Old vs Extra-Old. "The Forty-First": Lavrenyov, Protazanov, Chukhray
Historical memory is a very unstable thing. The attitude to events of the past is constantly changing, and that's reflected in mass art. Everybody knows famous "Gone with the Wind" (1939) - the story about sometimes mistaking, but so noble and justified in their way young Confederates. It was written by Margaret Mitchell (descendant of Confederates) with love and sympathy to old world of rural America. But not so many people know how often the attitude to Civil War was changing in American culture! And that by 1940s - 70 years after the loss in war - the Southerns in fact have owned back. The success of Margaret Mitchell's book and it's cinema adaptation was not occasional and singular: the Southerns were becoming main characters of movies, were depicted positively ("Judge Priest" - 1934; "So Red the Rose", "The Littlest Rebel" - 1935; "Santa Fe Trail" - 1940 etc.) 1920-1930s were the time of revisionism in American history, and many historians declared the Civil War as a sad mistake, and people thought it would be better to fight against Indians together than fight against each other. That sounds shocking nowadays, when attitude to the Southerns is negative as never before. The history has changed its course once again, and another 70 years later we see, that screening of "Gone with the Wind" is resisted in Memphis as offensive, and at the same time a crusade against monuments devoted to Southern generals was started. Another remarkable historian event is French revolution, and I bet that the attitude to it was changing for ages and is still changing.
But today we'll talk about another upheaval that changed the world 100 years ago - the Great October Socialist Revolution, followed by Russian civil war. There is no need to check modern Russian cinema, as the attitude of creative intellectuals, producers and mandarins is strictly negative and constantly streamed from screens - that's too obvious, but doesn't correspond to public opinion enough. Moreover, the quality of movies and TV series lowered greatly. To my mind, it's more interesting to see fickleness of historical memory through the example of the story "The Forty First" by Boris Lavryenyov and its two film adaptations, one of them is made by contemporaries in the aftermath and the other - by the next generation (generation of War!) 30 years later.
In our strange and entangled time, smelling like historical deadend, the old story about tragic love of Red Army soldier Maryutka and White Guard officer Govorukha-Otrok is not interpreted unambiguously any more, and even causes bitter disputes. Not so long ago political beliefs and military duty could be more important than personal feelings, but now even comparing them is thought to be blatant and wicked. The events of Russian civil war have lost purity of intents and even any sense in civic awareness. So, "The Forty First", that was previously respected for ambivalent portrayal of the Whites, is now despised by many people for unambivalent portrayal of the Reds, and author of this story Boris Lavrenyov now looks like opportunist, praising regime's mythology. Of course, I mean only those people, who doesn't know or doesn't want to know all nuances. Which do exist. The story, been written in the "vulgar tongue" (through the lens of Red Army soldiers) and full of rusticated and local phrases even in narrative comments, is rapidly switching on pure and noble Russian literary language when lieutenant starts speaking, and the reader can hardly miss it. Those, who are sophisticated in Russian literature, know: language of Lavryenyov is language of lieutenant, as Govorukha in fact is... he. Well, actually lieutenant had one concrete inspiration, once named by author - Vadim Nikolayevich Govorukho-Otrok, and similar circumstances befell him, though he was shot having not told his secret mission. But shortly before writing the story the author himself was young, well-educated officer, fighting in battles of World War I, then during the civil war joining the white army of Denikin, and also being tired of war and constant violence without end. Lavryenyov hasn't tried to keep aloof, hasn't left everything, he defected to the Reds, fought in Middle Asia, commanded ironclad train and survived in many dangerous binds. And there is strong seduction to suppose, that doubts of Govoruka (why not to abandon everything? I'll drop off here!) were familiar to him. No, Lavryenyov was far from selfishness and recreance, and in case he had such doubts - then he settled them in own way, but may be in this story of 1924 he came back to "reference point". At least, biography of Boris Lavryenyov gives him good reasons for own position.
The story has got first screen adaptation already in three years - in 1927. It's director was one of the most outstanding Soviet filmmakers and pioneers of world cinema Yakov Protazanov, by that moment 46 years old, having over 100 movies in carrer (since 1909). Three years before he returned from emigration and already strengthened his authority in the USSR by "Aelita" and "The Tailor from Torzhok". He has given leading parts in new movie to young, novice actors Ada Voytsik and Ivan Koval-Samborskiy (by the way, also a veteran of civil war, participating in battles for Bukhara in the ranks of the Red Army shortly before). The screenplay for movie was written by Lavryenyov himself.
The script for the second adaptation in 1956 was written by Grigoriy Koltunov, but the result was mainly determined by its director - Grigoriy Chukhray (there was a conflict between script writer and director, and as the result the director has written his own version of script). "The Forty First" became the first solo movie by Chukhray (although it has to be noted that famous director Romm also arrived to film shoot for several times and actively consulted Chukhray), who was inexperienced director at that time. But Chukhray had another experience - he was an Airborne veteran, fighting during the Great Patriotic War. These events have still been vivid in his memory, especially capturing of large group of Germans that impressed him greatly. He has closely seen those sworn enemies, he was fighting against for so long time, he has looked in their eyes and... couldn't feel so burning hate, as expected. Chukhray belonged to that generation, who suffered the most terrible war in history of mankind and didn't lose belief in people. Vice versa, the life became the core value for them. Therefore events of Civil war were measured by him with experience of WW2, thats why already on the phase of script approval he has faced an outpouring of criticism from moviemakers of the older generation, the generation of Civil war, disagreeing with such handling (they adviced him not to touch such themes, that he didn't know, and better to make movie about the Great Patriotic War). Nevertheless he jammed the script through (mostly due to protection of Ivan Pyryev), and a movie with clearly humanistic message went into production, and Europe, having the same spirit at that time, greeted it heartily: "The Forty First" has recieved special prize in Cannes - «For original screenplay, humanism and romanticism» (doubly weird, that some of our contemporaries do not notice this humanism and furiously criticize Chukhray for its absence). By the way, a preety interesting shorthand report (rus) of movie discussion by artistic expert board is available. In a nutshell, notable directors, though being skeptical of script in advance, have recognized the result very successful (even better than the good movie by Protazanov), Chukhray - hopeful, Urusevskiy - a passionate genius with poor moderation, Oleg Strizhenov playing lieutenant - talanted, Izolda Izvitskaya playing Maryutka - not corresponding to character complicacy (verdict to actors was challenged only by Pyryev), the ending - screwed up. And, frankly speaking, its difficult to argue with most of their conclusions.
So, coming to our adaptations. Doug Walker aka Nostalgia Critic has a nice method of comparing old and new in separate elements: main characters, supporting characters, plot etc. May be, that's correct, when we want to reveal the winner. But here I have no intention to commit sacrilege and compare Chukhray and Protazanov - two mastodonts of Soviet cinema - in absolute categories. I more interested in their plot interpretation, their work with certain scenes and meaning of them. Thuswise, let's just follow the plotline, referring to both movies simultaneously and revealing notable differences, including direct contraries (this "arty-crafty narration" is full of spoilers, thats why I strongly urge those who is unfamiliar with all of three creations to hold back from further reading!). I must make it clear, that differences in plot interpretation are mainly caused by individual point of view of both celebrated directors. But with this research I want to raise suspicion in my readers, that experience of different wars has influenced both forming of these points of view and warm acception of contemporaries, that Great Patriotic War has changed people's world view greatly, and that mythologization of the past becoming more and more distant is inevitable. We have also to consider other factors, like political environment, considerable raise of education level, development of cinema and its language etc., though I do not think these factors had serious influence.
The first considerable difference is already in the very beginning. The first Lavryenyov's book chapter, where the narrator introduces the reader to characters and tells how the survivors of komissar Yevsyukov's troop battled through encirclement and went in heart of deadly desert, was described by author himself, as "written entirely out of necessity" and "absolutely odd for the story". That's why Chukhray removed distractive action with a safe conscience, introducing characters on their way through the sands via voice-over narration. Protazanov yielded to the temptation to demonstrate own no mean abilities in quite long battle scene, where the troop of Red cavalrymen battles their way through the enemy’s ranks under cover of left machine gun (even filmed from three different angles). Protazanov is good in dynamics, a nice idea - a close-up shot of hooves, running alongside.
The troop is dregging through desert, on the first halt they decide what to do further. There is discontent among soldiers, men are demoralized, they hardly hope for successful overcome. Protazanov took a creative approach to dialogue scene (though definitely these were dialogues he was constrained in most of all), sharpening conflict: due to neglect the camels have broken jars with remaining water, one of the soldiers despairingly shouts at Yevsyukov, the rest silently support their fellow. The komissar just barely restores order, atmosphere within their groop is charged and threatens to cause another scandal. Chukhray holded closer to story origin in the scene of first halt, but softened tone of dialogues - Yevsyukov's people are just tired, dispirited, but their leader's authority is still undisputed, komissar encourages people with energy. By the way, Chukhray's Yevsyukov is considerably elder and more confident, speaks convincingly and with authority, and in fact more charismatic than his counterpart from Protazanov's movie (so, that is Kryuchkov, his way of acting). I would also mention, that both directors have embellished this character, as in Lavryenyovs origin he was a squab, looking like Easter egg, and his voice raised to female in minutes of crisis. The casting of background artists in Red Army troop is also typical. Protazanov's mugs, to be honest, look criminal, and Chukhray, of course, couldn't show it the same way already - his soldiers look like soldiers, scrubby and grimy, but with strong determination in eyes. Its curious, that the Magyar accosting Maryutka was substituted by Chukhray with Red Navy man, and Protazanov has excluded this episode at all. Also Chukhray added absolutely positive young Kazakh soldier, who was absent in origin.
Of course, Protazanov had neither Chukhray's equipment, nor "Soviet Lubezki" - Sergey Urusevskiy. On the other hand he actively used lots of meaningful details, shot in close up, and that's special cinema enjoyment to discover their meaning. Deadly desert was symbolized simply, but concisely - by vulture. Nevertheless the desert in Chukhray's movie is just incomparable, and Urusevskiy is a real god of camera, who's every shot asks to be painted. Although he was criticized for idealization of desert (meaning that spectator is so impressed by its beauty that can't perceive it as danger).
The attack of caravan is the first important for plot scene. Here we meet lieutenant Govorukha, who was missed by Maryutka ("lieutenant stayed in the world as odd number on the count of living souls"). That's curious, that in 1927 movie Govorukha is not the kind of pleasant person, and besides he initiates armed resistance and coolly shoots some of the Reds. He was captured by force in desperate wrestling, and then humiliatingly ridiculed by winners. But in Chukhray's movie Oleg Strizhenov just streams nobility from the screen. He didn't start shooting, on the contrary he stopped it by displaying white flag and calmly going towards the Reds. I have to remind, that the term "officer" was differently accepted in times of these adaptations. During civil war (and Protazanov made his movie long before its last battles ceased) that was almost abuse, officer was understood as regime servant and despot, easily using violence to make people to obey. The Great Patriotic War restored association of officer with honor, valour and dignity (as this rank was restored in army).
The following scene after battle shows one of the key differences between Protazanov's and Chukhray's adaptations, and I would place greater emphasis on it. Famished and amok Yevsyukov's people in Protazanov's interpretation commit natural plunder. They fling themselves on watermelons and jars, rudely pushing off caravaners, try on shoes of killed, and essentially they look ugly at this moment. Yevsyukov keeps himself more decently, as befits to commander and experienced warrior, but stays out of happening, and listens to complaints of caravaners with apathy. It was easier for Protazanov to shoot in naturalistic way, presenting people as who they were - as well as he made his movie hot on the heels of events, that still didn't gained the heroic, romantic halo in people minds. Chukhray shows the scene of expropriation in a completely different way, and I'm not going to suspect iron arm of censorship here. It's just that through the years events of civil war have got own mythology, historical tradition in interpretation, and also the experience of Great Patriotic War prompted absolutely different perspective of relations bitween civilians and combatants to Chukhray. Idealism is hardly appropriate here, as the caravan is definitely robbed. But Chukhray finely uses this conflict for developing characters. People on both sides are distressed by happening (especially that Red Kazakh soldier), Yevsyukov writhes with necessary cruelty and uncomfortable talk with caravaner and it seems he does everything possible to calm them down. Chukhray didn't sugarcoat things - caravaners (in spite of further events) excite pity of spectators.
The talk of Yevsyukov and lieutenant is also filmed in different ways, of course. Here Strizhenov is standing with dignity and even some disdain - turning his back upon komissar. And only on hearing komissar's surname lieutenant at last gave a tumble - a bit ironic, but with enough respect. He doesn't look at all on a gun aiming on him, is not afraid of threats and absolutely corresponds to contemporary stereotype of White officer, that we are feeded with from screens (and wasn't this movie one of the creators of this stereotype?)
In silent adaptation Govorukha makes no bones of his hate and despise. Although during the dialogue with komissar he decides to chang tactics and talks in man-to-man way, as an equal, sitting in front of his investigator and even posing in the same kind. Such a circus trick naturally confuses humbled Reds, and even Yevsyukov himself seems to be all abroad.
Before going further Yevsyukov assigned Maryutka to watch the prisoner. The relations between prisoner and his convoy in the desert develop curiously. Protazanov's Maryutka, who was shortly before looking on the officer like on lucky brute, having yet to trample earth for a while a little bit, is taking some liking to him already on next halt, bringning him a cup of water and kindly watching him while standing behind - till he turned head. What is more important for her - is to keep her sympathy in secret from officer - for not making harm to task. Maryutka played by Izolda Izvitskaya is showing exaggerated strictness with lieutenant from the very beginning, constantly pushing him and dabbing a gun-butt at him for no particular reason. It seems, the most important for her is to keep her sympathy in secret from herself. In Chukhray's version lieutenant is behaving himself deliberately gallant with Maryutka: though the situation is amusing him, his smile doesn't have a hue of either disdain or supremacy. Protazanov's officer is straightly and smugly goofing on Maryutka.
A catastrophy happened on the next night halt: a watchman fell asleep, all camels were stolen by caravaners, and in fact no hope for surviving was left to the Red Army soldiers. In line with wartime laws (regardless of historical and political context of epoch) fault of the watchman is more than seroius breach, and the most severe punishment would be neither surprising, nor blamable. In Protazanov's movie the watchman is miserable and disgusting, crying and begging for mercy, causing despise of spectator and fury of Yevsyukov and comrades. After beating him enough, they spared his life, but deprive him a ration (besides the point he was left without a ration as in the novel so in both adaptations). Chukhray's watchman fell asleep and dreamt about peaceful life, village somewhere in in central Russia, and on waking up he discovered not only absence of camels, but also a corpse of more watchful fellow. The director is full of pity for unlucky soldier, and this pity is naturally imparted to spectator. Fright and bitter repent - these watchman's emotions on wake-up are absolutely different in this adaptation, he doesn't think about saving own life and retribution by fellows. Besides, nobody is going to strike him: Red soldiers are watching him in stict silence, while his humped figure is becoming separated from them and falling on the sand in impotent desperation.
On the next Protazanov's halt the lieutenant just escaped being killed by the soldiers, madden by necessity to feed the captive, so Maryutka had to defend him. And a bit later not too much regretful "watchman"-defaulter was watching the officer's dinner with undisguised hostility and envy - this ration could be given to himself. The White has shown mercy (though a bit insolent) and shared a piece of bread with the punished. The soldier started eating greedily, but has noticed lieutenant's sneer and thrown bread back in his face with hate. Chukhray avoided such an agressive conflict: humanity was shown by komissar Yevsyukov, who came back to distantly following figure of the defaulter and broke his own order. Chukhray's komissar is clearly is more independent, authoritative and high powered character, corresponding to director's perceptions of commander.
The scene is followed by the long march and one-by-one loss of the troop's bulk, which are again more expressive in Chukhray's adaptation on a number of obvious reasons. One more little notice: in Protazanov's movie weakly fallen soldier was gone past by all other ones, including Maryutka and Govorukha, taking just short and almost listless glimpse at the unlucky fellow. And only the komissar stopped and holded the head of still alive but doomed fellow in keen sorrow. In similar scene of Chukhray's version everybody moved to the fallen, including lieutenant.
But we already have to come to life-saving finding of fishing village. In Protazanov's version the soldiers are crying and hugging each other after meeting herd of sheep. Chukhray was more romantic and organized rendezvous with soft ground swell of the Aral Sea (the movie is a real monumet devoted to the sea, which started to disappear already in the next decade). Further in village there was a short scene, which is very important for understanding Maryutka in Protazanov's version. Having come in one of the yurts she was looking with tenderness on cradle with a child and even came closer to rock it wor a while. Refusal to have children till the end of war was the main condition for Maryutka to join army, she has even signed a guaranty paper, and this character treated obligations and duty very seriously, being afraid of giving ground for irony from male fellows in arms. Protazanov has shown Maryutka's femininity much earlier than Lavryenyov and Chukhray and made it clear, that maternal instinct has woken in the girl, that she had some future after the war, she was straining towards. Consequently, her feeling to excorted lieutenant in some way was instinctive, and may be some other man could be in his shoes. By contrast in Chukhray's version the lieutenant dallied with local girl named Altynay, therefore causing bout of jealousy in Maryutka, again hidden under boorish rudeness. This Maryutka has already had a soft spot on lieutenant, and this is definitely a personal affection.
The scene with poems is played in both adaptations veru well - the lieutenant knew out about miserable poetical attempts of his convoy girl, but instead of disregard he surprisingly saw Maryutka in a new perspective and took a liking to, turned attention to her as a person. And his suggestion to evaluate and to help put the first serious bridge in their relations. The lieutenant has felt the breathe of new life in this girl - still awkward, incomprehensible, unexperienced and even ridiculous sometimes, but already growing in strength and having future, that's why he felt respect even to these doggerel poems. I haven't seen considerable difference in scene handling in both adaptations.
So, let's go further - to a boat. Protazanov's version is strangely rushed here, and raw montage makes me to suppose, that part of cinema material is just lost. In fact, there is no sailing here, but only survived lieutenant and Maryutka disembarking from the boat on an island, moreover no novel Maryutka's strenght is shown: Protazanov's officer was actively carring heavy things and even took exhausted girl from water and helped her on her way to shore.
Chukhray made some strange (at first sight) changes in Lavrenyov's story, but definitely they had a special meaning for him. In sea scenes Maryutka's and lieutenant's dialogues are considerably cut, though they were important for developing characters. Lavrenyov's lieutenant is constantly demostrating own polymathy and thus is inspiring respect in interlocutress, on the same moment he is not showing neither haughtiness, nor complacency. And Maryutka regrets internally levity of Govorukha, which seems not to understand, that he is carried for death (these thoughts were given by Chukhray to one of sailors instead). She also demosntrated her experience and confidence in man seafaring craft, and displayed strong will, courage and leadership abilities actively commanding during storm. But why these characters quaities were not so important for Chukhray? Vivid rusticity of Maryutka became quite funny by that time, and the director, perhaps, wanted to avoid that. He started developing movie as a romance quite sharply after the shipwreck, apparently, planning it so from the very beginning. And romance characters have to be equal and balanced. And moreover gender determinancy is preferred in this genre. At least, I see director's logic in such a way.
By the way, the island occupies just last 20 minutes of Protazanov's movie, that's why this considerable and and important part seems a bit rushed. And Chukhray is just starting second half of the movie here, moreover more succesful than first one - according to public opinion (at last actors, direcot and cinematographer fitted to each other, and besides there were no harsh conditions of hasty filming in winter desert and on rarely storming Aral Sea). As I've already mentioned, Chukhray takes interest in romantic relations between characters, and to my mind he does it too rapidly. It's clear, that we just miss the whole week, while Maryutka was nursing inconscient Govorukha, and her affection for charge has been developing somehow during that time (there are not so many things in the world that tie to person stronger than taking selfless care of him). But anyway where is Maryutka's gaucherie? Why does she show so much tenderness and femininity? After getting rid of coarse clothes, sheepskin hat, waist belt and rifle, wearing her hair loose (and having make-up!) and obtaining obvious model-like appearance, Izolda Izvitskaya certainly looks like girl in love (jumping with pots on the shore), but there she is neither soldier, nor fishing woman anymore. But Lavrenyov's Maryutka still was. Perhaps, here I can remind you claims against actress, but she had to be directed by Chukhray, director is always responsible. The question of handling is very important here (as well as in mentioned scenes in fishing village), as it is essential background for climax, the base for interpretations. Well, Chukhray has made his decision, we'll see later what the result will be.
The main problem of Izvitskaya is... Ada Voytsik. As well as she coped with romance, military and tragic ending simultaneously, and moreover most smoothly and I would even say - impressively. Known to modern Russian spectator due to her speakie roles (mostly small ones) in age above 40, Ada Voytsik in her youth was not so gorgeous girl as her follower, but nevertheless quite attractive. A shirt and loose hair turned her in real woman as well, at the same time retaining the impression of "woman of the people": she shoulders everything - care of Govorukha, their simple "household" and that storm of passion, that burst in her soul. Protazanov had no need to focus on passive lieutenant, and several very important close-ups were performed by Voytsik more than properly (the last one just strikes, but we'll discuss it later).
So, what important things were included by Protazanov in last 20 minutes on the island? Some people are confident, that sound has killed the real art of cinema, spoiling directors with additional artistic tools and giving opportunity to explain in words those things, that had to be shown in visual images before. While watching silent movies by such directors as Protazanov, I understant that there's something in it. Just in 3-4 scenes he has shown that love story - though hastily, but very naturally and sensually. And in each of these key scenes we see developing of characters, psychologic significancy. Those were duty and human charity that made Maryutka nurse fevered lieutenant. But when allowing Govorukha to hold her distractedly, she sacrified boiling soup - therethrough symbolically giving vent to her own boiling feelings. She has realized her sympathy and put up with it, and obtained not only worry but also happiness of distinctness of heart elans.
Both directors (perhaps on opportunistic reasons, but who knows?) added to Lavryenyov's plot own background to appearing of the Whites on the island. And in both cases these Whites differ greatly from sophisticated and humane lieutenant - cliched rascal with ugly appearance. In Protazanov's versiontwo fat officers decided to found sea base on the island and sent a plane for scouting. The run of heroes after the plane is ended by expressive shot of lieutenant's desperation and more strong Maryutka, giving solace to Govorukha. In Chukhray's version the Whites are classical antagonists intentionally chasing Yevsyukov's troop and looking for captured officer. Here the most vivid scene was their invasion in fishing village - on contrast with the Reds being guests there short time before.
Meanwhile idyll prevails on the island. And it's demolished by too unbosoming Govorukha, who wished to drop everything and retire from going insane world to summerhouse in Sukhumi together with Maryutka. Maryutka shocked him by holding true to the beliefs and triumph of social over private, and broke out quarrel results in resounding slap in lieutenant's face. In Lavrenyov's story the conflict stayed unsolved (as it often happens in real life) and went out temporarily. However just before climax lieutenant yielded Maryutka's point nonetheless and was rady to come back to struggle - though without changing the side, but already that fact helped him to regain girl's respect. In Protazanov's version this is Maryutka who is more emotional over incident, and also she is looking for contact with no luck. Actually this scene has again many small "talking" details, and there is no sense to name them all. Protazanov's general idea here is that Maryutka regrets disturbing the balance, and no principle can make her forget the happiness, that was clouded with unsuccessful talk. And in Chukhray's movie, on the contrary, Maryutka revealed her strong will and commitment to principles, and their quarrel oppresses lieutenant more (at least, seemingly). Much to the fair sex spectators' delight, lieutenant is unreasonably rude (but not enough to destruct romantic glamor), comic in attempts to clean fish by himself, unsuccessfully tries to apologize, but has no luck in cutting through Masha's pride. Though this pride turns out to be strained: hearing her crying over the wall, Govorukha scurried to his friend. Personal relations of characters were the most important for Chukhray, hence he avoided freezing the conflict: they have it out with each other, and everything ends emotionally and very good. By the way, Strizhenov's Govorukha shows unusual for other interpretations sentimentality, and sincerity of his feelings raises less doubt.
And now the ending. In the beginning we agreed, that you know the plot, though the main spoiler is already in the title. Here I have to mention that "forty" is sacral number in Russian culture - that's the cycle, the boundary, where the old is retiring and the new is coming, the new count is started. That's why this was symbolic forty-first target, who turned out to be fateful for Maryutka. Maryutka and the lieutenant symbolized two worlds - the gentle and educated but absolutely bankrupt past and rough and ungraceful but forthcoming future, symbolized by the woman with the rifle. And these worlds could exist together by no means - that's the historical truth. In Lavrenyov's novel the highly artistic description of lieutenant's death ("Suddenly, behind his back, he heard stunning, solemn thunder of the planet perishing in fire and tempest. He had no time to understand why, and jumped aside, trying to escape from catastrophy, and this thunder of perishing world was the last earth sound for him") is ended by severe in its naturalism picture of an eye plucked out of disfeatured skull and Maryutka, dirtied with blood, howling above her sweetheart. The main question: why that has happened? Well, the easiest rendering (which doesn't satisfy us, obviously): sincere creeds of Maryutka and her military consciousness. In some sort Lavrenyov gives the same idea, reminding Maryutka and the reader of Yevsyukov's order of non-giving up the captive to enemy (by the way, Chukhray was blamed by someone for not giving such a flashback in his final). Though, her inconsolable grief and repent tells of impulsion of her deed (I don't believe that she could fire point-blank at him if he had stayed beside) under the influence of some more nuanced factors, like paternalism by Yevsyukov, who was deeply respected by Maryutka, and also Maryutka's high discipline - in virtue of her exceptional status, striving to prove own competency in all aspects of war life. On the other hand impulsion of her deed could be dictated by her feelings: sudden realization of idyll's end, feeling of loss and in addition - joyfully jumping Govorukha with visible indifference to her destiny (he even payed no attention to her shouts). And we understand that Masha wouldn't veil her convictions, and chances of her soon death were high.
One more nuance. We are sure in Maryutka's sincerity, but there are some doubts about lieutenant (though, we know, that Chukhray tried to avoid ambiguousness): what were his feelings to the girl except gratitude for saving his life (he speaks of his gratitude so shamelessly often, that being in her shoes I would shoot him without any boat with the Whites) and natural craving for opposite sex in conditions of autonomous living? In Protazanov's movie the lieutenant doesn't shown much sentimentality (as well as in the novel). And Maryutka, hearing the question of the White, sounding like from some parallel universe, with idle curiosity: Who was that guy you've just whacked, mademoiselle? - she is changing her countenance for several times (that outstanding play of Voytsik I was talking about), and shoulder board recurs to her memory, and the other much more complicated and ambiguous emotions come out through tears. So Protazanov has shown the reverse sequence, and the idea of killing enemy has come to Maryutka only in this moment. But this realized cruel thought demolishes all lyrics and becomes constitutive, and - for god's sake! - it's better not to look into girl's dark heart at this moment.
Chukhray was blamed for ending by almost everybody - for underacting Izvitskaya, for emphasis on lieutenant instead of Maryutka, for melodramatic handling instead of ideologic. Chukhray recognized, the actress hadn't coped with the final. Though emphasis on lieutenant, seemed to be justified by reproach to Izvitskaya, could be caused by wish to underscore the tragedy of ending, that absolutely corrsponded to artistic conception. Chukhray depicts two sincerely loving people and comes to dramatic Shakespeare's final with motives of implacable fate, wind of time, destroying human destinies.
In summary. The Lavrenyov's story differs from both adaptation in high cruelty and rudeness, understandable for veteran of two wars (and for literary work as against cinematic), and a bit more attention to lieutenant, whose character though beeing passive as contrasted with Maryutka, but described much more thoroughly (in some way we see the story through his eyes). Chukhray used the plot for humanistic declaration, hence he put stress on natural love between characters, trying to balance them with each other and give them more feeling - sometimes sacrificing psychological logic. The certain impact is made by acting manner of 1950s (a bit exaggerated feelings were normal in Hollywood movies of that time as well). It seems, that main task for Chukhray is to make the spectator water his eyes by the appearance of the end title and leave screening with heartache. So, his version is more romantic. Protazanov treats material easily, stays realistic, do not avoid uncertainty and quite in the manner of revolutionary cinema of 1920s sharpens the conflict, explores its psychological and external reasons. He doesn't look on the final as fatal contingence, but in the spirit of the time he sings of shattering heroic spirit (instead of peaceful, proper to postwar authors). But as contrasted with Chukhray, Protazanov's manner is more realistic.
I had no intention to compare movies in absolute categories, though I couldn't help but to discover my subjective opinion. I think, that excluding foppish cinematography by Urusevskiy (tell me, whom I have to kill to make distributors issue his works on BluRay!), the movie of 1927 is more cinematic. Experienced Yakov Protazanov knows his oats, almost every shot and every small detail work on his conception, and in epoch of silent cinema any close-up could hardly be occasional. At the same time, he has the grace not to impose his opinion on spectators, but leave them alone with their thoughts after screening. Chukhray is more obvious, predictable, his movie is more genre, poetic, but that's not a deffect for me. Being a person not free from sentimentality, I appreciate his story, and I loved a couple of Strizhenov and Izvitskaya. My story is almost over, but it's a pity to leave characters in such a sad mood. That's why here are again Robinson and his "beautiful Amazon" Friday - at parting.
