Review of the movie Tsar. It is difficult to be a metropolitan
The great autocrat John the Terrible, under whom the law was drawn up, reforms of the court and administration were carried out, Astrakhan, Kazan and Siberia were annexed, in the second half of his reign he turned into a bloodthirsty despot. In the movie "Tsar" Pavel Lungin presents his view of Ivan the Terrible and his relationship with Metropolitan Philip, who was trying to keep the tyrant from murder, "armed with only prayer and patience." The working title of the movie was "Ivan the Terrible and Metropolitan Philip" - it was replaced by the sonorous "Tsar" only before the 31st Moscow Film Festival (which opened with a screening of the Lungin movie). "Tsar" is, of course, better for rental, but the content of the picture corresponds to the original title - Lungin focused all his attention on the relationship between Ivan the Terrible and the Metropolitan, leaving all the "tsar" affairs of the autocrat outside the brackets for Orthodox accents). The best in the movie is acting. Metropolitan Yankovsky and Tsar Mamonov, who played the main conflict, attract all attention and cause sincere admiration. Oleg Yankovsky, who played his last role in the movie (of which there are almost eight figures), fills each frame with his charisma - in the movements, views, speech of the metropolitan he played, so much dignity and calm strength that you believe him to the last. In the image of Terrible, performed by Peter Mamonov, the range of emotions that he evokes on the screen is striking. From a sophisticated evil despot to a miserable sick old man abandoned by God, Mamonov manages to look both creepy and funny, incarnating either in a bloody maniac, or literally in Gollum, scandalous with himself. The second roles were no worse - Lungin's sadistic oprichniks were portrayed, all as one, by the artists of positive roles. How do you like Malyuta Skuratov with the kind face of Yuri Kuznetsov? And the handsome Domogarov in the role of Basmanov's guardsman? The reckoning on paradox was successful: the guardsmen turned out to be creepy, like the holy fool of the tsar's jester, brilliantly played by Ivan Okhlobystin (a priest, by the way). The very story of Ivan the Terrible's relationship with Metropolitan Philip, central to the movie, raises many questions. In the screen confrontation between the heroes of Mamonov and Yankovsky, the director wanted to express the conflict between the two tsars - the spiritual shepherd of people and the ruler in the world, convinced that "all power is from God."But religious symbolism betrays Lungin, turning into almost mocking metaphors, which he did not mean at all, it seems. In the story about a righteous priest with a proud tyrant, the Joker's smile reveals either historical parallels (in his deeds Lunginsky Grozny is surprisingly similar to Stalin - repression of officers, searches for "treason"), or condemnation of the centralization of power, or just a farce. At times, the dispute between the metropolitan and the tsar turns into an anecdote - for example, about a sadist with a masochist ("Torment me, torment me" - "But I won't!"). From these parallels, the plot about humility and spiritual courage turns into a story about the lack of civil courage. And looking at the boyars crawling in front of the reigning schizophrenic, one is filled with resentment for USA. Are we really damned as a nation, where no one needs anything for anyone or anyone, and a crazy old man can swagger in a bloody frenzy over cities and people for twenty-four (!) Years - and no one will stop him? When the Germans shoot a movie about the confrontation of an individual against an oversized state, it turns out "Operation Valkyrie" - a valiant failure of an officer. The British come out "V for Vendetta" - victorious stoicism of the underground through nightmares and hardships. In America, almost every fifth movie about the victory of man over the system. And in USA the movie "Tsar" was shot, where the only thing the hero is capable of against unimaginable evil is to look reproachfully and not give blessing to the tyrant. Lungin seems to feel the cowardly weakness of the concept of humility - because in the worst traditions of the genre he cheats with "religious miracles", elevating the righteous metropolitan. The icon drowns the Livonians in the river, Philip blissfully walks past the angry bear, gets rid of the shackles with Copperfield and works the miracle of insight by laying on of hands. But despite all his efforts, Metropolitan Philip, filled with righteousness and inner strength, looks like a coward against the background of the pitiful hunched-over old king. After all, one who is empowered to rule is responsible to the people, and to shake for one's sinlessness means washing one's hands. And in the eyes of anyone who stands on the ground with both feet, civic courage is more important than any, even the most crystalline holiness. Strength is in righteousness, not at all in righteousness. The Topic of Article: Review of the movie Tsar. It is difficult to be a metropolitan. |
