“Dowry” or “Cruel Romance”: differences between the play and the film (1984) (A. Ostrovsky). Creative work of students (grade 10) on the topic: “Seagulls hover over the masts with screams...” Screen adaptation as an interpretation of a literary work (using the example of artistic

USSR

"Cruel romance"- a feature film directed by Eldar Ryazanov, filmed in 1983 in Kostroma based on the play “Dowry” by A. N. Ostrovsky. The play was previously filmed in 1936. The main role was played by Larisa Guzeeva, who made her film debut with this film. Romances were performed by Valentina Ponomareva.

Plot

The action takes place on the banks of the Volga in the provincial town of Bryakhimov in the third quarter of the 19th century. Kharita Ignatievna Ogudalova (Alice Freindlich) is an impoverished noblewoman, a widow with three daughters. In the absence of funds, she still keeps an open house, not without reason, hoping that the company of beautiful and musical young ladies will attract single men who marry dowry girls for love. She manages to marry off her two older daughters, leaving behind the youngest, Larisa (Larisa Guzeeva). She is courted by a gentleman, a rich man and shipowner Sergei Sergeevich Paratov (Nikita Mikhalkov), who is obviously in love with the girl. Larisa also falls madly in love with the handsome Paratov, but just when, according to the Ogudalovs and all their acquaintances, Paratov should propose, Sergei Sergeevich hastily leaves the city to save his fortune.

Larisa is deeply worried about Paratov’s departure, especially since Sergei Sergeevich did not have time to say goodbye to her and explain his reasons. Kharita Ignatievna continues to organize evenings in the hope of finding a husband for Larisa. The richest merchant of the city, Knurov (Alexei Petrenko), has his eyes on the girl, but he is married, and although Kharita Ignatievna uses his interest in her daughter to receive expensive gifts, Knurov is not considered as a husband. Another suitor, young businessman Vozhevatov (Viktor Proskurin), cannot yet afford to marry a dowry-free woman. Another admirer of the girl is the official Yuliy Kapitonovich Karandyshev (Andrei Myagkov), a postal worker, but he is too pathetic, poor (compared to the three merchants), painfully proud and absolutely not interesting to Larisa. However, when in the Ogudalovs’ house another “promising” candidate for groom, found somewhere by Kharita Ignatievna, is arrested - he turns out not to be a Moscow banker, but a cashier who ran away with the bank’s money - Larisa, tired of the carousel of gentlemen and her mother’s games of finding a “match” ", suffering from a broken heart by Paratov, decides to marry Karandyshev, who has one virtue, but an expensive one - he loves her. Preparations for the wedding begin, during which Karandyshev reveals his petty and ambitious nature several times. However, Larisa does not change her decision and, without hiding from her groom that she does not love him, she is firm in her intention to marry Yuliy Kapitonovich. But suddenly Paratov returns to the city, busy selling the steamship “Lastochka” to the merchant Vozhevatov.

Having met with Knurov and Vozhevatov, Paratov announces to them that he intends to be forced to marry a rich bride in order to save the remains of his fortune, and also to sell his shipping company to Vozhevatov. From them he learns that Larisa is getting married. Meanwhile, Karandyshev is throwing a dinner party, to which both Knurov and Vozhevatov, and eventually Paratov, are invited. Karandyshev, stunned by his own importance, which he, in his opinion, acquired by becoming Larisa’s fiancé, gets completely drunk (with the active assistance of the guests laughing at him). Larisa allows Paratov to entice her to a night banquet on the ship “Swallow” with gypsies and champagne. Larisa gives herself to Paratov, but in the morning he confesses to her that he is engaged and cannot marry Larisa. Knurov and Vozhevatov, taking advantage of the “opportunity”, play the disgraced Larisa at toss. Having won, Knurov invites the girl to become his kept woman, and the amount of the proposed maintenance would silence even the most evil critics of other people’s morality, but the shocked Larisa remains silent. Karandyshev appears on the ship, who, realizing that they laughed at him and his bride was taken away, caught up with the “Swallow” by boat overnight. He rushes to Larisa and lays claim to her, wanting to cover up her shame. Larisa also rejects Karandyshev, he is too pathetic for her. “I'm too precious for you. If it’s someone’s thing, then it’s expensive.” Larisa intends to agree to become an “expensive thing” in the hands of Knurov. Karandyshev, in despair, shoots Larisa with a pistol. Dying, she thanks for this shot.

Cast

• Alisa Freindlich - Kharita Ignatievna Ogudalova
• Larisa Guzeeva - Larisa Dmitrievna Ogudalova(voiced by Anna Kamenkova, sung by Valentina Ponomareva)
• Nikita Mikhalkov - Sergei Sergeevich Paratov - a “brilliant” gentleman, one of the shipowners
• Andrey Myagkov - Yuliy Kapitonovich Karandyshev - a poor postal official
• Alexey Petrenko - Mokiy Parmenych Knurov - one of the big businessmen of recent times, an elderly man with a huge fortune
• Victor Proskurin - Vasily Danilovich Vozhevatov, a promising merchant, also the heir to a shipping company
• Georgy Burkov - Robinson, aka actor Arkady Schastlivtsev
• Tatiana Pankova - Efrosinya Potapovna, Aunt Karandysheva
• Borislav Brondukov - Ivan, waiter at the city tavern
• Alexander Pyatkov - Gavrilo, waiter at a city tavern
• Yuri Sarantsev - Mikhin, captain of the Lastochka
• Olga Volkova - French milliner
• Dmitry Buzylev - gypsy Ilya
• Alexander Pankratov-Cherny - Semenovsky Ivan Petrovich, officer, hero of the Caucasian campaign
• Sergey Artsibashev - Gulyaev
• Ibrahim Bargi - Kuzmich, fireman of the Lastochka
• Zemfira Zhemchuzhnaya - gypsy singing a song of praise to Paratov
• Olga Krasikova - Olga Dmitrievna, Larisa's older sister
• Alexander Kuzmichev - judicial officer
• Yuri Martynov - guest of the Ogudalovs
• Vladimir Myshkin - guest of the Ogudalovs, officer, fellow soldier of Semyonovsky
• Nikolay Smorchkov - guest of the Ogudalovs, father
• Georgy Elnatanov - Georgian Prince George, husband of Olga Dmitrievna
• Anna Frolovtseva - Annushka, the Ogudalovs' cook
• Evgeniy Tsymbal - Egor, sailor of the Lastochka
• Gypsy ensemble conducted by N. Vasiliev

Film crew

• Script and production - Eldar Ryazanov
• Director of photography - Vadim Alisov
• Production designer - Alexander Borisov
• Composer - Andrey Petrov
• Director - Leonid Chertok
• Editor - Valeria Belova
• Sound engineers: Semyon Litvinov, Vladimir Vinogradov
• Romances based on poetry: Bella Akhmadulina, Marina Tsvetaeva, Rudyard Kipling, Eldar Ryazanov
• State Symphony Orchestra of Cinematography
  • Conductor - Sergei Skripka
• Costume designer: Natalia Ivanova
• Cameraman - Pyotr Kuznetsov
• Makeup artist - Iya Perminova
• Assistants
  • director: Tatyana Pronina, Alexander Gromov
  • cameraman: Vladimir Shmyga, Anatoly Vasiliev
• Color installer - Bozena Maslennikova
• Consultant - Vladimir Lakshin
• Editor - Lyubov Gorina
• Music editor - Raisa Lukina
• Film directors: Lazar Milkis, Lyudmila Zakharova

The film featured the steamships "Spartak" (in the film - "Swallow", built 1914, Krasnoe Sormovo, Grand Duchess type) and "Dostoevsky" ("Saint Olga", built 1956, Óbuda Hajógyár, project 737A)

Music from the film

Music from the film “Cruel Romance” was released on records by Melodiya, as well as on audio cassettes by Svema in 1984.

Songs sung

• USSR Goskino Orchestra - “Waltz”, “Pursuit” (A. Petrov)
• Ponomareva, Valentina Dmitrievna - “And finally, I’ll say” (A. Petrov - B. Akhmadulina), “Love is a magical land” (A. Petrov - E. Ryazanov), “Under the caress of a plush blanket” (A. Petrov - M. Tsvetaeva), "Romance of Romance" (A. Petrov - B. Akhmadulina), "Snow Maiden" (A. Petrov - B. Akhmadulina)
• Mikhalkov, Nikita Sergeevich - “And the gypsy is coming” (A. Petrov - R. Kipling (translation by G. Kruzhkov))

Criticism

“Cruel Romance” is Eldar Ryazanov’s attempt to go beyond the comedy genre. Despite the audience success, the film provoked an angry rebuke from literary and theatrically oriented critics, who accused its creators of vulgarizing the original play and mocking Russian classics. The story of Larisa Ogudalova was interpreted by Ryazanov in the spirit of “Madame Bovary”. It seemed like an unheard of audacity in relation to Ostrovsky’s material that Larisa, highly idealized in the play, according to the script, spends the night with the “charming Russian playboy” Paratov, after which she is shot in the back by the hysterical Karandyshev. An authoritative film critic at the time, Evgeny Danilovich Surkov, published a devastating article in Literaturnaya Gazeta, in which he was indignant that the on-screen Larisa “sang, danced with the guests, and then went to Paratov’s cabin and gave herself to him.”

Another object of attack was the acting of the aspiring actress Guzeeva, who, according to reviewers, was lost against the background of such luminaries as Mikhalkov and Freundlich. “The film does not try to overcome the inexperience, and at times even the helplessness of the beginning actress,” wrote, for example, B. O. Kostelyanets. “It remains unclear to us why exactly she causes the general admiration of the men around her.”

The famous literary critic D. Urnov complained that “instead of exposing Paratov’s emptiness,” the film gave “even a moderate apology for it,” that in the picture of the world drawn by Ryazanov there was nothing to oppose the temptation of the “sweet life.” If in the play musicality is inherent only to Larisa, then the on-screen Paratov himself is not averse to performing a heartfelt romance. The performer of the role of Paratov, which is typical, did not consider his hero negative: “Larissa is not a victim of a calculating seducer, but a victim of this man’s terrible breadth,” he noted. After a decade, it turned out that, while depicting the destructive power of money over people, Ryazanov captured on film “an almost prophetic premonition of the New Russian era.”

As a response to critics, Ryazanov gave the name Surkov to the negative character of his next film “Forgotten Melody for Flute” (Evgenia Danilovna Surova, role of Olga Volkova). He also published an explanatory article, where he called the Volga and the Lastochka steamship the main characters of the film. The director explained that when working on the film, great importance was attached

the daring gypsy element, which, bursting into the musical fabric, gives a certain anguish that our ancestors loved so much... [gypsy melodies] bring dashing recklessness, cheerful despair, some kind of breakdown is felt in them, the expectation of trouble, misfortune.

Awards

• “Golden Peacock” is the main prize of the Delhi-85 festival.
• Best film of the year, best actor of the year (Nikita Mikhalkov) - according to a poll by the magazine “Soviet Screen”.

Notes

Links

• “Cruel Romance” on the website “Encyclopedia of Russian Cinema”
• Full movie "Cruel romance" on YouTube
• Cruel Romance (English) on the Internet Movie Database

TOPIC: Comparative analysis of “Dowry” by A.N. Ostrovsky and “Cruel Romance” by E. Ryazanov Objective: comparison of works of two types of art (cinema and literature) within the framework of a cultural dialogue of artistic thoughts. Pedagogical objectives of the lesson: . to develop in students the ability to compare works of two types of art (literature and cinema); . develop thinking and creative independence, give your assessment of the modern interpretation of the play in a film; . to educate an attentive and thoughtful reader. Lesson equipment: blackboard, fragments of E. Ryazanov’s film “Cruel Romance”, text of A. N. Ostrovsky’s play “Dowry”, poster for the film and a list of characters in the play. Epigraph to the lesson: Temptation is not evil, but good. It makes the good even better. This is a crucible for purifying gold. John Chrysostom PROGRESS OF THE LESSON Teacher: Dialogue is always a collision of the worldviews of the author and the interpreter, since the understanding of any work of art is determined by a complex of factors of a socio-psychological and cultural-linguistic nature, the context of the recipient’s existence. The phenomenon of a literary text lies in the fundamental inexhaustibility of the meanings and ideas expressed in it: each new reading increases the space of understanding. Look at the board. Teacher: The words of I. Chrysostom are taken as an epigraph to the lesson. Tell me, what do these words have to do with the works that we will analyze today? Student: The motive of temptation (leading) sounds both in drama and in films. Teacher: “Temptation is the sieve through which almost all the characters are sifted by two artists. This is the main measure of humanity." “Dowry” is an eternal story about deceived love, unfulfilled hopes, rightly called in the cinema “cruel romance”, such is the play by A.N. Ostrovsky, written in the 19th century, it is not at all outdated. Teacher: What problem is central in these two works? Disciple: The spiritual drama of a tempted man. Teacher: We have to figure out what interpretation it receives from these artists - Ryazanov and Ostrovsky, whether the highest peak of the sound of this drama coincides with both authors. And now a short excursion into the history of Ryazanov’s film adaptation of the play. Student Message: Produced 20 years ago, the film caused widespread controversy, with most reviews of the film being negative. Nevertheless, “Cruel Romance” was a great success at the box office (22 million viewers watched the film in cinemas). The film enjoyed widespread popular 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 - the best composer. "Cruel Romance" was well received abroad and received critical acclaim 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. Teacher: Why are the reviews of critical articles so different from the opinions of the average viewer? Student: Critics proceeded from the ideal model of a film adaptation of a classic play, which should fully reproduce the author's intention 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 of art, they live according to different laws, and therefore a completely literal reproduction of the classics on the screen is hardly possible. We set a goal - to analyze E. Ryazanov’s film “Cruel Romance” precisely as an interpretation of A. Ostrovsky’s play “Dowry”. This goal determines the main objectives of the study:  compare the director's script for the film with the text of Ostrovsky's play, finding the director's deviations from the original source;  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 and musical design of the film. Teacher: Interpretation (from Latin interpretatio - explanation) is not just an interpretation of a work. Interpretation, as a rule, involves translating a statement into another language and recoding it. “The artistic value of a film adaptation is not determined by the measure of direct proximity to the original,” says art critic Gromov. “More important is its compliance with the spirit and pathos of the literary source” and the modernity of its vision by the director. Teacher: What are the features of Ryazanov’s interpretation of “Dowry” and what methods and techniques of analysis will help us figure this out? Student: The difference is in the titles of the play and the film. Features of plot-compositional structure and language of characters. Student: Already in the title of the film, Ryazanov in his work moves away from the theme of a dowry or its absence, changing it to the theme of the Fate of a person: “... in the ordinary course of everyday life, a chain of coincidences is discovered every now and then, a play of chance, the hand of Fate... Fate is hers every now and then heroes remember her, they rely on her in decisions and actions.” The characters in “Cruel Romance” repeat this word very often. “Well, my fate has been decided,” says Larisa, seeing Karandyshev with a bouquet of roses (Ostrovsky has a mention of this episode, but does not have this phrase!) “Apparently, you can’t escape fate!” - Larisa says to her mother, leaving with Paratov. Both Knurov and Vozhevatov, fighting for the right to own Larisa, rely on fate. Teacher: Is it just a matter of Fate, is Ryazanov really a fatalist?! No, the main idea of ​​the film is different. Here is one of the first episodes of the film, completely created by the director’s imagination, which is important: Karandyshev: Larisa Dmitrievna, explain to me why women prefer vicious people over honest ones? Larisa: Do you have anyone in mind, Yuliy Kapitonovich? Karandyshev: No, I just asked. The director is trying to answer this question from Karandysheva, showing how vice and meanness sometimes turn out to be very attractive, and honesty - gray, self-satisfied, petty and boring. The world, unfortunately or fortunately, is not strictly divided into positive and negative heroes. And the images created by Ryazanov are complex and ambiguous. Ostrovsky writes Paratov with sharp and evil irony. Before us is a deeply and spiritually squandered man. This is a gentleman who has long been playing the role of a clown. Paratov is not like that in “Cruel Romance”. In the film we see him as if through the eyes of Larisa. It’s hard not to fall in love with such a Paratov. Just look at the spectacular entry on a white horse along the gangplank onto the ship! (This really is a prince on a white horse). He is sweet, kind, charming, sociable with everyone, be it a barge hauler, a gypsy or a sailor. They love him for his democracy. But he is absolutely immoral and, in general, is aware of this. A “kind, dear” bastard with a broad, truly Russian soul, capable of strong feelings, but incapable of decisive actions, a slave of the same Fate and, by and large, a very weak person who has no support in life and no moral core. In the film, Paratov is clearly opposed to Karandyshev. (In the play, where Karandyshev’s role is less significant, this opposition is not so clearly felt). The contrast is stated already at the very beginning, in the exposition of the film: Ogudalova (to Larisa regarding Paratov): “Don’t break your neck, the groom is not about you, just enjoy yourself.” .. Vozhevatov (to Karandyshev regarding Larisa): “You shouldn’t stare, Yuliy Kapitonovich, the bride is not talking about your honor.” It is worth noting that this opposition is framed purely through cinematic means, using editing. Each of these two replicas becomes significant precisely in comparison with the other. This mirroring is manifested in the film in two other scenes, also absent from Ostrovsky. In the first episode, Paratov, in front of Karandyshev, effectively lifts the carriage and moves it closer to Larisa so that she can sit down without getting her feet wet. In the second episode, Karandyshev tries to do the same, but his strength is not enough, and Larisa, apparently imitating her idol, walks through a puddle no less impressively. In such comparisons, Karandyshev certainly loses to Paratov. He is not so magnificent, not so self-confident, in addition, he is very proud, petty and vindictive. True, at the same time he has “one advantage”: he loves Larisa. And in a number of scenes not only the mediocrity, but also the tragedy of this image is shown, sympathy for the hero is expressed. Paratov is an even more complex and ambiguous figure. “To show Paratov, who loves Larisa, but refuses her because of money, steps not only on her love, but also on his feeling, it seemed... deeper, more terrible, more socially accurate than the usual reading of this character as a veil and seducer,” says the director. Teacher: Thus, “Cruel Romance” becomes not only the tragedy of Larisa, but also the tragedy of Paratov (and maybe even more the tragedy of Paratov) - a bright, strong, charming man, but lacking integrity, and therefore capable of immoral acts that he does unhappy not only those around him, but also himself. While winning in small things (yes, he can easily move a carriage or drink a glass of cognac and hit an apple), he loses in big things: “Swallow,” his estate, his free life, his love, turning into a slave of a millionaire. Teacher: What other screenwriting and directorial moments help us understand the idea of ​​the film? Student: Musical images also help a lot in understanding the idea of ​​the film. “Isn’t it enough for us to argue, isn’t it time to indulge in love,” the film begins with these words, declaring the main value that it asserts and which its hero will betray and sell - about love, “everything can be squandered and squandered, but love cannot be taken away at the soul." The film features romances based on poems by M. Tsvetaeva, B. Akhmadulina, R. Kipling and even E. Ryazanov himself. The music for the poems of these authors was written by A. Petrov. Thanks to these songs, the film sounded like one big romance. (Features of the cruel romance genre) Teacher: What is the highest peak of the sound of Larisa’s spiritual drama in the play and film? Student: In Larisa’s final song. Teacher: But these songs are different. Why?" Song from the play: Do not tempt me unnecessarily with the return of your tenderness! All the seductions of past days are alien to the disappointed. I don’t believe in assurances, I don’t believe in love, And I can’t again indulge in once deceived dreams. Song from the film “And finally, I’ll say...” And finally, I’ll say: “Farewell, Don’t oblige to love. I'm going crazy, or ascending to a high degree of madness. How you loved - you tasted Destruction - that’s not the point. How you loved, you destroyed, But you destroyed so clumsily!” The temple is still doing a small job, But the hands have fallen, and in a flock diagonally the smells and sounds are leaving. “How you loved - you tasted Destruction - that’s not the point! How you loved - you destroyed, But you destroyed so clumsily...” Student: “The main idea of ​​the first song is disappointment. The temptation to return to former feelings no longer touches the deceived heart. This song is a disillusionment. The second song has a more tragic emotional tone. The whole song is a premonition of an imminent tragic outcome. This is evidenced by the lexical content of the song: finally, goodbye, I’m going crazy, I’m ruined, the smells and sounds are leaving (dying is in progress). Repetitions help build tension and create an atmosphere of imminent death." Teacher: Indeed, these songs carry completely different meanings. Each author solves a problem, but these tasks are different: to show the depth of disappointment of a deceived heart (in a play) or become a harbinger of death, refusal to live without love (in a film). Whatever the content of the songs, the tragic death of Larisa turned out to be inevitable. What were her words in the drama and in the film? (viewing the final scene of the film - Larisa’s death) Then Larisa’s last words from the drama are read out: Larisa (in a gradually weakening voice): no, no, why... let them have fun, whoever is having fun... I don’t want to disturb anyone! live, live everything! you need to live, but I need...to die...I don’t complain about anyone, I don’t take offense at anyone...you are all good people...I love you all...all of you. Student: The death of Larisa in the drama is a tragedy and at the same time liberation. Larisa has found her freedom, there are no more social restrictions, no more mental anguish. The shot freed her forever. Her death is accompanied by the singing of the gypsies. Gypsies, as you know, are a free people. And it seems that Larisa’s freed soul flies away along with the gypsy song. She forgives everyone and bequeaths them to live. She doesn’t want to disturb anyone, she just wants to be free from suffering” (in the play) Teacher: And in the movie? Student: In the film, Larisa says only one word: “Thank you.” Teacher: What is the meaning of this word? And what directorial discovery in the final scene is worth paying attention to? Student: After the shot, seagulls soar into the sky; Larisa means “seagull” in Greek. The seagull does not have a nest, it sits on the waves, which carry it wherever its eyes look. The seagull’s homelessness is also reflected in the main character. In the film, seagulls soar into the sky more than once as a symbol of Larisa’s fate. But her last word cannot be considered as the liberation of the heroine. Her death is accompanied by a gypsy song, but Larisa’s soul is not freed with her, because the barge is floating in complete fog, where you can’t see the horizon, you can’t see anything at all.” Teacher: That’s right. And now let’s turn to that gypsy song that sounds throughout the entire film - “The Shaggy Bumblebee”. Tell me, can this song be called the leitmotif of the film? Student: Yes, you can. Either the song itself or the music from it are heard in each episode and in the final scene, reinforcing the motive of the main character’s homeless melancholy. Teacher: Tell me, can a gypsy romance be considered a cruel romance? Student: No. The life of Larisa Ogudalova should be called a cruel romance. This is a real cruel romance. Teacher: So, thanks to our research today, we found out that Ryazanov, voluntarily or unwittingly, changed the nature of the work, placed the emphasis somewhat differently: the film script brings to the fore the love conflict of the play, pushing aside the topic of money and lack of money, dowry or lack thereof, the tragedy of the “pure soul” in the world of purity." Teacher: What are the features of the interpretation of characters in the film as opposed to the play? Student: In Ryazanov’s interpretation, Larisa is depicted not as a bright, rich, extraordinary person, which was traditional for this role in the theater, but as a naive girl who captivates with the charm of youth, freshness, and spontaneity. Mikhalkov, in the role of Paratov, involuntarily takes over the main role, showing in the film not only the tragedy of Larisa, but also the tragedy of Paratov - a financially and spiritually wasted person. Teacher: What is the role of landscape in the film? Student: The Volga landscapes help to understand the character of the characters: the breadth of soul and passion of Paratov (remember his first walk on the “Swallow” with Larisa), the inner melancholy and disorder of Larisa, the high banks introduce the theme of heights, alluring and frightening, and the sound environment (steamboat whistles, bird's edge) help create a poetic, tense, sometimes painful, sometimes oppressive atmosphere of the picture. Homework: film review.

WORK PLAN:

INTRODUCTION…3

1. The fate of a homeless woman in the play by A.N. Ostrovsky...4

2. The skill of the actors in the film “Cruel Romance”... 10

3. Interpretation of the image of Karandyshev: Ostrovsky and Ryazanov... 13

CONCLUSION...18

LIST OF REFERENCES USED...19

Excerpt from the text

3. Conduct a comparative analysis of Mikhail Bulgakov’s novel “The Master and Margarita” and the 1994 film “The Master and Margarita” directed by Yuri Kara, and identify the importance of lost or acquired elements in the screen interpretation.

The economic structure of any society cannot function without a normally organized flow of funds between the state and production structures, the state and various segments of the population, between regions and individual states. Financial ties are realized through the financial system, which includes budgets of various levels, insurance funds, foreign exchange reserves of the state, monetary funds of enterprises and firms, and other monetary funds.

The study of causality since the 19th century. and to this day, a significant amount of work has been devoted to criminal law. Such prominent domestic scientists as G.E. Kolokolov, P.P. devoted their works to the causal relationship in the pre-revolutionary period. Pustoroslev, N.S. Tagantsev and others. Particularly, in the series of these works, one should highlight the work of N.D. Sergievsky “On the meaning of causation in criminal law.” The problems of causality were also reflected in Soviet times in the works of such authors as N.D. Durmanov, V.N. Kudryavtsev, A.A. Piontkovsky and others. In Russian criminal law, causality and socially dangerous consequences are considered in the works of such authors as D.G. Zaryana, N.F. Kuznetsova, Yu.V. Nikolaeva, G.M. Reznik and many others.

And although already the first photographers, who gravitated towards artistic images, showed considerable compositional ingenuity to display reality, photography did not fit into the system of social values ​​in the role of art for a long time

The topic of this study is devoted to the study of causation in Russian criminal law. It is this problem that occupies one of the central places in Russian criminal law. To a large extent, the correctness of its decision determines the legality of the qualification of criminal cases. Causality, along with social danger, is one of the necessary prerequisites for criminal liability.

If open, it requires digging a trench across the road, damaging the road surface and disrupting traffic flow during the construction period. All this, naturally, is associated with an increase in the cost of work, since there is a need to restore the road surface and landscaping elements at the passage site.

Among the economic levers with which the state influences the market economy, taxes play an important role. Taxes are an important economic category historically associated with the existence and functioning of the state. In a market economy, any state widely uses tax policy as a certain regulator of the impact on negative market phenomena. Taxes, like the entire tax system, are a powerful tool for managing the economy in market conditions. The effective functioning of the entire national economy depends on how well the taxation system is structured. It is the tax system that today has turned out to be, perhaps, the main subject of discussion about the ways and methods of reform. Its relevance is obvious, because Sooner or later, any person will have to deal with paying taxes and/or filing a tax return, especially if he is going to engage in private entrepreneurship or create his own company. The transition of the Russian economy to market relations required the creation of a more advanced system of taxation of enterprises and citizens and more effective mechanisms for the redistribution of citizens' income through the state budget.

The custom of choosing for yourself, a kind of distinctive sign, has deep roots and is widespread throughout the world, so the increased interest in heraldry is not surprising. The purpose of the work is to analyze the content of the heraldry of Russia and Great Britain based on the study of the state emblem of the Russian Federation and the coat of arms of Great Britain as a phenomenon indicating the commonality of heraldic symbols and proving that the symbols of the country at all times were not only an unshakable attribute of power, but also the embodiment of spiritual and historical memory people. - prove the commonality of many heraldic symbols that have developed throughout the history of Russia and Great Britain, which allows us to speak of Russian heraldry as a borrowed tradition

The object of the study is the speed and dexterity of preschool children, the subject is the formation of the physical qualities of speed and dexterity in preschool children through outdoor games. The purpose of the work is to develop pedagogical conditions for nurturing speed and dexterity in preschool children.

The concept of international transportation is contained in a number of international agreements, as well as in the legislation of the country, and such transportation should be considered the process of transportation between two countries, in contrast to transportation in domestic traffic, i.e. within one country.

Methods and technologies for conducting public relations campaigns when promoting Internet projects using the example of discount sites

LIST OF REFERENCES USED:

1. Kostelyanets B.O. "Dowry" by Ostrovsky. - M., 1982.

2. Lebedev Yu.V. About the nationality of “Thunderstorm”, “Russian tragedy” A.N. Ostrovsky // Russian literature.-1981.-No. 1.

3. Lotman L.M. Ostrovsky’s dramaturgy // History of Russian dramaturgy of the second half of the 19th century - the beginning of the 20th century. - L., 1987. -P.101−125, 136−149.

4. Ostrovsky A.N. Drama / A.N. Ostrovsky. - M.: AST Publishing House LLC, 2003. - 395 p.

5. Smelyansky A. Our interlocutors / Russian classical drama on the stage of the modern theater /. - M., 1981.-P.91−135.

6. Stein A.L. Master of Russian drama. - M., 1973.-P.134−137.

7. Encyclopedia for children. T.9. Russian literature. Part 1. / Chief editor M.D. Aksyonova. - M.: Avanta+, 1998. - 672 p.: ill.

bibliography

1. Checking homework and setting lesson goals.

Guys, you needed to watch and analyze (make notes) the film adaptation of E. Ryazanov’s “Cruel Romance” [slide 17] with the drama by A.N. Ostrovsky. Have you looked?

Fine. Did you like the film adaptation? Was it interesting for you to watch the film? How did your feelings change as you watched? Which adaptation did you like best?

What scenes of the film do you remember most?

Is this how you imagined heroes? Do the images of the characters match those created by the actors in the film? Which actor, in your opinion, most accurately embodied the image of the literary hero he played?

Has your attitude towards the drama and characters changed after watching the film adaptation?

What kind of ending were you expecting? Did the film's ending live up to your expectations? How did it leave you feeling?

Which adaptation do you think is closer to Ostrovsky’s drama?

Well. Today we will compare the film adaptation of Ostrovsky’s drama by E. Ryazanov with the text of the drama itself.

2. Analysis of E. Ryazanov’s film adaptation of “Cruel Romance” as a whole (composition, symbolism, transformation of lines).

Today we will turn to the film adaptation of E. Ryazanov’s Ostrovsky drama “Cruel Romance”. This adaptation is loved by many viewers. The film received the Golden Peacock awards (main prize of the Delhi-85 festival) and “Best Film of the Year”, “Best Actor of the Year” (Nikita Mikhalkov) - according to a survey by the magazine “Soviet Screen” [Wikipedia: Electronic resource]. However, one cannot help but say about criticism of the picture[slide 18]. After the premiere, E. Ryazanov and the actors were hit with a barrage of criticism and dissatisfaction. "Critics left no stone unturned in the film. The reviews were huge and without exception, they were all pogrom. For a month and a half, Literaturnaya Gazeta devoted one entire page to our feed in each issue. Headlines: “Why? Why?”, “Just a romance”, “The winner loses”, “The deception of communion”” [Ya. Shchedrov. How the film “Cruel Romance” was filmed]. In just one of these articles by the then authoritative film critic E. Surkov, published in Literaturnaya Gazeta, the film adaptation was destroyed: Surkov was indignant that Larisa on the screen “sang, danced with the guests, and then went to the cabin to Paratov and gave herself to him” [cit. from: Wikipedia: Electronic resource]. “It seemed like an unheard of insolence in relation to Ostrovsky’s material that Larisa, highly idealized in the play according to the script, spends the night with a “charming Russian playboy” (from an article in the journal “Voprosy Literatury” by V. Cardin)” [cit. from: Wikipedia: Electronic resource]. Critics have focused on distortion of Ostrovsky's images. The second reason for the critics' indignation was acting, especially the young actress Larisa Guzeeva making her debut in this film. For example, B. O. Kostelyanets writes: “The film does not try to overcome the inexperience, and at times even the helplessness of the beginning actress. It remains unclear to us why exactly she causes the general admiration of the men around her” [Kostelyanets 1992:177]. And here’s what was written in the Trud newspaper about the performance of actor N. Mikhalkov: “A sensitive superman (remember the far from stingy male tear running down his cheek while Larisa sings) - that’s what Paratov is in the film” [Shchedrov: Electronic resource]. However, Mikhalkov himself saw his hero not as a negative character, but as a tragic victim of his broad nature: “Larissa is not a victim of a calculating seducer, but a victim of this man’s terrible breadth” [cit. from: Wikipedia: Electronic resource], notes the actor. The only one who expressed a positive review was, oddly enough, Nina Alisova, who played Larisa in the film by Y. Protazanov: ““Cruel Romance” raises the story of Larisa the dowry to tragedy, and this is the main victory of the entire creative team. I haven’t felt such a strong impression from a work of art for a long time” [Alisova 1984]. How did you perceive the images of Ostrovsky’s characters as interpreted by the actors? Do you agree with the critics? To understand and fully understand Ryazanov’s film adaptation, let’s take a closer look at it.

Ryazanov undertook to film the drama immediately and, in his words, “still in the process of reading<…>I immediately imagined the performers of the two main roles" (from "NOT summed up") [Shchedrov: Electronic resource] - Nikita Mikhalkov (in the role of Paratov) and Andrei Myagkov (in the role of Karandyshev).Here is what E. Ryazanov himself writes about the process of creating the film: “This method of presentation [presentation of the events of the life of the Ogudalovs in the dialogue between Knurov and Vozhevatov] is possible for the theater (and even then not for modern), but is absolutely excluded for cinema. A long exposition introduces us in absentia to the characters of the drama, introduces us to their problems, and tells in detail about the relationships of the characters. In this conversation between the two characters there is a huge flow of information, very extensive, detailed, with nuances and details... and we decided to show what Knurov and Vozhevatov were talking about, that is, to replace the story with a show” [Ryazanov 1985:163]. And indeed: we see 2 parts of the film, the first of which tells about the life of the heroes of the drama before Paratov’s departure, and the second represents the last day of Larisa Dmitrievna Ogudalova. For example, the scene of the arrest of the cashier in the Ogudalovs' house was born in a film adaptation of the drama from the text of the drama itself. From a couple of phrases that Vozhevatov utters in a dialogue with Knurov (“Then this cashier suddenly appeared... So he threw money at him and showered Kharita Ignatievna with it. He beat everyone off, but didn’t show off for long: they arrested him in their house. What a scandal!” (act 1, phenomenon 2)), a whole spectacular scene of the film emerges (the scene with the cashier Gulyaev, pretending to be the director of the bank, who gives Kharita Ignatievna money to buy a carriage - these details (the cashier's name and the conversation about the carriage) were thought up by Ryazanov himself).