I Love

Oleksii Dolhuliov4.0

Дуже виразне кіно, яке порушує деякі дуже незвичні проблеми та ще й яскраво це реалізує. Фільм про те, що губливим може виявитися будь-який процес, який переростає в манію

PUNQ3.0

I had only seen one other film from director Leonid Lukov before I saw Ya lyublyu [I Love] (1936), and that was the excellent Dva boytsa [Two Soldiers] (1943), so it was nice to see one of his earliest sound movies. A little quirky in that very Soviet way, but it had some real characters! Plus that rugged mining setting helped keep things real. The frustrations was felt, even if a little clumsy in delivery.

Fernando Figueroa4.0

An impressive marvel for preserving the last glimmers of expressionism but mainly for weaving a delightfully complex plot: it could be about the deadly conditions in the mines at Sobacheevka (that would explain the death of the worker Brovkin and the concealment of the sinkhole in the area); or, it could be about exposing crystallized capitalism in the figure of the master and owner of the mines in his Tsarist uniform giving wood as alms to Ostap's father and his family living in dire conditions without a roof over their heads (that would explain the alcoholism of a son who must follow in his father's footsteps and, stressed, hides in the tavern until he gets home and is scolded by his wife Nastya and beaten with sticks - as if he were a child - by his old father); Or, the crux could be the exalted hubris of Nikanor, an extremely foolish, irascible and proud man who dedicated three decades to mining work and built his own house in that community and refuses to retire, despite the accident he suffered where he was almost crushed to death and for which Garbuz warned him in a timely manner not to work in certain parts of the tunnel;Or it could be about women's lack of understanding of men and vice versa. This would explain Nastya's ignorance, the mother's, telling her daughter Varka that the children have an easy life, because she doesn't understand the tremendous burden her husband bears to support them and the pressure of bargaining in the line of workers, deciding whether or not to take a day's job for 50 or 30 kopecks. Or it could be about Nikolai Nikolaevich's abuse of authority and power, trying to buy the adolescent Varenka for his filthy appetites through her mother. There is an age in life, or there should be one, when receiving a beating from a father is more dishonorable than stealing or killing. Ostap received this beating when he arrived drunk, but the father, Nikanor, should also receive his. He dies and what remains of this somewhat scattered work of so many sub-themes are the beautiful songs that are sung "when you, Karibushka, yes you, don't stay there..." or the final song to the miner Nikanor "And he went with the demons there, and the road is bad, the road is bad, where to put the miner?"It seems to me that Tolstoy presented this human enigma very well with his Ivan Ilyich Golovin, even though his character was a bureaucrat and not part of what would later be called the proletariat. In various ways, in a tortuous self-analysis, Ivan Ilyich ponders the point of enduring all the hardships to obtain the position he held. Especially when his life is in existential decline because he can't recover that time or recover from the accident on the stairs, as if his human drift, his Heideggerian Dasein, were red-hot and nothing could be resolved. The film was made in 1935, but today, almost a century after Nikanor and his son, someone might ask, why didn't the good-natured Ostap's pathetic flattery of high-ranking officials, like the scoundrel Nikolai Nikoaievich, always at the side of the mine boss, lead to a career like his father's in the mine? Or why is there no relief or consideration from anyone towards an experienced old man?