Military Review

Cinema: here too Trotsky is on a dashing horse ...

60
Finally, the show of the next “masterpiece” of homegrown Spielberg, dedicated to the 100 anniversary of the Great October Revolution, was completed. “Finally,” not even because the next pseudo-historical hack was thrown onto the television market, but because from time to time it was annoying to stumble upon acts of public masturbation on the air in the promotion of this semi-finished product. Well, you know, when the actors, who are vitally interested in advertising their picture, lift it up to heaven on the air of the TV channel, whose producers produced this picture and concocted it. It always moves smoothly with a clever kind of objective gaze and with a very average intellect of the audience. This time, in the erotic stroking of their “ego”, the producers gave up on the ecstasy scale only to their advertising efforts in connection with the no less poor “Viking”. Then I was afraid to even turn on the iron so that Ernst or Kozlovsky or all of them would not jump out.


Cinema: here too Trotsky is on a dashing horse ...


Of course, to surprise our society that has seen the Mikhalkov sailing tank troops and the bare butt of the Luftwaffe, veterans of the Ministry of Emergencies with the seven fathers of Bondarchuk ml. and his own parody of Pavlov’s House is quite complicated. But the authors of Trotsky, God sees, tried. Who are they?

The directors were Alexander Kott and Konstantin Statsky. The first, after the success is quite good, already because NKVDeshniki does not eat babies for breakfast, the paintings “Brest Fortress”, set off to shoot a television serial consumer goods and fierce thrash like “5 Christmas Trees”. A colleague didn’t come up with a serial hate, unless, of course, taking into account the children's film “Fairy Tale. There is a "similar to the result of exposure to hard drugs.



Pictures for authorship of directors "Trotsky"

Trotsky was produced by Konstantin Ernst, who periodically fills the entire free air on his channel with an advertisement for his film production. His accomplice in this business was Alexander Tsekalo, who for many years has been straining to become famous as a producer, screenwriter, presenter, etc., but still remains in folk memory a character from low-grade pop music “Cabaret-duet“ Academy ”.

It's not worth talking about the historicity of this television film. Bulldozer historical Facts according to the scenario of this "fairy tale" was not rode unless lazy. The scriptwriters were Pavel Tetersky, a smiling guy from Lviv and one of the members of the friendly team of the Playboy magazine (whether he remains to them now), Ruslan Galeev, a science fiction writer and Oleg Malovichko, who had a hand in everything that was possible - from the failed Attraction "To the eerie experiments on the reincarnation of the Soviet comedy" Merry Guys ".


The famous “historian” Alexander Tsekalo: “Civil war is Trotsky”

Therefore, let us turn to the movie itself. To praise the quality of camera work, the very picture and visual effects, in my humble opinion, is stupid. This is the same as lying in the infectious diseases department after washing the stomach to philosophize - "that caviar is, of course, a fierce poison, but the jar was indescribable beauty." So no matter how beautiful the picture is, it will not brighten up the content.
The main character is, of course, Trotsky. One of the brightest figures of the October Revolution. In the picture it is a nervous, somewhat hysterical character, suffering from endless mystical seizures and visual hallucinations. Sometimes they look like some kind of flashbacks (something like a retrospective), but they don’t carry any functions of this cinematic tool, since they don’t reveal the main character, except that Trotsky suffers from schizophrenia.

But no matter how wild it sounds, it works. Because the creators of the tape to the grinding of teeth need to make Trotsky at least a little interesting character. And since the authors lowered the story into the toilet bowl along with real speeches and statements of their hero, all that he speaks is only the ideas of these same authors about Trotsky. And these representations are fragilely fragile, like any stereotypes from the 90's. Therefore, the periodic "parishes" of Trotsky at least some kind of shake-up for the viewer.

Another painting in his own impotence of owning artistic tools was an attempt to isolate the figure of Trotsky by artificially bringing down all the other revolutionaries from the historical pedestal. Ie, having a carte blanche for the rape of history, they first made their hero a scarecrow, a scarecrow in the style of “A Nightmare on Elm Street”. Then, realizing that such a character is not interesting even for a drunken stupor, they decided to lower all the others to a caricature level. So, Lenin appeared mumble, and Koba Caucasian Gopnik from the gateway.



And here Trotsky is on a dashing horse ...

As if all this feverish delusion was not enough, the authors, apparently understanding the conjuncture and the stereotypical thinking of certain narrow-minded groups, turned almost all revolutionaries, except Trotsky, into anti-Semites. And this label is more contagious than syphilis - you pick it up and you will not cure it. And considering that the series was pushed beyond the cordon even before the premiere in Russia, this label begins to play with new colors.

But back in native penates. The opinion that this opus is nothing more than another attempt to falsify history, in my opinion, is true. And the fact that this is a clear propaganda character too. True, now this agitation brew will be poured onto the external consumer behind the cordon.

The main thing is that the authors of “Trotsky” themselves tried so hard to demonize their heroes, that they devalued the entire propaganda reserve. They were devalued to such an extent that even the pokemon generation could not isolate the "Trotsky" from a number of fantasy paintings like Harry Potter with the ubiquitous Volan de Mort. And in this case, it’s not worth worrying about brainwashing for a whole generation, because our educational system does a great job with this, and not a special case of an inconsistent television movie.

Instead of subtle unobtrusive artistic tools, the authors forged the image of Trotsky with special effects hammer and frank surah. As a result, the character was so unreal that it makes no sense to talk about it.

No, of course, some critics heart-rendingly screamed that it is worth taking everything that is happening only as an artistic understanding. Only now the same part with such fervor found fault with every seam on the Panfilov’s uniform and eventually put itself in the cocoon of a liberal party, each screech of which has long had weight only inside the party itself.



A vivid example of the wretchedness of the TV movie "Trotsky" is an episode with the journey of Lev Davydovich on an infernal steam train through the steppes and valleys of Russia. The entourage of the picture is so stiff a mixture of some kind of steampunk and Star Wars that laughter breaks out by itself. Trotsky, skinned with red leather and stepping out of a pair of clubs, is simply demanding that John Williams's Imperial March soundtrack be worn out of the skin of a radically black skin with the leather Red Army men no less characteristic of their leader. Well, if at that second I heard the German language, I would definitely expect the start of a BDSM party.



And all this in a country where there is a rich experience of creating characters that inspire awe. And I do not mean some kind of “Freddy Krueger”, but quite living people. Recall only the image of General Khludov from the painting "Running", embodied by the genius Vladislav Dvorzhetsky. No special effects, just acting. And after that, to observe the hysterical attempts to make Trotsky something satanic with periodic arrivals is ridiculous.

I deliberately waited for the series to finish its “march” on the screen of the “First Channel”, as I was convinced that he would go to the dustbin of history right away with the last credits. So it happened. Now his destiny is to hammer the air on satellite channels, as well as the fate of most telekartin authorship of new directors with their "new vision". The trouble is in the other - there is virtually no consistent alternative to such tapes. That is why “28 Panfilov” attracts attention only by the fact of appearance, but this just states a deep crisis.
Author:
60 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Antianglosax
    Antianglosax 22 November 2017 08: 39 New
    24
    Once again, they showed that those in power in Russia are the main backbone of the fifth column. There is nothing to talk about.
    1. Reserve officer
      Reserve officer 22 November 2017 12: 21 New
      18
      Honestly, I watched one episode of this "masterpiece". Another stupid creation in order to show the complete insignificance of Lenin and Stalin.
      Ernst is still crying about the falling rating of the 1 channel. Well, why be surprised at this, if you so frankly spit in the face of your viewer.
      1. Varyag_0711
        Varyag_0711 22 November 2017 13: 26 New
        27
        Stock Officer Today, 12: 21 ↑ New
        Honestly, I watched one episode of this "masterpiece".
        The namesake, to be honest, I didn’t fundamentally look at either Trotsky or the Demon of the Revolution. And I don’t watch the last “movie masterpieces” at all, the exception is the modern “Crew” and then, at the insistence of my wife. In principle, in addition to disgust and the desire to put a seven-story mat on this shushera, who, by mistake, considers themselves to be "directors" and "creators", the new movie-speakers do not cause other emotions. Therefore, I watch exclusively Soviet film classics, and sometimes I repent of something from Hollywood films. In general, from modern television is already sick, and from all channels at the same time. An exception is the Zvezda channel, and even there sometimes such nonsense is shown that at least cry.
        And then why are we all indignant at the boy Kolya? This is a typical product of a modern consumer society. There is nothing to educate them on. Soviet films are not interesting for them, but modern ones ... in general, we have what we have. Or rather, the fact that we have all these bondarchuk, Mikhalkovs, Raikins, Reichelgauz, Svanidze and other trash. Straight pichal-bida, and nothing more! crying
        1. your1970
          your1970 22 November 2017 16: 02 New
          +3
          And leather jackets, and the train, and the hysterical Trotsky - all this was. Including two cars on the train for traveling .. And a special form with special signs from the train team ...

          During the battles for Solyanka - Chapaev, 40 men fluttered in it (they didn’t let the forest / slowly built it). And the bridge was built in a day ...
          1) just imagine: what do you have dismantle the roof on the house on the bridge, and then when you start to object, you, publicly, in the square, taking off your pants - they will ruin ...
          I would have shot myself from this - well, or Chapaev would have plopped
          2) The forest was transported to our area for 250 km by bulls for a very long time, dreary and expensive. Even now with developed transport - the forest costs about 2 times more expensive .... and then it’s fierce tin ..
      2. gm9019
        gm9019 22 November 2017 14: 09 New
        +1
        You’re so patient, I didn’t even watch the first one - a very painful sight! negative

        By the way, there were still leather jackets! Remember the unforgettable line "roll in the stagecoach .. Schuher! - Ahead of leather!" winked
        1. Krasnodar
          Krasnodar 22 November 2017 16: 29 New
          +2
          Quote: gm9019
          You’re so patient, I didn’t even watch the first one - a very painful sight! negative

          By the way, there were still leather jackets! Remember the unforgettable line "roll in the stagecoach .. Schuher! - Ahead of leather!" winked

          It was written by Rosenbaum in the late 80s about the people of Uritsky
      3. Xnumx vis
        Xnumx vis 22 November 2017 20: 02 New
        +9
        The first channel, and Russia alone, tormented the audience with sobbing soap operas with all sorts of Arntgolts and other actors and actresses ... Sheer darkness and mental incompleteness .. So such Wehrmacht grew up. Weeping for the dead German fascists who came to our land, killing our relatives .. If the Wehrmacht already forgot that they killed their relatives, on their land!
      4. Cadet
        Cadet 23 November 2017 21: 10 New
        +2
        I don’t know, I don’t know, the film made a strong impression on my colleague, he tried to tell me two days at work that Trotsky didn’t ask him: who is Alexander Kerensky, silence in response))) Then he understood why he was so praised the film, it turns out that his great-grandfather fought in the army of Kolchak)))
    2. Deck
      Deck 26 November 2017 11: 05 New
      0
      The power in the country is supported by the majority of the population! This was shown by all past elections, opinion polls, ratings and future elections. So it turns out, then speaking out against the government, and therefore the people, you yourself are the real fifth column. It's time you learn real patriotism.
  2. DanSabaka
    DanSabaka 22 November 2017 09: 30 New
    +7
    Thanks for the advertisement ... You are so talented at promoting this opus that you involuntarily want to see .... I hope that the ice ax is there too ....
    By the way, the leather uniform of the guard of Lev Davidovich is a historical fact, and not a BDSM fantasy of filmmakers ....
    1. Eastern wind
      22 November 2017 13: 10 New
      +8
      Dear comrade, nobody argues over historical fact. Here, for example ...



      But the shift in emphasis you have not seen. Focusing attention by all means on this moment, the authors completely killed the rest. Flip it at your leisure, for Vysotsky there was a sin of alcohol and drugs - yes, a fact. So admire the picture "Vysotsky. Thank you for being alive." Vysotsky is there - no, there is a historical fact, but Vysotsky is not.
      1. DanSabaka
        DanSabaka 22 November 2017 18: 52 New
        0
        and thank you for the advertisement ....
  3. Buffet
    Buffet 22 November 2017 09: 42 New
    11
    The lack of asterisks and comments suggests that 1) many of the series simply did not watch. They can neither agree nor refute the arguments of the author 2) the article itself is presented as the only correct opinion and there can be no other. And if you don’t agree with the opinion of the author, then you are a “counter”, if God forbid, you will begin to argue that you liked something, that’s all, Khan. 3) The article is too emotional. About nothing. Throwing on the fan. Well, from myself. Tired of you shoving Viking, Stalingrad and Burnt by the sun everywhere. What are they doing here? They are generally off topic. I liked the Viking, and now what? Most of the article is the opinion of the author, and not that the film is not true. Even Shariy better said that he did not like it than this "deep analytical article".
    1. AllXVahhaB
      AllXVahhaB 22 November 2017 12: 22 New
      13
      Quote: SHVEDsky_stol
      I liked the Viking, and now what?

      belay It characterizes you, however ...
      1. Krasnodar
        Krasnodar 22 November 2017 13: 08 New
        +3
        Quote: AllXVahhaB
        Quote: SHVEDsky_stol
        I liked the Viking, and now what?

        belay It characterizes you, however ...

        And I like the cartoons of Sauf Park and the Ballad movie about the Soldier
        Does it somehow characterize me? )))
        1. japs
          japs 25 November 2017 20: 48 New
          +5
          Definitely ...
      2. Buffet
        Buffet 22 November 2017 16: 12 New
        +2
        I have a friend who was engaged in historical fencing in this era. And he also liked the movie. What's next? How many people have so many opinions.
        1. AllXVahhaB
          AllXVahhaB 22 November 2017 21: 58 New
          0
          Quote: SHVEDsky_stol
          I have a friend who was engaged in historical fencing in this era. And he also liked the movie. What's next? How many people have so many opinions.

          What is the difference how fencing is set, what special effects and what picture in general. They already wrote about this - the patient is lying with poisoning after washing the stomach and enema and says: this caviar, of course, was complete shit, but it was such a beautiful jar!
          1. Buffet
            Buffet 23 November 2017 22: 20 New
            +1
            I had nothing of the kind. Again, this is the opinion of Skomorokhov, Puchkov and the author that the movie is Viking UG. And they give out their opinion as the only right one. I liked the movie. And shoving into every other similar opus makes no sense.
            1. Mestny
              Mestny 24 November 2017 01: 22 New
              -1
              The sect forbids the author of this article to love Russian cinema, besides “28 Panfilovites” and, strangely enough, “Gorky”.
              With this, the Guru will say from the screen - "do not look in any case" - they do not look.
              They only sing in a circle in unison the delirium of their "teachers."
              Here is this one from the same opera.
      3. Buffet
        Buffet 22 November 2017 16: 14 New
        +3
        But such comments perfectly characterize you. You noticed that I like the movie Viking and not what I wanted to convey with my comment.
  4. apro
    apro 22 November 2017 12: 35 New
    11
    How are we today, who remember and respect Soviet cinema, to discuss all this nonsense going in a muddy stream from the screens? There are no words ...
    The characters who are ........ released on wide screens, create a new reality, and I'm superfluous in it.
  5. Boris55
    Boris55 22 November 2017 12: 35 New
    10
    The Trotskyists triumph, and the people are silently buying up ice axes ...
  6. wildcat3981
    wildcat3981 22 November 2017 12: 57 New
    +5
    The article, as one of the commentators rightly noted, is a throw on a classic fan. The appeal is purely to emotions, analytics is zero. Like knowledge of history. Of course, the film is a feature film, so it would be foolish to demand meticulous adherence to historical truth. For the moment with the train and Trotsky in a leather coat - let the author read books. He loved the effects of Lev Davidovich, but in our opinion - show off, so everything is shown in accordance. Yes, and Trotsky was gaining himself in a “retinue” entirely tall, handsome, and well-built. With orientation he was all right, just ... "praetorians", the knower will understand. Regarding the caricature of Lenin with Stalin, he did not notice it at all. Apparently either the author on emotions saw only what he wanted to see. Or deliberately and cynically juggles the facts. In general, the article smells a bit of an attempt at conscious manipulation, IMHO. The author’s personal minus. Perhaps subjective. But the author of the article is very subjective, so everything is fair yes
  7. vlad007
    vlad007 22 November 2017 12: 59 New
    +2
    The deplorable state of modern cinema is primarily due to the lack of a high-quality literary basis. I apologize for the banal example, but the series “Game of Thrones” is based on the series of books “A Song of Ice and Fire” by J. Martin, which became bestsellers in the World, the trilogy of J. Brown “Da Vinci Code, etc.” also broke all sales records and these examples can be continued. And we have what books over the past 20-25 years have become bestsellers - in addition to the series of books by A. Konstantinov "Gangster Petersburg" there is nothing to remember. In addition, I must say from the words of the same A. Konstantinov in the program "Results of the week" that the fees of scriptwriters are so low that there are less and less people who want to participate in creating a GOOD script for modern TV shows, especially when it comes to such a complex historical film as " Trotsky. " The budget of the Viking film mentioned here is 1,25 billion rubles, a billion and a quarter, think about the number, and the writers' fee in this figure, according to competent experts, is negligible, the exact numbers were not disclosed, because This is a trade secret.
  8. pav15
    pav15 22 November 2017 13: 44 New
    +7
    Khabensky is very good. But I stopped watching the series after the scene where RI Prime Minister Stolypin persuades the Sovereign to arrange the Bloody Resurrection. This is not just ignorance of history - this is its real rewriting. I agree that Stalin and Lenin, for the sake of scriptwriters, are shown as dwarfs against the background of Gulliver Trotsky. The financing of Trotsky by hostile countries is also not disclosed, you see and they show you that Trotsky is a lump of the world scale that brought the Bolsheviks to power only by the power of their charisma, and not by millions of dollars and the powerful political support of their Wall Street employers.
    1. medvedron
      medvedron 22 November 2017 14: 31 New
      +2
      The financing of Trotsky by hostile countries is also not disclosed, you see and they show you that Trotsky is a lump of the world scale that brought the Bolsheviks to power only by the power of their charisma, and not by millions of dollars and the powerful political support of their Wall Street employers.
      I don’t agree with this statement. It just shows how a cunning Jew outwitted everyone by throwing both Americans and Germans, Lenin and Stalin. In general, I think that it’s worth a little more condescending to the series, but this is not a historical program, but the main movie is thin whose purpose is to draw attention to the study of this historical period, and for this purpose, in my opinion, the authors coped.
    2. Krasnodar
      Krasnodar 22 November 2017 15: 16 New
      0
      Quote: pav15
      Khabensky is very good. But I stopped watching the series after the scene where RI Prime Minister Stolypin persuades the Sovereign to arrange the Bloody Resurrection. This is not just ignorance of history - this is its real rewriting. I agree that Stalin and Lenin, for the sake of scriptwriters, are shown as dwarfs against the background of Gulliver Trotsky. The financing of Trotsky by hostile countries is also not disclosed, you see and they show you that Trotsky is a lump of the world scale that brought the Bolsheviks to power only by the power of their charisma, and not by millions of dollars and the powerful political support of their Wall Street employers.

      In all conspiracy theories of Trotsky with Lenin, the German General Staff financed, a mediator was a certain Pravus. Well, the role of Wall Street in the socialist revolution, which taught the "exploited" classes of the USA "bad", which is why I do not know the increased cost of production.
      1. horhe48
        horhe48 24 November 2017 13: 34 New
        +2
        And what? You don’t know much. Trotsky was married to Sedova, the daughter of the banker Zhivotovsky from the group of the state bank Kun, Leeb and a comp., Who worked closely with the Rothschilds. How did he rise in the party? Through him did he receive money for publishing newspapers and underground activities .in 1917 he arrived from Canada on a steamboat with almost 300 hundred of his agitators with money, where he had been detained before. But by some order he was released and sent to Russia to make a revolution.
  9. daddy angel
    daddy angel 22 November 2017 13: 45 New
    +1
    Wretched scolding, not parsing. What is the reason for such hatred? Is it that the Bolsheviks did exactly the same as they did with their predecessors? So here is nothing new: "by what measure you measure, it will be measured to you."
    1. horhe48
      horhe48 24 November 2017 13: 55 New
      +2
      Something you are really categorical. But if you "chop the truth-womb", then there is no true story in this film. There is a free interpretation of it by people who may be ignorant, but certainly biased. This is precisely the main flaw of this fake for history. And since the teaching of history at school and universities is, to put it mildly, not at the level, individuals who are not too burdened with historical knowledge with such a reach of the TV audience, they really can believe that it was so. Moreover, when on the 100th anniversary of the revolution this topic is of great interest. Thus, instead of understanding what really happened, people get some kind of ersatz from half dy and vymyslov.I who cares?
      1. vm-bt
        vm-bt 24 November 2017 23: 41 New
        +1
        “Individuals” are too optimistic. More precisely, "bodies" ...
        Unfortunately ... Today EG was sad to communicate with one victim. ((((
  10. polpot
    polpot 22 November 2017 13: 45 New
    +7
    They made a vulgar comic by the next date, drank budget money, gave it to lovers and mistresses, nothing new, the audience forgot about this masterpiece an hour later, this week the Wings of the Empire were removed from the show, the rating turned out to be extremely low.
  11. novel66
    novel66 22 November 2017 14: 00 New
    +8
    Jew on horseback - there was something in Babel’s ....
  12. Hadji Murat
    Hadji Murat 22 November 2017 14: 14 New
    10
    the film was watched as a spectator and as a historian .... there is little history, there is a lot of fiction, the next channel 1 channel .... just watch it .... and do not forget who makes the TV rating in Russia, and this is for culture, which this film is, the main thing ....
    1. daddy angel
      daddy angel 22 November 2017 14: 20 New
      +1
      Any story is an introduction to a particular myth. An objective look is impossible by definition. Naturally, if you are a supporter of the Bolshevik myth, then this picture is not to your liking. However, I would like to clarify: Trotsky’s work “Devoted Revolution” was deigned to read? There Trotsky very convincingly (1939!) Reveals the topic of why the USSR will inevitably collapse. Do you want to get acquainted? And you and your kind just talk about enemies. Or maybe you are the main enemies? You’re just like an eye, not armed with a mirror, don't see yourself.
  13. sa-ag
    sa-ag 22 November 2017 14: 20 New
    +1
    Well, where is the film about General Alekseev, Rodzianko, Guchkov, and A.F. Kerensky?
    1. daddy angel
      daddy angel 22 November 2017 14: 33 New
      +2
      They are not curious: ordinary traitors, oath-breakers and wimps.
      1. sa-ag
        sa-ag 22 November 2017 14: 38 New
        +2
        Quote: dad angel
        They are not curious: ordinary traitors, oath-breakers and wimps.

        Well then, patriots of the country, again for Teacher, the continuation of his film production suggests itself, I can throw a working title "Green Lizard or Broken Love"
  14. BAI
    BAI 22 November 2017 15: 12 New
    +2
    turned almost all revolutionaries except Trotsky into anti-Semites

    I have not watched the film, but it seems to me that speaking about the revolution, one cannot do without Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin and Sverdlov. If they are in the film, are they anti-Semites too?
    1. Krasnodar
      Krasnodar 22 November 2017 16: 33 New
      +1
      Quote: BAI
      turned almost all revolutionaries except Trotsky into anti-Semites

      I have not watched the film, but it seems to me that speaking about the revolution, one cannot do without Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin and Sverdlov. If they are in the film, are they anti-Semites too?

      Bukharin is not a Jew :)
      1. Samy
        Samy 24 November 2017 02: 55 New
        0
        But I watched the movie. They are there. Yes, in the film there are also effects and a kind of artistic speculation, but in general the facts are stated correctly. And most importantly, he makes one interested not only in this period of history, but also in the specific personalities in it. And this, in my opinion, is the main thing.
  15. Sotskiy
    Sotskiy 22 November 2017 15: 29 New
    +8
    I noticed another "pattern". Even in Zvezda, on which Soviet films were shown most of all, there was such a tendency, to show everything that was created in the USSR after zeros. Although formally the quota for showing Soviet films does not seem to be violated, they go right up to six in the morning. I checked it myself. I’m silent about other channels.
    So what does our government say about the “absence” of ideology and Article 13 of the Basic Law? Maybe it’s time to take courage and announce to the people that Article 13-I applies only to Soviet ideology and all Soviet?)
  16. Altona
    Altona 22 November 2017 15: 33 New
    +7
    I didn’t watch either the “Dergolyutia Rygolyutsii” nor the “Trotsky”, because, knowing the mental capabilities of the film concern Ernst-Medinsky Pictures, it was suggested that they would remove another thrash that was not related to real events.
    1. Mestny
      Mestny 24 November 2017 01: 30 New
      +1
      Are you a doctor? Have you studied the mental capabilities of these people?
      Or does it work flushing the name "Goblin & Co."?
  17. Altona
    Altona 22 November 2017 16: 12 New
    +6
    Quote: dad angel
    Naturally, if you are a supporter of the Bolshevik myth, then this picture is not to your liking. However, I would like to clarify: did Trotsky’s work “Devoted Revolution” be read? There, Trotsky very convincingly (1939!) Reveals the topic of why the USSR will inevitably collapse. Do not want to to get acquainted? And you and your kind only talk about enemies. And maybe the main enemies are you? Just like an eye, not armed with a mirror, you don’t see yourself.

    ---------------------------------------
    What did you write about at all? What does the myth have to do with it? We are not talking about the differences between Trotsky and Stalin, which will be much later. The film itself was supposed to show the very moment of the revolution, with which it all began, that is, some small period of time 1917-1918. Even without myth, we know by what patterns the revolution was made and by what articles it was based. I personally do not like it, although I did not watch it. I am sitting at the computer, and the TV grumbled something inarticulate, showing Lenin's face, which looked like the face of a mumbled cat. On the newsreel, Lenin is not at all like that, he is lively and passionate, actively gesticulating. In the film, he looks like a clerk. In both films. In Dermona, this is not a revolution at all, but a discussion of German money transfers, not directly Lenin, but Yeltsin waiting for the tranche from the IMF in 1995-1998. In one episode, Trotsky tried to pretend to be Wolf Messing by discussing either with Freud or with Jung. In general, everything is beyond good and evil.
    1. daddy angel
      daddy angel 26 November 2017 19: 03 New
      0
      You BELIEVE so, that’s what your conviction is based on. And the newsreel is not an argument: at that time the filming took place at such a speed that during the show all people jumped like crazy. If you don’t even know this fact, what can you talk about ?
  18. Altona
    Altona 22 November 2017 16: 40 New
    +5
    Quote: Sovetskiy
    So what does our government say about the “absence” of ideology and Article 13 of the Basic Law? Maybe it’s time to take courage and announce to the people that Article 13-I applies only to Soviet ideology and all Soviet?)

    -----------------------------
    Black Hundreds and liberalism are now official ideologies in practice. But of course they don’t talk about it. And so, this is a violation of the Constitution.
  19. Doliva63
    Doliva63 22 November 2017 17: 29 New
    +9
    Falling as well that I didn’t look at this shit, I have nothing to discuss laughing
    But seriously, even our contemporaries have a poor idea of ​​our history, what will happen to their grandchildren? Just a little bit, the last ones who communicated with living participants / witnesses of that time will leave, there will remain vigorous history textbooks and such “kin”. The ruling class dictates ideology; there is nothing to be done.
  20. midshipman
    midshipman 22 November 2017 18: 05 New
    +5
    What a shame for the country to show the image of this label of Bronstein on the screen of our TV for people's money. Really, these gazers who directed this film will never have to answer for what they have done with their own heads. I have the honor
  21. gladcu2
    gladcu2 22 November 2017 18: 50 New
    +1
    I remember only one phrase about Trotsky from childhood: you whistle like Trotsky. Although who is Trotsky, no one really knew.

    I watched the film and became convinced of the authenticity of folk art.

    By the way, and the final scene for which the film was worth watching until the end of the script included?
  22. Ural resident
    Ural resident 22 November 2017 20: 15 New
    +3
    The film was watched completely. nothing special - another fiction tale.
    The ideas were interesting and bold but the embodiment, as always, was not up to par.
    Not enough like screenwriters or something? Pictures learned to do and thank God.
    It’s understandable that Lenin and Stalin are being exposed there - this is understandable - there is a main character who needs to be “embellished”.
    But the film is passing and meaningless, I don’t care anyway - but many will really consider it as the basis of the history of their country.
  23. Petrol cutter
    Petrol cutter 22 November 2017 22: 43 New
    +3
    I watched muzchiny all this kitchen. I didn’t look to lie. The film called "Trotsky" I did not finish. For Lenin, again ... There they also turned for Kolchak, it seems ... In short, as usual gentlemen, I remained unconvinced about all these figures in world history. The opinion was formed long ago and changing it for the sake of momentary benefits is not my methods.
  24. Dimachrus
    Dimachrus 23 November 2017 15: 47 New
    +1


    A little off topic, but still
    1. AllXVahhaB
      AllXVahhaB 23 November 2017 23: 01 New
      +1
      Quote: Dimachrus
      A little off topic, but still

      Can one cite the source on Trotsky? And that painfully ridiculous statement was too painful for him. For those who at least read something from Trotsky, essno! Or is the demotivator the primary source? Well then, the level of moronism is understandable ...
      1. Galleon
        Galleon 24 November 2017 03: 00 New
        +2
        one person in VO quoted these words of Trotsky as a quote from the book of Aron Simanovich, Rasputin’s secretary. I read this book by Simanovich and I can say that the link turned out to be a lie - Simanovich did not write these words from Trotsky, and did not write about Trotsky at all in this book.
        1. AllXVahhaB
          AllXVahhaB 24 November 2017 08: 18 New
          +1
          Quote: Galleon
          one person in VO quoted these words of Trotsky as a quote from the book of Aron Simanovich, Rasputin’s secretary. I read this book by Simanovich and I can say that the link turned out to be a lie - Simanovich did not write these words from Trotsky, and did not write about Trotsky at all in this book.

          Yes, anyone who even knows a little about Trotsky will immediately understand that he couldn’t say anything like that!
          We must generally understand that the Jewish revolutionaries could not be Zionists. Where did they come from? Yes, they were simply subjected to double pressure - on the one hand, the government with a Pale of Settlement and the impossibility of social adaptation without the adoption of Orthodoxy, on the other hand, which even avoided the census, even paid taxes for the whole community and did what it wanted inside it! Hence, there are so many young Jewish revolutionaries - they fiercely hated both the government and the kagal! So Trotsky Zionist is lol!
  25. Handbrake
    Handbrake 24 November 2017 23: 45 New
    +1
    Frankly neighing, the author jokes very rightly. I want to add only one thing - a good film is not one where there are some special effects, but one that has a good acting game (as in life) and a good script (as in life). For everything else is a fairy tale. As it was said in one correct film: “Everything is passing, and music is eternal” (C) Only starts go into battle.
    1. japs
      japs 25 November 2017 21: 28 New
      +4
      I support you. The author of the article was brought up on the masterpieces of Soviet and world cinema. Therefore, everything is perceived from this point of view.
      Touched by comments "zashitnikov."
      "Wenn die Sonne der Kultur niedrig steht, werfen auch Zwerge lange Schatten", Karl Kraus.
      This saying is attributed to the Austrian philosopher Karl Kraus.
      "When the sun of culture is low, even dwarfs cast long shadows."
      There is no subject matter for the dispute. Picking in guano leads to increased stench from him.
  26. 23rus
    23rus 26 November 2017 10: 46 New
    0
    The critic is a good thing, but I liked the film. And the acting is good. Tastes could not be discussed.