Helpless directing, helpless acting, helpless camera work, helpless script, helpless editing. The film – amazing thing – failed to convey anything from “August 1991” (even the atmosphere of Moscow of those days).
Moreover, the actors play so badly out of hand, and the operator does not bother himself with any “shooting” that other issues of “Dolls” could all this to make a real artistic competition.
The only thing that makes sense to look at here is the image of Kryuchkov (Alexander Sirin, Zakharov school, yes! he was the same “Mr. Someone” in the film “The House That Swift Built”), a terrible image turned out, capacious, but again – completely meaningless-helpless. Looks like this Hook expressively and with meaning, and - why?
In the rest, of course, this is the most vulgar and banal “state order”, rude and unsophisticated. Of course, with the final pompous demonstration of “a happy (as a result of Yeltsin’s victory) ordinary family”.
After seeing this picture, there is no consensus. Two positions, directly opposite, clash with each other. This dichotomy cannot but be shared with readers.
It's a bad movie.
Perhaps it should not be so early to shoot a picture of such fateful events. It's still very vivid. It doesn’t even touch the essence of what is happening. Due to the fact that viewers accurately remember politicians (and some of them were still alive at the time of the release of the tape), all attention goes from the quality of the game to the banal external similarity.
So, with a very correct and decent game, Dmitry Nazarov does not always convey the image of Yeltsin that is familiar to many. He gives the portrait new features that were previously simply not visible. And then a critical viewer can always stop the screening by loudly saying - '. Not like '.
And historical estimates are not at all indisputable. The film shows events exclusively within one version. However, the characters in that ' extravaganza' there were many. Each of them has its own interpretation, its own reflection. No doubt, here any view, any point of view risks being accused of one-sidedness and propaganda.
And this is only a small fraction of a host of critical arrows that should have hit this tape. Each of them is completely justified.
It's a good movie.
Funny, but exactly with the same passion, you can praise the play of actors who quite adequately coped with the very difficult task of playing their contemporaries. It is important that each of the artists managed to avoid the main failure - parody. A lot of private portraits that were created in the tape can be a long look. Not without flaws, but most importantly - the vast majority of characters look alive, arouse interest. It is up to the viewer to be interested in the details. You have to go to other sources.
In fact, with historical estimates, the situation is similar. The point of view of the directors is not so important. The viewer can see in what is happening only the general contours. And then everyone has the right to choose - to limit yourself to a small or to be interested and deeper carried away by the topic.
Which is the most correct position?
It's all about context. If we treat this tape as a serious historical canvas, then here we can expect disappointment. And a small timekeeping, and some superficiality, and an abundance of action simply do not allow the viewer to focus on historical facts and their understanding. This is not 'J.F.K.: Shootings in Dallas'
It's something quite different - fascinating and fast-paced, like Jay Roach's political paintings. You can argue for a long time about whether such tapes are necessary at all and whether they distract people's attention. But in the finished form, the film is quite competitive. And with all the known taste preferences, you still need to decide what is more entertainingly filmed: ' Schizophrenia' Sergeeva, the same ' Brigade' or this film.
I prefer the first point of view, but it is difficult to deny the facts. Before us well made, dynamic and exciting, in many ways provocative film.
7 out of 10
There is a fairly firm belief that not every event deserves to be filmed. Some even annoy with the fact that they show an event that carries no weight and without much meaning. However, the split of the largest country in the world, the change of the entire state system, the attempted coup and popular unrest of 1991 are very rarely filmed, and the first president of one of the most influential states on the planet has almost no mention in the cinema. Boris Nikolaevich Yeltsin is certainly a controversial figure and everyone has their own attitude to him, however, this is a really important historical figure and in 2011 it was decided to shoot a biopic with him dedicated to the first days of the presidency and the coming to power of this bright man. The film was shot for TV, which is very noticeable in the quality of shooting and overall cheapness, however, you can also notice how much the authors tried to make a really good project.
The film is a great acting, each actor feels emotions and sincere faith in what is happening. Military, ordinary citizens, reporters, KGB-shniks, all feel and behave as they should. The main role went to the delightful actor Dmitry Nazarov, who correctly conveyed the emotions, diction and behavior of Boris Yeltsin. The film shows what is happening in the Soviet Union and Russia in an interesting and beautiful language, and it is a hell of a pleasure to watch the bilateral nature of this conflict. You don’t look at one person, you see the story and motives of each person involved. Among the disadvantages, I want to note sometimes a very simplified exposure, a weak level of filming and audio content. But all these disadvantages are due solely to the format and extremely modest budget. Definitely worth watching anyone who is interested in the history of our country.
"Yeltsin." Three Days in August is a feature film about the events of the August 1991 coup, created with the participation of NTV in 2011 (that is, 20 years after those events).
For me, as a history and politics lover, this film is a perfect mix of my favorite genres. I came across it purely by accident, turned it on for interest and did not regret it.
The first thing I want to note is an attempt to give the characters of the film the appearance of their prototypes. Well, that's only partly true. Absolutely unlike the Minister of defense Yazov, commander of the airborne troops Grachev, General Lebed and some others. A certain similarity was achieved in the image of KGB Chairman Kryuchkov, Soviet President Gorbachev and Vice President Yanaev. Oh, come on. External similarity does not play a decisive role, after all, the film is artistic.
But I want to note the rather strange choice of the actor for the role of President of the RSFSR Boris Yeltsin. He was played by Dmitry Nazarov, who later starred in the TV series Kitchen as chef Viktor Barinov. Nazarov’s performance was not comical, but he spoke as if through force, with constantly seeming notes of sadness in his voice. I agree, playing Yeltsin is not easy, you need great acting talent. With all my respect and love for actor Dmitry Nazarov, he didn’t quite succeed. I was also saddened by the fact that in the film Yeltsin is shown to be idealized: a real man, brave, courageous, determined, loving Russia. In this filmmakers overdid, it would be possible to show Yeltsin more neutral.
It was criticism. Now the positives. I would like to note the excellent acting of Alexander Sirin, who played the chairman of the KGB Kryuchkov, as well as Felix Antipov, who played the Minister of Defense of the USSR Dmitry Yazov (which is only his speech at the beginning of the film, let us conditionally call it “Srali”). I remember these characters the most.
Now let's move on to the story. There are no complaints here, in the sense that it really drags on and sustains tension and interest throughout the film: What else will the Hooks come up with? How will Yeltsin respond? and vice versa. This political game of cats is a mouse, where all participants try to outsmart and deceive each other, constantly changing the roles of “attacker” and “defensive”.
In general, it can be noted that for all the power of the State Emergency Committee, the capabilities they possessed, including military capabilities, they were able to prevail over Yeltsin and his supporters barricaded in the White House. But they just lacked determination. There is a debate over whether the White House was stormed. The film shows that yes, I did. But he refused to carry out special forces.
The State Emergency Committee sought to stop democratic reforms and preserve the old so that everything remained as it was. But the Soviet-Communist system was already doomed and it was impossible to save it. The failure of the State Emergency Committee only accelerated the inevitable – the collapse of the USSR.
So, the film is fiction, of course there are fictional lines, but I think its purpose is to interest the audience with issues related to the events of August 1991 and the collapse of the USSR. We need to learn from those events and no longer make such fatal mistakes that led to the demise of a vast country. There are many programs and materials that reveal the essence of what happened in those summer days in Moscow. All this is possible to understand, there would be a desire.
Three days of stirring and an entire era in precipitation
The film was extremely successful. As in terms of entertainment - does not let go from the first to the last minute, and the truthfulness of the narrative, except for a few episodes (for example, Yeltsin did not go to the American Embassy - he was led from a hangover down the corridor to send there, when he turned cold asked - where he was being led, and then ordered everyone to return to their places - Korzhakov's memoirs). I really liked that the makeup artists worked very well - all the characters are recognized without subtitles with surnames. It helps to plunge again into the thick of those events, to rethink what happened, to look at the heroes and antiheroes of those days with different eyes.
The entire time interval of the film in the light of further events in the country wanted to push Kryuchkov - well, act more decisively, what kind of absurdity it is - Yeltsin has nothing to arrest - and in fact it was in fact, almost all its participants unsubscribed on the topic of the State Emergency Committee. It is a pity that they did not show their visit to Gorbachev on the eve of the events - Gorbachev really did say goodbye to everyone by the hand - only Valentin Varennikov did not accept this hand, did not shake it. In general, judging by the memoirs, if Varennikov had been in Moscow instead of Kiev on August 19, everything would have turned out differently. The situation with the troops in Moscow is incomprehensible - no task was assigned to them, no one gave them the order to use weapons - why did they come to Moscow at all, why did Yazov give such a ridiculous order? In 1993, Yeltsin took this oversight into account, to put it mildly, and tanks entered Moscow with orders and a specific task. As well as the group Vityaz was given the order to shoot at the people and calmly fired, the good order to shoot was given by the “democratic” authorities.
In general, a heavy impression of both the film and those events. It is clear that without a leader who has the courage to assume full power, and with it responsibility, there was nothing to start. Especially with such democratic methods. Collegiality in this case played a cruel joke with the members of the State Emergency Committee - everyone tried to shift the responsibility to others, and in the end it turned out to be a puff. And Gorbachev should have been declared not temporarily sick, but gone to the other world – then they would not have looked so stupid from the first minutes and instead of a swan lake, patriotic people should have appeared on TV, explain to the people the essence of what happened. And so only mocked the people, ruined the country and allowed the hapoos to plunder the country. A sad outcome of the dramatic three days of August. Anyone who wants to delve deeper into the essence of what happened, I can advise you to read the book of a former associate of Yeltsin, flashed in this film by Mikhail Poltoranin “Power in TNT equivalent”. The Legacy of Tsar Boris
By historical standards, not much time has passed since the events of August 1991, which are still covered with a veil of secrecy, but NTV journalists have already decided to show us one of the versions of the August putsch in the form of a game TV movie.
Let me note right away that the official version of those events was played - the betrayal of members of the State Emergency Committee, the blocking of Gorbachev at the country house, attempts to storm the White House. I believe more in the version of the conspiracy of the State Emergency Committee with Gorbachev, otherwise he would not have just amnestied members of the State Committee, and in August 2011 Gorbachev himself admitted that he knew about the plans of the State Emergency Committee. And if he knew, but calmly went to the country to rest, then indirectly supported the putschists. Yeltsin said back in 2006 that Gorbachev was waiting for who would win to join the triumphants, as Yazov claimed. Unfortunately, all this is absent in the film, and we are forced to witness the “gang of the GKChPists” and “Great Martyr Yeltsin” – an exemplary family man and lawyer.
From an artistic point of view, the film is shot very qualitatively, disturbing music constantly escalates tension and gives a feeling of watching not a historical film, but a good thriller. The characters look more or less like themselves, attention is paid to Yeltsin’s specific voice, Yanaev’s uncertainty, Kryuchkov’s color. All symbolic moments of those events were captured – Yeltsin’s speech from a tank, Yanaev’s shaking hands, and the tanks’ attack on the White House defenders.
According to statistics, in 2001, 61% of Russians could not name a single member of the State Emergency Committee, and only 4% remembered its head Yanaev. In 2006, 67% of Russians could not give a positive or negative assessment of the activities of the State Emergency Committee. And the main value of the film is to remind us of this important historical event that preceded the collapse of the USSR.