Rosetta

Nabokov is a series of lectures on Russian literature, which he gave the students of American universities. He it displays the rating of the Russian writers — places first-second-third places Tolstoy, Chekhov, Dostoevsky, Turgenev, Pushkin. By the way, read, test yourself how you match with him in the assessments. But I at rating, what criteria he there introduces for the assessment of the degree of artistry. The criterion is that — ability so skillfully to create a fictional world that was complete illusion its integrity and completeness. Not reality the sense of realism, but — it is wholeness. Let it is fantastic, as Gogol, but it — world. Where all fitted and working. No in what place reading you are not there was even a shadow of a doubt — that's here not that the emotion here here — stilted, here is here such a literary device, so welcome. Here the author has made such feint ears, and here it is still somehow different. If you read or see some artwork and feel inside of it, and — I feel like a critic, reads the author's techniques — that such a worthless product. Artificially created world should be interpreted in a natural, internal laws.

In this — nabakowski — the meaning of Rosetta — a real work of art, just Chekhov cinema. The world real as if we looked at him in the window. Just immediately and unconditionally believe that is something real, almost documentary. You ever for the movie thought it — the actress? Well, maybe in the end, in terms of admiration — that is so plays! Right lives in the frame. One Hundred Percent "Believe!" Believe that the girl really like lives and following the logic of her life, you can understand why she does one or another act.

It's about the incarnation of the idea. And the idea itself? What is a meaningful message? Here what the authors actually wanted to tell this story of betrayal that made this girl the first person in her life who somehow sees her, sees in her man?

I think there is the problems of not psychological, this movie is much more philosophical than think first sight. It — saying the nature of morality. Where is the morality — the discernment of good and evil — in people? It is a social invention that people have created morality, historically, in the course of communication? Or right evil — original? Something like Plato's ideas, or (whichever is closer) from God?

And the example of the history of this girl, the film makes the choice to second — the concepts of good and evil given to us. it is initially, they — innate, they are not brought up in person does not occur in society process development. And confirms example — its heroine. She lives completely asocial, completely out of society, just as a small animal of some kind. None of her entourage never could give her views of that is good and what is bad. She never nothing reading heard. Practical — Mowgli. She just have to survive, and it really acts as a beast. If she must for survival to betray, expose prevent it from person — it makes. And everything shows that not condemn. It is not condemn the same we are the dog that bites you if we are trying to take away from her bone.

But since the author believes that moral sense is innate, the original — he shows us the end of history, which shows. This girl's a wild creature, living in his microsocium, devoid of all morality, she the what begins to experience some inner turmoil. She was surprised myself, when saving a drowning buddy. Not directly!!! And then the end of the film when he refuses from their "bones". She probably do not understand what is — ordinary pangs of conscience. What distinguishes man from animal — this is the interpretation of this philosophical problem, the authors of the film.

Supporters of the evolutionary origin of morality in the gradual process of development of communication in human society — there will of course be those who disagree with film. But not negate the possibility of the author's vision. To the same it cleverly implemented.

The film took the Palme d'or in Cannes in 1999. I always view these films with great skepticism. But now — fully agree. My rating — possible

10 of 10

The fourth film from the Dardenne brothers, received in 1999, the "Palme d'or". Surprisingly frustrating thing is that when small timing just over an hour and a half the film greatly manages to bore. However, it is not due to the fact that he so and how it is built. Naturally, the success of the brothers of the Belgium is their unusual manner of shooting non-standard vision and then they true to its traditions, but here is came out completely sideways. Habit to shoot on 16mm camera will remain in the brothers are still for many films, but here it is annoying all the timing, trying to chase after realism simplicity looks unpleasant. Constantly shaky camera creates a ragged camera work, making a mess in the entire frame, the same sorrow overtakes and when the camera moves over the character is created in the end impression is of a very poor film made on the knee, but not something a professional made without delights.

Main problem is the whole burdens of the view that interest of the Directors in hyperrealism when the step by step a long time and gradually shows all actions of the character, not the bearing a special meaning. Because of this abuse of the atmosphere is completely broken and remained only the effect of irritation. Although the theme chosen by the brothers is very important and relevant, probably, all times. Poverty and the problems of the working class. So occurs in the world, people who simply "not enough space", forced to fight for the existence, constantly looking for work, after a long time such at her keep in fact, it seems that a lot of work though it really is not so. Poverty — it is a disease and strong contagion from which is hard to get rid of it becomes infected, the entire family and in those without a wild exaggeration, conditions, people lose their humanity, prone to betrayal and ready to get at least some work, and until they do it, trying to feed themselves in different ways, as times a lot of these small things and show filmmakers that it is scary, but much overdone that then this realism becomes unpleasant. Clear what thoughts and feelings I want to touch up, but if you look, it all the routine, just a shell problem. The Belgians are swimming on the surface, not going to the essence of the phenomenon under consideration, not looking at some details, trying to surprise the shell, but here is not working. In the end, the film looks like taken out context: why there is poverty, who blame why the kick hit the main character with his mother, how to deal with it to such situations was less? Because of this, no one in the film I want to empathize, it is not a full, dry and deep philosophical and social background disappears, he remains superficial and unpleasant.

But you have to admire that the situation is shown is true and accurate. The behavior of the main character and her metamorphosis surprise, therefore, to some point interesting to follow events and to observe the true situation of people in this position, after all, no concessions and easing, most often these people are in anguish, suffering, all without pathos and only the reality of the situation. Trying to show, to instruct, to teach, to awaken compassion, to show the truth in the eye. For a reflection of the reality of the brothers should be praised with their unusual way of seeing the situation. But that in a potentially broad topic they are properly posshibat only the tops and then just planted a picture of unnecessary trash — frustrating, because such obvious mistakes and naivety is not expect Directors of the world level.

6 from 10

The "Rosetta" from the Dardenne brothers is very on my opinion is hard to criticize. For this there are a lot of reasons. Example: dogmatist, a small plaque seamy side, short duration and etc.

However, the plot of "Rosetta", all the time keeping in the giving off neither a second. The story of the girl who is on the verge of not even a nervous breakdown, and a suicide, but still struggling normal life — beautiful. Moreover, the plot twists are really unexpected and beat precisely in the purpose. I especially want to mention the scene when Rosetta spends the night at your new friend and talking to myself a.

The film looks on one breath, but most importantly — leaves behind a sense of this movie. Like after watching all pereslaschennye or Vice versa movies you breathe the mountain air. He pure, real, and let it burns my cold, freshness. And like reminiscent of dill "Rosetta" is the welcome breath of real air.

Separately should be noted the actual importance of film in world cinema. "Rosetta" showed for the first time in a long time the real life of Europe (namely Belgium), without complex metaphors, and so — directly honestly. And received 99 his first Palme d'or, the Dardenne brothers showed the world the movie bias in the direction of good old socialist realism. In the following year Trier award for "Dancing in the dark", which in a sense continues the theme of "Rosetta". Next Grand Prix will receive and "Fahrenheit 9/11", and the main socialist realist Europe — Ken loach with his "the Wind that shakes the barley". But it will after the triumph of the Dardenne brothers. After all, they gave the first to really breathe, but the barbed air.

Of 9 10