Noites Brancas

Dostoyevsky wrote his own short story "White Nights," in which the dreams of the city become nightmares, and the sunless winter days overcast the nightless summer ones: "Look, you tell yourself, look how cold the world is becoming. The years will pass and after them will come grim loneliness, and old age, quaking on its stick, and after them misery and despair. Your fantasy world will grow pale, your dreams will fade and die, falling away like the yellow leaves from the trees." When you read the quote you will understand how difficult it is to reflect the inner workings of Dostoyevsky's art.I watched this Russian adaptation on TV.You know just curiosity.But something hit me after watching a couple of of adaptations from the Soviet period.Russians are not doing this job pretty well."White Nights" was adapted as "Le Notti Bianche by the Italian director Lucino Visconti. If you check out the IMDb entry for that movie you will see it was voted by 250 people at least. Now as you can see this Russian adaptation was produced after two years of Visconti's version so why did they see such a necessity to re-produce the film? If you have such an intention you had better be more skilled and artful right? I did not see Visconti's version. I wish I could but a user comment's is like that "Lucino Visconti's "White Nights" (1957) - is an engaging, uplifting, and compelling screen adaptation of Dostoyevsky's short story. I applaud to Visconti's masterful and elegant direction - everything is exquisite in his masterpiece. The settings came from a fairy tale – he moved his heroes to the dream like city that looked very much like Venice – with its canals and bridges. " But I see nothing to applaud Russian director's skills. So if you are a fan of Dostoyevsky I suggest you should see some other version.(There is another White Nights (2005) in IMDb's database directed by Alan Silver but I don't know this movie will come out of its "post-production status")

The cinematic possibilities of this story are inexhaustible, to judge by the quantity of attempts. Visconti, Bresson, among others. While this film nods to the splendors of St. Petersburg, it seems to be mostly shot in studio, with some rather inept attempts to make visual representations of the dreamer's fantasies. I would have preferred to re-read the story, for the main hero is more representative of a Gogolian Khlestakov or Basmachkin than a Dostoevskian underground man. I'm actually sorry that I watched it now, because previously I had a very favorable opinion of Soviet Russian screen versions of the classics. Not for a moment do we believe this lovely heroine could turn her attention to the narrator of the story, but the boarder is cute.

Elsinefilo and flame-1 please don't lie, this is a good film, it was very highly appreciated in the West, 1959 - Diploma of the XIV IFF in Edinburgh 1959 - Diploma of the II degree of the II All-Union Festival of Soviet Films in Kyiv (Ukrainian SSR).

1960 - Diploma of the IV International Film Festival in London-1960.

1960 - The best film of 1960 according to the decision of the British Film Institute, you don't even explain why it is bad, but all because the film is good, you just made up some complete nonsense, and even if it is supposedly worse than the film adaptation by Luchino Visconti (although It seems to me that this is not true, they are about the same level for their time), this does not make it bad, just as films that are made worse than the films of Kubrick or Scorsese do not automatically become bad because of this, they can be good, they are just a little worse than other films, but Soviet film adaptations have always been very good and skillful and have always been very highly rated in the West and have even been nominated and received Oscars.