L'Idiot

Some people have been asking me what I think about the summer movies that have been put out in the last few months. Therefore, this is what this post will be about. I haven't been making any film-related videos lately. My videos of late are mostly about culture and sociology, and not about film or anything else. But I still go to the cinema once in a while, mostly to see the special effects featured in Hollywood films. I've read a few articles on the net that state that this year's summer movies are disappointing, that, overall, it hasn't been a blast for moviegoers this summer. Well, I can agree and disagree. Almost all of the films that I've seen this summer are entertaining. But, then again, I haven't seen that many films this summer. I think that Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales is the best film in the franchise since Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl. Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides is in third place for me, and I don't want to see Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest and Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End again. Spider-Man: Homecoming is pretty good. It's certainly not the best Spider-Man film ever, as some people have been (suspiciously) saying. It's in third place for me, after Spider-Man 2 (2004) and Spider-Man (2002). Other 2017 summer movies that I consider to be pretty good are Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, Kong: Skull Island, Wonder Woman, The Fate of the Furious, Baywatch, and Baby Driver. Now, I don't mean that these films are masterpieces. They're just fine. They entertained me. I didn't mind seeing them one time in a theater. They are, of course, nothing like Apocalypse Now (1979) or The Idiot (1958), for example. By the way, The Idiot by director Ivan Pyryev is one of the best films that I have seen in a long time. What a shame that this magnificent Soviet film doesn't get any recognition in the West because of ideological and political reasons. It should be as well known as War and Peace by director Sergei Bondarchuk. The cinematography is gorgeous and the acting is superb. This is easily the best film adaptation of Fyodor Dostoyevsky's works. The Idiot is highly recommended by me. The Brothers Karamazov is the only Dostoyevsky novel that I've read so far. But, after seeing the 1958 film adaptation of The Idiot, I now have an urge to read the novel. Anyway, when it comes to this year's summer movies, there have also been some disappointments, like The Mummy and Alien: Covenant. So, overall, it has been an average, and not a bad, summer movie season, in my opinion. Nothing truly great like Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) or Dredd (2012) has been released so far this year. Good films like these are rare now. It seems to me that the number one goal of Hollywood film studios now is to make films that are first and foremost entertaining and that feature many special effects, in order to draw in crowds of people. Even the not so good films now are entertaining. The number two goal is propaganda. And quality is only in third place or lower. I think that I've already made a post about the fact that Hollywood has been releasing unoriginal and dumb films for about three decades already. But pretty much everything has gone down in quality and originality in the USA in the last several decades. It's not that all Hollywood films are bad now. Some of them are still good, if not great. It's just that there's nothing new. There's no originality. There's no inventiveness. So, as a sentient organism, and not as one of the sheeple, I have to say that things s*ck, which is a phrase that Americans often use. I should mention that I did see one film not long ago that's not that good but that's still daring and kind of original. It's The Space Between Us (2017) by director Peter Chelsom. Watch it until the end, and I think that you'll be surprised by how old-fashioned, daring, and sweet it is. Another thing worth mentioning is that I saw Rogue One (2016), which is the second Star Wars film made by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, after it came out on video. It is, as I expected, rather dull. I don't want to see it again. It disappointed me even more than Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015). There are only two moments in Rogue One that stood out for me - when Galen Erso delivers an emotional message to his daughter, Jyn Erso, about the Death Star, and when Chirrut Imwe, who's a blind warrior, gets a bag put over his head. One of the few directors working in Hollywood who can film science-fiction well is James Cameron. I heard somewhere that Cameron read many science-fiction novels when he was growing up. If this is true then this must be one of the reasons why he's good at filming science-fiction. Still, his latest film, Avatar (2009), didn't impress me much. Some parts of Avatar are inspired, but, overall, it's not great. Cameron is clearly getting old, and making an original film in Hollywood is difficult now anyway. Lack of originality isn't the only problem with Hollywood films. Another important problem is poor characterization. This comes down to scripts and acting. There's a serious shortage of appealing and interesting characters in Hollywood films now, and not just in summer blockbusters. Those dull, medium and low budget Hollywood dramas and romances feature unappealing characters too. If you want to see good characterization, see The Idiot (1958) as an example. That film puts Hollywood films, and especially summer blockbusters, to shame.

I stan nastasia filipovna, thee ultimate drama diva and a girlboss i felt as if it was happening right on a stage before me all male characters were deyassifiyed, their stress sweat was getting all over nastasia, they need to take some bubble bath and have a latte, sip some chai-tee.

When you can not write about a film more than it is a masterpiece. First, for admirable Nastasia Filipovna proposed by Iulia Borisova. Second, for realistic Rogozhin of. Leonid Parkhomenko. Not the last, off course, for the portrait of kniaz Myshkin, ofered by Iuri Iakovlev. Second, because few scenes are so intense than the film becomes an experience. It is a great adaptation , one of the most beautiful crafted from Fyodor Dostoyevsky work.

No doubts, temptation to compare this version with the miniseries made by Vladimir Bordko in 2003 works. But not in brilliant manner . First, for wise crafted version , who has the fair desire to propose only a part from novel.

Second, for atmosphere and great use of close up.

For rooms and for eyes and for the large slices of madness.

And for the honest way to offer, in noble manner, the spirit of Dostoievsky novel.

In short, just a masterpiece. In special sense.

Rather than try to condense Dostoevsky's long ample novel into one film, the makers of this Soviet adaptation wisely decided to do it in multiple parts, allowing them to explore the material at less of a rushed pace. Only the first part ended up being made, but it is enough of a treasure in itself that we can be grateful, and comes to an end at a natural point.

"Intense" is probably the one best word to describe this adaptation; the performances are all tuned to an appropriate level of passionate unreason and tortured emotionality for Dostoevskian characters, and the direction supports this, with plenty of tense, lingering close-ups. The production looks rich and claustrophobic, with the lush but small rooms seeming to amplify the charged nature of the scenes. Even the make-up people seem to have assisted in creating the uniform artistic effect, as all the characters seem appear sunken-eyed and almost maddened.

Yuriy Yakovlev is appropriately innocent and ineffectual and Myshkin, which in this tense atmosphere means his character tends to fall into the background perhaps more than one might expect. The show is really stolen by Yuriy Yakovlev as Nastasya Filipovna. She's looks gorgeous and gives a fantastic performance -- constantly laughing and toying with others. She has as much screen magnetism as anyone I've ever seen, and I was surprised and disappointed to learn that she appeared in relatively few films being mainly a stage actress. With her interpretation is makes perfect sense why so many of the men fall head over heels for this "shamed" woman, and her mercurial, teasing, troublemaking character makes perfect sense.

This is how Dostoevsky adaptations need to be, and hardly ever are. 1) Everyone needs to act like they're on crack all the time, 2) It needs to be either snowing or 100 degrees all the time, and 3) Everyone's eyes have to be crazy.

This film meets all those requirements, and it's the only one that does. Although the second part was never made, the first part is worth watching and re-watching. The crazy Soviet montages, the crazy eyes, the red velvet everywhere, the lighting from beneath that makes everyone look like they're in hell...it's brilliant.

The soundtrack is gorgeous. I wish I could find it on mp3. And when one character says to another: "What's wrong with your face?" the face in question is worth the entire film. And it's pure Dostoevsky. HUZZAH for this film.