Burnt by the Sun 2

To tell the truth, I was not going to write about «Burnt by the Sun 2». Film is absolutely new, spectators’ ratings – there is no place more low. Moreover, I was not going to watch it the nearest five years because its author – Nikita Mikhalkov – has declared that this movie is “long-playing masterpiece” which can be understood only after the lapse of time. But due to the rough polemic expanded round N.Mikhalkov, one of my favourite directors and not only mine, I could not restrain and have watched both films. Well, and if I had watched it - it is necessary to share the thoughts and sensations.

At once I will tell – a general impression: a film – it is far not a masterpiece, which could be expected from Nikita Mikhalkov. But I also would not name it the complete nonentity after which watching you repent about waste time. The matter is, probably, in the person of the author round whom there is a lot of scandals last days: flashers, the tax for “pigs”, conflicts in the cinema society etc, etc. I.e. if this film has been made by any Vasya Pupkin, moreover for much more lower budget, the same film critics who do not leave a stone on a stone from a film, probably, would estimate it absolutely on another, awarding it such characteristics, as “avant-guard”, “popular print”, “parable” or still something so not clear.

Well, and now I will try to classify the sensations. First of all, about, we will tell so, the conceptual moments. I will begin, as it is accepted, «for health».

I, almost for the first time, have seen ALIVE Germans in these films. In what sense, alive? In our cinema there was somehow a stereotype of the German soldier: the thoughtless car of murder punctually executing orders of higher "Fuhrer". Such grey identical mass. And here we see the jeering and humiliating pilots, daring to break both flight instructions, and orders of the commander, and the tank-man throwing a chocolate to the boy-cadet, and quarrel of three soldiers at a well. And so on. I don’t undertake to judge, how much all it is plausible. But – it is unusual, non-standard, and consequently – it is interesting.

I also noticed at least an attempt to show the IMAGE of Stalin. The IMAGE, terrible, beast-like. How Stalin is usually shown in cinema? Not so beautiful, inexpressive old-guy with the non-russian accent, creating terrible affairs. And here, in my opinion, for the first time the external shape is shown well matched to performed evil deeds. I do not know, whose is a merit: the actor, the operator, the make-up artist or still whose, but a merit doubtless.

Well, and now, - "for the peace of". Unfortunately, in my opinion, there is a lot of conceptual misses in a picture, much more than successes. First of all, it was absolutely impossible to cling this film to a film masterpiece of 1994. I mean «Burnt by the Sun». That film – absolutely complete, finished product of motion picture arts. One of two tops of film creativity of Nikita Sergeevich (the second, or is righter, the first, as top I consider «An Unfinished Piece for Mechanical Piano»). And to "recover" heroes of an old film – blasphemy top. It would be clear, if about death of heroes of the first part (1994) someone from characters has told. Then in the second part it would be possible to justify their revival how it is made in a film. But in a film of 1994 AUTHORS have informed on death of the main characters in a final caption of a picture. And by that they have incurred responsibility for reliability of everything that inform us, spectators. Having «revived» heroes, they thereby have convincingly shown that it is impossible to TRUST to authors. That the death in a film, is absolutely ARTIFICIAL, JUST FOR FUN. And this is the main distinctive sign of “popcornity”. Differently, it is possible to hope safely that there will be a next sequel in which Evgenie Mironov’s hero will revive, and Sergey Garmash’s hero will come up. And if so it is necessary going to watch the next Mikhalkov’s film to lay up popcorn and beer in addition.

Another serious Mikhalkov’s miss, in my opinion, is Citadel explosion. I do not know what Mikhalkov wished to tell by the German Citadel has been destroyed not by fifteen thousand the simple Soviet people armed with sticks, but by the ridiculous accident generated by a small spider only. According to Mikhalkov, it turns out that a victory in that terrible war – just a certain accident. To me, the grandson of the soldiers who were lost in 1941 and 1942, is insulting to understand that their death meant nothing for a victory. That all the matter is – in a small spider. It seems to me, it not simply spittle, and fat tasty spitting to all front-line soldiers who have given their lives for a victory. Including to father of Nikita Mikhalkov.

One more miss is connected with chronology non-observance. Generally, this is just a little sin, but in where smaller scales is noticed in the first film of 1994. I mean the following. All film, since the name, penetrates a tango «The Tired Sun». Thus it is underlined both directly, and indirectly that action occurs in 1936. And the tango it has been performed for the first time by a jazz orchestra of Tsfasman only in 1937. Also it is the same year recorded down on a shellac. However, it is possible to explain it, for example, to that for the person approached to Stalin (Commander Kotov) in the single copy shellac has been written down a year earlier. So to say, everything could be possible. For example, comrade Zhdanov used to receive fresh peaches and apricots and other food being in blockade Leningrad. While the other people in Leningrad was dying of hunger. Everything could be possible for the persons closed to Stalin. So concerning a film of 1994 this chronological untidiness of authors can be characterised as a cavil, but concerning its continuation all is much more serious.

In a film of 1994 it is told that Nadya is 6 years old. Hence, she was born in 1930. Hence, in 1941 she is 11, and in 1943 – she is thirteen. And being thirteen years old the Soviet pioneer shows to the wounded fighter her tits?! It is already any not a popular print, not a parable, but any sermon of paedophilia turns out. Certainly, I am far from "sewing" to Nikita Sergeevich paedophilic moods, especially, concerning his own daughter. It was just necessary, if he wanted to draw a slice of glory from the first film, more carefully to study the film invoice. Or to select actors in compliance with age of heroes. Nothing terrible if Nadya was played by another – thirteen-year – girl. For example Victoria Tolstoganova played the role of Marusya instead of Ingeborga Dapkunaite has played. All right, we will explain in by all-consuming fatherly love to the daughter.

Though, for the sake of justice, it is necessary to notice that performance of Nadezhda Mikhalkov was delightful. Almost as it is delightful, as well as in the first film of 1994.

So far as I have passed to an estimation of actor’s works it is necessary to notice that again and again I do not cease to admire genius of two Russian actors: Evgeniy Mironov and Inna Churikova. Only to take pleasure in game of these two Actors from a capital letter, it was necessary to stay in front of the screen those 6 hours that there are two series of a film. It is interesting in Roman Madjanov role. Though, to tell the truth, you are sometimes confused: is hi in «Carnival Night - 2»? Or in «Irony of fate. Continuation»? Any very similar images turn out.

As distinctive feature of Mikhalkov’s films till now I considered brilliant game of all actor’s team. In this film, unfortunately, not all are at height. Dmitry Dyuzhev has frankly disappointed. Any continuous having blown instead of talented game inherent to him. Not clearly, what for it was necessary for the great actors of the Russian scene as Valentine Gaft and Alexey Petrenko to agree on bit parts almost without words. Well, unless, only to rescue obviously failure project? So to say, to cover with bodies?

Well, and summing up told, I wish to underline about that wrote in the beginning a post: a film ambiguous. There are also pluses, there are also minuses. Minuses exceed pluses, and minuses are more considerable. Therefore in vain, probably, Nikita Sergeevich abuse on Department of State of the USA which, ostensibly, has organised anti-Mikhalkov’s campaign in mass media. Seemingly Department of State has another business. I, though also Nikita’s old admirer, have seen mistakes and its misses and as I could, has described them. Although I have no any connection with the Department of State of the USA.