Gogol's short story 'Viy' is freely available to read online, and I recommend it not just for the sake of perusing old literature, but certainly also before watching this adaptation.
My first impression upon watching (before I took time to read the story) was that the cultural context outweighs the content. Subpar effects I can forgive; after all, this was 1967. But the execution of the concept is unconvincing. Some films get by just fine with letting nothing happen (relatively speaking) until the last 5 minutes; this is not one of them.
Upon reading the original story, I was surprised that 'Viy' is actually a pretty faithful adaptation. Some details that round out the story or setting are lost, but as I read I noted no few things from 1836 echoed in 1967.
That faithfulness does improve my opinion of the movie, but it's strange for a fairly true adaptation to yet be weak and unconvincing. Is it Gogol's fault? Maybe; his concept could be developed more. But I think my issue is faithfully adapting such a short tale into a more than hour-long film. Think of the classic "scary story" about the kid who is dared to visit a grave, and to stick his knife into the ground as proof he was there. Imagine if that were adapted into a 77-minute film.
Gogol's 'Viy' is fine as a short folk tale. Sufficient detail makes it feel real. The film, however, tries to pad the length with longer scenes, while omitting details or failing to make them clear. It tries to turn a simple cottage into a skyscraper without fortifying the structure.
The scene in which villagers gossip about "the witch" omits half the content, a few details, and too much clarity to make sense in the film. The movie as a whole relies heavily on the visuals of its finale, yet lack's Gogol's narrative description to necessarily convey what happens.
Again, I think I appreciate the film more for its cultural context--accordingly the "first horror film officially released in the Soviet era." Enjoying Gogol's story and the film in tandem seems the ideal course of action, but that emphasizes to me that the film can't quite stand on its own.
My first impression upon watching (before I took time to read the story) was that the cultural context outweighs the content. Subpar effects I can forgive; after all, this was 1967. But the execution of the concept is unconvincing. Some films get by just fine with letting nothing happen (relatively speaking) until the last 5 minutes; this is not one of them.
Upon reading the original story, I was surprised that 'Viy' is actually a pretty faithful adaptation. Some details that round out the story or setting are lost, but as I read I noted no few things from 1836 echoed in 1967.
That faithfulness does improve my opinion of the movie, but it's strange for a fairly true adaptation to yet be weak and unconvincing. Is it Gogol's fault? Maybe; his concept could be developed more. But I think my issue is faithfully adapting such a short tale into a more than hour-long film. Think of the classic "scary story" about the kid who is dared to visit a grave, and to stick his knife into the ground as proof he was there. Imagine if that were adapted into a 77-minute film.
Gogol's 'Viy' is fine as a short folk tale. Sufficient detail makes it feel real. The film, however, tries to pad the length with longer scenes, while omitting details or failing to make them clear. It tries to turn a simple cottage into a skyscraper without fortifying the structure.
The scene in which villagers gossip about "the witch" omits half the content, a few details, and too much clarity to make sense in the film. The movie as a whole relies heavily on the visuals of its finale, yet lack's Gogol's narrative description to necessarily convey what happens.
Again, I think I appreciate the film more for its cultural context--accordingly the "first horror film officially released in the Soviet era." Enjoying Gogol's story and the film in tandem seems the ideal course of action, but that emphasizes to me that the film can't quite stand on its own.