One of the Hrzhanovskiy films that I don't think had been translated before this. Judging from the comments on another Youtube video, this one gave a lot of Soviet kids nightmares. Indeed, I think I wouldn't recommend it to those not yet in their teens, at least - mainly because there wouldn't be much point, as the cultural references are too layered.
Recent Discussion
🡨 Previous | Next 🡪Comment on In the World of Fables (1973)
1.
Admin
2023-06-18 00:12:26 (edited 2023-06-18 00:13:25)
One of the Hrzhanovskiy films that I don't think had been translated before this. Judging from the comments on another Youtube video, this one gave a lot of Soviet kids nightmares. Indeed, I think I wouldn't recommend it to those not yet in their teens, at least - mainly because there wouldn't be much point, as the cultural references are too layered.
One of the Hrzhanovskiy films that I don't think had been translated before this. Judging from the comments on another Youtube video, this one gave a lot of Soviet kids nightmares. Indeed, I think I wouldn't recommend it to those not yet in their teens, at least - mainly because there wouldn't be much point, as the cultural references are too layered.
Comment on Adults Only (1) (1971)
Comment on Adults Only (1) (1971)
Comment on Adults Only (1) (1971)
Comment on Robbery, ...-Style (1978)
1.
Admin
2023-05-31 00:35:12
Not all of these segments work, I think (or perhaps they work only if you've seen the films that are being parodied), but the Italian one that begins at 12:50 is still absolutely hilarious.
Not all of these segments work, I think (or perhaps they work only if you've seen the films that are being parodied), but the Italian one that begins at 12:50 is still absolutely hilarious.
Comment on A Home for a Snail (2005)
1.
Admin
2023-05-21 23:39:28
A rather charming little film. As I watched this, I felt more and more that this may have been a little bit inspired by the never-ending rat-race of capitalism...
A rather charming little film. As I watched this, I felt more and more that this may have been a little bit inspired by the never-ending rat-race of capitalism...
Comment on On Your Mark! (1979)
8.
Cynir
2023-05-21 06:08:21
This is a great film from Belarusian cinema. It promotes the upbringing about the spirit of superiority to children whom in the future will shoulder the country. I have watched it over and over again, especially in hot and dry weather, but it never fails to inspire.
This is a great film from Belarusian cinema. It promotes the upbringing about the spirit of superiority to children whom in the future will shoulder the country. I have watched it over and over again, especially in hot and dry weather, but it never fails to inspire.
Comment on The Stroll (1986)
Comment on The Tale of Igor's Campaign (1972)
Comment on The Tale of Igor's Campaign (1972)
6.
Admin
2023-05-12 03:23:10 (edited 2023-05-12 03:54:23)
>>5
>"russia" must be replaced with "rusi".
Yes, I saw that in your edited subtitles you replaced "Russians" with "Rusians" and "the Russian land" with "Rusland".
The problem with "Rusland" is that I haven't seen it used in English - it simply seems to be the modern Dutch-language name for "Russia". I guess it's useful for those who simply don't like looking at the word "Russia", though, and choose to associate it only with the modern state, so we could have that as an option.
I looked this up a bit, and it seems that back then, they used either a single "S" or a double "S" in spelling it, and
the double "S" only became standard in Peter the Great's time, probably due to German/Dutch influence. For example, see this analysis of the 1377 Laurentian Codex:
"Руская земля" (л.1 об.)
"море Руское" (л.3 об.)
"рускаго князя" (л.6 об.)
"людье рустии" (л.11 об.)
"Русьскую землю" (л.50 об.)
"самовластец Русьстей земли" (л.51)
"князь русьскый" (л.54 об.)
"земле Русьстей" (л.58)
"русьскым именемь" (л.78)
"землю Русскую" (л.101 об.)
"князи русские" (л.103 об.)
"Русскую землю" (л.169)
A single member of the ethnos was "русин" (in "modern" Russian, this word can still be encountered in the context of old bylinas (about bogatyrs such as Dobrynya, Alyosha, etc.) that use older language, and it is still used by the so-called Rusyn people of Central Europe). The whole group was "русь" (rus'), and one of the names for the land was "русь-ск-ая земля" (rus'-sian land). Logically (if you analyze the grammar), that seems to be the original form, which was then shortened to either "русская"/russian (dropping the soft sign) or even further to just "руская"/rusian (as in modern Ukrainian). But the point is that all of these, back then, referred to the same thing and were interchangeably used - the differences were due to different grammatical tenses or lazy spelling, as in the examples above. Much, much later, different spellings became standard in different places, but the actual name (as it sounds when spoken) never seems to have changed.
I think this may also have been the perspective of the earlier English translators who decided to use that spelling.
>Personally, I figured that this film was produced by Ukrainian ones, so it's in Ukrainian texts, and the Russians will, of course, use their style.
Well... Vladimir Nabokov and Leonard Magnus published for Western editors. I also don't know if there is a distinction between "Rusian" and "Russian" in Ukrainian... if the standard way in Ukrainian to spell "Russian" now is with one "s", then how is it possible to differentiate between "Rusians" and "Russians"? Isn't that precisely why they call Russians "Muscovites" instead?
But like I said, I'm fine with having two versions...
>>5
>"russia" must be replaced with "rusi".
Yes, I saw that in your edited subtitles you replaced "Russians" with "Rusians" and "the Russian land" with "Rusland".
The problem with "Rusland" is that I haven't seen it used in English - it simply seems to be the modern Dutch-language name for "Russia". I guess it's useful for those who simply don't like looking at the word "Russia", though, and choose to associate it only with the modern state, so we could have that as an option.
I looked this up a bit, and it seems that back then, they used either a single "S" or a double "S" in spelling it, and
the double "S" only became standard in Peter the Great's time, probably due to German/Dutch influence. For example, see this analysis of the 1377 Laurentian Codex:
"Руская земля" (л.1 об.)
"море Руское" (л.3 об.)
"рускаго князя" (л.6 об.)
"людье рустии" (л.11 об.)
"Русьскую землю" (л.50 об.)
"самовластец Русьстей земли" (л.51)
"князь русьскый" (л.54 об.)
"земле Русьстей" (л.58)
"русьскым именемь" (л.78)
"землю Русскую" (л.101 об.)
"князи русские" (л.103 об.)
"Русскую землю" (л.169)
A single member of the ethnos was "русин" (in "modern" Russian, this word can still be encountered in the context of old bylinas (about bogatyrs such as Dobrynya, Alyosha, etc.) that use older language, and it is still used by the so-called Rusyn people of Central Europe). The whole group was "русь" (rus'), and one of the names for the land was "русь-ск-ая земля" (rus'-sian land). Logically (if you analyze the grammar), that seems to be the original form, which was then shortened to either "русская"/russian (dropping the soft sign) or even further to just "руская"/rusian (as in modern Ukrainian). But the point is that all of these, back then, referred to the same thing and were interchangeably used - the differences were due to different grammatical tenses or lazy spelling, as in the examples above. Much, much later, different spellings became standard in different places, but the actual name (as it sounds when spoken) never seems to have changed.
I think this may also have been the perspective of the earlier English translators who decided to use that spelling.
>Personally, I figured that this film was produced by Ukrainian ones, so it's in Ukrainian texts, and the Russians will, of course, use their style.
Well... Vladimir Nabokov and Leonard Magnus published for Western editors. I also don't know if there is a distinction between "Rusian" and "Russian" in Ukrainian... if the standard way in Ukrainian to spell "Russian" now is with one "s", then how is it possible to differentiate between "Rusians" and "Russians"? Isn't that precisely why they call Russians "Muscovites" instead?
But like I said, I'm fine with having two versions...
🡨 Previous | Next 🡪