REVIEW: To Kill a Dragon (1989)
What was Soviet Russia like in 1989?!
How easily one piece of Art can make the difference. How simple for a single film to change the course of history. Did this film single handly take down Communism? or was it the band Kino (Кино́)
UBIT DRAKONA, Mark Zakharov, USSR 1988.
"THE DRAGON KÖTTEN is based on the play of the same title by the Soviet dramaturge Evgeny Shvart from the year 1944. In the foreground, the film follows the plot contained in it, without even a little digression: the knighting Lanzelot (Aleksandr Abdulov) enters a small town, Dragon (Oleg Yankovskiy) is dominated and bullyed. He wants to help the subjugated inhabitants, above all the affectionate Elsa (Alexandra Zakharova), a virgin who is to be sacrificed to the dragon. His generosity is finally rewarded, the feat succeeds, the dragon falls. As far as the medieval codified, notorious fable. But then the unexpected, the citizens resist their newly acquired freedom, want to be further controlled, controlled, Even the knight as their new masters. Thus, at the end, the true core of oppression, which is manifested both in Shvart's original and in the film, does not manifest itself in the power of a tyrant, but in the comfort and anxiety of his subordinates, because they are distracted from it Prospect of freedom already overwhelmed and intimidated.
The play itself seems to contain a purely allegorical content, but was quickly banned by the censors, when it was performed in 1962 by the later film director Mark Zakharov in a student theater. In the context of its national time-scale, it would undoubtedly refer to the population under the terrorism of Stalinism as well as the post-era, referring to a self-reliance in the subject of subjugation, the lack of resistance. 26 years later, when Zakharov realized his cinematic adaptation, the time was already different, the country was in the middle of the perestroika period, the ideological and material disintegration of socialism and the Soviet Union. Especially in the context of this historical shift is probably also the resulting film to be seen.
On the basis of the aesthetic and narrative decisions made by numerous Russian directors in this phase, a strong orientation towards the western, simultaneous postmodern cinema can be observed - also in the course of the emerging transparency against the cultural influences of the former capitalist opponents. The setting is pure pastiche, mediaeval baroque elements mix with pop-art bonds and quite a secular present day, thus evading a clear stylistic assignment, rich warm colors and occasionally a corresponding lighting point The aestheticization of the sites. The figures are not drawn as uniform subjects, Instead, their brittle and artificial nature is constantly changing. They vary their behavior and mood at will, carry fashionable, sometimes old-fashioned clothes, and often talk as if they were called out in clattering jackals and platitudes. An interesting example of this is the dragon, which has the ability to show itself in human form. Each of his three heads allows him to have a different shape. It is precisely this striking difference, whether as a militant appearance in steel helmets, as an Elvis-like glamor cartoon, or even a samurai, thus forming a nodal point for the virulent stylistic and cultural pluralism of the film. Once again old-fashioned attire, and often speak as if it were fashioned in clattering jackals and platitudes. An interesting example of this is the dragon, which has the ability to show itself in human form. Each of his three heads allows him to have a different shape. The striking differences, whether as a militant appearance in steel helmets, as Elvis-like glamor caricatures or even a samurai, thus forms a hub for the virulent stylistic and cultural pluralism of the film. Once again old-fashioned attire, and often speak as if it were fashioned in clattering jackals and platitudes. An interesting example of this is the dragon, which has the ability to show itself in human form. Each of his three heads, in turn, gives him a different form. It is precisely this striking difference, whether as a militant appearance in steel helmets, as an Elvis-like glamor cartoon, or even a samurai, thus forming a nodal point for the virulent stylistic and cultural pluralism of the film.
What DENMARK then, however, again clearly distinguishes itself from current postmodern works and at the same time reveals its national-historical location, is its special way of counteracting the ideological basic components of Postmoderne. For where in Lyotard's sense equality and relativity of different heterogeneous discourses are to be possible, the film moves strictly dialectical, by exposing the idea of the semantic content of his literary work as the only valid principle without a way out. He thus reveals a certain schizophrenia: for although he strives for aesthetic and narrative diversity, and thus freedom in general, in his film-language means, he dramatically creates no alternative to the subservience of the mentioned population, their unfreedom. In the final sequence, he even explains this phenomenon to a constantly circulating phenomenon, for Lanzelot will move on to others, this time even more clearly younger people under the yoke of a dragon. Embedded in its epoch, the film appears subliminally as a sort of valve for certain fears during the perestroika, namely precisely that even after overcoming the totalitarianism, the death of the dragon, nothing will change."
SPOILER ALERT: PLOTPOINTS: A wandering knight Lancelot, a distant descendant on the maternal side of the famous Sir Lancelot, comes to a city which has been ruled by a fierce dragon for four hundred years. Most of the residents do not want to be rescued from the tyranny of the monstrous serpent, explaining its historical importance.
Lancelot, saving the Dragon's victim, an innocent girl, challenges the monster to a fight. In the underground city there are people who help the knight to find weapons and get ready for an unequal fight. Lancelot defeats the Dragon, but he gets wounded and goes into hiding. In the city the dragon's rule is replaced by chaos.
Lancelot goes away from the people. He sees children playing with the Dragon who has shapeshifted from a dark and cynical warlord to a good-natured bearded man. The Dragon offers not to continue battling with the children present but Lancelot refuses. The Dragon declares that the most interesting bit is about to begin. Lancelot, the Dragon and the children leave.
