This week, a film adaptation of Alexander Pushkin’s novel “Onegin” was released in Russia. Despite the controversial choice of director (the film was directed by a man with a very controversial reputation, Sarik Adreasyan), the film turned out to be worthy, but not without flaws.
We have already gone to the premiere and are in a hurry to share our impressions. Spoiler – the director did not spoil the story, Pushkin did not turn over in his grave, but there are still nuances. First things first.
They read poetry here, but the narrator is terrible
What is the movie about: At the center of the plot is a story familiar to every Russian person. The story follows the life of a bored aristocrat, Eugene Onegin, who, after moving to the village, befriends the poet Vladimir Lensky and rejects the love of Tatyana Larina.
After a duel in which Onegin kills Lensky and it happens to him, he returns to discover that Tatyana has married and become a society lady.
The film tries to create the canons of Pushkin’s classical works, translating the poetic text into prose, but at the same time preserving the stanzas that create a special cultural atmosphere to the original. It turned out well and quite appropriate.
The role of the narrator, performed by Vladimir Vdovichenkov, gives the film a special charm, because his character is gracefully woven into the plot, becoming a kind of bridge between the viewer indicated on the screen and the original source. This promotes understanding and study of history.
But, unfortunately, Vdovichenkov reads great poetry so sadly and monotonously that it becomes even sad that his place was not taken by someone else.
I would even agree completely remove this character from the frame, but he hears the voiceover of Konstantin Khabensky. Yes, visually he is absolutely not suitable for this film, but his ability to express emotions with his voice would be very useful here.
The film is beautiful, but at the same time boring
Andreasyan’s direction takes an approach to detail and precision in costumes and decorations that is certainly respected. It’s hard to find fault with the picture here. Enchanting landscapes, mighty pines, thin birch trees and bright colors create a unique atmosphere of Russian nature.
Detailed interiors of St. Petersburg and Moscow, luxurious balls and travel decorations transport the viewer to the era of the 19th century and allow you to enjoy the aesthetics of the era. Everything is beautiful and everything is in place.
However, despite creating visual appeal and painstaking work in the era of screen images, solving the problem from the impact of liveliness and emotional reaction. The action seems conventional, and the characters seem divorced from reality. The main characters just miss the whole film, and you along with them.
Yes, there are some touching scenes here. But other than the writing of the letter scenes itself and the introduction of new protagonists into nightmares, there’s little that’s truly memorable from the visuals. Sterile, beautiful picture, period.
If you add to this the insanely extended timing, then you just want to rewind all these long plans, albeit beautiful locations closer to the denouement. The duration of 141(!) minutes seems stretched out; interest begins to fade after just an hour of viewing.
The acting is okay, but this is a complete miscast
Viktor Dobronravov, who played the role of Onegin, and Lisa Moryak, who played Tatyana, turned out to be significantly taller than their characters. This is not only noticeable, it spoils the viewing experience.
The director’s interpretation of “25 previous years as today’s 40” looks very controversial, since many of the characters’ actions, explained in the novel by youth and innocence, look unconvincing in the film. As a result, the acting seems artificial and the dialogue bland.
No matter how Dobronravov fits the type, it is impossible to hide the fact that he is already 40 years old. And the casting of Lisa Moryak for the role of Tatyana Larina, who in the film looks more mature than her literary prototype, causes surprise and even disappointment.
No need to look
Sarik Adreasyan undertook to refresh Pushkin’s classic work, introducing new elements into the plot, as well as transforming the poetic text into prose. In some places it looks quite appropriate. For example, there is a prologue that reveals the character of the main character in more detail. A small but quite appropriate addition that does not spoil the overall impression.
But the director’s vision of the story could not fully reveal the introduction and multi-layered nature of Pushkin’s “Eugene Onegin,” which turned into a set of beautiful, stylish, but meaningless scenes in the film adaptation.
The film is perceived not so much as a faithful adaptation of classic works, but as a “wooden” adaptation in which much has been changed or simplified. In fact, in our example, a visual drawing guide for schoolchildren, this is a missed opportunity to better understand the motives and feelings of the heroes of Pushkin’s great novel. But in fact, the project is determined by the emergence of the author’s vision and deviation.
The film leaves you with the feeling that it is more of a dramatization than a fundamental world creation capable of influencing or inspiring. The cinema is not able to overcome the depth and emotional resonance that you expect from the film adaptation of Pushkin’s great novel.
And was it possible to think that Sarik would be able to film a masterpiece? Of course not.
What is he? Pushkin?
Source: Iphones RU

I am a professional journalist and content creator with extensive experience writing for news websites. I currently work as an author at Gadget Onus, where I specialize in covering hot news topics. My written pieces have been published on some of the biggest media outlets around the world, including The Guardian and BBC News.