Film Review

 A Farewell to Arms (1957)

   Now I'm going to speak on the film A Farewell to Arms (1957). It is a 1957 Americanfilm directed by Charles Vidor. The film is the second feature film adaptation of Ernest Hemingway's 1929 semi-autobiographical novel of the same name. The picture starres Gary Cooper as Frederick Henry and Helen Hayes as Catherine Barkley.

   That was the period of World War I, when a young American lieutenant returned from vacation to the Italian front. There his flat-mate Rinaldi, a profession surgeon, introduced Henry to his acquaintance, American nurse, Catherin Barkley. But the next day the man went to the attack at the head of the river, where he was seriously wounded and got to the hospital to Milan where Catherine was also moved. After an operation, they spent almost all their time together. Thus their love deepened as they got to know that faced alone that terrible war and cruel world. However, when Frederic returned to the front to Gorozia, a big retreat from the front began. Together with Rinaldi and the army, he faced Italian military police, who questioned officers and then shoot. But Frederic escaped by diving into the river. He returned to Milan, having decided that for him the war was finished and he would no longer participate in it. And then together with Catherine they went to Switzerland. Everything was well, until it was time for Catherine’s childbirth, as the doctors had to do a caesarean, but the baby died. And several hours later Henry knows that it was over for his wife, as he died.

    So speaking on the film, I can't say that it impressed me; and firstly, it is due to the director's work. In fact the whole picture can be divided into two parts: only war and only love. Too many episodes are dedicated to war (for example, I didn't experience the whole tragedy of the time, and tragic life of the main characters). While the rest of time is dedicated to love, what actually makes it typical American story about love. And last, the film too tightened: if at first he was a little electrifies, starting from the middle of this voltage drops, and at times it even funny.

   As for the actors, the only one thing can be said: their play was great, though sometimes, it seemed that they overacted a bit. And another thing I'd like to mention is that, in my opinion, the film Henry did not meet Hemingway's Henry: in the film actor matched with too Hollywood appearance (I think the role of a superman would be right for him).

   In conclusion, I'd like to say that as in any other screen version, there are many moments that are cut out in this film, besides the first chapter of the book is missing, but nevertheless, it does not harm the film. 

Film Review

In Love and War (1996)

   Now I’m going to speak about the movie In Live and War (1996). So In Love and War is a 1996 romance drama film based on the book, Hemingway in Love and War by Henry S. Villard and James Nagel, starring  Chris O'Donnell as Ernest 'Ernie' Hemingway and Sandra Bullock as Agnes von Kurowsky.  This film takes place during World War I.

   It was 1918 the First World War, when a young American reporter Ernest Hemingway came to Italy, but was refused to be taken to the front. Being on the firing line, the man got under the enemy’s fire where he was badly wounded. Thus Ernest was taken to the hospital, where he met an American nurse Agnes von Kurovsky, with whom he immediately felt in love. However, soon the woman was transferred closer to the front, while Ernest was sent to the United States. After the war the woman was offered to marry the surgeon, that put an end to two lovers’ relations. She continued her career with the American Red Cross, and Ernest Hemingway continued writing and became one of the most famous novelists of his time.

   It’s an open secret that nowadays there’re a great number of biopic films but not all of them can award the status of the best. However, I think this film deserves it. As you know, In Love and War is based on the novelist’s experience in World War I, and the director – Richard Attenborough – managed to transfer all aspects of Hemingway’s life (especially his spiritual wounds) to a high accuracy. Besides, as it has been already mentioned, the action took place in wartime, and that point is also well reflected in the picture: the battle field, trenches, hospitals, full of seriously wounded and the dead; the atmosphere itself - voltage and bustle in the hospital, convey the seriousness and the gloom of that period. And the only beam in this darkness was love, which didn't stand the test.

   Separately I would like to draw your attention on a good selection of actors and their incredible performances. I won’t be cunning if say that I am delighted with Sandra Bullock’s performance, as in all the movies she's just irresistible. And as always, in this picture actress lives the life of her character, her mimic expressions and movements testify to this. She's like no other perfect for this role: Sandra creates an impression of a strong, smart, kind, and gentle woman; such a description fully complies with her character Agnes von Kurovsky.

   In conclusion, I’d like to say that the film, definitely, deserves attention, though didn't made an expected impression upon me. But it is a must for watching. Besides it differs from Ernest Hemingway's novel A Farewell to Arms, although the latter also contains аautobiographical details. 

Higher Education in Britain and the USA

Higher Education in Britain and the USA

Laboratory Works - Higher Education

5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4

Film Review

Dangerous Minds (1995)

   Now I’m going to speak about the movie Dangerous Minds (1995) and how LouAnne Johnson changed lives of her students. So Dangerous Minds is an American drama directed by John N. Smith. It stars  Michelle Pfeiffer as LouAnne Johnson, working as a teacher at Carlmont High School in Belmont, California.

   Having been divorced, LouAnne Johnson started working as a teacher in a school in Belton, in the most difficult and unrulier class. But possessing a firm character and having the skills of a former marine, Johnson decided to teach them. She found the approach to all of them and fought for each student, as they believed that everything was decided for them and they had no other choice but to finish their lives in the street without education and a chance for successful life. And when the woman decided to leave, unable to understand the school principal and the children’s parents, the students persuaded her to stay, saying that she was a flame that lit them the way.

   One of the main problems, presented in the film, is the attitude of the school and parents to the children of the lower classes of society. Such students don't want to learn not because they are stupid, but because there is no one who can be proud of them. All what children have are poverty and drunk parents, who don’t want their children to get an education and have already, chose their destiny for them. But teens, from such families, are ordinary people who have right of choice what they want to be in their future. In this film, only one person decides to struggle for their fates, a teacher, who then became their torch.

So this problem is perfectly shown in several episodes. The first example is when LouAnne came to parents of Raúl, who was expelled from school for a couple of days for a fight, for what his father was ready to punish the teenager without clearing of reasons. Or, for example, a mother of two black teenagers, who decided that her sons didn’t need education to live their miserable life.

   In conclusion, I’d like to say that in a child's education the main role belongs to the family as a pillar of support, guide and helper for children. But, unfortunately, not always parents care about the future of their child, and then school meddles with their lives. In addition, as they say, a teacher is the second mother, and the film is a confirmation of this, as there was only one person who  believed in children and pushed them in the right way, thus changed lives of her students.

Film Review

The Ron Clark Story (2006)

Director: Randa Haines

Cast: Matthew Perry as Ron Clark, Brandon Mychal Smith as Tayshawn, Hannah Hodson as Shameika, Micah Stephen Williams as Julio, Ernie Hudson as Principal Turner, Melissa De Sousa as Marissa Vega, Patricia Idlette as Devina, Judith Buchan as Snowden School Principal

Genre: Drama, Television

Settings: United States, New York City, Harlem

Review: A teacher in junior school, Ron Clark (Matthew Perry), differed from other teachers by his innovative methods so that his pupils always got the best results in education, got the highest score. Having left the home-town, North Carolina, the man moved to New York City for teaching in a public school. But he found it difficult to get a teaching position and for some time had to work as a waiter at a local restaurant. The door opened when Ron got a job at the Harlem Elementary School and took to educate the most unruly class of the sixth grade. Clark used a completely new approach to education, establishing his own rules. He tried to train the children to believe in themselves and their abilities, be one family, trust and help each other. But despite his experience, it became difficult for Ron Clark to reach mutual understanding with difficult children, as most of them were from disadvantaged families, they were aggressive, some of them had problems with law. However, the teacher didn't give up, he believed in them. Thus several months later the man could become not only a friend for the children but also instill necessary knowledge and change their lives to better. In the end of the academic year Ron gave the children free tickets to the musicale Phantom of the Opera. All of them were so excited that some, looking at the program, told each other the plot, while the boy (Brandon Mychal Smith), fascinated by drawing graffiti, even drew a shape of a Ghost on the wall of his room, for which was beaten by his step-father. And having sat the final examinations, the pupils got the highest score in the area, and regarded Ron Clark as their best teacher.

   It’s an open secret that nowadays there’re a great number of biopic films but not all of them can award the status of the best. However, this film deserves it, definitely. And first of all, it’s due to the work of the director - Randa Haines, - who was able to turn the movie into a masterpiece. This picture is very simple, it lacks the modern visual effects (which are inherent in almost all Hollywood films). As the film is based on real events so there aren't for example, super beautiful surroundings of the city, the teacher’s glamorous and expensive apartment, they can just spoil the film. So these things make the picture more realistic, transporting us in the life of the main characters.

   Separately I would like to draw your attention on a good selection of actors and their incredible performances. In this movie, Matthew Perry appeared to me from a completely different side - as a serious actor, embodying the true image of Ron Clark. However, his comicality doesn't disappear: when he read rap to the children about the presidents of America, teaches them Grammar, etc. On the one hand, it looks very unusual, but, on the other - very effective - how else can you motivate such children?! It’s impossible not to sympathize with such a man! Besides, he has a gift to draw everybody's attention, he knows how to persuade. All in all, his participation proves the fact that he just gets used to this role, even his voice, intonation, gestures and mimicry transfer his mood.

   So in conclusion, I’d like to say that the name of Ron Clark was unknown for me before watching the picture, so all the information about the teacher-innovator and his methods I've got to know from the film. Thus I was very impressed: during the whole film a smile played on my face, but at the same time there was a sense of pride, joy and elation, because Ron Clark is the example of the true teachers and educators who overcome the obstacles that hinder education and bring our society down.

School Education in Britain and the USA

School Education in Britain and the USA

Laboratory Works - School Education

SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES

FIRST DAY AT SCHOOL

LIVE AND LEARN

3.4

Film Reviw

                                                          The Phantom of the Opera (2004)
 

Director: Joel Schumacher 

Cast: Gerard Butler as Erik / The Phantom, Emmy Rossum as Christine Daaé, Patrick Wilson as Raoul, Vicomte de Chagny, Miranda Richardson as Madame Giry, Minnie Driver as Carlotta Giudicelli

Synopsis: The angel of music patrons Christine, promoting her on the main role of the musicals. He thinks she should belong only to him, but everything changes when a strong opponent in the person of Vicomte de Chagny appears.

Review: After a change of the Opera House's shareholders, something strange began happening there: constant accidents, letters from the Phantom of the Opera (Gerard Butler) with his requirements. The angel of music would do everything Christine (Emmy Rossum) to become the prima donna of the theater. He taught her music, the music of the soul and the heart, he loved her, he befriended her; and there her play had a resounding success, instantly turning the girl into a new star of the Opera. Christine' old friend Raoul (Patrick Wilson) congratulated her, and since that moment the struggle between two rivals began. Only the last play became crucial for all of them: the main roles were performed by Erik and Christine, who at the end teared off the Ghost's mask, revealing his disfigured face. Taking the girl, he ran to his refuge, where Vicomte found them.

So, without further ado as it's clear that the film is magnificent, and first of all, thanks to the director Joel Schumacher, who managed to combine classical music with modern filmographie. Separately I would like to draw your attention on a good selection of actors and their incredible performances. Gerard Butler was irresistible and unique in the role of the Phantom. And his voice, which touches the soul... He was imbued with the spirit of the patron, the genius and the angel of music. And an excellent part with Butler was performed by Emmy Rossum with a distinctive appearance, so suitable for air and amorous Christine, with such a beautiful and gentle voice. But most of all I was impressed by Minnie Driver as Carlotta Giudicelli, the most extravagant woman of the Opera, who knew her own worth.

The costumes and scenery were simply stunning: they reflected the reality of that time, moving the audience in the atmosphere of tension and at the same time air atmosphere. About the music we can speak a lot and for a long time, so I'd like to say only the most important: music was just beautiful, thank so much the composer Andrew Lloyd Webber.

All in all, unfortunately, I neither read the novel by Gaston Leroux nor watched Andrew Lloyd Webber''s musical of the same name, but after watching this film adaptation I'll correct this mistake. The movie is really very impressive, soulful, sublime!

Film Review

Ed Wood (1994)

Director:  Tim Burton

Cast: Johnny Depp as Ed Wood, Martin Landau as Bela Lugosi, Sarah Jessica Parker as Dolores Fuller, Patricia Arquette as Kathy O'Hara, Lisa Marie as Vampira, Bill Murray as Bunny Breckinridge, George "The Animal" Steele as Tor Johnson, Mike Starr as George Weiss.

Synopsis: He was a screenwriter, director, producer, actor, author, and film editor of his own horror and science-fiction films. But all of them were low-budget ones. That’s why posthumously he was awarded as Worst Director of All Time.

Review: Ed Wood (Johnny Depp) was trying to join a film company. So having heard about producing the story about Christine Jorgensen's life, he began writing, producing, directing in Casual Company. However, the film shooting was broken down, and Ed started a new one, titled Glen or Glenda, initially conceived under a different name. Unfortunately this one was also failed because of financial problems. But Wood didn’t give up, and meeting a former film star Bela Lugosi (Martin Landau), who acted in his unsuccessful films, started another one called Bride of the Atom. At its premiere the crew was driven out of the theatre, and Ed shot Plan 9 from Outer Space, which actually was normally received by the audience.  

So the film is a bit unusual for Tim Burton, because he seriousness, nevertheless, there is something to laugh at, and this something is a human obstinacy. In fact, this picture has a certain sense, which everyone sees on his own. Thus for me, for example, the meaning is talent. And I think everyone will agree that it’s impossible to start making movies only because you want it, not being familiar with the technique and rules of shooting. But sometimes people are so full of optimism and faith in ourselves that simply don't notice that everything they produce, do no good and no income at all.

This is a biopic film, which tells us the story of a failed career of Ed Wood, whose role fulfilled the incomparable Johnny Depp. His participation proves the fact that just gets used to this role, even his voice, intonation, gestures and mimicry transfer his mood. But, it seems to me, it will be wrong not to note other actors’ participation (especially Martin Landau embodied Dracula so likely), who also gave a special atmosphere to the film. As all of them really got used to the role. And in the role that Burton gave them, and in that which was in the middle of the twentieth century..

All in all, Ed Wood is a very good film, which helps us to understand Edward’s destiny, his life and purpose in it, his priorities. We got to know that Edward really liked movie and shooting and was talented in his own way, and fulfilled his ideas as he could. 

Rendering 14: 'Vladimir Vysotsky - 75'

The article ‘Vladimir Vysotsky – 75’ was published by Daria Manina in The Voice of Russia on January 25, 2013. It discusses a famed Soviet-era actor and singer-song writer Vladimir Vysotsky and carries comments on his fame and influence.

   Speaking of Vladimir Vysotsky, it’s necessary to note that he as the idol of millions in the former USSR, still ranks prominently among the top famous Russians, second only to the world’s first cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin, with other 20th -century celebrities such as as Marshal Georgy Zhukov, writer Leo Tolstoy, Joseph Stalin, Vladimir Lenin, Alexander Solzhenitsin and Andrei Sakharaov all trailing behind, according to a nationwide poll held by the VTsIOM polling agency. 

   However, it isn’t disclose why 32 years after his death, Vyssotsky remains an iconic personality. And analyzing that, it’s necessary to emphasize that the answer comes in his songs: there are some 600 of them – composed on virtually any imaginable topic and sung in a completely amazing style to the self-accompaniment of a seven-string guitar. There are a lot of comments on that fact, as the magnetic power of his songs was such that it made everybody absolutely sure that all he sang about had happened to himself. And the impression was that he himself had been in a prison camp or served in the army during the war. It was there, deep within him and came out so naturally. His lyrics, more than just rhyme, struck a responsive chord with the listeners.

   Giving appraisal of that fact, it should be pointed out that Vysotsky’s heart-rending sincerity, often expressed in the form of a parable, plunged him in to disfavor with the Soviet authorities. “Wolf Hunt”, one of his best-known songs, is a screaming allegory about a doomed artist deprived of the freedom of creation.

It’s an open secret that the peak of Vysotsky’s fame coincided with a period of stagnation in the Soviet Union: there was no room for splashes in that stagnation. No one was permitted to criticize the regime, say or hint something of the sort – sanctions followed immediately.

   There is every reason to believe that Vyssotsky was not a dissident. Of course, few mini-records of his songs were released in Russia during his lifetime, but without a doubt he played key roles at the immensely popular Taganka Theater in Moscow, and he constantly appeared in movies. Finally, he was allowed dozens of concerts a year. Multitudes of copies of amateur audio recordings of those concerts spread across the country.

   In resolute terms in conclusion the author makes it clear that Vysotsky was famous, but he wanted official recognition and he deserved it. But he was denied recognition during his lifetime. It was until after his death at the age of 42, that he was awarded the title of Meritorious Artist of the Soviet Union. And I think Vladimir Vysotsky is not only the idol – he is the legend of Soviet and Russian history, as more than 30 years since his death in 1980, he continues to draw crowds in Moscow.

Rendering 13: 'Commemorating Vladimir Vysotsky - Russia's best-loved bard poet'

The article ‘Commemorating Vladimir Vysotsky – Russia’s best-loved bard poet’ was published by Benjamin Hutter in Russia Beyond the Headlines on January 24. It reports about the Russian artist the late Vladimir Vysotsky, as today more than 30 years since his death in 1980, he continues to draw crowds in Moscow. That year Vysotsky would have been his 75th birthday.

   Speaking of commemoration of his birthday at tribute concert at Crocus City Hall, it’s necessary to note that Vladimir Vysotsky made an appearance, speaking on a huge screen that dominated the Hall; he told about his childhood memories. It’s an open secret that the man had a voice of a real drunkard (as parents’ friends used to say), that was a difficult task for his imitators.

   Moreover, Vladimir Vysotsky was not only actor, but an author and singer of his songs, poet, the author of the prose works; however, his songs were never officially permitted in the Soviet Union; he was only recognized officially as an actor (he was an actor at the Taganka Theatre; performed in Shakespeare’s “Hamlet”, and in the film “The Meeting Place Cannot Be Changed”). Analyzing such a situation, it’s necessary to note that despite of that that fact everyone knew when and where his next concert would take place.

   Giving appraisal of his work, it’s necessary to mention that Vysotsky’s songs are like an embodiment of life, as they are like a whole drama: a piece of theatre that can be read, again and again; and each time you find new emotions, a new meaning. So generations grew up on his songs. However, it must be mentioned that Vladimir Vysotsky was the first Russian rocker, though his attitude and his deep, intellectual lyrics.

   The article concludes by saying that Vysotsky’s legacy is so profound that some see him as untouchable in terms of the heights he reached. The greying heads of those who were the singer’s contemporaries can be counted on the fingers of one hand among his fans. This jubilee was attended by thousands of Muscovites, offering Vysotsky that which he desired above all else during his lifetime – immortality. So I think you will agreee with me that it is possible to write books about him, and after that not everything will be said, as Vladimir Vysotsky is the most bright and outstanding personality of art music, cinema and the theatre of our history. He performed Hamlet and repeated his life: both of them died young and misunderstood. However, such people cannot be forgotten!

Rendering 12: 'The Great Gatsby to open Cannes 2013'

   The article ‘The Great Gatsby to open Cannes 2013’ was published by Ben Child in The Guardian on March 12, 2013. It discusses how Baz Luhrmann's much-anticipated 3D take on The Great Gatsby, F Scott Fitzgerald's romantic tale of the gilded jazz age, is to open the Cannes film festival. 

   Speaking of the film, it’s interesting to record the stars of the fourth adaptation of Fitzgerald's 1925 novel to hit the big screen, like Leonardo DiCaprio in the title role of Jay Gatsby, Tobey Maguire as his wide-eyed confidant Nick Carraway and Carey Mulligan as manipulative socialite Daisy Buchanan. And there is general feeling that just this drama will open the 66th Festival de Cannes out-of-competition on 15 May. Besides, the article takes a special view of Luhrmann’s words, as for him, as well as for those who acted in The Great Gatsby, it is a great honor to open the Cannes film festival. He also stressed that F Scott Fitzgerald wrote some of the most poignant and beautiful passages of his extraordinary novel just a short distance away at a villa outside St Raphael. 

   Analyzing the situation, it’s significant to mention what chronicles this particular film. It is about the young, midwestern Carraway's entanglements with a wealthy circle of hedonistic east coast aristocrats, including the titular Jay Gatsby, the host of wild and lavish New York parties. In spite of the fact that while not popular upon its initial publication, it’s very likely that the book went on to be recognised as one of the great American novels and a powerful celebration and indictment of the roaring twenties. 

   Giving appraisal of the director, it’s necessary to point out his career, as prior to his film the most famous adaptation was Jack Clayton's Academy award-winning 1974 version, which was scripted by Francis Ford Coppola. And now he directed this film, which actually was previously filmed in the silent era in 1926 by Herbert Brenon, a version viewed as closest to the original text. Later, in 1949, the same film directed by Elliott Nugent remains largely unseen. 

   Moreover, there are signs that The Great Gatsby will open across France on the same day it screens at Cannes, and that is due in the US on 10 May and the UK a week later. And it’s an open secret that it will be the second 3D film to open Cannes following the Pixar animation Up in 2009. 

   So the article draws the conclusion that Cannes veteran Steven Spielberg was revealed as the surprise president of the jury for this year's festival last month. Like the US film-maker, Luhrmann is a regular on the Croisette, having screened Strictly Ballroom in the Un Certain Regard section in 1992 and Moulin Rouge as the opening film of the 2001 edition. 

   As for me, I'm looking forward for the release of this film on the screens. And moreover, speaking on this film and its director, we are to take into account that Baz Luhrmann is the director of Moulin Rouge, which had a great success. So I think this particular film (The Great Gatsby) deserves such a honor.

Rendering 11: 'Warner Brothers: ninety years of grit and greatness'

   The article “Warner Brothers: ninety years of grit and greatness” was published by David Gritten in The Telegraph on April 4, 2013. It discusses the great event, as that day Warner Bros celebrated nine decades of individuality, big characters, and challenging realism on the big screen. 

   Speaking of Warner Bros, it’s necessary to remark that the world of film changed in 1927 with the premiere of The Jazz Singer in New York City. Starring Al Jolson, it launched the era of the “talkies”, and was the prototype of movies as we know them today: a synthesis of sound and vision. And as that film had then been in existence for just four years, undoubtedly Warners deserved a place in the pantheon of great Hollywood studios. And of course it’s an open secret that over the years there have been so many more reasons to celebrate Warners. 

   Analyzing the company’s career, it’s significant to emphasize that Warner Bros made its mark with big-screen realism. Thus from the early Thirties it generated a cycle of gangster films and crime dramas, that held up a mirror to Depression-era America, and appealed directly to ordinary people having financial troubles. And there is a general feeling to believe that all of them had the same themes regarding a house style: urban settings, snappy dialogue and a brisk pace, with scripts and performances that never strayed into sentimentality. What’s more notable that even the actors in these films distanced Warner Bros from the norm.  

   Giving appraisal of the situation, it’s necessary to point out that unlike Warner Bros, other studios relied on handsome young men to star in films that would transport audiences on clouds of escapism. Besides, the article draws the fact that two key directors created a house style for Warners around this time: Mervyn LeRoy specialised in social dramas with a bracing dose of reality, and Michael Curtiz, who made more than 100 Warners movies over 25 years. Of course not all were masterpieces, but nor were they frivolous; most of them were staged in a real world. 

   Without a doubt it’s hard to predict the course of events, but would another studio have done it differently? That’s why the article takes a fact that the values espoused by Warners in those early days has held good at the studio for a long time. It can be approved by Martin Scorsese’s breakthrough movie, Mean Streets (1973), which was made for Warners. And the careers of two very different film-makers, Clint Eastwood and Stanley Kubrick, also seem to confirm the notion. Both enjoyed long relationships with Warners; professionally, they regarded it as home. 

   Thus the author concludes by saying that even today, a distinctive film-maker like Christopher Nolan calls Warners home, and it’s hard to imagine him equally comfortable elsewhere. Of course, Warners’ output is as varied in quality as any other studio – but over 90 years it has created a legacy unlike any other in Hollywood. 

   So I think everybody will agree that Warner Bros is one of the major film studios, which has the largest collection of movies in the world. What is more important that the company, during the history of its existence, focuses on maximizing current and next-generation scenarios to make films available to audiences.

Rendering 10: 'The Golden Eagle Award'

The article ‘Golden Eagle – 2013’Who got the main Russian award?’ was published by Nino Takaishwili in Woman.ru on January 26, 2013. It reports at length and carries commentaries about the 11^th award ceremony ‘Golden Eagle,’ which winners were Danila Kozlovskiy, Anna Mikhalkova, Irina Rozanova, Sergey Makovetsky and many others.

   Speaking of the ceremony, it’s interesting to note that the choice of its presenters was the surprise for everybody, as they were the actress Anna Snatkina and her husband Victor Vasiliev, who, it seemed, was honored for that the first time. There’s every reason to believe that the zest of the award was the presentation of the films that pretended to the main prize in the category of ‘The best feature film of the year’: the video was represented, where children tried to say something about each of nominees. And according to the audience, it succeeded.

   Analyzing the ceremony, it’s necessary to emphasize that The Best Actor got Danila Kozlovskiy for the role in Духless/Soulless; in the nomination ‘The best actor on the television’ the winner was Sergey Makovetskiy for the role in Case of the Grocery №1; the Best Actress took Anna Mikhalkova for the role in Love with an Accent, though she wasn’t agree with the Academy with the choice, as there were nominated other two outstanding actresses – Roza Hairullina and Renata Litvinova. After the ceremony Nikita Mikhalkov said that he liked his daughter’s work, as it was her best role. It would be wrong not to mention other nominations and winners: the Best Supporting Actress took Viktoriya Tolstoganova for the role in Spy, though she was nominated for several times but it was her first prize. However, the film The Horde by Andrey Proshkin took five awards (the Best Director, Best Cinematography, Best Art Direction, Best Costume Design), though White Tiger by Karen Shahnazarov won the Best Picture, as well as Music, Editing and Sound.  

   The article concludes by saying that there were four winners: Soulless by Roman Prygunov, The Horde by Andrey Proshkin, Spy by Alexey Adrianov and Vysotsky: Thank God I’m Alive by Andrey Smolyakov; and enumerating winners for the Award: Best Picture – White Tiger, Best TV movie – The White Guard, Best TV Series – Zhukov, Best Documentary – Anton’s Right Here, Best Animated Film – Bach, Best Director – Andrey Proshkin, Best Screenplay, Best Actress, Best Actor, Best Supporting Actress, Best Supporting Actor, Best Cinematography, Best Art Director, Best Costume Design, Best Original Music, Best Editing, Best Sound and Best Foreign Film – The Artists.

   As for me, I will say in brief that I am glad we have the actors and directors, worthy of the award "Golden Eagle", as the future of the Russian cinematograph depends on them.

Rendering 9: 'Films That Make the World a Better Place'

The article ‘Films That Make the World a Better Place’ was published in the web site KustendorfFilm and Music Festival on January 22, 2013. It discusses the formation of the omnibus 7 Days In Havana, its forms and to define the reach and potential benefits.

   Speaking of the omnibus, it’s interesting to note the film director Elia Suleiman’s opinion about short films’ creation in the whole. So first of all, the most important thing, that must be mentioned, is that short films are like a chance for the director to work at his feature films in a relaxed setting. Besides, they are like ‘dress rehearsals’ and a great chance to try some new ideas and pictures before the feature film.

   The second thing, that Suleiman mentioned, is the usage and meaning of humor in short films, as    humor is not the consequence of an artistic strategy, but a thing that is humanly inherent. And, analyzing its role, it’s necessary to emphasize that the most important thing for humor is choosing the right moment. It’s all about repetition and anticipation of repetition, as well as a tiny, barely noticeable change of detail as tools to use in order to bring forth the moment for presenting the point. Moreover, there’s every reason to believe that humor is the thing that breaks continuity in the same way that laughter creates a hole in the passing of time; it’s a medium of political action, a reason that always cancels out manifestation of rules.

   Giving appraisal of the omnibus, Emir Kusturica’s opinion about it must be noted, as it’s a result of a work put in by people that were gathered around an idea, which in the end made no one in that group sure what the idea actually is. For him it’s an open secret that Suleiman is a spiritual descendant of the great Jacques Tati, as his film (The Time That Remains) must surpass spontaneity in order to truly become a work of art.

   In conclusion Suleiman draws his attention to the moment that he creates films not with a mission or a concrete idea concerning social engagements, but because he hopes that he will make the microcosms that forms his audience more festive and happier.

   The only thing that I can say is that I absolutely agree with Suleiman that film directors have to create such films that make people happier. I really think it’s true, as sometimes a film with humor (that’s placed in the right moment) make people smile, not drama or catastrophe movies, as they make us happy only for a very short period of time, during which we understand how our relatives and friends are important for us, we are happy that they are with us and people in the whole world are good and kind. But it is just a momentary insanity. Films with humor make us smile even in poverty, which we have to overcome with a smile, and believe that your life is like the film with a happy end (how trite it may sound).

Rendering 7: 'Theatre about theatre shows there's no business like show business'

The article ‘Theatre about theatre shows there's no business like show business’ was published by Mark Lawson in The Guardian on March 8, 2013. It discusses a ‘Chorus Line’, which is one of several successful shows that put the focus on theatre itself. 

   Speaking of the success, it is interesting to note that readers and critics are traditionally sniff about novels and novelists: a publisher in Harold Pinter's play Betrayal has an enjoyable riff about a writer who leaves his wife and moves to a flat, where he writes a novel set in an apartment containing an author whose marriage has collapsed and who is writing a book about it. However, Pinter's own medium is notably tolerant towards the generic equivalent – theater about theater. 

   Analyzing the examples of this form, it is necessary to emphasize that have just been revived in London: the 1975 Broadway musical A Chorus Line and Arthur Wing Pinero's 1898 farce Trelawny of the Wells. And there is every reason to believe that both shows are celebrations of the power of theatre and affectionate depictions of the rituals and figures of the profession. 

   Giving appraisal of the situation, it’s necessary to point out such sentiment from Irving Berlin's 1946 ‘Annie Get Your Gun’ as t here's no business like show business. Moreover, it could be the subtitle of both ‘A Chorus Line’ and ‘Trelawny of the Wells’ and of ‘Cole Porter's Kiss Me, Kate’ (1948). The others are: ‘The Judas Kiss’, ‘The Phantom of the Opera’, ‘Billy Elliot’, ‘Jersey Boys’, ‘Viva Forever!’, ‘Thriller’ and ‘The Bodyguard’. The author draws our attention to the fact that almost all these shows are musicals, which helps to excuse the frequency with which theatre people fail to look beyond their own workplace for a setting. Besides, there is every likelihood that musical theatre suffers from the fundamental structural problem of why the characters have suddenly started singing. 

   There are signs that in spoken drama, where there is no equivalent pressure to justify why the people keep making speeches, characters who are performers will tend to have a metaphorical significance, exploring issues of presence and simulation. And i n this area of drama, it is hard to avoid the influence of Shakespeare's Hamlet, with its troupe of travelling actors. 

   In addition, it’s an open secret that the use of the performer as an image of the way in which all people take on roles and say things that they may not believe developed into a subgenre of theatre, including, later in the 17th century, Philip Masinger's ‘The Roman Actor’. The early 19th-century tragedian Edmund Kean became the subject of an 1836 play by Alexandre Dumas. 

   Thus in resolute terms the author makes it clear that enjoyable though 'A Chorus Line' and 'Trelawny of the Wells' are, their boasting about the joy of show business occasionally feels like one of those Christmas letters about how wonderfully someone's offspring have done. As for me, I like musicales as well as simple theatrical performances. I think you’ll agree with me that while watching the performance (directly in the theatre) you forget about the reality, as really talented actors make any performance a masterpiece.

Rendering 6: 'Jonathan Slinger on Hamlet: 'I'm going to try to achieve the impossible'

The article ‘Jonathan Slinger on Hamlet: 'I'm going to try to achieve the impossible' was published by Lyn Gardner in The Guardian on March 11, 2013. It discusses Jonathan Slinger’s career (he is the RSC's brightest talent) and now he is about to take on Hamlet. 

   The article reports that Jonathan Slinger stands in the Royal Shakespeare Company's London rehearsal room, holding Yorick's skull aloft and at arm's length. 

   Speaking of his character, it is necessary to note that he may not be a household name, and is the first to admit he has not got the leading-man looks that make Hollywood sit up and take notice. What is more important, Slinger can be incredibly brave, with a dangerous, almost glittering edge to his performances; he has the knack of appearing unrecognizable from one role to the next, at home with both high comedy and tragedy. 

   Analyzing the situation, it is interesting to emphasize that Slinger's ascent to RSC royalty came through playing two very different kings: a drag-queen Richard II in 2007, and a gleefully malevolent Richard III in Michael Boyd's 2008 complete history plays cycle. 

   Giving appraisal of the actor’s career, it’s necessary to point out that when Jonathan first turned up at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts in 1991, he envied the traditional good looks of many of his male contemporaries. There is every likelihood that now, at 40, he thinks his appearance has worked in his favor, helping him develop his abilities as an actor. And in fact, for the past 10 years, Slinger has been in fairly constant demand. Now the big one – Hamlet – looms, directed by David Farr in a loosely contemporary setting: a run-down public-school fencing gym. There are signs that hey are currently playing with the opening, having Hamlet return to the empty gym and sensing a presence: there is the suggestion that it is Hamlet's grief that unlocks the ghost of his father. 

   It’s very likely that Slinger has been hitting on previous Hamlets – he doesn't say who – for tips. Moreover, it’s an open secret that it is not possible to play Hamlet in a psychologically "true" way, because Shakespeare wrote a series of character sketches rather than an individual. 

   In conclusion the author draws our attention to the fact that Slinger has already played many of the major Shakespearean roles, including Macbeth and Malvolio. But what's left after Hamlet?  As for me, I think the artist is to have a great skill to play the role of Hamlet, as he is a very complex character. The actor has to make him a psychologically understandable Hamlet.

Rendering 5: 'Whenever I see the Queen, I think, "Oh ... there I am": The right royal progress of Helen Mirren'

The article 'Whenever I see the Queen, I think, "Oh ...there I am"': The right royal progress of Helen Mirren’ was published by Neil Norman in the Independent on March 10, 2013. It reports at length and carries a lot of comments on a successful “royal” career of Helen Mirren, as to play one British monarch named Elizabeth may be considered fortunate; to play two looks like calculation.

   Speaking of her success, it is interesting to note that when Helen Mirren followed her portrayal of Elizabeth I in 2005 with Elizabeth II in 2006 the crown was hers for the taking.

   Analyzing her career, it is necessary to emphasize that coming from Russian Tsarist stock, it may be that she has a genetic disposition towards blue-blooded roles. There is every reason to believe that her grandfather Piotr Vasilievich Mironoff was a tsarist (White Russian) aristocrat who was in London negotiating an arms deal during the First World War when the 1917 Russian Revolution stranded him there.

   Giving appraisal of the situation, it’s intriguing to point out that Mirren was starring as Cleopatra in the 1965 production of Antony and Cleopatra. Besides, there are signs that she began playing sexually charged roles such as Castiza in the 1966 staging of The Revenger's Tragedy; Cressida in a 1968 production of Troilus and Cressida; and Lady Macbeth in the 1974 Trevor Nunn production of Macbeth. Moreover, the article draws our attention to the moment that some labels are hard to understand, and the difference is that Mirren has learned to exploit it. Following the notorious interview with Michael Parkinson, it was clear that Mirren was not going to let a little thing like male chauvinism stand in the way of her career nor dampen her sexual allure. Moreover, by 2006, Mirren had a cupboard full of awards and had been made Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire in the 2003 Queen's Birthday Honour List. 

   It’s an open secret that the remarkable thing about Mirren is her seemingly effortless ability to please most of the people all of the time. She has retained a dignity and professional kudos among her peers and the public through a string of performances and accompanying awards while retaining the factor that threatened to overshadow her early career.

   Thus the article concludes by saying that Mirren’s most endearing qualities – and what makes her the darling of media as politically polarized – is her attitude to her work which is respectful without being precious. And, I think, judging by the photo, Helen Mirren is very similar to its prototype. Besides, the actress is so at home playing royalty that you could slap her on to a postage stamp and no one would know the difference. And with the help of a great talent, she not only triumphs by the word, but also makes an indelible impression.

Film Review

"Shakespeare in Love" (1998)

Director:  John Madden

Cast: Joseph Fiennes as William Shakespeare, Gwyneth Paltrow as Viola de Lesseps, Geoffrey Rush as Philip Henslowe, Colin Firth as Lord Wessex, Judi Dench as Queen Elizabeth I.

Synopsis: In glory days of the Elisabeth theater two playhouses were fighting for writing and audience. The first one was the Curtain Theater  the house to England’s most famous actor, Richard Burbage. And the second one was built by Philip Henslowe, a businessman who hardly made both ends meet, the Rose, where Shakespeare’s new play was put.

Review: Philip Henslowe (Geoffrey Rush) demanded a play from William Shakespeare (Joseph Fiennes) – who was in a creative crisis as the Muse left him – to be put on the stage in the shortest possible time. When the artist didn't expect return of his charisma, he met a beautiful noblewoman Viola de Lesseps (Gwyneth Paltrow). Thus the play was born – “Romeo and Juliet”, which showed the depth of love not high-colored and diluted with laughter. Their love was an incarnation of love and destiny of the tragedy’s characters. Their love did not triumph, as there was an abyss between them: the family, the debt, the destiny, because Viola was going to become lady Wessex. However, the woman was not gone for Shakespeare, as she became his heroine for all time, and her name was Viola.

Of course, the film is love, but it’s shown not as a passion, but as the inspiration, as Viola is the Muse for William Shakespeare. Thus, here we are to speak about talent, as it is something that can make any human action attractive, make a man not only laugh and be sad, but cry even if he considers himself a man with a stony heart.

While speaking about a man with a stony heart, I mean the queen (in the film) Elizabeth I, as even she has felt this talent to show a deep tragic love. Thus I've mentioned the queen not without reason, as she is like the iron lady in the performance of Judi Dench. And though she appeared in the film only four times, Dench confirmed a high skill of a splendid actress. And I think without further ADO it’s clear that Joseph Fiennes as well as Gwyneth Paltrow showed their best artistic qualities. Both of them got used to their roles, especially Paltrow, as her emotions, movements and grace pointed to the fact that she performed the role of a noblewoman with dignity. So, all I can say is that casting was fitting. At the same time I have to mention costumes (even trifles like always dirty with ink the playwright’s fingers) and high-quality decorations, as they reflected that time with dignity.

In addition, I’d like to add that this film cannot be compared with others, that reflect the life and creative activity of a great playwright William Shakespeare, as it carries its own originality and some missed moments. And though the film is only a fiction, there are some moments and characters which are based on real prototypes. It is a very emotional picture, and I watched it with real interest and pleasure. 

Rendering 4: 'Old master paintings worth £100m given to Britain – with strings attached'

The article ‘Old master paintings worth £100m given to Britain – with strings attached’ was published by Charlotte Higgins in The Guardian on February 19, 2013. It reports at length that All 57 works must remain free to view and never be sold, according to wishes of late owner Sir Denis Mahon. 

   Speaking on the situation, it’s interesting to note that if any attempt is made by the host museum to charge for admission; or any item from their collection is put up for sale, the Art Fund, the charity that is donating them, can take them back. There’s a lot of comments on the conditions attached to the donation of the works, among them paintings by Guercino, Guido Reni and Luca Giordano, are in line with the wishes of the collector who amassed them: art historian Sir Denis Mahon, who died in 2011, aged 100. 

   Analyzing the conditions, it’s necessary to emphasize that they seem especially resonant now, as museums suffer funding cuts and charging for admission is again being reluctantly considered in some quarters. There are also increasing examples of public bodies selling artworks to help plug financial holes – as with the attempt by Tower Hamlets council in London to sell a Henry Moore sculpture that the artist had intended for public display. 

   Giving appraisal of the paintings, it’s necessary to point out that Mahon, heir to the Guinness Mahon banking fortune, built an extraordinary collection of mainly Italian 17th-century paintings, without ever spending more than £2,000 per picture. He left 57 works to the Art Fund with the arrangement that they should be on long-term loan to a selection of British galleries: eight to the National Gallery of Scotland in Edinburgh, 25 to the National Gallery in London, 12 to the Ashmolean in Oxford, six to the Fitzwilliam in Cambridge, five to the Birmingham Art Gallery and one to Temple Newsam House in Leeds. 

   It’s an open secret that the final stage of his bequest is now complete, with the formal transference of the 57 works' ownership to the various museums. Though the paintings are already in situ – regular visitors to the National Gallery in London will recognise, for example, Guido Reni's Rape of Europa, with the mythical heroine, clad in saffron and fuchsia, being borne away over the waves on the back of Zeus, disguised as a bull – but they are now accompanied by smart new signs, announcing "new acquisition". There’s a comment from Christopher Brown, the director of the Ashmolean Museum, that there was no more enjoyable and illuminating way of looking at paintings than in his company. Poussin, Carracci, Guercino: he spoke about them as if he knew them. 

   The author draws a conclusion that his public-spirited desire to have his collection end up in the public realm was "completely free of vanity". He was supremely uninterested in having his "name inscribed on a particular room" and was happy that his collection should be dispersed around Britain. I think it’s the right decision to sail the collection, as all of the pictures are to be free to view.

Rendering 3: 'Love Potions: Art and the Heart'

The article ‘Love Potions: Art and the Heart’ was published by Barbara Pollack in ARTnews on February 13, 2013. It discusses and carries a lot of comments on the role of love in the art. 

   Speaking of this issue, it’s necessary to note that from Frank Sinatra to the Beatles to Taylor Swift—just turn on the radio and you can hear anthem upon anthem to love. And it’s an open secret that if you wander into a contemporary art museum, and such evidence of passion is, more often, nowhere in sight. However, there’s every reason to believe that romantic love has been a subject of art throughout time—François Boucher in the Enlightenment, Pierre-Auguste Renoir and Auguste Rodin in the 19th century, and Roy Lichtenstein in the 20th—but nowadays most artists are far too cool and ironic or otherwise engaged to wear their hearts on their sleeves. 

   Analyzing the overall reluctance, it’s interesting to emphasize that there are more than a few contemporary artists who tell great love stories, even some who confess to a broken heart. It’s hard to believe, but French artist Sophie Calle’s 2007 tour de force, Take Care of Yourself, now on view at the Pulitzer’s presentation of “The Progress of Love.” Calle’s initial inspiration came from an e-mail sent to her by a boyfriend intent on breaking up with her. It ended with the words, “I would have liked things to have turned out differently. Take care of yourself.” In order to do just that, Calle sent the letter to 107 women from different professions and backgrounds, asking them to interpret the text. The reactions were framed and, in several cases, played on monitors, positioned beside the contributors’ portraits and filling an entire gallery. The article draws the readers’ attention to another painter, who delves into her personal life to explore the themes of heartbreak, loss, and survival - Tracey Emin, who had a 2011 retrospective, titled “Love Is What You Want,” at London’s Hayward Gallery. 

   Giving appraisal of the problem, it’s necessary to point out that certainly these works are a far cry from Picasso’s tender portrait The Lovers (1923), depicting in soft pastel tones a couple gently holding each other. Contemporary depictions of love are actually closer to René Magritte’s Lovers (1928), showing a man and a woman kissing, their heads shrouded in cloths. 

   There’s also mention about Helen Molesworth, chief curator at ICA Boston, who organized “This Will Have Been,” a shift took place in the 1980s, which changed the notions of love and desire for a new generation of artists. 

   The article concludes by saying that another aspect of contemporary life that plays into the idea of love and the way it is enacted in everyday life is globalization. Many of the artists in “The Progress of Love”—an exhibition that takes its name from the famous 18th-century series by Fragonard that decorated the chateau of Madame du Barry, the mistress of Louis XV—question the very notion that love is universal, or that it is expressed the same way throughout the world. 

   As for me, I think that artists are people who love only one “woman" - art. They completely devote themselves to it, and even if painter falls in love, then it’s just an illusion, as it’s his inspiration, his muse. I hope somebody will agree with me, that sometimes (it’s better to say always) people just don't understand the message of the painting, what the artist wanted to convey to us, so we cannot correctly interpret it.

Rendering 2: 'Contemporary wildlife artist Betty Foy Botts depicts nature's divine side'

The article 'Contemporary wildlife artist Betty Foy Botts depicts nature's divine side' was published by Katie Hurst in Charleston City Paper on February 13, 2013. It reports at length about a wildlife artist, who works to express the spirit and soul of each animal she paints. 

   Speaking of Betty Foy Botts, it's interesting to note that when she sits down to paint an animal, she goes on a spiritual journey. She may have an animal in mind, say a deer, but once her brush hits canvas, she doesn't let the typical laws of nature control her. Besides, the animal might be displayed in very un-deer-like shades of blue, yellow, and red, and Botts' broad brush strokes may convey more of the animal's movement than its actual likeness. So in her paintings, we can generally recognize the animal and we can recognize movement. There is a general feeling to believe that there's no doubt in anybody's mind what animal it is, they're just much looser. They're very much inspired by painter's love of the Lord and creation, and so all these animals, to her, take on a real spiritual aspect. They aren't just a painting of an animal. 

   Analyzing her technique, it's necessary to emphasize that it is this abstract element of her work that separates her from the more realistic wildlife painters, many of whom will be participating in this week's Southeastern Wildlife Exposition. It's very likely that using everything from water-based paints and acrylics to stains and crayons, Botts creates her final image through many layers of paint, often on canvas or wood as large as six-by-six feet. Besides, there's every likelihood that on larger paintings, we really get the feeling of the bird taking off in flight or wolves charging at us or a bear in a stream. 

   Giving appraisal of her art, it's interesting to point out that for iinspiration and accuracy's sake, Betty's studio is decorated with deer heads and a collection of animal skulls that she uses to perfect the bone structure of the animals in her paintings. Though she started off focusing solely on deer, in the last several years she's advanced to bears, birds, wildcats, and other creatures. More recently, she's perfected capturing them in their natural settings. It's an open secret that Botts doesn't stick to every aspect of nature. She purposefully uses unnatural colors on many of the animals, letting her indulge her imagination and the spirit of the subject.

   In conclusion that author mentions that the painter uses her depiction of nature to celebrate creation, too, by including a meaningful Bible verse with each painting. She pulls from books of scripture like Psalms and Isaiah to focus viewers on creation, love, peace, grace, and joy. As for me, I think it is a gift, when a man can reflect this or that animal on the canvas so brightly and colorfully, with an accuracy. For this he needs to feel this world, to be aware how the animals feel or how they are built.

'The Moon and Sixpence' by Somerset Maugham (chapter 34 - 58)

Four years later Strickland came to Tahiti, where he found many elements to make his inspiration effective. However, his journey was too difficult.

   About four years ago there was a rebel in Marseilles, and Charles, without money, had to live in the dosshouse where he met Captain Nicholas. Later, when its doors were closed for them, the men had to look for the hospitality of Tough Bill, who gave to stranded mariners food and shelter till he found them a job. But Strickland, painted his portrait, got out of the work, and just waited for ship to Australia and then to Tahiti. All in all Bill drove them out and that time Charles was succeed, as there was a ship followed to Australia. Thus the artist appeared in Tahiti, where married Atta, the indigene, and had two children; he did not care abouth them, as he did not want love - it was weakness. Strickland painted, and when he was satisfied with his passion, he was ready for other things. 

   Several years later the man was ill with leprosy, then he became blind but still worked: he painted the walls. The picture was wonderful and mysterious; tremendous, sensual and passionate; there was something primeval and terrible in it. The artist understood that it was a masterpiece, and as he achieved what he wanted; his life was complete, he died, that's why before he ordered his wife to burn the house. 

'The Moon and Sixpence' by Somerset Maugham (chapter 21 - 32)

For that period of time Mr. Strickland changed greatly and his extreme thinness was striking. He had money neither for food nor dress, but he always found money for canvas ans paint; he did not care how shabby his room and had no need to surround himself by beautiful things. 

   To survive, Charles worked for the first time as a guide, showing Englishmen the sights (but his dress became then so threadbare, that people were afraid of him); then he translated the advertisements of patent medicines; was a house-painter. Meanwhile, the man did not give up his art. Strickland aspired to something but did not know what exactly; he lived in a dream and the reality meant nothing to him. But once Charles had  got a good commission to paint the portrait of a retired plumber fot two hundred francs; since then he dissapeared. 

   On Christmas Time Dirk Stroeve could not accept the fact that Charles would spend the holidays alone, without money sitting in his shabby little room, that's why he decided to invite him. However, Nobody saw Strickland; he was seriously ill. Being an unselfish man, Dirk sheltered him; his wife (though she despised and was afraid of Strickland) and he himself nursed the artist. When his health' state became better, Charles forced out Dirk from his studio, and then from his flat. Besides, Stroeve lost his wife, as she stayed with Strickland. 

'The Moon and Sixpence' by Somerset Maugham (chapter 33 - 42)

A month later the writer met Charles Strickland and Blanche (Dirk's wife); the men played chess and the woman neither said a word, nor showed emothion. Dirk still hoped that his wife, quarrelled with Strickland, would come back to him, but that was just a dream. 

   However, several days later, when they quarrelled and Strickland went away from her, Blanche tried to commit suicide taking oxalic acid. She did not die, they took her to the hospital where she did not want to see anybody, especially her husband and Charles. And two weeks later the woman died and Dirk was restless: he dashed around his flat and, founding her picture painted by Strickland, tried to tear it, but could not. Then the man decided to return to his native land Holland and, inspide of everything, asked Charles to come with him.

   Meanwhile, Charles Strickland did not care much about the woman's death, as he lived only his art and that time wanted to show his pictures to the writer. For six years the artist painted about thirty pictures and sold nothing: they had no singularity, each of them was too difficult for understanding. Nevertheless, Dirk Stroeve thought his pictures ans technique would make a revolution in art. 

'The Moon and Sixpence' by Somerset Maugham (chapter 11 - 20)

Having come to Paris and found Charles, the writer's doubts were dispelled as Mr. Strickland lived in a small room, overcrowded with furniture; everything was dirty and shabby, and, besides, there was no sign of a woman. He expected that his wife would send someone for him, that's why he was so cool, his eyes kept such a smile which made everything foolish, and he just invited his guest for the dinner. However, he burst into a shout of laughter, knowing of his wife's supposition about another woman, as he came there not for that but because he wanted to paint. 

   Charles Strickland hadn't painted before, with the exception of the childhood when he wanted to be a painter. He started painting a year ago and said nothing to his wife. Sometimes, it seemed, the man was looking into the distance, as if he saw something beautiful that stirred up his mind; he was trying to achieve some aim, but did not know what it was. So Charles came to Paris to find something that he could not find in London, he even began going to classes. While he was telling that, there was a real passion in his voice, as he was fully convinced to be a painter. 

   Mrs. Strickland, having known about he husband passion, was amazed, she could not understand the cause of his behavior. And if earlier the woman was ready to return him, that time she gave up, as her husband left her not for a woman but for an idea, and there she would lose. But she did not stop fighting fot her life, as Mrs. Strickland had no penny to her name and that's why she began to learn shorthand and typewriting. Five years later the woman made success of her business: that time she had an office in Chancery Lane. 

   Meanwhile, her friend loved in Paris and made friends with Dirk Stroeve, a painter, and though he had a very delicate feeling for art, he was a bad one. The man knew Charles: once Mr. Strickland came to him to lent money as he was hard up for them - he sold no pictures. 

'The Moon and Sixpence' by Somerset Maugham (chapter 1 - 10)

Everything began when the journalist wrore an article about Charles Strickland, whom everybody thought an unsuccessful artist. However, four years later after his death, writers and painters noticed him as an authentic genius, and his pictures were sold out at a high price. 

   So the writer, being acquainted with the painter, wrote the book about him. His travelling began in London where the man visited the houses of the literary and where almost nobody noticed him, except Rose Waterford. She brought him and Mrs. Strickland together, who later invited the man for the breakfast, she had a great passion for reading and  organized breakfasts for writers. However, her husband Mr. Strickland was a very quiet man and was not interested in literature ar art; he was on the Stock Exchange and was a typical brocker, but a good dull, honest, ordinary man. He was fourty, not good-looking but not ugly, heavy, with large hands and feet; his hair was reddish, cut very short and his eyes were small, blue and grey.

   Once the writer was invited for the dinner, where he met Charles Strickland for the first time; that day they said nothing to each other. The next day the Stricklands went to Norfolk and spent there the whole August. Charles came back to the city in September as he had to give away his partner, and Mrs. Strickland stood in the country. But a month later, when she had to come back, her husband wrote her from Paris that did not want to live with her any more and would not return; he left her, giving no explanations. It was clear that after seventeen years of living together Charles couldn't leave her without any reason, as all her relatives and friends thought him to fell in love with another woman. To make everything clear and try to return her husband, Mrs. Strickland asked the writer to go to Paris on her behalf and describe her situation. And as Charles' temporary residence was known, the man went to France.   

'Wuthering Heights' by Emily Brontë (chapter 28 - 36)

For five days Helen was locked in the room and saw nobody, except Hareton, who was a real model of a jailor. That time Catherine became Mrs. Heathcliff, but nobody still took care about her. Moreover, everything that belonged to Cathy became Linton’s property. That’s why, having known about that, Edgar changed his will and if Linton died, the young lady’s fortune couldn’t fall to Heathcliff. Two days later Cathy returned home, she wanted to see her father; he was going to die and not to complain the daughter said that she was happy with the young Heathcliff. After her words and with dilating eyes, he died.

  Several days later Heathcliff came and take his daughter to the Heights, as he wanted to rent out the Grange and wanted his children to be about him. And he take not only her, but also the portrait of the late Catherine, as he still loved her; he even went to her grave and dug it to see her face. When the man re-filled her grave, he felt her presence, her signs.

   While being in Wuthering Heights, Catherine stood at her room for nearly two weeks, but had to get out to the fireplace. Hareton, at first moment, tried to be polite, but the young lady didn’t care much about him. It was six weeks ago; Mrs. Dean finished her story.

   Several years later Mr. Lockwood came back and found Mrs. Dean in the Heights. Besides, he saw a young man, who sitting, read something, and a young lady, who stood behind. They were Hareton Earnshaw and Catherine Heathcliff. Not to disturb them the man went to the kitchen, where he found Mrs. Dean who told him everything.

   From her story the man got to know that about three months ago Mr. Heathcliff died.  Something was wrong with him: he didn’t eat, didn’t sleep and walked somewhere all days. When he was at home everybody saw a strange smile on his face, which frightened and surprised them. He said he saw the ghost of the late Catherine. But one rainy day his body was found in their room, his eyes were widely open, and a wide smile shone on his face. He was buried near Catherine and Edgar Linton.