LANASKINO

Researching the meaning of films

[lanaskino]

The cartoon "Soul" was released at the end of 2020 and became a laureate and nominee of many international awards.

The plot is based on school music teacher Joe Gardner, who loves jazz, dreams of being a musician and conflicts with a domineering mother, and one day he dies.

The animation is good in Soul, of course: isn't it a miracle to see a cartoon character in a real sweater?

So why is Soul not a movie for everyone?

"Soul" is the reaction of the creators of the cartoon to their lives:

- outwardly smiling, procedural and well-fed corporate culture

- social structure of well-to-do people working in large corporations in California

- excessive pressure on the part of society on the topic of having goals and the indispensable achievement of these goals

- regular visits to psychoanalysts (hence the terms in the spirit of "birth trauma")

- own clichés of erudite people (for example, that Mother Teresa is a brand of kindness and compassion, and not a living person with her own history. Erudition includes the fact that Mother Teresa existed. The filling of this fact is "twisted" by accepted ideas).

It is them who sometimes want to “step down the hatch” to be given a pause from another deadline in a huge flowchart created so that a complex project like “Soul” will “air” on time, and stress.

They want to step like a child, so as not to die and no one noticed. They need someone kind to calm them down, explain everything and return it back, even deceiving the universe for their sake. After all, they are special.

It their dream to throw away their badge, running away from the next presentation and doing nothing, just breathing the warm California air and squinting in the sun.

Oddly enough, "Soul" is a very small-town product, but not a universal deep film about life and death, because the cartoon only flirts with complex themes, getting confused in them and not wanting to make a bold statement.

However, due to the spectacular wrapper made of the gorgeous animation, Soul seems like a profound piece.

The bad news is that it is also designed for a children's audience.

And a big question for the parents of children, and for the reader:

“Do you want your children or you yourself to be careless about the possibility of dying, just enjoy the wind in the park and answer everything with a shrug: “ Well, that's the kind of person I am ”?

[lanaskino]

A deep film by Krzysztof Zanussi about death and why one should embrace Life.

The main character Tomash falls mortally ill, and he himself seeks death. Death itself for him is like a spiral that is sewn up into him so that he does not tolerate alcohol. Death is a limitation with which Tomas seems to be trying to come to an agreement throughout the film, to find a balance of power, while deleting Life from his personal equation.

At first, he looks for an answer to his inner request for meaning, which he formulates in the form of questions to other characters in the film. However, none of the answers received: live for the sake of children, live for life, live for the sake of finding the meaning of life, live for the sake of closeness with other people - neither answer suits him.

When the hero despairs, meanings would come to him on their own, like visitors to a hospital, showing him love and attention, but he will be too fixated on horror to see them.

The entire film is a bitter metaphor about how a person searches for meaning, and how meaning tries to find a person himself, in cold  gloomy mountains and in dark interiors.

It is sad when a person becomes blind and weak from his own suffering so much that he refuses to see how much good other people have done to him, how much meaning he rejects, and most importantly, he does not notice that he himself could become such a meaning for someone. It doesn't matter for what period, even if not for long.

Mental loneliness is the hero's choice. And this choice, which leads him into emptiness and darkness. 

And probably the main sadness of Tomas's fate is that he refused to accept Life.

[lanaskino]

Blue Velvet is a kind fairy tale. Of course, not in the sugar-cloying shell of children’s stories.

The main character Jeff (Kyle McLachlan) arrives home due to his father's illness. In the meantime, Jeff is attracted by the secrets of a small town, which  invites him into the world of adventure with a cut off ear. An intrigued young man rushes into his own investigation along with the young daughter of a detective named Sandy (Lara Dern).

The dangers that are innumerable: the gloomy criminal life of a prosperous town with roses blooming near snow-white fences, madness, violence, suffering, sexual perversion - excite Jeff's imagination.

As a result, he not only manages to defeat the dragon in the form of the insane criminal Frank Booth (Dennis Hopper), free a woman in trouble (Isabella Rossellini), save the child, get the girl of his dreams and live perfectly in his sunny paradise with robins and eternal happiness.

Isn't this a fairy tale?

Lynch creates a whimsical world where a growing up young man can lift the blue velvet curtain separating the "decent" world from the "indecent" one, the normal from the abnormal.

Lynch seems to say: there is a terrible bottom in the world, where unpleasant "insects" live - horror, groaning, fear, anger. This is the world of the shadows of that bright sun that illuminates well-kept lawns and respectable smiles.

Everything ugly is generated by the suffering of the same smiling people from the infernal otherworldly evil. Evil, which then in Twin Peaks will be embodied in Bob.

Look at Booth (Dennis Hopper's character). He seems to be replaying some cruel traumatizing episode, he recreates it over and over again and cannot shake off his suffering: he needs just such a dress, just such a song until a certain moment.

His suffering breeds a new evil: he hurts Dorothy (Isabella Rossellini), and she almost destroys Jeff with her suffering, but he is miraculously saved. He only looks into the world of shadows, studies it, saves everyone who needs it, including himself, and emerges back to tea parties and family comfort, where his father is healthy again.

Good and evil

In some reviews of Lynch's films, you can find that he shows that terrible monsters live behind the facades of prosperous America, but I think this is not entirely true. After all, this formulation sounds accusatory: they say, the facades are deceitful and hypocritical, but in fact all are vile and disgusting.

It seems to me that Lynch is a very touching child, for whom evil is mystical and infernal, monsters walk in him with grimaces of horror and cruelty, and goodness is sunny and clear, with wonderful dreams about robins that come true, with joy and family warmth.

And these worlds live side by side, there are foggy bridges or otherworldly borders between them, which the hero crosses in Blue velvet, and then comes back safe and sound.

This film is a beautiful and tender tale of Good and Evil, where robins will always fly to the main characters to please them, where dreams come true.

[lanaskino]

A wonderful film by Yuri Raizman about a careerist who does not know how to live.

This film-reflection can be relevant for people who are close to the ideas of workaholism, goal achievement, biohacking and other endless efficiency gains, and to whom a family ​​seems to be a burden. 

The character of Mikhail Ulyanov, who perfectly coped with his role, has been heading one of the leading enterprises of a large country for many years. He is an important boss named Abrikosov, whose mood is perceived as the weather by both his subordinates and his household. If he frowns, everyone calms down and prepares "umbrellas".

Private life

Unexpectedly for himself, he gets fired. Having found himself without his daily work duties, Abrikosov has to face the other parts of life: family, his health, friends and an abundance of free time. As an effective person should, after anger and resentment, he makes a to-do list.

The first point is to check your health. In the clinic, the doctors applauded.

The second point is an old friend who once saved him from a bullet. It turns out that he died. 2 years earlier.

What is not on this list is his family, and his family is quite complex: two spouses, three children, two grandchildren, mother-in-law. And he has no relationship, no communication.

But the worst thing is that each of the family members sadly puts before him a huge full-length mirror showing himself. And this sincere reflection scares him so much that he runs away from the family.

And what’s even worse: he has to realize that not only is he a weak family person, but also he is not a leader at work. 

He is too weak, so he chooses an understandable scenario: to become a reliable performer of the highest echelon with a tie tied and a neat suit, then to retire as a deeply old man with even less chances to ever heal. His poor choice leads to a scenario where nobody would respond to his request: Please give me your hand’. Nor would he be able to ever give a hand to somebody who needs it. 

And even further he moves away from the scenario where it is not necessary to ask for a it, because someone close is already holding him by the hand. He condemned himself to a terrible old age alone, surrounded by stranger relatives.

[lanaskino]

A crack in the soul

The film "Fool" by Yuri Bykov was released in 2014. The plot is based on a crumbling dormitory building and a hero named Nikitin, who tries to save its inhabitants, but encounters obstacles.

It would seem a usual story about the struggle of an undoubtedly positive hero with the many-headed hydra of social problems and evil, albeit with a gloomy end.

Only in such stories it is important to separate the message of the film from its slogan in the form of distracting irritants: recognizable everyday problems, loud alcoholics and corrupt officials. 

The film's slogan is accusatory, and the audience considered it at times: we live in a country rotten through and through, where a sincere person looks like a fool. This means "Fool" is a diagnosis of a sick society, a topical cinema and a masterpiece that reveals the harsh truth of life. The hero himself seems unconditionally positive and suffered for his love for people.

But this is a slogan. And what is the director really pushing us to? 1. He says that if you go against the authorities and human bestiality, you will leave your own children orphans. It turns out that Bykov offers the viewer three scenarios: - theft and life in abundance

- bestiality and life in poor conditions

- death

And since the morally pleasant choice to be a "good person" means death, the tone of many reviews is not surprising: they say, I hope that many after watching will choose the right path, despite its doom.

And of course, let it be many, and not "we" or "I", because it is unnatural for a person to wish for death, so let someone else lay down like a bone. And if someone else is, it means no one, because being a "good person" is unprofitable and unnatural.

2. And what does it mean to be a "good person", according to Bykov? The hero's hypertrophies, the sweet atmospheric "Good Night" of the cult movie for many, are doing their job. The hero seems to the viewer to be an unconditionally good person, whose merits are not indifferent to people. This means that on a superficial examination, we can conclude: to be indifferent to people means to be a good person, to be an alternative to a thief and socially disadvantaged alcoholic drug addicts.

And what does Bykov call for? To be a good person? Pay attention to how the hero dies. Those whom he wanted to save beat him down, and the house remained standing.

The filmmakers had many options. After all, if the house even hinted that it is ready to fall this very second, then all the efforts of the hero are not in vain. And the viewer would understand that he was not hurt in vain.

So, Bykov says as if: to be a good person is not worth it. Everything will be in vain. Don't even try.

Bykov's demonstrativeness, designed to evoke monosyllabic emotions in the viewer, reduces the field for critical assessment of the hero to a minimum, and it is worth it.

In my opinion, the hero is a stupid person who lives a little better than the inhabitants of the hostel. But only a fool is he not by his desire to save people, as presented in the film.

He is a fool because he is really a narrow-minded person, straightforward and short-sighted.

He not only did not solve the main problem (resettlement of people from the emergency house), but also led everything to a tragedy (the death of two people, his own death, the destruction of the family). In this context, we can recommend the #Zanussi movie "Camouflage" if you are moved by reasoning about the goals and means of achieving them.

But the hero had something to start with - his own family.

Look, he has a wife and a son. They live with his parents, an elderly couple: a father like him and a large mother in her inner anger. Both women do not support their men in their efforts to study and repair the shop, save some strangers.

The film shows that the hero, along the way, became disillusioned with his wife, so to speak, against the background of bright events, but in fact she was quite consistent.He knew she was that kind of person. 

And he did nothing to change her views so that together they could make the world a better place. He did not choose as his wife a person who was close in spirit. In addition, knowing what she was like, the hero completely entrusted her with raising his son, so that he would absorb her attitudes.

 And here he completely repeats his father, who apologizes for the fact that he and his wife (have you seen these father and mother, their relationship with each other, their relationship to their son, grandson and daughter-in-law?) brought him up wrong, because there is no love in this life, no joy, no hope for the best. 

But aren’t love, joy and hope inner qualities? 

Nobody can love, rejoice and hope for you.

What prevented them from learning to love each other, to put joy in the house, to live in hope? It depended only on themselves.They failed, and therefore the hero knows neither love, nor joy, nor hope.And so he doesn't think about his son. One of the users wrote that he hoped that the gene for the "fool" would be passed on to his son. It will be so, only in this context: he, too, will know neither love, nor joy, nor hope, and will not educate and nurture them in himself.

The house with a crack is not Russia, it is the hero of the Fool himself, who for all 30 years did not look after his house, his soul, his family, and then "suddenly" discovered a critical crack and rushed to hastily save everyone, bringing himself and his family to the extreme and tragedy.

Bykov's "Fool" is a manifesto, a banner at a demonstration about a disgusting reality in which it is so difficult to be good, but not a subtle live movie about living complex people.

That is why it is clearly directed at external vices, but not at the root causes, because it would be "boring" and not so expressive.And the manifesto is intended to kindle the hearts of people, and the film succeeds.

Only one question remains: And what does the director push the people whose hearts he kindled?

To depression, anger and the expectation that someone else will die for a better life.

And these are bad seeds.

[lanaskino]

Camouflage, like another film by Krzysztof Zanussi "The Crystal Sructure", is a movie about the clash of two worldviews.

In the summer camp of philologists, a young teacher named Yaroslav, who, at first glance, follows his romantic notions of always doing the right thing, encounters his older and cynical colleague Yakub.

Throughout the film, Yakub provokes Yaroslav and appears to be an unpleasant person whom people like Yaroslav are accustomed to blame for an imperfect world.

The idealist and romantic resists, but all his arguments, as well as his actions, do not surprise Yakub at all, who, observing wildlife, notes important parallels between animal life and the social reality of people.

Despite the bright end of the film, Yakub asks Yaroslav the key question earlier.

His question is simple: Does Yaroslav really want to achieve something in science or vegetate as an English teacher in a provincial school?

The price of choice is to learn and accept the rules of social games for your own purposes.

It is wonderful in this film how the two characters seem to change places in terms of the balance of power (and possibly the viewer's sympathies): at the end it turns out that Yaroslav is not at all such a principled and deeply convinced idealist, and Yakub, with all his cynical theories, sincerely helps the younger colleague to survive in the "social jungle".

[lanaskino]

In the film by Krzysztof Zanussi, two fundamentally different lifestyles collide. One is embodied by the host, Yan, who receives a guest, his fellow student Marek. 

Yan's hero runs a meteorological station in a small village, lives far from the comfort of city apartments, very close to nature and art. His days are filled with reading, listening to music, family worries about his wife and father. He collects water from the well, goes to the bathhouse, invents some new device. He follows his soul. Later we find out that the hero almost died and, having survived the trauma, is glad to live a calm and measured life in unity with nature, family, his hobbies, scientific research and simple communication with the inhabitants of the village.

Marek is a guest in the rural world. He is a successful scientist, receives prestigious positions, enjoys foreign business trips. His world is filled with material benefits: a car, an apartment, money. He is a city dweller, accustomed to the hustle and bustle and comfort.

Their realities collide, so that each eventually stays with his own. The director himself claimed that this is one of his most sincere films, and both characters are jealous of each other.

Of course, Zanussi reconciles them at the end of the film, showing that both cannot remain the same after their interaction: the city dweller is blinded by nature with energetic sunlight, and the villager sets up a scientific experiment, seeing what his friend showed him. It is customary to seek balance in everything, and Zanussi is looking for it in the finale of the picture.

Is there this balance?

Each of the heroes has its own story, its own life scenario.

It is worth looking at both from the standpoint of purity of intent. Receiving his guest, Yan innocently invites him to share his world. He warns from the doorway: don't expect comfort, but immerses him in a hunt, a bath, clean air, silence in which music sounds more beautiful, unhurried evenings and days. The attributes of wealth and social success brought by a friend: imported shaving foam, equipment, things - arouse his curiosity.

The guest enjoys the way of life offered to him, and then confesses: well, you can't do it all the time. Like, Yan is such a talented scientist, how can he vegetate in the wilderness?

Behind the straightforwardness and frankness worthy of being called a friend, another layer appears.

The guest came for two reasons.

Firstly, he wanted to get a free consultaion from his talented friend: his formula wouldn’t work. Secondly, he was instructed to "drag out" a comrade from the village by a senior colleague, who had already despaired of luring him to scientific work with the promise of a good life.

- You know that he is ready to issue you a warrant for an apartment in Warsaw right away? - Yes, yes, he wrote something about it a long time ago This is their exemplary dialogue.

To the guest's frankness that he is sorry to see how he buries his talent in the village, living as a pensioner, the host responds with the same frankness. Having examined his scientific achievement, which glorified him and gave a start to a sweet life, Yan found out that another group of scientists had made a discovery earlier, and Marek knew about it and just used their best practices, while not helping them.

The true essence of Marek is revealed. This leads to two conclusions. The first conclusion: the viewer may well ask the question: "Is the opportunity to use Oldspice worth such solutions? What is such fame and such material success worth?"

Second conclusion: Marek is not a Yan’s true friend and may never have been one. He doesn't know anything about Jan's experiences and life. Marek shows an increased interest in Jan's wife, while he is exclusively occupied with himself and his career, and his visit to Jan, and all their communication can hardly be called sincere.

And it seems as if the director himself did not want to notice this. And if this story is somehow based on the Zanussi’s life, then the reason for this "inattention", the desire to smooth it over, is curious.

Perhaps Zanussi was in Jan's place? Then such a collision would be too unpleasant.

Or Zanussi may have been in Marek's place?

Crystal Structure, like Zanussi's Spiral, Constant, and Shield Colors, is busy juxtaposing two different worlds. Like the collision of Plato and Aristotle, the ideal and the material. "Structure .." invites you to a whole world of contradictions and deep reflections not only about the way of life, but also about friendship, in the simple interiors of a heated house surrounded by prickly winter.

[lanaskino]

The film by the Lithuanian and Soviet filmmaker Vytautas Žalakevičius shows a small settlement, which is "looked after" by a local doctor.

Through his eyes we see its people, whom he accepts and tries to cure in his own way, literally and figuratively:

And an elderly couple, parents of a famous songwriter and singer, who comes home on a wave of fame and throws away all the old things, while his mother is afraid that he will throw away the results of her many years of work.

And a girl with a dog who is going through a personal drama.

And a upper-class married couple who cannot put their relationships in order themselves and involve other people in their conflicts.

And this doctor, of course, cannot cure death, but he can give life.

A touching story about the eternal and transitory in its everyday life.

[lanaskino]

This movie is not a masterpiece, but a funny film in its satire. Check out the burning poster at the beginning of the film, the contestants of the great beauty contest and the fight between the hero and his wife: he demands she watch the prizes, but they are being stolen every 5 minutes.

A small provincial town. The fire department is hosting a celebration in honor of the veteran. And it seems that they thought everything right: they prepared the gifts, and decided to decorate the hall, and they arranged the lottery, and set the tables, and started a beauty contest.

However, everything that could go wrong - went, but not by the will of fate, but because of greed, drunkenness, stupidity and irresponsibility, which spread en masse among all the guests and organizers of the party.

The film, of course, can be regarded as a universal satire on human vices, or you can extend it to the whole society and make a political manifesto out of it, because while the firefighters are busy destroying their celebration, the "ordinary" person "enjoys" the fire of his own house, and no one cannot help him.

Milos Forman, of course, received a lot of criticism in his homeland in Czechoslovakia, the fire brigades were offended - Forman presented them in a non-complimentary light. However, in the end, the film grossed a decent box office, was not banned, it was even shown on national television.

[lanaskino]

[lanaskino]

Krzysztof Zanussi's ‘The Constant Factor’: be like everyone else or die in the mountains

Year: 1980

Country: Poland

Conversations between the protagonist of the movie Krzysztof Zanussi "Constant" (1980) with a mathematician reveal the meaning of the whole movie.

Firstly, the characters discuss what a constant is. The mathematician defines it as follows: the most probable is so close in value to the mean that it can be considered as a constant value, that is, a constant - a certain "average person", a philistine who does "like everyone else."

Secondly, the hero longs to become not a constant, but an extreme, like his father, who "burned out" young, having fallen off a cliff high in the mountains. He likes to simplify the whole expression so that it all comes down to looking for an extreme.

The mathematician remarks to him that this is possible, but is not elegant, and  only in simple conditions, as far as possible from reality. A little more complexity, a little more factors - and the whole system proposed by the main character would crumble.

“I thought I was such a genius,” 

- the hero laments, but refuses to believe that all his efforts to “make the world a better place” are futile.

Everything ends badly. Precisely due to the fact that life is multifactorial and complex to the extent that it makes the protagonist's method impossible and destined for destruction.

However, the fact that in "this imperfect world" he cannot reach the extreme is not the worst thought for the hero.

The most heartbreaking thing is that he is a constant, if we consider not the details (attitude to bribes, official theft, etc.), but his personality.

He, just like the other characters in the film, is extremely busy with himself and his interests.

He likewise finds it difficult to rethink his behaviour and views.

He is just as preoccupied with external manifestations and details.

He likewise does not see others in their dynamics and depth.

He's like everyone else.

He is a human.

And this conclusion could free him from playing on the "banality-exclusiveness" field and give him the opportunity to think about the "seeds" of his actions in the most biblical sense, but it did not free him, since the hero did not come to it yet.

[lanaskino]

I love #movies about the war. And here you can’t get around the #FrancisFordCoppola #film “Apocalypse Today” (1979), firmly stuck in the lists of “best”, “top”, “cult” and other films recommended for viewing, crowned with prestigious awards (Cannes, Golden Globe, Oscars). But what is the picture about which is supposed to be admired? Apocalypse Today is a road movie, only instead of the usual highways, there is a muddy, sweaty river in the stuffy jungle of Southeast Asia, dragging a military boat with the main character to its denouement - a meeting with Kurtz. Beyond the borders of the permitted world, beyond the last outpost, the world of the unknown begins. Willard creeps closer and closer to Kurtz, who lived as a ghost in the archives that Willard read. And reading these notes, Willard forms an opinion not only about Kurtz, but about freedom: He could become a general, but decided to become himself And here we are faced with the arguments, apparently, of Coppola himself life is a bright passion, and freedom is to be yourself. But who exactly? “Have you ever thought about freedom from the opinions of others? And even from your opinions,” Kurtz asks Willard. Willard comes to Freedom in the interpretation of Kurtz and Coppola. Freedom is the absence of opinion, because none of the points of view can be suitable for personal experience, the absence of conventions, the complete absence of meaning and self-designation. But did he not find a great void? Is he viable? Is it freedom that he has acquired? I believe that "#ApocalypseToday" belongs to the category of mediocre films about the war. In my opinion, its semantic content is very superficial, as the glance of a person claiming the title of an intellectual, sitting in a comfortable chair and reasoning about the war. The visual part is like a clip - too pretentious, too theatrical, too pretty. Such a combination leads to the creation of a “sugary-sweet” movie - full of memorable images, memes, pretentiousness and a sweep of deep meaning, but it turns out to be an empty thing in itself. PS: the only person I like in the movie is Phillips. Obviously, Coppola does not like him and kills him easily

[lanaskino]

[lanaskino]

Pixar, having decided to construct the inner world of a person, of course, took risks. Let's keep silent about the fact that religious people may have a question: "Where is Riley's soul?"

By focusing on visualizing Riley's inner world, Pixar seems to have lost Riley herself, making her a field for the work of emotions, rather than a person who is capable of development, has her own will and a set of values that influences her behaviour.

One could say that the point is that Riley is only a child and that she is just learning to work with her emotions. It would be easy to agree with this statement if her parents, as well as cats and dogs, had a more developed internal structure.

But they are exactly the same biorobots in the cartoon.

[lanaskino]

[lanaskino]

Many people know "Groundhog Day" - a 1993 film starring Bill Murray. The plot is well known: TV meteorologist Phil travels to a small town to cover grounhog Phil's traditional prediction of winter.

He falls into a strange time loop and wakes up over and over again on the same day. So why does the hero manage to wake up at the end the next day? Is it about the healing power of love?

I think not.

Phil's character goes through 10 different behavioral stages that allow him to accept Death and Life, and this work on himself ensures him a happy ending.

5 stages of accepting Death

The first five stages fall on the acceptance of Death: Phil learns that he is "locked" in one day, that tomorrow will never come for him.

These five stages correspond to the Kübler-Ross Model, which describes the emotional stages of human acceptance:

1. Denial and isolation

Bill Murray's character is confused, refusing to believe that he is "dead."

2. Anger

Phil is annoyed by everything. The search for reasons (consulting a doctor and a psychoanalyst) only leads him to greater rage. It's impossible to communicate with Phil.

3. Bargaining

Since tomorrow never comes, he indulges in permissiveness (gluttony, casual sex, crime). This is bargaining for tomorrow - Phil's attitudes tell him that in no case should he do this, punishment will surely come for such a thing. And it can happen only the next day, which for Phil is equivalent to life.

4. Depression

Phil has exhausted all his options. He is overwhelmed with anxiety, and he seeks to get rid of it. That's when Phil turns to Rita (Andie MacDowell) for communication:

- Rita, if you had one day left to live, what would you do? - I don't know. What are you dying of?

This stage is also associated with a series of dates. Perhaps this part of the film can be perceived romantically: they say, how much does Murray's hero do to win Rita’s affections? However, the subsequent actions tell us a different story.

He despairs and is silent.

5. Acceptance

Phil realizes that tomorrow will never come for him. He has already expressed all his feelings. He calmly and methodically commits one suicide after another. He accepts his Death.

He learned to die, now he needs to learn to live.

5 stages of accepting Life

1. Openness and frankness instead of isolation and denial

Phil tells Rita everything sincerely, seeking intimacy with another person. And only at this stage Phil really begins to see other people: he first realizes the character of Rita.

2. Thirst for self-improvement instead of anger

Phil sees himself as he is. He understands that he can grow and he is engaged in self-development: he reads a lot, learn to play the piano, make sculptures out of ice.

3. Full acceptance of the inevitability of death instead of bargaining

This is demonstrated to him by a homeless man who dies anyway, despite Phil's best efforts.

4. Need for salvation and help to others instead of depression

This 3-stage realization brings Phil to the next stage, in which he saves lives and helps them in every way.

5. Life instead of Death

After going through all the stages, Phil is now able to accept Life, so the filmmakers allow him to go into "tomorrow".

[lanaskino]

In the coming year, I wish everyone to find their inner Grinch and enlarge the green heart, fill it with strength, so that the christmas lights shine inside!

The story of the Grinch has gone through several adaptations, including the 2018 animated film "The Grinch" and the 2000 film "The Grinch Stole Christmas".

Both commercially successful ventures are based on the book by Dr. Seuss about the malevolent green creature Grinch, who lives in seclusion on a mountain near the small town, where Christmas fans live. They are obsessed with the attributes of the holiday and prefer not to notice their neighbor who hates the holiday.

The moral of the story is simple: the Grinch will have to understand that the holiday is not so bad if you open your heart to others, and the snub-nosed townspeople will realize that gifts and external tinsel are not the main thing.

Comparing the 2000 versus 2018 version of the story, I like the movie with Jim Carrey and Anthony Hopkins as the narrator.

A girl from 2000, looking at the race for gifts, similar to an obsession, timidly asks her father: "Is this not too much?"

And the girl makes efforts, reminding the adults of their own laws that they are making a holiday for everyone, and therefore for Grinch, whom, by the way, they themselves offended.

The girl from 2018 wants Santa Claus to help her mother, who works hard. It would seem, what is wrong? The girl made an altruistic wish.

“Doesn't that make her better than those who run for gifts in the malls?”

“I'm afraid it doesn't.

After all, those who run are also eager to buy a gift not for themselves, but for their friends and relatives. She hopes for a magical solution to all problems, just as many try to smooth out all the roughness in a relationship with a gift, seize stress with delicious food, and make their life visually pleasing with decorations.

The good thing about Dr. Seuss' story, of course, is that it pushes the outside into the background, pushing forward relationships between people.

In this regard, I always recall two works that show that the worst situation when there is no tinsel or relationship. And this idea embodies the dreary and heartbreaking works of Andersen "Girl with matches" and Dostoevsky "Boy at Christ's ", about useless children who die in the mud, cold and horror during the winter holidays. Both stories are short and piercingly sad.

In addition to embodying social misfortune, the children from these stories can be a metaphor for what is really important in a person's life.

Isn't it sad if family members don’t even talk to each other, but have presents and pose at New Year's photo shoots?

Isn't it sad if we give gifts to hypocritical "friends", but we don't notice those who sincerely treat us?

These heartbreaking stories of children dying without love and care are the Grinch.

They are a good character.

The Grinch spoils the holidays by taking away their unjustified carelessness.

The Grinch draws attention to the falseness of excess spending.

The Grinch will steal the Christmas tree and gifts in order to take away everything that is not significant, all that should sprinkle with flashing lights the inner coldness, the insincerity of the relationship, the personal unwillingness to take responsibility for oneself.

And it is with the Grinch whose heart can grow to such sizes that the inhabitants of Ktograd never dreamed of.

Therefore, the Grinch has a chance to spot the girl with the matches and the boy in the alley. Both literally and figuratively.

And I like the Grinch.

He evens out distortions.

He, leaving beautiful bulbs and family dinners, reminds that there is something that is really important.