Feature film "Live": reviews of critics and viewers

Today the Russian film industry is living by world trends. Most filmmakers celebrate the laziness of the modern viewer, who prefers television to a hike in the cinema. Drama as such was popular in the 60-90s of the last century. Now the pictures have another task - to entertain, and the age at which the distributors are oriented is 12-25 years old.

The niche of "adult" cinema is gradually occupied by television series. This is very sad, but the fact remains. Despite this, both abroad and in Russia there are creators trying to convey the idea through the screen. And they have their fans and admirers.

Live at any cost

The film "To Live" Bykov is an acute social philosophical drama. The director himself sees his purpose in creating such paintings, although he is well aware that this kind of art is going through hard times.

The film clearly has nothing to do with the mainstream - it's arthouse "from and to", as, indeed, other works of this master. I must say that among the public interested in the cinema Bykov gained popularity and admirers - his work is interesting and recognizable.

The director himself in an interview confessed that he was very attracted by the theme of human imperfection - the picture called "Live" was not an exception. The essence of the film, briefly, is to demonstrate how fragile the moral principles become when a person's life is threatened. In the overwhelming majority of cases it turns out that neither dignity, nor the declared faith in God, nor good nature as a character trait are able to suppress the instinctive desire to survive at any cost.

Staging the plot

The plot is simple to schematic: the elderly hunter Michael, having got out on a hunt with his beloved dog, turns out, as they say, "at the wrong time at the wrong place". In the forest, he encounters a young man named Andrei, who is rescued from several thugs chasing him. Next, the elderly and young heroes try to hide together - first by Michael's car, and then - by foot (when the car gets bogged down in the mud).

Characters are the opposite worlds: Andrew is always trying to demonstrate his own cynicism, Mikhail is his opponent. Hunter says that he believes in God, visits the church, he has a family to which he is attached. That is, the author of the film shows us an ordinary average person who does not lack moral standards. In any case, it is obvious that he has a clear idea about them.

Morality and circumstances

About how the morality gradually recedes into the background and ceases to guide the actions of the hero, and the picture "Live" shows: the film of Yuri Bykov, reviews of which are generally positive (albeit very different), step by step opens to the viewer, what is capable of A person in adverse circumstances.

Michael in this sense "progresses", within one day giving up everything that the human civilization gave to man. First, he takes the first step on the road to betrayal: agrees to kill a dog that can bark to give out fugitives. The episode in which it is strangled by a young companion of a hunter, caused fierce disputes among the public.

Part of the audience agreed that such an act was necessary: when the life of a person is at stake, it is normal to bring the animal to the victim. Others do not agree with this statement of the question, considering that the situation can (and should be) resolved differently. Still others, after watching the film "Live" Bykov, their comments were devoted to finding out whether the dog actually suffered.

Animals or people

I must say that the realism of the material is really shaking. The cruelty of the scene causes a very unpleasant feeling, all reviewers note this, arguing only about how much the episode was necessary for revealing the theme of the film.

The next test for Michael is a fisherman, who is fishing on the opposite shore of the lake. While Andrew crosses the river, the hunter must keep the lover of the fly fishing so that the young accomplice can take away his car keys or get permission to take them to the city.

A difficult choice

As a result, the fisherman manages to escape: Mikhail could not shoot - after that the hunter remains in place (and he is caught by bandits), and the second hero runs on alone. By the will of fate they have to meet again, and then Andrei changes his hostage (one of the pursuers) to a hunter, thereby saving Mikhail life. Then they again run together and are pushed into a corner on an abandoned farm.

After Andrew is out of the game, struck by an epileptic fit, the bandit leader suggests that Mikhail kill the "partner" in exchange for his own life - and after a short internal struggle the shot still rings. Bandits leave, and devastated by unexpected events of the day, the hunter continues his journey alone, throwing a rifle along the road.

Kill to survive

I must say that such an act of the hero was found in the overwhelming majority of viewers: many believe that in the situation in which Mikhail found himself, "only a saint could do otherwise". A rare work evokes such philosophically colored reflections as the film "To Live": the reviews literally compete with the degree of depth and abstractness.

The audience reflects on the futility of human existence, and on the illusory nature of the moral "superstructures" that distinguish man from the beast. It is said a lot that almost everyone will kill another person to save their lives. It is noteworthy that many people separately stipulate that the murdered person was "an outsider", "a stranger", for whose sake it is ridiculous to sacrifice himself.

Impressions of viewing

This is the story that the film "Live" tells us about. The reviews point out some schematic plot, as well as the "attractiveness" of individual episodes. For example, Andrei's attacks were criticized (they say, too deliberately the director leads Michael to murder).

In general, the film "Live" Bykov (in spite of the obvious "chamberiness" of the film), is estimated positively by the audience.

The main criterion of the audience is still a factor in the push for reflection. Many commentators state that after the appearance of the credits, they began to think a lot about themselves, including the frailty of their own existence. Some simply "offered prayers so as not to get into the situation in which heroes of Yuri Bykov turned out to be," because they are honest enough with themselves to understand that they would do the same in the similar situation.

Condemn, forgive, transfer to society

Few found the strength to condemn Michael. Perhaps this once again shows the self-criticism of the audience. The director himself believes this state of affairs is the moral degradation of society, the dying of the knightly attitude towards life (which, he claims, was never in Russia).

Bykov himself is the person who created the film "Live" (the testimony about which shows that everyone understood the story in his own way), confessed his desire to demonstrate that those who live in harmony with the world around him were just lucky. In this there is no personal merit of a person, he just did not get into the appropriate circumstances where he could manifest himself. In order to cope with the pressure, units are capable, but, as already mentioned above, Bykov chose the human weakness for his theme.

It should be separately noted that the director's intention found understanding from his viewer: many reviews contain a similar or identical thought. Another question is that commentators do not feel reflexion about this, while the director apparently tried to achieve such an effect.

The director's vision and the court of the public

I must say, not everyone agrees with the director's vision. Nevertheless, I liked the film. The angry cries that "it is immoral", "why remove it", etc. - in an absolute minority, which can not but rejoice.

In addition to the main idea, which the creators wanted to convey to their viewers, the means by which this was done were also noted.

From the point of view of artistic value, the film "Live" received different reviews. Part of the audience noted the quality game, frames, "which can be printed and hung on the wall." Other, more finicky connoisseurs, noted a number of weaknesses: for example, a bad picture in the episode with a fisherman.

Symbolism of the film

In search of deep meaning, individual commentators try to generalize the events of the film, to give them a certain symbolism: the ease with which Mikhail killed his partner, they believe, shows the depth of the moral decline of Russian society. The general impression of gloom and desolation is the abomination of harsh reality, symbolized by an empty, abandoned farm.

The answer to the question of why Mikhail was supposed to die, but not kill Andrei, was not obtained anyway, although there are reviews that lead him to search in the religious context of the film. The elderly hunter claims that he believes in God, but it turns out that closer to him was a burned atheist and cynic Andrew: he saved the life of Michael, and he hesitated for a short time before killing his savior.

Two different kinorimir

It should be noted that there is another film with the same name, the author of which is Vasily Sigarev. This film tries to answer another question: "How to overcome the trouble?". Three heroes of the picture lost loved ones: a small boy - father, a girl - a young man, a mother - daughters. All of them must somehow live with it, and everyone faces with their own hell.

The action takes place against the backdrop of poverty, dirt and other horrors of the Russian outback, which, for the most part, has not the slightest idea of those who leave reviews on the Internet. The heap of negativity played a significant role in the audience's assessments. Perhaps because of this the film "Live" 2012 (reviews testify to the shock experienced by the audience) has not gained many sympathies.

Despite the difference in meaning, there are two similar films in common. The most obvious is the appeal to the problem of indifference. Each of us closes in our own world, having little interest in the "outside" person, to such an extent that we come to the conclusion that it can even be killed. This is demonstrated by the film "Live" shot by Bykov: the 2010 testimonies clearly demonstrate the willingness of people to sacrifice a stranger, because the commentators do not feel any responsibility towards him.

Painting Sigareva calls for this "stranger" to look at, sympathize with him - this is the later film "Live." Critics' reviews of the professional world clearly leaned toward the 2012 tape. This is evidenced by a set of awards. If the work of Yuri Bykov earned them only two (Smolensk Festival "Golden Phoenix" in the nomination "Debut" and a special prize of the general producer of the festival "Amur Autumn"), the film "Live" (2012), reviews about which in the performance of the audience were much more severe , Became the winner of the festival in Wiesbaden, and also received a number of prizes for the best directorial, camera and actor's work.