Change Your Image
mlimmer89
Reviews
The Cherry Orchard (1999)
The Meh-ry Orchard
The Cherry Orchard is Mihalis Kakogiannis' ambitious, if ultimately dissatisfying, film adaptation of Chekhov's famous play of the same name. In an attempt to remain true to the story's roots as a stage performance, Kakagiannis filmed the movie as if he were filming a live performance. While this approach is undeniably an artistically appealing gamble, we quickly find that the over the top acting and hasty scene transitions (perfectly befitting a stage) ultimately fail to translate smoothly onto the big screen. The film struggles to grab your attention early on (when it is most critical to engage the audience and establish a connection), but does come into its own about halfway through.
Following the Russian abolition of serfdom in the mid-19th century, many noble families found themselves strapped for cash as they lacked the resources and skills required to maintain the estates previously granted to them and maintained by free labor. Set in this era, The Cherry Orchard introduces us to one of these financially struggling noble families on the brink of losing their beloved estate, known for its beautiful cherry orchard. Despite receiving sound advice on how to save the bulk of their estate (at the cost of the orchard itself), the family continuously brushes all logic aside as if waiting to be saved from their fate without having to give up anything in return or to lift a finger to help themselves. Because of this, the estate is seized and put up for auction, ultimately falling into the hands of an up-and-coming merchant whose family had been serfs at the estate for generations prior to abolition. This highlights both the waning power of noble society and the rising fortunes of the middle class in Russia at the turn of the century. Because the family would do nothing to save themselves, the film ends with them going their separate ways into the world as the sounds of axes echo in the background. The Cherry Orchard is being cut down, symbolizing the transition from the old world into the new. As the family leaves and the estate is boarded up, we the longtime family servant, who had served as a serf before the abolition and stayed loyal to the family, has been forgotten and locked inside to die. Earlier in the story, this servant had referred to the abolition of serfdom as a great misfortune, symbolizing that this is man who had long ago resigned himself to his fate. Here again, the man simply sits down without a fight, resigned to his misfortune. His fate, like that of the entire family, is left unknown.
Overall, the movie was entertaining at times and utterly boring at others. Its approach was ambitious but, sadly, missed the mark. The actors themselves performed admirably, but even their skill could do little to distract from how badly stage acting so often translates to film acting and vice versa. The two arts are separate for a reason, and very rarely is their melding done correctly. The story itself was thought-provoking and entertaining, a testament to Chekhov's abilities, and once you've grown accustomed the style of the film it becomes infinitely more watchable. For fans of Russian history, it offers an interesting glimpse into Russian society at the turn of the century. For fans of Chekhov, it provides you with a glimpse of what his play would look like if performed and if you're unable to go see it live, as it should be seen. For fans of film...meh.
Shinel (1959)
The Overcoat
Alexei Batalov's "The Overcoat" portrays Gogol's classic story about as well as any on-screen adaptation could for the time. It accurately depicts Gogol's harsh portrayal of 19th century Russian society and more or less stays true to his dark sense of humor. Overall, I enjoyed watching it and would recommend it to anyone looking to explore the nuances of early Soviet filmmaking, or to anyone who happens to be a fan of Gogol and is too lazy to read short stories. The bulk of the narrative gets across easily and one is able to interpret the larger themes which Gogol intended to relay without much interference. Through the story, one can easily see the distinctions between life as an underprivileged worker in 19th century Russia and that of a noble, blind to the many nuances of the struggle for social acceptance.
The movie begins with the birth of a boy seemingly doomed from the start. His mother decides to name him Akaky, after his father, making him Akaky Akakievich; an unfortunate name in any language. Akaky is born into a world where social classes still exist and where a man has little opportunity to elevate his status in life to any meaningful degree. This reflects the style of life experienced by many Russians during the 19th century, when serfdom still existed and when status was determined by birth rather than by merit. Akaky's unfortunate name serves only to exacerbate his misfortunes of being born outside of the noble class. The narrative jumps from Akaky's birth to his life as an adult working as a clerk and copyist in St. Petersburg. Akaky seemingly does not have much to live for and thoroughly enjoys his job, as it is the only thing which gives him some form of identity. Akaky is not popular at work and is often the target of ridicule and practical jokes.
Soon after the film's beginning, Akaky is prompted to buy a new overcoat, as the one he has is old and tattered. In Russia, everyone must wear an overcoat due to the bitter cold. Therefore, the quality of the overcoat is seen as a status symbol by those devoid of any real status within society. Initially, Akaky is dismayed at the idea of having to buy a new overcoat, as he can barely afford to stay alive. Interestingly, when visiting his tailor, Akaky opts to buy the more expensive and more fashionable overcoat as opposed to another simple yet still effective one, despite it costing twice his salary. After much sacrifice and at a cost to his own standard of living, Akaky eventually accumulates the money required and buys the overcoat. The mere fact that Akaky is willing to sacrifice his own standard of living (i.e., taking less food, going days without proper heating, etc.) in order to obtain something of mere social significance symbolizes the importance of social acceptance within 19th century Russia.
Immediately after acquiring the coat, Akaky becomes addicted to the attention it receives. At one point he even refuses to even wear it in fear that it may get dirty and not be as attractive as it would be otherwise, thus negating its actual purpose as an overcoat. At the office, his coworkers are so impressed by his new coat that they throw a party in its honor (ain't no party like a Russian coat party). Unused to the attention, Akaky remains his uneasy and socially awkward self, despite his newfound status, and leaves the party early. So we see that despite the change in his outward appearance, Akaky remains the same as he was before. When Akaky is ultimately robbed of his overcoat (as he still lives in the same rough part of town that he always had), he finds himself unable to garner any support or sympathy from those above him. As in the story of Icarus, Akaky finds himself having flown too close to the sun and left falling with melted wings. Eventually, without a coat to shield him from the harsh winter, he catches a cold and dies. Oh yeah and then he comes back as a ghost to steal coats from people. Isn't Gogol hilarious? Dostoevsky famously said "We all come out from Gogol's Overcoat." The Overcoat served as reminder to all Russians of the social disparity of the times. It highlighted Gogol's ability to satirize modern society and his penchant for analyzing and revealing the dark side of Russian politics. Future writers would look to Gogol and his masterpiece "The Overcoat" for inspiration in doing the same. In this film, Batalov does an admirable job or translating that message to the big screen. 7/10.