Comparison of the film is a cruel romance and a play without a dowry. Creative work of students (Grade 10) on the topic: “Seagulls over the masts with screams curl ...” Screen adaptation as an interpretation of a literary work (on the example of the feature film E
the USSR
"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 the provincial town of 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. The richest merchant of the city Knurov (Alexey Petrenko) is staring at the girl, but he is married, and although Harita Ignatievna uses his interest in her 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 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 theatrical 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 a devastating article in Literaturnaya Gazeta, 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 “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 latitude,” 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 named Surkov negative character his next film "Forgotten Melody for 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 when working on the film, great importance was attached to
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 fairy 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) |
The text of the work is placed without images and formulas.
The full version of the work is available in the "Job Files" tab in PDF format
1. Introduction
A person begins to get acquainted with the book at a young age and does not part with it all his life. Through books we learn about various historical events, about the life and culture of our ancestors. Thanks to books, we study various sciences that open doors to the future for us. In a word, the role of the book, of course, is great for every person, young and old. Analyzing works of art, we learn what kindness, mercy, love, friendship, evil, hatred are. But can we say that the book is indispensable? If we had been asked this question 120 years ago, we would definitely have answered yes. But life does not stand still, new sources of information appear, technologies develop, human knowledge deepens. So, already in 1895, cinema began to emerge, which is now becoming an alternative to the book. In connection with the development of the film industry and the change in the pace of life, people began to read less and more and more began to get acquainted with works of art based on films. At the same time, viewers may not be aware that when creating a film or TV show, the director can use his copyright, moving away from storyline that were described by the author in the original work. In the end, we can see a completely different reading of the work. So can the movie replace the book? Let's look at this problem on specific works of art.
1.1. Objective
To study and identify the features of the film by Eldar Ryazanov "Cruel Romance" and the play by A.N. Ostrovsky "Dowry". To analyze, based on a sociological survey, whether a film can replace a book.
1.2. Tasks
1. Study reviews of the film "Cruel Romance" and critical reviews of Ostrovsky's work "Dowry"
2. Analyze and compare a number of images in works, identify similarities and differences in the image main character
3. Find out the role of musical accompaniment in the film and in the work of art
4. Conduct a sociological survey on the topic "What is more interesting: a film or a book?"
1.3. Research methods.
1.Search method.
2. Analysis of a work of art and a film.
3. Questionnaire
4. Comparative and comparative method.
1.4 Subject of study.
A film by Eldar Ryazanov "Cruel Romance" and a play by A.N. Ostrovsky "Dowry"
1.5 Relevance.
We live in the 21st century - the century of developing technologies and great opportunities. Now many schoolchildren are increasingly resorting to watching films based on works of art without reading the work. And most likely, many of them do not know that the book and the film can differ. This work can help to see this difference and interest students so that they want to read the book.
2. The main part.
2.1 Review of criticism on the play "Dowry"
No work of art is without criticism. It can completely change our worldview, our thoughts, make us love the work we read even more, or, conversely, push us away from it. As A.S. Pushkin, “criticism is the science of discovering beauty and flaws in works of art and literature. It is based on a perfect knowledge of the rules by which an artist or a writer is guided in his works, on a deep study of models and on the active observation of modern remarkable phenomena.
Criticism, of course, is not only a part of science, but also of literature. Criticism is related to art by the fact that it is a sphere of creativity, becomes the self-expression of the author, involves the use of figurative and expressive means similar to those of literature. However, criticism is separate from literature in the same way that any description is separate from the subject. Common property of criticism and science - exploratory character, the desire to discover objective truth, the use of analytical operations to study the subject. The development of criticism directly depends on the development of scientific ideas, primarily philological ones). However, science has only one setting - research, cognitive, and criticism has other goals. Among them, the most specific are the evaluative goal (judgment about the quality of the subject - the work under study) and aesthetic - the manifestation of certain views on art and / or criticism (reading) in other words, Criticism teaches the reader to read; criticism teaches the writer to write; criticism often seeks to teach society through literary examples).
Often literary critics comprehend and shape themselves literary process, explain it, dare to foresee and forestall it.
We analyzed the critical statements of A.N. Ostrovsky's contemporaries about his drama "Dowry" (1878)
1. An excerpt from an article from the Novoye Vremya newspaper:
“Is it really worth Mr. Ostrovsky to waste his strength and his time on a dramatic reproduction of a banal, old, uninteresting story about a stupid, seduced girl? .. Those who expected a new word, new types from a respectable playwright were cruelly mistaken; instead of them, we got renewed old motives, got a lot of dialogue instead of action" (November 18, 1878)
2. The statement of the critic P. D. Boborykina:
“We repeat once again that this piece cannot by any means be considered one of the best in Ostrovsky’s theater<...>Her moral intention cannot be placed side by side with the homogeneous intentions of The Poor Bride and The Pupil. (Russkiye Vedomosti, March 23, 1879).
3. Saying critic Makeev:
“Creating a scandalous and touching story, .... Ostrovsky builds the usual plot for his previous plays: a struggle for a bride, a young marriageable girl, between several rivals. An astute critic and reader, both in the main character and in contenders for her favor, easily considered the modification of roles familiar from previous plays .... However, while remaining recognizable, the initial situation is modified to become a new story with an original problem. What is the change - the reader will immediately learn from the exposition: outwardly, the struggle is already in the past, the engagement took place, and the hand of the heroine went to one of the applicants, a small official, preparing for service in a place even more deaf and distant than the city of Briakhimov itself. With what ends, for example, the comedy "Labor Bread" and a host of other Ostrovsky's comedies, the drama "Dowry" is just beginning.
The "Dowry" has a strange fate. Initially accepted by critics as an ordinary play, it eventually became a universally recognized masterpiece, which is still popular with playwrights and is often staged in modern theaters.
The difficult fate of the painting by Eldar Ryazanov "Cruel Romance" (1984) based on the play "Dowry":
"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 theatrical critics, who accused its creators of vulgarizing the original play and mocking Russian classics. It seemed 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 Don Juan" Paratov, after which the hysterical Karandyshev shoots her in the back. An authoritative film critic at that time, Yevgeny Danilovich Surkov, published a devastating article in Literaturnaya Gazeta, 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.”
2.2 Analysis and comparison of the characters of the play and the film
Let's try to figure out what could cause such discontent among critics, and we'll start by analyzing and comparing a number of images in the works.
Drama N.A. Ostrovsky |
Film by E. Ryazanov |
||
"a brilliant gentleman, from the shipowners, over 30 years old." "... a tight-fitting black single-breasted frock coat, high patent leather boots, a white cap, a travel bag over his shoulder ...". This is a person accustomed to wealth, who is ready to do anything for the sake of money, even to lose the most precious thing - freedom. This is a generous and sociable gentleman, who is very much appreciated in society. Under the noble mask of Paratov lies his ability, for the sake of his own whim and satisfaction of his ambitions, to trample on someone else's self-esteem and even someone else's life. A "cute" bastard with a broad soul, capable of strong feelings, but not capable of decisive actions, a slave of Fate and a very weak person who has no support in life. In Ostrovsky's play, Paratov simply seduces Larisa with words so that she gives them pleasure with her company at a picnic, and then cynically leaves her, the moral core. |
(actor Nikita Mikhalkov) "a brilliant gentleman, from the shipowners, over 40 years old." The clothes are dominated by white. (color-goodness, peace and light.) Paratov is shown as the ideal of Larisa (a bright, strong, rich, charming, gallant, resolute, amiable person), but at the same time he is hypocritical and frivolous. In the film adaptation of Ryazanov, the hero of Mikhalkov is full of suffering - he leaves with tears in his eyes |
||
Karandyshev (Andrey Myagkov) |
"a young man, a poor official" This man, naturally intelligent and enlightened, has been the object of the most shameless and brazen buffoonery for many years, so he decides to marry Larisa in order to increase his authority in society, to show his moral superiority. Insatiable pride, wounded pride suppress all other heart movements in Karandyshev. Even his love for Larisa turns into an occasion for the triumph of vanity. |
The postal clerk, a middle-aged man, is morbidly proud. He is stupid, poor, petty ambitious. Causes a feeling of disgust and pity. |
|
Vozhevatov (Victor Proskurin) |
“a very young man, one of the representatives of a wealthy trading firm; European in costume. “talkative because he is still young; engages in cowardice. He is cold to Larisa, the feeling of love is alien to him. The measure of human generosity is connected with the measure of the alienation of the individual from the world that surrounds him. He is immoral and indifferent. The main thing in his life is money. He treats Ogudalova like a toy, as he allowed himself to control her fate. (plays with Knurov in Orlyanka) |
One of the representatives of a rich trading company, over 30 years old. Clothes are no different from other heroes. Vozhevatov is always next to Larisa, but is indifferent to her and her problems. He perceives Ogudalova as entertainment, a good companion. |
|
Knurov (Alexey Petrenko) |
"one of the big businessmen of recent times, an elderly man, with a huge fortune." Held proudly, arrogantly, accustomed to high society and communicates with few people in the provinces. Most of the time Knurov spends in Moscow, St. Petersburg or abroad. |
A big businessman and middle-aged man with a huge fortune, married. He perceives Larisa as a good companion. Generous, indifferent. |
2.3 IMAGE OF THE MAIN HEROINE
The image of the main character Larisa Ogudalova in the play and the film is presented in different ways.
Larisa ----- meaningful name: translated from Greek, it is a seagull. In the play "Dowry" - this is a young girl from a poor family, pure, loving life, artistically gifted, collides with the world of businessmen, where beauty is bought and sold, is desecrated. Larisa is poor, she is a dowry, and this determines her tragic fate. She is extremely open and simple-minded, does not know how to cunning and cannot hide her feelings from others. Larisa Ogudalova is a fragile, light and unprotected girl. The main character sings beautifully, plays the piano, guitar. With her art, she is able to touch the callous hearts of heroes for a moment. Dreamy and artistic, Larisa tends not to notice, not to see the vulgar sides in people, she perceives the world through the eyes of the heroine of the romance and wants to live and act in accordance with it.
In the climactic scene of the drama, Larisa sings to Paratov a romance based on the verses of Boratynsky "Do not tempt me unnecessarily." In the spirit of this romance, she perceives both the character of Paratov and her relationship with him. For her, there is only a world of pure passions, selfless love, charm. In her eyes, an affair with Paratov is a story about how, shrouded in mystery and mystery, the fatal seducer, despite the pleas of Larisa, tempted her.
As the action develops in the drama, the discrepancy between the romantic ideas of Larisa and the prosaic world of people surrounding her and worshiping her grows. These people are complex and contradictory in their own way. And Knurov, and Vozhevatov, and Karandyshev are able to appreciate beauty, sincerely admire talent. Paratov, a shipowner and a brilliant master, it is not by chance that Larisa seems to be the ideal man. Paratov is a man of a wide soul, giving himself up to sincere hobbies, ready to put at stake not only someone else's, but also his own life.
Challenging Paratov's fickleness, Larisa is ready to marry Karandyshev. She also idealizes him as a person with a good soul, poor and misunderstood by others. But the heroine does not feel the wounded, conceited, envious basis in Karandyshev's soul. After all, in his relationship with Larisa there is more proud triumph than love.
At the end of the drama, Larisa has an epiphany. When she learns with horror that they want to make her a kept woman, that Knurov and Vozhevatov are playing tricks on her, the heroine utters the fatal words: "Thing ... yes, thing. They are right, I am a thing, not a person." Larisa will try to rush into the Volga, but she lacks the strength to carry out this intention: "Parting with life is not at all as easy as I thought. There are no strengths! That's how unhappy I am! But there are people for whom it's easy." In a fit of despair, Larisa is only able to throw a painful challenge to the world of profit and self-interest: "If you are a thing, then there is only one consolation - to be expensive, very expensive."
And only Karandyshev's shot returns Larisa to herself: "My dear, what a boon you have done for me! A gun here, here on the table! It's me myself ... myself ... Oh, what a boon! .." In Karandyshev's careless act she finds a manifestation of a living feeling and dies with words of forgiveness on her lips.
The role of Larisa Ogudalova played by a young actress Larisa Guzeeva. She is young, beautiful, perhaps too emotional, which is especially noticeable in sad, tragic scenes. She was able to deeply convey the image of her heroine, perhaps because Ogudalova was close to Larisa Guzeeva. In the play, Ogudalova is shown as a victim of love, gifted with a nature, abandoned by Paratov for some reason. But Ryazanov explains why Sergey Sergeevich treated her so cruelly. There are many scenes in the film where Larisa almost bows before Paratov, not only remembering pride, but also self-esteem. The most indicative in this regard was the episode when Paratov shot at the clock in Larisa's hands. According to the play, Ogudalova tells the hated Karandyshev that Paratov asked to be her target with the words: "... I will shoot the girl who is dearest to me in the world ..." In the film, she herself volunteered for the role of this girl. In Ostrovsky's play, Larisa sang Paratova under Karandyshev, and at Ryazanov's, she sang songs in the face of her lover.
2.4. The role of musical accompaniment in a play.
The image of the main character is inextricably linked with music. She plays the piano and the guitar, besides, she sings beautifully, she deeply experiences what she performs, so that she awes and delights her listeners. Ostrovsky portrayed Larisa in his play in such a way that in the mind of the reader her image is inextricably merged with the romance. In studies devoted to "Dowry", the authors most often pay attention to the fact that Larisa sings a romance to the words of Baratynsky. However, Larisa's first romance is Gurilev's romance to the words of Nirkomsky "Mother, my dear, my sun, Have pity, dear, your child!" Already the very beginning, the intonation of the work testify to its relationship with folk song. The heroine, in the words of the romance, turns to her own mother with a request for protection and salvation. Such is the tradition folk poetry, and Larisa knows her. The second romance "Do not tempt ..." to the words of Baratynsky, of course, is addressed to Paratov and sounds like a plea for pity and indulgence. This elegy is dominated by disappointment, fatigue of the soul, inability to seduce love. The romance can be seen as the key to the heroine's drama. Larisa's singing is the voice of a suffering soul. The girl in the play, having a high romantic feeling for Paratov, tried, but could not come to terms with the role of the bride of an unloved person, whom her mother kept in the house "just in case".
romances (and in the climactic scene of Larisa's singing at dinner, actress Larisa Guzeeva sings the romance "And in the end I will say ..." to the verses of B. Akhmadulina, and not the romance "Do not tempt me without need" to the verses of E. Baratynsky, given in the drama), which are symbolic . Generally is one of its indisputable and striking virtues. Romances occupy an important place in the film adaptation. Thanks to these romances, the film itself sounded like a whole big romance. According to E. Ryazanov, "the musical and sound environment helped to create a poetic, tense, sometimes painful, in some places oppressive atmosphere of the picture." Not in vain and movie title - "Cruel Romance" - contains a reminder of this musical genre.
Perhaps Ryazanov wanted to show tragic story life of a dowry as a sad, heavy, piercingly painful song: a romance about the soulless, ruthless and cruel material world, which is why he called his film not just romance, namely cruel romance. The film contains romances based on poems by B. Akhmadulina (“Romance about romance”, “And in the end I will say”, “Snow Maiden”), M. Tsvetaeva (“Under the caress of a plush blanket”), R. Kipling (“And the gypsies are coming” ( "The Shaggy Bumblebee")) and E. Ryazanov himself ("Love is a Magical Land"). The music was written by A. Petrov. It is a well-known fact that after the release of the film adaptation in 1984, they also released records by the company Melodiya and audio cassettes Svema with romances from the film, which immediately sounded in all corners of the country. Ryazanov replaces the romances that we see in Ostrovsky’s drama, “making a kind of correction for the era, for the mood of contemporary audiences.<…>The romances emphasize the modernity of the film, the conventionality of the time and place of action. Ryazanov embodied the musical element very precisely - the 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, Harita Ignatievna screams in horror to stop, a bravura march sounds in the background. And in the final - like Ostrovsky's - the corpse of Larisa and a cheerful choir of gypsies.
As Ryazanov himself wrote, great importance is attached to “the daring gypsy element, which, bursting 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 troubles, misfortunes.
2.5 Results of the sociological survey
In order to find out people's opinions about these two wonderful works, we conducted a survey in which we asked the following questions:
Have you read the play by A.N. Ostrovsky "Dowry"?
Have you watched E. Ryazanov's film "Cruel Romance"?
What do you think is more interesting, the movie or the book?
Can a movie replace a book?
The survey was conducted electronically using an Internet information resource, the respondents were sent a link to the website (https://ru.surveymonkey.com/), respectively, they could answer the questions using a smartphone or computer.
30 people took part in our survey, 77% of them were women and 23% were men. The largest number of respondents are schoolchildren (43%), followed by adults aged 41 and over (30%), and the rest are people aged 20 to 40 (27%)
Of all the respondents, about 77% read the play by A.N. Ostrovsky, approximately the same number of respondents watched the film "Cruel Romance" (about 73%)
In order to find out the answer to the question that interests us: what is more interesting a book or a movie? We have provided the following answers:
Of course the movie -23.33%
Sure book -26.67%
The film complements the book 50.00%
It was nice to know that in the age of information and modern technologies the film is not capable of replacing the book, but it was also striking to note that half of the respondents answered that the film complements the book.
Also, caring visitors to the site left the following comments:
Reading a book, you can invent images yourself
The film does not convey all the beauty and poignancy of the work.
The book has deeper meaning.
You are the director in the book
The movie doesn't show everything.
The book helps a person to turn on the imagination and come up with what this or that situation depicted in the book would look like. How many readers - so many opinions. The film is just the director's vision.
I think the movie and the book complement each other. Some truths can be emphasized for yourself from the film adaptation, and some in the work itself.
One complements the other
3. Conclusion
After analyzing the critical statements about the play by A.N. Ostrovsky's "Dowry", we can conclude that contemporaries considered the play old and uninteresting, similar to all the works of Ostrovsky. E. Ryazanov's film based on the play "Dowry" "Cruel Romance", despite the success with the audience, also received harsh negative reviews, and its creator was reproached for distorting the classics.
The film seemed to us more vivid and lively compared to the book, both in compositional and semantic terms. In our opinion, Ryazanov took into account everything that could be taken into account, fully conveyed all the events. He selected talented actors who were able to feel the special atmosphere of the drama; emphasized Ostrovsky's remarks with artistic details and sharp contrast, thereby raising the drama "Dowry" to a tragedy.
The image of the main character Larisa Ogudalova in the play and the film is presented a little differently. Larisa Ogudalova was close to the actress Larisa Guzeeva, so she was able to deeply convey the image of her heroine. Ryazanov explains in his own way why Paratov treated her so cruelly. There are many scenes in the film where Larisa almost bows before him, not only remembering pride, but also self-esteem.
Despite the abundance of romances in the play by A.N. Ostrovsky, a lot of romances, which are symbolic. Generally film score music is one of its indisputable and striking virtues. Romances occupy an important place in the film adaptation. Thanks to these romances, the film itself sounded like a whole big romance.
Nevertheless, the results of a sociological survey showed that in the age of modern technology, the film is not able to replace the book. It should also be noted that half of the respondents answered that the film complements the book.
So the book and the movie are different. We hope that this work can help to see this difference and interest students so that they want to read the book.
List of used literature
A. S. Pushkin Sobr. op. in 10 vols. T. 6. M., Fiction, 1985
LITERATURUS: World of Russian Literature
Wikipedia materials
A.N. Ostrovsky. Plays. M., Enlightenment, 1985
Yu.V.Lebedev. Literature. Grade 10. M., Education, 2015
Encyclopedia for children. Russian literature of the 19th century. M., Enlightenment, 2001
WORK PLAN:
INTRODUCTION…3
1. The fate of a dowry in the play by A.N. Ostrovsky ... 4
2. The skill of the actors in the film "Cruel Romance" ... 10
3. Interpretation of the image of Karandyshev: Ostrovsky and Ryazanov ... 13
CONCLUSION…18
LIST OF USED LITERATURE…19
Extract from the text
3. Spend comparative analysis novel by Mikhail Bulgakov "The Master and Margarita" and the film directed by Yuri Kara "The Master and Margarita" in 1994, to indicate the importance of lost or acquired elements in the screen interpretation.
The economic structure of any society cannot function without a normally organized flow of funds between the state and production structures, the state and various segments of the population, between regions and individual states. Financial ties are implemented through the financial system, which includes budgets of various levels, insurance funds, foreign exchange reserves of the state, the monetary fund of enterprises and firms, and other monetary funds.
The study of causality, since the XIX century. Until now, a significant number of works have been devoted to criminal law. In the pre-revolutionary period, such prominent Russian scientists as G. E. Kolokolov, P.P. Pustoroslev, N.S. Tagantsev and others. Particularly, in a series of these works, the work of N.D. Sergievsky "On the meaning of causality in criminal law". The problem of causality was also reflected in the Soviet era in the works of such authors as N.D. Durmanov, V.N. Kudryavtsev, A.A. Piontkovsky and others. In Russian criminal law, causality and socially dangerous consequences are considered in the works of such authors as D.G. Zaryana, N.F. Kuznetsova, Yu.V. Nikolaeva, G. M. Reznik and many others.
And although the first photographers, who gravitated toward the artistry of the image, showed considerable compositional ingenuity to reflect reality, photography did not fit into the system of social values as art for a long time.
The topic of this study is devoted to the study of causality in Russian criminal law. It is this problem that occupies one of the central places in Russian criminal law. To a large extent, the correctness of her decision determines the legality of the qualification of criminal cases. Causality, along with public danger, is among the necessary prerequisites for criminal liability.
When open, it is required to dig a trench across the road with damage to the pavement and a violation of the intensity of traffic for the period of construction. All this, of course, is associated with an increase in the cost of work, since it becomes necessary to restore the road surface and landscaping elements at the passageway.
Among the economic levers by which the state influences the market economy, an important place is given to taxes. taxes are important economic category, historically associated with the existence and functioning of the state. In a market economy, any state widely uses tax policy as a certain regulator of the impact on negative market phenomena. Taxes, like the entire tax system, are a powerful tool for managing the economy in a market environment. The effective functioning of the entire national economy depends on how well the taxation system is built. It is the tax system that today turned out to be, perhaps, the main subject of discussions about the ways and methods of reform. Its relevance is obvious, because. any person will sooner or later have to face paying taxes and / or filing a tax return, especially if he is going to be engaged in private business or create his own company. The transition of the Russian economy to market relations required the creation of a more advanced system of taxation of enterprises and citizens and more effective mechanisms for redistributing citizens' incomes through the state budget.
The custom of choosing for oneself, a kind of distinctive sign, has deep roots and is widespread throughout the world, so the increased interest in heraldry is not surprising. The purpose of the work is to analyze the content of the heraldry of Russia and Great Britain based on the study of the state emblem Russian Federation and the coat of arms of Great Britain as a phenomenon pointing to the commonality of heraldic symbols and proving that the symbols of the country at all times were not only an unshakable attribute of power, but also the embodiment of spiritual and historical memory people.- to prove the commonality of many heraldic symbols that have developed throughout the history of Russia and Great Britain, which allows us to speak of Russian heraldry as a borrowed tradition
The object of the study is the speed and dexterity of preschoolers, the subject is the formation of the physical qualities of speed and dexterity in children. preschool age through mobile games. The purpose of the work is to develop pedagogical conditions for educating speed and dexterity in preschoolers.
The concept of international transportation is contained in a number of international agreements, as well as in the legislation of the country, and such transportation should be considered the process of transportation between two countries, in contrast to transportation in domestic traffic, i.e. within one country.
Methods and technologies for conducting public relations campaigns when promoting Internet projects on the example of discount sites
LIST OF USED LITERATURE:
1. Kostelyanets B.O. "Dowry" Ostrovsky. - M., 1982.
2. Lebedev Yu.V. About the nationality of "Thunderstorms", "Russian tragedy" A.N. Ostrovsky // Russian Literature.-1981.-No. 1.
3. Lotman L.M. Ostrovsky's dramaturgy // History of Russian drama in the second half of the 19th century - early 20th century. - L., 1987. -S.101−125, 136−149.
4. Ostrovsky A.N. Dramaturgy / A.N. Ostrovsky. - M .: LLC "Publishing House AST", 2003. - 395s.
5. Smelyansky A. Our interlocutors / Russian classical drama on the stage of the modern theater /. - M., 1981.-S.91−135.
6. Stein A.L. Master of Russian drama. - M., 1973.-S.134−137.
7. Encyclopedia for children. T.9. Russian literature. Part 1. / Editor-in-Chief M.D. Aksyonova. — M.: Avanta+, 1998. — 672p.: ill.
bibliography
TOPIC: Comparative analysis"Dowry" by A.N. Ostrovsky and "Cruel Romance" by E. Ryazanov
Task: comparison of works of two types of art (cinema and literature) within the cultural dialogue of 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 work of art is conditioned by a complex of socio-psychological and cultural-linguistic factors, 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 cinema "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. However, "Cruel Romance" with great success was 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 the 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 art, they live according to different laws, and therefore a completely literal reproduction of the classics on the screen is hardly possible.
We betpurpose- 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 design of the film.
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 is found every now and then, a game of chance, the hand of Fate ... 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?
Not, 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 negative characters. 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.
V 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: In this way , "Cruel romance" becomes not only the tragedy of Larisa, but also the tragedy of Paratov(and maybe even more 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 songa more tragic emotional state. 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:"Thanks to".
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 last word cannot be seen as the release 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 unsettledness, 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.
XIcity open conference of students "IntellectualsXXIcentury"
Section: Art history
Screen adaptation as interpretation literary work(on the example of comparing the film by E. Ryazanov "Cruel Romance" and the drama "Dowry")
DTDM, lyceum №3, 11th grade
Teacher:,
teacher of the highest category,
Orenburg
I. Introduction.
II. « Cruel Romance" as an interpretation of the play "Dowry".
2.1. The problem of adaptation of classical works
2.2. Comparative analysis of the drama "Dowry" and the film by E. Ryazanov "Cruel Romance".
· The difference between the script of the film and the text of Ostrovsky's play.
· The role of acting in shifting the emphasis in the film.
Features of the musical design of the film.
· The role of the work of the cameraman and the artist in creating the images of the characters and in conveying the director's idea.
III. Conclusion.
IV. Bibliography.
V Applications
Appendix I. Comparative table of episodes of Ostrovsky's play and Ryazanov's film.
Annex II. Glossary of terms found in the text of the work.
I Introduction
This year marks the 20th anniversary of the release of E. Ryazanov's film "Cruel Romance", based on the play "Dowry". Then, 20 years ago, the film caused a wide controversy, and most of the reviews of the film were negative. However, A Cruel Romance was a great success at the box office, a success that increased as critical volleys for it intensified (22 million viewers viewed the picture in theaters). 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 cameraman, Andrey Petrov - the best composer. (Data taken from: 13.5). Regardless of our press, The Cruel Romance was well received abroad and received critical acclaim there. At the XV International Film Festival in Delhi, the film was awarded the main award - the Golden Peacock. Now, 20 years later, it's safe to say that the film has stood the test of time, still being one of the Russians' favorite films.
Why are reviews of critical articles so different from the opinion of an ordinary viewer? In our opinion, literary critics proceeded from a certain ideal model for the adaptation of a classic play, when it would be absolutely accurately reproduced 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 put another purpose- to analyze the film by E. Ryazanov "Cruel Romance" exactly how interpretation plays by A. Ostrovsky "Dowry". This goal defines the main tasks research:
· get acquainted with art criticism and literary criticism articles about E. Ryazanov's film "Cruel Romance";
· compare the director's script of the film with the text of Ostrovsky's play, finding the director's deviations from the original source;
· to explain these digressions, 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, film music, camera work in the transfer of the author's position of the director.
Object of study is the film by E. Ryazanov "Cruel Romance". This film received many reviews in magazines and newspapers in 1984-85. However, each such article was a kind of replica in the dialogue about the film that was unfolding in the press, and, as already noted, these were mostly literary works that did not take into account the specifics of cinematography. We have practically not encountered generalizing works devoted to a careful study of the film precisely as a work of art of cinema. It determines relevance our work.
Research material are the video footage of the film and comparison tables episodes of the script for the film "Cruel Romance" and the play "Dowry" (see Appendix I). Main method work with the material is a comparative analysis.
II. "Cruel romance" as an interpretation of the play "Dowry".
2.1. The problem of adaptation of classical works
Screen adaptation is, according to explanatory dictionary, - taking a work (mainly literary) as the basis for creating a movie. (12.739). The history of film adaptations of works of literature, which has many victories in its path, is one of the particular examples of true closeness between the arts. But it is this very story that also testifies that literature, theater and cinema are different arts, having their own secret and obvious features, their own ways of influencing the mind and feelings of a person, having different ways of incarnation. artistic images, in its own specific language. “The film is nothing like a play; on the contrary, it is like a novel, but a novel that will be shown, not told ... - this is how Lawson writes in his book and adds: - However, we must not forget that there is a huge difference between the process of visual transmission and the process of storytelling. (14.6).
No matter how close cinema may seem to theater, due to the fact that in cinema and theater a significant role belongs to the word, intonation, gesture, acting, the principles of approach to depicting life in cinema and theater are completely different. We fully agree with Lawson that cinema is closer to epic genres than to dramatic ones. After all, it has many of the possibilities that the epic has and does not have. dramatic work: the ability to wide coverage of the phenomena of reality, movement in time and space, penetration into the soul of the hero and the ability to show his thoughts, the ability to directly express author's position(through voice-over), broad descriptiveness, the ability to draw the viewer's attention to individual details (focus, close-ups). It turns out that when screened, a dramatic work must certainly acquire the properties of an epic, because the art of cinema cannot refuse its artistic means and possibilities. But the desire to read the drama as a novel or story, a complete change in genre destroys the fundamental principle - a literary work for which the genre is not accidental, but is the only possible form in which the writer's intention could be realized. At the same time, it is worth noting that the specifics of cinema, which relies primarily on a visual image, significantly distinguishes a film from any literary work. “One scene, or an episode, or even a gesture, the facial expressions of a hero on the screen are capable of embodying in a concentrated form what, being the subject of description in literature, can be stretched over dozens of pages,” writes L. Zaitseva (7.67).
Therefore, we argue that any screen adaptation is interpretation, carrying out which one has to mentally dismantle a literary work. Interpretation (from Latin interpretatio - explanation) is not just an interpretation of a work. Interpretation, as a rule, is associated with the translation of a statement into another language, with its recoding. At the same time, the interpreted phenomenon “is somehow changing, transforming; his second, new appearance, differing from the first, original, turns out to be both poorer and richer than him. Interpretation is a selective and at the same time creative (constructive) mastery of an utterance. (19.142). So the director, breaking through to the reality that is embodied in this work, sees it as if with double vision: through the eyes of the filmed writer and his own. The second never coincides with the first, even in such a film, which is oriented towards the optimal approximation to the literary text. Let's say that in the film we are considering based on Ostrovsky's play, the action is taken out to real nature - this is already a deviation from the original. The Volga is one thing in a theatrical production, and quite another is the river flowing before our eyes.
Therefore, the dilemma - an adequate or free interpretation - which makes it possible to condemn or approve a director who creatively interprets a literary work - is relative. “It is not the measure of direct proximity to the original that determines the artistic value of the film adaptation,” says Gromov. “More important is its correspondence to the spirit and pathos of the literary source” (4.129). And, probably, the modernity of his vision as a director.