Translated material
Review of the film "Two Life"
I decided to watch R. Super about A. D. Sakharov without prejudice "Two lives." Summary: In search of a new angle, the authors chose an unsuccessful indictable-disocciative style, turning to the “you” to the hero, from this. If you are going to look, then it is better to last 15 minutes. the film (many chronicles of ADS in recent years), and the song at the end of the film is good, Artemiev is "to be."
The first minutes of the films were unpleasantly struck: from Sakharov made not very adapted to life, everywhere carrying a string bag with a kefir of an autist with a mechanistic speech, and the viewer for the authors, apparently, is a small child/teenager who does not know anything about A.D. And that era. At the same time, the authors act as a public prosecutors of the scientist - the creator of the hydrogen bomb and, as genuinely humane, people thinking about the fate of mankind, say Sakharov to an electric chair. Execution scene in paints.
And because of this, it is uninteresting to look (several times found out how much it remains to the end). But it is necessary - since the response must be written about the whole film - we move on.
I realized that it was not so when in the 14th minute they turned on the recording of a real Sakharov - another person, not mechanistic speech, he looks into the eyes of the interlocutor, he smiles (!), Which is almost no. The authors did not fall into the image of A. D., although they tried to reproduce his speech, because they chose false tonality.
(Misha Tamm on the 14th min. They say that Acad. I.E. Tamma recruited).
It seems that in the film Sakharov ceases to be an autistic only in the story of the "layer".
From the questions of the authors of the script it follows that for them:
- Jester scientists = Antichrist;
- Bomb/product = hellish weapon.
At the same time, the authors stubbornly cross out the word "weapon" in Sakharov’s lips, they say, he constantly corrected it to the "product" (like this excusing himself). For the sake of interest, she climbed into the chapter "1953" in the Sakharovsky "Memories ..." and there the word "weapon" - 5 times, "bomb" - 6 times, "product" - 14 times, i.e., A.D. He used all synonyms, without avoiding the words "bomb" and "thermonuclear weapon".
An example from the accusatory and educational script of the film. The voice of Chulpan Khamatova supposedly Sakharov: "But you are a smart, educated person, how could you not understand that all this is just propaganda?"
It is interesting that Chulpan and Sakharov on "you", and the hero, by virtue of his politeness after the next test of the bomb, is waiting for a voice and on "you": "Well, where are you gone?"
And then such a dialogue (insulting for Khamatov, who had to pronounce all this):
- You are Satan!
- I am a scientist.
...
- You are part of the Gulag!
- ... I am part of scientific and technological progress.
... bastard! ... And then you yourself became a killer ... ... you returned state awards when you realized what you did? Return at least boots, they are not yours.
And then the authors seeking truths kill the physicist of Sakharov in an electric chair. Further - of course - this is the message - the hero of the film experiences rebirth, becomes correct. And in the second part of the film, the indictment of the questions of Hamatova's questions is warm. And even the words "millions read in the newspapers, what G*VNO you are" she says not exposure, but affectionately. And this amazing dialogue about trips "Stars" abroad "Well, how did you travel?" - This is a song. The intellectual level of the authors here is like under a magnifying glass. And that’s all you wanted to ask?!
Errors:
- Sakharov tells in the book that after the death of his first wife made a mistake by listing all his accumulations (139 thousand) to charity - to the state - having lost control of them. Chulpan is just for this: "Condoleous. I know what loss is."
- Klava was shown to the doctors many times, they also made her gastrointestinal radiography, but cancer was discovered at a late inoperable stage.
- The first time he did not see Bonner not at the trial of Pimenov, but at the house at Celidze.