Ovod (1980) User Reviews

From Galina to Galina - with gratitude

[Galina_movie_fan · 8/10 · 20 May 2008]

The 3.5 hours long TV series "Ovod" (Gadfly) (1980) is the second Russian adaptation of Ethel Lillian Voynich's novel set in 1840s Italy under the dominance of Austria during the time of revolt and uprising. The novel and the film tell the romantic and tragic story of Arthur Burton and his transformation from naive, idealistic, and deeply religious young man into a passionate revolutionary, the talented journalist - author of the critical stinging articles signed Gadfly, and the uncompromising enemy of the church and especially of the Cardinal Montanelli, his Godfather and former teacher whom he used to love and respect as his closest friend and spiritual guide. The film should be seen for the incredible work of Andrei Kharitonov who gave a great performance in the complex, selfless, and exhausting role of Arthur/Gadfly. It is difficult to believe that Gadfly was Andrei's debut on the screen, and that his 20th Birthday happened on the first day of shooting. As the film progresses, Andrei Kharitonov reaches incredible heights in exploring the character of Arthur. The third chapter of the film - the confrontation between Arthur and Cardinal Montanelli (played by Sergey Bondarchuk, the famous Soviet actor/director, the creator of epic "War and Peace") takes a good movie into the realm of greatness, and it is mainly due to Kharitonov's completely losing himself in a tortured passionate man who all his life had dreamed of the father, thought that he had been betrayed by his father and when given the last chance to confront him, begged his father to choose between God's son and his own son. Arthur's accusation and denial of Christ - "What had he suffered that I had not?!" makes the blood chill. Perhaps, it did not take Andrei too much effort to play young Arthur, naive, romantic, beautiful golden boy loved by everyone around him, active and willing participant of the movement that had its goal in fighting for freedom against the tyranny. To play Gadfly, is a different story. How could he possibly have known about life's betrayals, bitter disappointments, and tragic losses, physical and mental tortures at the age of 20 with the face that only promised love, devotion, fame, and success? Whom did he actually play? He did not read 'Ovod" as a young boy (unlike many of us in our childhood in the former USSR). He said in one interview that his mom had had a very good collection of books and did not consider "Ovod" a particularly good book, the statement I have to agree with now. He was not fond of the book but his talent as an actor had transcended over the weakness of the material and created a character of incredible power and passion. Andrei is the main reason to see and enjoy otherwise good but not particularly memorable movie. Another reason is of course use of Mozart music - you can't go wrong with Amadeus.

In conclusion, I want to thank my dear friend and Namesake whom I met on IMDb boards. She has been a longtime admirer of Mr. Kharitonov's talent and she insisted that I saw the film and sent the DVDs to me. I am forever grateful to her for the chance to enjoy one of the most brilliant film debuts I can think of.

Ethel Voynich's unparallelled novel of 1897 here given three full hours.

[clanciai · 8/10 · 4 August 2020]

In comparison with the classical version of 1955, this one is more melodramatic, stretched to 3 hours instead of 90 minutes, less dramatic, and made for the TV, not for the screen, which also reduces its impact, although Sergei Bondarchuk as the cardinal does his best to make as grandiose effects as possible in the final scenes, but somehow, he is not as convincing as was Nicolai Simonov in 1955 - he is more Sergei Bondarchuk than a cardinal. On the other hand, Andrei Kharitonov is even better than Oleg Strizhenov in 1955, and as this version is more detailed, his transformation from a pious student to a fantacic embittered and furious revolutionary is made impressingly psychologically realistic here. Anastasia Vertinskaya is also outstanding as Gemma, and this film is actually intended as three films: the first dealing with the crisis that made the Gadfly, the second dwelling on the relationship between him and Gemma, and the third concentrating on the relationship between him and the cardinal, completely dominated by Bondarchuk. There is no Shostakovich romance here and no Bach, but instead the leading motive is Mozart's "Lacrimosa" from his Requiem, which plays every time the cardinal fills the context. This film also includes the Gadfly's gipsy sweetheart, who is totally ignored in 1955. The music is on the whole a decisive ornament to the film, both deepening its tragedy and heightening its pathos and above all, permeating the whole film with endless melancholy and sadness, which is n't wrong at all, but which has a trendency to sentimental exaggerations. The cinematography of the 1955 version is missing here, although this is also beautifully made, and you can't get enough of those wonderful takes all around Pisa and Florence. The 1955 version is much more dramatic with tremendous riot scenes, while here they are reduced to almost some chamber skirmishes. The story is also more altered from the book: the circumstances of the Gadfly's final arrest are very spectacular indeed both in the book and in the 1955 film, while here they are closeted in a church. Anyway, it's still a great film, made especially great by this extremely human and dramatic story, which never could be a failure, and the main part of the Gadfly (really s signature and pseudonym for a radical pamphleteer) is another of those characters that no actor ever could fail in but only excel in.