Dovlatov - I libri invisibili

The female roles in this film were stereotypical, was there not even one talented female writer in their group in that time? The women are either in love, in awe or supportive, none of them has an authentic plan of their own, the only female remotely doing something artistic, the actrice, is a sell out. But the men on the other hand are all hero's standing their ground.. how pathetic to enforce these harmful and dishonest stereotypes..

Maybe not the best. for Comunism. for Dovlatov. for the atmosphere of Soviet Union. the cause - the less courage/art/science of director to move the things out of superficial perspective. sure, for a Eastern public, it works. for the memories about period, for the lectures about it, maybe for the familiarity of Dovlatov and Brodsky writings. but it is not real enough . the good point - the work of Danila Kozlovsky. but this is not a surprise.

One of the highlights of the 68th Berlin International Film Festival was the film Dovlatov, directed by Alexei German Jr.

Sergei Dovlatov is a rather well-known writer in Russia, but not so famous in the West, and is mostly associated with the circle of friends of Joseph Brodsky. Alexei German chose to depict only four days of Sergei Dovlatov's life in 1971. The film was a co-production between Russia, Poland and Serbia. The cinematographer was Lukasz Zal, known for his work on Oscar winner Ida.

The film is made in a non-hurried pace. What is depicted is the everyday life of a writer who unsuccessfully tries to get published, while working as a journalist. The first impression after watching this film is that the director intentionally exaggerated the misery of Soviet-era life. The scenery is too bleak and life is too poor, for example, later in his life Sergei Dovlatov wrote in a letter that his flat in St. Petersburg was better than his American flat. Also the depiction is not accurate. This concerns the small details such as styles of cars and important events described in the film. In particular, the episode with the officers of OBKhSS (Department Against Misappropriation of Socialist Property) chasing the poor artist, portrayed by Danila Kozlovsky, with red IDs is completely fantasy. First of all, OBKhSS was an organization which only investigated large-scale economical crimes and it was out of their jurisdiction to chase after petty criminals. Another segment with the suicide of an office worker does not have any factual basis concerning Dovlatov's real life or have anything to do with his writings. Also, neither Sergei Dovlatov's heavy drinking nor womanizing is shown in the film, as everyone else imbibes except him. Dovlatov tries to impose the point of view that the artists who were not union members were nothing. However, this is not true.

German obviously wanted to present Sergei Dovlatov as a victim of the Soviet regime. However, he was not a rebel or a non-conformist as for example Aleksander Solzhenitsyn. Dovlatov lived in Russia by it's rules and legally emigrated.. He worked as a journalist and wrote commissioned articles. Aleksander Solzhenitsyn was physically thrown out of the Soviet Union and stayed a non-conformist till the end of his life.

A person who did not live in the Soviet time and is not too familiar with the life there, after watching the film can receive a false impression of that period. At the press conference German defended modern Russia. Somehow his film illustrates the contrast between 1970s Soviet era and Putin's Russia, where, as German said there is no antisemitism, no censorship. However in Soviet times Russia was more rich with talents than today. I told Alexei German Jr. about this when we met in Berlin on the 18th of February 2018. There is no plot or dramatic conflict in the film and it is too long to hold the viewers attention. It is quite natural that a writer wants to get published, but 99% of the time it does not happen very quickly and does not have anything to do with Soviet reality. The question rises about the intentions of the film; perhaps for some people it is beneficial to represent Soviet Russia as a miserable and scary place with no creative freedom. At the press conference German spoke that spoke that some people and forces try to demonize Russia. While it is partially true, with this film he himself demonizes the Soviet Union and with it, inadvertently, modern Russia, because present-day Russia inherited a lot of the Soviet times.

Some of the positive aspects of the picture include the acting of Milan Maric, who is charismatic and creates an interesting character, however according to the testimonies of his many friends, the real Dovlatov was much more brutal and humoristic. The most vivid supporting role was by Danila Kozlovsky, who played the tragic role of an artist who earned money by selling goods on the black market. He did the best of his part, although the events happening to him are pure fantasy.

A.German tries to convince the audience that Dovlatov was not published because of that particular time of stagnation when talents were not appreciated and the arts were controlled by people who did not understand anything in it. It is interesting to compare the film with modern Russia, where there are a lot less of great writers and directors then in the period of stagnation, despite German saying that there is no censorship today. That Dovlatov considered himself to be a better poet than Yevtushenko is his own very personal opinion, which is very far from reality. Only time can prove if Dovlatov will continue to be a popular writer alongside the great writers of Russia. The fate of an artist or a poet is a difficult one in all countries, and many writers superior to Dovlatov experienced hardships with publishing their works.

The Soviet time is shown as shabby, hopeless and wretched, which is also blown out of proportion in the picture. At the press conference, German said that there is no censorship or anti-Semitism today in Russia. But in reality, the time of the 1960-1970s bore the peaks of Russian creativity in all fields of art. All the best writers, poets, ballet dancers, directors, all of them worked in the 1960-1970s, including Alexei German Sr., without whom there would be no Alexei Alexeevich German. Lack of open censorship does not equal the flourishing of arts.

I was surprised that he tried to make a hero out of Sergei Dovlatov for his immigration. He immigrated legally and nothing threatened him. I compared the emigration of Nureyev, who was given a seven year sentence for betrayal of homeland. On the other hand, Dovlatov peacefully followed his wife and child. If he had not become an alcoholic, he would have been alive during the Perestroika and could have returned to Russia as Edouard Limonov did. Because of this the film lacks drama, despite German's attempts of creating tragedy with fictional characters where there is none.

Alexei German Jr., has a great cast in the film, which includes newcomer Milan Maric, and also well-known actors Danila Kozlovsky, Svetlana Khodchenkova and Elena Lyadova. However, their parts are quite weak, in spite of the big potential of their actors. Kozlovsky, is especially unlucky lately with his roles - in the film Matilda he played the villain who was kept in an aquarium and later burned alive, the role was completely senseless and stupid. In the film Dovlatov, Danila Kozlovsky did his best, but his role was also absurd. Elena Lyadova had a completely insignificant part despite her great acting talent.

Overall Dovlatov is a mediocre film about a mediocre writer for a mediocre audience.

It's not an easy movie for the viewer. However, it is an addictive cinema. The film is a biography of a writer who did not live to see his work published during his lifetime, so it focuses on impotence, unfulfillment and bitterness. A few days from Dovlatov's life, which we observe on the screen, is therefore a pretext for showing his everyday work - the attempts to publish a text instead of a little ambitious journalistic texts, showing his family and friends, the bohemian environment of Leningrad / St. Petersburg.

The film has a very calm rhythm, it is beautifully photographed and well played. The central figure is the ubiquitous Milan Maric (strikingly similar to Sergei Dovlatov), but although he is present on the screen in almost every scene, he does not dominate history and other characters.

Definitely worth seeing is a film for all those who are interested in showing the creative process on screen or in the reality of life in Soviet Russia.

Saw this at the Berlinale 2018, where it was part of the Competition for the Golden/Silver Bear. A lot of faces pass by, in crowded apartments or various other just as crowded places. Some of those faces will reappear several times. No need to remember all of them, apart from the main protagonist, his ex-wife and daughter of course, as there is no continuing story that brings you from A via B and C to Z.

The division in six days is also not really relevant. It gives you a clear marker, however, that the movie jumps to something completely different each time a date appears on screen. It provides for some structure albeit not crucially important.

There is room for humor, not too much as there is no happy ending (no spoiler: we know this writer was not recognized in his own country and emigrated later, and we also know his own country valued him not until after his death).

Be prepared for name dropping of several famous writers, most of whom I recognize vaguely by name, but have never read them in my life. Maybe you have better luck in fitting them in the context in which their name is mentioned, and judge the name dropping as appropriate or merely done out of pomposity (I assume the former, given the circles our main protagonist usually is in, where one surely knows these names and would protest immediately when improperly quoted).

Trick question: did this movie enlighten me about the period and Russian politics at the time?? No, I think not. But anyone who has read some of the writers who have been quoted, may think otherwise. Several reviewers mentioned that it was a time of a stand still.

What this movie makes abundantly clear, is that the regime does not allow frivolities with their policy, keeping a tight lease on all publications such as journals, magazines and books. It is something that all such regimes seem inclined to do as a matter of course. Is that only to close the ranks, out of fear that the communist dream is not so rosy as one is taught?? Or it is just to not endanger the positions of the current politicians?? I assume that all of the above applies. It seems to apply equally to contemporary dictatorial regimes (Turkey, Iran, and many others), a parallel observation that makes this movie more relevant than it intrinsiccally is when considering the Brezjnew period alone.