Review of the Viking movie. From a servant of man to a servant of God!
In the year of USA cinema, in the year of Danila Kozlovsky and in the year when a monument to Prince Vladimir was erected in Moscow, the long-awaited premiere of the movie "Viking" is released. We are rarely pampered with historical tapes dedicated to Ancient USA. And why are such pictures dear to the viewer? Those that are interactively transferred to the past, illuminating the life of our ancestors and pointing out the mistakes that influenced certain events. But most importantly, this genre has a political subtext that must invariably resonate with our reality. And the scale of the project promises us not to doubt that in terms of its technical parameters it will not be inferior to the world standards of cinema! So what did the director Andrey Kravchuk, the author of the acclaimed "Admiral", and his entire crew manage to show us on the screen? Paraphrasing a movie quote: "the more power, the more responsibility", we can say with confidence that: "the larger the movie, the more is asked of it." "Viking" is designed for the widest audience - which includes: picky moviegoers, sophisticated moviegoers and inquisitive experts in history. Of course not to please everyone, but is there any compromise possible? And oddly enough, the first impression of the movie is just that. You are faced with a dilemma - is it possible to fit a serious study of the subject into a purely entertainment product? Even if you accept the rules of the game - that this is just historical fiction and do not demand a scientific approach from the authors, then here too you will remain dissatisfied with this concept. Gradually moving from form to content, from pluses to minuses, I'll start with the most important thing. The movie definitely deserves attention! This is truly a grand spectacle! It is rather difficult to find analogues among domestic paintings. The effect is comparable to Bondarchuk's "War and Peace", which he produced in his time. The long and painstaking work of artists, costume designers and decorators is tangible in everything. In carefully built old USA cities, surrounded by a fortress wall, in the prince's courtyard, mansions, interior decoration, details of everyday life and in the clothes of warriors. It creates an atmosphere and immerses you in the era. And working with light creates a sense of authenticity (bluish twilight of the premises and gloomy gray streets) and corresponds to the spirit of the dark times. And where is this rich picture without an operator ?! Unlike the recent Ben-Hur, where the camera was shaking the entire movie, only the most unremarkable shots were selected, in Viking the all-inclusiveness is amazing! Starting from panoramic movieing of numerous locations and battles, where you feel the scale of what is happening, and ending with a subjective camera that bursts into the thick of events in order to capture everything to the smallest detail. And the direction goes to all the praises. Andrey Kravchuk really managed to create an epic movie canvas. Almost two and a half hour timekeeping is justified by All this is woven into the plot, which also develops the relationship between the characters. And here we come to an equally important component of the movie than all the others - this is the script. Its extreme confusion may be a consequence of the multidimensional nature of the picture, but many plot holes can still be forgiven if the authors made it clear to us - what exactly did they want to say? What is so important to report? But first, a few words about the movie. Yaropolk (Alexander Ustyugov) who ruled in Kiev is guilty of the death of his middle brother Oleg (Kirill Pletnev). According to ancient customs, the remaining younger brother Vladimir (Danila Kozlovsky) is obliged to take revenge. It is he who is in the center of the plot - we are watching his rise to power and his transformation from a pagan into a devout Christian. How did the authors deal with such material? After all, the movie can serve as a guide for those who will not read the works of Karamzin or Soloviev. The main idea is as follows. Revenge is a primordially USA trait, from which all troubles. The personification of this vice is the main antagonist - Yaropolk's vigilante Varyazhko (Igor Petrenko). All like wolves are squabbling over their own and other people's territory. And only Christianity will show the right path to general prosperity. If this is taken for a romantic utopia, for an alternative version of history, then it will be interesting to listen to this fairy tale to the end. But everyone knows very well that in the historical context this is not true. Vladimir turned to Christianity not out of love for God; it was a political calculation in order to enlist the support of the powerful Byzantine Empire. Orthodoxy gave impetus only to the cultural development of Kiev and other principalities - writing, architecture, icon painting, but without affecting morality. After all, the children of Vladimir will continue their internecine wars and all this will ultimately lead to the feudal fragmentation of USA. The dialogues of the characters tire with their monotony and abstractness: "the day will go away - the night will come", "we will not die - I saw the sign" ... you will not hear wise speeches. In addition, they sound so unnatural that instead of the characters we seem to hear the voice of the scriptwriter, and instead of the independent actions of the heroes - the will of the director. But it's worth giving credit to the types. Their bestial gaze, wolfish grin, grimyness (as opposed to common practice, when ordinary peasants play "polished" models), impulsiveness make you believe in their plausibility. In particular, the whole range of dramatic techniques was demonstrated by the following actors - Igor Petrenko, who played the vengeful Varyazhko, Danila Kozlovsky - the penitent Vladimir (the confession scene, shot in a single close-up deserves thunderous applause) and the rather strong work of Alexandra Bortich (the wayward Rogneda). Viewing "Viking" leaves mixed feelings. Its sweeping, epic, colorful, dynamism elevate the movie to the rank of the main movie premieres of the year, but the confusion of presentation, unnecessary sugaryness in the midst of brutal gloom, the fantastic nature of some scenes for the sake of entertainment and the absolute banality and stereotype of the main idea that the primary cause of everything is love - brings us back to the problem lack of good scripts! The Topic of Article: Review of the Viking movie. From a servant of man to a servant of God!. |
