The Russian film industry today is living in global trends. Most filmmakers note the laziness of the modern viewer who prefers TV to going to the cinema. The drama as such was popular in the 60-90s of the last century. Now the paintings have a different task - to entertain, and the age at which the distributors are oriented is 12-25 years.
The niche of the "adult" movie is gradually occupied by television series. This is very sad, but the fact remains. Despite this, there are creators both abroad and in Russia who are trying to convey the idea through the screen. And they have their fans and admirers.
Live at all costs
The film “Bykov” is an acute social philosophical drama. The director himself sees his mission in creating such films, although he is well aware that this type of art is going through hard times.
The film definitely has nothing to do with the mainstream - it is an “from and to” arthouse, as well as other works of this master, by the way. I must say that among the people interested in cinema, Bykov won both popularity and admirers - his work is interesting and recognizable.
In one of the interviews, the director himself admitted that he was very attracted to the topic of human imperfection - the picture entitled “Live” was no exception. Briefly, the essence of the film is to demonstrate how fragile moral principles become when a person’s life is in jeopardy. In the vast majority of cases, it turns out that neither dignity, nor declared faith in God, nor good nature as a character trait can suppress the instinctive desire to survive at all costs.
Plot plot
The plot is simple to sketchy: the elderly hunter Mikhail, having chosen to hunt with his beloved dog, is, as they say, "at the wrong time in the wrong place." In the forest, he encounters a young man named Andrei, who escapes from several thugs chasing him. Next, the old and young heroes try to hide together - first in Mikhail’s car, and then on foot (when the car got stuck in the mud).
The characters are opposed worlds: Andrei in every possible way seeks to demonstrate his own cynicism, Michael acts as his opponent. The hunter says that he believes in God, attends church, he has a family to which he is attached. That is, the author of the film shows us an ordinary average person who is not alien to moral standards. In any case, it is obvious that he has a clear idea about them.
Morality and circumstances
About how morality gradually recedes into the background and ceases to control the hero’s actions, and the film “Live” shows: the film by Yuri Bykov, reviews of which are generally positive (albeit very different), step by step reveals to his viewer what he is capable of person in adverse circumstances.
Michael in this sense “progresses”, within one day giving up everything that civilization has given man. First, he takes the first step on the road to betrayal: he agrees to kill the dog, which can bark to betray the fugitives. The episode in which a young hunter’s companion strangles her caused fierce debate among the public.
Some viewers agreed that such an act was necessary: ​​when a person’s life is at stake, it’s normal to sacrifice an animal. Others do not agree with such a statement of the question, believing that the situation could (and should) be resolved differently. Still others, having watched Bykov’s film “Live”, devoted their reviews to ascertaining whether the dog actually suffered.
Animals or people
I must say that the realism of the material shot really shivers. The cruelty of the scene causes a very unpleasant feeling, all reviewers note this, arguing only about how much the episode was necessary to reveal the theme of the film.
The next test for Michael is a fisherman who fishes on the opposite side of the lake. While Andrei crosses the river, the hunter must keep a fishing enthusiast on the fly so that the young accomplice can take his car keys from him or get consent to take them to the city.
Tough choices
As a result, the fisherman manages to escape: Mikhail could not shoot - after this the hunter remains in place (and the bandits catch him), and the second hero runs on alone. By the will of fate, they have to meet again, and then Andrei changes his hostage (one of the persecutors) to a hunter, thereby saving Mikhail's life. Then they again run together and find themselves cornered on an abandoned farm.
After Andrei leaves the game, struck by an epileptic seizure, the leader of the bandits offers Mikhail to kill the "partner" in exchange for his own life - and after a short internal struggle, a shot still sounds. The bandits leave, and the hunter, devastated by the unexpected events of the day, continues his journey alone, throwing a gun on the road.
Kill to survive
I must say that such an act of the hero found understanding in the vast majority of viewers: many believe that in the situation in which Mikhail found himself, "only the saint could have acted otherwise." A rare work provokes philosophically colored thoughts like the film “Live”: reviews literally compete with the degree of depth and distraction.
Spectators reflect on the vanity of human life, and on the phantom of the moral "superstructures" that distinguish man from the beast. Much has been said that almost everyone will kill another person in order to save his life. It is noteworthy that many separately stipulate that the victim was an “outsider,” “a stranger,” for the sake of whom it is ridiculous to sacrifice himself.
Viewing Impressions
This is the story about which the film "Live" tells us. Reviews note some schematic plot, as well as the "attraction" of individual episodes. For example, Andrei’s seizures were criticized (they say that the director too deliberately leads Mikhail to murder).
In general, the film "Live" Bykov (despite the obvious "chamberness" of the film), is evaluated positively by the audience.
The main criterion, however, the public notes nevertheless the factor of an impulse to reflection. Many commentators claim that after the credits appeared, they thought about a lot - including the frailty of their own existence. Some simply “offered prayers so as not to get into the situation in which the heroes of Yuri Bykov found themselves,” because they are honest enough with themselves to understand that they would do the same in a similar situation.
Condemn, forgive, transfer to society
Few found the strength to condemn Michael. Perhaps this once again testifies to the self-criticism of the audience. The director himself believes that this state of affairs is a moral degradation of society, the withering away of a chivalrous attitude to life (which, he said, has never happened in Russia).
Bykov himself, the person who created the film "Live" (reviews of which indicate that everyone understood the plot in his own way), admitted to the desire to demonstrate that those who live in harmony with the outside world are just lucky. There is no personal merit of this person, he simply did not get into the relevant circumstances, where he could manifest himself. Only a few are capable of controlling pressure, but, as mentioned above, Bykov chose human weakness as his theme.
It should be noted separately that the director’s plan found understanding among his viewer: many reviews contain a similar or identical idea. Another question is that commentators do not experience reflection on this subject, while the director, apparently, tried to achieve such an effect.
Director's vision and public trial
I must say that not everyone agrees with the director's vision. Nevertheless, I liked the film. The frantic cries that “it is immoral”, “why take such a shot”, etc., are in the absolute minority, which cannot but rejoice.
In addition to the main idea that the creators wanted to convey to their viewers, they also received attention and the means by which this was done.
In terms of artistic value, the film “Live” received various reviews. Some viewers noted the high-quality game, frames, "which can be printed and hung on the wall." Other, more finicky connoisseurs noted a number of weak points: for example, a bad picture in the episode with the fisherman.
Film symbolism
In search of deep meaning, individual commentators are trying to summarize the events of the film, to give them a certain symbolism: the ease with which Mikhail killed his partner, they believe, shows the depth of the moral decline of Russian society. The general impression of gloom and desolation is the abomination of harsh reality, which is symbolized by an empty, abandoned farm.
The answer to the question of why Michael should have died, but not killed Andrey, was somehow not received, although there are reviews that search him in the religious context of the film. The old hunter claims that he believes in God, but it turns out that the atheist and cynic Andrei turned out to be closer to him: he saved the life of Mikhail, and he did not hesitate for a long time before killing his savior.
Two different movie worlds
It should be noted that there is another film with the same name, the author of which is Vasily Sigarev. This film is trying to answer another question: "How to overcome trouble?". Three heroes of the picture lost loved ones: a little boy - a father, a girl - a young man, a mother - daughters. All of them must somehow live with this, and each is faced with its own hell.
The action takes place against the backdrop of poverty, dirt and other horrors of the Russian hinterland, about which, for the most part, those who leave reviews on the Internet have no idea. Pile of negativity played a significant role in audience ratings. Perhaps because of this, the film “Live” 2012 (reviews indicate a shock experienced by the audience) did not win multiple sympathies.
Despite the difference in meaning, there is a common feature in two films of the same name. The most obvious is an appeal to the problem of indifference. Each of us closes in our own world, little interested in that very “outsider” person - to such an extent that we come to the conclusion that you can even kill him. This is what the film “Live”, shot by Bykov, demonstrates: the 2010 reviews clearly demonstrate the willingness of people to sacrifice a stranger, because commentators do not feel any responsibility towards him.
Sigarev’s painting calls for this “outsider” to take a closer look, sympathize with him - such is the later film “Live”. The reviews of critics from the professional world clearly leaned towards the 2012 film. This is evidenced by a set of awards. If the work of Yuri Bykov won only two of them (the Smolensk Golden Phoenix festival in the Debut nomination and the special prize of the general producer of the Amur Autumn festival), then the film Live (2012), the reviews of which were performed much more severely by the audience , became the winner of the Wiesbaden festival, and also received a number of prizes for the best directorial, cameraman and acting.