Whose opinion won

Sure, he wants to participate in the contest, and all the regular readers of «Soviet screen» tenth number is always waiting with a special look — a number that summarizes the survey. Learn about them, some are disappointed — were in the minority, while others are happy — their opinion «victory», that is coincided with the opinion of the majority.

This time the first two places in the list of winning films took pictures around which raged the greatest passion in their display screens, faced the most polar opinions. The dispute was on the pages of newspapers and magazines, on the spectators’ conferences and natural discussions at work and at home.

It was in the letters he received edited in connection with the competition. Many authors are not limited to filling out the questionnaire and sent detailed comments to it justify their estimates. In these letters, anyway, analyzed more than fifty «competitive» movies. But the greatest number of written responses — both positive and negative — called «A Cruel Romance» and «Scarecrow.»

These responses were, of course, carefully studied the editors. In future publications of the magazine to them, I may have to come back again and again. Now, thinking about the competition in general, we will mention only some of the trends that allow to «decode» the election results.

First of all, the letters with a positive assessment of «cruel romance» and «Scarecrow» overwhelming majority. And it is interesting that the film «Scarecrow» responded, as ever, a lot of men. Usually they are, as we know, it is much less likely than women to take up the pen. And, more importantly, a lot of letters from kids — peer or near-peer heroine Lena Bessoltsevoy tape, that is precisely the spectators, whose opinion is particularly concerned opponents of the film: whether they realize it really is a very difficult work. The survey found that those who responded, correctly understood.

«Of course, for example, we have not seen a similar class — assemblage of violent teens, but in some there are such people. There Shmakov, Val, Marisha. Som Mironov is! Each character is concentrated integer. In addition, «Stuffed» touches on many topical issues, and answer many of the questions raised there, the creators give us young people «- so wrote the students 8th grade 3. Natalia and Elena K.

There are answers and responses among the authors of letters, who believe that in the film there is not and can not be in my life. In response could result in the whole confession. Let us quote at least one of them. «I myself personally witnessed how the hunted girl … I betrayed her, as Dima Somov! It took many years (I was then in the 5th grade) and I forgot about it but after watching this film, I remembered. I was very ashamed. More such movies! «(Student of 10th class Anya).

Such responses, confession can be reduced in response to the film «Look,» took third place. But it’s not just that the partial bearing pain for the person the film can cause someone to direct association with their lives. Of course, in the experience of most of us it is difficult to find parallels with the drama Lena Bessoltsevoy («Scarecrow»), Tatiana and her son («Look») and Larissa from the «cruel romance». But the artist does not write the minutes of life, he illuminates the life of a beam of aesthetic and moral ideal that professes. And depending on where he directs the beam — that it is necessary to approve or that he wanted to eradicate the human soul — and spread the paint work.

According to the movie, alleging Welcome straight through positive start, debate usually does not happen. Among them, the readers deservedly marked «Lyubov Orlova», «White Dew» «Wartime Romance». In the film «Lyubov Orlova» we must confess, waiting for letters, especially from the older generation, and write a warm and sincere young!

The nature and results of any such survey, of course, relative. With our personal, such as point of view, on the right could be included in this list are, for example, the tape as «Happy Eugene!» Or «very important person.»

But today came the leader movies acute dramatic intensity, open even violent passions. They certainly accepted by the majority. Many viewers chitateli- thank the authors of films is acute problem for mental anxiety caused by them, which do not accept other spectators. «And my friend said, I do not think it can be so cruel … And do not say a word all the way home» — this is the «Cruel Romance». Is not it true — expensive praise.

However, with a rating of «cruel romance» is not so simple. Many fans of the film responses caused by the desire to protect him from criticism, as it seems to the authors, unfair. Disputes with An. Makarov («Brilliant and bezel», «SE» №24, 1984) with the participants of the discussion in the «Literary Gazette,» a local newspaper reviewers. They argue, sometimes not realizing that not accepting the film did not receive it mainly from one perspective: E. Ryazanov showed Heroes is not quite as good as the written AN Ostrovsky. And more — argue about the permissible limits in the interpretation of classics.

This is a complex issue and its complexity is spoken by all the discussion about the film adaptation, in the history of cinema. After all, the director does not «from the ceiling» takes its own interpretation, believed in the letters hottest and categorical opponents of his concept. (From «SE» number 4, 1985. E. Ryazanov showed how contradictory was a stage and screen life «Bride» for 100 years.)

In literary studies there is a concept "canon «of the text, but, you see, there is and can be the canonical interpretation. Frankly, we are on the side of those viewers who not only compared the «Cruel Romance» with a certain standard (whether the film JA Protazanov «Bride»), and saw him also as an independent work.

These viewers have expressed their opinion: excellent grades gave 65.7% of participants, the bad and posredstvennye- 8.2%. But we can not remain silent, that among these responses occur, and those that are unlikely to meet the authors. «In this Paratov fall in love all the women in the audience, despite its cruelty and meanness.» And even: «Paratov — positive hero of our time.»

The film, as you have read above, won three People’s Choice Award: for the fine solution for the music and for the main male role. In letters accompanying the questionnaire addressed to E. Ryazanov, the operator B. Alisova composer Andrei Petrov, actor N. Mikhalkov and other performers — virtually all roles said a lot of warm and accurate analysis of the author’s intention words. But for the sake of fairness, we should note that absolutely deserved, in our opinion, the victory of N. Mikhalkov there is in some way and «merit» of Sergei Sergeyevich Paratov. As one reader put it: «And I, as Larissa, believed that the gloss. Although we face a predator, a merchant who will not miss her. Yes it hurts his good skin. «

Of course, right, those viewers who claimed in the letter that every phenomenon, shown on the screen, including the negative, should be embodied artistically organically, be internally logical and holistic. Therefore, everyone should be able to analyze how the viewer’s emotions, learn to distinguish the external from the fact that, being a man of our time, not to stay even while watching in the «dark kingdom» Paratov. We share the position of the vast majority of viewers who indicated-a rarity in the competition! — N. Mikhalkov as a performer is negative role. He realized how beautiful it is an absolute majority, the power of mastery uncovers a terrible phenomenon which continues in some places to nest and today, including in the souls of some «fans» «Cruel Romance», not razglyadevshy his revelatory pathos.

N. Gundareva won the Audience Award for the third time. (Earlier, in 1977 and 1981). The film, in which she snyalas- «Offered for Singles» — took the place is not the first and ninth, although it is also a great honor.

Authors of letters of response to the movie «Lonely granted residence», ignoring his comedy (perhaps not clearly identified in the art of the picture), considering only the dramatic situation as life: a lot of thinking about what is good or bad will happen if our lives will organized matchmaking.

Incidentally, one of the readers said that it (which does not happen!) Was a real participant in almost the same story as the commandant of the hostel. And confirms the usefulness of the case, which deals with faith, character N. Gundarevoj. But other readers (reader), relating to the complex problems of communication and loneliness is very serious, seen in the film, even a kind of humiliation of women’s dignity. It is certainly unfair, but, apparently, often said: the film has not found support among the age groups, which he first addressed.

But everyone who wrote about the movie release «a fresh, unconventional» play an actress. «It is generally always very truthful, even in small things …» We join these opinions and congratulate N. Gundareva third victory.

Best Performer bit parts named L. Akhedzhakova (1st place) and L. Yarmolnik (2nd place) for the film «Copper Angel». The roles played by them vividly expressive. Analyzing the results of this and previous competitions, it can be assumed that in a small role viewers appreciate catchy expression, gravitating to the eccentric.

Many participants of the competition, particularly long-standing offer to enter the prize for best debut actor. If such competition existed, judging by the letters, the prize could claim L. Guzeeva (Larissa in «Cruel Romance») and D. Goldfinches (Victor in «Look»), as well as the young Karl Aguilera, which some general was named best actress. However, I think there should still comply with the measure: Cristina has not yet been an actress, a schoolgirl.

We think editors should think about the future and the introduction of such a question. Although some readers believe that the columns of the competition and it is too much. Some write that it is difficult to attribute to a specific genre of movies (sometimes!), Others — that in some genre «cells» now too empty (also happens!), And others — that is not the case viewers to evaluate individual components of the film. But this much we do not want to accept!

The contest is aimed at not only reflect our current tastes, but also to develop them that, ultimately, it is important to us and to you, the readers and viewers, and the whole cinema. Would agree with the limitation of their role, those who love and know how to analyze the films, making it often on a professional level.

All audiences are different. «Judges» to 14 pet was named best film «Secret» Blackbirds «. The remaining identified it only among investigators. Three age groups of men and two — women named among the five best films of «The Coast.» The remaining isolated among his military and patriotic. We think underestimated. And the theme, and artistic solution of the film is much wider. Schoolgirl Tatiana S., 16 years old, wrote: «For me and I think a lot of people this film is a reminder.» SN Nikolaev from Osipovichi Byelorussian SSR calls its event.

Yes, thirty-five thousand participants of the contest this year, people are different. But for that we are going together, and in the auditorium, and the magazine to speak, listen — the artist, the critic, the viewer — and learn something new about each other, about myself, about humanity.

The winners are named. Who’s next?

Like this post? Please share to your friends: