Rubashkin A.
There are works in the history of literature that have left a mark on public consciousness primarily due to the timeliness of their publication. After them, more artistically significant books may come out, but they will not be remembered that way. Ehrenburg's "Thaw" determined the turn of our life, the very concept of "post-Stalin thaw" came from this story. The name has become a household name.
The story does not say anything about the March days of 1963, when we mourned, saying goodbye to the past. The name of Stalin is not mentioned at all - all this is already after him, in a different era. The Thaw contains the atmosphere of the autumn of 1953 - the winter of 1954, a story about what the author and his characters experienced at a turning point in our existence ... Monuments to Stalin still stood firmly, his seventy-fifth birthday was still celebrated in the press, but something was already leaving. And the story was perceived as anti-cult even before the official condemnation of what was later called the "cult of personality."
What is this anti-cult? In the approach to the person. For years it has been argued that man is a cog in a huge government mechanism. And then, through the mouth of his hero, the old Bolshevik Andrei Ivanovich Pukhov, the author proclaimed: “Society consists of living people, you can’t solve anything with arithmetic. It is not enough to develop reasonable measures, one must be able to implement them, and each person is responsible for this. You can’t reduce everything to the protocol “listened - decided””.
It is not easy for the heroes to go to their happiness - it is difficult for them to understand their feelings. Lena reaches out to Koroteev and is tormented: how to get away from Zhuravlev, after all, they have a daughter, and she herself chose. Dr. Scherer, at his age, does not want to believe in the possibility of happiness with Sokolovsky. Sonya Pukhova suffers herself and torments her chosen one, she made them equal with others, when "in sultry August he marched along the steppes with a retreating division." In the war he lost his love, before the war his faith was undermined. Is it possible to calculate what was more - bad or good - in Koroteev's life?
In Ehrenburg's story there is no wide canvas of life, but his characters knew what he knew. Everyone had problems not only of a personal nature. The quarrelsome Sokolovsky is at the same time a silent man, he seems strange to people, but much is clarified from those details of his biography that are given in the story. Old Bolshevik, participant civil war, a talented engineer, he is gripped by fear that he will be reminded of adult daughter living abroad. “Is the questionnaire really the most important thing?” he thinks. Sokolovsky has already suffered because of the questionnaire, he was expelled from the Ural factory, a feuilleton about him appeared in the newspaper. And here again the same threat, now Zhuravlev is ready to remind him of his Belgian kinship. Upon learning of this, Sokolovsky falls seriously ill ...
Perhaps Ehrenburg is "inflating" bitter fates? But he knows that the generation of Sokolovsky drank much more than this hero. His peers not only read feuilletons about themselves, but also parted with their lives in Stalin's casemates, like a Bolshevik friend of the writer Semyon Chlenov, like a Bolshevik comrade in Spain, Mikhail Koltsov.
The writer knew that the drama of the past years was greater than he could say about it, he knew that Simonov did not remain in ignorance. The (then hidden) poems by Olga Bergholz had already been written - “No, not from our meager books ...” Ehrenburg read them. And he knew about Akhmatov's "Requiem" from the author himself. So Ehrenburg was sincere when he wrote: "I would not challenge the judgments of K. Simonov if they were limited to assessing the artistic merits or demerits of my story." It was about something else. About the characteristics of time, about what colors our life is painted with.
Now is the time to turn to 1954. The warm winds were already blowing, but there were still so many icings, shady sides. With the active participation of the same Simonov, Zoshchenko was "worked through" once more. Articles by Mikhail Livshits, Vladimir Pomerantsev, and Fyodor Abramov published in Novy Mir were sharply criticized. All of them fell into the "detractors". As a result of this criticism, the editor of the magazine, Alexander Tvardovsky, was removed from his post for the first time. Instead of him, they appointed ... Simonov. So Ehrenburg was not alone in his experiences. One year later. criticism fell on Pavel Nilin - he wrote the story "Cruelty", spoke about how time tested a person to break, argued that high goals cannot be achieved by immoral methods ...
As for Ehrenburg, his "Thaw" was on the "black board" for a long time. I didn't like the characters, I didn't like the way the writer talks about art. Simonov devoted most of his article to this, arguing that the author gives "an incorrect assessment of our art and propagates incorrect views on the path of its development."
Meanwhile, in his short story, Ehrenburg did not even think of presenting a "picture of the state of art." In it, along with other characters, there are two antagonist artists - Pukhov and Saburov, there are individual statements about books and plays. It can be seen that the author looks at many things critically. And it's not just about art. “She (Tanya. - A.R.) played in Soviet play a laboratory assistant who exposes a professor who is guilty of servility." It is unlikely that a play with such a conflict can be good, therefore the situation itself, in which such conflicts are possible, is more important. And Ehrenburg himself had to hear these reproaches of "obsequiousness."
Perhaps most of all it is said in the story about painting. The cynical artist Pukhov, who has already betrayed art, reflects on it. For these reflections, the author was most criticized: he, they say, does not denounce Pukhov, makes him almost a victim of circumstances. Along the way, critics, and especially Simonov, argued that Ehrenburg had to show a wide palette of art, his achievements. “The author of the story considered it good to close his eyes and see through the crack only the Pooh, Saburov Tanyas.”
In the Ehrenburg archive there is a letter to him from director Grigory Lozintsev: “Even the most dashing critics did not reproach Ostrovsky for distorting the whole state of the Russian in The Forest. theatrical art, in which both Shchepkin and Martynov were then; and Sadovsky ... And the most lively government pen would not dare to ask Ostrovsky a question - to whom he classifies himself, to Neschastvetsev or to Arkashka, but there were no other theater figures in the play.
Pukhov and Saburov are different poles of art. The first is alien to Ehrenburg, who sees in him an opportunist, a hack, the author deeply sympathizes with the second. Of course, there are artists of a different kind, but the writer talks about what excites him, focuses his attention on these phenomena. Simonov "guessed" in the story some influential and high-ranking opportunists, much more visible and therefore harmful, such as the artist Alexander Gerasimov. As for the other pole, one could then occasionally see Falk, a remarkable landscape painter, who was not recognized and “beaten with a ruble”, accusing, of course, of formalism.
The desire of the then critics that Ehrenburg would at least “hint” that everything is not limited to these poles is very strange, the writer speaks of real phenomena artistic life without claiming to review them. Otherwise, he could have “hinted” a lot: otherwise, for example, how his favorite composers, Prokofiev and Shostakovich, were treated in the forties (one of the latter’s symphonies is mentioned in The Thaw), how the theater was closed and thus shortened the life of a wonderful director. He could also recall the fate of Akhmatova and Zoshchenko.
Without whitewashing the Poohs, Ehrenburg emphasizes that society has the conditions for their emergence, that our art has many unnecessary regulations and stereotypes. The same Simonov "agrees" - let Pukhov appear in the story, but the author must expose him more definitely. As if the hero reveals himself a little. "Of course, I'm a hack, but in general, everyone is more or less hack, only some don't want to understand it." Does Volodya Pukhov really think so? Rather calms himself down. This “everything” removes responsibility, it is easier to live this way. “After all, everyone is maneuvering, cunning, lying, some are smarter, others are dumber,” Pukhov repeats to himself. Again these "all". But do all artists paint pictures under the odious title "Feast on the Collective Farm"? Does everyone agree to paint a portrait of Zhuravlev, realizing that his “face is like dirty cotton wool between two frames”? Does everyone write such novels and such music? From the story it is clear - not all. There is Saburov, who will not refer to the era (“Now everyone screams about art and no one loves it,” Pukhov justifies himself), there are writers about whom the heroes of the story want to argue. Koroteev directly repeats Ehrenburg’s assessment of Vasily Grossman’s novel “For a Just Cause”: “He showed the war honestly, it really happened ...”
Not everyone maneuvers, not everyone is silent, seeing the outrages. The elder Pukhov is not silent, Sokolovsky attacks both the director of the plant and the newspapermen ("they described the plant as if it were paradise"). Volodya Pukhov still has a consolation, born of the passing time: “I didn’t drip on anyone, I didn’t drown anyone.” The fact that he betrayed himself, art, does not seem to count.
The critics seemed unexpected and unjustifiably upbeat image of Saburov. They did not see how polemical the author is in depicting just such an artist, whose paintings are not bought or exhibited. Time seems to have left him no place in art. There was a simplified, pragmatic idea of the tasks of painting, supported by a monumental, large-scale. Everything else went under the heading of "formalism". And it was already dreaming that Ehrenburg was calling all of our art "to take the path of Saburov, the path of isolation, detachment from life." Of course, the writer was ironic, talking about another hack by Pukhov - a panel for an agricultural exhibition depicting cows and chickens. Here no one would have seen a “separation from life”, but the portrait of the artist Saburov’s wife, his landscapes are something not “mainstream”, outdated, like reasoning about Raphael, about the sense of color, about composition.
Ehrenburg argued in his objections to critics that his story was not about art. But he hoped for a renewal of society, the whole atmosphere of life. What today has become the pattern of life was a revelation in 1954. The characters talk about things they don't want to put up with. Saburov - about photographs that replace paintings, engineer Savchenko - about the double-mindedness that has settled in people. “You probably haven’t been to such discussions for a long time, but a lot has changed ... The book touched a sore point - people too often say one thing, but in their personal lives they act differently.” Sokolovsky cannot find a word to explain himself to Vera Grigorievna, he is not a timid boy and expresses his condition, feeling the full weight of the experience: “It seems that our hearts are frozen through and through.”
In the club of a large industrial city - a full house. The hall is packed, people stand in the aisles. An extraordinary event: a novel by a young local writer is published. Participants of the reader's conference praise the debutant: everyday work is reflected accurately and vividly. The heroes of the book are truly the heroes of our time.
But one can argue about their "personal life", says one of the leading engineers of the plant Dmitry Koroteev. Not a penny is typical here: a serious and honest agronomist could not fall in love with a windy and flirtatious woman, with whom he does not have common spiritual interests, in addition - the wife of his comrade! The love described in the novel seems to be mechanically transferred from the pages of bourgeois literature!
Koroteev's speech causes a heated debate. More discouraged than others - although they do not express it aloud - are his closest friends: the young engineer Grisha Savchenko and the teacher Lena Zhuravleva (her husband is the director of the plant, sitting on the presidium of the conference and frankly pleased with the sharpness of Koroteev's criticism).
The dispute about the book continues at Sonya Pukhova's birthday party, where she comes straight from Savchenko's club. " clever man, but performed on a stencil! Grisha gets excited. - It turns out that the personal has no place in literature. And the book touched everyone to the quick: too often we still say one thing, but in our personal lives we act differently. The reader yearned for such books! - “You are right,” one of the guests, the artist Saburov, nods. “It’s time to remember what art is!” - “But in my opinion, Koroteev is right,” Sonya objects. - soviet man learned to control nature, but he must learn to control his feelings ... "
Lena Zhuravleva has no one to exchange opinions with about what she heard at the conference: she has lost interest in her husband for a long time, it seems, from the day when, at the height of the “doctors’ case”, she heard from him: “You can’t trust them too much, that’s indisputable.” The dismissive and merciless “him” shocked Lena. And when, after a fire at the factory, where Zhuravlev showed himself to be a fine fellow, Koroteev spoke of him with praise, she wanted to shout: “You don’t know anything about him. This is a soulless person!”
That is also why Koroteev’s speech at the club upset her: he seemed to her so whole, extremely honest both in public, and in a conversation face to face, and alone with his own conscience ...
The choice between truth and lies, the ability to distinguish one from the other - this calls for all the heroes without exception to lead the time of the "thaw". The thaw is not only in the social climate (Koroteev’s stepfather returns after seventeen years of imprisonment; relations with the West are openly discussed at a feast, the opportunity to meet with foreigners; there are always brave souls at the meeting, ready to contradict the authorities, the opinion of the majority). This is the thaw of everything “personal”, which for so long it was customary to conceal from people, not to let out of the door of one’s house. Koroteev is a front-line soldier, there was a lot of bitterness in his life, but this choice is painful for him too. At the party bureau, he did not find the courage to stand up for the leading engineer Sokolovsky, to whom Zhuravlev feels hostility. And although after the ill-fated party bureau, Koroteev changed his mind and directly announced this to the head of the department of the city committee of the CPSU, his conscience did not calm down: “I have no right to judge Zhuravlev, I am the same as him. I say one thing, but I live differently. Probably, today we need other, new people - romantics, like Savchenko. Where can I get them? Gorky once said that we need our Soviet humanism. And Gorky has been gone for a long time, and the word "humanism" has disappeared from circulation - but the task remains. And solve it - today.
The reason for the conflict between Zhuravlev and Sokolovsky is that the director is disrupting the housing construction plan. Storm, first spring days having flown into the city, destroying several dilapidated barracks, causes a response storm - in Moscow. Zhuravlev goes to Moscow on an urgent call for a new appointment (of course, with a demotion). In the collapse of his career, he blames not the storm, and even more so not himself - Lena who left him: the departure of his wife is immoral! In the old days for this ... And Sokolovsky is also to blame for what happened (he was almost in a hurry to report the storm to the capital): “It’s a pity, after all, that I didn’t kill him ...”
There was a storm - and it was gone. Who will remember her? Who will remember director Ivan Vasilyevich Zhuravlev? Who remembers the past winter, when loud drops fall from icicles, until spring is just a stone's throw away?..
It was difficult and long - like the way through snowy winter to the thaw - the path to the happiness of Sokolovsky and the "pest doctor" Vera Grigorievna, Savchenko and Sonya Pukhova, drama theater actress Tanechka and Sonya's brother artist Volodya. Volodya overcomes his temptation with lies and cowardice: at the discussion art exhibition he lashes out at Saburov's childhood friend - "for formalism." Repenting of his meanness, asking for forgiveness from Saburov, Volodya admits to himself the main thing that he did not realize for too long: he has no talent. In art, as in life, the main thing is talent, and not loud words about ideology and popular demands.
Be people need now Lena is striving, having found herself again with Koroteev. Sonya Pukhova also experiences this feeling - she confesses to herself that she loves Savchenko. In love, conquering trials in both time and space: they barely managed to get used to one separation from Grisha (after the institute, Sonya was assigned to a plant in Penza) - and here Grisha has a long way to go, to Paris, for an internship, in a group of young specialists.
Spring. Thaw. She is felt everywhere, everyone feels her: both those who did not believe in her, and those who were waiting for her - like Sokolovsky, going to Moscow, to meet his daughter Masha, Mary, a ballerina from Brussels, completely unknown to him and very dear, with whom he dreamed of seeing all his life.
You have read the summary of the story "The Thaw". We also suggest that you visit the Summary section to read the presentations of other popular writers.
Ehrenburg Ilya
Thaw
PART ONE
Maria Ilyinishna was worried, her glasses slipped down to the tip of her nose, and her gray curls bounced up and down.
The floor is given to Comrade Brainin. Get ready Comrade Koroteev.
Dmitri Sergeevich Koroteev slightly raised his narrow dark eyebrows, as he always did when he was surprised; meanwhile, he knew that he would have to speak at a reader's conference - he had been asked about this a long time ago by the librarian Maria Ilyinishna, and he agreed.
Everyone at the plant treated Koroteev with respect. Director Ivan Vasilyevich Zhuravlev recently admitted to the secretary of the city committee that without Koroteev, the production of high-speed cutting machines would have to be postponed until the next quarter. Dmitry Sergeevich was appreciated, however, not only as a good engineer - they were amazed at his comprehensive knowledge, intelligence, and modesty. Chief designer Sokolovsky, man, general opinion, caustic, never once said a bad word about Koroteev. And Maria Ilyinishna, having once talked with Dmitry Sergeevich about literature, enthusiastically said: “He exclusively feels Chekhov! ..” It is clear that the reader's conference, for which she was preparing More than a month, like a schoolgirl for a difficult exam, could not pass without Koroteev.
Engineer Brinin spread out a pile of papers in front of him; he spoke very quickly, as if he was afraid that he would not have time to say everything, sometimes he stammered painfully, put on his glasses and rummaged through the papers.
Despite the shortcomings that those who spoke before me rightly pointed out, the novel has, so to speak, a great educational value. Why did the agronomist Zubtsov fail in afforestation? The author correctly, so to speak, posed the problem - Zubtsov misunderstood the significance of criticism and self-criticism. Of course, Shebalin, secretary of the party organization, could help him, but the author vividly showed what the neglect of the principle of collegial leadership leads to. The novel will be able to enter the golden fund of our literature if the author, so to speak, takes into account criticism and reworks some episodes ...
The club was full, people stood in the aisles, near the doors. The novel of the young author, published by the regional publishing house, apparently excited the readers. But Brynin plagued everyone with long quotations, and "so to speak," and in a boring, official voice. He was applauded sparingly for decency. Everyone perked up when Maria Ilyinishna announced:
The floor is given to Comrade Koroteev. Get ready Comrade Stolyarova.
Dmitry Sergeevich spoke vividly, they listened to him. But Maria Ilyinishna frowned: no, he spoke differently about Chekhov. Why did he run into Zubtsov? It is felt that he did not like the novel ... Koroteev, however, praised the novel: the images of both the tyrant Shebalin and the young honest communist Fedorova are true, and Zubtsov looks alive.
Frankly, I just didn’t like how the author reveals Zubtsov’s personal life. The case he describes is, first of all, implausible. And there is nothing typical here. The reader does not believe that the overly self-confident, but honest agronomist fell in love with the wife of his comrade, a coquettish and windy woman, with whom he has no common spiritual interests. It seems to me that the author was chasing cheap entertainment. Right, our Soviet people spiritually purer, more serious, and Zubtsov's love is somehow mechanically transferred to the pages Soviet novel from the works of bourgeois writers ...
Koroteev was carried out with applause. Some liked the irony of Dmitry Sergeevich: he told how some writers, arriving on a creative business trip, with a notebook, briefly question a dozen people and announce that they "collected material for a novel." Others were flattered that Koroteev considered them people more noble and mentally more complex than the hero of the novel. Still others applauded because Koroteev is generally smart.
Zhuravlev, who was sitting on the presidium, loudly said to Maria Ilyinishna: "Well, he whipped him, that's indisputable." Maria Ilyinishna did not answer.
Zhuravlev's wife, Lena, a teacher, seemed to be the only one who didn't applaud. She is always original! Zhuravlev sighed.
Koroteev sat down in his place and vaguely thought: the flu is coming. It's silly to fall ill now: I have Brainin's project on me. It was not necessary to speak: he repeated elementary truths. My head hurts. It's unbearably hot in here.
He did not listen to what Katya Stolyarova was saying, and flinched at the clapping that interrupted her words. He knew Katya from work: she was a cheerful girl, whitish, without eyebrows, with an expression of some unceasing admiration for life. He forced himself to listen. Katya objected to him:
I don't understand Comrade Koroteev. I won't say that this novel is classically written, like Anna Karenina, for example, but it is captivating. I have heard this from many. And what does the "bourgeois writers" have to do with it? A person, in my opinion, has a heart, so he suffers. What's wrong with that? I’ll say frankly, I also had such moments in my life ... In a word, it takes for the soul, so you can’t brush it aside ...
Koroteev thought: well, who could say that the funny Katya has already experienced some kind of drama? “A man has a heart” ... He suddenly forgot, did not listen to the speakers anymore, did not see either Maria Ilyinishna, or a prickly brown-gray palm tree, or shields with books, looked at Lena - and all the torment recent months came to life. Lena never looked at him, but he wanted it and was afraid. This was the case every time they met. But even in the summer he talked to her at ease, joked, argued. Then he often visited Zhuravlev, although in his heart he did not like him - he considered him too complacent. He visited Zhuravlev, most likely because he was pleased to talk with Lena. Interesting woman, in Moscow, I did not meet this. Of course, there is less chatter here, people read more, there is time to think. But Lena is an exception here too, one can feel a deep nature. It is not even clear how she can live with Zhuravlev? She is a head taller than him. But they seem to live together, their daughter is already five years old ...
More recently, Koroteev calmly admired Lena. The young engineer Savchenko once told him: "I think she is a real beauty." Dmitry Sergeevich shook his head. "No. But her face is memorable ... "Lena had golden hair, red in the sun, and green foggy eyes, sometimes fervent, sometimes very sad, and most often incomprehensible - it seems, another minute - and she will all disappear, disappear in the oblique beam of dusty, indoor sun.
It was good then, thought Korolev. He went outside. Well, a blizzard! But when I went to the club, it was quiet ...
Koroteev walked in semi-consciousness, did not remember either the reader's conference or his speech. Before him was Lena - the ruin of his life, feverish dreams recent weeks, powerlessness in front of him, which he did not know before. True, his comrades considered him a success - everything worked out for him, in two years he gained universal recognition. But after all, he had not only these two years behind him; he recently turned thirty-five, and life did not always indulge him. He knew how to deal with difficulties. His face, long and dry, with a high, convex forehead, gray eyes, sometimes cold, sometimes affectionately condescending, with a stubborn crease near the mouth, betrayed will.
A few years later, in a sultry August, he marched across the steppe with a retreating division. He was gloomy, but did not lose heart. For some reason, it was on him that the general took out his anger, called him a coward and a selfish person in front of everyone, threatened to bring him to justice. Koroteev calmly said to his comrade: “It’s good that he swears. So, we'll get out ... ”Shortly after that, a shell fragment hit him in the shoulder. He lay in the hospital for six months, then returned to the front and fought to the end. He was in love with the signalman Natasha; their battalion was already fighting in Breslau when it turned out that she reciprocated; she said: “You look cold, it’s even scary to approach, but your heart doesn’t, I immediately felt it ...” He dreamed: the war would end - there would be happiness. Natasha died absurdly - from a mine that exploded on the streets of Dresden on May 10, when no one thought about death anymore. Koroteev endured his grief steadfastly, none of his comrades had any idea how hard it was for him. Only much later, when his mother said to him: “Why don't you get married? After all, you are over thirty, I will die - and there is no one to look after, ”he admitted:“ Mom, I lost happiness in the war. Now it doesn’t cross my mind…”
The popular film history has received a second life - the Eksmo publishing house publishes two parts of the novel, written based on the film by Valery Todorovsky. We learned from the author Irina Muravyova how the book is fundamentally different from the series.
Let's remember the series
Moscow, 1961. Cameraman Viktor Khrustalev, a talented cameraman of Mosfilm, gets into difficult situation. He is somehow involved in the death of a friend, a talented screenwriter Kostya Parshin, who committed suicide. Khrustalev needs to shoot the collective farm comedy "The Girl and the Brigadier" in order to get permission to make a film according to a wonderful script left after the deceased screenwriter. This scenario wants to put a young director Yegor Myachin. Khrustalev arranges him as an intern for the venerable director Krivitsky for a collective farm comedy. Starring in the same film ex-wife Khrustaleva Inga and his young lover Maryana, with whom Yegor Myachin also falls in love.
Who removed Khrustalev Sr.
Irina, before they made films based on books, but now they write books based on scripts?
The Eksmo publishing house ordered me to write a book based on the film. I agreed because I was sure that it was very simple. Well, hack and hack. Moreover, they promised to send me a script, where everything is already written. When I printed out the script, it turned out to be a chest of paper. I started reading and clutched my head: the book is not there! There is a blank for the film and a sketch for prose. By the way, this is the peculiarity of any script: the whole burden falls on the art of the director and acting game. Take any classic. For example, "My beautiful lady". Would you remember this movie without Audrey Hepburn? Or "The Cranes Are Flying" without Tatyana Samoilova? So I quickly had to come to terms with the fact that this job would not be easy. I hope the book does not drop itself in this genre of good love action novel.
How is the plot of the novel different from the script?
Anyone who has watched the film probably remembers that the sharpest dramatic knot of the Thaw is the story of Viktor Khrustalev, whom the investigator Tsanin suspects of the murder of screenwriter Parshin and, hating Khrustalev from the first minute, begins to dig up his entire biography. This is where it turns out that there is a dark spot in Khrustalev's fate: his father freed him from being drafted into the army when the war was coming to an end. How did you free? Khrustalev received a reservation and worked in his father's design bureau all the time that remained until the end of the war. Tsanin, having got to the bottom of this ins and outs in the life of the hero, exposes him in the central newspaper. Khrustalev Sr. is sent to retire. You know, when such twists and turns are hidden inside the film, their absurdity is almost imperceptible, but in the book! And even better to say: but in life! It's like a razor across the eyes. We begin to understand: who is Khrustalev's father? Most likely, this is a cast from the main Soviet missile engineer Korolev. How did Korolyov live? Such a life is defined as: top secret. What district investigator would dare bark at the head of state space development? Yes, this poor fellow-investigator would have been taken under his white hands, bound in a straitjacket, and they would not have remembered him again. In my "struggle" with the script, this was perhaps the most difficult moment. Nearly broke my head. And this is what she came up with: they want to shoot Khrustalev Sr. from above. This chief rocket man hinders someone very highly, someone wants to put another in his place. The petty district investigator Tsanin receives the task from above, to rummage through the "bottlenecks", "hook" the elder Khrustalev through the younger.
Well, just Othello, not Thaw.
And what about the love lines? Is everything logical there?
There were also difficulties. There is a lot of passion in the script. Well, just "Thaw", not "Thaw". As far as I could count, there are only two leitmotifs: “their bodies are intertwined” and “she gives him a slap in the face.” They intertwine really often, and there are surprisingly many “muzzles”. But as for logic and psychological validity... Here I make a deep pause.
Could you please explain with examples?
Happy and in love, Maryana asks Khrustalev to go with her to the kennel, where dogs are trained for the border service. There, Maryana has a “pupil” Tema, a wonderful two-year-old shepherd dog, who is not fit for service, because she is very funny, clumsy, but everyone loves her, and Maryana visits the dog twice a week. They approach, hugging tightly, to the booth, Theme jumps out to meet them, licks Maryana, and she, joyful and ingenuous, says to Khrustalev: “Pet him, Vitya! Don't be afraid!" Khrustalev holds out his hand, and Tema grabs his finger from jealousy. And then I read in amazement in the script: "Khrustalev says:" We need to part. Turns around and leaves." This is not Temochka, a stupid dog, he says, but to his beloved woman Maryana. In the film, you will not notice anything: it is well played. But I did not release this piece in the book, I wrote it in my own way. But this is a trifle. And there is great examples. Why does Maryana, who almost lost her mind from grief that Khrustalev, her only beloved, leave her, connects with Myachin and not only jumps out to marry him - it would be all right - but why is she, lying with him in bed, giggling according to the script ? She has a child from Khrustalev under her heart, and she giggles. It's strange somehow. Maybe, indeed, something was wrong with her head ... Ofelia also sang songs. So, I had to completely throw out everything connected with this giggle, and throw out the “chuckle” itself, and write why she is still lying in bed with Myachin and how she is there, sweet and timid. While writing all this, I experienced and honed every word as if it were not a novel based on motives, but my own, the most vital and close to me idea. And here's another: why does Khrustalev refuse Maryana? Because on film set no one should know that this is his mistress? Yes, according to the logic of his character, he does not care what anyone says! And even vice versa: nice. Annoy Inga once again. And why does Maryana, who just honestly told Myachin: “I DO NOT love you,” suddenly love him? Why does Pichugin, taking into account his orientation, joyfully bring cameraman Lusya to his grandmother as his bride, who rescued him from prison in a very funny, but implausible way? I will not list everything. I repeat once again: the script is a blank, a sketch. But to the credit of this particular scenario, I must say that all the brightest lights are lit in it: love, betrayal, passion, career, just experienced Stalinism, the ghost of recent camps, a complex partisan theme. Rich material, colorful.
Inga is not just a woman, she is a wife
By the way, why do you think Khrustalev is breaking up with Maryana? How did you do it in the book?
Firstly, Khrustalev is himself a neurotic, a psychopath. This character is wonderfully portrayed in the film. A taciturn, reserved, strong psychopath. Almost like Pechorin. But not only in this matter. It occurred to me to make his consciousness somewhat heavier, or something. I endow Khrustalev with a sense of not abstract guilt, as is done in the script, but quite concrete. He is not just so ashamed - not like that, you know, leavened patriotism, like a white veil on the background eternal flame- he is ashamed for a simple and burning reason: he alone escaped this last call, and his entire class, all the boys with whom he fought, made friends, competed, etc., went and died. The whole class. And his memory can't handle it. And so, conscience. He is a wounded, broken man. And his difficult relationship with his father is complicated precisely because he twice owes his life to him. He is one of those people who demand warmth, but do not give it themselves. They demand love, but they themselves respond to it with passion. And passion is an insidious, crafty thing. Why does he return to Inga, why do they try to live as a family again and figure out if they have enough money for a vacation and a new refrigerator? Not just because Inga saved him from a terrible accusation of murder, but because she suddenly became a native. He is taken out of the pre-trial detention center, he approaches, they hug each other and freeze. He is not afraid at this moment. She is not a woman, not a mistress, she is a wife.
But then why does it all stop? Why, in the finale, standing on the footboard of the carriage, does he offer Maryana to leave with him? Mariana, not Inge?
It's just as simple. Inga betrays him precisely from the point of view that I just spoke about. She again turns out to be not a wife, but a woman who cares about her career. She kicks him out of the house because he jeopardized her career. And he does not need such an Inga.
And Mariana?
Mariana is my favorite. Maryana is his youth, his tenderness, his tenderness, which, due to his alertness and inner distrust, he resists with all his might. He is angry with her, jealous of her, at times she seems to him mediocrity, he categorically does not accept her sudden connection with Myachin (really unfounded according to the script, but subtly played by the actors), moreover, this connection causes physical disgust in him, he is the owner, but he cannot resist Maryanina's bewitching charms.
The finale is still a secret
And how did Maryana find herself at the station? Did you understand it?
I came up with this explanation in the novel. She came to follow. But not Khrustalev. Another man. But let it be a secret for now. As well as many other things. After all, I even composed for the grandmother of Mariana and Sanchi difficult fate. And then she is somehow sugary, this grandmother, she bakes all the pies. There were no such grandmothers! They are in the last century. And a woman who had two orphaned grandchildren in her arms, and their parents were shot or, perhaps, rotting in camps, who went through the war, and evacuation, and returned to Moscow - such a woman is not very up to pies. Those are stamps. Happy forties, Volga-Volga. And I needed a book. Therefore, "grandmother" had to be written again. And at the same time, Maryana's brother Alexander Pichugin. Young man, westerner, besides unconventional sexual orientation, in the early sixties ... There was something to work on. Yes, and Maryana is not just sweet and timid, she is a tough nut to crack, and her fate will not be radiant. And Myachin? He is impetuous, unpredictable, often ridiculous. Therefore, what will happen when Maryana has a child, no one knows. If I were Valery Todorovsky, I would still shoot, the script has a lot of plot "stash" ...
About the writer
Irina Muravieva is a Russian writer, publicist, editor and literary critic based in Boston, USA. Born in 1952 in Moscow. She graduated from the Faculty of Philology of Moscow State University, was engaged in translations of poetry from English and German. In 1985, she emigrated to America with her family. For several years she taught Russian at Harvard University. Author of twenty novels, many stories, one of which ("On the Edge") was included in the "26 the best works Women Writers of the World (1998). Creativity Muravyova continues the traditions of Russian classic novel. It has been translated into eight languages. Author's novel Funny boys”, dedicated to the love of Soviet schoolchildren, in the early 2000s caused heated debate and entered the short list Booker Prize. In 2009, the book "The Love of Frau Kleist" was awarded the "Big Book" award. The novel "Angel's Day" was included in the long list of the award " Yasnaya Polyana"(2011)," Young lady "- shortlisted Bunin Prize (2011).
An excerpt from the book by Irina Muravyova “The Thaw. Ice will melt on my lips ":
Khrustalev's acquaintance with Maryana:
Ryazanov's film "The Man from Nowhere" was shown at the Khudozhestvenny cinema on the Arbat. Rumors spread at Mosfilm that Suslov made a scandal after watching and the film was about to be banned. Khrustalev parked the car in a side street, took a ticket for a seven-hour show, and sat down in the penultimate row. From the very beginning, the film began to annoy him: too much scoffing. "He's really afraid to bite, but he yelps loudly," he thought of Ryazanov, whom, in fact, he had always sympathized with. He liked Yursky and Papanov less than Morgunov, who had episodic role cooks.
“And yet no one, even the finest actor, can save a weak film,” he thought. “It’s all about, whatever one may say, the director and screenwriter.”
I really wanted to eat, but there was nothing at home. It's good that at least Eliseevsky is still open. Khrustalev jumped out into the rain, ran inside, took a box of sardines, doctor's sausage and two loaves. He now has a lot of cognac, enough for a long time. There were people standing at the trolley bus stop. He suddenly noticed a dark-haired, soaking wet girl with big eyes. Her umbrella broke, and she covered herself with it, half closed. Her figurine reminded him of that thin one whom Myachin had courted at the monument two hours before. Coincidence, of course. Are there not enough skinny ones? He stopped the Muscovite, opened the door ajar:
- Young woman! You will catch a cold! Sit down! I'll take you!
She hesitated.
- Do not be afraid! Sit down! After all, you're all wet!
She suddenly made up her mind and flew to him lighter than a feather.
- Thanks a lot. I'm really wet.
- Where are you going? Khrustalev asked. - Sorry, I forgot to introduce myself: Viktor Khrustalev, operator. And what is your name?
- Mariana. Mariana Pichugina.
He drove her to the house, old high-rise building on Plyushchikha. The conversation did not work out, because he suddenly caught himself on the fact that he was starting to worry. This has not happened for a long time. Haven't been for many years. And it doesn't need to happen again in his life, that's enough.
The girl had bright green eyes. But it's not about the color, it's about how she looks. A little like how Aska looks at him, with the same sympathetic surprise.
“I really don't want you to leave,” he said.
- I don't want to either.
Start kissing her right now, in the car? He clenched his hands into fists and tried not to let her notice.
– Do you want to come to me?
She looked at him furtively. Yes, it is very similar to Asuka.
- Want. Only now, how is the grandmother ... She is so worried ...
- Do you live with your grandmother?
“And my brother,” she said.
Think of something, huh? - Khrustalev said imploringly, unclenched his fists and impulsively embraced her.
Hair smells like rainwater and something else. Probably lily of the valley. All. I got caught.
“I'll tell my grandmother,” she whispered, “that I'll stay with Svetka. What are we doing, and it's raining outside...
He drove the car as if in a hurry to the plane, which is already on the runway, and now all his doors will close. The apartment was dark, but cool, because in the morning he had left all the windows open. She came in, holding her soaking wet sandals in her hands, and stopped at the table. She seems to be trembling. He pulled her close to him and started kissing her as he pulled off her wet dress. She closed her eyes, but didn't say a word even when all her clothes, except for her bra, which for some reason he couldn't unfasten, fell to the floor. Khrustalev did not even have time to be afraid of what did not immediately occur to him, and when it did, it was already too late:
She never had anyone!
He lifted her up in his arms, crossed the room with a few steps and, placing her on the couch, sank down beside her, without ceasing to embrace her. She grabbed his head with both hands, and Khrustalev heard her pounding heart.
He became a man at the end of the ninth grade. The lively Pioneer leader Galya, with a round nose sprinkled with orange freckles, said: “Let's go, I'll teach you.” She was desperate and maybe even a little crazy. After Gali there were other women. None of them Khrustalev did not become the first. Even Inga lost her virginity shortly before meeting him. When, having barely met at Borka Lifshitz's wedding, they immediately decided to run away, go to her in Shabolovka, and stood in the cold, hailing a taxi, Inga covered her mouth with an icy mitten and said muffledly, without looking into his eyes: “I recently broke up with my guy, he also studied at VGIK. We lived with him, but I never loved him.” The bliss of their first intimacy was mingled with his wild jealousy, and in the morning he asked her: “Did you sleep with him here? On this bed? And she again, without looking into his eyes, answered: “Yes. But now it doesn't matter at all."
Imagine that, passing by a bus stop, he will see a girl standing in the pouring rain, from whose face one can simply go crazy, and this girl will trustfully jump into his car and allow him to immediately take her to him, where it will become clear that no one had ever touched her, to imagine such a thing was like standing on tiptoe and getting the moon out of the sky. It suddenly seemed to him that, leaning on her with his big body, he would hurt her, and, despite acute impatience, Khrustalev slightly moved away, lay on his side, kissing her long and thin neck with a trembling bluish vein. He hesitated until she herself, desperately, awkwardly, impetuously, suddenly clung to him so tightly that her body became part of his body, and only then did he carefully part her obedient hot legs ...
After seeing Mariana to the bus stop in the morning - she never wanted him to take her by car - Khrustalev climbed the stairs to the apartment, and something strange happened in him: he felt how he wanted to live. Outside the walls of the house, another warm summer day flared up, promising nothing bad to anyone. From puddles that had not had time to dry after yesterday's downpour, barely noticeable steam rose. Each tree was washed and sparkled as if it had been prepared for a great celebration. Yes, live, live and live! Climb this cat-littered staircase, drink vodka, work, laugh, love. And even in anguish, even in wild resentment, there is life. Nothing that he piled on so much. Still fixable. After all, he was only thirty-six. There Feda Krivitsky is forty-eight, and he is about to have a baby. It means it’s not too late, it means everything will be fine, because this girl has such eyes, and she breathes so intermittently, gently and smells of lily of the valley, and so she simply obeyed him in bed ... How did she ask at night? "Am I really right for you?"
Mechanically, he felt in his trouser pocket a small key to mailbox got mail. A thick envelope caught his eye. He tore it apart. Summons, summons to the prosecutor's office. “On May 26, at 13:00, you must appear at Petrovka 38, office No. 18 to the investigator Tsanin A.M. to testify.”
He peered at the typed words, but they merged, and for a second he suddenly felt that he no longer understood their meaning.
