St. Petersburg, mid 19th century: the indolent, middle-aged Oblomov lives in a flat with his older servant, Zakhar. He sleeps much of the day, dreaming of his childhood on his parents' estate. His boyhood companion, Stoltz, now an energetic and successful businessman, adds Oblomov to his circle whenever he's in the city, and Oblomov's life changes when Stoltz introduces him to Olga, lovely and cultured.
In the Ivan Goncharov novel, Oblomov is considered an excellent example of the "Superfluous Man" concept of 1800s Russian literature. Alienated and let down by the world around them, the "superfluous man" character is often considered an outsider at odds with society. In both the novel and the film, Oblomov demonstrates this "superfluity" as an ineffective member of Russia's much criticized aristocracy. Goncharov referred to his character's passivity as "Oblomovism," and the term has since been associated with characters who possess Oblomov's apathy and membership in Russia's upper class.
I have to wonder about how pre-1900s Russian literature was interpreted post-1917. Was the way the aristocracy perceived changed? It seems almost absurd to me to make such a film in 1980, when it no longer has the political impact. Unless, of course, it is even more subversive and subtle than it first appears.
In the Ivan Goncharov novel, Oblomov is considered an excellent example of the "Superfluous Man" concept of 1800s Russian literature. Alienated and let down by the world around them, the "superfluous man" character is often considered an outsider at odds with society. In both the novel and the film, Oblomov demonstrates this "superfluity" as an ineffective member of Russia's much criticized aristocracy. Goncharov referred to his character's passivity as "Oblomovism," and the term has since been associated with characters who possess Oblomov's apathy and membership in Russia's upper class.
I have to wonder about how pre-1900s Russian literature was interpreted post-1917. Was the way the aristocracy perceived changed? It seems almost absurd to me to make such a film in 1980, when it no longer has the political impact. Unless, of course, it is even more subversive and subtle than it first appears.