' went to the shelf. He immediately knew that the film would be under a different name, since one "Dowry" had already been released on screens in 1936, and the director did not want comparisons. Ryazanov was a big fan of romances and decided to use them not only in the musical accompaniment, but also in the title of the future film. At first he planned to take only old Russian romances, but after re-reading Tsvetaeva and Akhmadulina, he realized that they should use their poems. The romance "The Shaggy Bumblebee" is a translation of the poem "The Gypsy Path" by Rudyard Kipling, and Eldar Ryazanov wrote the words to the song "I'm like a butterfly to the fire ...".
To record songs, the music editor of Mosfilm suggested inviting a gypsy Valentina Ponomaryova. She was a jazz performer and it was unusual for her to sing songs with serious, complex lyrics, at first she even refused, but the director managed to persuade her. The singer arrived at the recording studio with a high temperature, so as not to let down the gathered musicians and composer Andrei Petrov, who escaped from Leningrad for just one day. When the film was released, the singer did not see her name in the credits. Eldar Ryazanov did not mention her not for some personal reasons, it was just not necessary then. Valentina Ponomareva was very offended by the director and did not communicate with him for a long time, and the audience was sure that she sang the songs herself.
During the filming of the episode with Karandyshev catching up with the ship on a boat, he almost got hurt. He was sitting with his back forward and did not notice that he swam too close to the propeller. One of the blades hit the boat, and it capsized. The actor disappeared under the water before the crew could do anything. Myagkov began to be pulled under the wheel of the steamer, however, the actor miraculously managed to swim out of the funnel. As a result, he escaped with only a minor wound on his arm.
He got used to the image of the rampant master Paratov and arranged regular banquets for the entire film crew, and once he even received a license, went hunting in the Kostroma forests and then treated everyone to bear meat. Once, local residents even called the police to calm down the actors walking at night, but the outfit that arrived was so amazed at the feast with the participation of other stars of Soviet cinema that the police asked permission to sit in their company.
When "Cruel Romance" was released, the director was criticized by literary and theatrical circles. He was accused of vulgarizing the play and mocking the classics, compared Larisa Ogudalova with Madame Bovary, Paratov was called a “sensitive superman”, whom the director obviously does not criticize, Larisa Guzeeva was called a helpless actress. Almost the only person from the theatrical environment who praised the film adaptation was Nina Alisova, who played the role of Larisa Ogudalova in the first film adaptation of The Dowry. And the authoritative film critic Yevgeny Danilovich Surkov was especially merciless. Ryazanov took revenge on him in the director's style - in the next film, "Forgotten Melody for the Flute", the negative character was called Evgenia Danilovna Surova. The audience, however, "" was enthusiastically accepted, moreover, not only in the USSR, but also abroad, and in 1984 it became the film of the year according to a survey of the Soviet Screen magazine.
SUBJECT: Comparative analysis"Dowry" by A.N. Ostrovsky and " Cruel romance» E. Ryazanova
Task: comparison of works of two types of art (movie And literature) within cultural dialogue artistic thinking.
Pedagogical objectives of the lesson:
to form in students the ability to compare works of two types of art (literature and cinema);
develop thinking and creative independence, give their assessment of the modern interpretation of the play in the film;
educate an attentive and thoughtful reader.
Lesson equipment: board, fragments of the film by E. Ryazanov "Cruel Romance", the text of the play by A.N. Ostrovsky "Dowry", a poster for the film and a list actors in the play.
Epigraph to the lesson:
Temptation is not evil, but good.
It makes the good ones even better.
It is a crucible for refining gold.
John Chrysostom
DURING THE CLASSES
Teacher:
Dialogue is always a clash of the worldviews of the author and the interpreter, since the understanding of any artwork due to a complex of factors of a socio-psychological and cultural-linguistic nature, the context of the recipient's being.
The phenomenon of a literary text lies in the fundamental inexhaustibility of the meanings and ideas expressed in it: each new reading increases the space of understanding.
Take a look at the board.
Teacher:
The words of I. Chrysostom are taken as an epigraph to the lesson. Tell me, what does these words have to do with the works that we will analyze today?
Student:
The motif of temptation (leader) sounds both in the drama and in the movie.
Teacher: “Temptation is the sieve through which almost all characters are sieved by two artists. This is the main measure of humanity."
« Dowry "- the eternal story of deceived love, unfulfilled hopes, rightly calledV movie "cruel romance", such is the play by A.N.Ostrovsky , written in the 19th century, it is not at all outdated.
Form start
End of form
Teacher: What is the problem in these two works?central?
Disciple: The spiritual drama of a tempted person.
Teacher: We have to figure out what interpretation it receives from these artists - Ryazanov and Ostrovsky, whether the highest peak of the sound of this drama is the same for both authors.
And now a brief digression into the history of the film adaptation of the play by Ryazanov.
Student Message : Made 20 years ago, the film caused a lot of controversy, and most of the reviews of the film were negative. Nevertheless, "Cruel Romance" was a great success at the box office (22 million viewers watched the picture in cinemas). The film enjoyed widespread popular love. According to a poll by the Soviet Screen magazine, the picture was named the best film of the year,Nikita Mikhalkov - the best actor of the year,Vadim Alisov - the best operator,Andrey Petrov - the best composer. "Cruel Romance" was well received abroad and received critical acclaim there. On XVAt the Delhi International Film Festival, the film was awarded the main award - the Golden Peacock. Now, 20 years later, it is safe to say that the film has stood the test of time, still being one of the favorite films of Russians.
Teacher: Why are reviews of critical articles so different from the opinion of an ordinary viewer?
Student: The critics proceeded from the ideal model of the adaptation of the classic play, which should fully reproduce the author's intention on the screen. From this came the method of analyzing the film. The scenes of the film were compared with the corresponding scenes of the play, and the critics did not try to explain the position of the director, who deviated from the original, but put every such violation in defiance of him. At the same time, it was not taken into account that cinema and literature are two completely different types of art, they live according to different laws, and therefore a completely literal reproduction of the classics on the screen is hardly possible.
We bettarget- to analyze the film by E. Ryazanov "Cruel Romance" exactly how interpretation plays by A. Ostrovsky "Dowry". This goal defines the main tasks research:
compare the director's script of the film with the text of Ostrovsky's play, finding the director's deviations from the original source;
explain these deviations based on the differences between cinema and literature as art forms, as well as on the basis of E. Ryazanov's interpretation of A. Ostrovsky's play.
determine the role of acting, musical arrangement movie.
Teacher: Interpretation (from lat. interpretatio - explanation) - not just an interpretation of the work. Interpretation, as a rule, is associated with the translation of the statement into another language, with its recoding.
“It is not the measure of direct proximity to the original that determines the artistic value of the adaptation,” says art critic Gromov. “More important is its compliance with the spirit and pathos of the literary source” and the modernity of his vision by the director.
Teacher: What are the features of the Ryazanov interpretation of "Dowry" and
What methods and techniques of analysis will help us find this out?
Student: The difference is in the titles of the play and the movie. Features of the plot-compositional construction and the language of the characters.
Student: Already in the title of the movie Ryazanov in his work moves away from topics of dowry or lack thereof, changing it to the theme of the fate of man: "... in the ordinary course of everyday life, a chain of coincidences, a game of chance, the hand of Fate is found every now and then ... Fate - heroes now and then commemorate it, they rely on it in decisions and actions." The heroes of the "Cruel Romance" very often repeat this word. " Well, my fate is decided", - says Larisa, seeing Karandyshev with a bouquet of roses (Ostrovsky has a mention of this episode, but there is no this phrase!) " You can't escape fate!”- Larisa says to her mother, leaving with Paratov. And Knurov and Vozhevatov, fighting for the right to own Larisa, rely on fate.
Teacher: Is it only a matter of Fate, is Ryazanov a fatalist?
No, the main idea movie in another. Here is one of the first episodes of the film, completely created by the imagination of the director, what is not less important:
Karandyshev : Larisa Dmitrievna, explain to me why do women prefer the vicious to the honest?
Larisa : Do you mean anyone, Julius Kapitonovich?
Karandyshev A: No, I just asked.
The director is trying to answer this question of Karandyshev, showing how vice And meanness are sometimes very attractive, and honesty - gray, smug, petty and boring.
The world, unfortunately or fortunately, is not strictly divided into positive and bad guys. And the images created by Ryazanov are complex and ambiguous.
Ostrovsky writes Paratova With sharp and evil irony. Before us is a deeply and sincerely, money-squandered person. This is a gentleman who has long been playing the role of a pea jester. Paratov is not like that in The Cruel Romance. In the film, we see him as if Larissa's eyes It's hard not to fall in love with such Paratov. What is worth only spectacular entry on a white horse along the gangway to the steamer!(This is really a prince on a white horse). He is sweet, kind, charming, sociable with everyone, whether he is a barge hauler, a gypsy or a sailor. He is loved for his democracy. But he absolutely immoral and, in general, he is aware of this. "Kind, sweet" scoundrel with a broad, truly Russian soul, capable of strong feelings But incapable of decisive action, a slave of the same Destiny and, by and large, a very weak person who has no support in life and a moral core.
In the film Paratov clearly opposed Karandyshev. (In the play, where the role of Karandyshev is less significant, this opposition is not so clearly felt). The opposition is already stated at the very beginning, in the exposition of the film:
Ogudalova(to Larisa about Paratov): “Don’t twist your neck, it’s not about you, the groom, you just got drunk” ...
Vozhevatov(To Karandyshev about Larisa): “Stare in vain, Julius Kapitonovich, the bride is not about your honor.”
It is worth noting that this opposition is framed by purely cinematic means, with the help of installation. Each of these two remarks becomes significant precisely in comparison with the other.
This mirror image appears in the film and in two other scenes, also missing from Ostrovsky.
IN first series Paratov, in front of Karandyshev, effectively lifts the carriage and moves it closer to Larisa so that she can sit down without getting her feet wet.
In the second series Karandyshev is trying to do the same, but his strength is not enough, and Larisa, apparently imitating her idol, walks through the puddle no less effectively.
In such comparisons Karandyshev, definitely loses Paratov. He is not so magnificent, not so self-confident, in addition, very proud, petty and vengeful. True, while he has "one advantage": he loves Larisa. And in a number of scenes, not only the mediocrity, but also the tragedy of this image is shown, sympathy for the hero is expressed.
Paratov is an even more complex and controversial figure. “To show Paratov, who loves Larisa, but refuses her because of money, attacks not only her love, but also his own feeling, it seemed ... deeper, more terrible, more socially accurate than the usual reading of this character as a veil and seducer,” says the director.
Teacher: Thus , "Cruel romance" becomes not only the tragedy of Larisa, but also the tragedy of Paratov(and maybe even more the tragedy of Paratov) - a bright, strong, charming person, but devoid of integrity, and therefore capable of immoral acts that make unhappy not only those around him, but also himself. Winning in small ways (yes, he can easily move the carriage or drink a glass of cognac and hit an apple), he loses big:
"Swallow", an estate, a free life, his love, turning into a slave of a millionaire.
Teacher: What scripting and directing moments still help us understand the idea of the film?
Student: Musical images also help to understand the idea of the film.
« Isn't it enough for us to argue, isn't it time to indulge in love , - the film begins with these words, declaring the main value that he claims and which his hero will betray and sell - about love, -everything can be wasted and wasted, but love cannot be taken away from the soul ».
The film contains romances based on poems by M. Tsvetaeva, B. Akhmadulina, R. Kipling and even E. Ryazanov himself. Music to the verses of these authors was written by A. Petrov. Thanks to these songs, the film sounded like one big romance. (Features of the cruel romance genre)
Teacher: What is the highestspiritual drama peak Larissa in the play and the movie?
Student: In the final song of Larisa.
Teacher: But these songs are different. Why?"
Song from the play:
Don't tempt me unnecessarily
The return of your tenderness!
Alien to the disappointed
All the delusions of the past.
I don't believe in assurances
I don't believe in love
And I can't surrender again
Once deceived dreams.
Song from the movie "And in the end I'll say ..."
And finally I'll say: "Goodbye,
Don't commit to love. I'm going crazy
Or ascend to a high degree of insanity.
How you loved - you sipped
Death is not the point.
How you loved - you ruined
But he ruined it so clumsily!”
The temple is still doing a small job,
But hands fell, and a flock obliquely
Smells and sounds go away.
“How you loved - you sipped
Death is not the point!
How you loved - you ruined
But he ruined it so clumsily ... "
Student: “The main idea of the first song is disappointment. The temptation to return the former
feelings are not touched by a deceived heart. This song is reassurance.
At the second songmore tragic emotional mood
. The whole song is a premonition of a near tragic denouement. This is evidenced by the lexical content of the song:finally, goodbye, I'm going crazy, ruined, smells and sounds go away(is dying). Repetition builds tension and creates an atmosphere of imminent doom."
Teacher:
Indeed, these songs carry a completely different meaning.
. Each author solves a problem, but these problems are different:show the depth of disappointment of a deceived heart (in a play) or become a harbinger of death, a refusal to live without love (in a film)
Whatever the content of the songs were filled with, the tragic death of Larisa was inevitable.
What were her words in the drama and in the movie?
(watching the final scene of the film - the death of Larisa
) Then the lastLarisa's words from the drama:
Larisa (in a gradually weakening voice): no, no, why... let them have fun, whoever has fun... I don't want to disturb anyone! live, live everyone! you need to live, but I need to ... die ... I don’t complain about anyone, I don’t take offense at anyone ... you are all good people ... I love you all ... I love you all.
Student:
The death of Larisa in the drama is a tragedy and at the same time liberation
. Larisa has found her freedom, there are no more social restrictions, no more mental anguish. The shot set her free forever. Her death is accompanied by the singing of gypsies. Gypsies are knownfree people
. And it gives the impression thatalong with the song of the gypsies, the liberated soul of Larisa flies away.
She forgives everyone and bequeaths to live. She does not want to interfere with anyone, she only wants to be free from suffering ”(in a play)
Teacher: A
in a movie?
Student: In the movie, Larisa says only one word:"Thank you".
Teacher:
What is the meaning of this word? And what directorial find in the final scene is worth paying attention to?
Student:
Seagulls soar into the sky after shooting
, Larisa in Greek means "seagull". The seagull does not have a nest; it sits on the waves that carry it wherever its eyes look. The homelessness of the seagull is also betrayed by the main character. In the film, seagulls soar into the sky more than once as a symbol of Larisa's fate. But her the last word cannot be seen as the liberation of the heroine. Her death is accompanied by a gypsy song, but Larisa's soul is not released with her, becausethe barge is sailing in continuous fog, where the horizon is not visible, nothing is visible at all "
Teacher:
Right. And now let's turn to that gypsy song that sounds throughout the film -"Furry bumblebee".
Could you tell me if this song can be called the leitmotif of the film?
Student:
Yes, you can. Either the song itself or the music from it are heard in each episode and in the final scene, reinforcing the motivehomeless longing main character.
Teacher: Tell me, can a gypsy romance be considered a cruel romance?
Student:
No. The life of Larisa Ogudalova should be called a cruel romance. This is the real cruel romance.
Teacher:
So, thanks to our research today, we found out thatthat Ryazanov voluntarily or involuntarily changed the nature of the work, placed the accents somewhat differently
: film script puts forwardto the fore the love collision of the play
,
pushing the topic of money and lack of money
,
dowry or lack thereof
,
the tragedy of "pure soul in the world of the purest".
Teacher:
Whatfeatures of the interpretation of heroes
in a movie as opposed to a play?
Student: In Ryazanov's interpretation, Larisa is depicted not as a bright, rich, uncommon nature, which was traditional for this role in the theater, but as a naive girl who captivates with the charm of youth, freshness, and spontaneity.
Mikhalkov, in the role of Paratov, involuntarily pulls leading role on himself, showing in the film not only the tragedy of Larisa, but also the tragedy of Paratov - a materially and spiritually wasted person.
Teacher: What is the role of the landscape in the film?
Student: Volga landscapes help to understand the character of the characters: breadth of soul and passion of Paratov(remember his first trip on the “Swallow” with Larisa), Larisa’s inner longing and disorder, the high banks introduce the theme of height, alluring and frightening, and the sound environment (steamboat horns, birdsong) help to create a poetic, tense, sometimes painful, somewhat where the oppressive atmosphere of the picture.
Homework: Movie review.
USSR
"Cruel romance"- a feature film directed by Eldar Ryazanov, filmed in 1983 in Kostroma based on the play by A. N. Ostrovsky "The Dowry". The play had previously been filmed in 1936. The main role was played by Larisa Guzeeva, who made her film debut with this film. The romances were performed by Valentina Ponomareva.
Plot
The action takes place on the banks of the Volga in provincial town Bryakhimov in the third quarter of the 19th century. Harita Ignatievna Ogudalova (Alice Freindlich) is an impoverished noblewoman, a widow with three daughters. In the absence of funds, she still keeps an open house, hoping not without reason that the society of beautiful and musical young ladies will attract single men who marry for love on dowry women. She manages to marry off her two older daughters, leaving the youngest, Larisa (Larisa Guzeeva). She is courted by a gentleman, rich man and shipowner Sergei Sergeevich Paratov (Nikita Mikhalkov), who is obviously in love with a girl. Larisa also falls madly in love with the handsome Paratov, but just when, according to the Ogudalovs and all their acquaintances, Paratov should make an offer, Sergey Sergeevich hastily leaves the city to save his fortune.
Larisa is deeply worried about Paratov's departure, especially since Sergei Sergeevich did not have time to say goodbye to her and explain his reasons. Harita Ignatievna continues to arrange parties in the hope of finding a husband for Larisa. Looking at the girl richest merchant the city of Knurov (Alexey Petrenko), but he is married, and although Harita Ignatievna uses his interest in his daughter to receive expensive gifts, Knurov is not considered as a husband. Another suitor, a young businessman Vozhevatov (Viktor Proskurin), cannot yet afford to marry a dowry. Another admirer of the girl is official Yuliy Kapitonovich Karandyshev (Andrey Myagkov), a postal clerk, but he is too pathetic, poor (against the background of three merchants), painfully proud and absolutely not interesting to Larisa. Nevertheless, when another “promising” candidate for grooms found somewhere by Kharita Ignatievna is arrested in the Ogudalovs’ house - he turns out not to be a Moscow banker, but a cashier who escaped with the bank’s money - Larisa, tired of the carousel of gentlemen and mother’s games to search for the “party ”, Suffering from a broken heart Paratov, decides to marry Karandyshev, who has one dignity, but dear - he loves her. Preparations for the wedding begin, during which Karandyshev several times reveals his petty and ambitious disposition. However, Larisa does not change her mind and, not hiding from her fiancé that she does not love him, she is determined to marry Yuli Kapitonovich. But unexpectedly, Paratov returns to the city, busy selling the ship "Swallow" to the merchant Vozhevatov.
Having met with Knurov and Vozhevatov, Paratov announces to them that he intends to be forced to marry a rich bride in order to save the remnants of his fortune, and also to sell his shipping company to Vozhevatov. From them he learns that Larisa is getting married. Meanwhile, Karandyshev arranges a dinner party, to which both Knurov and Vozhevatov are invited, and eventually Paratov. Karandyshev, stunned by his own importance, which he, in his opinion, acquired by becoming Larisa's fiancé, gets completely drunk (with the active assistance of the guests laughing at him). Larisa, on the other hand, allows Paratov to take her to a night banquet on the ship "Swallow" with gypsies and champagne. Larisa is given to Paratov, but in the morning he confesses to her that he is engaged and cannot marry Larisa. Knurov and Vozhevatov, taking advantage of the "opportunity", play the disgraced Larisa in a toss. Having won, Knurov invites the girl to become his kept woman, and the size of the proposed content would silence even the most evil detractors of someone else's morality, but the shocked Larisa remains silent. Karandyshev appears on the ship, who, realizing that they laughed at him, and his bride was taken away, caught up with the “Swallow” overnight on a boat. He rushes to Larisa and claims his rights to her, wanting to cover her shame. Larisa also rejects Karandyshev, he is too pathetic for her. “I am too precious for you. If to be someone's thing, then dear. Larisa intends to agree to become an "expensive thing" in the hands of Knurov. Karandyshev, in desperation, shoots Larisa with a pistol. Dying, she thanks for this shot.
Cast
- Alisa Freindlich - Harita Ignatievna Ogudalova
- Larisa Guzeeva - Larisa Dmitrievna Ogudalova(voiced by Anna Kamenkova, sung by Valentina Ponomareva)
- Nikita Mikhalkov - Sergey Sergeevich Paratov - "brilliant" gentleman, from shipowners
- Andrey Myagkov - Julius Kapitonovich Karandyshev - a poor postal official
- Alexey Petrenko - Moky Parmyonych Knurov - one of the big businessmen of recent times, old man with a huge fortune
- Viktor Proskurin - Vasily Danilovich Vozhevatov, a promising merchant, also the heir to a shipping company
- Georgy Burkov - Robinson, aka actor Arkady Schastlivtsev
- Tatyana Pankova - Efrosinya Potapovna, Karandyshev's aunt
- Borislav Brondukov - Ivan, the waiter of the city tavern
- Alexander Pyatkov - Gavrilo, a waiter at a city tavern
- Yuri Sarantsev - Mikhin, captain of the "Swallow"
- Olga Volkova - French milliner
- Dmitry Buzylev - Gypsy Ilya
- Alexander Pankratov-Cherny - Semyonovsky Ivan Petrovich, officer, hero of the Caucasian campaign
- Sergei Artsibashev - Gulyaev
- Ibrahim Bargi - Kuzmich, stoker "Swallows"
- Zemfira Pearl - gypsy performing a laudatory song to Paratov
- Olga Krasikova - Olga Dmitrievna, Larisa's older sister
- Alexander Kuzmichev - judicial officer
- Yuri Martynov - guest of the Ogudalovs
- Vladimir Myshkin - guest of the Ogudalovs, officer, fellow soldier of Semenovsky
- Nikolai Smorchkov - guest of the Ogudalovs, father
- Georgy Elnatanov - Georgian prince George, husband of Olga Dmitrievna
- Anna Frolovtseva - Annushka, the cook of the Ogudalovs
- Evgeny Tsymbal - Egor, sailor "Swallows"
- Gypsy Ensemble conducted by N. Vasiliev
film crew
- Script and Direction - Eldar Ryazanov
- Director of photography - Vadim Alisov
- Set Designer - Alexander Borisov
- Composer - Andrey Petrov
- Director - Leonid Chertok
- Editor - Valeria Belova
- Sound engineers: Semyon Litvinov, Vladimir Vinogradov
- Romances on verses: Bella Akhmadulina, Marina Tsvetaeva, Rudyard Kipling, Eldar Ryazanov
- State Symphony Orchestra of Cinematography
- Conductor - Sergey Skripka
- Costume designer: Natalia Ivanova
- Operator - Pyotr Kuznetsov
- Make-up artist - Iya Perminova
- assistants
- director: Tatyana Pronina, Alexander Gromov
- Cinematographer: Vladimir Shmyga, Anatoly Vasiliev
- Color installer - Bozena Maslennikova
- Consultant - Vladimir Lakshin
- Editor - Lyubov Gorina
- Music editor - Raisa Lukina
- Film directors: Lazar Milkis, Lyudmila Zakharova
The film starred the steamboats Spartak (in the film - Swallow, built in 1914, Krasnoe Sormovo, type Velikaya Duzhna) and Dostoevsky (Saint Olga, built in 1956, Óbuda Hajógyár, project 737A)
Music from the motion picture
The music from the film "Cruel Romance" was released on records by the Melodiya company, as well as on audio cassettes "Svema" in 1984.
Songs performed
- USSR Goskino Orchestra - "Waltz", "Pursuit" (A. Petrov)
- Ponomareva, Valentina Dmitrievna - “And in the end I will say” (A. Petrov - B. Akhmadulina), "Love is a magical land" (A. Petrov - E. Ryazanov), "Under the caress of a plush blanket" (A. Petrov - M. Tsvetaeva), "Romance about romance" (A. Petrov - B. Akhmadulina), "Snow Maiden" (A. Petrov - B. Akhmadulina)
- Mikhalkov, Nikita Sergeevich - “And the gypsies are coming” (A. Petrov - R. Kipling (translated by G. Kruzhkov))
Criticism
"Cruel Romance" is an attempt by Eldar Ryazanov to go beyond the comedy genre. Despite the success of the audience, the film provoked an angry response from literary and theatrically oriented critics, who accused its creators of vulgarizing the original play and mocking Russian classics. The story of Larisa Ogudalova was interpreted by Ryazanov in the spirit of Madame Bovary. It was an unheard-of impudence in relation to Ostrovsky's material that Larisa, who is very idealized in the play, according to the script, spends the night with the "charming Russian playboy" Paratov, after which the hysterical Karandyshev shoots her in the back. An authoritative film critic at that time, Yevgeny Danilovich Surkov, published a devastating article in Literaturnaya Gazeta, where he was indignant that the on-screen Larisa “sang, danced with the guests, and then went to Paratov’s cabin and gave herself to him.”
Another object of attack was the acting of the aspiring actress Guzeeva, who, according to reviewers, was lost against the background of such luminaries as Mikhalkov and Freindlich. “The film does not try to overcome the inexperience, and at times even the helplessness of the beginning actress,” wrote, for example, B. O. Kostelyanets. “It remains unclear to us what exactly she causes the general delight of the men around her.”
The well-known literary critic D. Urnov complained that “instead of exposing Paratov’s emptiness”, the film gives “albeit moderate, its apology”, that in the picture of the world drawn by Ryazanov there is nothing to oppose the temptation of the “sweet life”. If in the play musicality is inherent only in Larisa, then the on-screen Paratov himself is not averse to performing a heartfelt romance. The performer of the role of Paratov, which is characteristic, did not consider his hero negative: “Larisa is not a victim of a prudent seducer, but a victim of this man’s terrible breadth,” he noted. After some decade, it turned out that, depicting the destructive power of money over people, Ryazanov captured on film "an almost prophetic premonition of the new Russian era."
As a response to critics, Ryazanov gave the name of Surkov to the negative character of his next film The Forgotten Melody for the Flute (Evgenia Danilovna Surova, the role of Olga Volkova). He also published an explanatory article, where he called the main characters of the film the Volga and the ship "Swallow". The director explained that while working on the film great importance given
daring gypsy element, which, breaking into the musical fabric, gives a certain anguish that our ancestors loved so much ... [gypsy melodies] bring dashing recklessness, cheerful despair, they feel some kind of breakdown, expectation of trouble, misfortune.
Awards
- "Golden Peacock" - the main prize of the festival "Delhi-85".
- The best film of the year, the best actor of the year (Nikita Mikhalkov) - according to a poll of the Soviet Screen magazine.
Notes
Links
- "Cruel Romance" on the site "Encyclopedia of Russian Cinema"
- Full movie "Cruel romance" on YouTube
- Cruel Romance at the Internet Movie Database
| Screen adaptations of works by Alexander Ostrovsky | |
|---|---|
|
Vasilisa Melentyeva (1911) Dowry (1912) Storm (1934) Dowry (1936) Guilty without guilt (1945) Truth is good but happiness is better (1951) Wolves and sheep (1952) Snow Maiden (1952) Warm heart (1953) The marriage of Balzaminov (1964) Snow Maiden (1968) Enough simplicity for every sage (1971) Spring Tale (1971) Talents and Admirers (1973) Last Victim (1975) Handsome Man (1978) Forest (1980) Mad Money (1981) Vacancy (1981) Cruel romance (1984) After Rain on Thursday (1985) Balzaminov's marriage (1989) Anna (2005) Russian money (2006) Guilty Without Guilt (2008) Bribes Are Smooth (2008) Bankrupt (2009) |
| Films by Eldar Ryazanov | |
|---|---|
|
Spring Voices (1955) Carnival Night (1956) Girl with no address (1957) How Robinson was made (1961) Nowhere Man (1961) Hussar ballad (1962) Give a Complaint Book (1965) Watch Out for the Car (1966) Zigzag of Fortune (1968) Old Rogues (1971) |
The first film adaptation of "Dowry" was released just 26 years after the death of its author. In 1886, Alexander Ostrovsky died, and in 1912 the Russian director Kai Ganzen made a film of the same name, in which the main role was played by theater and film actress Vera Pashennaya. Larisa Ogudalova became a film debut for the aspiring actress.
The first "Dowry" of the USSR, 1936
The next Larisa Ogudalova (already) was Nina Alisova, for whom, what a coincidence, this role also became her debut. But the director was the famous Yakov Protazanov, who by this time had already shot more than a hundred films. Seeing the eighteen-year-old Nina, Protazanov exclaimed: “Here is the real Larisa!” And he was not embarrassed that Alisova had not even graduated from VGIK. “Work on the image of Larisa began with me from the first day of approval for the role,” the actress later recalled. - Yakov Alexandrovich Protazanov, realizing that the student does not yet have the experience and knowledge to implement this complex image, obliged me to “live the life of Larisa” every day, enter the atmosphere of that time and that environment, and feel the feelings of Larisa.” The picture was released on December 31, 1936, and the next day after the premiere, Nina woke up famous: “The film“ Dowry ”was being played all over the country with increasing success. It has also been shown abroad. In Paris, he was awarded the "Gold Medal". It was a huge victory for young Soviet cinema." Despite the fact that Alisova's filmography includes almost 30 films, the role of Larisa Ogudalova has remained the most beloved for the actress. She even named her daughter after this heroine Ostrovsky. On the set of the film, Nina met assistant director Valentin Kadochnikov, married him and gave birth to two children: a daughter, Larisa, and a son, Vadim. In the future, Larisa became an actress, and Vadim became a cameraman who shot many films, including "Cruel Romance" with the role of a new "dowry". In general, Ryazanov filmed his film under the influence of Protazanov's film, and before filming began, he called Alisina and asked for her blessings. The actress said that she would be looking forward to the release of the film on the screens.
"Dowry" of the first beauty, 1974
But long before Eldar Ryazanov's brilliant film, Konstantin Khudyakov's "Dowry" appeared on the screens, in which the main role was played by the beautiful Tatyana Doronina, who by this time had already become a real star. It is not surprising that partners were chosen for her by the same stellar ones. He played the gentleman Sergei Paratov, and Yuli Karandyshev, a poor official. Together with Vera Kapustina, Ivan Voronov, Evgeny Lazarev, and other artists, they told the viewer tragic story a poor girl who fell in love with an imposing landowner who looked at her as fun and exchanged her sincere feelings for money.
"Cruel Romance": Classic "Dowry", 1984
“A shaggy bumblebee, for fragrant hops, a gray heron in the reeds, and a gypsy daughter for her beloved on the night ...”, Sergey Paratov sings, this time performed by a brilliant one. And Larisa Ogudalova rushes into love, like into a pool, not afraid of people's rumors. But Paratov is not able to appreciate this sacrifice - in a world where everything serves the "golden calf", money is more valuable than love. Larissa's heart is broken. Again. Having finished filming "Station for Two", Eldar Ryazanov did not even think of filming the play, which he played at school. But on the advice of his wife, he nevertheless re-read The Dowry and realized that he would shoot. “Even in the process of reading, I immediately imagined the performers of the two main roles. I saw Nikita Mikhalkov in Paratov, and Andrey Myagkov in Karandyshev, and secured the preliminary consent of these two actors, ”recalls Eldar Ryazanov in the book Unsummoned. The role of Larisa Ogudalova was again played by the debutante - Larisa Guzeeva, now known to Russian viewers as the host. “Cruel Romance”, without a doubt, gave me a start in life, and if not for this “Romance”, then, probably, I would not exist as an actress, he gave me a very strong impetus, - Larisa Guzeeva admitted in an interview with the Vecherniy newspaper Murmansk. The director did not think long about the name of the picture either. “The name of the film “Cruel Romance” appeared as soon as I made the decision to film it,” says Ryazanov. - I, as a fan of old romances, at first decided to use only them. Ostrovsky Larisa sings "Do not tempt me unnecessarily." In Protazanov's film - "No, I didn't love ...". At first I also wanted to use "I was driving home", "I dreamed of a garden ..." and others. There was a sense of secondary. After . And I understood what was needed. Not so archaic. One poem - "I, like a butterfly to the fire" - wrote himself out of desperation. Immediately, Kipling with the “hairy bumblebee” turned out to be in place. Subsequently, the music and songs from the film became so popular that the Melodiya recording studio released a separate disc. By the way, most of the songs from the film were performed by the Russian jazz vocalist Valentina Ponomarev. After the release of the film on the screens, a flurry of criticism fell upon Eldar Ryazanov: the director was accused of deviating from the author's interpretation of the play and incorrectly placing emphasis. But the audience had a different opinion - according to the polls of the Soviet Screen magazine, Cruel Romance became the best film of the year.
"Dowry" of the new time, 2011
Written back in the century before last, Ostrovsky's play "The Dowry" has not lost, and, probably, will never lose its relevance. An example of this is the serial film "Dowry", broadcast in 2011 on. The director of the tape was the director of the films "18-14" and "Red Pearl of Love" Andres Puustusmaa. The filmmakers emphasized that the film was shot "based on", and the play itself served only as a source of inspiration. The action of the picture was transferred from the 19th century to the present day. The plot, at first glance, remained unchanged: the main character is betrayed by a man who is about to marry for convenience. And now she is forced to marry a poor soldier. Trying to shoot a modern version of "Dowry", the director left the characters' former surnames and only slightly changed the names, turning, for example, Yulia into Yuri, and Mokiya into Mikhail, which caused dissatisfaction with the audience, who wondered why the director could not come up with something more original. . The main surprise, however, awaited them at the end - those who read the play and watched all the previous adaptations were surprised at how it all ended. Puustusmaa called for the role of the main character, who already had a dozen roles behind her. Her Larisa Ogudalova turned out to be, perhaps, the most non-standard of all.
1. Examination homework and goal setting.
Guys, you had to watch and analyze (make notes) the film adaptation of E. Ryazanov's "Cruel Romance" [slide 17] with the drama of A.N. Ostrovsky. Looked?
Fine. Did you like the screenshot? Did you enjoy watching the movie? How did your feelings change as you watched? Which screenshot did you like best?
What episodes of the movie do you remember the most?
Is this how you envisioned the characters? Did the images of the characters match those created by the actors in the film? Which of the actors, in your opinion, most accurately embodied the image literary hero who did he play?
Has your attitude towards drama and characters changed after watching the adaptation?
What ending did you expect? Did the ending of the film meet your expectations? What feelings did he leave in you?
Which of the adaptations do you think is closer to Ostrovsky's drama?
Well. Today we will compare the adaptation of Ostrovsky's drama by E. Ryazanov with the text of the drama itself.
2. Analysis of the film adaptation of E. Ryazanov's "Cruel Romance" as a whole (composition, symbolism, transformation of replicas).
Today we will turn to the film adaptation of Ostrovsky's drama by E. Ryazanov "Cruel Romance". This film adaptation is loved by many viewers. The film received Golden Peacock awards (the main prize of the festival "Delhi-85") and "Best Film of the Year", "Best Actor of the Year" (Nikita Mikhalkov) - according to a survey of the magazine "Soviet Screen" [Wikipedia: Electronic resource]. However, it cannot be said about painting criticism[slide 18]. After the premiere, a flurry of critical assessments and discontent fell upon E. Ryazanov and the actors. "Critics from the picture did not leave stone unturned. The reviews were huge and all, without exception, pogrom. Within a month and a half Literary newspaper” dedicated one of the pages in each issue to our tape. Titles: “What for? Why?”, “Just a romance”, “The winner loses”, “Deceit of initiation” ”[Shchedrov Ya. How the film“ Cruel Romance ”was filmed]. It was in one of these articles by E. Surkov, an authoritative film critic at that time, published in Literaturnaya Gazeta, that the film adaptation was crushed: Surkov was indignant at the fact that Larisa on the screen “sang, danced with the guests, and then went to the cabin to Paratov and gave herself to him" [cit. by: Wikipedia: Electronic resource]. “An unheard-of impudence in relation to Ostrovsky’s material seemed to be that Larisa, who is very idealized in the play, according to the script, spends the night with a “charming Russian playboy” (from an article in the journal Voprosy Literatury by V. Kardin)” [cit. by: Wikipedia: Electronic resource]. Critics have focused on distortion of Ostrovsky's images. The second reason for the indignation of critics was acting, especially the young actress Larisa Guzeeva making her debut in this film. For example, B. O. Kostelyanets writes: “The film does not try to overcome the inexperience, and at times even the helplessness of the beginning actress. It remains unclear to us what exactly she causes the general delight of the men around her" [Kostelyanets 1992: 177]. And here is what was written in the Trud newspaper about the acting of the actor N. Mikhalkov: “A sensitive superman (remember by no means a stingy male tear running down his cheek to Larisa’s singing) - that’s what Paratov is in the film” [Shchedrov: Electronic resource]. However, Mikhalkov himself saw his hero not as a negative character, but as a tragic victim of his broad nature: “Larisa is not a victim of a prudent seducer, but a victim of this man’s terrible breadth” [cit. by: Wikipedia: Electronic resource], - the actor notes. The only one who expressed positive feedback, was, oddly enough, Nina Alisova, who played Larisa in the film by Y. Protazanov: “The Cruel Romance raises the story of Larisa the dowry to tragedy, and this is the main victory of everything creative team. I haven't experienced such a strong impression from a work of art for a long time" [Alisova 1984]. And how did you perceive the images of Ostrovsky's heroes in the interpretation of the actors? Do you agree with the critics? To understand and fully understand the film adaptation of Ryazanov, let's take a closer look at it.
Ryazanov undertook to film the drama right away and, in his words, “still in the process of reading<…>I immediately imagined the performers of the two main roles ”(from“ UNsummed up ”) [Shchedrov: Electronic resource] - Nikita Mikhalkov (as Paratov) and Andrei Myagkov (as Karandyshev).Here is what E. Ryazanov himself writes about the process of creating the film: “Such a way of presenting [the presentation of the events of the life of the Ogudalovs in a dialogue between Knurov and Vozhevatov] is possible for the theater (and even then not for the modern one), but is absolutely excluded for cinema. The long exposition introduces us in absentia to the heroes of the drama, introduces us to the range of their problems, tells in detail about the relationship of the characters. In this conversation between two characters, there is a huge flow of information, moreover, very lengthy, detailed, with nuances and details ... and we decided to show what Knurov and Vozhevatov were talking about, that is, to replace the story with a show” [Ryazanov 1985: 163]. And indeed: we see 2 parts of the film, the first of which just tells about the life of the heroes of the drama before the departure of Paratov, and the second represents the last day of Larisa Dmitrievna Ogudalova. For example, the scene of the arrest of the cashier in the Ogudalovs' house was born in the film adaptation of the drama from the text of the drama itself. From a couple of phrases that Vozhevatov utters in a dialogue with Knurov (“Then this cashier suddenly appeared ... So he threw money, and fell asleep to Harita Ignatievna. He recaptured everyone, but did not show off for long: they arrested him in their house. A healthy scandal!” (action 1, phenomenon 2)), a whole spectacular scene of the film grows up (the scene with the cashiers Gulyaev, pretending to be the director of the bank, who gives Kharita Ignatievna money to buy a carriage - these details (the name of the cashier and the conversation about the carriage) Ryazanov thought up himself).
Fine. In the film adaptation, there really were episodes that Ostrovsky did not have [slide 19] (the wedding of Larisa's elder sister and the further fate of the two Larisa sisters (letters from them), Larisa's life before Paratov's departure, the birth of their love (the scene of Paratov's appearance on a white horse with a bouquet for the bride - the elder Larisa's sister; the scene in which Paratov pushes the carriage to Larisa's feet; Larisa and Paratov's walk on his ship "Swallow"), Paratov's departure (the scene at the station), the beautiful landscapes of the Volga, etc.).Let's remember the beginning of the movie: the story begins with the scene of the wedding of Larisa's older sister on the pier, which, according to Ostrovsky's play, “was taken away by some mountaineer, a Caucasian prince.<…>He got married and left, yes, they say, he didn’t take him to the Caucasus, he stabbed him to death on the road from jealousy ”(action 1, phenomenon 2). All the characters are among the guests at the wedding.
The whole beginning of the film differs from the play: at the beginning, Larisa's life is shown before the disappearance of Paratov, the birth of love between Larisa and Paratov,
YouTube video
failed suicide attempt by Karandyshev; an episode in which Paratov exposes himself to the bullet of a visiting officer, and then shoots at a watch (in Ostrovsky's play - at a coin), which he gives into the hands of Larisa,
Vozhevatov’s conversation with Paratov about the sale of the Lastochka steamship from Paratov and Paratov’s refusal. Almost all the scenes mentioned in one way or another in Ostrovsky's play, but not described by him (mentioned only in the dialogues of the characters), are deployed on the screen in action (orientation to the show). Departure of Paratov depicted in the film adaptation with the help of a scene at the station (Paratov’s conversation with Vozhevatov and Knurov and Larisa, who came to pick him up, looks after the departing Paratov with pain).
YouTube video
Temporary designation- the fact that a year has passed since Paratov's departure is shown using the change of seasons: Paratov leaves in the summer - Larisa and her mother go to her father's grave in winter - then the river melts (spring), and it becomes warm (summer again) (unlike film adaptation of Protazanov, where he shows this with the help of captions on the screen: “A year has passed ... and not a single letter”).
We also see preparation for the wedding Larisa and Karandysheva: we see the purchase of a wedding dress for Larisa and the payment of the invoice for this dress by Karandyshev, who is bargaining with a milliner for 10 rubles.
At the same time, a lot has been added to the screen version romances (and in the climactic scene of Larisa's singing at dinner, actress Larisa Guzeeva sings the romance "And in the end I will say ..." to the verses of B. Akhmadulina (not Guzeeva herself sings, but V. Ponomareva, who sings all the romances in the film), and not the romance "Not tempt me needlessly" to the verses of E. Baratynsky, given in the drama), which are symbolic. At all film score music- one of its indisputable and bright advantages. Romances occupy an important place in the film adaptation [slide 20].
Thanks to these romances, the film itself sounded like a whole big romance. According to E. Ryazanov, "the musical and sound environment helped to create a poetic, tense, sometimes painful, in some places oppressive atmosphere of the picture" [Ryazanov 1985: 173].Not in vain and movie title - "Cruel romance" - contains a reminder of this musical genre. Why do you think the director called his film adaptation that way?YouTube video
Possibly Ryazanov
wanted to show the tragic life story of a dowry as a sad, heavy, piercingly painful song: a romance about the soulless, ruthless and cruel material world, which is why he called his film not just romance, namely cruel romance. The film contains romances based on poems by B. Akhmadulina (“Romance about romance”, “And in the end I will say”, “Snow Maiden”), M. Tsvetaeva ( "Under the caress of a plush blanket"), R. Kipling ( "And the gypsies are coming" ("Shaggy Bumblebee")) and E. Ryazanov himself ("Love is a magical land"). The music was written by A. Petrov. It is a known fact that after the release of the film adaptation in 1984, they also releasedrecords by the Melodiya company and audio cassettes "Svema" with romances from the film, which immediately sounded in all corners of the country. Ryazanov replaces the romances that we see in Ostrovsky’s drama, “making a kind of correction for the era, for the mood of contemporary audiences.<…>The romances emphasize the modernity of the film, the conventionality of the time and place of action" [Bogatova 2004].YouTube video
Also, if we talk about added episodes, we see in the film adaptation walk along the Volga, which is only mentioned in Ostrovsky's drama. At the same time, the action of the final scenes of the drama was transferred to the ship, which is also symbolic: fog, enveloping everything around, creates an atmosphere of mystery, lyricism and reflects the confusion of Larisa and the impossibility of finding a further path, and is also a symbol of obscurity and deceit - and Larisa dies after all on the Volga. This is what the director himself says about the shooting of this episode: “
one day just the kind of fog that we needed fell on the Volga. Despite the fact that the production plan for that day included filming other scenes, I overacted everything, and we managed to shoot the finale in a real fog. I assure you: we would not have succeeded so beautifully, even if we had used the most modern and perfect smoke machine.» [cit. Quoted from: Shchedrov: Electronic resource]. In the screen version, they are generally very significant. images of nature, which creates lyricism of the picture. “Very important for all of us, the authors - director, cameraman, artist, composer… was the poetic nature of the tape, its special lyrical mood,” writes Ryazanov [Ryazanov 1985:173]. Because there are so many beautiful landscapes we see on the screen: Volga as a symbol of the broad Russian soul, birds (mostly seagulls), reflecting Larisa's confusion. Remember the final scene in which Larisa stands on the ship:gull , screaming piercingly, disappears into the thick fog.Ryazanov himself called the main characters of the film the Volga and the ship "Swallow" [Ryazanov 1985].
Thus, Protazanov unfolds the scenes mentioned in the dialogues of Ostrovsky's drama into spectacular episodes on the screen - with a display orientation. going on
replacement of the union of the story and display in the original text with only a display - actualization of the position of the reader-viewer.We can see that in the film there is a “change in the course of artistic time, which leads to character speech reduction ”[Martyanova 2011:172], i.e. the speech of the characters is not completely transferred to the screen from the text of the play, but is reduced as necessary - according to the laws of cinema (after all, in life we do not speak in monologues). However, sometimes the director changes the lines of the characters. After analyzing the speech of the characters in the film, we can highlight the characteristic replica transformations characters in the film adaptation, which is directly related to the dedramatization of the drama: there is a shift towards the show, which explains the following transformations of the text - look at the slide [slide 21]:
changing the order and place of pronunciation character replicas. For example, Knurov and Vozhevatov’s remarks about Paratov’s life (“Knurov. Paratov lives with chic. / Vozhevatov. Nothing else, but enough chic”), moved from one scene in the drama (in the episode of the conversation between Knurov and Vozhevatov in the coffee shop - after the story Ivan and Gavrila about the meeting of Paratov (act 1, phenomenon 2)) in another in the film adaptation (the beginning of the film - after the episode in which Paratov pushes the carriage under Larisa's feet so that she does not get her feet wet). These changes in the film adaptation are quite natural in connection with the change in the course of artistic time in the film adaptation in comparison with the text of the drama, due to the importance of the dynamics of what is happening for the film work (the dynamization of events);
change in lexical content replicas. Often, calls are removed from replicas, as the impression can allow it. Or, for example, in the scene when Knurov and Vozhevatov play Larisa in a toss, Vozhevatov’s lines are changed with a focus on display, on colloquial speech (abbreviation), and besides, the lexeme lattice, characteristic of the Ostrovsky era, is replaced by the lexeme tails, more familiar to modern Ryazanov’s time (“Yes, that’s best. (Takes a coin out of his pocket and puts it under his arm.) Eagle or bars?” (Action 4, phenomenon 6) - “Heads-tails will go?”).
replica reduction characters: simplification of the syntactic structure. In the final explanation of Larisa and Paratov, Larisa’s answer about chains is changed in comparison with Ostrovsky’s drama (“And any other chains are not a hindrance! We will wear them together, I will share this burden with you, I will take on most of the burden” (act 4, phenomenon 7) - "But other chains are not a hindrance! I will share any burden with you"), which changes the image of the heroine: she can share any burden with the hero, but she cannot take the burden (too fragile). In addition, the replica becomes less complex and cumbersome, which is more consistent with the situation of colloquial speech (orientation to dynamics);
elimination(removing, throwing out) some replicas. For example, in the film adaptation, the lines of Paratov and Kh. I. Ogudalova in the episode of their first meeting after the return of Paratov, which are in the play (“Paratov.It is not for us, frivolous gentlemen, to start new turns! For this, in the debt department, shadow. I want to sell my will. Ogudalova. I understand: you want to get married profitably. How much do you value your will? Paratov. At half a million. Ogudalova. Decently. Paratov. Cheaper, aunty, you can't, sir, there's no calculation, it's more expensive, you know. Ogudalova. Well done man”(action 2, phenomenon 7)), which changes the interpretation of the characters’ images and shifts the film’s accents: the theme of money is removed;
additionsome replicas. For example, in the film, remarks are added that emphasize the opposition of Paratov and Karandyshev. Kh. I. Ogudalova tells Larisa about Paratov: “Don’t wring your neck, the groom’s not about you, you’ve got a treat,” and immediately Vozhevatov tells Karandyshev about Larisa: “Stare in vain, Julius Kapitonych, not about your honor, the bride.”
It should be noted that the listed transformations also relate in one way or another to all episodes of the film adaptation, which we do not consider in detail, and quite clearly show how the text of the drama is transferred to the screen.
However, it is essential that when creating the script, adding scenes, transforming the characters' lines, "Ryazanov voluntarily or unwittingly changed the nature of the work, placed the accents somewhat differently, approached the interpretation of the images of individual characters in a different way" [Bogatova 2004].
Especially changed images of Larisa, Paratov, Kharita Ignatievna[slide 22]. How do you think they have changed?
In the interpretation of L. Guzeeva Larisa is depicted not as a bright, outstanding personality, but simply as a naive young girl who captivates with the charm of freshness, youth, purity and spontaneity. N. Mikhalkov playing Paratova, draws attention to itself, and the film creates image of the tragic hero Paratov- squandered both materially and spiritually. So, Ryazanov shows not only the tragedy of Larisa, but also the tragedy of Paratov (he is shown in the film as a more complex and controversial hero). If we recall the scene when Paratov asks Larisa to go along the Volga with them, and the scene of Larisa's explanation with Paratov, we can see that the hero himself suffers from feelings for Larisa that he really has. We see Paratov from Larisa's point of view, as if through her eyes: this is especially clearly seen in the first scene of Paratov's appearance - all in white on a white horse. In the film, he is very clearly opposed to Karandyshev, played by Myagkov. Particularly striking in this respect are the scenes with the carriage. Paratov easily transfers the carriage to Larisa's feet so that she does not get her feet wet, and then, when Karandyshev tries to do this, nothing comes of it, and he just looks ridiculous and ridiculous. Also in the film, remarks are added that emphasize this opposition. Kh. I. Ogudalova tells Larisa about Paratov: “Don’t wring your neck, the groom’s not about you, you’ve got a treat,” and immediately Vozhevatov tells Karandyshev about Larisa: “Stare in vain, Julius Kapitonych, not about your honor, the bride.”
If you watch the episode in which Paratov persuades Larisa to go with them to the Volga, he says: “I will abandon all calculations, and no power will snatch you from me” - and Larisa believes him, and the viewer believes with her ( film episode: 100-102 min.). Nina Alisova, who played Larisa in the film adaptation of Protazanov, admired Mikhalkov's performance in this scene: “Here N. Mikhalkov reaches the pinnacle of his skill. In his eyes there is passion, prayer - and a terrible gleam, reminiscent of an ax blade. This almost phosphorescent sparkle of his eyes will remain in me for a long time" [Alisova 1984: 3].
If you watch the final scene of the explanation on the ship [slide 23], then we see tears in the eyes of Paratov-Mikhalkov (here it is worth showing the guys an episode of the film: 119-123 min.). If in Ostrovsky’s play Paratov simply seduces Larisa with words so that she gives them pleasure with her company at a picnic, and then cynically leaves her (there are no stage directions in the drama - Paratov asks Robinson to find a carriage, and then tells Larisa that he is engaged, it’s rather cold) . And in the film adaptation of Ryazanov, the hero of Mikhalkov is full of suffering - he leaves with tears in his eyes. And their dialogue is built in such a way that we see “Paratova, who loves Larisa, but refuses her because of money, attacks not only her love, but also her feelings ... [it] seemed deeper, more terrible, more social more accurate than the usual reading of this character as a veil and a seducer” [Ryazanov 1985:166].
So, in the film adaptation, the emphasis is shifted. Ryazanov moves away from the theme of the absence of a dowry, stated in Ostrovsky's title, from the "money" theme. It is no coincidence that the name has been changed. “The step that Ryazanov took resolutely, firmly and consistently: “substituting” the traditional theme of Ostrovsky’s play is “a pure soul in the world of a cleansing man” [Maslovsky 1985:64]. If we recall the dialogue between Paratov and Kharita Ignatievna, when Paratov arrives at the Ogudalovs' house after his return, we will see that in the film the theme of money is removed from this dialogue. In Ostrovsky, it is clearly visible - Paratov and Ogudalova appear here as prudent businessmen, for whom freedom is a subject of sale and purchase. Open this scene in the text (act 2, scene 7):
Paratov.On one we will lose, on the other we will win, auntie; here is our business.
Ogudalova.What do you want to win? Got new turnovers?
Paratov. It is not for us, frivolous gentlemen, to start new turns! For this, in the debt department, shadow. I want to sell my will.
Ogudalova.I understand: you want to get married profitably. How much do you value your will?
Paratov.At half a million.
Ogudalova. Decently.
Paratov. Cheaper, aunty, you can't, sir, there's no calculation, it's more expensive, you know.
Ogudalova. Well done man.
In the film adaptation (episode of the film 77-79 min.), these lines are absent, and to the question of Ogudalova "What do you want to win on?" Paratov is silent with pain in his eyes, and then says: "I would like to pay my respects to Larisa Dmitrievna." At the same time, Ogudalova reacts like this: “Well, I don’t know if Larisa Dmitrievna wants to see you.” Here, the image of Paratov and Ogudalova is revealed in a completely different way.
The theme of money, mercantile calculations remained in the film, but the emphasis is shifting: the film script highlights love conflict- pure, unsophisticated Larisa loves the bright, strong, but vicious Paratov, who sometimes goes to immoral acts that make those around him unhappy and, importantly, herself. He also loves Larisa, but changes his love to "gold mines".
3. Summing up the lesson and homework.
So, guys, today we have analyzed the film adaptation of Ostrovsky's drama "Dowry" by E. Ryazanov "Cruel Romance" in comparison with the text and the idea of the drama. Your homework will be to write an analysis of this screen adaptation based on our lesson, our observations today, and your observations that you made at home for today's lesson.
I want to finish the analysis of Ryazanov’s film adaptation with a quote from the poet, screenwriter, publicist and historian Andrei Malinkin: “
Returning to Ryazanov, I cannot help confessing one thing: after the first viewing of The Cruel Romance, my only desire was to quickly return home, take Ostrovsky off the shelf and re-read The Dowry more carefully, trying not to miss the slightest detail, not the slightest intonation, that may have been previously unnoticed. And for that, many thanks to the director, because I am almost sure that without suspecting it himself, he practically forced all of us (viewers) to return (or turn for the first time) to their bookshelves, to their history, to their national pride and heritage. For which low bow and gratitude to him"[Malinkin: Electronic resource].Thus, given the comparative analysis of the text of the drama
A. N. Ostrovsky "Dowry"and its adaptations by Y. Protazanov and E. Ryazanov, we can trace the transformation of the text, the refraction of the images of the drama in the film. If we consider the concepts of the directors, based on the results of the analysis, we can conclude that the adaptation of Y. Protazanov is an interpretation that is quite close to the text of the drama, the transformation of which is fully justified by the requirements of cinema, and the adaptation of E. Ryazanov is an interpretation of Ostrovsky's drama, in which the emphasis is shifted and the interpretation changes images of heroes.The adaptation of Protazanov is considered more successful, complete and closer to the text of the drama than the adaptation of Ryazanov, but the latter adaptation is more beloved by the audience.
And yet, despite the complexity of the screening dramatic works, we must pay tribute to the directors who dared to attempt to perform such a difficult task. I suggest you look interesting analysis these two screenshots:
