Tsisperi mtebi anu daujerebeli ambavi

absurd humor, memorable characters, a manuscript and a fight with shadows. a film about a death soul society, gallery of masks and hypocrisy, prisoners of waste of time and victims of need to be only insignificant shadows of existence. a film from East who present not only a deep crisis who can be considered version of Ionesco or Beckett theater but , in fact, it is only cruel-precise image of Soviet Union fall. nothing new because this form of satire is present, as instrument against politic regime, in many films from Communist camp but in this mixture of Ilf and Petrov, Bruno Schultz and Daniil Harms is something different. the secret ingredient - poor manuscript who can broke the large - fragile circle of fake certitudes.

The director, Eldar Shengelaia, remembers newspapers praising "Blue Mountains", writing that "this is Kafka!" after it premiered on Cannes film festival in 1985. And just as Kafka's "Process" (which this movie was most likely compared to) is often narrowed to a "criticism of authoritarian rule", so is this movie commonly interpreted as (merely) a comedy that satirizes bureaucracy. This is, I think, a misapprehension. Kafka - and here I'll stop using him because I don't think it's all that similar - wrote about life in general, or life as a process where you're declared guilty and sentenced (to death) for reasons unknown to you. "Blue Mountains" is also about life in general.

A young author is trying to get his novel published, walking around the publishing house and delivering copies of his manuscript to different employees, who, despite the protagonist's persistence, eventually don't read it. This is the leitmotif. The reason his novel is not read by anyone is not bureaucracy - they just don't want to. These people are neither too busy, nor hostile or stupid communists who can't appreciate a talented young voice - we don't even know if the novel is any good; They don't want to do what they are currently destined to do, they are indifferent, so they procrastinate, follow other commitments, and sometimes blame bureaucracy (if no one reads the review at least I've learned how to spell this word). I'm not completely denying the portrayal of some problems caused by too much bureaucracy in this movie - especially the part about "removing Greenland", a kitsch painting barely hanging above a desk of an employee who's afraid it will eventually fall on him but can't remove it without a permission, which is not granted to him. However, it would be naive to assume that the enduring fame and appeal for this movie is a result of general audience's disdain of soviet bureaucracy.

Another thing some critics say is that the publishing house, walls of which crack and, ultimately, it collapses, is an allegory of Soviet Union. Allegedly, when Gorbachev saw this movie he told Shevardnadze that unless they do something about it, USSR is going to collapse as this building did. Today it seems like an obvious comparison as we know that USSR has in fact collapsed similarly to the building and this movie predicted it's fall. However, this is not how the movie ends. In the last scene, as we are shown the new building from the outside (new republic after the collapse, if we follow this allegory), where the publishing has moved, we hear the familiar angry voice shouting "remove it (meaning "Greenland")!". Back to the first point, I see this movie as a portrayal of attitudes of different people towards life and work and generally, the will of a man to be doing "something else".

Let's not forget what an amazing collaboration this movie is: film director Eldar Shengelaia working with one of the best XX century Georgian writers - Rezo Chkheidze on the script and soundtrack being written by Giya Kancheli - a composer known abroad chiefly as a contributor to modern classical music and in post-soviet countries as an author of unforgettable scores for movies. The cast consists of both award-winning actors and non-actors. "Blue Mountains" is very lovely. Sometimes I find myself looking for a single scene or a single line and then end up watching the whole movie.

This movie is timeless masterpiece, one of the best in Georgian cinematography. It is considered to be allegory of the system in Soviet Union and that is true; but nowadays when that system doesn't exist, it is difficult to relate to that period of time, especially for younger generations, who were born after collapse of Soviet Union.Somehow the movie hasn't lost it's relevance, even more, now this allegory can be attributed to organizations and to modern managers. Bureaucracy, lack of communication, procrastination,absenteeism and strange decision making process, what we often see in our workplaces, this movie is allegory to everything listed above. It is heavily loaded with quotations. It is one of the must watch movies in my opinion. Even more, you can watch it several times and every time you can rediscover a lot of new things. Thus, if you haven't seen it yet, I strongly recommend.

Yay for a baiting title. The Blue Mountains, or Unbelievable Story. Refers to one of the slightly chuckles inducing gag with the protagonist trying to get his script read that is never read. Another one is the Greenland painting that is surrounded by bureaucracy to get removed. Other thing is the irksome motoball league that is somehow always playing outside, supposedly the cause of the building falling apart from the vibrations.

When it comes to humor, am I difficult to impress or is this not my type of humor? You tell me. I chuckled in my head maybe a few times, but other than that it was nothing impressive to warrant the ridiculously high ratings, currently 8.7 & 4.0, IMDB & LetterBoxd, respectively. Used repetition, running gags, in a proficient manner that made for an entertaining enough couple hours, but nothing to write home about!

In this extremely funny satire on Soviet bureaucracy, the protagonist, a hapless author, attempts again and again to get his editors to accept his manuscript -- a novel with the title "Blue mountains or Tienshan." The story unfolds with the inevitability of a fairy tale in which a naive hero is painfully being initiated into the ways of the world, and while the would-be author wanders through the hallways of his publishers, we in turn learn a lot about the crumbling Soviet system and the inactivity of its bureaucratic functionaries. By Hollywood standards, the film may be slow and repetitive, but it is precisely the repetition of tragicomic situations that bring the film to the heights of a Beckettian absurdity. Even after the end of the Soviet Union a film that is worth while watching.