Differences between the play "Dowry" and the film " Cruel romance and got the best answer

Answer from Ella Kuznetsova[guru]
It seems to me that Ostrovsky's play is melodrama. Ryazanov was too carried away by this and oversaturated the film with romances, which are good in themselves, but not quite suitable for Larisa. The poems of Tsvetaeva and Akhmadulina in her mouth are not only literally an anachronism, but also overly complicate her character. In the play, she is somewhat simpler: broken by betrayal, the disappearance of Paratov, she resigned herself and wants and asks for peace. With hostility, but agrees to become Karandyshev's wife in the hope of a quiet life.
When all this collapses, she declares in despair to Karandyshev: “I have not found love, so I will look for gold. That is, she is ready to go to Knurov as a kept woman, albeit with disgust; here Olesya Yefimova is wrong: so it is with Ostrovsky. As for the gypsy, I agree: it's too much.

Answer from Olesya Efimova[guru]
E. Ryazanov tried to transfer this extraordinary play to the screen. In his book Unsummoned, he writes about his work on the film Cruel Romance, talks about the "tragic situation" of the play, about the introduction of fog into the picture, which aggravated the "tragedy of what happened", about the "ruthless story" in the drama. But the director staged his film as a melodrama, and by this, it seems to me, he distorted the meaning of the play. The miscalculation, in my opinion, lurks already in the intention to give the script a "novel form". This already doomed the picture to the disappearance of tragedy from it. And then there's a clear bust with romances. In addition, the characters are melodramatically monochromatic: the "snow-white" Paratov is excessively seductive and the "gray" Karandyshev is too disgusting.
It is not clear how such a colorless, unpoetic Larisa could charm all the heroes? And why does Paratov himself sing several songs? I would like to ask why the heroine of the film goes for Knur's gold and why does Karandyshev shoot her in the back? After all, this removes the theme of beneficence and Larisa's refusal to choose in the spirit of Knurov. And the last thing - why do the gypsies dance so cheerfully and famously at the moment when the heroine dies? This is no longer a chorus, not popular opinion, but wild blasphemy for the sake of outward beauty. The rejection of the tragedy revealed in the play, in my opinion, is not justified.

The brilliant artist A. N. Ostrovsky saw changes in Russian life that were not noticeable to the majority. Katerina in "Thunderstorm" was killed by a dying anal old man, dowry Larisa Ogudalova - a nascent skin grip, counter to the Russian mentality. At a deep psychological level, people of a certain type experienced painful discrepancies between their mental structure and the surrounding reality.

I go crazy or ascend to a high degree of insanity.

B. Akhmadulina.

In the plays of A. N. Ostrovsky, with all the diversity and incredible credibility of the characters, Russia is always the main character. Merchant, sleepy, domostroevskaya Russia (“Let's get together with our people”, “Thunderstorm”) and post-reform Russia, where completely different characters rule the ball - careerists, businessmen, rogues (“Mad Money”, “Dowry”). The second half of the 19th century was marked in Russia by the abolition of serfdom, the Russian-Turkish war ended in victory, this is the time of the first tangible successes in industrial growth, the capitalist foundations of the economy are being strengthened, infrastructure and transport are developing, entrepreneurship is growing sharply, higher women's (Bestuzhev) courses are opened in St. Petersburg.

By the time of the events described in The Dowry, large industrial enterprises had appeared in Russia and began to operate successfully. A retired officer and nobleman N. I. Putilov buys a steel plant near St. Petersburg, a merchant A. F. Bakhrushin starts a leather production in Moscow. The whole country begins to connect into a single economic space, the role of delivery of goods by transport is growing, Russia participates in the world exhibition in Paris, the economy of the Russian Empire merges with world production, in 1873 the country was first affected by the global industrial crisis.

In the year of the publication of A. N. Ostrovsky’s play “The Dowry” (1878), Vera Zasulich, shocked by the public flogging of the populist Bogolyubov, shoots the St. Petersburg mayor Trepov three times in the chest and ... receives an acquittal from the jury. This is how the era of trade, law, and restraint of dislike is making its presence felt on the Russian landscape. In terms of systems-vector psychology, we call this period skin phase of the development of society, which replaced the patriarchal historical ( anal) epoch.

And pretend and lie! (Kharita Ignatievna daughters)

The mental structure of people underwent no less changes than the economy and production. New values ​​invaded age-old foundations, new people sought to take a leading position in society. The woman, who for the first time had the opportunity to realize her properties, was also changing, if not on an equal footing with a man, then no longer at the level of the patriarchal house-building, superbly described by A. N. Ostrovsky earlier in The Thunderstorm. More to come long haul, but the beginning was laid back in 1878, when A.F. Koni read parting words to the jury in the case of Vera Zasulich, and A.N. Ostrovsky wrote the last remark of Larisa Ogudalova: “I love you all very much ...”

The brilliant artist A. N. Ostrovsky saw changes in Russian life that were not noticeable to the majority. That is why the play "Dowry" was not accepted immediately, but only when the obvious for the writer became such for everyone. Katerina in "Thunderstorm" was killed by a dying anal old man, dowry Larisa Ogudalova - a nascent skin grip, counter to the Russian mentality. At a deep psychological level, people of a certain type experienced painful discrepancies between their mental structure and the surrounding reality.

Now we are experiencing similar processes. 70 years of socialism, which canceled the development of the country along the capitalist path, were, among other things, the result of the rejection of capitalist skin orders in the urethral-muscular mentality of the people of Russia. With perestroika, everything went back to normal. It was necessary to continue the interrupted capitalism, but the mentality remained the same, and the rejection of the skin was only intensified by the experience of socialist “equalization”.

It is not surprising that the heroes of Ostrovsky's plays are alive and well next to us. The Knurovs and Vozhevatovs, the guardians of profit, are increasing their momentum, the unlucky Karandyshevs are trying to despise the golden calf, jumping out of their pants to appear rich, the Ignatyevna Kharites are still trying to put their daughters to good use. Paratovs go to any lengths to maintain leadership. The image of Larisa is also unchanged, but destined by nature to only one, which is extremely rare to meet.

Cinematographers repeatedly turned to this play by N. A. Ostrovsky. Back in 1912, The Dowry was filmed by the Russian director Kai Ganzen, in 1936 Yakov Protazanov made a film of the same name with Nina Alisova and Anatoly Ktorov. But the most striking visual imprint of the immortal creation of the brilliant Russian playwright remains, in my opinion, the film by Eldar Ryazanov "Cruel Romance" (1984).

Without deviating, if possible, from the text of the original, Ryazanov managed in a few juicy strokes to create an imprint of the life of Russian society on the threshold of a new twentieth century. The choice of actors, as always, is impeccable, their game is fascinating, the film can be reviewed again and every time you find new and new facets of meanings in it. System-Vector Psychology allows you to look at the story told more than a hundred years ago, from the depths of the mental unconscious and once again make sure that the director of the film has an unmistakable interpretation of the characters.

Sergey Sergeyevich... this is the ideal of a man. Do you understand what an ideal is? (Larisa)

The first appearance of Paratov (N. Mikhalkov) in the film: a “brilliant gentleman and wast” on a white horse, contrary to all prohibitions, enters the pier and throws a bouquet to the unfortunate bride, who is being married to a dubious Georgian prince. According to the play, the groom will slaughter her without taking her to the Caucasus. Ryazanov gives her, though not too happy, but life.

From the very first frames of the film, we see: Paratov defiantly violates the prohibitions, he really wants to seem like the master of circumstances, the leader of a noisy gang, no matter who - barge haulers, sailors, merchants, if only the main one. Paratov, like a knife through butter, enters into any company, he immediately takes over and forces himself to obey, some from under pressure, and some with reverence and love. Paratov is adored in the city. Not sparing his white clothes, Paratov hugs with sooty sailors on his still steamer, the fast "Swallow".

Sergey Sergeevich is generous, strong, he seems magnanimous, the gypsy camp meets him with delight at the pier. Everyone knows that since Paratov has arrived, there will be a mountain feast, everyone will be gifted with the generous hand of the master. People are drawn to bestowal, and as long as Sergei Sergeevich is able to give, he is provided with a crowd of enthusiastic and obsequious admirers: “Such a master, we can’t wait: we’ve been waiting for a year - that’s what a gentleman!”

Paratov does not want to be second. If another steamer is ahead, you need to overtake it and do not care that the car can not stand it: “Kuzmich, add it! I’ll give all the guys a gold piece!” The passion of Paratov is transferred to the captain, a calm and balanced person, the whole team falls under the charm of Sergei Sergeevich, he is sincerely loved and will not be let down. He promised to pay generously!

Paratov demonstratively loves his people. Terrible is Paratov's anger at Karandyshev (A. Myagkov), when he allowed himself a contemptuous review of barge haulers. He demands that Julius Kapitonych immediately apologize, because after insulting the barge haulers, Karandyshev dared to insult Paratov: “I am the shipowner and stand up for them; I myself am the same hauler. Only the intercession of Kharita Ignatievna saves Karandyshev from an early reprisal. However, demoralized by Paratov's anger, Julius Kapitonych himself is ready to back down. It is clear that no Paratov is a barge hauler and never was. Barge haulers work for him, he is a spendthrift and revelers at the expense of slave labor, people who have no other source of food.

After all, he is some kind of tricky (Vozhevatov about Paratov)

But not everyone shares the enthusiasm of the common people. Local merchants Mokiy Parmyonych Knurov (A. Petrenko), old man with a huge fortune, and Vasily Danilovich Vozhevatov (V. Proskurin), a young man, but already rich, treat Paratov with distrust, "because he is some kind of tricky one." Where for Knurov "impossible is not enough", for Paratov the impossible, it seems, simply does not exist. This annoys merchants. Is this how you should treat money, how should you do business? In Ryazanov's film, Vozhevatov half-jokingly quotes V. Kapnist:

“Take it, there is no big science here,
Take what you can take
What are our hands tied to?
How not to take, take, take.

Is there a more comprehensive description? Take, save, follow the rules as the complete opposite of urethral return, which does not see restrictions. According to this scheme of obtaining, not only Vozhevatov and Knurov live. Harita Ignatievna Ogudalova (A. Freindlikh), Larisa's mother, does not lag behind them. In an effort to literally sell her daughter at a higher price, Harita Ignatievna (“aunt”, according to the apt definition of Paratov, that is, mute) charges a fee for visiting her house, where her youngest daughter, who has not yet been married with benefit (L. Guzeeva), shines.

Paratov seeks to go beyond skin pettiness, he tries to resemble the urethral leader and in some places he succeeds so well that he misleads Larisa, she sincerely considers Paratov the ideal of a man, because the ideal for her is the urethral leader of the pack. What can I say, the skin vector perfectly adapts to any task. But not endlessly.

A dexterous woman (Knurov about Harita)

Harita Ignatievna does not hesitate to lure out money even for the jewelry already presented to Larisa, she also begs for "dowry", which hardly anyone will ask. That's what they live. Guests in the Ogudalovs' house are not transferred. Each Harita Ignatievna secretly assigns her own rank, depending on the thickness of his wallet. The merchants Vozhevatov and Knurov are especially valuable; they “vote with their rubles” more than others for the charm of the incomparable Larisa.

They also accept simpler people, including the most dubious rogues like a runaway cashier who was arrested right during the revelry in the Ogudalovs' house. Harita miscalculated in a big way, it happens. But wins on the little things. Having deceived Knurov for 700 rubles, the skinner that has fallen into the archetype does not feel remorse, it is smallly baptized on the icon “forgive me, a sinner” and immediately hides the money it has obtained in a chest of drawers. “I turn around like a thief at a fair,” says Ogudalova Sr.

Karandyshev's mother Larisa does not welcome. So-so, post office official. He boasts that he does not take bribes, but, according to Kharita, this is only because no one gives them to him, the place is unprofitable. Otherwise I would take it. And Harita is right. Karandyshev - bright representative anal truth-seeker-klutz. Neither there nor here. He does not have the ability to earn money, the desire to live in a big way, keeping up with the merchants, nevertheless, is present, plus cosmic selfishness and snobbery, with which he tries to fence himself off from his obvious worthlessness.

Do not offend! Can you offend me? (Karandyshev)

“We, educated people,” says Julius Kapitonych about himself, nevertheless, he does not demonstrate the breadth of views of an educated person, on the contrary, he is petty, picky and touchy. Karandyshev is not able to love anyone but himself, he needs Larisa to be visible in society. He is full of resentment and longs for revenge for ridicule in his address. “Only fierce anger and a thirst for revenge stifle me,” Karandyshev admits.

Even in the most piercing monologue about a funny man and a broken heart, Karandyshev does not sympathize too much. His selfish urges are too visible even in what he calls love. The hysterical “love me” is all that Julius Kapitonich is capable of.

Not such a person is waiting for Larisa Ogudalova. Only one person can be the hero of her dreams - brilliant, generous, strong, with one appearance forcing everything and everyone to revolve around him. System-vector psychology defines such a person as. The most powerful altruism is inherent in the nature of the urethral vector - the only measure aimed not at receiving, but at bestowal from the very beginning, unlike other vectors, which only in the development and realization of their properties should come to bestowal into the flock.

Among the heroes of the drama of A. N. Ostrovsky there are no such, but there is one who strives to correspond to these characteristics to the best of his properties and temperament. This is Paratov. It is with him that Larisa Ogudalova falls in love, having accepted. It is really easy to make a mistake, the skin is adaptive and can deftly pretend to be anyone, for the time being, of course. Ambitious skin workers on the Russian landscape have always loved and love to demonstrate the external signs of the urethra - the scope for spending, grand gestures, patronage, even trying to copy the gait and smile. Behind all this masquerade is a banal desire to advance, to take the place of the leader, pretending to be him. No matter how the dermatologist enters the role, no matter how hard he tries to play the urethral, ​​this is impossible due to the contrariety of these vectors, therefore, in case of severe stress, the skin imitator quickly leaves the game and becomes a real one. This is exactly what happens to the "magnificent" Sergei Sergeevich Paratov.

How can you not listen to him? Is it possible to be insecure about it? (Larisa about Paratov)

It seems that Sergei Sergeevich doesn’t need much for himself ... “There is no merchant in me,” Paratov boasts, in fact, there is plenty of merchant in him, he “torganet” with his beloved woman, he will not blink an eye. Without a penny of money, but in expensive clothes, a spendthrift, a braggart and a poseur, Paratov drags with him everywhere the actor Robinson (G. Burkov), picked up by him on the island, where he was landed from another ship for indecent behavior. The jester under the king is one of the attributes of power. The wonderful actor G. Burkov remarkably shows the pettiness, venality and insignificance of his hero, and, consequently, the inconsistency of Paratov's ambitions with the declared status. If the retinue makes a king, then Robinson can only "make" the dubious king Paratov.

Paratov seems bold and strong. He puts a glass on his head so that the visiting officer (A. Pankratov-Cherny) demonstrates his accuracy in pistol shooting. After the shot, Paratov imperturbably brushes away the fragments of the glass, and then with one shot knocks the watch out of Larisa's hands (in the play - a coin). Sergei Sergeevich does not have to lift and move the carriage so that Larisa can pass without getting her feet wet in a puddle. Karandyshev is trying to repeat this, but, alas, he lacks the strength, he is again ridiculous. Karandyshev does not succeed in “letting himself down”, properties do not give.

Paratov amazes Larisa with his fearlessness, and she reaches out to him with all her heart: "Next to you, I'm not afraid of anything." This is a special love, when there is simply no fear for oneself, he remained at the other end of the visual vector, the only measure in the mental, where only earthly love is possible. In the words of a romance based on the verses of Marina Tsvetaeva, who “perfectly sings” for Larisa Guzeeva in the film, the gypsy Valentina Ponomaryova, “I still don’t know whether she won, whether she was defeated.”

No in true love no victories, no defeats, there is only giving yourself to another without a trace. In such love there is no place for jealousy or betrayal, both of which are committed out of selfish fear for oneself. Larisa Ogudalova is capable of such love; under the influence of her love for Paratov, she goes from fear into love for the only person, as it seems to her, the person destined for her by nature. She pities the rest, including Karandyshev, whom, partly out of pity, she marries. “It’s vulgar to be jealous, I can’t stand it,” Larisa tells him. She sees in Paratov not his essence, but the image created by her visual imagination. Visual women often create ideal images and give them to real men who have nothing to do with these images. A tragic outcome in this case is very likely.

In relation to Paratov, Larisa “ascends to a high degree of insanity”, i.e. out of fear for herself and her life, from rationalizations of the mind about what is possible and what is not possible, from all kinds of restrictions she goes back to boundless love-bestowal, complementary to urethral altruism. It is this connection in the psychic that makes the pair of the urethral man and the skin-visual woman unique among others. Although both he and she are desired by everyone and can make the happiness of carriers of various vectors, the absolute coincidence of souls occurs precisely at the level of the merging of the urethra and vision into an unshakable, eternal and endless chord directed to the future. And here we come to the tragic finale, when all the masks will be thrown off, and the imaginary king will appear naked in only his original skin, which cannot be torn off.

I'm engaged. Here are the golden chains with which I am shackled for life (Paratov)

The urethral vector is characterized by mercy - a quality derived from the only natural power of the leader of the pack. Mercy where free to kill. This is the power of the urethra, which does not require proof of cruelty. Paratov shows us "mercy in a scanty form" of the most empty rogue Robinson, he is not capable of anything more. When, in response to Paratov’s confession of the inevitability of her marriage, Larisa exclaims: “Godlessly!”, in the senses she speaks precisely of the absence of mercy, stating the impossibility for Paratov to correspond to the declared image.

Having squandered his fortune, Sergei Sergeevich agrees to an enslaving marriage with gold mines; for his meanness, he does not see any moral restrictions. The loss of fortune for Paratov means the loss of the attributes of power that he needs in his role as "urethral leader." To maintain the status of the richest and most generous reveler, Paratov does not feel sorry for anything. Even Larissa. “I lost more than my fortune,” Paratov tries to justify himself. Clearly, a beggar, he will no longer be able to lead the group of merchants who run the show in the new capitalist life. Being the owner of the masters of life is most important for Paratov, this is his and the key to his success as the skin leader of the group. He cannot, he does not know how to make money, in this sense, there is no "merchant" in Paratov, in his own words. This means that there is no way to rise in the skin hierarchy in any other way than a profitable marriage. He doesn’t know how to earn money, but he wants to revel, his ambitions are very high, they don’t correspond to his abilities, he has to earn money at the expense of his wife’s dowry. And, in all likelihood, he will be squandered sooner or later, if they give him, of course.

How much do you value your will? - In half a million-s (Kharita and Paratov)

The urethral leader is able to lead any flock, becoming the very best in it. Bending under the circumstances, Paratov reveals his true self, sells his "will" for gold. Was there a will, since it was so easily sold for money? No. There were attempts to meet the stated ambitions. It's really more than a loss of fortune. This is a loss of oneself, a humiliation incompatible with the status of a urethral leader, but quite bearable, not fatal in the skin. Well, I couldn’t seem like a urethral leader, it’s not a big problem, but now, with gold mines, you can start the performance anew.

Larisa dies physically, but retains her soul. For this, she thanks her murderer Karandyshev: “My dear, what a blessing you have done for me!” For Larisa, life without love, in the inanimate state of a beautiful doll for pleasure for money, is unthinkable. Paratov remains to live, but a living corpse, a pug on the golden chain of a capricious lady. “I am engaged” sounds in the mouth of Paratov as “I am doomed.” Again beautiful words for Larisa. In fact, for Paratov, Larisa is already in the past, and the leather worker has a short memory. He will grieve, sing with the gypsies, and for new life in luxury and mock fraternization with the people.

The states described in Ostrovsky's play at the level of a couple, a group of people are equally characteristic of society as a whole. The urethral mentality of Russia, having entered into interaction with the skin values ​​of the consumer society, resulted in a disappointing picture of total corruption, theft and nepotism at all levels. The archetypal skin thief with a urethral mental superstructure is a thief without boundaries and without logic. He steals, not knowing saturation, grabs everything that is bad and good. This is a monster, irrational in its desire to become even more thieving, despite all the laws and restrictions, even against the laws of nature, limiting the receipt.

Skin thieves aspiring to the status of the urethral leader, "outrageous" in the thieves' jargon, for whom the "thieves' law" is not written. “After us, at least a flood,” is the motto of the archetypal skin. Examples of such behavior from top to bottom can be seen all the time, only the amount of loot is growing. The skin, having no development in return, still wants to live in a urethral way, at the head of a gang with beautiful girlfriends, sprees and gypsies, but receives, due to its true lack, archetypal merchants “from Cherkizon” in elite apartments and a trial for embezzlement on a scale state defense.

Any law is perceived by the Russian mentality as an obstacle that must be bypassed at all costs, that is, it is not perceived at all, the urethra does not notice skin restrictions. The desire of the urethral vector to live without restrictions can only be satisfied through spiritual growth. This is a matter for the future, subject to the application of efforts to spiritual development on the part of everyone - here and now. Otherwise, ours, the only natural measure of unlimited returns, can turn into its opposite - unlimited consumption, which is impossible in nature, which means it is doomed to be left without a future.

The article was written based on the materials of the training " System-Vector Psychology»

Long before reading A.N. Ostrovsky's play "Dowry" I watched Eldar Ryazanov's film "Cruel Romance". This is my main mistake and main advantage. The film adaptation in itself is audacity, they say, not only understood, but also added in its own way. Actually, the very nature of drama involves co-creation (playwright, director, actors, artist, etc.).

Eldar Alexandrovich is a great hooligan. Maybe that's why - a brilliant director. I just started reading, and "Faces" appeared before my eyes by themselves: Alisa Freindlich, Larisa Guzeeva, Alexei Petrenko, Viktor Proskurin, Andrei Myagkov, Nikita Mikhalkov, Georgy Burkov ... On the one hand, there are many deviations from the text of the original source, and on the other are the living pages of the play. At a minimum, Ryazanov unwound Larisa's memories and Vozhevatov's story for a whole series. Which clearly shows how much more freedom the screenwriter has compared to the playwright. However, there is also the Volga, and the whistles of the "Swallow", and the gypsy funny songs, and the amazing spirit of the 19th century, winding with a thin veil. You trust Ryazanov unconditionally.

Even the title of the film is a kind of audacity. "Dowry" did not please. And by the way, as the omniscient Wikipedia says, cruel romance is a genre of Russian song that arose in the 19th century. "The peculiarity of this genre lies in the harmonious synthesis of the genre principles of a ballad, a lyrical song, a romance ... In a cruel romance, a little more than a dozen main plots can be distinguished. They differ from each other mainly in the causes of the tragedy, and the choice of endings is completely small: murder, suicide , the death of a hero from grief.

With the final, Eldar Aleksandrovich also acted in a hooligan way. Ostrovsky's Larisa is tormented for a whole page of text, cannot decide to rush into the Volga: "If someone killed me ... How good it is to die ...". And dying, with the last of his strength he says: “No, no, why ... Let them have fun, whoever has fun ... I don’t want to interfere with anyone! Live, live everything! You need to live, but I need to ... die ... I don’t complain about anyone, I don’t get offended by anyone ... you are all good people ... I love you all ... I love you all. (Sends a kiss) ". What does Larisa say in the film? Only "Thank you". And she doesn’t need to say anything else, because everything else - shown: how weakening Larisa slides her hands on the glass. Her enlightened childish eyes and frightened faces" good people"Knurov, Vozhevatova and Paratov. What other words are there?

And about music, of course. Even at the lecture, it was discussed that musical accompaniment plays an important role in Ostrovsky's plays in general, in "Dowry" in particular. But even here Ryazanov became self-willed. Paratov-Mikhalkov sings a gypsy song to the words of Rudyard Kipling, Larisa entertains guests at her name-days with romances to the verses of Ryazanov himself and Marina Tsvetaeva (what kind of Ryazan film without poetry Silver Age, and even forbidden?), and instead of "Do not tempt me unnecessarily ..." Baratynsky Larisa sings Akhmadullinsky "And in the end I will say ...", at the same time Glinka was exchanged for Andrei Petrov. Shaped bullying. But how accurate, organic, inalienable! In my opinion, Ryazanov embodied the musical element very accurately - music speaks, tells the story in its own way. In particular, by contrasts: at the beginning, the gypsies sing a lyrical song, and Olga, in tears, goes to Tiflis, where death awaits her at the hands of a jealous husband. When Karandyshev grabs a pistol and rushes to the pier, Kharita Ignatievna (oh, the most delightful Freindlich!) screams in horror to be stopped, a bravura march sounds in the background. And in the final - like Ostrovsky's - the corpse of Larisa and a cheerful choir of gypsies. Everything is sustained!

Summing up, I will add that Ostrovsky really great playwright, and Ryazanov is a great director. If you shoot film adaptations of the classics, then only in the same way as Eldar Ryazanov - willfully, hooligan-like and talented. So be sure to read "Dowry" and watch "Cruel Romance"!

DISCONFIRMATION

Don't tempt me unnecessarily
Alien to the disappointed
All the delusions of the old days!
I don't believe in assurances
I don't believe in love anymore
And I can't surrender again
Once changed dreams!
Do not multiply my blind longing,
Don't talk about the old
And, a caring friend, sick
Do not disturb him in his slumber!
I sleep, sleep is sweet to me;
Forget old dreams
In my soul there is one excitement,
And you will not awaken love.

Evgeny Baratynsky

Film company Duration A country

USSR

Language Year IMDb The release of the film "Cruel Romance"

"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, an elderly 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: Natalya 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, Evgeny Danilovich Surkov, published in " Literary newspaper"A devastating article, 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)

SUBJECT: Comparative analysis"Dowry" by A.N. Ostrovsky and "Cruel Romance" by E. Ryazanov

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.
This is the 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 mounting. 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 movie?
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 of the 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.