"Cranes are Flying". One of the masterpieces of Soviet cinema. But this film is known and loved not only in our country. You all know that he was awarded the "Golden Palm Branch" in Cannes. But look at IMDb. There, the rating of this film is even higher than at our Film Search. And quite a few reviews
Translation of some of them let me give it to your attention.
KFL20 October 2002
The story told in the film "The Cranes Are Flying" is not, admittedly, quite original. Young lovers are separated by war; both fall into bad situations. We have seen this many times. Nevertheless, we have not always seen so well shot, with bold frames that allow us to emphasize separation, devastation, and despair. It is all the more remarkable that this film was shot in the Soviet Union, and it is an excuse to conclude that Tarkovsky is not the last word in modern Soviet cinema
The other day I read Chekhov's Three Sisters and accidentally realized what the title of this film might mean. In the second act, Masha objects to the fact that we must live without meaning and understanding:
"It seems to me that a person must be a believer, or he must seek faith, otherwise his life is empty, empty ... To live and not to know why cranes fly, why children will be born, for what the stars are in the sky ... Or know why you live, or all nonsense, senseless stupidity. "
Similarly, Veronica hardly believes that the war, as well as other of her sufferings, was meaningless. It is better to find meaning, to live as if life were meaningful, and not give way to despair. Perhaps this thought tells her her last action in the film
vdg17 March 2004
I would like to tell you a few words before you watch this film. If in the past you thought you saw a good camerawork, be ready to be amazed at this film. This film was shot in 1957 in Russia, but the technique used here is probably what we saw much later in the Western world ... in about 20 years. The level of emotions in the film changes quite often: happiness - love - war - despair - joy, but in the end you remain with something completely unique: the joy of viewing this masterpiece of filmmaking. Young directors of our time should study more of these films and then, perhaps, they will be able to create something like this ... although I think that films like this are very difficult to find ... If you watched "I'm Cuba", then this film like you, but if not, be ready for a unique experience. Russian directors have something in common: very small budgets, great actors and the joy of creating art ... and yes, they can create more masterpieces than the whole Western world together. I'm not a big fan of Russia, in fact I hate everything communist, but films created in this part of the world manage to evoke feelings that are difficult to describe.
Enjoy it.
Neil Doyle16 May 2007
Russian actress Tatiana Samoilova strongly reminds me of a young Audrey Hepburn, and the camera in "Flying Cranes" seems to love her very much. It is the center of the bitter-sweet military novel against the backdrop of the Second World War in Moscow.
The film is almost poetic in its gorgeous black and white performance, which was the main reason for watching the film, since I had never heard of it and decided to try it when it was broadcast on TCM.
This is a very exciting story about the girl's love for a man who suddenly became a soldier called up in wartime in Russia. She can not forget her romantic affection for him, but for some reason she marries someone else who forced her, a pianist who soon realizes that she still loves the soldier, and hopes to hear it. Their marriage is problematic, because she can not let go of her memories of a happy time with her beloved soldier.
At the end of the story, she realizes that he will never return and, faced with reality, decided to cope with the situation. At the station there is a very sharp final scene, where the incoming soldiers greet their loved ones, and the tear-stained girl shares the joy of returning soldiers, giving flowers from her bouquet to joyous families.
Stylish and bright camera work - this is what carries the film, as well as honestly played plot.
Tastefully done, but perhaps English subtitles did not tell the whole story, because some of the story elements seemed to me a little blurry, as if they were smeared.
In summary: it's easy to understand why he won awards at the Cannes Film Festival. Reminded me, in style, another great Russian film - "The Ballad of a Soldier."
William J. Fickling30 November 2002
While watching this movie, I constantly had to remind myself that it was filmed in 1957 .......... and in the USSR! Which makes it even more remarkable. Many of the cinematic effects in the film in 2002 look like cliches, but they were quite original in 1957. I first saw this film in 1963, when it was first released in the US, and I was struck by its originality. Now, just reviewing it 40 years later, I have no reason to change my mind.
Kyle Salmons23 July 2014
Definitely one of the best works of cinema I've seen. Sergei Urusevsky - a truly cinematic genius. Many of the scenes in this film are shot with a hand-held camera, and the footage is stunning. Urusevsky conveyed the feelings and emotions of the characters through the camera, which many filmmakers make difficult. This is not only a great film in terms of technology, but also a very beautiful story. The actors are great, the story is gorgeous, and the film itself is great. I highly recommend this film to everyone; whether you want to analyze it or just enjoy it. This is a very beautiful and touching film, as well as a work of cinematographic art
shusei16 November 2007
This film is undoubtedly one of the greatest milestones in the history of cinema. Seeing this film, we can only retrospectively observe that world cinema in the 1950s had such a purely humanistic drama, such a strong and adequate use of sound-image editing and almost religious admiration for the ethical choice in a person's life. Cinema then was not only one kind of art. She was much higher than usual life and gave hope to many people to live after the tragic war. It is said that even Picasso was touched and cried that such a work of art can appear only once in 100 years! The audience of that time was also different. I read that when I saw Kurosawa's "Live" in the first viewing, the young couple silently said to each other: "This is a good film, is not it?". I think that modern cinema, although technically developed and discovering some new narrative perspective, lost the most important - the support of the audience. Cinema was once really the most popular art and, unlike modern fine arts and modern music, gave millions of people hope and ideals. From this point of view, "The Cranes Are Flying" should be in the pantheon of classics of all time, like Chaplin's "Lights of the Big City", "Live" Kurasawa and "The Road" by Fellini.
Sources ... ]
Used footage from the feature film "The Cranes Are Flying," dir. Mikhail Kalatozov, Mosfilm, 1957
Original reviews are taken from the site www.imdb.com
The article is based on materials .
Comments
Post a Comment