Posts from The Master and Margarita

What is your opinion about the movie and the book?

I haven't read the book yet, but I really liked the movie.

Added 3 minutes later
It's a pity that the further fate of Behemoth remained unknown.

I haven't read the book yet, but I really liked the movie.

You should, it's worth reading... read it and this question will disappear on its own:

It's a pity that the further fate of Behemoth remained unknown.

P.S. and still, the book is a hundred times better than any movie!
Sincerely.

Well, the film and the book are very similar (there are even many episodes with the exact same words). I really liked both the book and the film. :smile20: :smile44: :smile12: In fact, it's the only book from the school curriculum that I read (even a year before we studied it), and I even wrote a report on it...
The only downside of the film is that in the penultimate episode, there are too many shots of Soviet buildings and other documentary footage; it was obvious that there was extra time, and the use of brown film is clearly a clever plot device, but it still looks bad...

Also, does anyone have the soundtrack from the film or at least some wallpapers?

I haven't read the book. The movie turned out to be very good. I watched it several times, though, because I didn't understand anything at first. And the soundtrack is also AMAZING! :smile44:

Heh...
The book is great! EVERYONE SHOULD READ IT!
The movie... Well, the latest one is so-so; it could have been better... but I also have a rare version – "The Master and Margarita," 1994!!! It wasn't released in theaters – the director and producer had a falling out :) In my opinion, that's a SUPER MOVIE.

By the way, about a year ago, I saw in someone's test that the statement was made that Woland is the quintessence of evil. What are your opinions – WHO IS Woland?

I never watched the movie in its entirety. But the book is one of my favorites. I also read the early drafts of the book, which don't include Master or Margarita. It's a powerful piece, very powerful. As for the films, Bulgakov himself was strongly against adaptations, preferring theatrical productions.
And for me, Woland is a third force, neither good nor evil. He's more of an observer.

A very good book!!! The film is good too, but the book (for me) is much more interesting!

I'm thrilled with the book... but I haven't watched the movie and don't want to – I don't like adaptations of well-known books, simply because when I read, I imagine everything differently...

Well, for me, Woland... I'll answer with a quote (I'm not sure if it's accurate or even the source – it seems to be from Goethe's "Faust"):
"I am part of that power which eternally wills evil and eternally works good"
He... Yes, perhaps a third force...

Does anyone have the book on their computer?

As for the film, for me, Bortko's "The Master and Margarita..." is one of the very few examples of a film that can convey a message more clearly than even the book itself (of course, this is just my opinion). I understood Bulgakov better through Bortko than through Bulgakov himself. Honestly, Mikhail Afanasyevich's style in this novel is very difficult for me; I struggled to read it when "The Master and Margarita..." was all the rage, stumbling over stylistic "awkwardnesses," and after watching the film more than a dozen times, I picked up the novel again, and again, there were "awkwardnesses"... This is to say that a film is not always a pathetic parody of the original... What is Woland? According to Bulgakov, he is God's "cleaner," that is, the one entrusted with overseeing human vices. Woland is tired of his burden, sympathetic, seeking understanding from people regarding his mission, and immensely grateful to those who show this understanding (Margarita, the Master). This became clearer to me from the film than from the book. Perhaps I'm committing heresy, but Bulgakov's "The Master and Margarita" is somewhat more "pop" than Bortko's film, possibly due to its strangely unique style, which is completely un-Bulgakovian if you consider his classic works. But both the book and the film are surpassed by Yuri Lyubimov's stage production of "The Master and Margarita..." at the Taganka Theater. I saw the performance in the 1980s, during the theater's golden age. It was amazing! But, alas, it is irreplaceable...

a wonderful book, one of my favorite books, the film... something was missing... and the special effects aren't Hollywood-level, and the cast isn't quite right, I think only the Master and Woland were well-portrayed. I don't know how to explain it, but Bulgakov has his own unique style, which no one has yet been able to capture in a film. And when the film is also interrupted by commercials...

I didn't like the sets in the movie; they were on par with the beginning of cinema. They were visually jarring, these almost cardboard-like landscapes. And not all the actors were suitable for their roles. For the role of Volvand, I could only imagine Yakovlev, but he wasn't available.
I've reread the book many times, and each time I find something new. And I realized that it's impossible to make a movie out of it. Everything will be different; it's written too well.

Personally, I didn't evaluate the sets and other aspects of the film... since it's a series, it was made according to the laws of series, with all the consequences, but I think the director managed to convey the main idea of Bulgakov. Of course, Bulgakov is much broader and more voluminous than the film, but this breadth creates some kind of de-concentration, a scattering of ideas, everything is very strongly and densely encoded. Moreover, in my opinion, the satirical element is very strongly represented in the novel. I have the impression that Bulgakov simply felt deeply about all the Soviet bravado, primitivism, and ignorance in elementary matters, covered by blatant ideological propaganda. Bulgakov openly and heartily laughs at the Soviet system, and this, on the one hand, makes the novel accessible to everyone, and on the other hand, completely negates the deep meaning of the idea itself. By the way, it is a very common opinion that Bulgakov largely took the idea of the novel from Valery Bryusov's "The Fiery Angel." Those who have read it will probably agree with this, but in Bryusov, it is a serious and complex treatise on the soul, while in Bulgakov, it is more of a "popular" pamphlet. Here, after reading Bryusov, there are no questions about the meaning and idea. Everything is concrete and consistent there. Bulgakov, on the other hand, is very scattered, and it is very difficult to gather the quintessence of the idea from him, although Bulgakov is much more interesting to read. Here, as they say, it's a matter of taste