Oblomov (1980)

Writer-director Nikita Mikhalkov (Burnt by the Sun) combines some accomplished and evocative visuals with a tongue-in-cheek morality play about the price of personal freedom in this 1979 adaptation of the 19th-century Russian novel by Goncharov. Oleg Tabakov plays the title character, an amiable and enigmatic man who, after years of anonymous toiling as a landowner, begins to live his life in a virtual slothlike existence. Oblomov is regarded by others around him as something of a harmless joke, but as he passes the days in bed indulging himself with food and aimless pondering, he reminisces about his childhood and the life he's led, and he discovers a fulfilling poetry to his life. Eventually, though, his celebration of laziness threatens to ruin his life and all he holds dear. The film employs a deft and pastoral visual style to augment the joy and freedom this man feels at being able to control his own destiny, even with tragic results. A challenging and thought-provoking effort, Oblomov is a distinct and original piece of cinema. --Robert Lane Amazon.com

Desire and Inertia

Oblomov resigns his post as a civil servant at the age of 30 and thereafter spends entire days laying in bed daydreaming, bickering with his equally indolent servant, and generally preferring a life of quiet contemplation to a life of action for which he seems singularly unsuited. Oblomov's solitudes are punctuated by his dreams of an idyllic childhood and the peace and love he felt when in the warm embrace of his mother and it is to this kind of warm embrace that he longs to return hence his love of sleep, of escape from the mundane toilings of existence, and his pursuit of more dreams of that desired unity with his mother.

His best friend, Stoltz, is just the opposite. Stoltz is a man who is enlivened by worldly commerce and affairs. In contrast with the robust Stoltz who is completely at one with the world and succeeds at everything he attempts; Oblomov seems pathetic, childlike, incompetent, fragmented, will-less. Stoltz labels his friend's condition "Oblomovism" and sets about reforming him with a strict diet, a social agenda, and plans to take him abroad and stir in him an interest in the business of the world. But Oblomov's heart is not in it. He doesn't care at all that he looks 50 even though he is 30, he is mortified at the thought of having to socialize, and although he acquires an expensive set of luggage he has no intention of going abroad and leaving Russia.

In one of the most memorable scenes of the film, Oblomov meditates aloud to Stoltz about how his mind is full of so many dead things (religions, civilizations, dates, facts) and he expresses his desire to be at one with the world around him (as a leaf on a tree). In this moment the ever-active Stoltz is completely quieted by Oblomov's profound way of viewing existence. But the moment passes and Stoltz is once again swept up with the business of the world.

Despite his penchant for inertia, one thing does stir him from his solitude: Olga. Olga is a woman with a divided temperament. She seems to be a woman who thrives on social interaction and so seems to be naturally drawn to Stoltz who has a way of drawing her out and making her laugh, but there is also something about Oblomov that she is equally responsive too: his stillness, his poetic quiet, his longing to be at one with the world. Oblomov and Olga are each poetic souls who are mesmerized by natural beauty and each other, and so long as they are alone in the idyllic landscape of Oblomov's country estate where they have chosen to summer together they do seem to be at one with the world and each other. But when Stoltz returns from one of his world tours so does Olga's desire to be more involved with the world and so she turns her attentions once again toward him. But Olga is fascinating, her inner conflicts are never fully resolved, and even though she marries Stoltz, late in life she finds herself thinking once again of Oblomov.

The ending of this film is one of the most moving of any film that I can recall, and also one of the most evocative of life's enduring patterns, as well as its enduring promise (even though those promises are not always fulfilled or fulfillable).

I suppose it is possible to interpret Oblomov as being symbolic of Russia's insular and brooding separatism from Europe, and its refusal to let go of its past, to modernize, and adjust to the commercial age. And its also possible to see in Oblomov a precursor to the kinds of characters that would later appear in modernist works by Kafka and Beckett. But there is something about Oblomov that resists these kinds of historicizations. Like all great literature, Oblomov seems to symbolize something that is true about the human condition and life in all times. August 27, 2008

Oblomov

OblomovAfter reading the book of Gontcharov, this film just feels so wrong and with no depht in the caracters, Olga seems a silly girl when the lovestory between her and Stoltz is not told, Stoltz appears too arrogant in that version of the story, all the strength of Gontcharov's language is missing in this film-adaptation! The actor of Oblomov is fantastic, but his caracter misses all the sadness of his downfall when the lovestory to his housekeeper is not told - so just never miss the real story, read the book!!! August 7, 2008

Oblomov

Based on a beloved novel by Ivan Goncharov, "Oblomov" combines the sensitivity of a Chekhov tale with the farcical tradition of Russian theater. As the title character, real-life stage director Tabakov is adorably ruffled, indecisive, undisciplined, and wholly empathetic--a perfect metaphor for Mother Russia in the pre-Glasnost era. Mikhalkov wrings a lot of mileage out of his hero's soulful struggles, contrasting the dreariness of the present with the gilded glow of childhood through his adroit use of color and lighting. A charming moral parable, "Oblomov" takes the measure of life, sees it lacking, and then builds to an acceptance of love's fulfillment. July 9, 2007

Acquire this film!

Up front, this is a great story -- a saga of a very likeable and gullible man who flounders in life and whom refuses to leave his sofa. The story begins in 1859, two years prior to the "freeing" of the Russian serfs and the heyday of the Czars and of the near-useless Russian Nobility. Oblomov's life-long serf-servant, Zhakar, is priceless. Zhakar will quickly have you rolling on the floor, howling with laughter. The cinematography of Oblomov is superior and the subtitles are well-done, quite readable and an excellent translation from the Russian. Yes, the director had to cut a lot from the original lengthy work of Goncharov, but the tale is still well-told. This is one of those films that convinces me that Russian directors have a much finer sense of art and story-telling than do most American film-makers. It represents humor for the thinking person. Don't miss this wonderful tragi-comedy. A rare piece of film art. June 8, 2007

Read the book; the film is no masterpiece

This film captures some of the feeling of the Goncharev novel, which is one of the best books I've ever read. As with any movie about a lengthy literary work, this film glosses over the intricacies of the plot and is a superficial study of the characters. But given the intellectual intricacies of the novel, the director has to get five stars for the effort.

A principal plot line of the book contrasting the pure-heartedness of Oblomov and the conflict between this aspect of his (Russian) character and that of the Westernizers is completely absent. Since this conflict between traditional Russian social values (promoted by the Slavophiles as Russia's salvation) and the Euroopean approach to the world (promoted by the Westernizers) is critical to understanding Goncharev, the movie leaves a lot to be desired. The very interesting conclusion of the novel, in which the identity of the narrator is surprisingly revealed, is absent from the film or at least loses its dramatic impact.

For a commited Russophile, and especially someone who has read the Goncharev book, I recommend this film. But for others: skip the film, get the book and read it! July 4, 2004

More reviews at Amazon.com ...