A Cruel Romance (1984)

For me, the movie was good and had a lot of great qualities within it. This story of self discovery takes the audience on a roller coaster of emotions throughout the movie.Larisa Dmitrievna (Larisa Guzeyeva) and her family would have been referred to as the class of the raznochintsy's. They were not peasants, but they were not nobles (they would have had noble descent). Surgey Sergeyevich (Nikita Mikhalkov) was another example of this class. There is also parts of the movie where we see Surgey act kindly towards any social class, including the gypsies, which in Russia's history was around the time when the peasants and serfs of were emancipated. One of the main themes that I noticed was the social obligation that people of the time period had to deal with, such as the women marrying someone with money, or the men marrying a woman with a dowry. Women were usually seen more as objects with money rather than real people. That is clearly shown with Larisa, as she realizes she's only an object for people to auction off. There isn't too much that happens with "true love", because the love the characters had for each other was either lust, or only for money. As far as character development goes, I think that Juliy Kapitonovich(Andrei Myagkov) has the most. Throughout the movie he is seen as the "little man", and he stays that way more or less, but shows a side of his character you wouldn't expect. He starts off as a quiet man trying to win Larisa's heart, but he is constantly shut down. By the end of the movie, he's showing his anger and shows his true character when he tries to win back Larisa. All together, I enjoyed the movie and thought the acting was done very well. I also liked the historical significance seen throughout it.

Reading some of the user reviews of this film, I just can't keep quiet. Some of the comments really missed the point:"Juliy had no friends at all. He gave a pre-wedding feast at his house and could only find four people to invite, none of whom were his friends" - The film made it clear that he was trying to surround Larisa with high society, not his friends. That was the whole point! He didn't belong in that group."the screenplay cliché-ridden" - not at all. "I was also taken aback by Larissa's easy acquiescence to leaving Juliy for a man, Sergie, who had just ditched her a year ago. She seemed to be resigned to her fate yet raced to get away from Juliy" - Yes, because her mother just made her realize that a marriage with Juliy was going to be a life sentence of misery and shame. On top of that, she is clearly a passionate, spirited girl.I found it to be a beautifully crafted film about passion and the shackles of social convention set in a stunning period and location.

Eldar Ryazanov's greatest achievement was to make a Faubourg melodrama be suave and fresh,and to give it elegance and gusto,and a fitting fluidity;it has atmosphere,unity,gusto,the plastic is extraordinary:an enormously,lavishly delighting movie.While I was enjoying A Cruel Romance (1984),this movie picturesque and colorful and completely charming,I remembered how I saw it for the first time,in a theater,many years ago,as a kid and already a movie buff,with my late grandmother and with my godmother;at that age,I was impressed with the climactic final.An older gossip (Alisa Frejndlikh) at a pinch is pressed to marry away her third daughter,Larisa,the most profitable and advantageous way possible.Wonderfully written,and even more exquisitely constructed,Zhestokiy Romans (1984) boasts in featuring a still young beau Mihalkov as a slender and quite sluggard dandy of the slums;he was supple,nonchalant,mean and suburban.The role is mainly a physical one,and behind the mendacious slum dandy one feels the cold-hearted,evil-minded streetwise hooligan.Mihalkov is unmatched in giving "Serghei Sergheevitch",his character,a powerful interest.He is teamed with a wondrous,beaming beauty,the truly sensational Larisa Guzeyeva (here in her debut;very unfortunately,she did not make much of a career after Zhestokiy Romans ,1984,though she deserved to have one). The other characters are very well sketched, frightful figures of grotesque,the provincial fauna;a tedious and verminous clerk,two cynical and bitchy merchants,Knurov and Vojevatov.The atmosphere is chilling,a small provincial world devoured by sordidness:the ancient humanity,left to itself.A Cruel Romance (1984) succeeds in being much more than a lowbrow Faubourg tale:namely,in inspiring compassion for a human being,Larisa,and she is not a bit idealized;it is a Russian story about fate.The script may be lowbrow and conventional,but it is not in the least stupid.Ryazanov's astounding showmanship is undeniable,and the cast could not be better: Mrs. Alisa Frejndlikh,Aleksei Petrenko and Viktor Proskurin,Andrei Miagkov and Georgi Burkov are extremely good in their roles.With such a poor,unpromising and precarious content,the movie could very easily turn into something as provincial and insipid as a Frank Capra or a Nora Ephron film;but once again,the genre is nothing,the genre is a mere premise,the film itself is everything,and Eldar Ryazanov gave his film simplicity as well as transparency,gusto and charm,a delicious coloring;it is,for me,the very definition of charm and beauty;once again,the Russians are the masters of the coloration.Zhestokiy Romans (1984)staggers,surprises and delights by the keen sense of comprehensive width,by recreating a space traversed by the currents of freshness,life,spontaneity.The affective gamut is one of coldness,alienation and derision,mockery:the greed,the baseness,the intrigue,the lust,the brazenness have human shapes,the abominable cheek of promiscuity:Aleksandr Ostrovsky was a bitter moralist.The plastic gamut,on the other hand,unfolds relishing and cooling colors,inexhaustible treasures of visual delight,glacial colors that caress the heart.It is long since the art knew how to convincingly couch the range of threat,the embittered,ominous machinations gathering slowly under the eaves of a helpless and giddy being;Zhestokiy Romans (1984)does it;Larisa is not idealized,she is not adorned with improbable qualities.She is described simply as a being without malice. But the script is remarkably sober and balanced;the lines are well conceived.The scale confesses a Zolist impact,the influence of the Russian lesser realists and naturalists.

I read a comment from one of the readers that he has a difficulty understanding the film from the Western point of view. At least this time the viewer admits having problems with crossing the cultural boundary. Film is not riddled with cliches, it`s theatrical and highly artistic. It should be viewed almost as a poem translated into reality. It doest`n ask from actors just stand there and act natural, it asks for a brilliant, almost satirical work, which is performed in this movie perfectly. Realism is not the goal here. And yet, story like that very well could happened at that time, to the smallest details.