Аннотация: The Monologue of an ordinary spectator. Series 2
The Monologue of an ordinary spectator. Series 2
On the radio an advertising is "flapping". Tomorrow - TV movie about Boris Godunov.
What is this film about? And why did this film even appear?
In an advertizing give sound fragments. A female voice ... A male voice...
The love drama?
What's this movie about? The relationship between a man and a woman? Between a husband and a wife? As far as can be judged from historical sources, in the days of Boris Godunov before marriage, a woman in Russia was subordinate to her parents, and after marriage - to her husband. If to adhere to historical realities, there were no love dramas, or melodramas. There was, so to speak, a family order.
The era was tragic. Against Ivan IV Vasilyevich (Ivan the Terrible; Ivan the Thunderstormable), gradually during the Livonian war, a coalition was formed. And he could not win this war.
The power from Ryurik dynasty has passed to Boris Godunov.
The tragedy was also that an energetic, practically smart man came to power.
The Patriarch from Constantinople comes to Russia. At that time Constantinople was already under the rule of the Ottoman Empire. Why did the Patriarch come? Someone will say "for help", for Church fees. Maybe at that time it was called in other words. But Boris Godunov is an energetic, clever man. He believes that "his" Patriarch will be useful in Russia. And he, Boris Godunov, has a plan ... The efforts, it's clear, are need not a simple ... Further I don't go into detail. In a modern situation to go into detail - it can appear more expensively to myself.
Or here still a subject - Tsarevich Dmitry. Also - a plot tragic. Somehow there is no wish to speak of this theme on own behalf. Better to be guided by the encyclopedia.
"DMITRY IVANOVICH (19. 10. 1582, Moscow, - 15. 5. 1591, Uglich), son of the tsar Ivan IV Grozny and Maria Nagaya. He have received Uglich for the personal power and management, whereto has been sent together with mother after the death of the father (1584) by Boris Godunov who was afraid of competition of the members of the Nagiye's family in fighting for power. He have died in Uglich. There are two versions about causes of death of Dmitri Ivanovich: 1) is killed by order of Boris Godunov wishing to eliminate the applicant for a throne; 2) he stabbed himself by a knife in an epilepsy attack. The version is absolutely improbable that not Dmitri Ivanovich has been killed, whom managed to escape, and other person. The latest version has been widely used by feudal lords of Poland for promotion of impostors and was extending during the period the Peasants' War and foreign military intervention of the beginning of 17 century (see False Dmitry I, False Dmitry II) and aggressions against Russia".
("Poland" - it means the Rech Pospolita ("Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth"). It was so accepted to write - for bigger historical "clarity").
And after the theme of the Patriarch and the theme of Tsarevich Dmitry the events difficult are passing. For example, the fate of family members of Boris Godunov. (He himself died suddenly in the midst of the fight against False Dmitry I).
Further, the power after a variety of events passed to the Romanov dynasty.
Perhaps a clever Emperor Alexander I, paying considerable attention to the writing of the "The History of the Russian State", was feeling the symbolic significance of the transfer of power from the Rurikovich Dmitry Pozharsky (one of the leaders of one of The People's Militias - Volunteer Armies) to Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov?... This, of course, an assumption. No more than that ...
As a result it may seem, that the energy and the everyday mind for government, for the suprime state power may not be enough. And the fate of Boris Godunov is an example. And what is necessary?.
Perhaps, the film could (let us think positively) answer such question. But who can shoot such film? Shakespeare? So he is a resident of Great Britain ... And on specialization he is a playwright, the theatrical figure. And again, in this formulation of the question - in the current situation - they wouldn't glanced with unpleasure...
And if there is nobody, who can to shoot the film, whether then it is worth to begin the film making? And here we approach a question: "why this film has been shot?" Here you, let us assume, go along the street. You see the casual person, and with him - the company. Let's say they look decently, and behave - politely. You invite them to make in your own apartment a repair. They are obviously not ready to such activity. You are persuading them ... Looks ridiculously?
Everyone can to enjoy the "repair", which executed by people, not capable to this business. To spend the own attention and time for similar repair. And to feel himself, at the same time, like the obviously clever person.
I will open the book by Vladimir Vysotsky and I will read something from his verses. For example:
" - Ой, Вань! Смотри, какие клоуны!
Рот - хоть завязочки пришей...
Ой, до чего, Вань, размалёваны,
И голос, как у алкашей...
- Послушай, Зин, не трогай шурина:
Какой ни есть, а он - родня..."
"Oh, Van! Look at those clowns!
To sew some strings to their mouths ...
Oh, to what, Van, they are painted,
And voice, as have drunks ...
- Listen, Zine, don't touch the brother-in-law.:
What nor there is he, and he - one of relatives..."
November 4, 2018 19:44
Translation from Russian into English: November 17, 2018 03:51.
Владимир Владимирович Залесский "Монолог рядового кинозрителя. Серия 2".