Close to the text

This week, several interesting paintings will be released. For example, one of the "Oscar" hits "on the sidelines". But it is clear that the public continues to discuss the Turkish Gambit. Moreover, it is now that reports on its rental successes will be sprinkled. Therefore, having already talked about the film in the last issue (conversation with the performer of the role of Erast Fandorin Yegor Beroev), Newsweek had to change the rules and return to his analysis. The film is very different from the novel, although the script was written by Boris Akunin himself (only “with the participation” of director Dzhanik Fayziev). The point is not that the killer is different than in the novel. The point is in fundamental style and ideological differences. Why are they suddenly?

The Turkish Gambit is an second film adaptation of Boris Akunin’s novels, and it is the second novel from the Fandorin cycle. Once Akunin said that he would keep film adaptations, would not allow changing the line. And suddenly personally broke his own source. The intellectual spy detective is at the same time a political romance with thoughts about whether Russia is fraught with a threat to civilization (they are embedded in the lips of the enemy, but are clearly supported by Akunin himself: why doesn’t it be fraught if the great October is awarded to the work of the novel?) - turned on the screen into the work: a) very patriotic, b) adventure, b) adventure childishly entertaining.

In the novel, it is not always clear what Erast Fandorin does when he conducts an investigation and tries to calculate the Turkish supershpio. In the film-he always jumps somewhere, fits from the gun to the right and left, dodges dynamite explosions, saves from Turkish captivity, clinging to the bottom of the carriage, and even hangs along with his young lady at a huge height, grabbing behind the dilapidated basket of a balloon. In an interview, Akunin was asked: why, in this case, he did not give out this very young lady in the final, Varia Suvorov, for Erast Petrovich (in the novel - only a hint of their mutual sympathy)? “Yes, somehow illogical!” The author answered. What is illogical? Then the script would have found a finished look and could compete with the Soviet alteration of the “Treasure Island” of 1938, when the main boy was turned into a girl, and she hunted for pirate treasures to give them to the needs of folk rebels.

I will assume that Akunin himself was an ideologist of plastic surgery. After the failure of the literary film adaptation of Azazel, where he just did not allow changing the line, he, apparently, realized that the cinema is not literature. That this is a black hole in which all the subtleties of style, plot and thoughts fail. And he decided to make a postmodern action in his spirit: after the stylizations of a conspiracy the detective, a detective about a maniac, Agatha Christie, a children's book to invent and a typical scenario based on a literary work. What is characteristic of such typical scenarios? Complete arbitrariness of the screenwriter. This is on the part of Akunin something like “on you! I just have fun from this! "

But obviously, the producers played a leading role. They clearly proceeded from the fact that the 12-16-year-olds mainly go to the cinema. Although the same Akunin assures that from the late 90s about 1 million copies of the “Turkish Gambit” have been sold, the film is more likely to be designed for those who have not read Akunin-to the readers to read. And therefore, a nickely desire to convey the Akunin style of the game. Here is the "gambit" and turned into the latest adventures of "elusive avengers." As a result, Akunin fans are doomed to feel strangers in the auditorium. Those who did not read the novel will take out a perpetuate idea of ​​the books of Akunin in general. And if they run after them to the store, expecting to find a mixture of a picule under the cover (if someone else remembers it) with Harry Potter, then, go, they will be offended. Deceived!

Computer effects are still one move with which the director and producers decided to take the young audience (especially those used in the scenes of Fandorin’s memoirs: when he analyzes who the spy, people turn into a mile of shot-drawn shootings). These scenes make the film more postmodernist (in this sense just more Akunin). With the help of a computer, a terrible episode of the death of Russian infantry under the fire of Turkish guns was simulated (eh, Bondarchuk and such computers!). Thanks to the computer, the film probably also acquired its spectacular flavor with the predominance of bright yellow. At the same time, the scenes of the Fandorin memories, when his consciousness breaks through some strata of layers-so they were transferred to the “matrix” in the cables-they remind the new audience to enter another level of computer game.

This, however, was not enough. The most serious: for the sake of contact with the new audience, I had to change the ideology of the novel. I, like Stirlitz from a joke, was alerted without hearing the end of one memorable dialogue. When the girl Vara Suvorova is offered to become an assistant to Fandorina, she flamefully states that she will not serve in the guard. In the film - nothing like that. I was alert not in vain. The Romanic Fandorin, who considers the Russian-Turkish war to be useless and destructive for Russia, claiming that there are no right and guilty in the war, but good and bad are on both sides, on the screen is also a decent patriot (in the book he is a statesman, yes! With a sense of duty and honor. But this is a little different). The Turks in the film are clearly bad, this is a barbaric faceless mass. A pair of individualized characters - wealthy scoundrels. The Russians and the Europeans present with them are all brave and good as a result. Even Varya - and that, as a result, the bruise of gold brings to death.

In the novel, Fandorin, frowning, meets the appearance of the captain of Count Zurov, because that gambler and boobser, - Test is throwing on his neck. Because the battle fraternity. The head of the third branch and chief of the gendarmes Mizinov, who should be, in any case, a dry aristocrat, plays the main uncle of our cinema Vladimir Ilyin. How he takes care of Fandorin, how again he throws him, saved, on his neck-what is your Savelich or Maxim Maksimych! Because again, we are all Russian and relatives.

It acts. Either the audience, already prone to mild xenophobia, freely or involuntarily begins to project the events of the film on the Chechen. Either a cash blockbuster on a military theme is, in principle, it is impossible without the contrast of “our doctors” - but the audience is clearly imbued with. At the exit from the audience, some guy said: “Everything is very right, we have done in our way. It’s a pity for this with the banner, ”the shot captain Count Zurov was mean. The guy clearly did not read Akunin.

Find more differences

“Turkish Gambit” in book and cinema versions - in fact, two different works. Here are the inconsistencies discovered by the Newsweek observer.

| | | | | --- | --- | --- | | In the novel | In the film | Why | | Fandorin claims that he did not kill anyone in the war. And, it seems, really does not kill | Warm of Turkish Basurman aimed, like the Voroshilov shooter | He is not a citizen of the world, as in a book, but a patriot of Russia | | He says that in the war there are no right and guilty, and there are good and bad ones on both sides and that he was not tormented in Turkish captivity | Refers to a Turk, as a vile enemy, especially since he was captured and suffered | The film will not become supercassov, if you do not show the audience, who are ours, for which we need to root | | Secret Turkish scout Anvar Efendi-genius, European, intellectual with global thinking | Absolute Brows and small scoundrels (and as soon as you built supranational intrigues?) | See above | | Varya does not want to deal with the guard and at first contemptuously calls Fandorin the “gentleman of the police” | Not suffered at all such a problem | Why is this the first channel to add skepticism to the Society for the special services today? | | Fandorin is constantly inactive (thinking something there) | Fandorin constantly acts | Purely cinema problem: how to captivate the audience with the brain activity of a detective or scout? Stirlitz - and that Tatyana Liosnova forced to commit one murder | | The tactical ups and downs of siege and non -abbess are explained in detail - with the subsequent capture - Plevna | Nothing is explained-they just could not take a Plevna, and then somehow they took it | The audience cannot be loaded with schemes and logic. Give her action and special effects |