Rus Articles Journal

Drama “In broad daylight...“ Who we are - the creatures shivering or we have the right?

Three couples of adult men and women, with children and without it, decided to celebrate picnic on the river bank. Desire, by the way, quite reasonable. On a calendar summer, excellent weather plus carefree Sunday. Took, as usual, dry, scarce products of everyones and let`s go.

Children bathe, husbands enjoy the nature, spouses and mistresses plane supplies. And suddenly the pure sky is eclipsed by trouble in the person of four drunk teenagers who decided to jeer at the expense of vacationers. Their desire is proved by the simple reasons: “Agdam“ without snack and ill-breeding.

Disturbing conversation slowly but surely turned into chaotic skirmish. Got to both wives, and even children. The playboy floating by who managed to scatter tipsy trouble-makers responded to entreaties about the help and to incline overweight on the party of tourists. The punks retired, but promised to return. The playboy advised the company to curtail a holiday. Out of harm`s way. And again dived into the river.

But, alas, pride of males got the best of a reason voice. How so, we, the adults who took place men also will be frightened of some milksops? Yes not to happen to it! And milksops rolled still a small bottle of port meanwhile and decided to give revenge as a hot dish. Having got back to shore, they unambiguously went towards “offenders“ with obvious intention if not to kill, then to cripple.

The master is the serviceman Mukhin, in fear for himself, for the wife and the juvenile son, threatened the leader of this coppers with a stick and is loud, but sincerely asked not to come nearer. The instigator did not follow advice and, having been hit two direct shots in a forehead, fell to a roadside grass. Yes there also remained to lie. In other words, died.

Mukhin, by itself, found. In total - not in a dark gate the boy it settled, and in broad daylight, at everything «honest“ the people. By the way, everything is clear to the people. The fellow - that local, though the hooligan known. Witnesses darkness. The skilled investigator does not doubt too - a premeditated murder especially as Mukhin, eventually, admitted. One prosecutor rushes about. He cannot understand how the family person with spotless reputation could deprive of human life here so coolly? Whether is at the honest citizen of the right on the basis of which he can bring the self-defense to a fatal outcome? And how to arrive? On conscience or under the law?.

Valery Guryanov`s picture in 2012 will be exactly thirty years old, and the problem lifted in it is actual still and there will probably be that still long time. Because the law - that dyshlo. And in our country people - that at the Soviet power that today - are inclined to trust only themselves and not to rely on a case. And trust to law enforcement bodies and even less so the myth fantastic.

The criminal code of the Russian Federation unambiguously treats an order of self-defense and urges citizens to resort to it if their life and health are threatened by real danger. A problem not in using force to offenders and hooligans. The nuance is that this force (under the law) needs to be commensurated. And it is even better - to avoid at all the conflicts because not always you will be able to prove the case a post factum.

Experts advise: if there is no other worthy opportunity - run. Otherwise on a dock there will be not a drunk petty tyrant, rack of street muggers or crowd ukurenny in a smoke narkosh, and you, in person. What is especially unpleasant in case of a lethal outcome from forwards.

In other words, the law is, but how to use it? How to prove that the crowd of unarmed teenagers was going to put you mutilations, incompatible with life? And you only wanted to anticipate a fight, remembering that the best protection is an attack? How now to look in the face of mother who lost bad, but the son? How most to live, knowing that killed the person, let also in force majeure circumstances? All these questions in Guryanov`s tape are discussed, but casually.

If to trust final credits, creators of a tape were guided by materials of original lawsuit. In what if it is honest, it is difficult trusted. The concept of “justice“ of our state was so long defamed what a silent question of the prosecutor to Mukhin “You do not believe in justice?“ it seems rhetorical.

But I will tell in what there are definitely no doubts. Tens of people, full, happy with life, prigrety with the summer sun and looking as on their eyes the lawlessness and justice is violated do not surprise us. Local drunks - defenders, one hand accustoming to drinking youth, and another - remembering the killed do not surprise. There are no doubts in a sincere grief of mother - the old woman for whom there is no bigger tragedy in life, than loss of the only son.

And if in places punches a tape on falseness and moralising, then it first of all concerns the main characters. I treat Valery Zolotukhin very with respect, but his Mukhin periodically nonpluses the behavior. And especially the velikomuchenichestvo. It is clear, God forbid to somebody to appear in a similar situation, but and the desire to kill in his soul was not. Yes, he was frightened. Yes, he became angry. And if beat, then in despair. Why was to play in the prosecutor`s office this performance with recognition, consciously trampling on the correctness?

Prosecutor too character though positive, but extremely improbable. No doubt, miracles happen, but to go against public opinion, the friends, colleagues and the vessels in general, leaning only on own guesses and moral installations? Question not that such people do not exist. How many from them managed to serve to the prosecutor`s position?

So all - how to live? On the law of the jungle where the one who is stronger, or under laws of the state which effectively protects only those who can prove / buy the innocence is right. “In broad daylight“ does not give the answer and to this question, but encourages a verdict.

It is unclear that the director Guryanov wanted to tell the work. What is the just anger of companion Mukhin capable to create legal precedent? What are tears of mother mourning the son only competent public relations - the course? What the judicial system, despite the, allegedly, stagnancy and indifference, is capable to give a weak point periodically? Guryanov executed the social order diligently, having distinctly written out characters and having divided the world on black and white.

And even in spite of the fact that the movie “In broad daylight“, unlike a set of the Soviet movies, does not force the viewer to finish thinking about an ending independently, after viewing there is a feeling of an innuendo. As if and not real this history at all, and the gloomy feuilleton composed on topic of the day.