Vasily Livanov: Holmes is not .... Bashny.Net

"Russian" Holmes fell ill.

As they say, feel the difference. And she, this difference is visible at a glance. In another way, in general, could not be, because Sherlock Holmes in this country alone - Vasily Livanov. He - and the most interested spectator fresh TV product.

 - Vasily Borisovich, well, how do you show?
 - Very boring.

 - What is that, the only impression?
 - Almost Yes. I was wondering just because I'm a very good attitude to Igor Petrenko, I think he has the potential to cast.

 - Maybe it was just not his role?

 - His - not his, as a professional in any role he has to be organic. And Petrenko completely trapped ... You know, when I was advertising, I switched on the next button, and there was a film "Lucky Pasha" with Igor in the title role. Normal young people: intrinsically free, logical, charming ... And here, because of the fact that the trapped and is trying to portray something, he does not live image. The image is not created! And it can not create it: Inorganic, strums.

He does not believe in what's playing. Seeking that they should hide behind a piece. You look after each sentence, he purses his lips. Or suddenly he gets a playful index finger, which he pokes around in all subjects in the partners in yourself. And when not in that poke, picks up somehow, like it determines the direction of the wind ...

 - Vasily Borisovich, maybe his restraint - partly your fault? All the same before the eyes of the sample.
 - I got nothing to do with it. There is Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who is described in detail his character, and any discrepancy looks strange. As well as a claim to originality, which are contrary to the author.

 - You watched "Holmes" with Downey Jr.? There is no sense that the more he imitates Petrenko, not you?
 - I do not know who they're all emulate. Try something vytvorit of the great ambitions, and this is not the source, hence all sorts of absurdities. Holmes then just some kids! I read an interview with the director, where he talks about Holmes and Watson: "This is not a gentlemen, it is the poor people." He's just in my head full of confusion, because the "gentleman" - not a financial concept. And he said: "poor people who find it difficult to pay for an apartment on Baker Street." Sorry, Baker Street is in the heart of London. If they are poor, might be to rent an apartment somewhere on the outskirts, though? ..

Generally, the Victorian era - a century of respectability, is the iron laws of etiquette. Can not a man in his underwear in front of a lady to appear, it is indecent. And the reason they do not end there in his underwear in front of the ladies. A flat Mrs. Hudson? It's just Odessa Rookery, something from "liquidation". And all the characters there - absolute Odessa! .. You know, at one time with the Air Force sent me a thick anthology - all the film adaptation of "Hound of the Baskervilles." They all were Watson and Holmes - skinny, fat ... There were homosexuals. Well before that director Kavun not thought, he decided to do differently - joined Watson and Mrs. Hudson ...

 - By the way, how do you Andrei Panin as Watson? They say the only bright spot.

 - I have already said - a rabble. They're all punks. Why, for example, Watson all Lupita? Is that Steven Seagal? Everything is built on force, on violence, which is absolutely not the same as Conan Doyle. Holmes wins because the power of thought, the iron logic ... I'm not talking about the fact that the plot is very confusing - after 10 minutes the viewer loses the thread, did not understand what was happening. And time does not understand, it becomes boring ... In general, I do not understand what it is. There is only a claim, and - inconsistency of these claims. In terms of building the story in terms of the interpretation of the image, in terms of display era ...

 - To you creators for some advice, advice is not addressed?

 - Addressed me twice Guy Ritchie (director of Anglo-American film "Sherlock Holmes." - Ed.). At first they called me and offered the role of a senator in his film. Said a fee? They say free. I said that I have no reason to make such gifts to Guy Ritchie. A second time he invited me to dinner, but I refused - replied that usually dinner with friends. Well, interesting to me. What would he say about his paintings? What would you tell? ..

As for the film - I was invited to a talk show dedicated to the output of the series. I say: "You know, I have not seen the film, the concept of it does not have. In general, it is unethical ... "And they asked me to speak about the ethics:" We will pay you. " That is, do not even understand what I tell them. They also invited Steblova Zhenyu. He also asked what, for what? And you say, will act as an expert on Conan Doyle. In general, some nonsense ... I can tell you that yesterday I had two calls.

Please call Nicholas Vaschilin who put everything in the film stunt scenes, but what he said about the series, unprintable. And then came another call. I asked: "Who is this?" They say: "It does not matter, I'm your audience ... you see?" "Saw" - I answered. "Can not you guess why, after this show is your show?" - "I have no idea." - "Herbs of the poison, and then provide an antidote ..." You know, at one time Thank Govorukhin invited me to play Paganel in his film "Children of Captain Grant". I say: "Glory, I can not play after Cherkasova. It is amazing, and absolutely filled with the exact image. What I will repeat it? "And now I understand why, and refused to Eugene Mironov and Habensky from work at Kavun. You know why? It just shows their professionalism
Source here





Source: