I must first admit that this film is quite unique as a piece of "fiction film" not pretending to be an "experimental"or an "underground" film. That is, this film is intended to be a work of art in the frame of film industry with viewers who pay more than the cost of everyday lunch(maybe,plus breakfast and dinner). For what moviegoers will pay in that case? For an entertainment or a work of art, but in any case, they are used to see "fiction" or "narrative" within the limit of this category of cinema( including "Apocalypse Now", "Stalker" and such more radical"art-house"films as Pasolini's "Salo"). I mean that these films have clear plot and/or drama. Both elements are part of tradition of 100 years film art.
Frankly speaking,I think very, very few films of this category(feature length "fiction film") have ever been made in such an arrogant manner as "Trudno byt bogom". Here the director A.German seems to have been totally sunk into his own world, like an old painter depicted in Balzak's short story. I know such an enthusiasm is necessary for an artist, but even then the artist should keep in mind many other things ; the size of canvas(format),the norms of society where the work will be shown (even if it is intended to be some kind of provocation), artistic tradition which will serve the background for the piece when being interpreted, etc.
I see here something like formless visual narrative. Though I haven't read the original novel, but judging from the other screen version by P. Fleischmann(1989), German used only the narrative framework and some pivotal episodes from the novel for "painting" on the screen a moving picture of Hell.
As a result the film of German lacks both drama and plot. 3 hours of a "fiction film" needs them. Film art can't exist outside its tradition, if author doesn't want "underground" or "experiment".No other filmmakers have dared to break this tradition.3 hours of "Andrei Rublev", "Barry Lyndon" and "Kagemusha"is calculated, accentuated and built into "forms" (plot and drama) within Time. Visual aspect of these films don't conflict with plot and drama. It is called cinematurgy that lacks in this film.
Frankly speaking,I think very, very few films of this category(feature length "fiction film") have ever been made in such an arrogant manner as "Trudno byt bogom". Here the director A.German seems to have been totally sunk into his own world, like an old painter depicted in Balzak's short story. I know such an enthusiasm is necessary for an artist, but even then the artist should keep in mind many other things ; the size of canvas(format),the norms of society where the work will be shown (even if it is intended to be some kind of provocation), artistic tradition which will serve the background for the piece when being interpreted, etc.
I see here something like formless visual narrative. Though I haven't read the original novel, but judging from the other screen version by P. Fleischmann(1989), German used only the narrative framework and some pivotal episodes from the novel for "painting" on the screen a moving picture of Hell.
As a result the film of German lacks both drama and plot. 3 hours of a "fiction film" needs them. Film art can't exist outside its tradition, if author doesn't want "underground" or "experiment".No other filmmakers have dared to break this tradition.3 hours of "Andrei Rublev", "Barry Lyndon" and "Kagemusha"is calculated, accentuated and built into "forms" (plot and drama) within Time. Visual aspect of these films don't conflict with plot and drama. It is called cinematurgy that lacks in this film.