Long ago in Soviet Union lived two brothers -- Arkady and Boris Strugatsky. They had a dream -- to live in Communism -- and as they were writers, they devised the World of Noon, the future society of people appreciating creative work the most, socially responsible and enjoying living. It occurred, it wasn't a dream about Communism, that's why the writers soon became anti-Soviet, and the dream started living its separate life, changing, infecting new generations of engineers and scientists, strangely surviving under any system...
"Ugly Swans" are not about World of Noon, but those who are able to appreciate it. So... The future intrudes into our world. Perhaps not a very happy one, because agents of it -- Aquatters -- are targeted by unknown genetic disease. Aquatters came to a provincial Russian town, set the rules they like and started to educate children. For children are our future, and changing them you make the world different. They teach rather strange things: what is hyperspace, and how to change weather, and other things, perhaps pretty important in the world of Aquatters. But top of all, they teach children to _think_.
What's the problem, you would ask? A little one. In children's dreams there's no place for us. Our world is bankrupt, our values are corrupt, our moral is false. They are ruthless... but they only want to live in _their_ world. They go ahead, not looking on us and not caring. It's not surprising that our civilization considers them a menace. We also can be ruthless, and too often we are ruthless without necessity... Writer Viktor Banev who happens to visit the town faces uneasy moral choices. Taking sides. Remaining humane when bad things happen... not little for a single person? The movie is said to be based on the 1967 novel, but paradoxically, ideas spoken out in that moth-eaten year grew only more topical today. And the world too often can't propose growing youths nothing but dull job, race for money and dumb TV shows for entertainment. Who is more miserable, children grown by Aquatters, who can't, don't want to live in our world, or we who don't feel their longing for knowledge and agree with the role of well-trained monkeys? Humanism is also a new facet unveiled in the movie. Old... and new. Whatever the theories, there are living people beyond it... Writer Banev from the 1967 novel acts because he feels contempt for the old world; writer Banev in the movie acts because he feels pain of others... he cares about people, not about worlds, and that, I hope shows that the old world is yet alive.
The last but not least, the movie isn't specifically Russian, more a tale of our civilization. And in, e.g. the United States it would be the same topical, I guess.
"Ugly Swans" are not about World of Noon, but those who are able to appreciate it. So... The future intrudes into our world. Perhaps not a very happy one, because agents of it -- Aquatters -- are targeted by unknown genetic disease. Aquatters came to a provincial Russian town, set the rules they like and started to educate children. For children are our future, and changing them you make the world different. They teach rather strange things: what is hyperspace, and how to change weather, and other things, perhaps pretty important in the world of Aquatters. But top of all, they teach children to _think_.
What's the problem, you would ask? A little one. In children's dreams there's no place for us. Our world is bankrupt, our values are corrupt, our moral is false. They are ruthless... but they only want to live in _their_ world. They go ahead, not looking on us and not caring. It's not surprising that our civilization considers them a menace. We also can be ruthless, and too often we are ruthless without necessity... Writer Viktor Banev who happens to visit the town faces uneasy moral choices. Taking sides. Remaining humane when bad things happen... not little for a single person? The movie is said to be based on the 1967 novel, but paradoxically, ideas spoken out in that moth-eaten year grew only more topical today. And the world too often can't propose growing youths nothing but dull job, race for money and dumb TV shows for entertainment. Who is more miserable, children grown by Aquatters, who can't, don't want to live in our world, or we who don't feel their longing for knowledge and agree with the role of well-trained monkeys? Humanism is also a new facet unveiled in the movie. Old... and new. Whatever the theories, there are living people beyond it... Writer Banev from the 1967 novel acts because he feels contempt for the old world; writer Banev in the movie acts because he feels pain of others... he cares about people, not about worlds, and that, I hope shows that the old world is yet alive.
The last but not least, the movie isn't specifically Russian, more a tale of our civilization. And in, e.g. the United States it would be the same topical, I guess.