"I will seduce over the fiction"

If you relate to the movie as seriously as, for example, to the book, then cinema itself also deserves to be “doused with tears” over it. Of course, this is characteristic only of the naive viewer, but I belong to this category. I can “turn off” this hypostasis, but for this I need a special installation. Of course, Trash - on the screen or on paper - I will neither watch nor read. So naivety is not the same as omnivorousness.

Apparently, it is as a naive viewer that I am alien to the phenomenon of cult cinema - when the film is intentionally watched in “their” companies, not only quotes replicas, but constantly explain with their help, revise the film as a ritual for the New Year or another “red calendar day”.

I expect from the cinema emotional involvement and experiences - as direct as possible. If such perception turns out to be blocked-I feel that they lie to me (waiting for me to be) or they want to get horrified (some tricks in the “cargo-200” I therefore take it beyond the scope of art), or I feel frank falsity-it is not clear, psychologically or ideologically loaded-then I just “turn off”.

I note that a naive viewer does not mean an inexperienced viewer. At the time when this needed special efforts, I still looked at all Visconti, almost all of Fellini and Keslensky and, of course, Tarkovsky and the entire German German. These were not so much films as the event of life.

Therefore, today for me is priceless to choose what to watch. For the time being, “normal” cinema was still shown, albeit at abnormal time, so I recorded something on the cassettes. I once again watch one of them from time to time - this is Schlendorf's film “Love Svana” with my beloved actor Jeremy Irons. Meanwhile, DVD appeared, and at the expense of the Internet an affordable repertoire increased sharply.

Now, after about 19 hours (if I do not have urgent affairs), I believe myself have the right to “move” into the space of fiction for a while. Obviously, the installation “for a respite” narrows my choice: it is not in a state of extreme fatigue, and even more so, depression, watch the “decalogue” of Keslensky or the “death of the gods” of Visconti.

Sinephic friends periodically remind me that the movie should be watched in the hall, along with other people, etc. However, my experience in watching in one of the best London cinemas showed that the “hall” simply bothers me. I'm afraid that the set of effects " Dolby Surround ” acts on me almost in the same way as the“ arrival of the train ”on the first moviegoers. At home, sitting in an armchair, I am fond of and gets involved alone with the screen, forgetting about a boiling teapot or unheated letters.

So, I am a single-cinema, though legible, but grateful. And in this capacity, with enthusiasm I reviewed several series, created at one time for television, for example for the Air Force.

It is believed that the series actually watched by poorly -sustained spectators. But the series are different. In a professionally “strong” series, the series is a film with its plot, which is so correlated with the plot of the whole that you want to know what will happen next. In other words, a separate series should not begin in any unit of the plot and end because only 50 minutes no longer fit. By the way, this is how our Stirlitz and the famous multi -part English film “Pride and Prejudice” were done.

It turned out, however, that there are excellent series in the proper sense of the word - these are films, the unity of the structure of which is provided not by the plot, but by the heroes and their profession. Two such series seemed to me exemplary: the “main suspect” with the inimitable Helen Mirren and “Judge John Didd” with the famous English actor Martin Show in the title role.

The series about Judge John Dide gives us what is happening in the English court of the highest instance - I would not say that idealized, rather, on the contrary. Martin Show is a very famous and authoritative theater actor of a classic English school, who also worked a lot in cinema and on TV. In the “cheap” series, he would simply not act.

The “main suspect” talks about the work of the London criminal police - here the main character does “weather” here. Helen Mirren has the highest naturalness that is so valuable in the actress, categorically not intentionally hiding her age. That is why, in the role of a police inspector, she remains the embodiment of the same high dignity as in the film “The Queen”.

In both of the mentioned series, each series (less often two) is devoted to one incident or one crime, and in the framework of a professionally defined situation, the heroes solve complex tasks that, as a rule, require not only knowledge, but fidelity to duty, ending, and finally wisdom.

Well, if you were at least once in London and saw with your own eyes, for example, Temple, then you are guaranteed the pleasure of these series.

And to the question: "Do you love the series?" - Once again I answer in the spirit of a joke about love for tomatoes: good - yes, and so - ...