Updates, Live

Thursday, February 13, 2014

A Terrible Vengeance by Gogol (Animated Adaptation)

(http://www.chitalnya.ru/work/729071/)
no copyright infringement intended

Шумит, гремит, гуляет Киев.
На свадьбе сына Горобца.
В гостях и брат его, Данило,
С женою Катей. Нет отца.

Noise, rattles, Kiev's feasting.
At the wedding of Horobet's son.
His brother, Danilo, is there
Also his wife Katerina. But her father
.


With this wedding starts the story of A Terrible Vengeance (Страшная месть), part of the Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka (Вечера на хуторе близ Диканьки) by Gogol. It is a Gothic horror story based on the Cossack folklore. Katerina's father is actually an evil spirit who will kill everyone in the family (his son-in-law, Cossak Danilo, his daughter Katerina after trying several times to seduce her, their little son). Eventually the evil will be killed in turn, by a bogatyr.

An animated adaptation was made at Kievnauchfilm in 1988. Here it is:






(Gogol)

(Russian and Soviet Cinema)

Labels:

Tuesday, February 11, 2014

The Middle of Dnieper



В середину же Днепра они не смеют глянуть: никто, кроме солнца и голубого неба, не глядит в него. Редкая птица долетит до середины Днепра.


One of the most celebrated passages in Russian literature.

No one dares to look over the middle of Dnieper, but sun and blue sky. Rare bird can fly over the middle of Dnieper.


And, as the story goes on, after telling these words of great praise, a miracle happens: both Crimea and Carpathians become visible from Kiev.

Here is how I came on this passage from Gogol. I was reading the discussions on a web forum, about the differences between Russian and Ukrainian (here is the link to it). I understood from there some phonetic differences that had been very unclear to me (г pronounced in Russian as g, in Ukrainian as h; Russian ы and Ukrainian и pronounced the same; Russian л becoming in Ukrainian в, and further in Polish ł; sometimes Russian е becoming in Ukrainian і; Ukrainian question phrases tending to follow the Polish pattern; and all these rules having their exceptions, to keep the fun going on). All these differences are not major, the problem comes when we talk about vocabulary: better said about influences in vocabulary. In Eastern Ukraine the vocabulary is strongly influenced by Russian, while in the West we observe the Polish influence. Which leads to the conclusion that in order to have a good command of Ukrainian language you need to be familiarized with the way it is spoken in the Eastern part as well as in the Western part. And that is far from simple: а ведь не всякая птица долетит до середины Днепра (not every bird can fly to the middle of Dnieper)!

So, one of the participants to the discussion on the web forum came with this phrase, а ведь не всякая птица долетит до середины Днепра, to emphasize that's not for everyone to get knowledgeable in both Western and Eastern Ukrainian.

This phrase sounded greatly, like a lesson of old times wisdom sent to the present. I wanted to know more about it and I did a search on the web, to find that it had been created by Gogol in his Вечера на хуторе близ Диканьки: Редкая птица долетит до середины Днепра

And Gogol, speaking about the great river challenging the brave ones, the happy few (only sun and blue sky dare to look over it, and even birds, symbol of unlimited spatial freedom, rarely can fly over the middle of Dnieper), actually had in mind that it is not for everyone to oversee from Kiev both Crimea and Carpathians. Good piece of advice for anyone seeking a solution for today's problems there.


(Gogol)

Labels:

About Different Tongues (a bit à la manière de Gogol)

Sviata Vecheria in Canada
(http://www.ukemonde.com/christmas/index.html)
no copyright infringement intended



Once I came to Philadelphia for some business. I took the El up to Frankford. There was a bus I had to take further, a ride of about half an hour or so. The bus station was just near a cemetery wall. I got in. There was only the driver, an old Afro-American guy. He closed the door and started the vehicle. At the next stop, a large group of old guys, maybe twenty to thirty, got in, filling the bus, and began talking loudly each one with all others, in Russian. And that day I realized that in order to learn good Russian you need to go to Philadelphia.

I already knew by that time that the finest German in spoken in Prague, and the best Czech, in Vienna. So it goes.

What I didn't know was where would be the perfect place to learn Ukrainian. Is it more like Russian or more like Polish? Good question. For native speakers of Russian it looks like Polish, while for native speakers of Polish it sounds like Russian. Actually, it depends on what part of the Dnieper you live. On one part the vocabulary is mixed with Russian a lot. On the other part, well, the mix is made rather with Polish. The thing is that, besides the Russian and Polish influences, this language has also words of its own.

And I found out today that in order to learn Ukrainian (not Russian, not Polish, just Ukrainian), you should come to Canada.


(Gogol)

(Philadelphia)

Labels:

A Daguerreotype of Gogol




(Жизнь в Kнигах)

Labels:

Monday, July 14, 2008

Gogol, Swift, Tolstoy, Solzhenitzyn, and Papillon

If you don't know anything about Matt Taibbi and look for his bio in Wikipedia, you'll get perplexed: a very acid political journalist and author who left at some point America to live in Uzbekistan; he was expelled from there after six months as their president likes much more to criticize than to be criticized; so Mr. Taibbi moved to Mongolia where he started to play professional basketball; he got so sick that he needed to return to America for treatment; he worked then several years in Moscow, and finally washed up on American shores again. Somehow kind'o reversed Borat.

If you read his interview in Mother Jones you'll get more the hack of it: Russia is unspoiled and different from America in such a great way, it’s so different. Everything in America is so uniform. In Russia everywhere you go is completely insane. In Russia, if you wake up in the morning to go do something you’re supposed to do for your job and end up 100 miles away stone drunk with a bunch of strangers it’s totally OK. In America we’re so efficient. When the Americans came into Russia en masse in the mid 90’s they all had this crusading missionary attitude – like we have to change this place and turn it more into America. We have to take all these dingy old buildings and replace them with our gleaming corporate storefronts. We have to replace all these interesting idiosyncratic people and replace them with middle class managers who all want to buy IKEA furniture and go on vacations in Ibiza. They had a real missionary zeal about it.

After that you can start to read his blog and to understand the guy.

Only now I would like to tell you something different about Matt Taibbi: his list of five most important books, that I found in today's Newsweek; Gogol is there, along with Swift, Tolstoy and Solzhenitsyn... and Papillon. Here you go:

  1. Dead Souls by Nikolai Gogol (Matt Taibbi has read it probably fifty times: a great novel about how human society is basically an unbroken string of tragic misunderstandings)
  2. Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift (also read about fifty times: a lot of the books that Matt Taibbi likes are sort of about the same thing)
  3. Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy (his way of making you realize that the seemingly dull details of ordinary day-to-day existence can be dramatic and terrible)
  4. The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (of all the books ever written, this one is probably the least like Chicken Soup for the Soul, which has to count for something)
  5. Papillon by Henri Charrière (the greatest true-adventure tale ever, a great story of perseverance and the will to live; and so Matt Taibbi is always amazed by how beautiful the writing is)

Do you remember the first lines of Dead Souls?

In the britchka was seated such a gentleman--a man who, though not handsome, was not ill-favoured, not over-fat, and not over-thin. Also, though not over-elderly, he was not over-young.

I remember these lines as I read them first time, in Romanian; they sounded somehow different:

Un om despre care nu se putea spune ca era urat, dar nici chipes nu puteai sa zici ca ar fi fost. Nu era gras, dar nici slabanog. Batran nu era, dar, hotarat lucru, nici tanar nu puteai sa zici ca este.

(A Life in Books)

(Gogol)

Labels:

Friday, April 13, 2007

Un băiat pe care îl chema Gogol

imagine din film
Afisul filmuluiUn băiat pe care îl chema Gogol - o însemnare făcută de o adolescentă pe un blocnotes - aşa a început, cu ani buni în urmă, povestea unui roman şi a unui film.
Un băiat pe care îl chema Gogol, una din acele fraze care se nasc odată la o sută de ani. Câţi scriitori nu şi-ar da ani buni din viaţă ca să aibă geniul unei asemenea frânturi de frază? Adolescenta de atunci este azi autoarea a două cărţi uluitoare.
Jhumpa Lahiri, născută în Londra, fiica unor imigranţi veniţi din Calcutta - băiatul pe care îl chema Gogol era de fapt un alter-ego al ei, copil de imigranţi veniti din India - şi a simţit că trebuie să scrie o carte despre căutarea identităţii proprii, despre universurile paralele în care trăim - părinţii ei din Calcutta, ea avea să păstreze oraşul în sufletul ei - pretutindeni va fi în noul loc, dar şi în Calcutta.
Aşa a început romanul, cu o frază notată pe blocnotes, un băiat pe care îl chema Gogol - peste ani fraza va fi înveşmântată într-un roman, The Namesake. Va fi a doua ei carte, după o culegere de povestiri, Interpreter of Maladies.
Şi într-o seară va primi un telefon de la regizoarea Mira Nair, care o va ruga să accepte o ecranizare a romanului.
Mira Nair, născută în India, trăind acum în America. Experienţă asemănătoare.
Ce putea să aducă Mira Nair peste bogăţia romanului?
Filmul, The Namesake (Tizul), este o poveste spusă de imagini - iar Mira Nair este o gurmandă a imaginii - în faţa unei fotografii cu un T-shirt atârnat la uscat pe o sârmă în faţa unei case din Calcutta gândul o duce la pictorul Mark Rothko, la acele color fields ale lui.
Dacă pentru Jhumpa Lahiri romanul a început cu obsesia unor cuvinte, un băiat pe care îl chema Gogol, pentru Mira Nair, filmul a început, în capul ei, cu obsesia unei imagini, iată cum o povesteşte, de altfel (într-un articol din revista FLM):
As I prepared to make The Namesake, I had an idea for a frame: an image of a dusky Bengali beauty against a Mark Rothko painting in a sleek Madison Avenue space. Then, looking through a book of photographs by Raghubir Singh from the 1980s, I came across a startling image of a red T-shirt drying on a flaking Calcutta ironwork railing, decaying Edwardian columns looming in the background. In its rich swath of color amid the layering of centuries, I realized that Rothko was alive and well in modern-day Calcutta. Raghubir’s photograph was among the first signs for me that The Namesake could be made in an austere photographic style. With the great cinematographer Fred Elmes by my side, we conceived each scene as a series of wide-angle shots, “democratic frames” within which the actors, not the camera, would move in a choreographed swirl.
Un T-shirt atârnat la uscat, în spate o casă cu coloane edwardiene delabrate, intuiţia fulgerătoare că Rothko continuă să trăiască în Calcutta de azi - intuitie care apare tot la o sută de ani odată.
A rezultat un film care este o superbă meditaţie în imagini - universul american în care se ţese obsesiv universul de acasă - imaginea New Yorkului recreându-se în imagine a Calcuttei, şi apoi revenind. Ca norii plutind pe cer şi schimbându-şi neîncetat forma.
Am pornit să văd filmul având în cap o idee despre el. Insă era o idee greşită. Filmul nu este centrat pe băiatul numit Gogol - este centrat pe mama băiatului - în jurul ei se întâmplă toate - ea suportă cel mai greu condiţia de imigrantă - pentru că ea îi înţelege pe toţi cei din jurul ei şi suferă pentru fiecare. Iar universurile cele multe se oglindesc în ea, şi arată aşa cum le vede ea.
Şi filmul îl decantezi după aceea în tine, zile întregi, te urmăreşte şi te pătrunde tot mai adânc.
O poveste în imagini care, ele, meditează povestea - o poveste despre imigranţi şi copii de imigranţi, despre identitate, despre căutări şi iluzii, despre înţelepciunea de a-ţi aminti atunci când eşti mai nefericit despre clipele când ai fost fericit - pentru că ele sunt hrana binecuvântată, hrana de suflet pentru totdeauna. Şi despre înţelepciunea de a le lua pe toate aşa cum sunt şi de a socoti fiecare zi ca un dar de la viaţă.
Ce se întâmplă în film? Se întâmplă multe, fără o logică anume - pentru că povestea este lăsată să curgă în voia ei - pentru că viaţa îşi are o bogăţie care este de capul ei - nici o poveste nu trebuie să încorseteze viaţa - o poveste trebuie să urmărească cu empatie viaţa, atât.
Este un lucru pe care l-a inţeles cândva de mult un mare scriitor - şi toţi scriitorii de după aceea au ieşit din mantaua lui.
Iar băiatul pe care îl chema Gogol, născut in America, având o mama al cărei accent o va trăda toată viaţa, acest băiat care va îmbătrâni şi el odată cu povestea, căutându-şi identitatea şi rostul, va înţelege aşa cum tuturor ne vine rândul să înţelegem, va întţelege că viata nu este uşor de înţeles - va înţelege însă dece tatăl său ţinuse să îi dea numele de Gogol - şi va înţelege dece toţi am ieşit din Mantaua lui Gogol.



(Jhumpa Lahiri)

(Filmofilia)

(Gogol)

Labels: , ,