A screen adaptation of a literary work is an ungrateful, difficult and far from being successful thing. How many times venerable scriptwriters and directors have explained, in pursuit of an indignant public, that it is simply impossible to transfer the entire book to the screen, much more impossible than for an amateur gardener to transplant a rose bush to another flower bed. They are, of course, right, because even the famous novels of Ian Fleming require significant script processing. The screen adaptation of the lyrics or multi-level complex prose is completely controversial, and sometimes has nothing to do with the literary source taken as a basis. There are authors whose works do not lend themselves to film adaptation at all, despite the seeming simplicity and consistency of the narrative at first glance.
The works of Daniil Ivanovich Yuvachev, who became known under the pseudonym Daniil Kharms, were never transferred to the screen, for the rarest timid attempts, never. Those who have read will understand why. Many and many literary followers tried to at least come close to what he did, but no one succeeded even on paper. There is nothing to say about the movie screen.
The film "Clownery" (in another interpretation, played in the credits - "Hell's Clown"). Directed by Dmitri Frolov.
In "Clownery" - everything is like in life: clearly and logically. And only then you realize how damn absurd everything is!
I would not want to slip into a banal mysticism like the one that shrouds the stories about some film adaptations. But fact is fact. A good melodramatic thriller could be written about the fate of the actors involved in the film. By the way, there are no others ...
"Clownery" is almost a rebus, a crossword puzzle. You will not immediately understand what was taken from the author (by the way, a lot was transferred to the screen with precision to the comma), what was "mixed" from scraps of text, and what was simply invented, but thought up so that you do not notice, because the most important thing is yourself the spirit of Harms' literature is "transplanted" without damaging the roots.
The film is so complete that the impression is not spoiled by even a seemingly inappropriate erotic scene, "told" by the director at the end of one of the stories. The scene is frankly shocking, but I dare say that it is "in the subject" here, because if it weren't for it, we would finally believe that we are "watching Kharms", and not Dmitri Frolov's wonderful film "Clownery". Although, if you look at it, Kharms also has shocking poems ...
I. Bobchuk
