Best film adaptations of modern and classical literature (part 2)
Based on a novel by Boris Akunin. Who is surprised-sit down quickly, but I think that “Azazel” is the most successful translation of Erast Fandorin’s adventures on the screen. How can this film be put on a par with the previous ones? Very simple and nothing at the same time. Here we are talking about good film adaptations, not just about absolute masterpieces. And “Azazel”, as a film adaptation, is good for almost everyone. It is colorful, juicy, pleasing to the eye, not boring-gray, like “State Councilor”, not glossy-special effects, like “Turkish gambit”, with good actors and production. What is surprising is that this is only the second (and so far the last) directorial work of Alexander Adabashyan, whom the mass audience can remember for the episodic roles of alcoholic philosophers or for the role of Barrymore in”the Dog of the Baskervilles”. And yet – it’s hard to believe – in the film adaptation of “Azazel” not changed the ending! This is a definite plus, since logic was sacrificed to the WOW effect in all” Gambits”. Interestingly, as if I was just watching “Ten little Indians” Govorukhin, if the main villain was the character Abdulov…
All girls and boys who have not seen the film, I am sure, are now interested in only one question: who played James bond, that is, I’m sorry, Fandorin? A certain Ilya Noskov, this was his first (and best) film role, after which he was not remembered for anything significant. Fandorin in the film is a young, impressionable, naive, receptive guy, as Boris Akunin drew him in his first novel. In my humble opinion, Noskov in the role of Fandorin is more convincing and Menshikov, who in “State Councilor” is too old for a 35-year-old dandy, and Beroev from “Turkish gambit”, which is simply not similar in texture. Briling, Erast Petrovich’s mentor, the second main figure in Azazel, was played at the highest level by Sergey Bezrukov, who had not yet tasted the oppressive glory of the Brigade.
The plot of the film is such that although it is interesting to follow all its turns, the drama of events sometimes sags. From the book to the film got almost everything important, the story turned out to be complete, but also some fussy, chaotic. There are many events, but little time. A modest budget also played a role here, due to the focus only on television. Azazel was not shown in cinemas.
Music. I will list only a few performers and groups involved in writing the soundtrack: Yuri Shevchuk, Boris Grebenshchikov, Chicherina, Chaif, Mumiy Troll, Leg cramped, Accident, Garik Sukachev, Night snipers… Mouth watering? That’s it! And they sing not their own creations, but Russian romances that fit very authentic into the composition of the literary original, and in the production of Adabashyan. After watching the movie, the first thing I did was download the full soundtrack,which I wish you.
Book. Non-trivial detective story with a historical color, written in light modern language. Akunin has long been fairly ranked as a pop singer in literature. He himself does not deny his focus on the mass and not very thoughtful reader. I binge-read Akunin when I was 18, which I don’t regret for a second, but now I’m no longer interested in him: intellectual literature outweighs it. It is possible that one day I will be pleased to plunge back into the romantic and mysterious world of Fandorin’s adventures; or not, it is not clear yet. What exactly is good about Azazel? This is the first novel, it is in it that Akunin shows the “birth of a hero”, from the plot point of view, it is the most important. And when this book was published, Akunin’s production had not yet been put on stream.
The film adaptation appeared 4 years after the book was published.
Can I replace reading with watching a movie? Can. But this is not a compulsory work from the school curriculum. It is unlikely that anyone will watch “Azazel” just to be in the context of the literary original. If you are interested in the book, I would recommend reading it first, then watching the movie, then maybe five years later, watch the movie again.
A modern reworking of the classic works of Arthur Conan Doyle about Sherlock Holmes by Paul McGuigan. Yes, recycling. How could I?! Why “Stalker ” with” Solaris “Tarkovsky – “no”, and some “Sherlock” – “Yes”? After all, both there and there is a processing of the original. But here’s the thing: if Tarkovsky consciously and significantly changes the composition of the literary prototype, then McGuigan goes the other way, he shifts the original melody to a new way, without affecting the motive itself. You see, I lied, but I had to remember Tarkovsky after all… In any case, McGuigan’s film is not a pure adaptation, say meticulous critics. I agree with them, but the sixth point today will still be “Sherlock”, another film adaptation of the detective, but the first in which the audience is sometimes asked to seriously think about it. What is not a reason for joy?
“Sherlock” is not a movie, but movies. I’m not sure that it, like the Soviet TV adaptation of Maslennikov, can be properly called a series, since there are only six “episodes” (at the moment) and each one goes as much as an hour and a half. “Modern Sherlock Holmes – what could be worse? I thought when I first heard about Sherlock. The day before, I had already read guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes and was far from thrilled, even if it did not touch on modernity. And McGuigan encroached on the sacred-the atmosphere of old London and technological progress that does not include cell phones and wi-fi networks. However, he successfully encroached, encroached directly in England and on the BBC’s money. Almost everything has been reworked, except for the main detective composition, in which there is a place for questions, and there is a place for answers.
The modern Sherlock Holmes is a young, handsome, devilishly clever Flanker with oddities performed by Benedict Cumberbatch. Cumberbatch is not as famous in Russia as Robert Downey Jr., but after watching his filmography on IMDb or Kinopoisk, it becomes absolutely unclear why. Dr. Watson, a serious and wise man, is played by Martin Freeman, who has recently become familiar to all the victims of protracted and spineless film adaptations, as a young Bilbo Baggins.
Sherlock and his hat Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson
The plot of “Sherlock” is only partially follows the original, many of the details and moments the Director wraps up neatly in metaphor and takes the viewer. Present and outright gag, which instead of the expected hostility causes undisguised delight. One first appearance of Moriarty is worth something, and the local image of Irene Adler can easily shock an unprepared viewer. All the riddles from the book were reworked or recreated from scratch, which did not affect their quality at all. The conclusions Holmes makes are still brilliant and still some of them with proper intellectual development and attention can be anticipated, which for a detective is almost the best indicator of quality.
The music in Sherlock is appropriate and enjoyable. It is appropriate, but you do not want to listen to it separately from the movies. Not thick, but not empty.
If anyone does not know, the Americans have already stolen the idea from the British and run their own series about the modern Sherlock Holmes, in which Dr. Watson plays… Lucy Lew, the girl from Charlie’s Angels. It is called “Elementary” and, oddly enough, you can watch it.
Book. Classic detective story, with which many began to get acquainted with the genre. Charismatic characters and puzzles that can and should be solved are included.
The film adaptation appeared 80-120 years after the books were published.
Can I replace reading with watching a movie? No. The fact that the book Sherlock Holmes-detective, you can learn from this sentence, and if you want more-then go ahead to the literary shelves. By the way, without comparison and comparison with the original, the film adaptation also loses significantly.