Impressions of "Flying Wild Goose"

The Cranes Are Flying

In terms of set and composition, the film is greatly influenced by the constructivism of the Soviet Union in the 1920s. At the beginning of the film, the protagonist is placed in the background of the grand building: the hero and heroine are playing on the shore. Under the wide-angle lens, it is not Boris and Veronica who are the main subjects at this time, but occupy nearly one third of the picture. The second is the river surface and the buildings in the distance. The characters become very small at this time, and even become accessories of the landscape. This is also the theory of Soviet Constructivism, which was deeply influenced by Marxism-Leninism, advocating that grand constructivist architecture makes people feel small because of its shrouded sense, in order to show the incompetence of individualism in front of the collective. This grand sense gave birth to a lofty sense of mission and a sense of belonging, which played a great role in promoting the socialist revolution at that time. The era of "Flying Wild Goose" is called "the spring of Soviet literature and art". Even in the process of thawing, we can still see the influence of that era.

However, it is commendable that Kalatozov was not passively guided by the times, but actively reflected in this influence. In later films, scenes with huge buildings and steel bars still appear. For example, when a sprinkler passes by, two-thirds of the picture is occupied by tall buildings and the shadows they cast. At this time, different from the first picture, this cold building brings a sense of oppression, which makes the audience feel that the hero and heroine cannot help themselves, as if all their emotions have become dispensable in the grand space. This was the prelude to the tragedy that followed. After Boris joined the army, Veronica was waiting for his call in the square after the rain. At that time, the tall iron horses closely arranged around her added to the powerlessness of the characters and the coldness of the environment.

In addition to the role of constructivism in content expression, it also plays a very good role in rendering. The participation of a large number of steel and cement buildings in the composition makes the whole film strong and strong, showing a cold and alienated temperament. Then Veronica's encounter became a touch of tenderness in the cold era. Even though it was tragic, it still had the power to melt ice.

In composition, I also found that Kalatozov was very fond of a particular composition. In this composition, the three to five people in the picture have different positions, postures, and distances, and their tops are connected in an arc of "high on both sides and low in the middle". The midpoint of the picture is at the head of the lowest person, and the arc extends radially to the top two corners of the picture. This gives the lower part of the whole frame a sense of weight and looks very stable, adding a solid texture to the whole movie. The scattered and uneven characters do not make the picture appear rigid due to its weight, but reveal a sense of dynamism in the heaviness. This composition that balances weight and agility is wonderful.

The long takes are also one of the great things about this film. Although the camera movement in "Flying Wild Goose" is not as fancy as Kalatozov's other film, "I Am Cuba," it still has typical Kalatozov favorite shots. He is very good at using the combination of "following lens + fixed lens". For example, in the scene where Veronica came out of the dugout and ran home, the camera first followed Veronica's footsteps, passing through tanks, streets, fire bushes, and soldiers, but after a turn, she quickly met Veronica. Pull the distance, and finally fix it, and shoot Veronica's back. The final fixation of the camera lens is like a kind of stare, with a condensed sense of heaviness and deep sympathy, as if even the camera lens is lamenting the experience of the characters.

There is also a little variation in this shot combination in different scenes. For example, in the scene where Veronica took the tram to Boris's house to say goodbye to him, after following Veronica out of the car and passing through the crowd, the camera did not end with a fixed staring shot, but the camera slowed down. Slowly ascending, Veronica's figure, the surrounding tanks, and the dust raised by the tanks are included in the top view. This bird's-eye view adds an air of compassion to the picture, as well as the powerlessness of the characters. This combination of shots presents smooth lines, and the relationship between frames is compact and unbroken in one shot, creating a sense of anticipation and suspense. I myself often hold my breath while watching these shots, lest I miss a single frame.

In addition, Kalatozov's typical shots also include his usual "one shot with multiple scenes". Through the movement of the camera, three or more scenes can be accommodated in one shot. For example, in the scene where Veronica calls Boris from the phone booth in the square, the camera shoots Veronica's phone call across the phone booth. This is the first scene; then Veronica walks out and the scene changes. In order to take a close-up shot of Veronica and Mark from above, Mark is standing slightly forward and facing the left side of the screen, while Veronica is facing away from the camera, forming a heavy two-person shot. This is the first shot. The second scene; in the end, it is still the slowly rising staring shot, and the scene is changed to a large distant scene containing figures, buildings, and iron horse railings. This is the third scene. When dealing with similar scenes in modern commercial films, more than three shots are often required, and here is a melodious long shot, so that the entire movement process of the characters does not appear to be fragmented. And poetry is born in this, the slow, unmoved sense of continuity makes this process like a dream.

Simulating character movement with camera movement is also what makes this film extremely unique and wonderful. In the very famous scene in which Boris was shot and killed, the camera first used continuous zoom to simulate the subjective perspective of Boris's blurred mind and backwards: the sun gradually became smaller and the clouds gradually darkened. Next, the camera rotates to simulate Boris' vertigo: the dead branches of the birch tree create a hallucination in the rotation, as if they become a circle. This made Boris naturally imagine that he was going down the spiral staircase to find Veronica. The next stacking montage combined the light spot in front of Boris, who was about to faint, with Veronica's veil. Boris seemed to see the scene of his marriage with Veronica in white veil. These two sets of shots combine real and fantasy scenes to simulate the near-death experience of the human brain. In the end, the light spot became a veil that was constantly dancing, and the real scene died at this time, leaving only Boris's beautiful fantasy, which also meant the final demise of Boris's life. It's one of the best camera moves in film history, and the swirling birch trees that appear in Tarkovsky's "Ivan's Childhood" five years later are a direct homage to this stunning shot.

Another outstanding scene where camera movement simulates character movement is in the scene where Veronica runs out of the hospital trying to kill herself. The camera shoots Veronica running through the barbed wire. During the high-speed motion, the barbed wire becomes a white screen because of the human eye's vision, which adds movement to the scene and makes the audience feel that Veronica is running faster than she actually runs. faster. At the same time, the fast release of the camera also achieves the same effect. The camera shoots Veronica's footsteps, as if she is running at an impossible speed, which directly reflects Veronica's inner shame - she has no face to face Bao Bao. Reese's father and the world. An empty shot inserted during this process is that the camera is in rapid motion, which makes the photographed dead branches and roof appear unrealistically cluttered, which also simulates the character's upset mood. These expressive ways of presenting content directly in the language of the lens all show Kalatozov's profound skills and innovative consciousness. In such a movie with a popular plot, the language of the camera lens makes everything more mysterious and profound. This is the charm of the movie, the charm of the image itself.

In addition, the rhythm of the film is also very appropriate, the most notable is the scene where Boris sends Veronica home at the beginning of the film. In order not to be discovered by others, the two had to talk and walk secretly in the corridor. In this process, the rhythm is moderate, and there is always a wave of equalization and another wave. The conversation between the two in a low voice and their gentle footsteps created a sense of tension; the surroundings seemed to be quiet, and the two of them spoke loudly, making the tension a little less; thinking that someone was coming, the sudden hiding made the rhythm abruptly quicken; Peace of mind, while sitting at the door to rest, a big dog that suddenly sprang out broke the slow rhythm again, making the plot return to tension. This not only makes the audience feel immersed in the scene, but the jumping up and down of the characters also adds a lot of comical feeling to the film. There is a lot of humor and humanity in this one.

The setting is also a commendable part of the film. Before the war, there was a large table in the living room of Boris's house with a grand piano next to it. We have seen family members eating at the table many times; Has disappeared, and here quietly hints the tension of the battle. The audience can't help but start to think, whether the war has become tense, and the people's living conditions are very poor; whether the war has made the family very busy, and they have not eaten together for a long time. These sets all play the role of hinting and guiding the audience's thinking, which is the "reservation" method that I very much agree with. As a creator, it is not advisable to explain everything directly, as if the audience are puppets who cannot think, and need the creator's meticulous "feeding". The ideal state should be an equal status between the creator and the audience. The artist allows the audience to observe, feel, and think during the viewing process, forming a benign interaction process with the creator and the work. The educational significance and artistic value of the film can be reflected in it. On the other hand, today's movies, especially commercial blockbusters, lack this kind of benign interaction, making movies gradually only entertaining, which is a very sad situation.

However, such a vague language can easily make people feel pretentious and cryptic. In many cases, creators are indeed easy to fall into this routine in order to pursue that kind of "artistic film atmosphere". This is not the case. When people talk about art films today, they evaluate them as "mysterious" and "unintelligible", because of the inertia brought about by the lack of interactivity. The audience has become accustomed to the presentation of details in the "feeding" over time, so that once there is a place that requires careful observation, deep thinking, and meditation, they feel extremely uncomfortable. Is this the fault of the filmmakers or the fault of the audience? I think it's both. If the creators give more opportunities to "stocking", and the audience has more attempts to "self-foraging", this situation is easy to break. Otherwise, over time, the film will lose its original vitality and become a vassal of life, repeating the old and dull words, and there will be no "higher than life" value.

The script of the film is also very skillful, which can be seen from the characterization and lines. In shaping the image of Mark, one simple act expresses his character. At Boris's farewell dinner, Mark wants to buy a bottle of red wine. In Russia, drinking wine is not a natural thing, and it is even seen as "unmanly" behavior, and low-alcohol wines such as wine are not the preference of the Slavs. In the Soviet era, red wine was even more regarded as a "bourgeois enjoyment", and it is no wonder that Boris's father complained that "people now only enjoy it". A small gesture shows Mark's "hedonistic" tendencies and his inflexibility. We only confirmed this conjecture after it was revealed that he had evaded service.

In general, "Flying Wild Goose" is not an outdated film, both in terms of its audio-visual language and connotation. In the face of such a popular and even old-fashioned storyline, the creators made the film so good through various efforts. Combined with the background of its era, I can understand all the surprises in the heart of the Cannes jury when they faced this film.

View more about The Cranes Are Flying reviews