The winners of “Kinotavr” from “Student” to Teachers and important topics of Russian cinema
“Kinotavr”-2016 ended with the victory of the Comedy of growing up “Good boy” — while most of the rest of the films in the competition, on the contrary, signaled the problems of maturation already copyright. .ru” sums up the festival and is happy almost all the decisions of the jury, and especially — the prize for the best debut.
The festival jury, as you know, unpredictable — which was understandable, given the controversial nature of cinemachine: it is both a collective one, shared with neighbors in the audience experience and personal, subjective experience. And here to present the prizes, multiple people need to agree among themselves — so the consensus award are the most controversial (to far to walk for example, you can recall even the last Cannes film festival). However, the jury ended June 13 “Kinotavr” has managed to do is to select the most adequate — and, in fact, with his hands tied. Year for the domestic industry (and the festival in Sochi is the most accurate mirror of her state) was not the most productive. For one reason or another, took a break, went on TV or big-Studio projects the most interesting Directors, including Khlebnikov and Mizgirev, Khomeriki and Meshaninov, Bardeen and Popogrebsky, sigareva and Sayfullaeva — the list certainly goes on.
The Grand Prix of the “Kinotavr”, got “Good boy” Oksana Karas, can be considered a concession to popular films or classic example of a movie that no one in the jury is not hurt, and won, — but it will be a position somewhat short-sighted. The truth is, “Boy, do the audience (that is slim, stylish and more or less clearly fit into a genre beyond Comedy), not only, as we have already told, and aptly funny jokes about puberty principle of the ninth Koli (semen Treskunov) or comically belated growing up of the surrounding adults (performed by artists from Ephraim, and firing up Khabensky). The charm of the film is that, first, the processing of irony here are really sick of the topic (which, by the way, often built and the best samples of the Soviet Comedy) — total immaturity of Russian life, longing local heroic character for the imaginary justice for all, a common willingness to climb into someone else’s territory with morals without removing shoes. Which makes worthy of the main prizes of the “Boy” and its authors is also another excellent job writing Mestechko and Cantor) — they do not pretend that these illnesses have simple medicines, but to the story — unconditional happy ending. Although hopeless, address the issues raised in the film believes that offering its not enough to learn anything the heroes start to ask each other for forgiveness and be distracted by something, at least temporarily liberating. For example, a mass dance with elements of polka and lower breaks.
There is a certain logic in the fact that in high school, looking for a reflection of the Russian world and the winner of the second prize of the festival — the award for directing “the Apprentice” by Kirill Serebrennikov. Moreover, from a certain perspective even the plots of the two films are similar. Here, too, is not a measure of principled student starts to build those appointed to educate him. But given the fact that there where “good boy” Kohl was primarily interested in the issues of love, friendship and puberty, the hero of “Student” is taken from a Bible to spread the right faith, Serebrennikova, of course, have much more pathological and, in General, too accurate picture. Yes, by the tone and methods by which the Learner creates the picture, as we in detail wrote from Cannes, enough questions — from the chilling film the bands of theatricality to the monotony of formal methods. But it would be foolish to deny that “Student” — cinema directing shot by the person who knows what he wants and true to his vision. The same — that is, the presence of a coherent direction — the vast majority of other films-participants of the “Kinotavr” not to find at all.
Fair and prizes Constantine Habenskogo for his solo performance in “the Collector” Alexey Krasovsky (who took the prize for cinematography) and Natalia Pavlenkova for the exit from the tail in “Zoology” by Ivan Tverdovsky — without them, these movies simply would not exist. Knightley actually the only one in the “Header” appears in the frame — let the movie goes from interesting concept to a melodramatic cliché, the actor holds attention all the half hour. From Pavlenkovo in “Zoology” and does require heroism — not only to walk with a tail or in the form of running itself nedotykomka, but also to smooth, to make a heavy, almost unmanageable burden catchy, but controversial ideas fix Tverdovsky. The recall here is so the original part of the grotesque ties, how much more corny then prefers all the features of the trivial, greedy for revelation and surprise of the tragedy of universal misunderstanding and the impossibility of love.
In the contest “Kinotavr” this year was a record directing many of the first films from nine of the fourteen. The happier that noting the main prize with the shock of them, a special award for the best debut of the jury did not hesitate to give the most modest of the others — indeed, a documentary. “Strange work” by Denis Shabaev — the movie, maybe not the most spectacular, but always honest and from first to last frame do not lose sympathy for his main character, Tajik actor Farrukh, who came to Moscow to reunite with his family in suburban… squalid cabins and penny security work. In a foreign country interesting and sebesteny Central Asian handsome man is, to put it mildly, not in his place — first in an inconspicuous status of migrant workers, then completely in the dock.
Shabayev, a graduate of the workshop of Marina Razbezhkina, in full compliance with its covenants aloof watching someone else’s life voluntarily waives such frequent social documentary external, the author brought pathos and anguish. Empathy to Farrukh and his family is still inevitable, experience certificate still much more important and more valuable than any of morals and slogans. The wholeness and the concentration of humanity, this is perhaps the second, second only to the “Boy” film of the festival — it is a pity that the normal rental of this noble picture, most likely, ordered.
There are nevertheless solutions and a prize is somewhat controversial — and they both relate to the “Lights”, the full-length debut Ilya teacher (the author’s son “Walking” and “his wife’s Diary”). If “Good boy,” shows how to remove popular films — and not to indulge with the audience in a humiliating and ridiculous giveaway, “Lights”, on the contrary, to diligently pass on all the vices of movie, a haunting claim the mass. In the story, two provincial obalduev-moviegoers, objector and demobilization, kidnapped directly from the set of Dmitry Dyuzheva — to get him a movie and thereby save from the mayor and the raiders-chebotarjova the only one in her hole movie theater. Film Teacher claims the grotesque mixed with the splint — but still more reminiscent of a farce, to appease the popular taste, as it appears to the Director.
Vision is, quite frankly, suggests that the opinion of the Teacher about his audience is low. Homemade tape of characters similar to the Central Russian rip-off of “Twilight” jokes acuteness give don’t even drink, but “Sold out”, Dyuzhev only need to illustrate the anecdote “a famous person is drinking and swearing”, and the directing is on the verge of initiative — even though she’s busy. Specila for “the best movie about movies” can still be considered moderately witty joke jury (of other films about people with a camera in the competition simply was not). But the prize for the script for this provincial in all senses of the farce is a big, not entirely justified, an advance to the author.
Is it possible to make at the end of “Kinotavr”-2016 some strong statements about the current state of Russian cinema, especially in his own segment? High risk of slipping into the apocalyptic pathos — but it is better to follow the example of the winner of the festival and not to fall into hopelessness. The program was not outright incompetence, nor cheap conditions, no movies, shamelessly customized (commercial or ideological). Almost all films of the competition is found alive, one way or another the original grain of plot, theme or form and leads the majority does not lack the talent or the mind, but the fear of risk, fear of unpredictability, which is often preferred clichés, obvious pre-solution, truths or unsubstantiated posturing. Again, there’s a certain irony in the fact that both the major film festival just talking about the immaturity of our being — almost all while others have to cope with immaturity already copyright. But immature doesn’t mean rotten.