Military Review

Catherine the Great on the screen: historical truth or the triumph of ignorance?

During 2014 – 2015, two television series on Catherine the Great were shown on Russian television. The very fact of creating this kind of television product seemed to meet the growing interest of our citizens in the national stories. However, expectations, supported by brisk advertising, were not justified.

Portrait of Catherine II in front of the mirror. Hood Virgilius Eriksen. 1760's

In the reign of Catherine the Great, Russia solved a century-old historical task - it became firmly established on the shores of the Black and Azov seas. It was established, having withstood a stubborn struggle with the greatest force of that time - the Ottoman Empire and its loyal vassal of the Crimean Khanate, a long-standing and merciless ruin of the Russian lands.

The bloodless accession of the Khanate to the empire, carried out by Potemkin, made it possible to begin the settlement and economic development of semi-desert Black Sea and Azov lands. One by one, cities rose, settlements rose, shipyards, factories were built, roads were laid.
The Black Sea military and merchant fleet was created. Twenty-five years later, Russia took the first place in trade with Europe and the same Turkey as the most prominent bread-producing partner.
The Potemkin villages helped to successfully repel the aggression of almost the entire continental Europe led by Napoleon. Russia has strengthened its status as a world power. It is no coincidence that competitors and envious people of our Motherland have repeatedly tried to seize the Crimea, to reject us from the Black Sea.

The voluntary return of the Crimea and Sevastopol to the “hometown” in 2014 was an outstanding historical event. In the summer of 2015, in Sevastopol, in the presence of prominent political figures, a monument to Prince Tavrichesky - Grigory Potyomkin, the founder of the hero-city, was solemnly laid.

The two TV shows about Catherine the Great and shown on 2014 and 2015 on Russian TV channels seemed to be responding to the growing interest of our citizens in Russian history. Expectations, supported by brisk advertising, did not materialize.

And the first episode, “Catherine. The Empress ", and the second series" The Great "are dedicated to the young years of Catherine and end with her accession to the throne. The main theme - "Great" - was deferred to "later."

The famous American movie star Angelina Jolie recently announced the beginning of work on the series about Catherine and Potemkin. And Russian artists spend huge amounts of money twice and occupy the attention of millions of TV viewers by showing the very beginning of the work of the great empress.

As will be proved, this is not the biggest drawback of the series.

Anhalt-Zerbst princess Sophia Frederica, the future Catherine, travels along snow-covered Russian fields in a small carriage. She teaches Russian, and her mother grumbles, displeased at how modestly they are received in Russia.

So begins the series “Catherine. Empress ”(script by Arif Aliyev, directors Alexander Baranov and Ramil Sabitov, artistic director of the project Vladimir Menshov). At this very time, the councilors of the Empress Elizabeth Petrovna hotly discuss the most important question of the state: who to choose the heir to the bride as a bride?

Scene from the television series "Catherine the Great"

But this is a clear nonsense. The choice has already been made, otherwise the princess and her mother would not have appeared in Russia. Further more. While the council members are arguing, the cart slips into a snag (oh, those Russian roads!) And falls on its side. Fortunately for Russia, the future great empress did not suffer.

A representative man helps her to get out of the train. The naive princess thinks that this is her fiancé and thanks “his highness”. The “Highness” explains that he is not the groom, but Prince Sergei Saltykov who greets the guests.

As is known, there were no princes of Saltykov in Russia in the 18th century. And Catherine's mother could not annoy at the reception. German guests had a state meeting. I met not eighteen-year-old Saltykov, who had not yet begun his court career, but a relative of the Empress, handsome chamberlain Semen Naryshkin. The journey was made not in a miserable way, but in a luxurious house on runners. Catherine and her mother were shocked by the meeting.

We will not cite all the historical absurdities with which this protracted series is full. We note a little detail, immediately undermining the credibility of what is happening on the screen. The authors abandoned the wigs - this important detail of the toilet of the ruling class. Bald and modern hairstyle actors, depicting the top of the Russian imperial court, annoying.

The main storyline is the relationship of young Catherine with her husband. Of course, the Grand Duke Peter Fedorovich was not a gift. But the heir to the Russian throne, in front of everyone who is tearing off his clothes from the maid of honor he liked, is impossible.

Impossible and became Emperor Peter III. If in the first films this is a complete degenerate, then in the last ones before us is a stubborn lover, talking about divorce from Catherine and the upcoming marriage to Princess Elizaveta Vorontsova. And on the Lutheran rite. In response to the objections, he states that the Vorontsovs are not somebody, but Rurikovich.

If you accept this fiction, then there are big discrepancies. The sovereign of the orthodox state could not so clearly demonstrate his non-belief. This is the first. Secondly, the TV screen Peter must divorce his wife and ... dissolve his mistress. Because Elizaveta Vorontsova could be titled as a princess only by her husband. Unmarried girls were called princesses. We inform tera dramadels: Russia knew the Counts Vorontsovs, not Rurikovich at all.

The top of ignorance was the episode of the presentation to Peter III of the envoy of the Prussian king Frederick II. For no reason, Ekaterina’s husband gives yesterday’s enemy, who unleashed the Seven Years War, a title that the troublemaker of European tranquility didn’t dare even dream of. Calls him the emperor. Such things should qualify as fierce ignorance or as falsification of history.

The six-month rule of Peter III is well studied. The famous enlightener Andrei Bolotov, who served in Petersburg as adjutant to the general-chief of police, often saw the emperor. In his memoirs, he writes about his drunkenness, his speeches in the presence of foreign diplomats, so rambling that it was embarrassing to listen. Catherine's husband spent time in entertainment and feasts. What do we see on the screen?

Without waiting for a divorce from his wife, the emperor orders her arrest. However, Grigory Orlov and his brother, like the gallant musketeers of Alexandre Dumas, kill guards with swords in their hands and take Catherine away. In the courtyard, as the captions say, the end of April. The coup occurred on June 28. Under all laws of politics, it was necessary to find a fugitive and punish musketeers. But for two months no one was found.

Learning about the coup, Peter III runs with his mistress in Oranienbaum. Eagles roughly separate him from Vorontsova and force him to sign a renunciation. Then, together with Catherine, they visit Count Alexei Razumovsky, whom the late Empress Elizaveta Petrovna allegedly bequeathed the throne. Cautious Razumovsky burns the will.

But the Schlusselburg prisoner John Antonovich is naively admitted to visiting Catherine that he is the legitimate emperor. He was immediately eliminated.
Remains the overthrown Peter, who for some reason is contained in the theater hall. The guard officers ask him to play the violin, and during the concert right on the stage Alexei Orlov strangles the former emperor with a noose.

Historians shrug: John Antonovich died two years later. No testament of Elizabeth in favor of Razumovsky was and could not be. The ousted emperor was kept under strict guard by no means in the theater. Finally, twenty years ago, a brilliant study of the historian O.A. Ivanov, who proved that Alexey Orlov (future winner of the Turkish fleet under Chesme) was not the murderer of Peter III.

The creators of the new series “The Great”, shown on Channel 2015 of the year on Channel One, in the annotation that preceded the premiere, loudly announced the superiority of their work over last year’s competitor:

"The cognition and interestingness of this show is going wild."

Writers Sergei Yudakov, Alexey Gravitsky, director Igor Zaitsev kept their word. The show rolls over. And, although the actors they shot were wearing wigs, one detail immediately indicates the showmen’s complete misunderstanding of what they do. When the imperial court observed the strictest etiquette.

For subjects, the Grand Duchess Catherine was the Imperial Highness. When her husband became emperor, she became Imperial Majesty. In the series, all those who feel like it easily call her Ekaterina Alekseevna. But so it was possible to apply to the Minister of Culture of the USSR Ekaterina Furtseva. And that is not always!

Wigs did not save the show from fictions and absurdities. We are shown how the executioner burns Catherine chained to the uprights with a torch.

The wife of the heir to the Russian throne is screaming terribly, and the Empress Elizaveta Petrovna mercilessly continues the interrogation. Having tormented the audience with a heartbreaking scene, the authors report that this is a “dream.” True, after such dreams, the TV screen Catherine decides to commit suicide. She is saved by the bosom friend of Princess Dashkova.

The princess herself is also good — she sends field marshal Count Peter Shuvalov, an opponent of Catherine, to the next world (grass). Another field marshal, Stepan Apraksin, is also good. In St. Petersburg in his palace, he is shot from a musket by the head of the secret office of Count Alexander Shuvalov, the brother of the poisoned Dashkova.

As the authors assure us, the chief inquisitor of the empire tried to arrange for Apraksin a confrontation with “Ekaterina Alekseevna”, but overdid it. Arrow Field Marshal hit the shot.

So the showmen serve one of the main plots of their show - the disgrace of the commander-in-chief of the army of the army, Count Stepan Apraksin, and the chancellor, Count Alexei Bestuzhev, whose affairs stand out for a grand conspiracy in favor of Catherine. Everything shown is absurd fiction.

Historians have long described in detail how the struggle of court groups intensified in the context of the Seven Years War and the illness of the Empress Elizaveta Petrovna, intensified by the intrigues of the allies.

Supporters of Catherine Apraksin and Bestuzhev were removed from power. Apraksin did not die in Petersburg, he did not fire back from the musket. Bestuzhev was sent to his village, even without confiscation of property. His employees were released from custody and were assigned to appointments outside the capital. None of them were tortured.

However, what's the matter with the history of showmen? They relish, as in gloomy casemates, Alexander Shuvalov severely beats up not someone, but the heir to the Russian throne. Dips his head in a vat of water so that he cannot breathe. The second person in the state is subjected to torture not for some conspiracies and crimes, but for a silly joke: he poured cold water on several courtiers during a reception in the park.

About Catherine herself silent, because she is not the heroine of the TV show. The hero brought out the head of the "special services" Alexander Shuvalov. His power is so great that Peter III, having become emperor, did not dare to dislodge his torturer. Moreover, Shuvalov retained authority after the coup, enthroning Catherine, and even attempted to impose on the empress restrictions on her autocratic power.

In fact, Alexander Ivanovich Shuvalov is a figure almost invisible in our chronicles. Of course, he did not torture the heir to the throne, and Princess Dashkova did not poison anyone. Ekaterina’s enthusiastic eighteen-year-old supporter was not her close friend. In 1783, the empress appointed Princess Ekaterina Romanovna president of two academies. The case is unique in the history of science.

And this enlightened Russian woman, friend Diderot, the showmen turned into a murderer.

Especially note the episode of the death of the deposed Peter III. As is known, the witnesses of this event were silent, and the controversial reports of foreign diplomats were based on rumors. Most tended to accuse the chief of the guard of the former Emperor Alexei Orlov.

At the beginning of the XIX century there was confirmation of this guess. In a letter to the Empress, Alexei Orlov himself described how everything happened. “Mother, I am ready to die, but I do not know how this trouble happened. We died when you did not have mercy, Mother, he is not in the world - but no one thought of this, and how can we think of raising hands on the Sovereign, - but, Sovereign, misfortune has happened. We were drunk and he too, he argued at the table with Prince Fedor¸ we did not have time to roznat, but he was already gone. We do not remember what we did, but everyone is to blame - they are worthy of execution. Have mercy on me even for my brother ... ” For more than two hundred years, almost all historians considered this text to be “irrefutable evidence” of the involvement of Alexei Orlov in the murder of Peter Fedorovich. In 1995, the historian O.A. Ivanov argued that the letter was a fake.

Allegory of the victory of Catherine II over the Turks and Tatars. Hood Stefano Torelli. 1772 year

Showmen do not read scientific papers. They prefer their own fictions to facts. The main thing is that the show rolls over. The killer in the series launched the elder brother of Alexei Gregory. He, it was he, Catherine's lover, must decide her husband. And the audience is shown how Grigory Orlov brings the former emperor a violin (this violin was given to our showmen!), Allows the unfortunate to play a little, and then finishes it with a knife, drawn out of the bootleg.

The most beautiful man of his time, Grigory Orlov, who attracted his friends by a noble, knightly character, was turned into showless frivolous and gloomy drunk by the showmen. In 1771, Orlov accomplished the feat. Risking his life, he went to plagued Moscow and restored order there. Catherine ordered to make a medal with the motto invented by her: “Russia has such a son in itself”. Orlov stood up for the faithful sons of the fatherland. The medal pushed out "Russia has such sons in itself."

Russia is shown on the television show as a country of crude morals, despotism, and terrible cruelty. In the same way our competitors portrayed our homeland. In last year’s series, they burned the glowing iron at the earl Johan Lestocq. The stage tickles the nerves of the audience, and the announcer importantly reports about the death of Lestocq, not even suspecting that the count survived Empress Elizabeth, was forgiven and returned from exile, lived for several years under Catherine.

Burning iron Lestocq not tortured. These fictions seem trivial compared to the fiction in the show “The Great”, breaking all records of ignorance. The mockery of national history with a string of executioners, murderers, adulterers, procurers, and intriguers should be called a tele-cherzon.

The triumph of ignorance costs a lot of money. To insult our Memory, showmen attracted many people: civil servants, professional cinematographers, and television journalists. Most do not even understand what a dirty business they were involved in.

Millions of Russian citizens are fed by roughly-cut, mocking, ignorant blockbusters. How do the viewers need the real Catherine, the real Orlovs, Dashkova, Potemkin and other historical heroes. We have something to be proud of and who to praise! In order for modern Russia to go forward successfully, the state is simply obliged to take over the creation of cinema and television films on Russian History!

The outstanding Russian thinker Mikhail Bakhtin said briefly and clearly:

"Only Memory can go forward!"
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. AdekvatNICK
    AdekvatNICK 18 January 2016 18: 08
    The last normal movie was shot in the USSR.
      PHANTOM-AS 18 January 2016 18: 11
      from remake becomes vomiting.
      The clearest example was "New Quiet Don", I withstood only 10 minutes of viewing.
      1. Vend
        Vend 18 January 2016 18: 24
        Showmen do not read scientific works.
        They don’t watch old films, where penetration into the image begins with correct communication. When the Transfiguration men gathered at the front, I had already started to swear. And when the bandit "let's just fill him up" flew out of the brothers' lips, and this is about the emperor. I even ran out of mats. Even Midshipmen Forward is an entertaining movie, but an order of magnitude higher, as a penetration into the era and the image.
      2. shh-inga
        shh-inga 18 January 2016 18: 32
        I will intercede for "Quiet Don". I also spat at first, but the last four episodes I could not hold back my tears, this is the most dramatic version!
        1. PHANTOM-AS
          PHANTOM-AS 18 January 2016 18: 39
          Quote: shh-inga
          In vain you did not inspect

          no, fire!
          The Soviet version is quite enough for me both in character and in drama. hi
      3. tolian
        tolian 18 January 2016 20: 36
        Have you seen an explanation of why films are re-shot? I remember one thing - they are filming in order to be closer to understanding by modern youth, and these films are being made by young people. The result in reality. Especially considering the "progress" in education, culture, science. Progress in commercializing everything. Look at the serials being reproduced on television. It’s not comprehensible to my mind ...... A young, thin-legged, new employee of the special forces sculpts with her slender hand a slap in the face of a hefty bogey, the oligarch's guard and the bull will fall almost dead. And the special forces fumble through his pockets and find everything they need ... for the 25th series. A good film is hard work. And who will work now? And there is no one to teach. The exam has done its job. And Fursenko is still talking from the TV screen about the benefits of the exam. That this is a very good method of testing knowledge. Mr. Fursenko, where is knowledge? Why check what is not there? So the vomit dregs appear. Product of crooks, thieves, ignoramuses.
        1. iliitchitch
          iliitchitch 21 January 2016 22: 54
          Quote: tolian
          Progress in commercializing everything.

          Here you, colleague, correctly hooked on the topic (or snagged? How is it in Russian now?). The key question - what scoundrels (what would not be swearing), dragged this monstrous "EGE" not only to schools, but also to kindergartens? Already there they are "tested" by class. There weren't 1-2 Fursenki (they wouldn't have a bottom or a tire), there were thousands of NGO grant-eaters, if not more. Well, what can I say? Well they breed, that rabbits, progression ... Or maybe with a flamethrower? Seriously, I’m serious, so how many Tajiks will be left without work, where do they go to a construction site? Teachers will survive in any way, it hurts - yes, but why do something?
          No, this is absolutely extremism, it doesn't happen. This I mean that we were destroyed from the inside "in an hour", and we will recover for decades in a good scenario, alas, a fact, colleague. You try to ask your children a question, so "I'm on the internet, then ...". And as you climb into that Internet, pretending to be "under your own" - your hands drop, not to mention anything else. BUT! Panic is still far away, but let's make the Americans even dumber, it will be a masterpiece - a special operation carried out by an entire nation.
    2. Rezident007
      Rezident007 18 January 2016 18: 50
      Quote: AdekvatNICK
      The last normal movie was shot in the USSR.

      I support. New, let's say, patriotic "cultureists" either reshoot old hits (by the way, not a single successful one, since they played and filmed before, this will not happen, and it is better to never reshoot or replay) or new films, well, such a disgrace. Especially with regard to the Russian (Soviet), Russian history of the fatherland ... Truth and lies are, of course, questions for reflection, but most importantly, they shoot obscene, disgraceful, disgusting, etc. about their own history of their state. movies .. For what? So that the people were ashamed in front of everyone? So many glorious and good, noble and instructive examples in our history can be reflected in films (and generally in art) !!! And people will be proud of their country, people, there will be patriotism. And we have a feeling that even in culture there are traitors. People like them (who are filming, directors) and those who are filmed in such films, as they say, "at the first nix" will knock over the hill. In fact, this is the fifth column.
      1. iliitchitch
        iliitchitch 18 January 2016 19: 23
        Quote: Resident007
        And we have the feeling that even in culture, traitors.

        Oh how. From old memory I will turn on "Alien-2" and polish it with "Red Scorpion". Everything is easier, no philosophers will get into the soul with dirty boots.
        1. Rezident007
          Rezident007 18 January 2016 19: 29
          Quote: iliitch
          Quote: Resident007
          And we have the feeling that even in culture, traitors.

          Oh how. From old memory I will turn on "Alien-2" and polish it with "Red Scorpion". Everything is easier, no philosophers will get into the soul with dirty boots.

          Yes, no one is climbing into your soul (especially with dirty boots), who needs you until now, look at such nonsense!
          1. iliitchitch
            iliitchitch 18 January 2016 19: 44
            Quote: Resident007
            Yes, no one is climbing into your soul (especially with dirty boots), who needs you until now, look at such nonsense!

            So that's why I look, purely to use my eyes. And so they drive the complete garbage. And it's a shame that good artists in that garbage are being filmed.
            1. Darwin
              Darwin 18 January 2016 23: 23
              the question is what do you do when your mouth is free
              1. iliitchitch
                iliitchitch 21 January 2016 18: 58
                Quote: Darwin
                the question is what do you do when your mouth is free

                Beer, perhaps only the apple is sometimes in the mood, ours, Antonovka, our Darwinist intellectual.
    3. The comment was deleted.
  2. Bersaglieri
    Bersaglieri 18 January 2016 18: 13
    We forgot how to make historical films with us ... And why? Because normal consultants do not want to invite staff.
    1. dmi.pris
      dmi.pris 18 January 2016 18: 33
      Yes, this applies not only to films .. Look at the history textbooks, sheer slander, a deliberate "moronization" is underway ..
      Quote: Bersaglieri
      We forgot how to make historical films with us ... And why? Because normal consultants do not want to invite staff.
    2. 34 region
      34 region 18 January 2016 21: 32
      Yeah! Consultants! There are your consultants! And these consultations began even with spitting on the USSR. Where it shows is visible. The ultimate goal is to impress upon us that we are descended from animals and our place in the barnyard.
    3. Vasilenko Vladimir
      Vasilenko Vladimir 19 January 2016 08: 06
      Quote: Bersaglieri
      Have forgotten how to make historical films with us ...

      basically forgot how
      in each film there are enough stocks, then kale in the midshipman’s cap, then on the colonel two glories, and for some reason the first and second degrees
  3. Lt. Air Force stock
    Lt. Air Force stock 18 January 2016 18: 21
    If we compare the actors ’play in the days of Soviet cinema and now, then in fact there was a theatrical game, the actors played the roles with expression, now they seem to have tuned in to realism, so all the series are played out by intonations by dialogs as people say in real life. Compare how the actors today speak in the theater and in TV shows / movies, everything is different. And before 1 to 1 that the game in the theater, that in the movie, expression, intonation, etc. etc.
      PHANTOM-AS 18 January 2016 18: 55
      Quote: Lt. air force reserve
      If you compare the game of actors during the Soviet cinema and now

      we can conclude that only pitiful serials about cops can shoot, well, and other "yellowness" about show-off, murder and forgery a la "Pretty Woman".
      Something more serious is a full hat. negative
      1. your1970
        your1970 18 January 2016 20: 48
        "Island" for example?
        And now many good films are being shot - as in Soviet times there were many bad films about overfulfilling the plan and the love of a steelmaker and a carpenter against the background of a harmful engineer who interferes with working
        Do you have doubts about more than 2000 films shot on Mosfilm - strain and remember the good / memorable ones - with a hundred, maximum, if you recall ...
        1. epsilon571
          epsilon571 18 January 2016 22: 50
          sv1970 (1)
          "Island" for example?

          I agree with you, Petya Mamonov just played incomparably in "The Island", but there is another film with his participation - "Taxi Blues". And from modern films it is possible to note the film of Alexei Balabanov "Brother", in which the main role was played by the actor Sergei Bodrov. As they say - we can if we want!
  4. WERSTA.
    WERSTA. 18 January 2016 18: 21
    A true historical film requires a lot of money. These two films were shot with cheap government investments. It seems to me. With this money you can only remove historical glamor. The treasury has no such finances. So, they won’t be able to make a good historical film for a long time. In Soviet We didn’t spare time for bringing up history. Let us recall the War and the World of Bondarchuk. Amazing battle scenes! Mass shooting and at the same time close-ups.
    1. volodimer
      volodimer 18 January 2016 18: 31
      I think it's not about the money, "Stalingrad" or "coming" is enough to remember, there was enough dough, but the directors' delirium was also far from history.
  5. unsinkable
    unsinkable 18 January 2016 18: 37
    Almost all modern films (with rare exceptions) I call * one-room *. They don’t need any preparation. They went into the room, shot 20 episodes. They moved the furniture, here’s another 20 episodes. They removed the view from the window, here’s 20 final episodes. It’s like a movie in words we have, but in fact, no. One KHILM remains.
    HUMANOID 18 January 2016 18: 42
    It’s bad when the director does not delve into the era and takes off hack work, but much worse when someone’s political order is executed, this is generally a crime, it’s time to start punishing it.
  7. Terner38
    Terner38 18 January 2016 18: 42
    It’s good that I’m not looking at a zombie creature, I’m just glad for myself!
  8. Lysik001
    Lysik001 18 January 2016 18: 51
    I don’t watch all these new films. Time is sorry for this muck.
    1. cap
      cap 18 January 2016 19: 06
      Lysik001 EU Today, 18:51

      I don’t watch all these new films. Time is sorry for this muck.

      ++ My comment is akin to yours. Remained behind the scenes.

  9. AdekvatNICK
    AdekvatNICK 18 January 2016 19: 14
    nowadays the youth are also stupid apple gone. Even the expression they have is "this movie will go with beer" finished crap in tons of falling on stupid youth. I know my question which movie he likes answered ...... - the movie should be like that so that you don't have to think ... the main thing for them is to be able to say "ok Google" and all the brain is not needed.
    I can’t watch this crap. I switched to reading books. So time passes with benefit and so .... template-stamped cal from the screen.
  10. moskowit
    moskowit 18 January 2016 19: 43
    Don't be upset, my friends. It will be even worse ... As soon as the chatter about a new "masterpiece" begins, with a promise to follow historical reality in everything, from costumes to portrait likeness, you can safely not look. Trash and nonsense. If the recognized master of cinema in all cinematic incarnations with a stick in his hand, chained in iron, defeated the German, then what can we expect from the "smaller" directors?
    And it is not only a pity to attract knowledgeable consultants, but what is even worse, aggressive self-confidence in their "exceptional" knowledge of the history of producers and directors of pseudo-historical rubbish. And this is a common misfortune. The current generation is not burdened with the set of knowledge of the secondary Soviet school, and all this so-called "historical truth" is "true" for them. To my great regret ...
    BARKHAN 18 January 2016 19: 53
    Let us please start with the basics. Where is the unified and detailed history textbook? No ideology and "explanations", just bare facts and detailed events based on historical documents.
    Every "historical" film must adhere to the real story.
    If the author wants a free interpretation and flight of the soul, then in the credits and on posters it should be explained to the viewer in large letters that this product has nothing to do with history ... But there is only the imagination and opinion of a certain person. A good example of "Midshipmen Forward" !,
    At the beginning of the movie, the screensaver: "The filmmakers cannot vouch for the accuracy of all the historical details. But with their usual bold caution, they are ready to assert that everything in the film is true, of course, except fiction."
    And that’s it! No complaints to the author.
    Now, if Bondarchuk and Mikhalkov wrote in the opening credits of their "creations" that all this is the fruit of their inflamed mind, then there would be no questions for them. The same applies to "Battle for Sevastopol".
    And a separate issue is state funding for this junk.
    At the stage of filing the application and familiarization with the script, all the dregs should be screened out. Does the author have the right to his vision? Of course. But for his money.
    I'm waiting for "Panfilov's 28", I want to see what came of it.
    The series about Catherine, described in the article, looked completely. A nondescript shit. The only exception and discovery was the Belarusian actress Yulia Aug who played Elizaveta, she essentially pulls the whole series. About wigs also thought, in all the paintings of that time there were only wigs ...
    If you really want to, you can do anything. But good ...
    Here is a small example that I personally liked ...
    1. your1970
      your1970 18 January 2016 21: 26
      and if you want, you can also find fault with it here .. For example, I was familiar with new overcoats (I died a long time ago, the kingdom of heaven), I served the whole war as the head of a uniform repair center (there were some, the rear, of course, but not far from the front) -so she said that, at first, everyone fainted from the types of uniforms that came from the front / sanrot .. And she also said that on average five times each overcoat returned to them — they put repair stamps there.
    2. Pomeranian
      Pomeranian 19 January 2016 11: 26
      Quote: Barkhan
      The only exception and discovery is the Belarusian actress Julia Aug who played Elizabeth, she essentially pulls the entire series.

      Totally agree with you. It is difficult to imagine the other Elizabeth Petrovna. And for the acting, the selection of the scenery (they look less like mummers), the series you mentioned wins in comparison with what they showed on Channel One. The free reference to history came to us from Hollywood, there such masters are engaged in this - our homegrown specialists before them, as before the Moon. Although studying history on TV shows - thank you.
  12. am808s
    am808s 18 January 2016 20: 21
    In general, another pseudo-historical bullshit from showmen defaming the real story. How is it familiar. Was it all filmed with money from some funds? History in educational institutions is taught diligently confused, and in the cinema in general, the fantasies were carried away if they did not have a special purpose, to confuse and misinform.
  13. AdekvatNICK
    AdekvatNICK 18 January 2016 20: 55
    just leave it here

    Lenfilm "is ready to make a film with Leonardo DiCaprio as the young Vladimir Lenin
    1. AdekvatNICK
      AdekvatNICK 18 January 2016 21: 32
      minus for quoting the news? what kind of trickster thinks so?
      1. BARKHAN
        BARKHAN 18 January 2016 21: 44
        Quote: AdekvatNICK
        minus for quoting the news? what kind of trickster thinks so?

        The minus is the same as Pavlov’s dog ... the reflex to the name. Or to Vova Lenin or Lenya di Caprio. It has nothing to do with the future (and generally possible) film.
  14. Vasilenko Vladimir
    Vasilenko Vladimir 19 January 2016 08: 01
    peculiar article all mixed in a bunch
    certainly not the professionalism of scriptwriters and dressers and interior artists is tiring, but this is not only in these films, and the author somehow slept, the last of the films described took place three months ago in the show.
    Yes, the author showed errors and inconsistencies, but they are not critical, I myself did not know about Saltykov, although yes the director and screenwriter should have studied the topic carefully, as for the orlov, there is already a frank nitpicking
  15. Riv
    Riv 19 January 2016 08: 31
    Yes ... Filmets cannot be watched without vodka.
    1. Vasilenko Vladimir
      Vasilenko Vladimir 19 January 2016 08: 32
      Which one?
      1. Pomeranian
        Pomeranian 19 January 2016 11: 29
        Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
        Which one?

        Which twisted on the First channel. On RTR, Catherine to the end (as in fact) spoke with a German accent.
        1. Vasilenko Vladimir
          Vasilenko Vladimir 19 January 2016 11: 38
          so what is the name, there were two films and both played on RTR
          1. Pomeranian
            Pomeranian 19 January 2016 13: 42
            Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
            so what is the name, there were two films and both played on RTR

            In Russia they played "Ekaterina", on Channel 1 "Velikaya". To me "Ekaterina" seemed more soundly made thing. There alone Aug is worth it, and Catherine still speaks with a German accent.
  16. Army soldier2
    Army soldier2 19 January 2016 10: 33
    Allow me to insert your "five kopecks" too.
    I completely agree with the author. Question: why is there such a drop in the quality of film production? Answer: our creative intelligentsia cannot create normally without control (if you want, without censorship). Need proof? You are welcome. Remember what films are shown to us during the holidays? Filmed only before 1985 - 1987. Remember, on these New Year holidays, five channels broadcast "The meeting place cannot be changed" and the usual New Year set: "Carnival", "Enjoy your steam", "Station for two", etc. And never the films to which the article is devoted.
    Prior to 1990, the scenarios claimed, and the actors played the roles of the first and second plan. That is, a mistress who, in addition to always having sex organ and sawdust ready to use, has nothing in her head like in Winnie the Pooh, it was impossible to remove in the main role. And now the freedom of creativity ...
    1. Vasilenko Vladimir
      Vasilenko Vladimir 19 January 2016 10: 44
      Quote: Army 2
      Answer: our creative intelligentsia cannot create normally without control (if you want without censorship)

      Yes and no
      Remember Soviet films, how many consultants there were, and now not a single result on your face
      Quote: Army 2
      That is, a mistress who, in addition to always having sex organ and sawdust ready to use, has nothing in her head like in Winnie the Pooh, it was impossible to remove in the main role. And now the freedom of creativity ...

      honestly, it’s violet to me who sleeps with whom the main thing is how he plays, in Soviet films and orders were in place and the form corresponded
  17. Pomeranian
    Pomeranian 19 January 2016 11: 35
    The author declared the right thoughts. However, it is necessary to make a discount on the fact that films on a historical theme, with the rarest exception, are not an exact reproduction of the chronology, way of life and relations of the era described. From another point of view, these films are good because some victims of the exam will be interested in Russian history. For example, after a series on RTR, a book with correspondence between Dashkova and the Wilmont sisters somewhere offended me from the shelf, it turned out that the young specialist took it to read. The fact is encouraging))
    Shl. In artistic terms, "Velikaya" is significantly inferior to "Catherine".
  18. Vladislav 73
    Vladislav 73 21 January 2016 23: 50
    Correct article. If you take both series, then in "Catherine", with all the flaws and inaccuracies, at least Julia Aug in the role of Empress Elizabeth is worth something! At least it is worth watching ... But Alexandrov in the role of young Catherine was not impressed. But this film is half-trouble, but "Great" ... it is difficult to think of a cheaper, hacky and vomit picture! belay I don’t even know what’s worse, a stupid, mediocre idea of ​​the screenwriters or the poor hack of the actors? common sense ... request negative PS Honestly, I do not think that such a hack would have prompted someone to study history ... Consumers of such "creativity" do not need this.
  19. Petrik66
    Petrik66 23 October 2016 07: 57
    Judging by the intensity of passions, the forum brought together those who are over 50 or older. It's funny to read about good Soviet historical films ... ... was there no cranberry there? Comrades, there were the same bloopers as now. It's just that time goes by and the new young generation., Is brought up on different realities, other films and other music. How are Peter 1 and At the beginning of glorious works different from each other? Both films are full of historical "correct" fictions, inconsistencies with historical realities. But what can be demanded from the "showmen" if historians - people who receive money precisely for the correct and complete disclosure of the topic of our past - have not been able to decide for 300 years: is Peter a punishment for Russia or God's grace for Russia? Do not groan, you do not want to watch new pictures, well, get out of the bowels of YouTube "Lenin in October" or "Shchorsa" and under the seagulls, in the evening .......