The fool itself

In the historical gap between Platonov of the thirties and Akunin of the nineties, only one Russian writer interests me truly. However, writers are secondly, below, then. Let the writers skeve little by little, guess that there are no better than other mortals, no more important. To be honest, I did not want to mention even this beloved. But then he reasoned that for the applied purposes of writers it was possible to use.

Much more interesting than the writer is the doctor. Academician Nikolai Amosov promoted a productive effort. Amosov said: every day, a person needs to do so many thousands of efforts and body movements. Then for a long time, until old age, clarity of mind, the power of spirit and human dignity will remain. However, under the curtain, closer to ninety, Amosov changed his ideology. “A person cannot defeat old age,” the academician breathed before his death. “A man is weaker than I thought.” Otherwise, everyday efforts and plastic vibrations are meaningless. In short, do not get darkened.

Look, an instructive story. The point is not that Amosov “changed”, betrayed, I admit, here I got excited. Just a close death, the main event of human life, suddenly updated the category of "necessity". Here is how a person named Boels said: "What will happen in the future is not necessary until the moment when it happens, and not gaining existence, does not contain the need for appearance in the future." The only "necessary" event of those that have not happened yet was death.

So, barely on the soft paws to the academician, this very necessary death crept in, as he naturally felt the optionality of everyday life with its physical education, with its "cases" and related "possible worlds." Instead of “possible worlds,” death makes the impossible , otherwise, fate: an unambiguous linear plot.

Death requires meaning, insists on decisions. However, she herself is this decision, a final analysis . And that is why death is so hostile to living, because living, because everyday effort is a free choice, fork, accident, nonsense . You’ll go to the right - you will find a horse, to the left - a wife, directly - developed capitalism, back - a line of bald, as it turns out. Each is obtained in their own way, poorly. And the death of wa-ageline, flaunts the meanings.

Here is what a person named Abelior said: "Two creatures, even from one womb, do not live the same way, do not have the same tastes, do not suffer from either the cold or from the heat." However, this difference is revealed only by death, the daily routine does not give criteria. Living to funny are similar. Ordinary literature, which takes the final meaning and distinguishes one fate from another, is a look from the other side , from the territory of death. We will be frank, the point of view of the corpse.

In the late 80s, the Rodnik and Neva printed the prose of Arkady Bartov " something about Mukhin ." Bartov looked at the notorious Mukhin, his friends and acquaintances from the territory of life. It turned out that in this mode it is problematic to distinguish one hero from another! Bartov imposes a series of human names on a series of everyday motives like a fire, booze, a visit to a relative, death in water and night robbery, and then vary combinations, provokes light shifts and collects consequences. The plot flings, but cannot be realized. Syntactically correct text simultaneously present several options for the same fate. This egregious contradiction reduces the attentive reader crazy, because the ancients also identified fate with the truth of the statement. Bartov exposes the mechanics of a sentence imposing his unambiguous logic of life, fraught with capabilities .

"Every evening, Mukhin returns home to leave the next day a completely different person. It only seems that this is Mukhin. Where is that Mukhin who just took a step from the door? He has already changed ... Where is Mukhin?" While a person is breathing, nothing was decided exactly. Academician Amosov did not die when his heart stopped, but when he drew up in his daily physical exercise and called for passivity and humility. But I, as always, about cinema.

The picture of Clint Eastwood "The mysterious river" was called with us "heavy archaic." Well, the next shame of the post -Soviet intellectuals. In fact, the picture of Eastwood is an innovation and a breakthrough. Istvod does about the same as Bartov: splitting the protagonist, simultaneously presents several opportunities .

Three heroes - three options. Good, frightened, evil. Three boys played on the road. A car drove up, a mummary police came out , in fact, pedophiles, depicted severity, took one, the most supple. For several days they used the boy in a forest hut until he ran away, he did not return. By the way, Bartov’s similar motive: “Mukhin somehow left the house in childhood and did not return for a long time. Mukhin’s parents were very worried. They even called the police, but they didn’t say anything about Mukhin. The next day Mukhin returned. As it turned out, he went to Makaryevka River to help Kuzma Stepanovich Koromos to mow hay.” There is still a difference, Mukhin was lucky. In the context of Eastwood Mukhin, with whom, thank God, trouble has not happened, like good and evil. Throughout the picture, a good (act. Kevin Beon) and evil (act. Sean Penn, Oscar -2004 for the main male role) invariably correlate themselves with frightened (act. Tim Robbins, Oscar -2004 for the role of the second plan): "What if someone of us got into that car?"

It is important to feel this obsessive strategy. Through this strategy, the authors block the active perception of a linear plot , all this quasi-detective Beliberda about crime and punishment, that causal chain that our wise men rightly call the heavy archaic. Idang methodically insists that there are no such "reasons" and the boy was taken away for anything. The original episode - a game on the road is a kind of fork.

What does the director achieve, disavowing the causal chain and the traditional plot, comparing one “opportunity” with the other and the third in the mode of synchronous demonstration ? He seeks to show the sterile "present time", "here and now", everyday life, cleansed of hyperscit, not yet adjusted by death. The narration underlying a movie movie sets the vector of fate. Therefore, every second of screen time, the actor is forced to collect his character as a whole. The actor simultaneously plays the past, present and future of his hero. As a result, the viewer turns into a hostage of syntax, calculates causes and effects, reads a long -term chain, and stops seeing .

Eastwood, despite the declared drama, does not have to worry about the fate of the heroes , because there are no such destinies . There is no "hero", only opportunities . The good serves the law, catches the killer, still waiting for the spouse who escaped with the young daughter. The evil regularly violates the law, kills the frightened, loses one of the daughters , inspires his wife unchanging respect: "As you do, dear, you will be right, you are the king!" On the contrary, the law -abiding frightened is unlawfully devoted to his own wife . In a fit of rage, he kills the next pedophile, dies at the hands of the evil, leaves his son behind. Having pulled out a person out of fate, freeing from the oppression of "necessity", Eastwood shows him in the regime of total freedom. You can be that and you can be it. Death will draw up fate and give an assessment, but until then a person has no other time other than the present .

The Lost daughter Sean Penn complains to Tim Robbins: "My Katie is dead, and I can’t even cry!" “But you are already crying ,” the interlocutor objects rightly. Istvod wittyly delays the fabric of the picture, sharing syntax and vision. While the hero of Penna actualizes narration, the character of Robbins exposes the forgery, insufficiency of timeless narration. Robbin's replica returns us to the present, to himself.

In 1997, the scriptwriter Alexander Mindadze and director Vadim Abdrashitov released a structurally similar picture. Under the guise of friendship of three men, their “dancer time” demonstrates the coexistence of three “possible worlds”. Grounding, cunning and brutal are compared for two and a half hours. All of the above about the Istvud film is fully applicable to the film by domestic masters.

However, ours go further. The film has an impeccable, brilliant episode "The death of an old man." The elderly father of one of the heroines (act. S. Niconenko) is present on the screen unknown why. Dad keeps silent, screams, chuckles in an unemotivated man of young heroes and their wives. Finally, the authors bring three pairs and an old man to the sea beach. Arriving youth either from Kachkanar, or either from Uryupinsk stares at the surf, squeezes and screams meaningless words. All the way Mindadze and Abdrashites insist on the meaninglessness of the behavior of this audience: antipsychologism and behaviorism! The old man, hidden under the beach umbrella, suddenly begins to yell: "Du-ra-ki! Oh, fools! What are you still do-ra-ki!" Screams reproachfully, meaningfully, nearly evil. Heroes shrug their shoulders perplexedly, do not argue. If you want, I agree with the hero Nikonenko and I. Fools, two and a half hours of the film - fools!

They spent the night on the shore, and with the first ray of sun, the old man did not wake up forever. I cannot imagine the best illustration of the above speculation. As soon as the old man touched death, as soon as she actualized the meaning, the everyday life of young heroes rightly seemed to him with a terry stupidity, a fool. What the old man hastened to publicly declare.

Now the grandfather is wise, but dead. I gained meaning, lost the opportunity . You can’t envy grandfather.