Our film "The dog's heart" turned out to be a plagiarism on Italians. They have a good balls

Subscribe to our channel!

In 1998, the film-screen was released on the television screenshots of the story of Bulgakov "Dog's Heart". The painting for the authorship of Vladimir Bortko became a cult for many years. Quotes of the Professor of Preobrazhensky on the dangers of newspapers and ruins in the heads went to the people thanks to the film, not a book.

Because the film is still more accessible. And the balls are funny there, and the professor is a storehouse of wisdom. I liked the people. Yes, and objectively the film is removed very well. However, does the attitude to the work of Bortko change after you learn that this is the literal remorse of the 1976 Italian film?

The network saw the dispute, but if the film is based on the book, then what could be plagiarism? Just one and the same story told in different ways. But the fact is that Bortko literally inspired by the Italian film, borrowing from there both operator's receptions and alternation of some scenes.

However, there are differences. The balls of the Italians are rather an innocent balbes than a breeding tiller, creating some problems. He is sincere, he is not alien to his kindness. The Italians in Sharicikov falls in love with Zinka! But the Preobrazhensky in the European version looks very obsessed with a despot with manic sacks: his meshness is underlined unpleasant. And those quotes that we went to the people because of wisdom here are acquired by a satirical shade.

Being human. The balls in this universe are still Milach.

Yes, and the general promise of the film from Italians is some kind of humanistic ideas. Like, even the dog has the right to happiness. While one nasty grandfather with his beliefs can be finished with fate and do what he wakes up.

Romantic line. Balls and Zina

Honestly, I do not remember which ideas lay the Bulgakov in the original - I read in a distant youth (and I'm not going to reread) only for the sake of an interesting plot - then the political and social subtext then sneezed with a high bell tower: just worried about the fate of a dog man. And from this point The Italians won the views: more humane balls, it is easier for him to sympathize. And it seems to me that the Italians understand the promise of the writer in their own way. Whereas in the Russian version of Co., a concompetitive agitator: Communism is bad. The intelligentsia is good. What is peculiar to the time in which I shot Bortko. If anyone understands the question - tell me in the comments.

One exactly: both versions are good. And there and there Sharicikov play excellent actors (just different). And our version, and with a "scientific" point of view, was removed in more detail and plausible: for example, the Italians actually remained behind the scenes, and one does not contradict the other. Rather, a different look at one story.