Where the wild things are reading level

Cast: Finn Whitehead, Tom Glinn Carney, Tom Hardy, Jack Lauden, Harry Styles, Kennet Bran
Genre: Military
9000 : 7. 9

Military drama about the events of World War II. May 19On the 40th, French, Belgian and British troops were pinned down on the English Channel coast by the German advance. Four hundred thousand people looked hopefully at the sea and waited for evacuation, and while bombs fell from the sky, people went crazy with hunger and died from injuries. Salvation came, but not everyone waited. Other details are not needed - they will not be in the tape either, because "Dunkirk" does not talk about the operation in Dunkirk, it talks about the war in general. Cinema is as impersonal as possible: the Germans are not shown at all, and the main characters are deprived of on-screen biographies and characters. Because in war, no one cares what your views are and who you are according to the horoscope: you will be killed or you will be killed - that's all that matters here.

Trailer:

Nolan originally portrayed not only the war, depriving the close to historical picture of any historicity, but also time. Perhaps the director was preparing for "Argument": no fantasy, but over time, something incomprehensible happens here. The film is divided into three storylines: land, water and air, and each of them has a different duration. The soldiers on the beach suffered for a week, the boat of the evacuation fleet sailed for a day, and the pilots spent literally an hour in the sky. Nolan mixed all these lines, confused and brought them to the final at one point. What did it give: firstly, it introduced the viewer into a state of that same chaos, temporary disorientation, when fear for one's life does not leave the body for a second and when a fresh branch of hell opens around. Secondly, the director's idea was probably that time in extreme conditions is perceived differently: it is able to stretch and spread, as in an uncomfortable painting by Salvador Dali, and in other conditions it shrinks sharply, like the central point of an explosion, before how to burst. The fourth dimension is fickle and subjective, and it is the main character, whose character is the only one revealed in this movie.

"Best Sound", "Best Editing" and "Best Sound Editing" by the Oscars. Figurines for best film and director Christopher Nolan lost to Guillermo del Toro with his "The Shape of Water".

Argument (2020)

Cast: John David Washington, Robert Pattinson, Elizabeth Debicki, Kenneth Branagh, Michael Caine
Genre: spy thriller, killer sci-fi
Movie Search Rating: 8
IMDb rating: 7.9

The culmination of Nolan's filmography: a movie in which you don't even need to break the timeline with editing - the script here is already based on the idea of ​​​​complex temporal relationships between the future and the past. It seems that this is exactly what the famous British-American director has been going to since the release of The Persecution and Remember, experimented with something similar in Inception, understood Interstellar and played in Dunkirk. And all this was just an affectionate prelude - in "Tenet" Christopher Nolan finally breaks the brain of the audience. Just like Bane Batman's spine is a great visualization.

Plot: a cool intelligence agent is faced with technology from the future - distant descendants have come up with a way to influence the past through inverted objects (you will have to get used to complex terms and theories on the run). Inverted things behave differently - they move in the reverse chronological flow relative to the given time. It looks beautiful, it sounds incomprehensible - so far everything is like in Inception, but based on the laws of physics. A cool scout quickly realizes that the people of the future are not friends to our generation, which means that something very bad may happen soon. The hero will have to stop the apocalypse semi-intuitively, as well as non-physicists viewers to understand the topic of entropy, the Wheeler-Feynman absorption theory and the paradox of the murdered grandfather.

Trailer:

A bit of clarity:

• The name of the painting is a palindrome. “Argument” in both directions is read as “argument”, which reflects the main idea of ​​time streams moving towards each other;
• Tenet's original name is part of a famous Latin palindrome often written on talismans and gravestones. The palindrome sounds like this: ROTAS OPERA TENET AREPO SATOR. We will leave the translation to the experts, but it will be clearer why the main evil Russian is called Andrei Sator, his company is called Rotas, and why everything begins and ends (if you understand) with opera;
• the GG does not have a name, but the word "protagonist" often sounds in the film. One of the versions of what the movie is really about is about finding an identity, its place and meaning; watch out for the red lace;
• Pattinson is great. This time, even for the haters.

Solomon Volkov: Joseph Brodsky had an amazing manner of carrying himself

Solomon Moiseevich, you have seen Joseph Brodsky more than once. My question is strange at first glance. And how tall was he? I remember, talking with you, Brodsky suddenly began to talk about the growth of Anna Akhmatova and Wisten Auden: they are, they say, "about the same height; maybe Auden is shorter."

Solomon Volkov: I clearly remember such a strange picture - I'm walking down the street of New York, the crowd is like an ocean - and it's cut like an ocean liner by a man who seems to rise above the crowd. And it was Brodsky. I didn't expect to see him in that crowd. He was of ordinary average height, but when he appeared, he really gave the impression of a tall man. Almost like Mayakovsky, who was undoubtedly taller than Brodsky.

It is no coincidence that Brodsky's physical growth seems to flow into a poetic dimension: when he walked with Anna Andreevna, "he always stretched himself. So that there would be no complex." Because she's "great".

Solomon Volkov: Joseph had an amazing manner of carrying himself, which he instantly stood out for. Apparently, this is already a property of personality. He made the same impression when he appeared at his lectures at Columbia University, which began our conversations. He entered the auditorium, cutting through the air, absolutely filling the entire space with himself. It had tremendous energy. People with such a rich inner potential really have a special energy.

Well, yes, no matter what poet you take, each one certainly has his own mystical trail. Apparently not by chance?

Solomon Volkov: Actually, I don't really believe in all these parapsychological things. But I have to state... Here in the photographs of Shostakovich - it seems that he is such a restrained, pathologically modest and shy person. But in his presence, everyone felt a huge electric charge, literally knocking down. Marietta Shaginyan, who had been in contact with Shostakovich from a young age, wrote how he came to visit her, they had a thick partition in their house, which was used to block rooms in Soviet apartments, but as soon as Shostakovich entered, this screen suddenly fell. Some waves from him, of course, emanated. And even more they were felt in the presence of Brodsky. This, of course, is already from the field of parapsychology, but it was, it was not invented. When such stories are told to me, I listen to them with skepticism. But with Shostakovich and Brodsky - yes, I felt that.

Let's get back to growth. Poets seem to have been worried at all times - which of them is higher, who is "first"? Poet or the first - or none. Where does this disease come from?

Solomon Volkov: It's not even about the poets. I think that this is generally a property of all people - everyone wants to seem like a significant creative figure. But ... when, say, Shostakovich, they began to say something like "Dmitry Dmitrievich, you are a genius," he always quickly denied: no need, no need, today they will say - a genius, tomorrow they will say - shit. As for Brodsky, on the contrary, he listened with great pleasure to such statements addressed to him. He could easily tell me, of course, that I know that I write better than others, otherwise why would I do this.

You know, there are many people who think they are geniuses, but they are not. In this case, we are talking about really brilliant talents - narrow-minded standards are not always applicable to them.

Brodsky, who came out of the circle of young poets who surrounded Akhmatova, preferred to speak of Tsvetaeva as his poetic teacher. Isn't it strange?

Solomon Volkov: For Brodsky, Marina Tsvetaeva was generally the central poetic figure. Do not understand why. I always preferred Akhmatova to her. Perhaps I do not like some kind of hysteria in Tsvetaeva's voice. The poetic technique is fantastic - and this, I think, was the first thing that attracted Brodsky. But Tsvetaeva does not, it seems to me, have the versatility that Akhmatova has.

Anna Andreevna impresses with her relevance. Poems written 100 years ago read like a modern woman's diary. The combination of religiosity and eroticism in her poetry, which Eikhenbaum drew attention to, is very relevant for an advanced intellectual modern woman.

Maybe I'm wrong, but Tsvetaev's slogans don't seem so relevant to me now. Although among women there has always been a huge number of fanatical fans of Tsvetaeva.

Brodsky just objected to you, repeating Tsvetaev's idea that a poem is a reorganized time: "Time is the source of rhythm... And the more technically diverse the poet, the more intimate his contact with time."

Solomon Volkov: Tsvetaeva's poetics was quite close to him, in contrast to Akhmatova's. But what is now called life-building, he learned to a great extent from Akhmatova. She was a great master of this life-building. And she, of course, confused her biography, veiled her personal life to the maximum possible extent, making it incredibly difficult for future researchers to work. Until now, for example, it is impossible to figure out which of her poems are dedicated to whom, why and how. She deliberately confused the dates, combined different addressees into one. Brodsky also did such things, by the way, not without the suggestion of Akhmatova.

What was Akhmatova's attitude towards Brodsky after all - indulgently? ironic? enthusiastically? After all, in your younger years you also talked with Anna Andreevna, came to her with musicians ...

Solomon Volkov: I think she was delighted that she found a kindred spirit in Brodsky. After all, she singled him out not in vain - with her intuition of a genius, she felt that of all the poets around her, Brodsky was the most significant figure. Another thing is that at the same time she played and "flirted" with everyone else, too. She had a special relationship with Bobyshev, a special relationship with Naiman - Brodsky's poetic friends of those years. But in relation to Brodsky, she precisely felt that in terms of that very life-building, he was taxiing to some very important milestones. She herself, all her life, from a very young age, built herself as a person, changing her personal position in accordance with what seemed to her at the moment more advantageous.

Didn't Brodsky get irritated by Akhmatova's famous phrase about "what kind of biography is being made for our redhead"?

Solomon Volkov: I never asked him about it - and he never talked to me about it. But I can say for sure, and I won’t reveal any America here, that despite the complexity of the story with the arrest of Joseph Alexandrovich, the trial, his stay in exile in the village of Norenskaya, with his life there, all this was, but all this was mythologized to limit. And in a sense, it worked for him, and he was absolutely not against such a development of the life story. Although, of course, his motives are not so straightforward. In Moscow, in 1964, friends warned me, persuaded me: don't go back to Leningrad, it won't end well. The fact that he nevertheless went - and was arrested - was, of course, connected with his love affair with Marina Basmanova, in the first place. But he went, relatively speaking, to his Golgotha, clearly understanding, I think, intuitively, that this is a very important step for his poetic biography.

At some point the connection became inevitable: Brodsky is a martyr. Remember his wonderful impromptu - "who made you a poet?" - he replies: "I thought it was from God." From such phrases, legends are formed as a result. And this phrase, of course, was legendary - but it had to be said at a time when few would have dared to do so.

Brodsky was reproached for not saying a kind word about the same Frida Vigdorova, thanks to whom the world received the transcript of the trial, and in general tried to avoid any words addressed to the people who helped him. I answered your questions about the link: I refuse to dramatize all this. You thought it was part of his aesthetic. What did you mean?

Solomon Volkov: This aesthetic of alienation is an incredible aspect of Brodsky's personality. This is how I recognized him here in America. It was a conscious choice, atypical for a Russian artistic figure. But here, in America, it is impossible otherwise.

Why? Discover this secret of the survival of the Russian emigration.

Solomon Volkov: Brodsky began to be imbued with the Anglo-American aesthetics of what is called understatement (deliberate underestimation of the positive characteristics of the object of speech - Ed.). Otherwise, you can't say. That is, such a restrained anglicized reaction to everything that happens to you, without dramatization. Emphasized cold, emphatically impersonal. As he always liked to say: the color of gray water, which is also the color of time.

He began to feel it in the Soviet Union. And this is very different from other poets, a hundred times. Neither Andrei Voznesensky nor Yevgeny Yevtushenko have this detachment, alienation from the events that are happening to you. On the contrary, they seem to throw themselves into a whirlpool and revolve in it with great enthusiasm. And this is a typical sixties trait.

For many readers, not at all the most thick-skinned, just this trait in poets has always seemed attractive.

Solomon Volkov: Brodsky is not a member of the sixties precisely in this respect. He is post-sixties, in my opinion. I'm trying to put into circulation this concept - post-sixties. Such were, besides him, both Schnittke and Tarkovsky. There were pre-sixties, proto-sixties, and there were post-sixties. So, having started entering this aesthetic back in the Soviet Union, Brodsky absorbed it very strongly when he got to the United States. He always liked it, he was drawn to it. In general, the influence of Anglo-American poetry on Russian culture before Brodsky was completely imperceptible. There was, say, Byron, who influenced Pushkin and all Russian romanticism. And after that, a huge break. Up to Brodsky, with whose light hand Russian culture showed interest in Auden, Frost. But here, in exile, it was still a matter of survival. He suddenly got from an atmosphere where "a poet in Russia is more than a poet" - to where, according to Kharms, in response to the words "I am a poet" you can hear: "No, you are a ...".

But what, after all, did Brodsky have in common with the sixties - even if he liked to "get away" from them?

Solomon Volkov: It was very interesting to watch Brodsky appear on stage here in New York at poetry readings with other American poets. An American poet, entering the stage, apologizes in advance that he is taking time from the most respectable public with his inappropriate and unnecessary verses. The American poet reads quietly, monotonously, shifting from foot to foot. There can be nothing more contrasting to the performance of, say, Yevtushenko or Voznesensky. And this is also what Voznesensky and Yevtushenko made such an impression on the American audience: they read noisily, brightly, and in Russian. There were translators at the same time, they were translated, but still in Russian.

Here Brodsky was close to them, here he was a member of the sixties: going out on the stage, he began to hypnotize the audience, shamanized on the stage. And again, before my eyes, more than once or twice he succeeded in this. The audience did not understand a word of Russian. But these shamanic howls of Brodsky on stage hypnotized the American public. And she gave up.

But in everyday life, shamanism alone is apparently not enough to survive here?

Solomon Volkov: In everyday life, you had to come to terms with the feeling that no one needed you as a poet. And then Brodsky worked out his own line of conduct - yes, all this does not concern me, nothing dramatic happened to me. Those who remind me: it was important in your biography, such and such people helped you - all this needs to be removed, pushed aside. The poet must be at the level of gray water. This is how a poet should be.

People who in emigration failed to absorb at least some elements of such an aesthetic life position died. All are broken. In America, surviving, thinking that you are a cultural genius and everyone should bow down before you, is a strategy doomed to failure in advance. Those who survived, like Brodsky and Baryshnikov, survived. I always call Baryshnikov the living lyrical hero of Brodsky. I am not going to compare him in any aspect with Brodsky, but as a model of behavior - Brodsky's model, let's call it so conditionally - his example turned out to be extremely important for me.

Brodsky was really painful or irritated at attempts to study his non-literary biography (although how can one separate "literary" from "non-literary" in a poet)?

Solomon Volkov: Yes. And which of the cultural figures you know is calm about such things? Everyone wants to control their life story. I don't know of any exceptions... Although there is a paradox here: Brodsky himself eagerly devoured all the biographical materials about people who interested him, about the same poets. He could well gossip: who, with whom, how and why. A significant part of his conversations with friends was this topic. But absolutely not about myself. He was horrified at the thought that someone would dig into his personal biography and tie him to certain figures. Let's say "New Stanzas for Augusta" - a book of poems dedicated to a certain named woman. But included are poems dedicated to other women too. In the interest of the wholeness of the poetic book, he went for such things. This is also from Akhmatova - complete darkness and confusion of all incoming and outgoing. Although many of his muses are still alive and every year more and more often break the vow of silence ...

Not every worthy poet was awarded the Nobel Prize, but Brodsky got it. How did he do it?

Solomon Volkov: Why Brodsky received the Nobel Prize, but, say, Voznesensky, Yevtushenko did not. Well, Yevtushenko still, very likely, will get it - it is impossible to predict such things. Bookmakers make good money on this, but their predictions, as a rule, do not come true.

Something else is interesting here. Both Voznesensky and Yevtushenko seemed to fit into American life, were friends with such authorities as Norman Mailer, Arthur Miller, the Kennedy family. But these people had no influence on the decisions of the Nobel Committee. They themselves did not receive the Nobel Prize - neither Mailer nor Miller. And it is no coincidence that at some point the positions of this circle and those people who make decisions in the Nobel Committee diverged. And Brodsky, on the contrary, was in the circle that had authority for the Nobel Committee. This is already a question of the socio-cultural situation or a question of intuition. Brodsky became friends with Susan Sontag, who represented the European avant-garde or early postmodernism. And her interests coincided with the cultural preferences of the Nobel Committee. By the way, they listened to her very much.

And the fact that Brodsky began to write essays in English played a colossal role. Neither Voznesensky nor Yevtushenko did this. They remained convinced that they would achieve this with their poetry. But poetry is a matter of translation, thousands of other circumstances. About Brodsky, the Nobel Committee made up an idea mainly on two factors: on the history of the trial and on his essay. Poetry was in an additional package. In the same way as Pasternak - they allegedly awarded him for poetry. But, of course, if Pasternak had not written Doctor Zhivago, he would not see any Nobel Prize. Brodsky had the same story.

But in general, according to my observations, I do not presume to judge all countries - in America they are calm about the fact that many major authors did not receive the Nobel Prize. The real mysticism of the Nobel Prize exists only in Russia.

Speaking about the poets of the post-war generation, Brodsky singled out Boris Slutsky in particular. It would seem that a poet not at all close to him...

Solomon Volkov: I completely disagree with you. Brodsky always spoke with great sympathy about Slutsky as a person. And there is nothing to say about poetry at all - read it! Slutsky has worked so much for Brodsky's poetry - all this harsh manner with the use of everyday words. And this influence does not contradict the words of Brodsky that Slutsky ruined himself by the position, relatively speaking, of a political officer, an honest communist.

Now, for such clear life positions, poets are ready to be completely deleted from the history of literature - as if it had never happened.

Solomon Volkov: There is no irony in my words. I have respect for many wonderful people, although they kept such a conditional position of an honest communist until the end of their days. Anatoly Naumovich Rybakov, the author of "Kortik" and "Children of the Arbat", lived across from me and we met very often. He was and remained a convinced Trotskyist. And he hated Stalin precisely not as some kind of anti-Stalinist, a Western-style intellectual, but as a man whose ideal was a just society, freed from class stratification, a terrible difference in earnings - from everything that fully characterizes today's wild capitalism, in America and Europe ... So - no, Slutsky was very close to Brodsky. He simply regretted that Slutsky had shrunk himself to the size of a voluntary artificial cage. But this is already a tragedy or, on the contrary, Slutsky's luck, for whom it is.

When the current sad events in Ukraine began, Brodsky's poem "On the Independence of Ukraine" immediately flashed on the Internet - not at all complimentary to independent feelings. Some were inspired by Brodsky's unexpected patriotism, while others, on the contrary, showered him with curses. And they immediately doubted the authenticity of the poems, seeing, as usual, in them "Kremlin propaganda". This is a poem by such an imperial poet. To what extent does it explain Brodsky?

Solomon Volkov: I have always considered Brodsky an imperial poet. And the theme of empire is very important to him. Why didn't he stay in Europe? Why did he go directly from Russia to America? He changed the Soviet empire to an anti-Soviet empire. But this feeling was important to him, that he lives in an empire, that he is part of an empire. He has many thoughts on this subject. Hence his love for the St. Andrew's flag, hence our conversation with him about a poem dedicated to Marshal Zhukov, which could well have appeared in due time in the Pravda newspaper. Brodsky recalled how much in connection with this poem he had to swallow everything from emigrants, especially the Balts and Ukrainians, here in the United States.

He spoke periodically as an imperial poet. One can see a contradiction in this. But any huge figure consists of sets. Was Pushkin an imperial poet? Of course there was. "Slanderers of Russia" and "On the anniversary of the Battle of Borodino" - these are imperial poems. If they are reprinted today, imagine how Pushkin would be attacked from all sides. And the verses are wonderful and, again, fit into the current.

The leaflet with the poem "For the Independence of Ukraine" given by Brodsky is in my archive, it is a copy from his typewriter. You can treat this as you like, in accordance with political views. But to deny that this is a strong poem, in my opinion, no one will.

Brodsky regretted that he had not written his "Divine Comedy", some kind of monumental work, novel, epic. And where do you think you need to start the path to Brodsky, what is the main thing in it?

Solomon Volkov: Probably, if absolutely, absolutely, then I would advise you to open the Part of Speech first, on the one hand. And New Stanzas for Augusta, on the other. Purely love lyrics - and Brodsky with a more philosophical tinge. There is such an idea that he is a complex, inaccessible poet. This is not true. It is amazing how many poetic aphorisms Brodsky entered into everyday life. I do not know how it is now, but in our time, when people met, they "sniffed" each other with the help of quotes. If a person responded, say, to the Oberiuts, Oleinikov, Kharms, Zabolotsky early, it means his own. Now this is gone, a quote from Oleinikov - "Typical vulgarity reigned in his small head" - they will no longer recognize, they need to be explained.

And Brodsky broke into a huge number of quotations. "It's like life is swinging to the right, swinging to the left." This is the 61st year, his first famous poem - "Christmas Romance". Or "In the village, God does not live in the corners, as scoffers think, but everywhere." Is it definitely associated with Brodsky? No. And here's another: "Rear thoughts are stronger than the front" from "Speech on Spilled Milk." "I hugged those shoulders, and looked at what was behind." What is it about? Words are so connected to one another that you remember them for a variety of reasons.

At home, my wife Mariana and I quote Brodsky all the time. "On a winter evening in Yalta" - "Pour you this abomination? Pour it." Or I still love prosaic Broadskyisms. "If I were freer, both externally and internally, by the way" ... "Dialogues with Brodsky" is my only book that I re-read from time to time. I think that among the new reading and thinking generation, Brodsky is the most cited author in communication. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that this is so.

And you don't get annoyed - when, while praising one poet, let's say, the same Brodsky, they certainly try to trample down all the others. It's unfair - but fashionable?

Solomon Volkov: The fact that once, on May 24, 1940, Iosif Alexandrovich Brodsky was born in Leningrad is just an accident. Could not be born, or someone else would be born. And a miracle happened. Gogol once wrote that Pushkin is a Russian man, as he will be in 200 years. Yes, nothing like that happened. The Russian man did not become like Pushkin.

Learn more

• 
  How many syllables does friend have
• 
  A list of fairy tales for kids
• 
  Joke stories short
• 
  Long o sound list
• 
  Compound words man
• 
  How to teach reading english
• 
  Short stories telling
• 
  Sentence for once
• 
  Number sequencing games
• 
  Word tongue twisters
• 
  Where the wild things are reading level