Introduction

“The truth is that, despite the most difficult trials, we prevailed.”

War is a terrible word. War... How much this word says. War - the suffering of mothers, hundreds of dead soldiers, hundreds of orphans and families without fathers, terrible memories of people. And we, who have not seen the war, are not laughing. The soldiers served honestly, without self-interest. They defended the fatherland, family and friends. The Nazis treated Russian people and soldiers cruelly.

The world must not forget the horrors of war, the separation, suffering and death of millions. This would be a crime against the fallen, a crime against the future, we must remember the war, the heroism and courage that passed along its roads. Fighting for peace is the responsibility of everyone living on Earth, therefore one of the most important topics modern literature is the theme of the feat Soviet people in the Great Patriotic War.

War as a tragedy of the people in the literature of the twentieth century. Many works have been written about her. The authors of books about the war explored the everyday life of war, accurately depicted battles, and they also spoke about courage. native land, about the pricelessness of human life, about how ordinary people, having a conscience and a sense of duty to the Motherland, sacrificed themselves.

This topic is complex, diverse, inexhaustible. The task of modern writers writing about war is enormous. They need to be shown the significance of struggle and victory, the origins of the heroism of the Soviet people, their moral strength, ideological conviction, and devotion to the Motherland; show the difficulties of the fight against fascism, convey to contemporaries the feelings and thoughts of the heroes of the war years, give a deep analysis in one of the most critical periods in the life of the country and their own life.

Writers such as Vasil Bykov (“Sotnikov”) and Boris Vasiliev (“Not on the lists”) develop this topic in their own unique way.

Subject tragic fate Russian man in a totalitarian state appears in Russian literature of the 20th century already in the 1920s, when the very formation totalitarian state it was just beginning.

The writer does not spare the reader; in his stories there appear terrible details that cannot be understood without mental pain - cold and hunger, which sometimes deprive a person of reason, purulent ulcers on the legs...

“War is a state contrary to human nature,” wrote L. Tolstoy, and we are forced to agree with this statement, because war brings fear, blood, and tears. War is also a test for a person.

Vasil Bykov. Ideological content novel “Sotnikov”, assessment of heroes

Vasil Bykov is a seventeen-year-old participant in the war, a writer, who in his works reflects on man, his behavior in war, the duty and honor that guide the hero of the story of the same name “Sotnikov”.

In Bykov's works there are few battle scenes or spectacular historical events, but he manages to convey with amazing depth the feelings of an ordinary soldier in a big war. Using the example of the most strategically insignificant situations, the author gives answers to difficult questions war.

The problem of the moral choice of a hero in war is characteristic of all the works of V. Bykov. This problem is posed in almost all of his stories: “The Alpine Ballad”, “Obelisk”, “Sotnikov” and others. In Bykov's story "Sotnikov" the problem of genuine and imaginary heroism, which is the essence of plot collision works. The writer gives artistic research moral foundations of human behavior in their social and ideological conditioning.

Vasil Bykov builds plots only on dramatic moments of war of local, as they say, significance with the participation of ordinary soldiers. Step by step, analyzing the motives for the behavior of soldiers in extreme situations, the writer gets to the bottom of the psychological states and experiences of his heroes. This quality of Bykov’s prose distinguishes him early works: “The Third Rocket”, “Trap”, “It Doesn’t Hurt the Dead” and others.

In each new story, the writer puts his characters in even more difficult situations. The only thing that unites the heroes is that their actions cannot be assessed unambiguously. The plot of the story “Sotnikov” is psychologically twisted in such a way that critics were confused in assessing the behavior of Bykov’s heroes. And there are almost no events in the story. The critics had a lot to be confused about: main character-- traitor?! In my opinion, the author deliberately tries to blur the lines of the image of this character.

But in fact, the plot of the story is simple: two partisans Sotnikov and Rybak go to the village on a mission - to get a sheep to feed the detachment. Before this, the heroes hardly knew each other, although they managed to fight and even helped each other out in one battle. Sotnikov is not entirely healthy and could well have shied away from a generally trivial task, but he feels like he doesn’t belong among the partisans enough and therefore still volunteers to go. By this, he seems to want to show his comrades in arms that he does not shy away from “dirty work.”

The two partisans react differently to the upcoming danger, and it seems to the reader that the strong and quick-witted Rybak is more prepared to commit a brave act than the frail and sick Sotnikov. But if Rybak, who all his life “managed to find some way out,” is internally ready to commit betrayal, then Sotnikov remains faithful to the duty of a man and citizen until his last breath: “Well, we must I had to gather my last strength to face death with dignity... Otherwise, why would there be life? It is too difficult for a person to be careless about its end.”

In the story, it is not representatives of the two who collide different worlds, but people of the same country. The heroes of the story - Sotnikov and Rybak - under normal conditions, perhaps would not have shown their true nature. But during the war, Sotnikov goes through difficult trials with honor and accepts death, without renouncing his convictions, and Rybak, in the face of death, changes his convictions, betrays his Motherland, saving his life, which after betrayal loses all value. He actually becomes an enemy. He leaves for another world, alien to us, where personal well-being is placed above all else, where fear for one’s life forces one to kill and betray. In the face of death, a person remains as he really is. Here the depth of his convictions and his civic fortitude are tested.

In Bykov’s work, everyone took their place among the victims. Everyone except Rybak completed their mortal journey to the end. The fisherman took the path of betrayal only in the name of saving his own life. The traitor investigator felt a thirst for continuation of life, a passionate desire to live, and, almost without hesitation, stunned Rybak point-blank: “Let’s save your life. You will serve great Germany.” The fisherman had not yet agreed to join the police, but he had already been spared torture. The fisherman did not want to die, and blurted out something to the investigator.

Sotnikov lost consciousness during the torture, but did not say anything. The policemen in the story are depicted as stupid and cruel, the investigator - cunning and cruel. Sotnikov came to terms with death. He would like to die in battle, but this has become impossible for him. The only thing that remained for him was to decide on his attitude towards the people who were nearby. Before the execution, Sotnikov demanded an investigator and declared: “I am a partisan, the rest have nothing to do with it.” The investigator ordered Rybak to be brought in, and he agreed to join the police. The fisherman tried to convince himself that he was not a traitor, that he would run away.

IN last minutes life Sotnikov suddenly lost his confidence in the right to demand from others the same thing that he demands from himself. The fisherman became for him not a bastard, but simply a foreman who, as a citizen and a person, did not achieve something. Sotnikov did not look for sympathy in the crowd surrounding the execution site. He did not want people to think badly of him, and was only angry with Rybak, who was performing his duties as the executioner. The fisherman apologizes: “Sorry, brother.” "Go to hell!" - follows the answer.

What happened to Fisherman? He did not overcome the fate of a man lost in war. He sincerely wanted to hang himself. But circumstances got in the way, and there was still a chance to survive. But how to survive? The police chief believed that he had “picked up another traitor.” It is unlikely that the chief of police saw what was going on in the soul of this man, confused, but shocked by the example of Sotnikov, who was crystal honest, fulfilling his duty as a man and citizen to the end. The boss saw Rybak's future in serving the occupiers. But the writer left him the possibility of another path: continuing the fight against the enemy, possible recognition of his fall by his comrades, and ultimately, atonement.

The characters' personalities emerge slowly. The fisherman becomes unpleasant to us, arouses hatred, since he is capable of betrayal. Sotnikov reveals himself as a strong-willed, courageous nature. The writer is proud of Sotnikov, whose last feat was an attempt to take all the blame upon himself, removing it from the headman and Demchikha, who fell to the Nazis for helping partisan intelligence officers. Duty to the Motherland, to people, as the most important manifestation of one’s own self - this is what the author draws attention to. Consciousness of duty, human dignity, soldier's honor, love for people - such values ​​exist for Sotnikov. It is about people in trouble that he thinks. The hero sacrifices himself, knowing that life is the only real value. But Rybak simply had a thirst for life. And the main thing for him is to survive at any cost. Of course, a lot depends on the person, his principles and beliefs. Rybak has many virtues: he has a sense of camaraderie, he sympathizes with the sick Sotnikov, shares the remains of steamed rye with him, and behaves with dignity in battle. But how did it happen that he becomes a traitor and participates in the execution of his comrade? In my opinion, in Rybak’s mind there is no clear boundary between moral and immoral. Being in the ranks with everyone, he conscientiously bears all the hardships of partisan life, without thinking deeply about either life or death. Duty, honor - these categories do not disturb his soul. Faced face to face with inhumane circumstances, he finds himself spiritually weak person. If Sotnikov thought only about how to die with dignity, then Rybak is cunning, deceives himself and, as a result, surrenders to his enemies. He believes that in moments of danger everyone thinks only of themselves.

Sotnikov, despite the failures: captivity, escape, then captivity again, escape, and then the partisan detachment, did not become embittered, did not become indifferent to people, but retained loyalty, responsibility, and love. The author does not pay attention to how one day in battle Sotnikov saves the life of Rybak, how the sick Sotnikov still goes on a mission. Sotnikov could not refuse, since it contradicted his life principles. On the last night of his life, the hero remembers his youth. Lying to his father as a child became a lesson in pangs of conscience for him. Therefore, the hero judges himself strictly and answers to his conscience. He remained a man in the brutal conditions of war. This is Sotnikov’s feat. It seems to me that in tragic situations of war it is difficult to remain true to oneself and one’s moral principles. But it is precisely such people of duty and honor who fight evil, make life more beautiful, and they make us think: do we know how to live according to our conscience.

The situation changes after their arrest. The fisherman does not believe until the last minute that it is impossible to escape from this trap. He decides to play for time, telling during interrogation only what the Germans already know about the partisan detachment. But Rybak is too simple for such a complex game with the enemy, and, unwittingly, he lets it slip, falling into a skillfully placed trap. From this moment his moral decline begins. He finally realized that he could only stay alive by betraying his comrades in arms. For Rybak, the process of transition to another psychological state passes quickly and without suffering, since he was already internally disposed to this. The fisherman, like any traitor, begins to live according to special psychological laws that exclude everything good and bright that was before that moment in the human soul. At the end of the story, he becomes the executioner of his former comrade.

Sotnikov, unlike Rybak, immediately realized the hopelessness of the situation, but in the last minutes of his life he unexpectedly lost his confidence in the right to demand from others the same as from himself. The fisherman became for him not a bastard, but simply a foreman who, as a citizen and a person, did not achieve something. Sotnikov did not look for sympathy in the eyes of the people present at the execution. He did not want anyone to think badly of him, and was only angry with Rybak, who was performing his duties as the executioner. The fisherman apologized: “Sorry, brother.” Sotnikov threw only the phrase in his face: “Go to hell!”

What is the depth of the writer Bykov’s creativity? The fact is that he left the traitor Rybak the possibility of a different path even after such a serious crime. This is both a continuation of the fight against the enemy and a confessional confession of one’s betrayal. The writer left his hero the opportunity to repent, an opportunity that is more often given to a person by God, and not by man. The writer, in my opinion, assumed that this guilt could be redeemed.

The work of V. Bykov is tragic in its sound, just as the war itself is tragic, taking tens of millions of human lives. But the writer talks about people strong in spirit capable of rising above circumstances and death itself. And today, I believe, it is impossible to assess the events of the war, those terrible years, without taking into account the views on this topic of the writer Vasil Bykov.
The work is imbued with thoughts about life and death, about
human duty and humanism, which are incompatible with any manifestation of selfishness. In-depth psychological analysis every action and gesture of the characters, fleeting thoughts or remarks - the bottom of the strongest sides of the story "Sotnikov".

The Pope presented the writer V. Bykov with a special prize from the Catholic Church for the story “Sotnikov”. This fact speaks about what kind of moral universal principle is seen in this work. Sotnikov’s enormous moral strength lies in the fact that he was able to accept suffering for his people, managed to maintain faith, and not succumb to that base thought that Rybak succumbed to: “Anyway, now death has no meaning, it will not change anything.” This is not so - suffering for the people, for the faith always has meaning for humanity. The feat instills moral strength in other people and preserves faith in them. Another reason why the church prize was awarded to the author of “Sotnikov” lies in the fact that religion always preaches the Idea of ​​understanding and forgiveness. Indeed, it is easy to condemn Rybak, but in order to have every right to do so, one must at least be in the place of this person. Of course, Rybak is worthy of condemnation, but there are universal human principles that call for refraining from unconditional condemnation even for such serious crimes.

In the development of man, the fundamental principle should be the noble ideals of people who fought and gave their lives for the future of their people and their country.

Bykov wrote the story “Sotnikov” in 1969. Original title works – “Liquidation”. In the story, Bykov raises the existential problems of heroism and betrayal, the influence of circumstances on a person. The author reveals the struggle between good and evil in the souls of the heroes, explores the psychological state of people during the war. Bykov does not give final assessments of the characters, leaving this right to the reader.

Main characters

Sotnikov– former commander of an artillery battalion, graduated from a teacher’s institute before the war; Red Army soldier, partisan; was hanged by the police.

Fisherman– former infantry sergeant major; Red Army soldier, partisan; to avoid death, he agreed to become a policeman.

Other characters

Petr Kachan- the headman of the village of Lyasiny, involuntarily began to serve the Germans.

Avginya Demchikha– mother of four children; hid Sotinkov and Rybak, which is why she ended up with the police and was hanged.

Portkov- a police investigator who interrogated the prisoners.

Chapter 1

Rybak and Sotnikov walked through the forest, “along a remote, snow-covered road.” Sotnikov could hardly drag himself: he had a bad cold and was coughing. The fisherman asked why he agreed to go on the mission. Sotnikov replied: “That’s why I didn’t refuse because others refused.”

Chapter 2

After a recent crossing of the highway, when Rybak and Sotnikov had to cover the detachment’s retreat, the Red Army men became close and last days stuck together.

Chapter 3

The men went to the village. The woman who lived in the last hut said that the village was called Lyasiny and showed where the local headman, Petr Kachan, lived. Rybak and Sotnikov entered the headman’s house without knocking. The owner was not surprised. When asked by Rybak whether he serves the Germans, Kachan replied that “he has to.” On the wall in the house there was a photograph of the headman’s son, who had gone to the front. The fisherman noted that the headman had disgraced his son, who fought against the Germans.

The headman's wife set the table. Sotnikov refused to eat, he felt very bad. The fisherman ate with pleasure. The Red Army men were surprised that there was a Bible in the headman’s house.

Chapter 4

The fisherman told the owner to go outside with him. The hostess began to lament, but Sotnikov did not fall for it. The Red Army soldier remembered how last year “excessive trust in the same woman almost cost him his life”: that woman offered to feed him, and while the soldier was eating, she called the police.

The fisherman took the sheep from the elder.

Chapter 5

The men moved back. Rybak began to feel slightly dissatisfied with his partner: without him, he would have gone far. The men walked across the field for a long time, but there was still no necessary road. The fisherman noticed the approaching people and ordered Sotnikov to run. The fisherman did not have time to get his bearings and ended up on the road along which the police were driving. With the sheep on his back, he ran forward even faster, overcame the hill, leaving Sotnikov behind.

The pursuers started shooting. The fisherman hurried forward, but at the last moment he came to his senses, abandoned the sheep and decided to return to his friend.

Chapter 6

Sotnikov, trying to escape, was shot in the thigh. Sitting down in the snow, the man began shooting at his pursuers, trying to detain them. He was not afraid of death - “it was scary to become a burden to others.” Sotnikov was getting worse when he suddenly heard Rybak’s voice nearby.

Chapter 7

The fisherman and Sotnikov crawled towards the bushes. The fisherman, helping his friend, began to lose his strength. They barely reached the road and headed towards the grove.

Chapter 8

Sotnikov couldn’t feel his foot, his hip hurt excruciatingly, but he continued to walk. The men went to the village cemetery and went into the nearest hut. There were only four children at home. The owner's daughter said that Demchikha's mother was not at home and treated the men to potatoes and cucumbers.

Chapter 9

The fisherman was angry with Sotnikov because he could not leave his wounded comrade with the children, and he had to wait for the mistress to arrive. Returning home, Demchikha was angry at the uninvited guests, but when she saw that Sotnikov was wounded, she bandaged him. The fisherman noticed three policemen through the window. Demchikha told the partisans to hide in the attic.

When the police were searching the hut, Sotnikov began coughing loudly. The partisans had to surrender.

Chapter 10

Sotnikov was not afraid that he might be killed, but “he was painfully worried that he had let Rybak and Demchikha down in such a way.” Because the woman hid the “bandits,” the police also arrested her. On the way, Rybak “cursed himself for his imprudence.” He “was already clearly aware that if it weren’t for Sotnikov, his cold, and then his injury, they would probably have reached the forest.”

Chapter 11

“Sotnikov did not doubt for a minute that they were missing.” Sotnikov was taken to investigator Portnov and began to be interrogated. The prisoner realized that the police knew about their visit to the headman. Despite the investigator’s pressure, Sotnikov refused to give information about his squad. Then Portkov called Budila, “the local police executioner.”

Chapter 12

Rybak and Demchikha were locked in the basement. In the cell where the Red Army soldier was put, there was the elder Peter. The fisherman tried to come up with a way, if not to avoid, then at least to delay the punishment.

The fisherman was summoned for questioning. He began to lie plausibly, giving the name of the captain of another detachment and saying that their detachment was supposedly in the forest. Satisfied with the interrogation, Portnov said that he might pardon Rybak and help him join the police and serve Germany.

Chapter 13

“Sotnikov was saved by his weakness: as soon as Budila began the torture, he quickly lost consciousness.” The prisoner's hand bones were broken and his nails were torn off. After half an hour of torture, Sotnikov was thrown into a cell with the headman and Rybak. Rybak thought that “if Sotnikov dies, then his chances will improve significantly. He can say whatever he wants."

The fisherman tried to negotiate with Sotnikov so that they would give the same testimony, but he refused. Sotnikov, realizing that his comrade was being called to the police, said: “This is a car! Either you will serve her, or she will grind you into dust! .

Chapter 14

After interrogation, Peter said that he was asked to find out from Rybak and Sotnikov about the detachment, but he refused. After interrogation, a Jewish girl and Demchikha were thrown into their cell.

Chapter 15

The fisherman began to understand that “now there was no way out,” although “always and everywhere he managed to find some way out.” “No, he could not agree to die, he would never accept death in submission.”

Chapter 16

Sotnikov decided that “tomorrow he will tell the investigator that he went on reconnaissance.” He dreamed of his father, who, as it seemed to Sotnikov, was quoting the Bible.

Chapter 17

In the morning, five prisoners were taken out into the street. Sotnikov shouted to the authorities who came out: “I am a partisan. It was I who wounded your policeman.<…>The rest have nothing to do with it. Take me alone." But the police did not react to his words.

Rybak noticed Portnov among his superiors and personally addressed him with the words that he was not guilty of anything. Portnov called Rybak over and asked if he agreed to join the police. The fisherman agreed. "Bastard!" - Sotnikov shouted.

Chapter 18

Sotnikov was offended because he was going to save others.

“Five flexible hemp loops” hung from the crossbar of the street arch. One by one, the prisoners “began to be led along the gallows.” Sotnikov climbed onto the block of wood standing under the noose. The fisherman was holding the stand at this time. The policeman threw a noose around his neck, and Demchikha was crying loudly nearby. The fisherman said to his comrade: “Forgive me, brother!” - “Go to hell! - Sotnikov said briefly.

Chapter 19

“The fisherman let go of the stand and stepped back - Sotnikov’s legs swayed nearby, the hat they had knocked off fell onto the snow.” After the execution, the Germans began to disperse “in a cheerful, high spirits, as if after a successfully completed<…>interesting activity."

Seeing Rybak standing on the sidewalk, the senior policeman ordered him to get into line. Mixed for a minute, Rybak joined the column. He realized that “there was no longer a way to escape from this formation” and “with this liquidation he was tied more securely than with a belt.” “Now he is the enemy of everyone and everywhere. And, apparently, to myself too.”

During a smoke break, Rybak went into the outhouse, hoping to hang himself with a belt, but only now remembered that the belt had been taken away before the interrogation. Yesterday's dream of becoming a policeman turned into a disaster for him. “Such is fate. The insidious fate of a man lost in war.”

Conclusion

In the story “Sotnikov” Vasil Bykov contrasts two main characters - Rybak and Sotnikov. From the first chapters, it seems that the active, cunning Rybak is more adapted to the conditions of war than the sickly, low-initiative Sotnikov. However, with the revelation of the characters, it becomes clear that Sotnikov has greater morality and spiritual strength. Until his death, he remains true to his principles, unlike the Fisherman, who becomes his own enemy.

Test on the story

Test your memorization summary test:

Retelling rating

Average rating: 4.6. Total ratings received: 1272.

Comparative analysis spiritual issues in the work “Sotnikov” by V. Bykov
and the film “The Ascension” by L. Shepitko

Teacher Barakov V.N.

The work was carried out by a GF student
Bob Margarita

2011

Introduction

Analysis of the story “Sotnikov” and the film “The Ascension”

Man in inhuman circumstances x.

System of characters and composition in the story “Sotnikov”

Film “The Ascent” 1976 director L. Shepitko

Conclusion

Literature

Introduction

When war breaks into people's lives, it always brings grief and misfortune,
disrupts the usual way of life. About the most cruel, monstrous war - the Great
Patriotic - they still remember it today.
Vasily Bykov is one of the most important Russian writers, who
Over the course of many years of creativity, he remains faithful to the theme of war. Its peculiarity
works is that he depicts the war in his stories as
what she was like - in suffering and blood.
On the pages of prose works we find a kind of chronicle
war, which reliably conveyed all stages of the great battle of the Soviet people with
Hitler's fascism.
Russian literature has become literature of one theme - the theme of war, the theme of the Motherland.
The writers breathed one breath with the struggling people and felt
“trench poets”, and all literature in general, according to A. Tolstoy, was
“the voice of the heroic soul of the people.”
Soviet wartime literature was multi-issue and multi-genre.
Poems, essays, stories, plays, poems, novels were created by our
writers during the war.
Based on the heroic traditions of Russian and Soviet literature, the prose of the times
The Great Patriotic War reached great creative heights.
The prose of the war years is characterized by an intensification of romantic and lyrical
elements, the widespread use by artists of declamatory and song
intonations, oratorical turns, appeal to such poetic means as
allegory, symbol, metaphor.
Traditions of Great Literature Patriotic War- this is the foundation of creative
searches for modern Soviet prose. Without these traditions, which are based
lies a clear understanding of the decisive role of the masses in the war, their heroism and
selfless devotion to the Motherland, the successes that have been achieved would have been impossible
Soviet “military” prose today.
Prose about the Great Patriotic War received its further development in
the first post-war years.
Military prose has achieved significant success at the present stage of its development.
development.
War in the depiction of front-line prose writers is not only and not even how much
spectacular heroic deeds, outstanding deeds, how tiresome
Everyday work, hard, bloody work, but vital. And exactly
it was in this everyday work that the writers of the “second” saw the Soviet man
war."
The theme of the Great Patriotic War is generally central in the work of V. Bykov.
A witness and participant in grandiose events, he wrote almost all of his works
dedicated to wartime events. Bykov himself noted that almost everything that they
created, “connected with the Great Patriotic War” and that it “still was and
continues to be a military writer.”

The theme of the Great Patriotic War occupies an important place in Vasil’s work
Bykova. Honor, conscience, human dignity, loyalty to one's duty -
It is these problems that are addressed by the writer. But still the main theme
Bykov's creativity remains, of course, the theme of heroism. Moreover, the writer
interested not so much in its external manifestation, but in what way a person
comes to feat, to self-sacrifice, why, in the name of what he does
heroic act.
A characteristic feature of Bykov’s war stories is that in the center
image shows a person in an extreme situation, and the situation is as follows:
that the hero must immediately make a choice: a heroic death or a shameful one
life of a traitor. And it is not by chance that the author resorts to such a technique, because in
In an ordinary setting, a person’s character cannot be fully revealed. In this
In this regard, the story “Sotnikov” is no exception.
The works of V. Bykov about the Great Patriotic War reveal to us all the horror
this formidable and tragic event, make us understand what the price was
victory is won. They teach goodness, humanity, justice.
To summarize what has been said, it can be noted that the development of prose about the Great
Patriotic War clearly shows that among its main
main problem that has been at the center for more than forty years
the creative search of our writers was and is the problem of heroism.
This is especially noticeable in the works of front-line writers, close-up
who showed in their works the heroism of our people and the fortitude of our soldiers.

Analysis of the story “Sotnikov” and the film “The Ascension”

I read the story “Sotnikov” by V. Bykov twice, at school and just the other day, and I watched the film for the first time. I'm delighted.

At first I thought sadly: “Another heavy war film.” But it made a very strong impression on me, and there was not a shadow of regret from watching it.
I think it would not be entirely correct to describe this film as a war film. It's more of a drama, and a very deep and meaningful one at that. The events of “The Ascension” take us back to the years of the Patriotic War, to 1942, to Belarus. In the film we do not see any fierce fighting. The emphasis is not on this at all, but on the behavior and actions of people during the war years.

The main characters are two partisans. Both seem to love their homeland and don’t complain. Only one of them is a traitor (Rybak), and the other is courageous and fearless (Sotnikov). The film acutely poses the problem of morality, the problem of human choice.
A person such as Rybak, perhaps, sincerely wanted to fight and fought in a partisan detachment for the Motherland, and in this he was the same as Sotnikov. Only the logic of his reasoning, the logic of his thoughts, the logic of his actions was such that it gradually led him to becoming a servant of German fascism. Not his personal position, not his vile intentions, but just the logic of his reasoning. Just, sometimes it’s very, very much. This is all or most of the subtlety of this dilemma. Different, not bad, just a different mindset, a different way of reasoning, not bad, but in in this case, he became objectively bad. War. When Rybak realized that now there was no turning back, that he was left alone, and he remained alive because he was a traitor, this is where his test begins, a real test. Now he cannot obscure everything with his reasoning, even to himself, now either he must say, yes, I am a traitor, yes, I will serve the enemy, yes, I will kill Russians, my brothers. And no other alternative. And if he were such a vile person, then he probably would have done so. For Rybak, the finale was no less painful psychologically than Sotnikov’s physical suffering; this very fact suggests that not everything is so simple.

Although I do not undertake to condemn Rybak for his betrayal. No one knows what he himself would have done in his place, what decision he would have made, having gone through torture and bullying. It cannot be said that Rybak is bad person. What characterizes him on the good side is that he carried the wounded Sotnikov on his shoulders to the village. After the partisans were hanged, he is tormented by his conscience, guilt and, in the end, he decides to commit suicide.

Sotnikov... He is definitely a hero. Thanks to people like him, victory in the war was won. I think that in the film, as in the book, the author idealized the person in the person of Sotnikov. He thinks, first of all, about humanity, about his people, about his neighbor, and only then about himself. In my opinion, he accepted a dignified death.

I wondered: why didn’t Sotnikov betray? Didn't he want to live? Didn't he love the whole world in which he lived and wanted to die with joy? Of course, this cannot be true. I thought that, yes, he loved life, but he loved his Motherland even more, and he could not betray the Motherland, which gave birth to him, raised him, fed him, gave him the opportunity to receive a free education and become a man, he could not just forget it. and betray. To some extent, I still agree with this. Well, what about Rybak, he was also raised by his Motherland, and why did he act differently? Were you less grateful? This would either be too ideological an approach or too naive for me. But I was naive and sincerely thought so, and it is possible that Sotnikov was also naive in some ways and youthfully maximalistic, but it was in this naivety that his moral strength lay, because he, perhaps, sincerely believed in his principles, and for the sake of these principles he was ready to go to the end. Now, I understand that this whole problem is much simpler in some ways, but at the same time more subtle, there are many nuances in it that people are not used to noticing.

Every role in the film is played at the highest level. The amazing look of Sotnikov performed by Boris Plotnikov seems to pierce the soul. Vladimir Gostyukhin did an excellent job with the difficult role of Rybak - a man who seems to be balancing on the brink of honor and dishonor, a man driven to despair by the war. The brilliant actor of Soviet cinema Anatoly Solonitsyn played the role of the traitor, investigator Portnov, whose entire gamut of emotions is conveyed again in his gaze and in the slightest intonation of his voice.

In general, in Shepitko’s film there is a lot close-ups faces of the characters, much attention is paid to the look that conveys state of mind characters. This is especially noticeable in the execution scene. Sotnikov’s calm, spiritual look before his death is strikingly different from the doomed look of the headman, the frightened look of the girl, and from the suffering that can be read in Demchikha’s eyes. The execution scene is definitely the most poignant and most memorable scene in the film.

The choice of the film's title is also interesting - “The Ascension” (the story by Vasil Bykov, on which the film was based, was called “Sotnikov”). Apparently, the director wanted to show the importance of both characters in the plot of the film, since the choice of Rybak is no less significant than the choice of Sotnikov. But the real ascent, the spiritual ascent, goes through only one of the heroes - Sotnikov, who accomplished a feat of spirit. After all, there are things more important than life - things like honor, duty, conscience. War is terrible, everything human is alien to it. Only strong-willed people are able not to lose their human face against the backdrop of the cruelty and despair of war. These are the people who cannot be defeated.

The interest of the writer Vasil Bykov was drawn to complex, intricate human destinies. And he, as an artist, found it closer to the story of a man who, through small compromises with himself, turned out to be a traitor, than to the heroic deed of another (“Sotnikov”). By the way, the writer condemned Rybak, first of all, for betraying himself, and not other people. But although both Bykov himself and we, the readers, truly feel sorry for Rybak, we are forced not to him, but to Sotnikov, to give our human approval. In the story “Sotnikov,” Vasil Bykov resolved an ambiguous conflict using military material, and this introduced its own characteristics. In modern conditions it is practically unsolvable. It is possible that now it would not be Sotnikov, but Rybak, who would become a hero - as a person who knows how to avoid danger and does not push ahead. But in the war, the conflict could only be resolved in favor of Sotnikov.

And in the film “The Ascension” by Larisa Shepitko, there is a curious example of the transformation of the story “Sotnikov” into a parable of an almost symbolic nature. The literary work was a kind of allegorical parabola, where the military situation is a metaphorical reason for exploring the drama of a person who has crossed the invisible line between moral and immoral, spiritual and unspiritual. A compromise, quite possible in other conditions, turned out to be an irreparable mistake, for which it was no longer possible to pay for it with anything, not even with one’s own life. The loss of “moral hearing” led a person to betrayal. But this story seemed to be illuminated by the fate of Sotnikov, who was able to measure every life situation by the measure of spirituality and therefore remained steadfast in spite of everything.

However, in the film, compared to the story, the emphasis is undoubtedly shifted. Transparent biblical allusions contributed to a more definite characterization of the heroes, dividing them into different poles of human morality. Private history began to hint at something more, going far beyond its boundaries into the space of cultural and universal archetypes. The result is a somewhat abstract parable about a person’s ascent to the heights of his own Spirit, about a person’s ability to be a person in the most inhumane conditions.

And for a long time this fundamental discrepancy between an outstanding story and a very talented picture haunted me, which nevertheless caused almost an attack of rage towards the fanatical character, who not only died himself, but also dragged innocent people with him to the gallows. And his obsessive comparison with Christ seemed clearly unjustified - Jesus was crucified alone, while Judas suffered for real betrayal: betraying his teacher to the authorities. So Bykov, calling the story “Sotnikov” in accordance with Soviet casuistry, still considered Rybak the main character and described, in his own words, “the tragedy of a man lost in the war,” who tried to survive at all costs, but not I noticed that I had crossed a dangerous line.

Shepitko, on the contrary, made a film about the act of self-sacrifice and passing the baton to the future generation, that “boy in Budenovka” (and who would allow him to wear it under the conditions of the fascist occupation?!), who “with tears in his eyes” perceives the heroic death of Sotnikov and those , who, unfortunately, ended up with him in the same farm barn. And the tragic music of Alfred Schnittke cannot but evoke tears from the audience - but with your mind you understand that this scene in “The Ascension” is, in fact, a dubious example of the aestheticization of death, the insulting glorification of senseless victims for the sake of one tear of a boy in a Budenovka, who supposedly it will be good to live in his “tomorrow”.

I think that the film is interesting to different audiences: from young to old. While watching it you experience deep emotions. After himself, he leaves an indelible impression. This is a bright, piercing, incredibly talented film that goes straight to the soul. The work of Larisa Shepitko can be a real test for the viewer. Willingness to fight is not just the ability to pull the trigger of a machine gun, it is the willingness not to change your principles and protect those who need your help, regardless of the situation. Evil, good, help and betrayal become for the viewer not such simple categories as they seem at first glance.

Vasil Bykov
Larisa Shepitko

Photo from the movie “The Ascension”

A man in inhumane circumstances. Moral issues
heroes in the work “Sotnikov”

The problem of the moral choice of a hero in war is characteristic of all creativity
V. Bykova. This problem is posed in almost all of his stories:
“Alpine Ballad”, “Obelisk”, “Sotnikov” and others. In Bykov's story
“Sotnikov” emphasizes the theme of real and imaginary heroism, which
constitutes the essence of the plot conflict of the work.
The story "Sotnikov" Winter 1942. Partisan detachment, burdened
women, children, wounded, surrounded. Ammo running out, nothing left to do
feed people. Two people are sent on reconnaissance - Sotnikov and Rybak. They get into
the hands of the fascists. Having endured torture, Sotnikov dies, Fisherman at the cost of betrayal
remains alive. Two types of life behavior, the price of heroism and a shameful ending
moral compromise, the origins of heroism and betrayal - these are the main
problems revealed through these images. A fisherman is a brave fighter when
stand with their backs, but finding themselves face to face with the enemy, he goes first to
compromise, then - to betrayal and murder of a comrade.
Analyzing this character, V. Bykov comes to the conclusion that the origins of betrayal
The fisherman emerges from childhood.
Sotnikov is a modest, inconspicuous person, without any outward signs of a hero and
extraordinary personality, simple teacher. Why, being sick and weak?
did he go on a responsible mission? After all, one of the reasons that they
ended up in the hands of the enemy, his illness appeared - he could not restrain the strangling
cough and this revealed himself and Rybak.
Exhausted by torture, blackmailed by the fascists (“We’ll find them anyway, but you
let's write him down as a traitor"), he remains unbroken. The origins of his courage,
heroism was a deep conviction in the justice of the struggle that
leads the people who raised and nourished him. Sotnikov dies physically, but
not spiritual. Before the execution, he sees a boy in the crowd, meets him and
makes sure that he has honestly fulfilled his duty.

In the story, not representatives of two different worlds collide, but people of the same
countries. The heroes of the story - Sotnikov and Rybak - under normal conditions, perhaps not
would show their true nature. But during the war Sotnikov with honor
goes through difficult trials and accepts death without renouncing his
beliefs, and Rybak, in the face of death, changes his beliefs, betrays his Motherland,
saving his life, which after betrayal loses all value. He
actually becomes an enemy. He goes into another world, alien to us, where personal
well-being is placed above all else, where fear for one’s life makes one kill
and betray. In the face of death, a person remains as he is
actually. Here the depth of his convictions, his civic conscience are tested.

Going on a mission, they react differently to the upcoming danger, and it seems
that a strong and smart Fisherman is more prepared for a feat than a frail one,
sick Sotnikov.
But if the Fisherman, who all his life “managed to find some kind of
some way out”, internally ready for betrayal, then Sotnikov to the last
breathing remains faithful to the duty of a man and a citizen.
“Well, it was necessary
gather the last of your strength to face death with dignity... Otherwise
Why then life? It is too easy for a person to carelessly
towards its end."
In Bykov’s story, everyone took their place among the victims. Everyone except Rybak
have passed their mortal path to the end. The fisherman took the path of betrayal only
in the name of saving his own life. Thirst for continuation of life, passionate desire
the traitor investigator felt the need to live and, almost without hesitation, pointedly
stunned Rybak: “Let’s save lives. You will serve great Germany." Fisherman still
did not agree to join the police, but he was already spared from torture. The fisherman didn't want
die and blurted out something to the investigator.

Sotnikov lost consciousness during the torture, but did not say anything. Policemen in
the stories are depicted as stupid and cruel, the investigator as cunning and cruel.
Sotnikov came to terms with death. He would like to die in battle, but it became for
it is impossible. The only thing left for him was to decide on his attitude towards
people nearby. Before the execution, Sotnikov demanded an investigator and
declared: “I am a partisan, the rest have nothing to do with it.” The investigator ordered
bring Rybak, and he agreed to join the police. The fisherman tried to convince
himself, that he is not a traitor, that he will run away.

In the last minutes of his life, Sotnikov unexpectedly lost his confidence in the right
demand from others what he demands from himself. The fisherman became not for him
a bastard, but simply a foreman who, as a citizen and a person, did not achieve something
That. Sotnikov did not look for sympathy in the crowd surrounding the execution site. He doesn't
wanted people to think badly of him, and was only angry with the one doing the
duties of the executioner Rybak. The fisherman apologizes: “Sorry, brother.” “Go to
damn!” - follows the answer.
What happened to Fisherman? He did not overcome the fate of one lost in war
person. He sincerely wanted to hang himself. But circumstances got in the way, and he stayed
chance to survive. But how to survive? The police chief believed that he had “picked up more
one traitor." It’s unlikely that the police chief understood what was going on in his soul
this man, confused, but shocked by the example of Sotnikov, who
was crystal honest, fulfilling his duty as a man and citizen to the end.
The boss saw Rybak's future in serving the occupiers. But the writer left
him the possibility of a different path: continuing the fight against the enemy, possible recognition
in his fall to his comrades and, ultimately, atonement

The work is imbued with thoughts about life and death, about human duty and
humanism, which are incompatible with any manifestation of egoism. In-depth
psychological analysis of every action and gesture of the characters, fleeting thoughts or
replicas are one of the strongest points of the story “Sotnikov”. Pope
presented the writer V. Bykov with a special Catholic prize for the story “Sotnikov”
churches. This fact speaks of what a universal, moral principle
is seen in this work. Sotnikov's enormous moral strength
is that he managed to accept suffering for his people, managed to preserve
faith, not to succumb to that base thought to which the Fisherman succumbed. "Doesn't matter
Now death has no meaning, it won’t change anything.” This is not true - suffering
for the people, for the faith always have meaning for humanity. The feat inspires
moral strength in other people, maintains faith in them.

System of characters and composition in the story “Sotnikov”

The main idea of ​​his works is the behavior of people in extreme situations,
when in an instant you have to solve such complex questions as: Who
right? Who's to blame? Die or betray? "Sotnikov" is no exception, in this
Bykov’s story was able to show what happens to the inner world of a person,
when his fate is decided.
Let us remember the episode when Sotnikov and Rybak come to the headman. According to severe
According to the laws of war, they had to kill him. He collaborates with
fascists means a traitor. But did he have a choice? Of his own free will he did
this step? No! But what does this matter to the partisans who have seen
During wartime there were many like him. Peter himself doesn’t even try
to make excuses - knows that it is useless. Why didn't the Fisherman kill him? After all
should have, by all accounts should. He spared him only because “he was very
This Peter seemed already peaceful, like a peasant, and familiar to him." This means that the war is not
made a killing machine out of a soldier, could not resist common sense
meaning and humanism. The fisherman makes the perfect choice, relying on
according to your instinct.
He has another difficult decision to make during a shootout with
policemen. He is faced with a choice: either save a seriously ill comrade, or
seventeen people from starvation. At the first moment he chooses the second, but
retreating, he hears Sotnikov firing back. It's the sounds of gunfire
forcing him to abandon the sheep and return to help. For what? After all, in the forest there is a whole
a detachment that had not eaten for several days, and here there was only one sick person, and also a wounded one.
It means that Rybak cannot go against the laws of morality, it is not in his spirit to be a coward and
abandoning a comrade who throughout the entire mission was only for him
a burden.
During the shootout, Sotnikov sees his comrade leaving, but does not blame him
for betrayal: he himself understands perfectly well that he was only getting in the way of Rybak, and
decides to detain the policemen, thereby allowing his partner to escape.

In the story Belarusian writer Vasil Bykov's "Sotnikov" the problem of true and imaginary heroism is emphasized by the author and forms the basis of the plot
works. Its heroes - Sotnikov and Rybak - under normal conditions, perhaps
would not show their true nature. But the author puts them in such a position,
that the reader sees their true essence. Going to complete the task, they
react differently to the upcoming danger, and it seems that the strong and
a quick-witted Fisherman is more prepared for a feat than a frail, sick one
Sotnikov. But if the Fisherman, who all his life “managed to find some
way out", is internally ready to commit betrayal, then Sotnikov to
last breath remains true to the duty of a man and a citizen: “Well, we must
I had to muster my last strength to face death with dignity.
Otherwise, what is life for then? It is too easy for a person to
be carefree about its end."

Film “The Ascent” 1976 director L. Shepitko

SSR, 1976, 111 min., b&w
based on the story "Sotnikov" by Vasil Bykov

Director
LARISA SHEPITKO

Operators:
VLDIMIR CHUKHNOV
PAVEL LEBESHEV

Music
ALFRED SCHNITTKE

Starring:
BORIS PLOTNIKOV
VLADIMIR GOSTYUKHIN
ANATOLY SOLONITSYN

AWARDS:
West Berlin International Film Festival, 1977:
Grand Prix "Golden Bear", Prize of the International Federation of Film Press FIPRESCI, Prize of the Catholic Jury, special mention of the Evangelical Jury.

Two mysteries in life are inseparable - the mystery of birth and the mystery of death. Living life only by reproducing yourself is a small matter. But can we leave something behind? Can we prove that we are not just a biological experiment? If we leave some part of our energy for the benefit of people, it means that we have no longer died, we are no longer in vain.
Larisa Shepitko

When they were on the way, going up to Jerusalem, Jesus walked ahead of them, and they were terrified and, following Him, were in fear. Calling the twelve, He again began to tell them what would happen to Him: behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the high priests and scribes, and they will condemn Him to death, and hand Him over to the pagans, and they will mock Him, and beat Him, and spit on Him, and kill Him; and on the third day he will rise again.
Gospel of Mark

1976 Larisa Shepitko is finishing “The Ascension” - a film about the war, which must inevitably end up on the shelf, because “instead of a partisan story,” according to the regulatory authorities, “a religious parable with a mystical tinge” was filmed.

The painting is based on Belarusian material, based on Vasil Bykov’s story “Sotnikov”... And Larisa Efimovna’s husband Elem Klimov decides to take a desperate step.
Bypassing Mosfilm, he invites Masherov, the first secretary of the Central Committee of Belarus, to a special screening, on whose order he himself is filming a grandiose war film with the apocalyptic title “Come and See.” Pyotr Mironovich is skeptical about "woman's" direction, but still shows Klimov such courtesy.

The film is brought to Minsk directly from the laboratory, almost wet. Somehow they charge it, and after twenty minutes nothing can tear Masherov away from watching. Somewhere in the middle of the film, this strong man, a partisan himself, cries, not embarrassed by the fact that the entire leadership of the republic is present in the hall. At the end, he speaks for about forty minutes... His speech is emotional, it is one of the best Elem Germanovich has ever heard addressed to his wife.

A few days later, "Ascension" was officially accepted without a single amendment. The tape has resounding success and an excellent distribution fate: in Riga she takes the main prize, at the Berlin festival - the most prestigious FINPRESCI award; and is ultimately purchased by forty countries around the world.

After the screenings, where she presents the film herself, either in her homeland or abroad, people with tear-stained eyes come up to Shepitko and thank, thank...
“There have never been such partisans before,” they tell her. But Larisa is worried about something else. Peering inquisitively into the eyes of her interlocutor, she asks worriedly: “But this is not really about war. Do you understand?”

Sotnikov: I will not betray. There are things more important than your own skin...
Portnov: Where are they? Well, what is this? What does it consist of?.. This is nonsense! We are finite. With death everything ends for us. The whole world. We ourselves. It’s not worth it... For what? An example for posterity? But you won't have a heroic death either. You will not die, you will die as a traitor. If you don’t give it away, someone else will give it away, and we’ll blame everything on you; It's clear?
Sotnikov: Scum... Human scum.

Two partisans former teacher Sotnikov and the career military fisherman were sent for food. In a night shootout, Sotnikov is wounded in the leg. Sick, exhausted, out of fear of being captured, he is about to commit suicide, and only at the very last moment Rybak knocks the rifle away from him; then he carries him along and encourages him. But this is unnecessary: ​​having experienced weakness and shock, Boris understands that Someone from above saved him. “Don’t worry,” he says, “now I’m not afraid of anything.”

Probably, Larisa Efimovna’s ascent began much earlier, but most obviously - with the film “You and Me.” From the memoirs of Yuri Vizbor. "1971. Filming of a major episode in the film. The circus is filled with three thousand extras. Endless misunderstandings between the circus workers and Mosfilm people. Horses, costumes, props... “Larisa Efimovna, am I laughing after the juggler?”, “Larisa Efimovna, the power shield was knocked out, I need to drive the Lichtwagen out of the studio,” “Larisa Efimovna, is there a bucket of warm water or cold for Vizbor?”, “Larissa, look, is the back of my head okay? In terms of beauty?”, “Larisa Efimovna, why isn’t the buffet open?”, “They’re calling you from the studio!”, “Please note, we don’t have enough Kodak,” “The fireman prohibits filming.” In general, they started filming somewhere at three o'clock in the afternoon Larisa worked like an open-hearth furnace. Nothing worked: either the artists failed, or the juggler was out of time, or the horse, or the light - even if you screamed.
Finally, the moment comes when everything somehow comes together and all that remains is to shoot the scene. And then suddenly the powerful lighting goes out: ten o’clock in the evening - the workers are going home. Larisa grabs her own money from her bag and rushes up into the circus gallery. Instantly, deep silence reigns in the huge space of the circus. All heads are turned to the top, to where the dialogue takes place between the lighting crew and the director. Result? "We were given half an hour. In half an hour we must film the entire scene from beginning to end
etc.............

Literature lesson

Class

“The problem of moral choice in the story by V.V. Bykov "Sotnikov"

Lesson progress

Moral man does a lot for

their friends and for the sake of the fatherland, even if

he had to lose his life in the process.

Aristotle

The 20th century is a century of global changes, catastrophes, revolutions and brutal wars. This is a turning point in human history. People who fell into the millstones of history were forced to make their own moral choice: to perform a noble deed and die, to abandon one’s moral principles and save one’s life. What is more important is something everyone decides for themselves. Sometimes this choice was unbearably difficult, crushing a person who had retreated from the concepts of honor, justice and goodness. Sometimes decent honest people could not cope with the natural desire to save their lives at all costs. The era was breaking human souls and destroyed a person’s ideas about morality and ethics, forcing him to renounce the usual moral values. And only those people who managed to preserve human dignity, who remained true to their convictions, who did not betray their ideals, are worthy of being called heroes.

In Vasil Bykov's story, as in many other works of the 20th century, the problem of moral choice is the main one. We are dedicating our literature lesson today to discussing this problem. It is impossible to reveal the topic of moral choice without comparative characteristics The main characters of the story are Sotnikov and Rybak.

(On the board) “... first of all and mainly I was interested in two moral points, which can be simply defined as follows: what is a person before the crushing force of inhumane circumstances? What is he capable of when his ability to defend his life has been completely exhausted and it is impossible to prevent death?

A word about the writer

Vasil Vladimirovich Bykov (1924 – 2003)

Born in the village of Bychki, Ushachi district, Vitebsk region in peasant family. In June 1941, he passed the 10th grade exams as an external student. The war found him in Ukraine, where he participated in defense work. During the retreat, in Belgorod, he fell behind his column and was arrested and almost shot as a German spy. He fought as part of an army engineering battalion. Drafted into the army in 1942, he graduated from the Saratov Infantry School. In the fall of 1943, he was awarded the rank of junior lieutenant. He took part in the liberation of Romania, marched with the active army through Bulgaria, Hungary, Yugoslavia, and Austria; senior lieutenant, platoon commander of regimental, then army artillery. About the war in the book of memories " Long road home" recalled this:

In 1955 he was finally demobilized from the army. Since the end of 1997, he lived abroad in political exile in Finland, Germany, and the Czech Republic. Buried in Minsk.

Analysis of the work

The story "Sotnikov" was written in 1970.

Comparative characteristics Sotnikov and Rybak

- Compare the portraits of the heroes. What conclusion can be drawn?

What character qualities are favorable to the Fisherman?

At what point does one become wary of him?

At the headman's

How did Rybak’s refusal to shoot the elder Peter, contrary to Sotnikov’s demands, reveal the difference in the moral positions of his comrades? Whose side is the author on?

Tendency to compromise

Shootout with police

(Only the thought of how he would explain what happened to the detachment commander forced Rybak to return for the wounded)

Attitude towards a friend

3) In Demchikha’s house

How does Demchikha behave during the arrest of the partisans?

Compare the behavior of the woman and the Fisherman.

(Dyomchikha does not blame the partisans for her tragedy, despite the fact that her children will remain orphans.)

- What worries each of the characters?

Images of policemen

How are the policemen depicted in the story: Stas, Budila, Portnov?

Find words in the text that give expressive characteristics of these characters.

(The author deeply despises traitors. Having deviated from moral laws, they ceased to be people. The policemen in the story “squeal,” “go wild,” “bristle,” that is, they behave like mongrels currying favor with their masters. Stas even betrayed native language, speaking in a wild mixture of Belarusian and German": "Yavol to the basement! Bitta please!”)

Captured

(Concessions to evil in the name of good are impossible. Having embarked on the path of treason, you will not turn away from it later. The colonel’s refusal to make any compromises became his last victory over the enemy. The colonel’s act is the ideal behavior of a true patriot.)

– What horrified Rybak when he saw Sotnikov returning after interrogation?

(Peter: “Beasts.” Fisherman: the same will happen to him.)

– What position did Rybak take during the interrogation?

(Adjust, be cunning.)

- What irritates him about Sotnikov? (Principle.)

- And Sotnikova? (Silence. At first I wanted to take everything upon myself in order to cover others.)

– Why wasn’t Rybak tortured?

– How will his journey end?

– What does Sotnikov see as the reason for the fall (betrayal) of Rybak? (He’s a good partisan, but human qualities don't make it.)

Moral choice

What moral choice do Sotnikov and Rybak make?

Sotnikov's dream

Comment on the hero's dream.

Dream: the father says in a dream: “There was fire, and there was the highest justice in the world...”. There is a Supreme Court, before which everyone, without exception, is responsible. The boy in Budenovka is the personification of the coming generation: Sotnikov must repeat the feat of the Russian colonel in the face of the future, pass on the testament to future generations.

(Sotnikov takes all the blame on himself, trying to save other people - it is important for him to die with dignity, having done good.)

Final

Notice how the hero's vocabulary changes in the finale. Physical weakness recedes into the background. We hear the voice of a wise, tired man. His speech contains words of high spirituality, timeless.

(Conscience is the measure of actions. Mercy, patience, conscience, morality, Btbliya)

There is no word God, no prayer sounds, but the words of the prayer are read in the semantics of the text. Prophet Isaiah:

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who consider darkness to be light and light to be darkness, who consider bitter to be sweet and sweet to be bitter!
Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and understanding in their own eyes!..
Wash yourself, make yourself clean; remove your evil deeds from before my eyes; stop doing evil;
Learn to do good; seek the truth...
(Book of the prophet Isaiah: ch. 5: 20-21; ch. 1:16-17)

- It’s as if lines from my father’s Bible sound. It seems that Sotnikov ascended not to the scaffold, but to some unimaginable height from which he could even look at Rybak without anger.

– Confirm with text this height of Sotnikov and the fall of Rybak.

– What does Sotnikov see from this height?

(Nature, the eyes of a child, the church - a world that will not betray him.)

(The fisherman personally executes his comrade. And although he is saved from physical death, he condemns himself to the long, shameful death of the traitor, Judas. The fisherman, like Judas, tries to hang himself, and nowhere else than in the restroom, among the stench of human waste, is even ready to throw himself head down, but does not dare. The humiliating existence of slavery becomes a lifelong punishment for him.)

There is a picture of an old church on the board.

– Church... Describe it... (“Abandoned by people, but not far from the village” - the hope that maybe people will turn their gaze to it again, and then what their souls have lost will return again.)

- The eyes of a boy. In Russian literature there is artistic technique, which Blok would later call “meeting the eyes.” The spark—spiritual understanding—continuity is here.

L.N. Thanks to such a meeting of Tolstoy's eyes, the French officer did not send Pierre Bezukhov to death. In Dostoevsky, the meeting of Sonechka’s light eyes and Raskolnikov’s dark eyes unites them.

- In a difficult situation of choice, Rybak turned out to be Judas, betraying both Sotnikov and his comrades; he himself determined the price of his life in the face of impending death. Sotnikov, in the face of inexorable death, makes the only possible choice for himself - the behests of his father - the salvation of honor, conscience, and soul. And, who knows, maybe if Sotnikov had his father’s Bible in the last minutes of his life, he would have re-read these very lines...

Listen to them too. Try to find an echo in your own soul:

When they betray you, do not worry about how or what to say; for at that hour it will be given to you what to say...
And do not be afraid of those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul; but fear Him more who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna...
Enter through the narrow gate; For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many go therein;
Because narrow is the gate and narrow is the way that leads to life, and few find it.
(Gospel of Matthew: ch. 10:19, 28; ch. 7:13-14)

How do you understand the ending of the story?

(Having stumbled once, a person can no longer stop, no matter how much he wants to. A life bought by betrayal is worthy only of contempt. A person who has not betrayed his moral convictions, even if he dies, remains forever alive in the memory of his descendants.)

9) Results

A) Teacher's word

Bykov's prose is characterized by a contrast between the physical and moral health of a person. However, the inferiority of the soul is not revealed immediately, not in everyday life: it is necessary "moment of truth", a situation of categorical moral choice. Two people are sent to partisan reconnaissance: Rybak, full of vitality, and the intelligent Sotnikov, who is not distinguished by his power, who himself volunteered to go on the mission, despite his illness. Sotnikov is a purely civilian who worked as a school teacher before the war. Physical strength is replaced by stubbornness and strength of character.

From the age of 12, the fisherman was engaged in hard peasant labor; he could more easily endure the physical stress and hardships of partisan life. The fisherman is more prone to moral compromise. He refuses to shoot the elder Peter, who served the Nazis. But what is good in peaceful life is destructive in war. Sotnikov perfectly understands the laws of war, he knew what captivity and betrayal were, and therefore he did not compromise with his conscience.

Bykov does not spare black paint for depicting policemen: people who deviate from moral laws cease to be people for him.

The fisherman tries to outwit his enemy, not realizing that he has already embarked on the path of betrayal, because he has put his own salvation above the laws of honor and camaraderie. Step by step, he gradually gives in to the enemy, betraying first Demchikha, then Sotnikov. Sotnikov, unlike Rybak, tries to take on the blame of other people in order to save them; for him it is important to die with dignity. Like Christ, Sotnikov goes to death for “his friends,” in the name of humanity. Like Christ, he will be betrayed by his comrade.

B ) Evaluation of students' performances and work in class.

(Report on the decision made in the group, on how the group worked. The students themselves evaluate the work in groups.)

C) Assignment for those who failed to prove themselves during the seminar:

Give an interpretation to the following words and expressions: morality, moral choice, honor, betrayal, nobility, patriotism.

G) Write down your conclusion on the topic of the lesson in your workbook.

10) Homework:

Write a detailed answer to the questions:

- « What is the essence of Sotnikov’s feat?»

- « How does Rybak become a traitor?»

Application

Lesson assignment in groups

Assignment for all groups:

Find portraits of Sotnikov and Rybak in the text of the story and compare them. How do the characters in the story differ from each other? How did each of them become part of the partisans?

How do you understand the ending of the story? Explain its meaning.

1st group:

How did Rybak’s refusal to shoot the elder Peter, contrary to Sotnikov’s demands, reveal the difference in the moral positions of his comrades? Whose side is the author on?

How do the heroes of the story behave in the episode of the shootout with the police?

Group 2:

Why does the fisherman, who was cowardly, still return to the rescue of his comrade?

What role does the scene of the interrogation of the Russian colonel, which Sotnikov witnessed during the interrogation in captivity, play in the story?

Group 3:

How does Demchikha behave during the arrest of the partisans? Compare the behavior of the woman and the Fisherman in this situation?

How are the policemen depicted in the story: Stas, Budila, Portnov? Find words in the text that give expressive characteristics of these characters.

Group 4:

What moral choice does the Fisherman make in trying to escape?

Can he be called an inveterate scoundrel?

What moral choice does Sotnikov make? How does he behave on the eve of death? Comment on the hero's dream.

Why does Sotnikov, looking at the loop prepared for him, think: “One for two”?

Related information.

/ / / Comparative characteristics of Sotnikov and Rybak

Two heroes of Bykov Sotnikov and Fisherman with two different destinies intertwined into one story. A story worth thinking about and drawing conclusions about. It is difficult to condemn or justify people in it, because there is a war going on. But war often takes away not only human lives, she enslaves people, forcing them to go to the most extreme measures. And all this for the sake of existence, which is sometimes already meaningless.

Since childhood, I dreamed of holding a weapon in my hands. His ideal was his father, who was a “red commander.

And yet Sotnikov Jr. decides to become a teacher. After being drafted into the army, he began to gain experience in “military affairs.” Soon, in an unequal battle, the detachment under Sotnikov was defeated by the invaders, and the commander himself was captured, from which the man later managed to escape. So Sotnikov ends up in the partisan movement, where he tries in every possible way to cause the greatest damage to the enemy.

Initially he was a foreman in the detachment. He was an experienced “warrior”, but even this did not help him in the war. The man, like many others, was wounded in one of the battles. After the wound healed, Rybak, like Sotnikov, joined the partisans. The man was not afraid of difficulties. He was used to working hard, as he grew up in a simple village family.

On the eve of a mission from the commander, Sotnikov becomes very ill, but he does not refuse the order and goes with a comrade to the village. He was very weak, and during the meeting with the police he was seriously injured.

The fisherman could not leave his comrade to die, since he was responsible for him to the military authorities. The man had to return and help his fighting friend. However, he did not understand why he, in a painful state, did not refuse such a “mission”.

And Sotnikov agreed only because others could not go. He was worried about his comrades, because among them there were wounded. The surviving partisans were very tired and hungry, as they lived for a long time in a tight cordon. Sotnikov was clearly aware of the need to urgently take action to help them. After all, the wounded soldiers had it much worse than him.

Sotnikov would never compromise with conscience and honor. He lived only with a sense of duty to his loved ones, comrades and homeland. And if you had to choose death or stay alive but help the Nazis, then the choice would be obvious. Only death.

The fisherman was more pragmatic than his comrade. He was ready to make any compromise just to stay alive. The man thought that it was possible to get out of any, even the most difficult situation, but not from the grave. That’s why he clung to life so much and at the last moment agreed to cooperate with the police. He hoped to escape at the first opportunity. However, the author will not allow him to escape or die in the future. The man will truly be punished for his betrayal. However, he will have to come to terms with what happened.

The question of whether Rybak should be condemned remains rhetorical. Yes, he betrayed his comrades with his choice, and he showed weakness by succumbing to panic and allowing fear to take over his heart. But he was not going to accept his defeat and remain with the Nazis until the end. He tried to save his life, not suspecting that after his comrade was hanged, he himself would wish for death.

Sotnikov remained true to his convictions to the end. He did not accept Rybak’s choice and practically hated his former colleague. The man despised the “partisan”’s intentions to stay alive after paying such a high price. After all, in his understanding, it was better to die than to “bury” one’s dignity alive and betray his beloved homeland.

With these thoughts, Sotnikov pushed the “traitor” away from him and proudly stepped towards his death...