I am glad that foreigners are interested in our classics.
And we're going to be "clean."
With props and scenery, locations and "Russian" characters on the screen. Kosovarska and bananas, the English regular park on the outskirts of ri, quilting a broom in the "bath" with cracks in the hand between the boards - all this and much more gives the picture the flavor of the television comics magazine "Calambur". Separately, it is worth noting, because this has to do with the atmosphere of the source, the bummy appearance of the everyday dress and the chic atmosphere of the estate - its place of apartment. From the comparison of what we can conclude about the rolling character of Scott, psychological, and not about the need going nearby, pushing in the right direction - which is more accurately reflected in the lit source.
But the biggest rejection of the visible - misunderstanding artists of the essence of the clash of characters. The basis of personalities that they overlook is the concept of nobility, honor, dignity. Without their play, what is shown is chaotic. The easiest way to see the difference between the film adaptations, in this regard, was reflected in the clothes of G. Laevsky’s hysteria could not cause Koren to reject him, seeing him day after day indecently dressed, staggering around the city. In the domestic film adaptation from 1961, this "obscenity" - staggered socks!, Heifitz, in 1972 - a heavily worn uniform coat and pants.
If we take into account the lack of representation of actors of foreign film adaptation about noble feelings, then everything falls into place and the possibility of Soviet actors to so realistically play them out in characters from a seemingly different reality becomes interesting. All the contrived discrepancy goes away if you remember that people fought for it in the VOSR, GV and WWII. Including for human dignity, available in the analyzed plot of Chekhov only to the overwhelming minority, the majority was in a humiliated and subjugated position, including by punitive and forceful methods, after victories in these cataclysms, becoming the natural state of most people on the territory of our Soviet Fatherland. Self-esteem in the territories of other countries, under the influence of the environment, mutated in the direction of achieving possible benefits. What we experience, in record time, socially mutating, to survive in a merciless gv all against all. The beginning, not even evolution, but simply the breaking of a man proudly looking at Porfiry Pseldonimov is well felt in the film about another duel - "Keep me my talisman." Then the process only accelerated. It is difficult for actors who grew up in the midst of the struggle for existence to play nobility on the screen.
In addition to this dominant factor, there are outright acting and directorial failures, to the last, large, I attribute crumpled emotional scenes with requests for money to be borrowed, which should reveal the character of the characters - there is a tongue-in-cheek, passing scenes. The impression of Scott’s game is a malicious drug addict, hiding his anger for the time being with him, how the final benevolent state of his character hatched from such a vision – I do not understand. After Hvyli and Papanov, in that order, Niall Buggy is not living in the role, just waiting in line to step in with his lines. ..
Comparison of the Soviet versions and this one can suggest the reasons for the greater plausibility of the reactions of artists from a classless society, than people who grew up in a class environment, to the situation proposed by authors from the life of the "elitarian" class, the times of its domination in our country. For the rest - interesting, within 15 minutes, viewing about how foreigners interpret the classics.
But it’s better to watch your own adaptations. The "Dueli" of 1961 has fewer assessments of what this craft is!
3 out of 10
Why has the interest in Chekhov not weakened for a century? I think it’s because his characters, their actions and life itself in Chekhov’s texts are not defined rigidly, but quite correspond to different assessments. Therefore, it is impossible to determine which of its talented interpreters in the theater or in the cinema is truly right. There is only a feeling of “Chekhov’s” or “non-Chekhov’s” fullness, but it cannot be a completely individual and stricter criterion.
There is, of course, the truth of life: what they wore, what they ate, how they showed signs of attention. But how many experts are there today for the end of the 19th century? It is quite possible to hear not the same information. And in the importance of the work of art, you will agree, they are at the end of the list.
Let’s talk about two adaptations of the Chekhov duel: this film directed by Dover Koshashvilia and “Bad Good Man” 1973 Joseph Heifitz. The second one I revisited after many comparisons in the reviews here. And here is my purely tasteful impression.
Heifitz’s film looks like a good Soviet craft, suitable for both high school and repertory commission: everything is in place, the plot is observed, the characters are typical, the performers are talented and famous. One annoyance: Laevsky Oleg Dahl is Viktor Zilov's brother from Duck Hunt and almost as much looks like Andrei's doctor from Thursday and Never Again. Behind every remark by von Koren (Vladimir Vysotsky) is the voice of Zheglov. And the wonderful Papanov I love (Dr. Samoilenko) with his saying unwittingly makes an inappropriate note of comedy. Formally, there are Chekhov, but by perception there is no.
What happened to Koshashvili? In my opinion, this is Chekhov. Yes, we can talk about the inaccuracy of nature, non-observance of the color of military caps, women's cosmetics, manners of physical communication, etc. But here hovers the spirit of Anton Pavlovich - understatement, changeability, vital naturalness of the heroes. Laevsky is not good or bad, Samoilenko is naive and noble, and Nadezhda is beautiful and intelligent and you can guess what Laevsky attracted to her and what alienated her. Von Koren (T. Menzies) is clear and reasonable, and his mind is not replaced by the emotion of hatred. The duel itself is perfectly played out and the subsequent changes in the behavior of the heroes look natural.
In short, if you were to ask me which of the films you’d be more into Chekhov, I’d say in Koshashvili’s film. Don't think it's weird.
Chekhov is a very recognized brand in the West. Apparently, his longing and spirit of aimlessness is something relevant. And this film subjectively impressed me with the dedication of the duty tribute to intellectual fashion.
It came out like a bibissish "War and Peace" - modern beautiful in appearance, melodramatic, but simplified and far from the original.
Yes, the film adaptation of such stories is not an easy task. For example, the text from the author can not be read out loud, but its content can be partially conveyed to the viewer by other means. Here they did the opposite, even most of the dialogues and monologues of Chekhov’s heroes were thrown out. Motivation and characters are not sufficiently disclosed. Only melodramatic moments remain and are colored by new findings of screenwriters.
The actor in the role of Laevsky looks short-sighted and feminine, very little like Chekhov’s lazy idealist and “extra man”.
The meaningful Chekhov finale with the wedding is thrown out for some reason, which makes the end of the film quite incomprehensible.
It was pretty good, though. It is worth a look at the Croatian landscape.
Have you ever been to the Black Sea? Have you felt the sighs of the sea disturbing the peace of the infinite surface? Have you seen the smoothly flowing clouds covering tightly crowded rocky mountains of bizarre shapes? Have you heard how foamy waves repeatedly cover the shore, reverently counting every stone lost under a layer of pebbles? This extraordinary landscape has always carried a special atmosphere of soulfulness, intimacy, where seemingly soulless mountain ranges gave unexpected warmth, and the sea, like never before, brought man closer to nature, while opening previously unexplored human depths.
The film “Duel” based on the story of Anton Pavlovich Chekhov, an American adaptation of a difficult psychological story. The dynamics of the film is not inferior to the original narrative of intricate relationships, full of gossip, intrigue, meanness and, to some extent, even audacity towards the moral foundations of the high society of a small town on the Black Sea. The pressing problem of melancholy was repeatedly encountered in such works as Lermontov’s “Hero of Our Time” or in Pushkin’s novel Eugene Onegin. In them, as well as in the “Dueli”, the deep experiences of the characters were successfully conveyed on paper, describing in detail their personal thoughts, guesses, thoughts, while the film is only a visualization of what is happening inside the characters. Accordingly, in order to convey the character characteristic of the hero, it is necessary to carefully study its main features, highlight the most pronounced manners, habits, inclinations, while maintaining a fine line between easy generalization and complete blurring. So, director Dover Koshashvili, in tandem with Andrew Scott, who played Laevsky, from the very first frames set the film a certain tone, which was subsequently adhered to by all minor characters. They were able to give the film a special atmosphere, which was felt through the mood, and through movement, facial expressions, and even through individual details, like a bath broom, mercilessly whipping the back of the main character. It remains only to understand whether this is the atmosphere in which the Russian soul can coexist.
Have you ever read a Russian classic? Did you see in it that feature and subtlety, which would gradually be able to reveal the small bud of a flower, deeply embedded in each person? Have you ever felt it transform over time into a beautiful peony in which each petal symbolizes the versatility, mystery and depth that give rise to trembling and sincere feelings? The Russian soul... You will find a part of it in the immortal Russian classics. A flower that will certainly touch its deep aroma, but at the same time delicate tenderness, its thin lines that will amaze with an unusual shape. Depth and spaciousness, sincerity, they invariably bring a person closer to art, culture, while introducing a note of cordiality and genuine sensitivity, allowing to open new horizons of the inner world.
The film “Duel” based on the novel by Anton Pavlovich Chekhov looks intriguing, but too easy and unpretentious. Mixing costumes and interior with the general color of Russian life, they still could not merge in the monochrome range of all the “Russian”, and, paradoxically, acted in the sole role of something that could really bring the viewer closer to our native culture. The Croatian coast is not Crimea, clinging to its warmth, like the Chekhov heroes, more like the British than the same Britons to the Russians. And although the other components were selected with maximum proximity to Russia, it is impossible not to feel the fading and inexpressiveness of this emerging image, which is a real antipode of what is laid down in the Russian classics. The duel took place, and the consequences swept through, leaving no proper depth, tragedy, sensuality. But after all, the Russian classic is, first of all, a genuine feeling of intimacy with the outside world, with yourself, when you suddenly realize that having overcome the once aggravating problems, like rocky mountains, suddenly you come to a rhythmically swaying sea, so rich, deep and incredibly spiritual, definitely able to reveal the world from a completely different side, breathing new life.
Changes in the life of Ivan Andreevich and Nadezhda Fedorovna
"I have no one but you"
Ivan - Nadeh
I would like to say that Russian people are really special, they are special in Russian as a nation. I thought it would be worse than it actually was. On the basis of this Chekhov story were removed “Bad good man”, “carry me horses”.
So, the film adaptation of A. P. Chekhov’s novel “Duel” now exists in the American version. In truth, the story itself is very dramatic, difficult to perceive. There is a "effectually Russian aftertaste" after reading. All this worthlessness, all these desires of the sublime, philosophy, religion, biology, in the end, is the destiny of dreams and the reality of life as it is. There are so many unpleasant trials and feelings in Ivan Andreyevich Laevsky, and other heroes think, often trouble, gossip, condemn, discuss. Making the movie was probably not easy. And yet surface came out. It is better to read first than to watch. And only then look to re-read, if necessary.
In general, the actors did well.
But what is very annoying is that etiquette is broken here (slapping on the shoulders, touching a little-known woman, shouting in society, frivolous behavior, etc.), the storyline, hence the dialogue. Raw shows the Caucasus. It's beautiful. The characters are weak and little revealed. Not the same appearance in some characters, say the deacon. Bananas in those years were except that decorative, but hardly edible. At least because they were considered a rarity. And here we see how they are quietly weaved, and even sold in benches. The appearance of Nadezhda Fedorovna is absolutely impossible to display for that time. Women didn't wear makeup in those years. No makeup. And she in the frame calmly uses cosmetics! And kissing, and even the moment when Ivan molests his roommate Nadia in the chambers is a completely inappropriate action, if only because this is not in the text. There are many “inconsistencies” that are either inadvertently included, or exist to enhance the effect, or from ignorance of Russian culture and culture of the 19th century in general.
The text raises moral themes. And the important thing is how the relationship between Nadezhda and Ivan changed after the duel. The film misses this meaning, the striking meaning of a profound change. They didn't just make up there and heal. Nope! They understood their reality and remained in it, humbled themselves. Ivan Andreevich married a girl. They settled down. They have come to terms with themselves, people, their position in society. And people who once judged a couple changed their minds, too, which unfortunately did not show. Even himself, once a duelist - zoologist wanted to be a friend of Ivan.
My review is only neutral because the plot is important to me, all these subtleties and trifles that just affect the overall picture. This has nothing to do with actors.
Of course, the Russian, who knows the work of Chekhov, who saw Oleg Dahl in 'Bad Good Man' to watch how Irish actors under the direction of a Georgian director shot an American film ' Duel' not easy. As the heroine of the famous comedy used to say: 'So it's tempting to make a scandal!': I really want to find fault, because everyone knows that the mysterious Russian soul & #39; no one will understand and show ...
To find fault, of course, there is something: and the squirrels are a lot, and as always ' our ' form on ' our ' serving sits absolutely incredible, and the deacon is quite ridiculous and excessively bearded. But if you think about it, it's all external details. Of course, this is not the main thing in Chekhov. And the actors play well, some even excellent. Scott isn’t as great as Sea Wall, but he’s still good. The original text was also very respectful. And the main accents are not shifted, and the idea is not turned upside down.
Screening in general is difficult, and the adaptation of this kind is triple. Well, we did. Look at that. You will not regret your time spent.