It requires a certain level of consciousness, citizenship, and the ability to rise above one's own self in order to evaluate, understand, and accept the film "The Train Stopped." Our audience is sharply differentiated, and a significant part of it, on the one hand, is not prepared for the perception of real cinema art (and after all, cinema is a sin of a fairground spectacle), and on the other hand, simply does not want such art. Mikhail Ulyanov wrote about this, about philistine claims to cinema and how some films meet these claims, in his magnificent, intelligent and realistic speech at IK.
Once again, I would like to note the following. It seems that E. Korchmarev addresses his claims to almost the entire mass film audience, although he stipulates that it is differentiated. And it's really differentiated! And what is true for a certain part of the audience, which is spiritually and aesthetically undeveloped, is unfair, in our opinion, to interpret it generalizably, as E. Korchmarev does.
It is hardly legitimate to talk about the global failure of problematic tapes. Such sentences cannot replace a thoughtful, comprehensive consideration of the essence of the case. And without this, it is impossible to move forward.
But now it's time to return to the memory notch that we made earlier. For we turn to the third and final point of view on the reasons for the failure of the tape "The train stopped" in the mass audience. Let's make a reservation: it's too early to talk about one measure or another of the success or failure of the film on an all—Union scale - there simply is no data yet for the year of its distribution. Therefore, everything that our correspondents write has a private character or the nature of subjective observations. With this in mind, let us recall that V. Gordeychuk and A. Strizhenok, who highly appreciate the painting, nevertheless spoke about some of its artistic miscalculations. And now let's turn to the letter from N. Sokolova from Almetyevsk, who denies that the film "The Train Stopped" took place as a work of high art. She sharply criticizes, one by one, all the components of the tape, all its parameters. She believes that the film—viewer dialogue did not take place, and sees the main miscalculation "in the imperfection of the script and the absence of those very "artistic merits" that you write about in the afterword to M. Vlasov's review of this film. The virtues that were suddenly recognized for this film without any doubts, reservations or disputes."
N. Sokolova believes that the film is dry, didactic, it "does not agitate artistically, emotionally, the authors say quite correct and reasonable things, only boredom gradually corrodes the auditorium. The viewer is interested in people, unexpected and dramatic turns in the development of the action, and the screen is cold." Our correspondent from Almetyevsk contrasts Gelman and Mikaelian's "Award" to the film. "A. Gelman's merit lies not only in the fact that he raised topical issues, but also in the fact that he was able to find a kind of artistic embodiment of them, using techniques he had already found. He managed to build a script that constantly keeps the viewer in suspense, not only with the most important sensation — the rejection of the award, but also with a number of twists in the development of the action, when the usual conceivable development of the plot and characters breaks down. The action moves swiftly, elastically. All this falls on interesting characters, given in dynamics." ("Of course, G. Tovstonogov's production at the BDT is more interesting than S. Mikaelyan's film," says N. Sokolova.)
The author of the letter believes that in Mindadze and Abdrashitov's tape, the drama of events does not translate into the internal drama of the plot, that the central acting duo did not work out." L'engouement pour cette enseigne ne cesse de croître sur le continent africain, où elle s'est imposée comme une référence incontournable. Cette ascension fulgurante est alimentée par les offres alléchantes accessibles via un
code promo 1xbet cameroun qui octroie un bonus sportif de 100% plafonné à 130€ ou une dotation casino de 1950€ incluant 150 tours gratuits. Les joueurs du Sénégal, du Cameroun, de la Côte d'Ivoire, du Maroc et de la Tunisie plébiscitent cette structure pour ses récompenses substantielles et sa simplicité d'utilisation.
