Don Kikhot
Posted by martinteller on March 25, 2012
I still haven’t read the second half of the Cervantes novel (shame on me) but I wanted to see this since I’d heard somewhere or other that it was the best adaptation. The postmodern attempt by Orson Welles (“finished” by Jess Franco, most likely for the worse) had some intriguing elements but was far too flawed to satisfy. This was a much better experience. One tends to think of Soviet Russia as being culturally isolated — probably an unfair assumption, but so it goes — and it’s a bit surprising to see a Soviet adaptation of “Don Quixote,” much less one so skillfully executed. I know less than nothing about 17th century Spain, but it certainly was believable to me… except for the fact that everyone speaks Russian, of course. The landscapes are gloriously captured in lovely widescreen color vistas.
More importantly, the character of Don Quixote is wonderfully brought to life. Nikolai Cherkasov had previously starred as the title roles in Aleksandr Nevsky and Ivan the Terrible, and played Gorky twice (and once he was FDR!). He brings to Quixote the necessary dignity and nobility, letting himself be the butt of the joke without ever appearing to be in on it. There’s no wink to his performance, he plays it straight, with steadfast belief in his ideals, as outmoded as they may be. It begs the central question of the novel (erm, what I’ve read of it)… is it better to be a virtuous fool or a knowing cynic? And one can’t overlook Sancho Panza, played here by Yuri Tolubeyev. He tackles the role with comic gusto, and his devotion to Quixote, though laced with skepticism, is endearing and sweet. He gets one of the film’s finest moments, as he rules in a matter of justice in the “island” he believes that he governs. Does this “fool” rule any worse than the disinterested Duke?
Naturally, at 100 minutes the film is a severely truncated version of the story, but it’s a surprisingly charming and funny work. I swear I’m gonna finish that book one day. Rating: Very Good
Martin Teller's Movie Reviews 
martin fennell said
“One tends to think of Soviet Russia as being culturally isolated — probably an unfair assumption,”
There are russian versions of at least two Shakespeare plays ie Hamlet, and King Lear. A number of Versions of Treasure Island. A russian version of 12 Angry men. Two Russian tv Series based on Sherlock Holmes stories. A superb version of And then there were none.
I don’t know why you would have that assumption at all;
https://www.rbth.com/arts/329535-10-best-russian-adaptations
martinteller said
No reason but my own ignorance! As I suspected, an unfair assumption.
wordswordswords2 said
Not so unfair at all. Russia has a long long history of xenophobia. Even though the aristocracy made quite a point of speaking French, Russians have often wanted to think of themselves as detached from the Western European scene. Peter the Great felt differently (building an entire city so as to provide more of a window on the West, for instance), and so did quite a number of others, but on the whole Russia has been on the outskirts of Western European culture–and after all, a vast part of Russia is in Asia. During the Soviet era many Western European artists, writers, composers, and film-makers were seen as bourgeois and decadent. Jack London has enjoyed considerable popularity in Russia but it seems to have been mainly because his left-leaning politics made him less suspect in the eyes of the Soviet authorities.
martinteller said
Thank you for the insights!
martin fennell said
I was concentrating on movies.