So ... In my opinion, the novel and the film adaptation - both the first and the last - are each child of their time, with his ideas and ideals. The novel is a romantic neoclassical 19th century at its end. The screen adaptation is also coming to an end, the 20th century, which has broken the cultural, moral and ethical succession of eras, but not free from questions that forever occupy the minds of humanity. About the nature of feelings, about the frailty of things, about the meaning of life and death.
Without going into details, I say, I was struck by the deep moral and ethical, almost religious, content of the novel, commercial and entertaining in its essence, which at that time was the norm for any literature, even of a “low” sense.
Our time, mean to maintain, at any cost, striving to circumvent the connection between cause and effect, spend less, get the most, gets it more, but only in its external expression in the language of forms borrowed, not typical for it, therefore beautiful, but therefore conditionally expressive. It is a language of dead symbols, where external showiness is present, but their understanding is lost both by the writer and the reader.
And therefore, if it is present in contemporary works of literature, art, music, architecture - any kind of art - a concentrated embodiment of the spiritual life in material forms, the life of the soul and mind, then only to the extent that they inherit, forgotten and now despised centuries, placed in the gloomy tombs of museums and history. But whether they are subtle. "She took her body without taking souls," and "so Lucy could have seen in a nightmare: sharp teeth, bloody voluptuous lips, which were scary to even look at - this carnal soulless creature seemed like a devilish mockery over the purity of Lucy. "
Similarly, our era is “undead,” but not alive, the era of vampires, whose mind and soul, immersed in eternal sleep, come to life only when the gaze is turned to the past, and the sleep of the mind, as is well known, gives rise to monsters.
And yet, this screen adaptation - even when I was younger, and my education, as well as spiritual development, left much to be desired - struck me with its content, and elevated over a number of other, different in time, but equally vulgar, screen versions. And let the divine be presented here, as it has become accepted today, when the destructive sexual appetite that replaces all other interests and aspects of the personality, in the person of passionate love, but in the end is a work, is inflamed in all ways in the minds and bodies. cinema - visual art, not literature. And the language of expressiveness in cinema, a set of visual symbols and images is built around one original idea. And in my opinion, the leading idea of the novel by the authors of the script, and most importantly, the director was received correctly. If the matter concerned literature, then the interpretation of eternal values by modern, vulgar (and mass, where mass character, the essence of any “democracy” cannot but be vulgar) consciousness within the framework born by this consciousness, vulgar, despite any stylization, would be pitiable. But, fortunately, the visual arts, following in the tradition of romantic realism, are sufficiently distanced from the content in the language and set of their expressive means, besides, the set of such means is in itself rather traditional and limited to be spoiled by any avant-garde. Actually, the task of this kind of art is to express the idea most clearly, clearly and succinctly by a number of visual images, which frees us from unnecessary searches of language and means of expressiveness in this case.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий