Cinema on weekends. To be or not to be, that is the question

We didn’t like the movie “Being”, but…

Director: Alexander Kovtunets, duration: 114 min.

The effect was stronger than the misplaced annotations. In any case, it is possible to call this picture a comedy only out of disrespect for the viewer.

We are not professional art critics and we can be wrong, but it seemed to us that “Be” is a real drama with a touch of horror. But this is true for the especially sensitive, someone may not pay much attention to the two scenes in the laboratory with human embryos. In the nineties there was such a semi-underground and very profitable business of exporting alpha-fetoprotein to rejuvenate the body of rich people.

In general, the picture “Being” leaves in mind a rapper party with endless screams, in which an untethered guy of not the first youth wins, fights, chases, shooting, chases on a Zhiguli, didactic parables in anecdotal form with a deadly threat, a touchingly tinsel picture “The Birth of Jesus”, also the lisp “I love you” by Sergei (Dmitry Vlaskin) and Katya (Margarita Abroskina) Fedorov, she is Oktyabrina.

The protagonist Ilya (Oleg Gaas) moves according to the scenario from the future to the past, appearing before the viewer as a teenager and a child in the same orange jacket and a baseball cap with a visor on one side. Then, finally, he is born completely naked without a ridiculous outfit.

And from that moment decides what will be different. The second, so to speak, birth.

Why Ilya is in the same clothes in all scenes and his phone is not discharged for three days when he eats and sleeps – the logic is inappropriate here, because the story unfolds in the form of a twilight dream of the main character.

The filmmakers cleverly concocted an eclectic set of cross-negatives. It is difficult for us to imagine the viewer in one person, who might like such a compote, something is sure to turn away.

The director used a fake ending technique, and the credits even started rolling. Then the tape is quickly unscrewed back, and the real ending follows.

It changes everything both in the sense of the film and in relation to it.

Here we have to remember what we have already written many times. Russia has a high level of human capital, therefore, it can do everything in science and art against the background of how the Anglo-Saxons canceled all this and replaced it with something opposite under the same names.

This happened as a result of a different approach – support for the family or its destruction. There was a campaign in the press, and there was a film “For family reasons.” He laid the foundation for a special direction in Russian cinema.

In the new Russian cinema, we see a kind of bifurcation, as in everything and everywhere in the world. With the difference that destructive horror and anti-family LGBT on our screen somehow does not stick. Does positive art dominate with propaganda in the art form of patriotism at the front and in space, in the arena and sports? and historical. There are exploratory films that penetrate d the very essence of our brave new world.

And there is a separate line, it may be the most powerful, propaganda of technologies for the joint life of a man and a woman. And all this at a very high level of quality. Movies in Russia have learned to do better than anyone.

Objections are not accepted. We don’t make money from reviews. Tired of arguing.

There are too many lies, orders, sadomasochism, artificial panic and frustration to the point of loss of personality in this beautiful new world.

In our description, this seems repulsive, unless the negative modality is removed from the propaganda narrative. Propaganda can indeed be a weapon of mass destruction, with the highest efficiency compared to bombs, missiles, defoliants, depleted uranium or mustard gas.

Russia not only does not use half of this list, but also does not have it in its arsenals.

Throughout the thousand-year history of Russian statehood, the country had to fight a lot, but unlike partners in this really first profession, Russia knows how to end wars in peace with a reasonable balance.

The main path of Russia is art and technology, and literally in everything that makes up human civilization.

The film “Be” is the first of its kind in our memory. We have never come across anything like it before. Very well done propaganda against abortion.

We must pay tribute to the filmmakers, they did everything possible at this stage of time.

Modern generations are brought up in such a way that they come to the realization of their own need for parental love late or do not come at all, shifting it to cats and dogs. Why is this wrong, we also wrote. Carnivores have a different biology. Neither a cat nor a dog can replace a person in any capacity. They can make a complete family with children even more complete.

The meaning of the film “Be” is that children change their parents in a constructive way. The authors showed this fact in the most accessible way in a completely straightforward way. When a child realizes his role, his life is filled with a new supernatural meaning, and he really becomes different.

We all went through the inevitable puberty and, to the extent of personal ingenuity, spoiled the nerves of our parents. The main thing here is not to get stuck on this platform for life, as is often the case now.

We hope that the film “Being” will be just the beginning of its direction.

The problem is that men already have an aversion to childbirth and abortion, so it would be necessary to somehow stop the promotion of inappropriate equality. Not all women’s secrets are useful for men.

It’s easy to imagine by the reaction of the characters to the collection of human embryos. Due to the temporary inversion of sex roles, men, on average, show parental instinct above women. The situation when she wants a child and rejoices in him, and he offers to get a dog for now, is still rare. This is true in films, but in real life it’s the other way around, like an episode of the novel “The Little Lord” by Johan Borgen. The defects of the maternal instinct are described more precisely. For example, in the works of the neurophysiologist Vyacheslav Dubynin or in art form in Andrey Zvyagintsev’s film “Dislike”.

The description of the male reproductive system is quite vivid, but similar descriptions for some animals are better. There is little in common. Men have to gain experience through myths and propaganda of deviations at their own expense, sometimes to the point of self-loathing and impotence. In the women’s world, men are assigned a serving role, as if they do not have their own physiology and they can be hung with feminine qualities to see what happens. In this sense, the film “Being” also contains a certain breakthrough.

It is impossible to shove the whole truth of life into a deformed consciousness with one blow.

The first one was successful in our understanding, and we congratulate the authors of the film on their unconditional success. The main thing here is to treat reviews of professionals and reviews of built viewers with humor. A talented work is judged by the malice it evokes.

The film’s publicity is weak, and the reach is widened by its inadequacy. It is hardly possible to carry out sociology here, it seems to us that the task laid down in the film will be achieved even in the souls of those who left the hall with an angry grumbling.

An increase in the birth rate is unlikely to follow, this is another task. Here we are talking about the repair of parental instinct.

The film “Being” gives an unequivocal answer to Hamlet’s question, and this answer is included in the title.

Lev MOSKOVKIN, Natalia VAKUROVA.

Photo by Sofia Sandurskaya / Moskva Agency