Military Review

Old war films and criticism

56
Films about the war in our country are of great interest. Despite the epoch, who is at the helm of the country, what trends are manifested in society, military films attract attention. At the same time, the audience’s interest in the old military movie, which today may look like a benchmark for art cinematography.


Old war films and criticism


A separate section of domestic cinematography - films about the Great Patriotic. These are dozens of wonderful tapes that over the years of their existence have been watched by literally billions of viewers of different generations. Even during the war itself, Soviet cinematography made feature films on the subject of the war with Nazi Germany. From 1941 to 1945, about three dozen paintings were rolled out, many of which today seem naive and unreliable. But accuracy and documentary in these films was not the main thing. The main goal of the director is to give the spirit of the army through artistry, creating even excessively grotesque images depicting the enemy in an ironic form.

But in the war years there were also real cinematographic masterpieces, which are still evaluated by film critics as outstanding tapes. One of these tapes is “Two Fighters”, released in the midst of the war - in 1943. The director of the film is Leonid Lukov, who at the time of the creation of the film was awarded the Stalin Prize for the film “Big Life”. Director Lukov was so committed to his work that even death found Leonid Davydovich at work. He made the film "Believe me, people."

The criticism of the film “Two Fighters” has been warm for decades, so to speak. But during perestroika, shedding mud and this wonderful film began. In 1990, an article entitled “Without War ...” appeared in “Soviet Culture”, in which the author decided to debunk the directors of the military era, stating that in the film “Two Fighters” and in others, “everything was lying” and they “did not resemble it ( war) nothing. In all likelihood, the author of this article, Alexei Simonov, considered himself to be the one who revealed the truth to the Soviet people. Here are just the film “Two Fighters” and now viewers of different generations are watching with interest, but about “true criticism” of Alexei Simonov, if anyone remembers this film, then with obvious irony.
56 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. major071
    major071 19 October 2013 10: 11
    25
    Well, you can slander anything. I personally like old Soviet films more than modern ones. There is some kind of naivety in them. And the fact that the enemy was always shown in them in an ironic form, and the time was like that, had to be shown to people, and especially to the younger generation, that our army is the best and we will always repulse the enemy. This is just one form of patriotic education, which at that time the state paid a lot of attention to.
    1. pahom54
      pahom54 19 October 2013 10: 54
      13
      I quote: This is just one form of patriotic education, which at that time the state paid a lot of attention ...
      And I want to add - one of the most successful and intelligible forms, which can not be said about many modern films ...
      Old Soviet films instilled patriotism from childhood ... Well, the fact that the Germans didn’t always seem smart was how you look in Western films, how they show Soviet (Russian) soldiers ... What is Rambo alone (most likely, he was due to a perverted display of Soviet soldiers and was once banned from showing in the USSR). Well, we have shown smart Germans for the first time in 17 instants of spring, and showed great. And it was also joyful that our clever adversary outplayed and won ...
      And the films "They Fought for the Motherland", "Liberation", "Battle for Moscow", "The Dawns Here Are Quiet", and many others are masterpieces !!!
      so the Old Soviet films about the war - good memory and respect.
    2. Mitek
      Mitek 19 October 2013 11: 46
      10
      Old films aimed to show and glorify the feat of our ancestors. Modern films have other goals: to earn an Oscar by scattering the deed of ancestors, to amuse one’s self-esteem, to prove that the son is equal to the Father (and besides crap nothing comes out of the bald one) because Bondarchuk Sr. glorified the feat of ordinary soldiers, and the glory of the younger one and well-deserved fame.
      1. vladimirZ
        vladimirZ 20 October 2013 10: 46
        +4
        Another state, another era, another ideological order! Who pays, he orders the music!
        The current era of the golden calf, tolerance, admiration for the West gives rise to modern films, designed not for the feelings of the audience and patriotism, but for the collection of money, the payback.
        And most importantly, in the West, in the USA they approve, they handed Oscars.
        Hence all these "Burnt by the Sun", "Penal Battalion", and other "masterpieces", which cause nothing but nausea.
    3. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 22 October 2013 04: 33
      +1
      I personally like old Soviet films more than modern ones. There is some kind of naivety in them .... by the way, yes! Yesterday on the 5th channel, I watched the "hello from Katyusha" film, and not for the first time, and suddenly realized that the Germans were dragging the whole film with the captured Katyusha, that is, just a truck with guide rails! smile that's the value! Here is a military secret! They toiled through the forests and swamps dragging this poor machine, trying not to give it to ours! and we look worried ... after all, it is clear that the whole secret was precisely the mine-rocket! but no .... the Germans don't need a mine-truck with secret rails, give it! this is also a kind of "bloopers" in our old cinema, but it looks worried, and you always worry about scouts ...
  2. Corsair5912
    Corsair5912 19 October 2013 10: 17
    13
    Here are just the film "Two Fighters" and now viewers of different generations are watching with interest, but about the "truth-loving criticism" of Alexei Simonov on this film, if anyone recalls, then with obvious irony.

    Alexei Simonov, in addition to the famous father, has nothing to brag about. Who knows and remembers his films?
    1976 - Ordinary Arctic
    1979 - Squad
    1984 - Back In Autumn
    1986 - My dearly beloved detective
    1989 - Process
    The dwarf is easily spoiled by the ancestors of the giants, standing on their shoulders.
    The best Soviet films about the war were shot by contemporaries for contemporaries, as part of the technical capabilities of the time and those ideas about cinema. One can only be surprised and envious of their talent and admire their films.
  3. mak210
    mak210 19 October 2013 10: 37
    +8
    And what other films to shoot during the war? How do we win, severed arms and legs? Miscarriages of the 90s
  4. kaktus
    kaktus 19 October 2013 10: 51
    +5
    These films are documents of the era, they were created by contemporaries, participants in the war. Somehow on TV they showed a black and white cartoon of the Tashkent film studio, with a New Year's story (Santa Claus, evil wolves) released in 1942!
    What are they shooting now? As the saying goes, feel the difference. yes
  5. Peaceful military
    Peaceful military 19 October 2013 10: 56
    10
    Yes, the destruction of everything that is bright and dear to us is one of the primary tasks of the liberals.
    LIBERASTS ON THE NUMBER!
  6. crazy_fencer
    crazy_fencer 19 October 2013 11: 07
    +3
    The display of "the enemy in an ironic form" was by no means in all films. "Two Soldiers" was released in 1943. In the same 1943, the film "She Defends the Motherland" was released with Maretskaya in the title role. When the Germans throw the child of the protagonist under the tank - what kind of irony is there? In the same film "Two Soldiers" there is also no special grotesque about the Germans. This is more likely to be attributed to the "Heavenly slug". As for Alexei Simonov ... I only watched his "Detachment". I will not say anything: the film is not bad. But nothing more.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Corsair5912
      Corsair5912 19 October 2013 11: 26
      +9
      Quote: crazy_fencer
      The display of "the enemy in an ironic form" was by no means in all films ...

      I agree.
      There are many brutal war films, but they are remembered worse.
      Showing fascists in an "ironic form" is a virtue of Soviet films, not a disadvantage.
      The film is two fighters about our soldiers, not about the German. There are enough posters for Germans
      1. crazy_fencer
        crazy_fencer 19 October 2013 11: 38
        +5
        The different ones are remembered. The question is not in the degree of cruelty of the film, but in how and by whom it was shot. "Come and See" by Elem Klimov is a very violent film. But it cannot be classified as "unmemorable". The same "Torpedo bombers" by Aranovich is also not the softest film.
        And on "Two fighters" - I completely agree. It is about our soldiers.
  7. mak210
    mak210 19 October 2013 11: 16
    +8
    Quote: crazy_fencer
    In the same film "Two Soldiers" there is also no special grotesque about the Germans.


    So you don't remember him well. There is an episode when the hero Andreev from the bunker of the Germans, who are going in height, mows with a scythe. But how else to make films at that time? That the conscript saw footage similar to the execution of the Kremlin cadets from the masterpiece vomit "Burnt by Grandma-2"?
    1. crazy_fencer
      crazy_fencer 19 October 2013 11: 33
      +4
      During the First World War, there were cases when machine gunners mowed attacking troops exactly like a scythe. And then, seeing a mountain of corpses, they went crazy. It is clear that in the Great Patriotic War they already tried not to go to their height with machine guns - they learned something in more than 20 years. It is clear that it was impossible to shoot films otherwise then. And I'm not sure that this is exactly irony. Rather, it is "from the taiga to the British seas, the Red Army is the strongest."
    2. Doctor71
      Doctor71 20 October 2013 11: 51
      +3
      Not really in the subject. In the memories of him. machine gunner on the Western Front (Normandy), he says that during the battle he shot 12000 rounds of ammunition including tracer. Maybe of course it’s lying. So, Sasha and UralMasha could well walk sideways.
  8. Larus
    Larus 19 October 2013 11: 17
    10
    There is a saying that nature rests on children. And today, these very children have flooded all spheres of art and now not soon with this approach we will see talented actors, directors, etc. .....
    1. Day 11
      Day 11 19 October 2013 14: 47
      +7
      From this face is already sick.
      1. Dimy4
        Dimy4 20 October 2013 08: 20
        0
        Join us!
      2. Andrey Yuryevich
        Andrey Yuryevich 20 October 2013 17: 39
        +1
        so what to do ? proposals? I myself would have burped him in a mug ....
  9. tennis
    tennis 19 October 2013 11: 27
    15
    Old films about the war were filmed by people who saw this war, and many took part in it. And the actors who played their heroes, all without exception, were somehow touched by this war. Technique, form, and sometimes nature were real, which is called family. All the surviving front-line soldiers were still alive, so there were enough critics and it was problematic to expose "bullshit" to the audience. Now, when films about that war are being directed by figures who taught history from 30 textbooks or simply Russophobes, it is impossible to watch. Or such a detail is striking. When modern young actors play in films of those years, you involuntarily catch yourself thinking that they are talking, gesturing and doing things that are not typical for people of that time. Ie they modern intermeddle at that time very awkwardly, at least much worse than their contemporaries in the 70s. Some films, such as about Marshal Zhukov, are generally outright nonsense and a parody of the Marshal. And there must be some kind of external resemblance to the heroes, but even here the marshal is played by an actor not at all similar, but in my opinion a complete antipode. So at least me kaatsa
    1. Dimy4
      Dimy4 20 October 2013 08: 28
      +5
      In some films of the 90s, characters almost talk about the hair dryer and there aren’t enough mobile phones in their hands, because both the manner of speaking and gesturing prevents the actor from joining the image. Here is such a quality.
  10. waisson
    waisson 19 October 2013 11: 37
    10
    yes better old war movies than stupid soap operas and soap operas about our non-bribery police
    1. Corsair5912
      Corsair5912 19 October 2013 11: 50
      +5
      Quote: waisson
      yes better old war movies than stupid soap operas and soap operas about our non-bribery police

      Where can you bribe her, if this very police drinks and smokes the whole series in their cop, i.e. advertises bad habits, and only sometimes climbs out on "firearms" and "corpses".
  11. Ivanovich47
    Ivanovich47 19 October 2013 11: 55
    +7
    I look with great respect and interest old movies about the war (and not only about it). Yes, they are naive, the plot is simple. But how many souls and humanity are in them! Look at modern cinema: filth, soullessness, hysterical women. and gangster-looking men and blood ... And modern films about the war do not stand up to criticism (with a few exceptions). You watch such a movie and you want to shout - "I don't believe"!
  12. major071
    major071 19 October 2013 11: 56
    +8
    Modern youth hardly watches old films. Give them something else (the son himself is 17 years old), such as modern feature films with special effects. Better in 3D. Where there is simply no deep plot and no need to think about what the author of the film wanted to say. The dominance in the 90 and the beginning of the 2000 of American cinema of the second and third categories, as well as soap operas, zombified the population and influenced the upbringing of the younger generation. Then they grabbed freedom so that we still cannot make a normal movie. Of course, there are normal modern films made in Russia and by Russian directors, but still they are closer to the movies.
  13. polly
    polly 19 October 2013 12: 12
    +4
    Soviet films about the war are a reflection of that glorious great era when not one's own skin was the main value in life, but something else ... People's faces and eyes were different: even through many furnaces, people who passed by were clean in soul and morally healthy. And now, just look at some modern directors or directors, you just want to spit and say: "Chur me!"
  14. Migari
    Migari 19 October 2013 12: 13
    +6
    I completely agree that the old Soviet films are naive, but you watch them with pleasure, but from modern ones. already begins to feel sick, all the same, like a stopping record.
  15. Sergey47
    Sergey47 19 October 2013 12: 18
    +7
    Our contemporary filmmakers are something. Indeed, nature rests on the children of geniuses. It is necessary to think up that between the Russian girl and the fascist non-people love broke out. The attack of tollerastania clouded the mind of the author, or the brilliance of a golden Oscar? Or maybe a banal betrayal of the memory of fathers and grandfathers. And we rush to watch these crafts, not realizing that they slipped us.
    1. zennon
      zennon 20 October 2013 10: 17
      +1
      It is necessary to think up that between the Russian girl and the fascist non-people love broke out. The attack of tolerasty confused the author’s mind

      Alas, it was unfortunately, and this is not rare. Remember, it seems in "The Chairman" Mordyukov says: "He forgave me a sin with a German." The outstanding director Alexander Dovzhenko, right during the war in 43rd and 44th Ukraine. He was literally crushed by not rare cases of communication between Ukrainian women and German soldiers. And it was neither forced nor ordinary. He literally cried telling about this to Khrushchev. He did not include it in his film story "Ukraine on fire." But even such a sharply truncated work was crushed in the Central Committee and banned. Entry in Dovzhenko's diary dated November 26, 1943. On this day, the director for the first time learned the terrible news - the film story "Ukraine on Fire" aroused strong anger in Stalin.
      “Today I am back in Moscow. He brought his old mother from Kiev. Today, he also learned from Bolshakov the hard news: Stalin did not like my story "Ukraine on Fire", and he forbade it for publication and for production. I don’t know what to do yet. Hard at heart and sad. And not because it’s hard that more than a year of work was wasted, and not because the enemies will rejoice and the petty officials will be frightened of me and despise me. It’s hard for me to know that “Ukraine is on fire” is true. Covered and locked up my truth about the people and their misfortune.
      "So, it turns out that no one needs it, and apparently nothing is needed, except a panegyric."

      Here is another excerpt from his diary:
      I wrote the story honestly, as it is and how I see the life and suffering of my people. I know that they will accuse me of nationalism, Christianity and forgiveness, they will judge me for ignoring the class struggle and revising the education of young people who are now heroically fighting on all formidable historical fronts - but this is not the basis of the work, this is not the point. But the question of regret is bad that we surrendered our Hitler to our damned Ukraine and liberate its people badly. We, the liberators, have all forgotten for a long time that we are a little to blame for the liberated, and we consider them second-rate, unclean, guilty in front of us, deserted-surrounded-opportunists.
  16. vjatsergey
    vjatsergey 19 October 2013 12: 20
    +5
    I have a lot of films in my home collection, which I can watch more than once or not twice, and modern war films have the property of disposability - I have watched it once and have such a film in my collection and then I don’t want to watch it again. The exception is I have both the old and the new Star movie.
  17. George
    George 19 October 2013 12: 38
    +5
    Yes, Soviet films about the war were stronger than the current ones. I am collecting, there is still a lot to find and watch more than once. There is no favorite because it is impossible to make a choice. At one time, "Father of a Soldier" looked every day, and could not see enough. Previously, people put their soul into their works, but now, in my opinion, this is just an opportunity to cut the dough.
    Willis in the furnace.
    Nadezhda Rumyantseva and Vitaly Solomin rule.
  18. VARCHUN
    VARCHUN 19 October 2013 12: 54
    +4
    You can’t argue with the Soviet films that they are good and massive, now you can find some pictures of good performance and the actors playing, but there is, as always, no. Bondarchuk the younger with money no more. That is not a military topic that was touched, then a full lantern. Where censors and critics look.
  19. Neighbor
    Neighbor 19 October 2013 13: 05
    +8
    Soviet films are sometimes painful to watch because of that. that once again you ponder, or remember how much we lost ....
  20. Altona
    Altona 19 October 2013 16: 40
    +3
    I watch almost all military and pseudo-war films and TV shows ... It is evident that dressers are trying, looking for styles of tunics corresponding to the era ... They also try to pick up weapons, and equipment ... But the spirit of the era is not transmitted ... In old films it’s felt, although there are significant deviations in costumes and weapons ... But the spirit of the era is unlikely to be restored now, and directorial tasks are sometimes different ...
    1. Doctor71
      Doctor71 20 October 2013 12: 51
      0
      Good day. Why restore the Spirit of Age? Who needs this? This is for starters SOCIAL needs to be restored! Can you imagine that OUR veteran will receive a pension = SS veteran (wafen) in the Bundes? I personally do not.
  21. Prohor
    Prohor 19 October 2013 18: 02
    +3
    As a fan of armored vehicles, I was always annoyed in Soviet films by the "German" T-34,54 and even 72 ...
    And from "The Living and the Dead", "The Dawns Here Are Quiet", "They Fought for the Motherland" - tears still come, and nothing can be done about it. Masterpieces for all time!
    1. Doctor71
      Doctor71 20 October 2013 12: 08
      0
      Good day. "The Dawns Here Are Quiet" is a film not only about heroism, but also about a war crime. But I agree the film is strong. Takes for the soul.
  22. Sirius-2
    Sirius-2 19 October 2013 18: 22
    +1
    Of all Soviet films about the war, the most idiotic "Die Hard", pointed out by Georges. And if you count all the idiotic films about the war of today's Russia? And this was filmed only in Russia, not in other countries. Starting with the "masterpieces" of Mikhalkov, the traitor Guskov ... The list will be long. And after such a list, ask: "Where and when did you know how to shoot about the war?"
    1. Doctor71
      Doctor71 20 October 2013 12: 41
      +1
      Greetings. My answer is the Republic of Belarus. "In August 44" ./ True film about Stalin's punishers. There, all the action takes place in the rear, and Alekhine's group hides from the war in the forests. Now, if they were with a polka there or with Frau ... Yes, three of us ... Yes, all different ... Like Oscar was given! /. Of course this is a joke. And the film is excellent, the best of all that has been filmed.
  23. Corsair5912
    Corsair5912 19 October 2013 18: 47
    +2
    Quote: Sirius-2
    Of all Soviet films about the war, the most idiotic "Die Hard", indicated by Georges

    Dear Dmitry, Die Hard is a very good comedy.
    There is no truth in it about war, not that genre.
    1. Doctor71
      Doctor71 20 October 2013 12: 13
      +1
      Hello. Is it "die hard" with Willisov? laughing So one teenager asked. And the coolest comedy about the war in my opinion is Polish. "4 Poles, Georgians and a dog."
  24. PValery53
    PValery53 19 October 2013 20: 49
    +5
    Almost all comments are respectable. In today's films about the war of youth, they slip outer husks and naturalism of cruelty in war in close-up, and even in 3D, and the internal content, the plot of films is not worth a damn! - And critics in this plan are silent in a rag, they also play the same game, fooling modern youth. The true price of our Victory is eroded.
  25. Bosk
    Bosk 20 October 2013 08: 19
    +3
    In old films, the cast was much stronger than the modern one, now, according to the script, there are some noteworthy films and TV shows, but some actors who grew up with "soap" simply simply kill the very idea of ​​the film, and this is not an actor's "jamb", this is a director's "jamb" ... And secondly, a good film is a film that I will want to watch again after a while, currently I have several films about the war in my film library that I watch from time to time and they are all Soviet times, but there are no modern films there for a reason lack of desire to revise them.
  26. amicus
    amicus 20 October 2013 09: 40
    +3
    And it surprises me how the directors who previously shot good films degenerated. And take off the vomit that
    impossible to watch ..
    1. catapractic
      catapractic 20 October 2013 11: 27
      +1
      social order, for which they pay and take off
  27. kaktus
    kaktus 20 October 2013 10: 23
    +1
    And not only about the war. Compare, for example, films about school, or even cartoons request
    1. Bosk
      Bosk 20 October 2013 10: 28
      +2
      Someone called modern cartoons "square cartoons" ... or rather a comparison is difficult to come up with.
  28. Shogun23
    Shogun23 20 October 2013 10: 49
    +2
    No thanks, I'd rather watch Ozerov's "Stalingrad" than Bondarchukovsky
    1. vladimirZ
      vladimirZ 20 October 2013 15: 41
      +4
      After reading that in Bondarchuk's film "Stalingrad" the main storyline of a Russian girl's love for a German officer, I realized that I will not watch this bullshit, made by order of those who want to "hammer our memory"!
      How can such a story be filmed about the bloody, defensive Stalingrad, in the most difficult period of the war in 1942? At a time when everyone, young and old, was on the lips of everyone in the country, I. Ehrenburg's slogan "Kill the German!"
      What is this stupidity or the conscious manipulation of the consciousness of the people by modern mass media?
      Just yesterday, I came across a comment from a man watching this film with his 10-year-old daughter. He was struck by the phrase of his daughter after the Bondarchuk film: "I feel sorry for the fascists."
      1. Shogun23
        Shogun23 20 October 2013 16: 19
        +1
        Other titles of the elm "They fought for Katya", "Who is the last and who is dad?" and so on.
  29. Doctor71
    Doctor71 20 October 2013 12: 03
    +1
    I watched Stalingrad before the episode with the spotter. Enough and this ... Better "Angels of Death" is also artistic (prototype GG V. Zaitsev). And in "Zvezda" (with Petrenko) they only caught the last 10 seconds of the film. The old 1946 film is out of the question! As for the tanks: the owner of 2 replicas of German tanks was almost brought to trial at one time for propaganda of fascism (the identification marks did not suit them).
    1. Shogun23
      Shogun23 20 October 2013 16: 11
      0
      And by the way, it was all a poher that there was depicted not a swastika (a symbol used by the Nazis), but a cross of the Wehrmacht, which carries no political meaning.
  30. APASUS
    APASUS 20 October 2013 16: 34
    +3
    Ideology in modern Russia is generally bad.
    She is not there, and grandmothers, bandits and all evil spirits rushed to this empty place. But the most important thing is that they are trying to instill in our children that we lost the Second World War and were its initiators. Hence the proposal.
    RETURN TO THE SCHOOL THE HISTORICAL COURSE OF THE WORLD IN FULL VOLUME FOR 5 YEARS OF STUDY. Here then there will be no recognition of your guilt for OUR VICTORY!
  31. PValery53
    PValery53 20 October 2013 16: 37
    +2
    If after watching Fedka's "Stalingrad" the children feel sorry for the Nazis, the director "succeeded" in his plan. "Bravo!" - Now Fedka - on the rack !!.
  32. Boricello
    Boricello 20 October 2013 17: 30
    +5
    All this talking shop about the cinema of that era and the current crafts is a comparison of an elephant and a pug. On television, you just see ahs and sighs about the Bondarchuk lubok "Stalingrad" True, they say that nature rests on the children of genius parents. To Pope Fedya as to China r..m. Guano film, the only thing is special effects and there is no soul. In "Aty-Bati" there are no effects, but you watch the film with gritted teeth and tears in your eyes. Alas, with the Soviet era, brilliant directors and actors have gone. I wonder if we will have another level movie. Only old people go to battle, And the dawns here are quiet, Go and see? You look at the current squalor and it becomes sad.
  33. Andrey Yuryevich
    Andrey Yuryevich 20 October 2013 17: 34
    +3
    that's for sure ... it's sickening to see how in the "nameless height" plywood tanks of unknown design are being driven ... and the same ones, both from our side and from the German side ... ugliness ...
    1. Alex 241
      Alex 241 20 October 2013 17: 48
      +3
      There’s nothing to even comment on!
      1. Alex 241
        Alex 241 20 October 2013 17: 51
        +4
        When you look always a lump in your throat!
    2. Doctor71
      Doctor71 20 October 2013 17: 58
      0
      Good evening. The famous T-72 tanks nee. We have KV-1S. On the other side is a T-6 with an aft turret machine gun. And the film itself is a remake of the Soviet "Snipers". Protopip Moldagulov.
  34. PValery53
    PValery53 20 October 2013 18: 19
    +6
    "The fate of a man" by Sergei Bondarchuk is not Fedkin's "Stalingrad"! Sergei - squeezes a tear! And Fedka - ugh and grind! So much for "nature is resting"! ..
  35. Beech
    Beech 21 October 2013 23: 21
    +1
    Cinema is cinema ... and life is life ...
  36. Everything is gorgeous
    Everything is gorgeous 8 May 2018 21: 09
    0
    I want to say about war cinema in general, films that were shot in Soviet times, and what was shot later, already in Russia. Of course I’m not a critic, but there is a difference in how our old actors got used to the role so that the cinema watcher and the actor cried, rejoiced, worried. And today you look without emotions, and nothing more. For comparison, what is the difference; in the film “Own,” the commander says that so many soldiers died, you have to submit for the award, he says cheerfully, without pain in his voice, but he would say it hard, tired voice, it would be believable and his heart would be pinched. Why don’t you say that there are very few such actors as before, to mention offhand it is Menshikov, Mironov. With their participation, the movie is interesting to watch. I want to say - Thanks to such actors that put their soul into their work