Fine. The film adaptation actually featured episodes that Ostrovsky did not have [slide 19] (the wedding of Larisa’s older sister and the further fate of Larisa’s two sisters (letters from them), Larisa’s life before Paratov’s departure, the birth of their love (the scene of Paratov’s appearance on a white horse with a bouquet for the bride - Larisa's elder sister; the scene in which Paratov pushes the carriage to Larisa's feet; Larisa and Paratov's walk on his ship "Swallow", Paratov's departure (scene at the station), beautiful landscapes of the Volga, etc.).Let's remember beginning of the film: the story begins with the scene of the wedding of Larisa’s older sister on the pier, which, according to Ostrovsky’s play, “was taken away by some highlander, a Caucasian prince.<…>He got married and left, but, they say, he didn’t make it to the Caucasus, he killed him on the road out of jealousy” (act 1, scene 2). All the heroes are among the guests at the wedding.

The entire beginning of the film differs from the play: at the beginning, Larisa’s life is shown before Paratov’s disappearance, the birth of love between Larisa and Paratov,

YouTube Video

Karandyshev's failed suicide attempt; an episode in which Paratov exposes himself to a bullet from a visiting officer, and then shoots at a watch (in Ostrovsky’s play, a coin), which he gives into Larisa’s hands,

Vozhevatov’s conversation with Paratov about the sale of Paratov’s steamship “Lastochka” and Paratov’s refusal. Almost all the scenes mentioned in one way or another in Ostrovsky’s play, but not described by him (mentioned only in the characters’ dialogues), are unfolded on the screen in action (show orientation). Paratov's departure depicted in the film adaptation using a scene at the station (Paratov’s conversation with Vozhevatov and Knurov and Larisa, who came to pick him up, looking with pain after the departing Paratov).

YouTube Video

Temporary designation- the fact that a year has passed since Paratov’s departure is shown through the change of seasons: Paratov leaves in the summer - Larisa and her mother go to her father’s grave in the winter - then the river melts (spring), and it becomes warm (summer again) (unlike Protazanov’s film adaptation, where he shows this using captions on the screen: “A year has passed... and not a single letter”).

At the same time, the film adaptation added a lot romances (and in the climactic scene of Larisa’s singing at dinner, actress Larisa Guzeeva sings the romance “And finally, I’ll say...” to the verses of B. Akhmadulina (sung not by Guzeeva herself, but by V. Ponomareva, who sings all the romances in the film), and not the romance “Not tempt me needlessly” to the poems of E. Baratynsky, given in the drama), which are symbolic. At all musical score for the film adaptation- one of its indisputable and striking advantages. Romances occupy an important place in the film adaptation [slide 20].Thanks to these romances, the film itself sounded like a whole big romance. According to E. Ryazanov, “the musical and sound environment helped create a poetic, tense, sometimes painful, and in some places oppressive atmosphere of the picture” [Ryazanov 1985:173].Not in vain movie title - “Cruel Romance” - contains a reminder of this musical genre. Why do you think the director called his film adaptation that way?

YouTube Video

Possibly Ryazanovwanted to show the tragic life story of a homeless woman as a sad, heavy, piercingly painful song: a romance about a soulless, merciless and cruel material world, that’s why he called his film not just romance, namely cruel romance. The film features romances based on poems by B. Akhmadulina (“Romance about romance”, “And finally I will say”, “Snow Maiden”), M. Tsvetaeva ( “Under the caress of a plush blanket”), R. Kipling ( “And the gypsy is coming” (“The Shaggy Bumblebee”)) and E. Ryazanov himself ("Love - fairyland» ). The music was written by A. Petrov. It is a known fact that after the film adaptation was released in 1984, they also releasedrecords by the Melodiya company and audio cassettes by Svema with romances from the film, which immediately sounded in all corners of the country. Ryazanov replaces the romances that we see in Ostrovsky’s drama, “making a peculiar correction to the era, to the mood of his contemporary audience.<…>Romances emphasize the modernity of the film, the conventionality of the time and place of action” [Bogatova 2004].

YouTube Video

Also, if we talk about added episodes, we see in the film adaptation walk along the Volga, which is only mentioned in Ostrovsky’s drama. At the same time, the action of the final scenes of the drama is transferred to the ship, which is also symbolic: fog, enveloping everything around, creates an atmosphere of mystery, lyricism and reflects Larisa’s confusion and the impossibility of finding a further path, and is also a symbol of ambiguity and deception - and Larisa still dies on the Volga. This is what the director himself says about the filming of this episode: “One day, just the kind of fog that we needed fell on the Volga. Despite the fact that the production plan that day included filming other scenes, I replayed everything, and we managed to film the finale in real fog. I assure you: we couldn’t have done it so beautifully even if we had used the most modern and advanced smoke machine"[cit. from: Shchedrov: Electronic resource]. In the film adaptation they are generally very significant images of nature, due to which it is created lyricism of the picture. “Very important for all of us, the authors - director, cameraman, artist, composer... was the poetry of the film, its special lyrical mood,” writes Ryazanov [Ryazanov 1985:173]. Because there are so many beautiful landscapes we see on the screen: Volga as a symbol of the broad Russian soul, birds (mostly seagulls), reflecting Larisa’s confusion. Remember final scene, in which Larisa is standing on the ship:gull , screaming piercingly, disappears into the thick fog.Ryazanov himself called the main characters of the film the Volga and the steamship “Swallow” [Ryazanov 1985].

Thus, Protazanov unfolds the scenes mentioned in the dialogues of Ostrovsky’s drama into spectacular episodes on the screen - with a focus on display. Happeningreplacing the union of story and display in the source text with only display is the actualization of the position of the reader-viewer.

We see that in the film there is a “change in the flow of artistic time, which leads to reduction of characters' speech "[Martyanova 2011:172], that is, the speech of the characters is not completely transferred to the screen from the text of the play, but is shortened as necessary - according to the laws of cinema (after all, in life we ​​do not speak in monologues). However, sometimes the director changes the characters' lines. After analyzing the speech of the characters in the film, we can highlight the characteristic replica transformations characters in the film adaptation, which is directly related to the de-dramatization of the drama: there is a shift towards display, which explains the following transformations of the text - look at the slide [slide 21]:

changing the order and place of utterance character lines. For example, the remarks of Knurov and Vozhevatov about the life of Paratov (“Knurov. Paratov lives in style. / Vozhevatov. What else, but luxury is enough”), moved from one scene in the drama (in the episode of the conversation between Knurov and Vozhevatov in the coffee shop - after the story Ivan and Gavrila about the meeting of Paratov (act 1, phenomenon 2)) to another in the film adaptation (the beginning of the film is after the episode in which Paratov moves the carriage under Larisa’s feet so that she does not get her feet wet). These changes in the film adaptation are quite natural due to the change in the flow of artistic time in the film adaptation compared to the drama text due to the importance of the dynamics of what is happening for the film work (the dynamization of events);

change in lexical content replicas Often, calls are removed from replicas, since the display can allow this. Or, for example, in the scene when Knurov and Vozhevatov play Larisa at toss, Vozhevatov’s lines were changed with a focus on showing, on colloquial speech(abbreviation), and also a lexeme lattice, characteristic of Ostrovsky’s era, was replaced by the lexeme tails, more familiar to Ryazanov’s contemporary time (“Yes, this is best. (Takes a coin out of his pocket and puts it under his arm.) Heads or tails?” (act 4, phenomenon 6) - “Will heads or tails work?”).

reduction of replicas characters: simplification of syntactic structure. In the final explanation of Larisa and Paratov, Larisa’s answer about chains is changed in comparison with Ostrovsky’s drama (“And all sorts of other chains are not a hindrance! We will carry them together, I will share this burden with you, I will take on most of the weight” (act 4, phenomenon 7) - “But other chains are not a hindrance! I will share any burden with you”), which changes the image of the heroine: she can share any burden with the hero, but she cannot take on the burden (too fragile). In addition, the replica becomes less complex and cumbersome, which is more consistent with the situation of conversational speech (orientation towards dynamics);

elimination(removing, throwing out) some replicas. For example, in the film adaptation, the remarks of Paratov and Kh. I. Ogudalova in the episode of their first meeting after Paratov’s return, which are in the play, are shortened (“Paratov.It’s not for us, frivolous gentlemen, to start new revolutions! For this, go to the debt department, little shadow. I want to sell my willy. Ogudalova. I understand: you want to marry profitably. How much would you value your will? Paratov. Half a million, sir. Ogudalova. Decent. Paratov. Cheaper, aunty, it’s impossible, sir, there’s no reason, it’s more expensive, you know it yourself. Ogudalova. Well done man"(act 2, phenomenon 7)), which changes the interpretation of the characters' images and shifts the emphasis of the film: the theme of money is removed;

additionsome replicas. For example, the film adds lines that emphasize the contrast between Paratov and Karandyshev. Kh.I. Ogudalova says to Larisa about Paratov: “Don’t break your neck, the groom is not talking about you, look, you’re enjoying yourself,” and immediately Vozhevatov says to Karandyshev about Larisa: “Don’t stare in vain, Yuliy Kapitonich, the bride is not about your honor.”

It should be noted that the listed transformations also apply in one way or another to all episodes of the film adaptation, which we do not consider in detail, and quite clearly show the ways of transferring the text of a drama to the screen.

However, what is significant is that when creating the script, adding scenes, transforming the characters’ remarks, “Ryazanov, wittingly or unwittingly, changed the nature of the work, placed emphasis somewhat differently, and took a different approach to the interpretation of the images of individual characters” [Bogatova 2004].

Particularly changed images of Larisa, Paratov, Kharita Ignatievna[slide 22]. How do you think they have changed?

Interpretation by L. Guzeeva Larisa not shown brightly extraordinary personality, but simply a naive young girl who captivates with the charm of freshness, youth, purity and spontaneity. N. Mikhalkov, playing Paratova, draws attention to itself, and the film creates image tragic hero Paratova- wasted both materially and spiritually. Thus, Ryazanov shows not only the tragedy of Larisa, but also the tragedy of Paratov (he is shown in the film as a more complex and contradictory hero). If we remember the scene when Paratov asks Larisa to go with them along the Volga, and the scene of Larisa’s explanation with Paratov, we can see that the hero himself suffers from feelings for Larisa, which he really has. We see Paratov from Larisa’s point of view, as if through her eyes: this is especially clearly visible in the first scene of Paratov’s appearance - all in white on a white horse. In the film he is very clearly opposed to Karandyshev, played by Myagkov. Particularly striking in this regard are the scenes with the carriage. Paratov easily carries the carriage to Larisa’s feet so that she doesn’t get her feet wet, and then, when Karandyshev tries to do this, nothing comes of it, and he looks simply funny and ridiculous. The film also adds lines that emphasize this contrast. Kh.I. Ogudalova says to Larisa about Paratov: “Don’t break your neck, the groom is not talking about you, look, you’re enjoying yourself,” and immediately Vozhevatov says to Karandyshev about Larisa: “Don’t stare in vain, Yuliy Kapitonich, the bride is not about your honor.”

If you watch the episode in which Paratov persuades Larisa to go with them to the Volga, he says: “I will give up all calculations, and no force will snatch you from me” - and Larisa believes him, and with her the viewer believes Paratom ( film episode: 100-102 min.). Nina Alisova, who played Larisa in the film adaptation of Protazanov, admired Mikhalkov’s performance in this scene: “Here N. Mikhalkov reaches the pinnacle of his skill. In his eyes there is passion, pleading - and a terrible shine, reminiscent of an ax blade. This almost phosphoric sparkle of his eyes will remain in me for a long time” [Alisova 1984:3].

If you look at the final scene of the explanation on the ship [slide 23], then we see tears in Paratov-Mikhalkov’s eyes (here it’s worth showing the guys an episode of the film: 119-123 min.). If in Ostrovsky's play Paratov simply seduces Larisa with words so that she will please them with her company at a picnic, and then cynically leaves her (there are no stage directions in the drama - Paratov asks Robinson to find a carriage, and then tells Larisa that he is engaged, rather coldly) . And in Ryazanov’s film adaptation, Mikhalkov’s hero is full of suffering - he leaves with tears in his eyes. And their dialogue is structured in such a way that we see “Paratov, who loves Larisa, but refuses her because of money, attacks not only her love, but also her feeling... [it] seemed deeper, more terrible, more social more accurate than the usual reading of this character as a fop and a seducer” [Ryazanov 1985:166].

So, in the film adaptation the emphasis shifts. Ryazanov moves away from the theme of the absence of a dowry, stated in Ostrovsky’s title, from the “money” theme. It is no coincidence that the name was changed. “The step that Ryazanov took decisively, firmly and consistently: “substitution” of the traditional theme of Ostrovsky’s play - “a pure soul in a world of purity”” [Maslovsky 1985:64]. If we recall the dialogue between Paratov and Kharita Ignatievna, when Paratov comes to the Ogudalovs’ house after returning, we will see that in the film the topic of money is removed in this dialogue. In Ostrovsky it is clearly visible - Paratov and Ogudalova appear here as prudent businessmen, for whom freedom is a subject of purchase and sale. Open this scene in the text (act 2, phenomenon 7):

Paratov.We'll lose on one, we'll win on the other, aunty; That's our business.

Ogudalova.What do you want to win? Have you started to gain new momentum?

Paratov. It’s not for us, frivolous gentlemen, to create new momentum! For this, go to the debt department, little shadow. I want to sell my willy.

Ogudalova.I understand: you want to marry profitably. How much would you value your will?

Paratov.Half a million, sir.

Ogudalova. Decent.

Paratov. Cheaper, auntie, it’s impossible, sir, there’s no reason, it’s more expensive, you know it yourself.

Ogudalova. Well done man.

In the film adaptation (film episode 77-79 min.) these lines are absent, and in response to Ogudalova’s question “What do you want to win?” Paratov is silent with pain in his eyes, and then says: “I would like to pay my respects to Larisa Dmitrievna.” Ogudalova reacts like this: “Well, I don’t know if Larisa Dmitrievna will want to see you.” Here the image of Paratov and Ogudalova is revealed in a completely different way.

The theme of money and mercantile calculations remains in the film, but the emphasis shifts: the film’s script brings to the fore love conflict- pure, simple-minded Larisa loves the bright, strong, but vicious Paratov, who sometimes engages in immoral acts that make those around him and, importantly, herself unhappy. He also loves Larisa, but exchanges his love for “gold mines.”

3. Summing up the lesson and homework.

So, guys, today we analyzed the film adaptation of Ostrovsky’s drama “Dowry” by E. Ryazanov “Cruel Romance” in comparison with the text and concept of the drama. Your homework will be to write an analysis of this film adaptation based on our lesson, our observations today and your observations that you made at home for today's lesson.

I want to finish the analysis of Ryazanov’s film adaptation with a quote from the poet, film playwright, publicist and historian Andrei Malinkin: “Returning to Ryazanov, I cannot help but admit one thing: after the first viewing of “Cruel Romance”, my only desire was to quickly return home, take Ostrovsky from the shelf and again, more carefully re-read “Dowry”, trying not to miss the slightest detail, not the slightest intonation, remaining, perhaps, previously unnoticed. And for that, many thanks to the director, because I’m almost sure that without even suspecting it, he practically forced all of us (the audience) to return (or turn for the first time) to our bookshelves, to your history, to your national pride and heritage. For which I bow to him and thank him"[Malinkin: Electronic resource].

Thus, taking into account the conducted benchmarking drama textA. N. Ostrovsky “Dowry”and its film adaptations by Y. Protazanov and E. Ryazanov, we can trace the transformation of the text, the refraction of drama images in the film work. If we consider the concepts of directors, based on the results of the analysis, we can conclude that the film adaptation of Y. Protazanov is an interpretation that is quite close to the text of the drama, the transformation of which is fully justified by the requirements of cinema, and the film adaptation of E. Ryazanov is an interpretation of Ostrovsky’s drama, in which the emphasis shifts and the interpretation changes images of heroes.

Protazanov's film adaptation is considered more successful, complete and closer to the text of the drama than Ryazanov's film adaptation, but the latter film adaptation is more loved by viewers.

And yet, despite the difficulty of film adaptation of dramatic works , we must pay tribute to the directors who dared to attempt such a difficult task. I suggest you look interesting analysis these two adaptations:

YouTube Video

The brilliant artist A. N. Ostrovsky saw changes in Russian life that were not noticeable to the majority. Katerina in “The Thunderstorm” was killed by the dying anal antiquity, the dowry Larisa Ogudalova - the emerging skin grip, counter Russian mentality. At a deep psychological level, people of a certain type experienced painful inconsistencies between their mental structure and the surrounding reality.

I'm going crazy or ascending to a high degree of madness.

B. Akhmadulina.

In the plays of A. N. Ostrovsky, with all the diversity and incredible believability of the characters, the main actor is always Russia. Merchant Russia, sleepy Russia, Domostroevskaya (“We’ll be numbered as our own people”, “Thunderstorm”) and post-reform Russia, where completely different characters rule the roost - careerists, businessmen, crooks (“Mad Money”, “Dowry”). The second half of the 19th century was marked in Russia by the abolition of serfdom, the Russian-Turkish war ended in victory, this was the time of the first tangible successes of industrial growth, the capitalist foundations of the economy were strengthened, infrastructure and transport were developing, entrepreneurship was growing sharply, higher women's (Bestuzhev) courses were opened in St. Petersburg.

By the time of the events described in “Dowry”, large industrial enterprises had appeared in Russia and began to operate successfully. Retired officer and nobleman N. I. Putilov buys a steel plant near St. Petersburg, merchant A. F. Bakhrushin launches leather production in Moscow. The whole country is beginning to connect into a single economic space, the role of delivery of goods by transport is growing, Russia is participating in the world exhibition in Paris, the economy Russian Empire closes with world production, in 1873 the country was first affected by the global industrial crisis.

In the year of the publication of A. N. Ostrovsky’s play “Dowry” (1878), Vera Zasulich, shocked by the public flogging of the populist Bogolyubov, shoots the St. Petersburg mayor Trepov three times in the chest and... receives a not guilty verdict from the jury. Thus, the era of trade, law and the limitation of hostility makes itself known on the Russian landscape. In terms of system-vector psychology, we call this period cutaneous phase of development of society, which replaced the patriarchal historical ( anal) era.

And pretend and lie! (Kharita Ignatievna daughters)

The mental structure of people has undergone no less changes than the economy and production. New values ​​invaded age-old foundations, new people sought to take a leading position in society. The woman also changed, for the first time she had the opportunity to realize her properties, if not on an equal basis with a man, then no longer at the level of the patriarchal house-building, superbly described by A. N. Ostrovsky earlier in “The Thunderstorm”. More to come long haul, but the beginning was made back in 1878, when A.F. Koni read parting words to the jury in the case of Vera Zasulich, and A.N. Ostrovsky wrote the last remark of Larisa Ogudalova: “I love you all very much...”

The brilliant artist A. N. Ostrovsky saw changes in Russian life that were not noticeable to the majority. That is why the play “Dowry” was not accepted immediately, but only when what was obvious to the writer became so to everyone. Katerina in “The Thunderstorm” was killed by the dying anal antiquity, the dowry Larisa Ogudalova - an emerging skin grip, counter to the Russian mentality. At a deep psychological level, people of a certain type experienced painful inconsistencies between their mental structure and the surrounding reality.

We are currently experiencing similar processes. 70 years of socialism, which abolished the development of the country along the capitalist path, were, among other things, a consequence of the rejection of capitalist skin orders in the urethral-muscular mentality of the people of Russia. With perestroika everything returned to normal. It was necessary to continue the interrupted capitalism, but the mentality remained the same, and the rejection of skin was only intensified by the experience of socialist “equalization”.

It is not surprising that the heroes of Ostrovsky’s plays are alive and well next to us. The guardians of profit, the Knurovs and Vozhevatovs, are increasing their momentum, the unlucky Karandyshevs are trying to despise the golden calf, jumping out of their pants to appear rich, the Kharits Ignatievnas are still trying to find a good place for their daughters. The Paratovs do anything to maintain their leadership. The image of Larisa is also unchanged, but destined by nature for only one, whom one manages to meet extremely rarely.

Filmmakers have repeatedly turned to this play by N. A. Ostrovsky. Back in 1912, “Dowry” was filmed by Russian director Kai Ganzen; in 1936, Yakov Protazanov made a film of the same name with Nina Alisova and Anatoly Ktorov. But the most striking visual imprint of the immortal creation of the brilliant Russian playwright remains, in my opinion, Eldar Ryazanov’s film “Cruel Romance” (1984).

Without deviating, as far as possible, from the original text, Ryazanov managed to create, in a few rich strokes, an impression of the life of Russian society on the threshold of the new twentieth century. The selection of actors, as always, is impeccable, their performance is mesmerizing, the film can be re-watched and each time you find in it new and new facets of meaning. System-vector psychology allows you to look at a story told more than a hundred years ago from the depths of the mental unconscious and once again be convinced of the film director’s unmistakable interpretation of the characters.

Sergei Sergeich... this is the ideal man. Do you understand what an ideal is? (Larissa)

The first appearance of Paratov (N. Mikhalkov) in the film: “a brilliant gentleman and spendthrift” on a white horse, contrary to all prohibitions, rides onto the pier and throws a bouquet to the unfortunate bride, who is being given in marriage to a dubious Georgian prince. According to the play, the groom will kill her before she reaches the Caucasus. Ryazanov gives her, although not too happy, a life.

From the very first frames of the film we see: Paratov defiantly violates prohibitions, he really wants to seem like the master of circumstances, the leader of a noisy gang, no matter who - barge haulers, sailors, merchants, as long as he is in charge. Paratov, like a knife through butter, fits into any company, he immediately gains the upper hand and forces himself to obey, some under pressure, and some with reverence and love. Paratov is adored in the city. Not sparing his white clothes, Paratov hugs the sooty sailors on his still steamship, the high-speed “Swallow”.

Sergei Sergeevich is generous, strong, he seems magnanimous, the gypsy camp enthusiastically greets him on the pier. Everyone knows that since Paratov arrived, there will be a feast like a mountain, everyone will be gifted with the generous hand of the master. People are drawn to giving, and as long as Sergei Sergeevich is able to give, he is guaranteed a crowd of enthusiastic and obsequious admirers: “Such a gentleman, we can’t wait: we’ve been waiting for a year - what a gentleman!”

Paratov does not want to be second. If there is another ship ahead, you need to overtake it and don’t care that the car may not be able to withstand it: “Kuzmich, speed up!” I’ll give all the guys a chervonets!” Paratov’s passion is transferred to the captain, a calm and balanced person, the whole team falls under the charm of Sergei Sergeevich, they sincerely love him and will not let him down. He promised to pay generously!

Paratov demonstratively loves his people. Paratov’s anger at Karandyshev (A. Myagkov) is terrible when he allowed himself a contemptuous review of barge haulers. He demands that Yuliy Kapitonich immediately apologize, because having insulted the barge haulers, Karandyshev dared to insult Paratov: “I am a shipowner and I stand up for them; I’m a barge hauler myself.” Only the intercession of Kharita Ignatievna saves Karandyshev from imminent execution. However, demoralized by Paratov’s anger, Yuliy Kapitonich himself is ready to back down. It is clear that Paratov is not a barge hauler and never was. Barge haulers work for him, he is a spendthrift and a reveler at the expense of slave labor of people who have no other source of food.

After all, he’s kind of tricky (Vozhevatov about Paratov)

But not everyone shares the enthusiasm of the common people. Local merchants Mokiy Parmenych Knurov (A. Petrenko), an elderly man with a huge fortune, and Vasily Danilovich Vozhevatov (V. Proskurin), a young man, but already rich, treat Paratova with distrust, “after all, he’s kind of sophisticated.” Where for Knurov the “impossible is not enough”, for Paratov there is simply no impossible. This irritates merchants. Is this how you should treat money, this is how you should do things? In Ryazanov’s film, Vozhevatov half-jokingly quotes V. Kapnist:

“Take it, there’s no big science here,
Take what you can take
Why are our hands hung on?
Why not take, take, take.”

Is there a more comprehensive description? Taking, saving, following the rules is the exact opposite of urethral return, which sees no restrictions. It is not only Vozhevatov and Knurov who live under this scheme of receiving. Kharita Ignatievna Ogudalova (A. Freundlich), Larisa’s mother, is not far behind them. In an effort to literally sell her daughter at a higher price, Kharita Ignatievna (“auntie” according to Paratov’s apt definition, i.e. dumb) charges a fee for a visit to her house, where her youngest daughter, who has not yet been happily married off, shines (L. Guzeeva).

Paratov strives to go beyond the limits of skin pettiness, he tries to resemble the urethral leader and in some places he succeeds so well that he misleads Larisa, she sincerely considers Paratov the ideal man, because the ideal for her is the urethral leader of the pack. What can I say, the skin vector adapts perfectly to any task. But not indefinitely.

A clever woman (Knurov about Kharit)

Kharita Ignatievna is not shy about asking for money even for jewelry already given to Larisa, and she also begs for a “dowry,” which hardly anyone will ask. This is how they live. Guests in the Ogudalovs' house are not transferred. Kharita Ignatyevna secretly assigns each person his own rank depending on the thickness of his wallet. The merchants Vozhevatov and Knurov are especially valuable; they “vote with rubles” more than others for the charm of the incomparable Larisa.

Simpler people are also accepted, including the most dubious rogues like a fugitive cashier who was arrested right during a revelry in the Ogudalovs’ house. Harita made a big miscalculation, it happens. But he wins in small things. Having deceived Knurov for 700 rubles, the skinner who has fallen into the archetype does not feel any remorse, finely crosses herself to the “forgive me, sinner” icon and immediately hides the obtained money in a dresser drawer. “I turn around like a thief at a fair,” says Ogudalova Sr.

Karandyshev’s mother does not welcome Larisa. So-so, a postal official. He boasts that he doesn’t take bribes, but, according to Kharita, this is only because no one gives them to him, the place is unprofitable. Otherwise I would have taken it. And Harita is right. Karandyshev is a bright representative of the anal truth-seeking klutz. Neither here nor here. He has no ability to earn money, the desire to live on a grand scale, keeping up with the merchants, is nevertheless present, plus cosmic selfishness and snobbery, with which he tries to isolate himself from his obvious worthlessness.

Don't offend! Is it possible to offend me? (Karandyshev)

"We, educated people“, says Yuliy Kapitonich about himself; nevertheless, he does not demonstrate the breadth of views of an educated person; on the contrary, he is petty, picky and touchy. Karandyshev is not able to love anyone but himself; he needs Larisa to be noticeable in society. He is full of grievances and seeks revenge for ridicule directed at himself. “Only fierce anger and a thirst for revenge choke me,” admits Karandyshev.

Even in the most piercing monologue about funny man and you don’t really sympathize with Karandyshev’s broken heart. His selfish impulses are too visible even in what he calls love. A hysterical “love me” is all that Yuliy Kapitonich is capable of.

This is not the kind of person Larisa Ogudalova is waiting for. The hero of her dreams can only be one person - brilliant, generous, strong, who with his very appearance makes everything and everyone revolve around him. System-vector psychology defines such a person as. The most powerful altruism is inherent in the nature of the urethral vector - the only measure aimed not at receiving, but at giving initially, in contrast to other vectors, which only in the development and implementation of their properties should come to giving to the flock.

Among the heroes of A. N. Ostrovsky’s drama there are no such people, but there is one who strives to correspond to these characteristics to the best of his properties and temperament. This is Paratov. It is with him that Larisa Ogudalova falls in love, having accepted. It’s really easy to make a mistake, the skin is adaptive and can cleverly pretend to be anyone, for the time being, of course. Ambitious leather workers on the Russian landscape have always loved and love to demonstrate external signs of the urethra - the scope of spending, broad gestures, patronage, they even try to copy their gait and smile. Behind all this masquerade there is a banal desire to advance, to take the place of the leader, pretending to be him. No matter how the skin person enters the role, no matter how hard he tries to play the urethral person, this is impossible due to the contrast of these vectors, therefore, in case of severe stress, the skin imitator quickly leaves the game and becomes his real self. This is exactly what happens to the “magnificent” Sergei Sergeevich Paratov.

How can you not listen to him? Is it really possible to be unsure of him? (Larissa about Paratov)

It seems that Sergei Sergeevich doesn’t need much for himself... “There is no huckster in me,” Paratov boasts, in fact, there is plenty of huckster in him, he will “twitch” the woman he loves, and will not blink an eye. Without a penny of money, but in expensive clothes, a spendthrift, a spendthrift, a braggart and a poser, Paratov carries with him everywhere the actor Robinson (G. Burkov), whom he picked up on the island where he was landed from another ship for indecent behavior. The king's jester is one of the attributes of power. The wonderful actor G. Burkov wonderfully shows the pettiness, corruption and insignificance of his hero, and, consequently, the discrepancy between Paratov’s ambitions and his declared status. If the retinue makes the king, then Robinson can only “make” the dubious king Paratov.

Paratov seems brave and strong. He puts the glass on his head so that the visiting officer (A. Pankratov-Cherny) demonstrates his accuracy in shooting with a pistol. After the shot, Paratov calmly brushes away the glass fragments, and then with one shot knocks the watch out of Larisa’s hands (in the play, a coin). It costs Sergei Sergeevich nothing to lift and move the carriage so that Larisa can walk without getting her feet wet in a puddle. Karandyshev tries to repeat this, but, alas, he does not have enough strength, he is funny again. Karandyshev doesn’t succeed in “letting it on himself”, the properties don’t give him.

Paratov amazes Larisa with his fearlessness, and she reaches out to him with all her heart: “Next to you, I’m not afraid of anything.” This is a special love, when there is simply no fear for oneself, it remains at the other end of the visual vector, the only measure in the psyche, where only earthly love is possible. In the words of the romance based on the poems of Marina Tsvetaeva, which the gypsy Valentina Ponomareva “sings superbly” for Larisa Guzeeva in the film, “I still don’t know whether I’ve won or been defeated.”

No in true love no victories, no defeats, there is only giving of oneself to another without reserve. In such love there is no place for jealousy or betrayal, both of which are committed out of selfish fear for oneself. Larisa Ogudalova is capable of such love; under the influence of her love for Paratov, she emerges from fear into love for the only person, as it seems to her, destined for her by nature. She feels sorry for the rest, including Karandyshev, whom, partly out of pity, she marries. “It’s stupid to be jealous, I can’t stand it,” Larisa tells him. She sees in Paratov not his essence, but an image created by her visual imagination. Visual women often create ideal images and endow them with real men who have nothing in common with these images. A tragic outcome in this case is very likely.

In relation to Paratov, Larisa “ascends to a high degree of madness,” that is, from fear for herself and her life, from rationalizations of the mind about what is possible and what is not, from all sorts of restrictions, she ascends to boundless love-giving, complementary to the urethral altruism. It is precisely this mental connection that makes the pair of urethral man and skin-visual woman unique among others. Although both he and she are desired by everyone and can make up the happiness of carriers of very different vectors, the absolute coincidence of souls occurs precisely at the level of fusion of the urethra and vision into an unshakable, eternal and endless chord directed to the future. And this is where we come to tragic ending, when all masks will be dropped, and the imaginary king will appear naked in only his original skin, which cannot be torn off.

I'm engaged. These are the golden chains with which I am shackled for life (Paratov)

The urethral vector is characterized by mercy - a quality derived from the only natural power of the leader of the pack. Show mercy where you are free to kill. This is the power of the urethra, which does not require proof of cruelty. Paratov shows us “mercy in a scant form” of the empty scoundrel Robinson; he turns out to be incapable of anything more. When, in response to Paratov’s confession of the inevitability of her marriage, Larisa exclaims: “Godless!”, in meaning she speaks precisely of the lack of mercy, stating the impossibility of Paratov to live up to the declared image.

Having squandered his fortune, Sergei Sergeevich agrees to an indentured marriage with gold mines; he does not see any moral restrictions for his meanness. For Paratov, the loss of his fortune means the loss of the attributes of power necessary for his role as a “urethral leader.” To maintain the status of the richest and most generous reveler, Paratov does not regret anything. Even Larisa. “I lost more than my fortune,” Paratov tries to justify himself. It is clear, a beggar, he will no longer be able to lead the group of merchants ruling the roost in the new capitalist life. Being the master of the masters of life is most important for Paratov; this is his key to success as the leader of the group. He cannot, does not know how to make money, in this sense, and “there is no merchant” in Paratov, in his own words. This means that there is no way to rise in the skin hierarchy in any other way than a profitable marriage. He doesn’t know how to earn money, but he wants to go on a spree, his ambitions are very high, they do not correspond to his abilities, he has to earn money from his wife’s dowry. And, in all likelihood, he will be screwed sooner or later, if they give it, of course.

How much do you value your will? - Half a million, sir (Kharita and Paratov)

The urethral leader is capable of leading any pack, becoming the very best in it. Bend under the circumstances, Paratov reveals his true self and sells his “will” for gold. Was there really a willy, since she sold herself so easily for money? No. There were attempts to live up to the stated ambitions. This is really more than a loss of fortune. This is the loss of oneself, humiliation, incompatible with the status of the urethral leader, but quite bearable, not fatal in the skin. Well, I couldn’t seem like a urethral leader, no big deal, but now with the gold mines I can start the show all over again.

Larisa dies physically, but retains her soul. For this she thanks her killer Karandyshev: “My dear, what a good deed you have done for me!” For Larisa, life without love, in the inanimate state of a beautiful doll for pleasure for money, is unthinkable. Paratov remains to live, but as a living corpse, a pug on the golden chain of a capricious lady. “I’m engaged” sounds like “I’m doomed” in Paratov’s mouth. Again beautiful words for Larisa. In fact, for Paratov, Larisa is already in the past, and the leather worker has a short memory. He will grieve, sing with the gypsies, and for a new life in luxury and feigned fraternization with the people.

The conditions described in Ostrovsky's play at the level of a couple or a group of people are equally characteristic of society as a whole. The urethral mentality of Russia, having interacted with the skin values ​​of consumer society, resulted in a disappointing picture of total corruption, theft and nepotism at all levels. The archetypal skin thief with a urethral mental superstructure is a thief without boundaries and without logic. He steals without knowing his satiation, he grabs everything that is good and bad. This is a monster, irrational in its desire to become even more thieving, despite all the laws and restrictions, even contrary to the laws of nature, which limit receipt.

Skin thieves striving for the status of a urethral leader, “lawless men” in thieves’ jargon, for whom the “thieves’ law” is not written. “After us there may be a flood,” is the motto of archetypal skin. Examples of such behavior from top to bottom can be seen constantly; only the amounts of loot are growing. The skin, having no development in return, still wants to live in a urethral way, at the head of a gang with beautiful girlfriends, carousers and gypsies, but due to its true lack, it receives - the archetypal merchants “from Cherkizon” in elite apartments and a trial for waste on a large scale state defense.

Any law is perceived by the Russian mentality as an obstacle that must be bypassed at all costs, that is, it is not perceived at all, the urethra does not notice skin restrictions. The desire of the urethral vector to live without restrictions can only be satisfied through spiritual growth. This is a matter for the future, provided efforts are made to spiritual development on everyone's part - here and now. Otherwise, ours, the only natural measure of limitless return, can turn into its opposite - limitless consumption, which is impossible in nature, and therefore is doomed to remain without a future.

Interregional Research Conference

cultural orientation

"Literature. Reader. Time"

Scientific direction:Interpretation works of art different types of art

Title of work:

“Seagulls hover over the masts screaming...”

Screen adaptation as interpretation literary work(for example feature film E. Ryazanov “Cruel Romance” and plays by A.N. Ostrovsky "Dowry")

Place of work: Kingisepp,MBOU "Kingisepp Gymnasium"

Scientific supervisor: Kozlova Tatyana Vladimirovna

Kingisepp

2015

1. Introduction
2. “Cruel Romance” by E. Ryazanov as an interpretation of the play “Dowry” by A.N. Ostrovsky.

1. Problems of film adaptation of a classic work
2. Comparative analysis

• Differences between a film script and a play
• Role acting, operator and artist in creating the image of the characters
• Features of musical design

1. Conclusion
2. Bibliography

1.Introduction

The premiere of the drama “Cruel Romance” took place on November 23, 1984. Eldar Ryazanov had never even thought about directing a film based on Ostrovsky’s “Dowry.” The director himself explains his decision to make a film based on this classic play: “It’s not that I didn’t love this play... It, as they say, was not in line with my interests as a director. Moreover, I read the play a long time ago, in school years, and since then I haven’t returned to it... After the end of the film “Station for Two,” there was a pause, which, due to my restless nature, could not be long. I started thinking about new job. <...>At that moment, Lyudmila Razumovskaya’s play “Dear Elena Sergeevna” fell into my hands - bold and frank. And I should have already made a film based on it.<...>And in November 1982, Brezhnev, Secretary General of the CPSU Central Committee, died. Nobody knew what would happen next and how it would happen under Andropov. But Goskino decided to postpone the filming of “Dear Elena Sergeevna”. Then my now deceased wife Nina advised me to read “The Dowry.” A neighbor in the holiday village, screenwriter Eduard Volodarsky, found a book. I read it. Like for the first time. And I realized: I will film.”

In 1985, the film “Cruel Romance” won the “Golden Peacock” - the Grand Prix of the Delhi-85 festival in India. In September 1985, the film represented the Soviet Union at the Toronto International Film Festival (Canada). In the same year, according to the results of a survey in the magazine “Soviet Screen”, the film was recognized best film year, and Nikita Mikhalkov - best actor year.

The film gained popularity among viewers (as evidenced, in particular, by its recognition as “Best Film of the Year” according to the magazine “Soviet Screen”), received several official awards, but at the same time had devastating reviews from critics who accused the director of departing from the author’s interpretation of the play and incorrect placement of accents.

2014 marked the 30th anniversary of the film’s premiere, but there are still ongoing debates about how successful the film adaptation of A.N.’s play is. Ostrovsky. The relevance of our research is that we consider the film “Cruel Romance” as a work of art, as a successful option for interpreting a literary text.

Our goal research work is an analysis of E. Ryazanov’s film “Cruel Romance” as an interpretation of the play by A.N. Ostrovsky "Dowry". The objectives of the study are:

• studying the characteristics of cinema and literature as forms of art;
• reading the play “Dowry” by A. N. Ostrovsky and watching the film “Cruel Romance” by E. Ryazanov;
• studying art criticism articles about E. Ryazanov’s film “Cruel Romance”;
• comparison of the film script and the play text;
• explanation of the author's position and director's interpretation;
• an explanation of what is common and different in the film by E. Ryazanov and the play by A.N. Ostrovsky;
• an explanation of the role of acting and musical design in revealing the director’s authorial position.

The object of the study is the film by E. Ryazanov “Cruel Romance”. The subject of the study is consideration of the script of the film “Cruel Romance” as an interpretation of the text of the play “Dowry”. The main research method is comparative analysis.

2. “Cruel Romance” - interpretation of the play

2.1. The problem of film adaptation of a classic work

Interpreting a work is about looking out from the corner. And from this angle everything is seen a little differently: a different light, someone is missing or, on the contrary, added due to location, this angle can generally be timeless (to go back and become a witness to what happened decades ago in order to see something of your own, according to - to place emphasis on others). And many people tried to find themselves in this corner (or were they put there as punishment?), but A. Ostrovsky’s drama “Dowry” was filmed several times and it is unclear what makes the cinematographers return to a dusty volume and an already outdated story. Now those events are no longer so important; we look at the text as at the past. For A. Ostrovsky’s contemporaries, this was vital. A man without a dowry wants happiness. Everyone wants happiness. They want to be loved. Exactly eternal themes love, loneliness, happiness, family, touched by Alexander Ostrovsky, allow us again and again to plunge into the atmosphere of the second half of the 19th century century.

Providing a decent film adaptation of classic works is not an easy task. The director needs to be very sensitive and see the line between original interpretation, addition to the text and vulgarization of it. And Eldar Ryazanov managed to maintain balance and ennoble the "Dowry", giving it new uniform. Cinema based on the text of a play gives the literary source a new life, new admirers, so the director’s work is doubly responsible: he needs to show classic so as to give him a new birth.

2.2. Comparative analysis

Firstly, we note that the director gives a different name to the work, this indicates that E. Ryazanov places emphasis differently. For A. Ostrovsky, it is paramount that Larisa is homeless, and Eldar Ryazanov pays attention to the love conflict and sees Larisa’s tragedy in the fact that her fate is cruel; not the position of a dowry, but the position of a puppet in the hands of rich people who buy destinies.

When you first get acquainted with the film “Cruel Romance”, you immediately remember the lines of Yevgeny Yevtushenko: “Seagulls hover over the masts screaming - maybe they are crying, or maybe they are laughing...”. Wonderful landscapes delight the eye and an abundance of seagulls, personifying freedom, and at this time we can fantasize or anticipate what awaits us, whether we will be disappointed when watching the film, whether we will be surprised or, on the contrary, puzzled.

Alexander Ostrovsky’s fortieth work is a significant event. Frontier. Anniversary. A certain line when you need to take stock. Therefore, it is not surprising that he developed own style, some motifs unique to his prose.

A. N. Ostrovsky tells us a story about a girl without a dowry, Larisa Dmitrievna, who wants to be loved, close to nature, removed from the bustle of the world, and happy. But who wants to marry a penniless girl? Now such a situation would not bother anyone, but by the standards of the 19th century, it was a significant problem. But Sergei Sergeich Paratov is not bothered by such difficulties as long as he is confident in himself and his wallet. But soon he disappears. He starts having problems. And without saying goodbye to Larisa Dmitrievna, he leaves her alone with unclear feelings in her soul: confusion and misunderstanding. The play talks about this only indirectly.

The first episode of the film “A Cruel Romance” is almost entirely a prelude to the main action of the play. We can say that the author skipped the exposition in the play, but the characters hint at it in their dialogues. Eldar Ryazanov (film director) considers it necessary to restore it and, as it seems to us, does it absolutely right, because it reveals the characters’ characters more deeply. The main maker of Larisa’s happiness is her mother, Kharita Ignatievna Ogudalova, who gives dinners, mortgages the house, and is active in successfully getting her daughters married. But the wedding is disrupted, and Sergei Sergeich jumps off like a fish from a hook and disappears into the coastal pool of the Volga, sailing away on his steamship “Swallow”.

This benefits others. For example, Yuliy Kapitonich Karandyshev, who takes advantage of the fact that Larisa Dmitrievna simply wants to “plug” the hole that has formed in her heart. He makes a match - she accepts the proposal. They want happiness and make a deal, although these are parts of more than one mechanism, puzzles that are not located nearby and do not fit each other. In the film they say to Larisa: “The groom is not about you,” and to Yulia Kapitonich, “The bride is not about your honor.” Everyone sees that their marriage would be ridiculous, but Larisa Dmitrievna “grabs at the last straw like a drowning man,” and Karandyshev strokes his pride, because he is not the only one wooing Larisa.

Other suitors are the rich men Mokiy Parmenych Knurov and Vasily Danilych Vozhevatov, who consider Larisa Dmitrievna a thing and bargain among themselves. Knurov is not stopped either by the fact that he is married, or by the fact that Larisa is also almost married. They simply agree by tossing a coin. Price human life- coin. Valuable.

Eduard Ryazanov focuses on the appearance and facial expressions of the characters, which only emphasizes certain of their features, highlights them from the right angle, this is how the director sees them, this is how he shows them to us through the camera lens. In “The Dowry,” Karandyshev did not seem pitiful to me, he was unhappy and wanted happiness, but in the film he appeared as a vile person. Larisa Dmitrievna (played by Larisa Guzeeva), on the contrary, transforms and becomes sensitive, kind, gentle, like a flower, whose beauty everyone is afraid to destroy.

A. Ostrovsky's heroes are prone to song, to a clear expression of feelings. Like Kuligin in “The Thunderstorm”, so Larisa in “Dowry”. The film is accompanied by more modern romances based on poems by Marina Tsvetaeva, Bella Akhmadulina, Rudyard Kipling, Eldar Ryazanov. The sincerity of their performance reveals the character of the main character and shows us her purity and innocence, transparency, like the transparency of her tears.

And Volga. Cities in A. Ostrovsky's plays are often located on the banks of this strong, diverse and mighty river, in which the characters in his plays seek a way out. But Larisa will not die in the water, she will receive a shot from someone whose dignity she considered to be his love for her. Is this really the kind of love that makes you commit murder? Unknown. Perhaps Karandyshev’s pride has risen; he cannot allow the fact that Larisa will go to someone now, halfway down the aisle. It is interesting that among many peoples the swallow is a symbol of the bride, the guardian of the home. And it is on the “Swallow” that Larisa dies, as do her dreams of home, love and comfort. She, too, could and wanted to become a bird, like Katerina in Ostrovsky’s drama “The Thunderstorm,” but neither one nor the other was destined to become happy. Cruel romance is not an accidental name, because last song Larisa is sung. The shackles with which Paratov is bound are visible in the last scene. He would like to help, but glass separates him and the dying Larisa. An insurmountable line, a boundary, a shackle that says that they could never be happy. A realized metaphor.

Eldar Ryazanov makes the images brighter, clearer: we see gestures, facial expressions and pay attention to the work of the actors, completing in our imagination the images that the text of “Dowry” creates. He misses the scene with Robinson, where Vozhevatov’s word is worthless, but with Mokiy Parmenych it takes on meaning. Everything in this world depends on status. In the film, this scene is not shown in full, and Vozhevatov does not look so bad in our eyes: he keeps his word, he is ready to take Larisa Dmitrievna under his wing. Such details in the film brighten up or, on the contrary, cast aside doubts, and we can call each of the characters positive or negative, which is not so easy to do in a play.

The most striking moment in “Cruel Romance” seems to us to be the one where Larisa Dmitrievna was almost a living target: she was holding a watch in her hand, which Paratov shot through for fun. He showed off in front of the girl and other people, but Larisa turned out to be brave or simply passionately in love - she was not afraid of the bullet. Someone else said: “It was a good watch. Dear ones." I think if the main character had been offended, people would have been more upset because no one else would sing so talentedly for them, that Paratov turned out to be not such a good shooter as he claimed, and not because Larisa was deprived of her life. This scene seems to us the most sincere. In her we see a girl recklessly in love who is not afraid of anything.

3.Conclusion

In conclusion, I would like to repeat one simple truth: love is not a bargaining chip. Is the word of a person who lied about love worth anything? Who forgot about the shackles that entangle him? Who ruins someone else's destiny because of his own whim? Sergei Sergeich Paratov appeared in the film dressed in white and on a white horse, like a prince on a white horse, but his essence, the core of the fruit, turned out to be dead.

“Now they don’t die of love,” said the wonderful poetess Yulia Drunina. And then they died. Larisa's death is a manifesto of all lovers, homeless and homeless. A natural response to dislike.

Having compared some episodes of the film and scenes of the play, analyzing the role of acting and musical design in the film, we can draw the following conclusions:

• E. Ryazanov highlights the love conflict of the play, this is emphasized in the title of the film: “A Cruel Romance” - the main attention is paid to unhappy love, and not to the dowry, that is, its absence;
• E. Ryazanov interprets the images of the main characters somewhat differently; the film shows the tragedy of not only the main character, a dowry-free woman, but also the tragedy of Paratov, a man who squandered not only money, but also spiritual qualities;
• E. Ryazanov, with the help of musical arrangement, emphasizes the modern sound of the work;
• Thus, the events taking place in the 19th century are understandable and close to the viewer not only of the 20th century, but also of the 21st. And this is the merit of director E. Ryazanov.

We are convinced of the relevance of film adaptations classical literature, and also completed the assigned tasks: compared two works of art that are inextricably linked with each other, deeper understood the characters of the characters and understood the originality of A. N. Ostrovsky’s work. The syncretism of the arts in “Cruel Romance” is extremely successful, so we will continue to explore and study the classics not only through printed text, but also through its visualization in cinema. Especially if Eldar Ryazanov works on it.

4.Bibliography

1. Gorsitskaya N. O. On the boundaries of interaction between cinema and literature. – M.: Art, 1983.

2. Zhdan V. N. Aesthetics of the screen and interaction of arts - M.: Art, 1987.

3. Zaitseva L. Problems of modern film adaptation - M.: Art, 1985.

4. Pogozheva L.P. From book to film - M.: Art, 1985.

5. Internet resources: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki

XIcity ​​open conference of students “IntellectualsXXIcentury"

Section: Art history

Film adaptation as an interpretation of a literary work (using the example of a comparison of E. Ryazanov’s film “Cruel Romance” and the drama “Dowry”)

DTDiM, Lyceum No. 3, 11th grade

Teacher:,
teacher of the highest category,

Orenburg

I. Introduction.

II. « Cruel Romance" as an interpretation of the play "Dowry".

2.1. The problem of film adaptation of classical works

2.2. Comparative analysis of the drama “Dowry” and E. Ryazanov’s film “Cruel Romance”.

· The difference between the film script and the text of Ostrovsky’s play.

· The role of acting in shifting emphasis in the film.

· Features of the film's musical design.

· The role of the cameraman and artist in creating images of characters and in conveying the director’s idea.

III. Conclusion.

IV. Bibliography.

V. Applications

Appendix I. Comparative table of episodes from Ostrovsky’s play and Ryazanov’s film.

Appendix II. Glossary of terms found in the text of the work.

I. Introduction

This year marks the 20th anniversary of the release of E. Ryazanov’s film “Cruel Romance,” based on the play “Dowry.” Then, 20 years ago, the film caused widespread controversy, and mostly reviews of the film were negative. Nevertheless, A Cruel Romance was a great success at the box office, a success that grew as the critical salvo against it intensified (22 million viewers saw the film in theaters). The film was widely enjoyed people's love. According to a survey by the magazine "Soviet Screen" the film was named the best film of the year, Nikita Mikhalkov - the best actor of the year, Vadim Alisov - the best cameraman, Andrei Petrov - best composer. (Data taken from: 13.5). Already independent of our press, “Cruel Romance” was well received abroad and received critical approval there. At the XV Delhi International Film Festival, the film was awarded the main award - the Golden Peacock. Now, 20 years later, we can confidently say that the film has stood the test of time, still being one of the favorite films of Russians.

Why are the reviews of critical articles so different from the opinions of the average viewer? In our opinion, literary critics proceeded from a certain ideal model of film adaptation of a classical play, when it would be absolutely accurately reproduced on the screen. This led to the method of film analysis. The scenes of the film were compared with the corresponding scenes of the play, and the critics did not try to explain the position of the director who deviated from the original, but pointed out each such violation against him. At the same time, it was not taken into account that cinema and literature are two completely different types art, they live by different laws, and therefore a completely literal reproduction of the classics on screen is hardly possible.

We put another target– analyze E. Ryazanov’s film “Cruel Romance” exactly how interpretation plays by A. Ostrovsky “Dowry”. This goal defines the main tasks research:

· get acquainted with art criticism and literary articles about E. Ryazanov’s film “Cruel Romance”;

· compare the director's script for the film with the text of Ostrovsky's play, finding the director's deviations from the original source;

· explain these deviations based on the differences between cinema and literature as forms of art, as well as based on the peculiarities of E. Ryazanov’s interpretation of A. Ostrovsky’s play.

· determine the role of acting, musical design of the film, camera work in conveying the director’s author’s position.

Object of study is the film by E. Ryazanov “Cruel Romance”. This film was the subject of many reviews in magazines and newspapers in 1984-85. However, each such article was a kind of replica in the dialogue about the film that was unfolding in the press, and, as already noted, these were mostly literary works that did not take into account the specifics of cinema. We have hardly encountered any generalizing works devoted to a careful study of film as a work of cinematic art. This determines relevance our work.

Research material are a video recording of a film and comparison tables episodes of the script for the film “Cruel Romance” and the play “Dowry” (see Appendix I). Main method work with the material is a comparative analysis.

II. "Cruel Romance" as an interpretation of the play "Dowry".

2.1. The problem of film adaptation of classical works

Screen adaptation- this is, according to explanatory dictionary, - taking a work (mainly literary) as the basis for creating a film. (12.739). The history of film adaptations of works of literature, which has many victories along the way, is one of the particular examples of true closeness between the arts. But this very same story also testifies to the fact that literature, theater and cinema are different arts, having their own secret and obvious characteristics, their own ways of influencing the mind and feelings of a person, which have in different ways incarnations artistic images, in its own specific language. “The film is nothing like the play; on the contrary, it looks like a novel, but like a novel that will be shown and not told... - this is what Lawson writes in his book and adds: “However, we must not forget that there is a huge difference between the process of visual transmission and the process of storytelling.” (14.6).

No matter how close cinema may seem to the theater due to the fact that in both cinema and theater a significant role belongs to the word, intonation, gesture, and the actor’s performance, the principles of approach to depicting life in cinema and theater are completely different. We quite agree with Lawson that cinema is closer to epic genres than to dramatic ones. After all, it has many of the possibilities that epic has and does not have dramatic work: the ability to widely cover the phenomena of reality, travel in time and space, penetrate into the soul of the hero and the ability to show his thoughts, the ability to directly express author's position(through voice-over), broad descriptiveness, the ability to draw the viewer’s attention to individual details (focus, close-ups). It turns out that when filmed, a dramatic work must certainly acquire the properties of an epic, because the art of cinema cannot abandon its inherent artistic means and opportunities. But the desire to read a drama as a novel or story, a complete change in genre, destroys the fundamental principle - a literary work, for which the genre is not accidental, but is the only possible form in which the writer’s plan could be realized. At the same time, it is worth noting that the specificity of cinema, based primarily on visual image, significantly distinguishes a film from any literary work. “One scene, or episode, or even a gesture, the facial expressions of a hero on the screen can embody in a concentrated form what, being the subject of description in literature, can be stretched out over tens of pages,” writes L. Zaitseva (7.67).

Therefore, we assert that any film adaptation is interpretation, which requires one to mentally dismantle a literary work. Interpretation (from Latin interpretatio – explanation) is not just an interpretation of a work. Interpretation is usually associated with the translation of a statement into another language, with its recoding. The interpreted phenomenon “somehow changes, transforms; his second, new appearance, differing from the first, original one, turns out to be both poorer and richer at the same time. Interpretation is a selective and at the same time creative (constructive) mastery of an utterance.” (19.142). So the director, breaking through to the reality that is embodied in this work, sees it as if with double vision: through the eyes of the writer being filmed and through his own. The second never coincides with the first, even in such a film that is focused on optimal approximation to literary text. Let's say, in the film we are considering based on Ostrovsky's play, the action is taken on real life - this is already a departure from the original. Volga is one thing theatrical production, and something completely different – ​​the river flowing before our eyes.

Therefore, the dilemma - adequate or free interpretation - which makes it possible to condemn or approve a director who creatively interprets a literary work, is relative. “It is not the measure of direct proximity to the original that determines artistic value film adaptation,” says Gromov. “More important is its compliance with the spirit and pathos of the literary source” (4.129). And, probably, the modernity of his vision as a director.