Historical drama. The film adaptation of the historical novel "Razin Stepan" by the Russian Soviet playwright and screenwriter Alexei Pavlovich Chapygin, which is based on the life and dashing campaigns of this famous ataman, who has long been a hero of legends, and it is quite difficult to separate the truth from fiction. And I came across this picture quite by accident, and at first I didn't want to look at it, but curiosity outweighed those bad thoughts, and I did look. And the impressions were twofold. And here's my brief opinion for you - The stormy life of a dashing chieftain. There were both expressive advantages and obvious disadvantages in the picture, and all this must be highlighted (according to the old and good tradition), therefore, I finish this important introduction and get to the point.
So, the advantages:
1. People's revolt - as you already understood from the title, the picture will tell us the story of the life and death of the famous dashing ataman Stenka Razin, who raised an uprising on the Don and in the Volga region against the boyars, landowners, churchmen and other oppressors of the common people. If we do not consider the real story here, but focus entirely on the one told, then a folk hero appears before us. The defender of the Russian Land, who dared to raise the people to fight against their oppressors, but after a serious defeat at Simbirsk fled to the Don, where he was betrayed by his own Cossacks, and he ended his life on the block. The people are crying for their intercessor, the boyars and the tsar are boastfully rubbing their hands, but not everyone has come to terms with defeat, for several more years the south of the country was blazing with a rebellious bonfire, and in the memory of Stenka Razin remained a national hero. The script fairly accurately conveys the course of the uprising from the robbery of the tsar's caravan on the Volga to the execution of Razin. His associates are also shown, very different in beliefs. And in general, the script is not bad, the dialogues are very pretentious, which was commonplace for the cinema of those years, both here and in the West. Not the pinnacle of screenwriting, but quite a high-quality four.
2. Costumes, decorations - the Moscow Kremlin, the Rogue Order, Astrakhan, Simbirsk, Cherkassk - all have their own memorable feature, and you will not confuse them on the screen for sure. Russian Russian costumes are also very similar to those worn by the inhabitants of the Russian Kingdom, from ordinary peasants to foreign mercenaries in the Russian army of the second half of the seventeenth century. Of course, there will be famous Sagittarians with birdies and squeaks. The costumes of Stenka himself are good, and sit perfectly on the artist Abrikosov. The Persian princess was also pleased, and her appearance personifies the mysterious East. Costumers and decorators did a good job so that the audience plunged into that historical era.
3. Vivid images - of course, Stenka Razin stands apart, having almost no flaw, his associates, especially the boyar son Lazunka performed by Mikhail Zharov, Fedor Shpyn, ataman Korney Yakovlev and their main opponents - Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, boyar Kivrin and others. They are outwardly very colorful, and their dialogues are pathetic, but extremely entertaining.
So, disadvantages:
1. Historical mistakes - did not really reveal the topic of "charming" letters (which were sent by Razin's emissaries), in which he incited the people to revolt and recruited supporters, about the robber campaign in Persia - only mention and the princess brought, Razin did not fight against the tsar (he officially confirmed it), did not really show a difficult relationship between Razin and the Cossack foremen from the Don. Well, there's also a whole pile with a broom.
2. Substitution of concepts - a rebel and a robber Razin turned into a people's advocate, which is fundamentally wrong, because he has never been one. Stenka was a Cossack chieftain who, after the execution of his older brother for treason (deservedly by the way), decided to live "at ease", and after several successful campaigns imagined himself a kind of tsar, who is subject to the mountains. He conducted excellent preparations for the uprising, but Simbirsk and several thousand archers who remained faithful to the oath broke Stenka's grin, and he was soon captured and executed. Razintsy themselves have committed a real reign of terror on the occupied lands (there is not a word about this in the picture). They repaired robbery and did not hesitate to kill priests (after which Stenka himself was anathematized), in general, they did evil. And this is not surprising, because the backbone of his troops were the poorest Cossacks (golytba), who had nothing. Razin was a cunning and insidious leader of a gang of robbers who shocked the Russian society of that time (and there was a reason).
3. The servants of the sovereign are shown disgustingly - everything from the tsar to the Archers looks repulsive and causes undisguised hatred in the viewer. Outwardly, they look like devils who seek to flood the Stenka, and lead the whole people to submission. To put it mildly, this is not the case at all. In reality, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich tried to negotiate with Stenka, was ready to forgive him more than once for his robber deeds, and only when he realized that words would not help, sent an army led by an experienced voivode, the hero of the Russian-Polish war of 1654-1667, Yuri Nikitich Baryatinsky, who defeated the main forces of the Razintsy under Simbirsk, and after the capture of Stenka - conducted his interrogation. By the way, he was the one who executed Razin's older brother for treason. So, this is what I mean - not all the servants of the sovereign were bloodsuckers before the Russian people, and not all Razintsy were total robbers. Cruelty was committed by both sides. But even so many people would not have come to Stenka if there was complete order in the Russian Kingdom. And it is not for nothing that popular rumor remembers about Stenka, who smashed boyars and voivodes.
4. Tiresomeness - it is very difficult to watch the picture without falling asleep, because even the battle near Simbirsk (which was shot perfectly for the cinema of the late thirties) does not save the situation, because the heroes did not catch on. A lot of lies and outright silence. The result is obvious. Personally, I almost fell asleep six times.
A little about the main characters:
1. Stepan Razin performed by Andrey Abrikosov is a Don Cossack and ataman who raised the people to fight for "freedom". It is shown by a sort of Slavic Robin Hood and a fighter for national happiness (almost Lenin of the seventeenth century). Andrey Abrikosov is just perfect for this role (tall, stately, voice and charisma). I also noticed this in the film "Alexander Nevsky", where he played the role of Gavrila Alexich. As I have already said, the image of Stenka here does not correspond to the real one at all, but I will praise the acting (she would learn from our (and not only our) zvizd).
2. Lazunka performed by Mikhail Zharov is a boyar's son who is driven by "class consciousness" or simply sympathy. He becomes first an assistant, and then an associate of Stenka. The familiar charisma of Mikhail Ivanovich makes the hero interesting.
3. Kivrin, performed by Vladimir Gardin, is a boyar of the Robber Order, who intends to find Stenka and deliver him to the sovereign. He looks and behaves like a devil, and resembles a walking caricature rather than a living person. But the actor tried.
And the memory of Stepan Razin lives on, because the cinema about him began to be filmed back in the time of Nicholas II (the first Russian short film "Stenka Razin" in 1908), there was also a German picture "Volga-Volga" in 1928, continued with this picture (the most ambitious and iconic) and ended with the picture "Walking People" in 1988. Since then, in this lull, only a few documentaries have been published in post-Soviet Russia. Apparently, Stenka Razin, who threw the Persian princess into the Volga, is no longer so interesting. But the song "Because of the island on the strezhen" remained.
As a result, we have not quite a historical drama about Stepan Razin, with a successful script, vivid images, excellent costumes and scenery, but with a clear distortion of historical facts and the "whitewashing" of the ataman, but with excellent acting works.
My rating is 5 out of 10 and my recommendation for viewing!
