Review of the movie The Dawns Here Are Quiet ... According to the laws of our cinema time
Actually, the press conference – the event is extremely boring. For everything is known in advance: the stars know perfectly well what they will be asked about, and we (journalists) know what they will answer us. However, there are exceptions. It so happens that at the most ordinary conference you suddenly learn a lot of new things about yourself. And it is about myself – not about the movie. So, a year and a half ago, someone Sergei Zhigunov almost convinced me that I had not read Dumas's Three Musketeers. Well, I haven't read it and that's it! "Now no one reads anything at all ... Such young people have gone" (end of quote). Something similar happened at the meeting with Renat Davletyarov (author of the idea, producer and director of the new "Dawn"). "Understand, the modern generation does not know the story of Boris Vasiliev!" - Davletyarov spoke with conviction. – "And they have not seen Rostotsky's movie! And today no one will watch a picture of forty years ago: that cinema language has long been outdated." I somehow immediately felt like an outcast: for I had seen the movie and read the book, and I have no special problems with "old-time masterpieces". “Probably, it's time to cross myself out of the“ youth ”category,” I thought sadly, but I didn't have time to get too upset because I heard a new “pearl.” “I see no reason to compare our picture and Rostotsky's version,” Davletyarov said. – " The trick is that when you talk about the new movie "The Dawns Here Are Quiet ..." (2015), several epithets come to mind at once. For example, it can be called "well made" (this is, in general, true, although it is a pity that an artisan, and not an artist, had a hand in it); can be called "touching" (some actresses manage to reach even the most callous heart: I'm talking about Christina Asmus, Sofya Lebedeva, Anastasia Mikulchina); it can be called "patriotic", "moderately pretentious", etc. But to argue that "this is a completely different movie" is strange. What is "otherness"? Is that 80-90 percent of all dialogues coincide with the first version? Is it that some of the scenes are duplicated so precisely that even foreshortenings or head turns are repeated? (Take a moment when the foreman Vaskov leads the three captured Germans). Or is it that the entire plot core is left unchanged? And that every girl has her own personal flashback? Although, to be honest, you can, in principle, find some discrepancies. So, the differences (let's start with the little things). First, the anti-aircraft gunners themselves: one of them becomes the daughter of a dispossessed man, the other - the daughter of the repressed (however, this has absolutely no effect on the plot). Secondly, nudity: the girls in the bath show complete "Nude", doing their best to pretend that they are "not a bit ashamed"; there is also a second scene with complete stripping, when, tired of crossing the swamp, the young ladies splash in the waterfall. Thirdly, great cruelty: for example, during the death of Rita Osyanina, we see her face stained with blood, her wound from grenade fragments, etc. Fourthly, Davletyarov adds a couple of final scenes, abandoning the connection with modernity (and such a refusal is good for the picture). Now about the serious differences. One of the movie critics wrote that "a color picture allows us to fully enjoy the beauty of the northern region." It's hard to argue: beauty is really there. A waterfall, a lake, a forest, a drop of blood on a bright green leaf … The format of modern cinema requires "beauty", and Davletyarov, of course, is not going to argue with the format: he is movieing a beautiful war. Another important point: action (where without it!). A computer plane dives (the quality, fortunately, is higher than in "Battle for Sevastopol"), hills explode, the camera flies up over the forest, then throws itself under the tank. And music, music, music! The orchestra is literally straining: what "quiet" dawns there are, what are you talking about! After all, the 21st century is in the yard: all the dawns are now symphonic! Otherwise, "young people will not understand." And what is the bottom line? But nothing. Well, that is, almost nothing. A student's retelling, well done in accordance with all the laws of modern movie standards. I am not against remakes, not against war movies: war – evil is monstrous, and it is impossible not to talk about it. But why would a director take on a serious thing if he has nothing to say? If his ideal is outright schooling: neither bad nor good, without any hint of his own individuality, of his own idea. What for? To make the camera fly beautifully over the forest? For a pop singer to stand up to her full height during a fight with a gun in her hand? Or so that `` at the same time '' and remove the series? (By the way, it was removed). Well, what they wanted, they got it: everything is beautiful, everything is correct, everything is according to the laws of a modern format. Here is just one question, a small one. Interesting, but in connection with " The Topic of Article: Review of the movie The Dawns Here Are Quiet ... According to the laws of our cinema time. |
