine interest, seemingly securely fixed in the first minutes, in the end. And even the “electroshock” in the form of a profound (or at least pretending to be such) afterword turned out to be a measure extremely late and therefore fruitless.
The sudden death of the hero A. Panin, I think, was the first milestone and led to the transition from the stage of extreme interest to the stage of moderate interest. Especially strange was the lack of even a hint of trying to explain what happened. Against the background of the frank charisma of the murdered ruler, his words, not to the extent of a well-fed murderer-successor, that the great Horde needed a great khan, seemed an unfortunate joke.
The situation was partly saved by the sudden blind main character. Watching what was happening in this regard was not so interesting, but at least not very boring. The end of the process put the fiasco of the “Great Moscow Sorcerer”. The miracle did not happen, and... the film could not be watched.
“Walking through the torments” and other “evangelical tendencies” filled the remaining (which is characteristically, most) part of the timekeeping of the picture, depriving, in my opinion, of the meaning of discussing some plot-historical inconsistencies, miscalculations in the selection of actors and other trifles.
The frank inconclusiveness of the author’s thesis on the sending down of a miracle in response to the active repentance of an arrogant sinner personally reminded me only that the old anecdote about the desire at all costs to discover in principle the missing cause and effect relationship ... However, this is probably worth stopping at. I will limit myself to the final assessment:
I’m not going to say that the film doesn’t fit the story a little more than it does. I will not say that the Mongols respected the faith of others, did not kill guests and did not slaughter each other during dinner. I will not say that the Mongols, even in those days, were very conditional Muslims and could hardly appeal to Allah from the heart that their slaves were family members and such as in the film never happened. It’s not a historical film, it’s all here.
But Maxim Sukhanov and Rosa Khayrullina delight with their game and their images are also spelled out very organically and colorfully, and Panin is beautiful, as always (alas, now it is always forever).
The very idea of a Christian feat of a metropolitan in a wild place (such a branch of either hell or purgatory), with the passage of fire of water and copper pipes, is certainly not new, but it is executed well, with feeling and not so much as with pathos. Well, except that the Jesuits are crawling in the dump a little too much.
Last night I watched the movie “Horde”, well, I can say, pleasantly surprised, I expected the worst.
The filmmakers approached their creation seriously and professionally.
More than a thousand costumes were sewn for the film, natural scenery of Moscow of the XIV century and the capital of the Golden Horde - Sarai-Batu were built. The filmmakers consulted with historians, studied museum expositions, painting of that time, costume history, plans for archaeological excavations.
- The characters of the film speak Karachay-Balkar language, close to the Sredne Kipchak, which in the XIV century was spoken in the Golden Horde. Consultations in the translation of the text were provided by Balkar cultural figures Muzafar and Fatimat Taukenov. To ensure that actors during filming and sounding correctly pronounce the text, followed by translators.
In my opinion, the idea is not bad, but there is some understatement.
The film turned out to be gloomy, the topic of religion is not sufficiently emphasized. The film is missing something.
I think it would be nice to add good dialogue, maybe quotes from the Bible, the Koran or some Eastern wisdom.
But I am glad that our filmmakers began to make a film that raises the theme of the history of their country! And also glad that there are no tarnished bored faces wandering from film to film.
In addition to the above, there is a certain pattern and stereotype in the film!
In general, it seems that the creators made a bet on effects and the picture, and the script and dialogues did not improve a bit.
And as a result, costs $12,000,000, fees $2,761,529.
Yet, no matter what critics say, and people are used to voting, as they say “legs” and “ruble”.
6 out of 10
“Orda” is a project that should show what Russian mass cinema is capable of, but it still does not become mass. With a budget of $ 12 million, fees less than 3 times are quite indicative. What is the reason here - whether it is that the director Andrei Proshkin did not calculate the mass consciousness or that the mass audience is not ready for a stupid movie - I do not know. And maybe the distribution companies somehow do not really want to invest in the rental of Russian films. In general, it does not matter, because the movie seems more authorial than mass.
This was clear even from the initial background. For example, support for the Orthodox Encyclopedia. It seems to count on the fact that the Orthodox viewer will trample in the cinema in crowds. But what a sin to hide - most Orthodox little familiar with the history of the Russian Church, as well as with the basic postulates and ideology of Christianity. And the fact that the majority considers themselves to be Orthodox is, unfortunately, a weak basis for attracting audiences to cinemas, which have long become an institution of exclusively secular entertainment. It is hard to imagine a believer chewing popcorn on the Horde (by the way, there are). In addition, there are no priests or metropolitans in the name, but there is some kind of “horde”.
Interest in the film as a historical, too, runs into problems - the dominance of "Hobbits" and "Lord of the rings" makes itself felt. Of course, the authors tried to compensate for all this with accuracy and chic in the details and naturalism of what is happening on the screen, but the author’s view, and if simply, then cleverness and subtle, but the imposition of certain ideas about the world, sticks out of all the cracks.
First, the script, written by the famous Yuri Arabov, is not replete with plot intrigues (and it is not about them). Briefly, the plot boils down to the fact that in the Horde, full of intrigue and cruelty, the main authority in the Khan’s family, the Khansha-mother of Taidul, falls ill (blind). The best forces are directed to healing - their own and those attracted. Of the latter from Moscow to Sarai, the “great sorcerer” Metropolitan Alexy is summoned under the threat of the ruin of Russia. Blinded hansha will recover or not - not the most exciting plot twist, especially when you consider that he is the main, if not the only, intriguing moment. At the same time, there is no obvious struggle against enemies, which is demanded by ordinary patriotic spectator consciousness, since it is futile. The horde appears almost invincible (if you fight with traditional means) even locally – or, as they say, on certain sections of the front. What kind of intrigue is this?!
Secondly, the beautiful and prize-winning work of the operator and artist sets the bar not for dynamism, but for measuredness. Even brilliantly constructed episodes with oriental "entertainments" are very authentic and deliberately deprived of the mystical touch, becoming reliable.
Finally, behind all this aesthetics and accuracy in detail, there are rather difficult meanings.
The main element of the semantic construction of the film is the concept of “miracle” and the fundamental differences between the culture of pagan, albeit slightly seasoned with Islam, and Christian. The most understandable difference lies in the methods of healing: paganism cures with excrement, and Christianity with a word. It is no less significant that the Russian metropolitan is ready to treat to “insight”, but is not ready to teach a legless person to walk.
As for the “miracle”, in the course of the film, we can observe in comparison the visual miracles (just tricks) characteristic of the pagan consciousness, and the Christian miracle, which in the result is not so spectacular and, to put it mildly, not obvious, since it is entirely based on faith. By the way, the faith of not only screen Christians, but also Christian viewers. Because for an atheist, what happens on the screen can be interpreted a little differently.
It is surprising that some people call the film anti-Christian. Yes, he does not propagate Christianity head-on (the Orthodox word in the film is almost exclusively directed at God, not at people), but he does appeal to Christian behavior. And here is the second of the key content elements – self-sacrifice and humility. Perhaps these are the main Christian virtues so incomprehensible to the Mongols (Khan’s question: “Why does he not go to Moscow?”). Is he not suffering enough? And humility is interpreted by the authors precisely not as subjugation to the will of the strong (the state, man). Why? There is room for interpretation again. At the same time, there is no way out beyond the limits of human (so may the Orthodox, reinforced concrete holiness forgive me) - Alexia as a person is characterized by both doubt and weakness, which he overcomes. Whether he does it with faith or just as a strong human being is up to the viewer to decide. At the same time, the director and the screenwriter throw a kind of litmus test to the audience - a kelik Fedka. There is also a Mongol witness, who "oversees" the Lord. Comparison of behavioral reactions gives a very interesting ground for reasoning and debate.
What is the motive of the main character? Fear of the punishment of the khan or in Moscow, fear of loss of authority, the torment of conscience for the unavoidable ruin of Russia or a deep faith that does not allow you to slide into the abyss and gives hope for the salvation not only of your soul, but also of others? The director leaves the question rather unanswered, yet involuntarily leaning towards a Christian interpretation.
The question remains: what does the Horde have to do with this? And why is that called a movie? In the end, it really could be called: “Metropolitan”, “Saint”, or from the field of delirium – “Trip to the Horde”, for example. But the name “Horde” prompts not only that those who seem weak today can, thanks to inner integrity, become the winner of tomorrow, but also to reflect on the degradation of the Mongolian elite, not subject to a more general and strong ideology, and therefore doomed. Maybe it’s about us who don’t believe today. Stop! This is going to be propaganda.
Nov will return to the beginning – the role of “Horda” in the modern Russian film process. Is the audience capable of interpreting this movie in one way or another? Can our cinema somehow combine the search for meaning and focus on the simple viewer? The Horde does not give an unambiguous answer to these questions: the strong visual and professional component, in my opinion, is desperately inferior to the author’s presentation of historical material. This is confirmed by these fees. There is hope that the Horde is, if not the beginning, then the continuation of the process of educating our viewer with a good and professional cinema. And there, you see, others will break through. Not “Pregnant” is the only Russian viewer alive.
So I had the good fortune to visit this film as part of the festival and to talk directly with the director.
That's my conclusion. High-quality, good-quality film well shot, beautiful picture and atmosphere. But it seems that the director shot for the festival, and wanted to convey exactly his idea. But unfortunately, he did not understand the cultural traditions and the main religious views on both sides of the Horde and Russia (or rather the orthodox perception of life). We see the great Horde and its khans do not respond to its large-scale phenomenon, they are not all-powerful rulers, not wise rulers who would be able to lead such a hromada seizing new lands. Of course, you can make a discount on the fact that it showed the time of the fall of a great civilization. But in any case, the khans do not look serious and even seem to be stupid burners of life, looking only for bread and spectacles (the very expectation of a miracle passing through the red line throughout the film), and the director makes this concession to convey his idea of the horde’s ideas in the face of true Christian self-sacrifice, the strength of spirit that we see in the hero of the metropolitan.
But despite all the efforts of the director to present Metropolitan Alexy as a kind of creed, a combination of all the Christian virtues, self-sacrifice, strength of faith and spirit capable of defeating any enemies and shaking their faith (which is the main idea), we get a completely reverse image. A person of such age and high rank shows weakness of faith, fear of the inability to cure the notorious disease, and, indulging the unreasonable pleas of his companion, rushes to any leads even throws himself into the mud. Where is the faith in God’s providence, where is the wisdom that could lead a man to the place of a metropolitan? And self-sacrifice, almost to the point of suicide attempt! The greatest sin! Of course, I evaluate from the point of view of a believer, but it is clear that the director first of all cared about his ideas and did not immerse himself in the original “principles of faith”.
Orthodox culture is represented here in 3 heroes: the prince, grovelling before the Horde ready to sacrifice that symbol of faith of the people; the metropolitan, deprived of wisdom and unconditional faith in the providence of God; the assistant of the metropolitan in general betraying his religion and ready to pray to any gods just to survive! I think the director himself did not understand into which hole he threw his idea. How ironic it is that Catholics, who are given only 10 minutes of screen time, turn out to be those true believers, ready by the power of their faith to cross the khana, to rise from their knees, to stand tall before the king of all kings, surrounded by enemies and to state their point of view, perhaps giving their lives and death to the barbarians and in the hands of God. It is they who suffer for the faith and are ready to give, having nothing, their last clothes and bread.
The question arises, why did the director so belittle the Russian culture and greatness of Odru? No, surely he did not even notice it, he did not do it out of understanding but out of selfishness.
But all this does not beg for those wonderful qualities of the film, which left a rather positive impression of the film. Wonderful camera work, beautiful music and atmosphere created by the selection of actors, recreated architecture, scenery, clothing, wonderful landscapes. Of course, it is difficult to appreciate the truthfulness of the images, but they look convincing.
Seeing the advertising of this project, I was very interested and thought that it would be a film in the manner of “Mongol”, but alas I was mistaken.
At the very beginning of the film, noticing the inscription Pravoslavnaya Encyclopaedia, I was wary and for good reason. After all, the film will not show the beauty of Mongolian culture, some large-scale battles, the splendor of ancient cities. Instead, we were presented with Moscow in the form of several wooden buildings and a church, which, according to one of the Mongols, accommodated all the inhabitants of this city. We will also see a small Mongolian settlement (as we were shown the capital of the Mongols – Sarai) and several rooms where most of the actions will take place. By the way, oddly enough, but a certain number of characters that, according to the idea of the Mongols, are played by our Russian people, which is very striking.
I could not understand what the film was about. Perhaps, after all, religious themes prevailed here, because for most of the film we see Metropolitan Alexy learning humility and expecting a miracle from God. Meanwhile, as he waits, we see the Mongols killing Russians one by one and brutally exploiting the living.
If we judge the technical characteristics, the picture quality is very much below the level of 2012, as for me.
The film is a long two hours and to withstand them was quite difficult.
I can’t tell you who the actors are.
The film is a surprisingly beautiful, hard and rich in detail fairy tale on quite exotic and undrawn material, if you will, apocrypha. There is no need to check the picture for compliance with historical realities - it does not correspond at all, characters, scenery and some realities are borrowed.
In “The Horde” the strongest impression is made by the staged scale, the whole fabulous entourage with scenery, makeup, costumes, dancers, magician, so beautifully shot by the operator. The soundtrack, which combines many themes, uses unconventional strings, is perfect. Perhaps, the film with a brighter and juicier picture in the domestic cinema was not. From foreign analogues, I would compare with the ideological peplums of Zhang Yimou ("Hero, "House of Flying Daggers") with the deduction of martial arts scenes and action.
All the images of the Mongols and acting work were unconditionally liked (Andrey Panin again flashed in a cameo), the work of Maxim Sukhanov by definition is static and represents to a greater extent the achievements of the makeup artist. The last thirty minutes the film loses a little ingenuity on details, but given the large volume it is not critical.
“Horde” is quite static, but at the same time interesting precisely by directorial and staged finds “big” film with ethnic stylization. If you do not make claims to him from the point of view of psychology or the motivation of the characters, you can fully enjoy the unique author’s fantasy on historical material, which is more integral and spectacular than the Lungin “King”.
8 out of 10
The Golden Horde. What is behind this magnificent and frightening phrase? We are not given to know for sure, and only historical information can form a more or less holistic picture in the head of modern man. His version of the Horde offered the audience director Andrei Proshkin. And personally, I am grateful to him because the film is incomparable.
It is terribly annoying when people begin to prove the authenticity of a historical fact, argue about the distortion of history. We must not forget that we are watching an art film, not a documentary. There is room for creativity here. You just have to love the historical genre first. And I love him. How much energy and soul it takes to express on the screen what seems inexpressible! After such pictures, history and our own past become a little closer and clearer. In addition, no one imposes such an understanding of the facts on the viewer. We are free to accept another person’s vision, or simply enjoy a rich, beautiful, detailed picture of the past, but remain in our minds.
In any case, the Horde is a colossal work that deserves attention. And this work impressed me so much that I, perhaps, accept the Golden Horde exactly as it is shown in the Horde.
“The Horde” is compared with other historical paintings, such as “The King”, “Mongol”. But it is foolish to draw a parallel between such works. If you put them next to each other and compare them, it turns out that in tsarist Russia everything was much more creepy than in the Golden Horde. But that’s crazy, even if it’s true. It’s like 2 people arguing about which one of them is more delicious. I think these three films are very, very good. The Horde is the pride of Russian modern cinema. How few of them make such good movies...
In order not to mislead those who have not yet seen the film, I want to note that it is not for the faint of heart and not for those who want to relax during a pleasant viewing. Power with all its “charms”, cruelty, slavery, seasoned with a creepy Eastern culture for the Orthodox – these are just basic theses that do not cover the deep meaning, but only speak about the general mood of the film. Everything is so profound that it is difficult to describe in words. It needs to be seen.
To begin with, historical reality is recreated realistically. I am not an expert in the history of relations between Russia and the Golden Horde and, according to my level of knowledge in this field, I was impressed with the atmosphere and quality of costumes and scenery.
I would like to thank the creators for the historical correspondence of details, since most modern filmmakers do not bother with it. I was also pleased by the fact that representatives of the Golden Horde speak their own language (not an expert, but probably Mongolian) with simultaneous translation, not Russian. This technique gives the atmosphere of a clear distinction between the characters, it is nice that the creators of the film decided to use it.
I also didn’t disappoint the cast. It is impossible not to note the good performance of Sukhanov and Khayrullina.
The operator's work should also be noted. For Russian cinema, it is on top. A couple of frames upset, but it did not spoil the impression of the operator's work. I can not say about some masterpieces or an original approach to shooting, but I can say that the operator deserved a solid 7 in this case.
Now the main thing, that is, the minuses.
From the film, called by the big name of the Horde, I expected something more original and interesting. The script is banal, some dialogue moments upset. The main problem formed as a result of cooperation between the director and the screenwriter of this film is that they could not decide what they want to portray, the Horde or Metropolitan Alexy? In general, I feel, they thought, thought, and could not decide why such an incomprehensible “something” formed from the picture. This greatly spoiled the impression of the already specifically begun film. I can generally call this whole film exactly specific, and more specifically, it left a bit of a muscular impression.
Very saddened by the fact that under the name of “the Horde” we slipped only two years of its existence (from the events of the beginning of the film to the events at the end historically passed about two years, according to my calculations) and in addition to this, they cut into the tape their hatred and disrespect for it.
The musical and sound design is not remembered, but this only indicates that it is average. Hearing did not cut, but the memory did not burn, in general - normal.
In general, having a good cast, the director did not cope with the topic and did not reveal it even halfway, which is a pity.
5 out of 10
During the war of 1941-1945, Germans were shown in films as stupid, caricatured and backward. It is understandable that the Soviet people then still felt fear of the fascists, and the Stalinist propaganda machine removed the fear by methods of humiliating the enemy. After the war, films appeared, where the enemy was shown more objectively, because the victory over fools greatly humiliated the winners and sweetened their role in the war.
Is the fear of the Tatar-Mongols still in the genes of the Russians that the former enemy should be portrayed as subhuman barbarians? Can patriotism be nurtured on lies? Okay, the Soviet Union used to live behind the Iron Curtain and we didn't know the whole truth about the war and our ideological adversaries, but now in the age of the Internet and freedom, such perversions of truth can turn into their opposite.
To somehow justify their fear, the filmmakers famously redraw the story. Monk Giovanni Plano Carpini was with the Mongols 100 years before the events. Pope Innocent VI could not deal with Tinibek as Tinibek was assassinated 11 years before Innocent became pontiff. And Tinibek was killed by the emirs when he pronounced the oath of the great khan, and not his brother Janibek.
Taidula, Janibek's mother, invited Father Alexius to the Horde in 1357 to treat Janibek, but in order that no one would know that the Khan was ill, she pretended to be blind, and Alexia was invited to treat her. In memory of the miraculous healing from Taidula’s blindness, Metropolitan Alexy founded the Chudov Monastery in the Moscow Kremlin in 1365.
But most importantly, Tinibek, Janibek and his son Berdibek professed Islam, that is, they were not the pagan barbarians portrayed in this film. The Genghisids, who then ruled the whole world, dressed in brocade and silk and in luxury surpassed the Eastern rulers, like Sultan Baybars, who were shown in Russian films.
It is bad when slavish fear and humiliated dignity move the thoughts of the artist. The filmmakers failed to show why the Golden Horde rotted and perished, why the holy faith of the Rus was stronger than the Mohammedanism of the Tatar-Mongols, or why the soldiers of the Golden Horde subsequently adopted Orthodoxy and formed the backbone of the free Cossacks.
When in the head of devastation and the film turns out to be nothing.
4 out of 10
In an interview, Sukhanov once said that “the horde exists inside each person”, referring to the negative that hides behind this concept for the Russian person. I’m afraid you can say that the Horde movie is also for everyone.
It is not me who notices that there is a phenomenon, but there is how we perceive it; then, when we try to convey this perception to another, there is what we say and there is what he hears.
So with the "Horde" (film) and the horde (concept).
What for a Russian horde? First of all, a kind of external violence, an unnatural state imposed by strangers. But Tarkovsky’s horde in Rublev is within us, it is we who are divided, betray each other, commit violence, and the Mongols are only background, except that they use our weakness. Proshkin, perhaps, on the contrary, the horde is the cause of our troubles, our weakness. In fact, it is this understanding of the horde that is generally accepted: that is, no matter what trouble you remember, how you hear the answer – it is the yoke that is guilty of both submission and patience. Yego, and also serfdom - that would not be them, then we would be wow!
But if you remember, almost every people had such a yoke, a horde: some had Moors, some had Turks, some had the same Spaniards, etc. And the Spaniards do not regard the yoke of the Moors as the cause of all their shortcomings and problems. So, Imho, here I would agree with Tarkovsky's position.
Another theme in the film is God, faith, sacrifice. “The main thing in the film is the victim, it is a movie about the ability to sacrifice yourself in the name of another person,” Arabov said in an interview. “He decided to experience torture like his God,” the Mughal echoes him when he talks to the Khan about Alexia. What is the sacrifice, what was the sacrifice of Jesus? After all, the sacrifice is not to lie on the sacrificial stone, not to throw yourself on the stakes, not to lie on the cross to nail. Jesus, both in the Gospels and in the same Bulgakov, does not seek death, does not seek sacrifice. He and Pilate give a chance to avoid crime, respond not with a challenge, not so much as to run into execution. The sacrifice for Jesus is not a cross, not a crucifixion, but to do what is proper without betraying oneself. More than once I spoke to Muslims about this and heard the same misunderstanding of the victim as in the film: “What’s the point?” If we think of sacrifice as a sacrifice, it makes no sense. As the Arabs say, “Faith and understanding are different.” Faith and meaning are really different things, may be incompatible, but sacrifice as a sacrifice - the Arab imho is wrong here. It is clear that in the film, it was by sacrificing himself that Alexy made God hear him. But to Jesus, to faith, the references, the parallels of imho are false.
Proshkin’s imho is also different from Sukhanov’s and Arabov’s understanding of the Horde. For in the understanding of Arabov and Sukhanov, the film ends with the departure of Alexy. Proshkin, for obvious reasons, continues, developing precisely the generally accepted understanding of hordes strangling, poisoning each other, cruelty, Asianism, which has stamped our history for centuries. Imho is a mistaken point of view. Yes, strangled and poisoned. And who hasn't smothered or choked before and after? And the French, and the Italians, and the English - all in those centuries were poisoned and strangled. And the khans, by the way, periodically, when they were not strangled, were elected on the kurultai tribal leaders. When was the last time a khan was chosen freely and independently? Same thing.
I.e. imho film is powerful, significant, excellent in scenography, cinematography, scenery, costumes, wonderful in the play of actors, strong in its attempt to answer age-old Russian questions, but carrying all our misconceptions and misunderstandings, i.e., such as ourselves.
Moral humiliation of people. Forgetting the pride of the people, we learned the low tricks of slavery, replacing strength in the weak. - N. M. Karamzin. History of the Russian State
The Russians have a history problem. Turning consistently and naturally until the beginning of the twentieth century, Russian history seemed to stutter, tripped, twisted his leg and then fettered through the stump-deck. The meaning of what we (and with us) have managed to do over the past hundred years is so dark that it will take a long time to understand it with great effort. Filmmakers make their contribution to this cause, often turning to the history of the long-suffering mother of Russia. It is not surprising that the lion’s share of paintings on historical themes is devoted to the Soviet period of our history. It is surprising why writers and directors avoid diving into the ancient layers of Russian history, which harbor a huge spiritual wealth, capable of feeding our dried-up souls with the living water of truth. But all the more valuable is any experience of this kind.
Andrei Proshkin is a second-generation film director and the exemplary son of his father. It must be assumed that it was from his father, who filmed Cold Summer of the Fifty-Third, Russian Rebellion and Doctor Zhivago, that he inherited an interest and respect for Russian history, a special sense of the relevance of the past. This, apparently, was the reason that the center “Orthodox Encyclopedia”, supervised by the Russian Orthodox Church and also acting as a film producer, it was Proshkin Jr. who chose the director of a new film on Orthodox themes. At the same time, the creative freedom of Proshkin and Arabov, invited by the screenwriter, was not limited by anything - in the best Orthodox traditions. As a result, the picture was as Orthodox as it was intellectual: an interesting fusion of traditional and modern views on the nature of holiness and miracle and curious observations of the hidden reasons for the unification and rise of the Russian Land.
The action of the picture takes place in the middle of the 14th century, shortly before the famous Battle of Kulikovo. The plot is based on an episode that is insignificant from the point of view of external history, but very revealing in terms of the history of internal, spiritual: the trip of Metropolitan Alexy of Moscow to the Horde to heal the suddenly blind Taidula Khanshi. The trip is not voluntary, but forced, made under the fear of ruining Moscow by the Tatars. A trip with a mission to perform a miracle. And a trip with a very ambiguous result, which neither Prince John of Moscow, nor the loving son of Taidula Khan Janibek, nor Vladyko Alexy himself could assume. And as a result, both the life-giving force of Orthodoxy and the emerging power of the Russian spirit clearly manifest themselves. And also an indication of the path of the Russian people, relevant in our time. An instruction hardly understood by Alexy’s contemporaries, but fully accessible to us, who have not yet forgotten about national unity.
The extraordinary and inspiring idea of this story was penetrated not only by the writer and director, but also by the actors. Maxim Sukhanov in the unusual role of Saint Alexis is filled with prayerful rigor and readiness for asceticism and gives the game not just convincing, but heartfelt and memorable. His face, after suffering, covered with almost natural ulcers, cuts into memory like the incisor of the sculptor into a stone. Rosa Khayrullina, representing his patient and the mother of the worst enemy of the Russian Land - Taidula, is not inferior to the opponent in the strength of the impression produced and is a pure monolith of a hostile spirit - much more integral than her irrepressible sons, who alternately destroy each other in the struggle for the Khan's throne. At a decent level, thoughtfully, conscientiously and reliably, the roles of the second order were played: Kelinik Fedka (Alexander Yatsenko), Khan Janibek (Innokenty Dakayrov), Prince Ivan (Vitaly Khaev).
The unusual film of Andrei Proshkin is hardly a masterpiece, because there are enough weaknesses in it. But it doesn't matter. It is important that Proshkin – indirectly, through the affairs of days gone by – turned to the urgent problem of finding sources of spiritual strength, without which a true national unification and even more so the fulfillment of a national mission is impossible. After all, this very mission is nothing more than a demand addressed to a whole people to show a miracle. No one knows how to do this, neither saint nor wretched, nor can he know, because a miracle is not done, but is. But only if people are ready for this, if they have managed to overcome their many weaknesses and temptations and purify themselves internally. The true greatness of the spirit is manifested in the ability to overcome oneself. That's what we need now. What you can learn in Orthodoxy and Russian history. And now to the movies.
I believe! I believe everything except potatoes on the metropolitan table. America has not yet shuddered under the heel of Columbus, and in Russia they are already eating potatoes. Not really.
I confess that half of the film was waiting for the traditional Christian black woman. I couldn't wait, thank God. Famed by previous reviewers, “Pop” depicted in all its glory the Christian idea of the conquest and weakening of Russia. They say that we are such passionate bearers that we will even lick the boots of the Germans, so long as they do not destroy our churches. Here we see Orthodox Russia, primordial Russia, which is based not on alien symbols, not on crosses, not on churches, but on the Russian spirit, inherited from our ancestors.
Why, I remembered "Generation P" and Vovan-roof with the Russian national idea. So the “Orda” simply, in Russian and without allegory presented to the creative, but stupid Pelevins the Russian idea – be ready to give your life for yours, for the Russian, and we do not need anything but peace. We'll get the rest ourselves.
This ugly film, concocted as always in a hurry, again trampled Orthodoxy into the mud. In the same camel-horse manure that the director shows with such ecstasy throughout the film, apparently for the first time learning during the filming about the kzyak, surprised, happy and deciding that it is horse feces that is cool.
So, why is the Horde movie anti-Christian?
Here's why.
In the course of the “piesa”, Alexy, tormented by fear that if he does not cure the hansha, then the Khan, her son, will burn Moscow, tries to cure it with prayer and fumigation of incense. He can't do that. He gets hysterical, runs out of the yurt. Khan's on the doorstep, ready to cut off his head. Then he, Alexia, the helper, the young Fedka, gives as an example, also in snot and tears, the parable that Jesus spit on the ground, took this suspension, smeared it in the eyes of a blind man from birth - and the blind man saw! Alexy, what are you standing for? Act!! And Alexis, imagining himself equal to the Son of Man, after all, the incarnate aspect of the Trinity, also grunts into the dust, kneads all this, runs into a yurt and puts dirt on the eyes of the Khanshi. Of course, such an unexpected trick does not work. Oh, "chort," St. Alexis, according to the writer and director, is not equal to Jesus! What a surprise!! As a result, Alexis is undressed, poured on the top of holy water and sent to the steppe, where ants crawl on it. Then he nails to the Russians taken in the prolon, surveillance is established for him, he turns out to be the source of the Tatar baths (here the director very well shows the mores of the “zone” - good, Alexia does not “cock under the shoe”...But there are homosecs in the film, but about them later ...), because of him every third slave is killed, Fedka unexpectedly meets tries to strangle him.
As a result, “Vladyko Alexy” decides on a trick. In order to save his cellmates from evil curlers, and Moscow from looting by basurmans, he goes on suicide (I don’t know, in Orthodox apologetics this seems to be a sin, but saints, apparently, can). Well, how it goes... He's trying to burn himself. But the body, smeared with clay and other things, still burns reluctantly (judging by the flame that engulfed Alexy, apparently, in the interpretation of the director, he was smeared with a kizyak, which dried up on it and became flammable). But good cellmates save him (as before he saved from the mad Fedka, kicking him to death). Take it outside. Where Alexis, burnt, writhes again in horse shit (sic!) and streams of rain, saying that God has left him...
In the final – the khan and his retinue find him, send him to the same bath that he drowned a day ago and which is still drowned by his former friends-prisoners (but no matter what, saved!), gives Yasak, a letter that Moscow will not be robbed, Fedka, horses and sends all this from the headquarters of the Horde – back home. This is a very unexpected turn.
It is worth noting that at first the film could even be interesting. Costumes, scenery, horses. Shit, again. However, gradually, after mocking “other religions” (yes, in the legend, no one could cure Tandula, but why the Hindu with the phrase about “chakras”?), after these ants, which Alexis removes from himself one by one. The film, already not shining with novelty, rolled to the floor, clogged under the plinth and began to gleam with frightened eyes. You could make a great movie, but with a different ending. Let him be a saint in manure - this is now very quoted among young people! Saints, I think, do not care, because “the unclean is cleansed from contact with the saint”, and anticlericals – joy. Let's have cheap special effects and everything. Let there be a naked old man with a shamefully covered ass ... But here is the finale.
In the finale, when Alexy and Fedka, whom he, in accordance with the principles of Christianity, understood by the scriptwriter, forgave, leave, the chief villain Khan dies, playing on a flute built into an elephant mask, and the heir to the entire horde becomes his son Berdibek (who, it turns out, is a homosexual, his soldiers were faggots, his faces whitened and because of this, together with the struggle for power, Audra and died, aha...) – again shows Tandula. She saw it. She can see. And, sitting on a horse, saying a speech that he does not know "what God wants," he leaves for the night steppe.
The Tartars were unjust. And God gave them a tambourine for it. Amazing, isn't it? Typical logic of the film about the next “Bandit St. Petersburg”, a kind of merger of the zone chief and Savaof.
But again, this finale is miserable. Wouldn’t it have been better not to show the blind hansha after the scene of her non-healing? Or, if it is necessary to show, not to let the viewer know whether she sees or not? What the evil khan let go, saved Alexis - is it not a miracle? The same thing that the rumor went about healing, that it went down in history. So maybe this happened after the Khan saw the willpower of the “mighty old man”? Amazed at his self-sacrifice? Why didn't Janibek want Alexy dead? Because he was thinking of burning Moscow in front of his eyes. And then, yes, I did. Alexis and his God are stronger than both the Horde and the Khan. I’m not talking about compassion, I’m not talking about the mental suffering of the Horde – let’s omit this, let them remain animals and cattle (neither the writer of the script, nor the director about the fact that the Mongols also had their own faith, apparently, did not hear).
But no. All according to the laws of the genre - flies separately, cutlets separately. Why show an open ending? Why force the “consumer” to think about faith, to think about what is happening? The consumer must consume, the believer must believe. And most importantly, more shit. Horse shit, camel shit. Shit and "Orthodoxy," God forgive me. We are an Orthodox country.
Someone says that Alexy goes the way of “all mankind”, saved Moscow and not responding with evil to evil. Someone is praising the director's work. I will say that this film is not a parable. This film is not about Vera, not about Alexia, not about the Tatars or the history of the Moscow principality. This movie is about shit. Shit is his main character. And God, too, because it is such pictures that show us that God actually exists, but he has nothing to do with modern cinema. And all these small allusions, all the spiritual suffering, all the vicissitudes of the main characters - so, the background for a giant dung heap, in which the director digs, trying to launder the money received. The fact that the “Orthodox Encyclopedia” is involved in the creation of this “masterpiece” does not at all honor the latter and gently hints at the level of our Orthodoxy for the masses.