#goncharov analysis

[henrykathman]

The Greatest Movie You'll Never See! - Goncharov (1973)

I believe that I have made the most comprehesive video essay on the 1973 film Goncharov that has been released to date, including restored footage, interviews, and rare behind-the-scenes insight into this forgotten film.

More info below the cut

Special Thanks to Molly Noise (She/Her) for composing the original music Matt Crowley (He/Him) for his quotes Marisa BeBeau (She/Her) for graciously letting me interview her. You can support her work at @sabertoothwalrus

You can also buy a copy of the 'Nico the Catboy' zine here!

Bibliography

Benjamin, Walter. The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. Penguin Books, 1935, pp. 1–26. Connanro. “Goncharov Master Document.” Google Docs, 20 Nov. 2022, docs.google.com/document/d/1Fbcn96MKyc1Bky6c0Ffex4APtar9iNht8ytfZHPpSss/edit#heading=h.bpd1oee4nr3q. Accessed 16 Mar. 2023. Jacobsen, Emily. “Ratatouille the Musical (Full Show).” YouTube, 9 Dec. 2020, www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pdTi-R-Apw. Accessed 15 Mar. 2023. Juli. “Goncharov Score Masterpost.” Tumblr, 21 Nov. 2022, www.tumblr.com/thisisnotjuli/701573313313587200/goncharov-score-masterpost?source=share. Accessed 16 Mar. 2023. Lauren Shippen. “Ice Pick Joe Quote.” Tumblr, 1 Nov. 2022, thelaurenshippen.tumblr.com/post/701652426816733184/i-know-that-ice-pick-joe-operates-mostly-as-a. Accessed 15 Mar. 2023. Marisa BeBeau. “Nico the Catboy Archive.” Sabertoothwalrus, Tumblr, 25 Oct. 2020, sabertoothwalrus.tumblr.com/tagged/nico%20the%20catboy/chrono. Accessed 15 Mar. 2023.

[gay-mormon-wizard]

It's honestly so clever how the Lumineers referenced Goncharov (1973) in this song

When Katya and Goncharov have that one big fight and she's challenging him on his hesitance to stakeout Ice Pick Joe's hideout, and she yells, "So when he comes after me, will you just dig my grave, or will you rail against my dying day?!" Knowing the context honestly adds so much more depth to this lyric.

[caterpillarinacave]

Katya: If my options are to be treated the way an old hare is treated by a pack of young dogs, or to be forgotten by the world, then may no soul ever utter my name again!!!

Goncharov: You are speaking with the confidence of a woman soon to be dead, Katya.

The birds who just came for some of Katya’s gnocco fritto:

[hadeantaiga]

Goncharov through a transmasc lens

The deep symbolism of violence as love ("If you really loved me you wouldn't have missed" and how Andrey didn't miss) is accentuated if you watch the movie and imagine Goncharov or Andrey as trans.

If you imagine Andrey as trans, it explains Katya's hatred for him as his former lover as well as her chemistry with Sofia, and adds a layer to their animosity. It also adds depth to Andrey's choices and why he falls more easily into the tropes of toxic masculinity in his attempts to prove himself as real a man as Goncharov throughout the film. He is often in the shadow of Goncharov I think it works as well with Andrey constantly comparing himself to Goncharov as the ideal of what kind of man he wants to be. He both wants to be with Goncharov, and wants to BE Goncharov. Killing him at the end of the movie is an act of consumption, consumation, and replacement.

However, if you imagine Goncharov himself as trans, then that adds a layer on to why Katya ultimately rejected him, and why he only found true companionship with Andrey; why Andrey was the only one who could ultimately fulfill "love" in the way the movie demanded. Andrey accepted Goncharov for who he was; and that obsessive love met its end as it only can in such tragedies.

[atagotiak]

There’s some interesting tension with regards to Katya and Goncharov’s inconsistent heights.

See, Robert Di Niro and Cybill Shepard are both around the same height, and I know it’s common practice in movies to mess around with camera angles and apple boxes and platform shoes and such to make the man look taller. It doesn’t always mean anything.

But given how much of her story is about Katya’s identity, like the struggles of leaving her home country. We see her practice in the mirror, trying to get rid of her accent. Erasing a part of herself in order to be taken as something more than just a foreigner.

Then there’s her struggles in her marriage. We see so much of how Katya yearns to have this connection and then Goncharov, well. I think Goncharov does care for her but damn if he isn’t terrible at showing it. Sure he gives her plenty of expensive baubles, but does he spend time with her? Or show appreciation for who she is as an individual?

When her main narrative is all about how she’s been reduced to just the stereotypical sexy Slav trophy wife it feels real fitting how much the camera seems to reduce her too.

And then there’s the high heels. Sometimes it feels like she’s using them to push back, take up space. Most notably when she and Goncharov have their big argument and for once she’s taller than him, the clack of her heels on the floor is loud, unapologetic.

And yet is she really asserting her identity with those heels? They’re part and parcel of the hyperfeminine sex-kitten ideal she’s so trapped in. (And no wonder people ship Katya/Sofia when one of the only scenes where we see Katya dressed down and looking comfortable is with Sofia)

And the theme continues when later, Katya, standing at the top of the stairs and looking down at Goncharov, shoots him. But the way she’s towering over him is just another illusion. Maybe that’s why she couldn’t actually kill him.

And then all this messing around with height culminates in how, during their last conversation, he’s standing on the ground, and she’s wearing flats. There’s no weird camera angles, and they finally see each other eye to eye.

[shortsightedmoon]

I love Sofia. I know the movie was made in the 70s and she was meant to be the very picture of the problematic lesbian character, seducing katya away from her heterosexual marriage and converting her to a life of sin, but I also believe that as much as she embodies this stereotype, she also subverts it by having her impact on katya be a positive one overall.

Goncharov and katyas marriage is shown to be a struggling one— I don’t think it’s loveless but circumstances have certainly had their effect on their relationship. Where Katya is tied down—by her marriage and by her involvement with the mafia and by her rigid adherence to societal norms, Sofia to her embodies freedom, and Sofia shows her that freedom by showing her that traditional values aren’t the only way. There’s always another option.

This is demonstrated in the scene where she asks katya to run away with her, showing again that there will always be another option, that she’s not limited to the frame that society has put her in. And to connect with someone so deeply, and to have them show you new meaning to life that you never thought possible— it’s everything. With Sofia, katya is no longer boxed in by her preconceived notions on what she thought life was and instead finds new richness in life with her.

And in the end, even after Sofia’s died, she’s still what gives katya the strength to go through with their plans and fake her own death, taking her life and death into her own hands and choosing freedom over all else.

it ties into the cyclical nature of the film and the film's whole thing about patterns/cycles and breaking them. goncharov tries (and ultimately fails) to break the cycle of violence but katya is such an interesting opposition to that bc through sofia she actually manages to get out of the life she's living. the idea of sofia as someone who was introduced as a throwaway side character, who was never meant to have such a big impact but instead ended up being the literal representation of the way out means so much to me

[disghasting]

Is anyone else obsessed with how subtly important eye contact is in Goncharov?

Have you noticed how many times he says some form of “look at me” to katya? How, whenever andrey is in a scene his eyes seems to slowly maneuver from object to person to object, as if he’s scanning meaningless information, UNTIL goncharov is in the scene and suddenly his eyes follow him like he’s something worth studying? And what gets me most, how katya, the person who refuses to look at goncharov in the eye unless he all but begs, the woman who has never had the opportunity to yearn for a man because the men do all the yearning for her, looks at sofia like she’s hung the stars and moon, to the point sofia even says something!!! THE DIRECT PARALLELS BETWEEN GONCHAROV’S “look at me, why can’t you ever look at me” AND SOFIA’S “you can’t look at me like that, why do you insist on stopping my heart,” like yeah it was probably meant as a throwaway gag, the way it was said after sofia found katya drunk (don’t even get me STARTED on how katya hid the fact that she was prescribed medication for a preexisting condition from goncharov because she refused to be seen as weak but as soon as she sees sofia’s face in her weakest moment she collapses into her arms and sobs, like???) but that aside it paints such a lovely picture i can hardly stand it.

Heteronormative speculation in the film critic industry has always painted that scene as proof that katya really does care for goncharov because of the flashbacks to him in the middle of her talking to sofia and moments before The Kiss™️, i’ve seen the same take so many times “she was hallucinating that it was goncharov in front of her, not sofia,” but that makes literally no sense considering the way she acts around him for the rest of the film.

The flashbacks were all times that we’d already SEEN in the movie, except the beginning few which were of a younger goncharov, before the beginning of the movie, perhaps before they’d fled russia even. It showed a story, each change in memory was one of him mentioning her always being in her own head, or not paying attention, or even the one scene everyone knows and loves where he asks her what she’s thinking about. The way the first few were grouped together, then became broken up by glimpses of sofia, because the answer to the question “what are you thinking about,” changed as soon as sofia stepped into the picture. She used to dream of freedom from familial pressure, from her husbands line of work, from her countries political agenda, but recently freedom feels less like a pair of wings and more like long brown hair and warm eyes that she can’t help but stare into.

Katya’s character being so underdeveloped in favor of goncharov and andrey mentally fucking for a few more minutes is absolutely deplorable, all i want is for her to find gay peace!

(Btw if you remember any scenes that have to do with the importance of eye contact in the movie that i forgot to mention here, feel free to add on!)

[nonbinaryeye]

We are not talking here enough about Goncharov's name or to be exact the lack of it.

Because no one through the entire movie calls him by his first name. We as an audience don't even know his first name. And yes there are the endearments Katya calls him or and all the camaraderies from Andrey but no one really bothers to call him by his first name.

And I think it is beautiful how it adds to the themes of his isolation because he is ultimately alone. He has no one he can really trust. In the end there really is no one left to stand by his side.

And I know it's deliberate choice of the narrative not to actually give the main character a first name but from the perspective of the story just imagine how disconnected might one feel with themselves and their own past if no one ever called them by their name.

[ney-pilled]

Guys look

LITERALLY GONCHAROV AND ANDREY OMG???

[cringefail-loser]

Jesus christ I'm begging everyone to please tag their Goncharov posts with an unreality tw. this shit has been extremely triggering

[peopleareaproblem]

She's got a body like an hourglass That's ticking like a clock

Y'all are absolutely sleeping on a major part of Katya's arc.

Obviously we all love the queer subtext and shipping Katya and Sofia, but like. I'm honestly pretty tired of all analysis of media just boiling down to ships and romance. Katya is a really interesting character as-is, and it's worth exploring.

I've seen posts on here (this one by @notcaycepollard is really good) exploring the themes of food and eating in the film. And like yes absolutely. To quote that specific post (bold emphasis mine):

the rigid enforcement of domesticity as represented by the meals goncharov conspicuously fails to eat with katya [...] to me I think it speaks just as much about how trapped katya is by social expectations too. she tries so hard to perform the role of the good wife, polishing the fucking silverware and making blini [...] by the end of the film these conflicts are resolved with goncharov and katya at the table on the street, finally eating together but in a way that’s not constrained by the trappings of domesticity or the expectation of remaining true to your roots, katya is finally seen by goncharov as a whole person with her own internal life and he’s able to break bread with her, that final shot of them drinking wine with the church behind them, it’s just, the catholicism in this film is a lot okay

And this is an excellent analysis of these scenes, I totally agree with this take. BUT I think it leaves off a really important element. These scenes, Katya's struggle with performing domesticity with Goncharov, or arguably his failure to hold up his end of the marriage, are a direct metaphor for their inability to have children.

Throughout the film everyone's running out of time, the clock symbolism throughout, and then the scene where the men are assembling their weapons intercut with Katya getting dressed and putting on makeup — because her body is her weapon, and instead of her life being what is at risk of ending, for Katya it is her biological clock that is ticking. Her figure gets literally compared to an hour glass by Mario, and visually that metaphor is implied a couple of times as well.

Yeah I know it's a kind of misogynistic trope nowadays but this movie is from the 70's and was honestly kind of groundbreaking at the time (but it's for sure written and directed by men so like). I absolutely 100% believe that Goncharov and Katya as a couple cannot have children.

It's really conspicuous when you start looking for it. Obviously all the times Katya tries to make her husband food, always always traditional russial food, she's so clearly trying to cling to a traditional family life when it absolutely is crumbling in front of her. And idk if she's literally infertile or if Goncharov just won't sleep with her or what, that's a whole other discussion tbh, but I think Katya wants, or believes she should want, to have children. When her brother Valery pops up he makes these comments about their house being quiet, immediately followed up by talking about his own wife being pregnant again — very clearly implying like "why don't you have kids??". And once you look at the cinematography with this perspective in mind you can really see how shots of Katya and Goncharov are framed in these like kind of wide shots that really would make a lot more sense if there were kids in the shot, and like. Her walking past the playschool? The bit at the market where we see the mother and daughter, and then pan to Katya all by herself? Come on.

Which brings me to Sofia's character. And yes again we all love to read this relationship as sapphic af and this theory isn't necessarily incompatible with that? But basically fundamentally Sofia is written as a parallell to Katya. Really well portrayed in this image by @mimiadraws:

And a HUGE aspect of that is the fact that Sofia has children and Katya does not. Sofia's effortlessness when it comes to the gelato and the anchovies compared with Katya's struggles with food throughout the film really underscore the food as a parallel to motherhood to me. Katya sees in Sofia something that she does not believe she can ever have: this figure of the effortless woman, doing what she believes a woman is supposed to be doing: having children, making food, having a "normal" domestic life. Interestingly we never actually see inside of Sofia's own home, and we barely meet her children. But Katya still projects this perfect version of herself onto Sofia. (Which like I honestly think makes the sapphic reading more interesting? Who among us has not struggled to recognize wether we wanted to be her or be with her?)

And then you have Katya and Goncharov's final scene together, finally effortlestly eating together at the market. They have both finally embraced Naples and left their old life behind, and only then can they fulfill this element of their relationship...

Anyway Katya is pregnant when the movie ends. Change my mind. (You can't.)

[mostlyiwant-tobekind]

I love how in the setting of Goncharov, while you know it is the 70s, sometimes you can’t really tell what year the movie is supposed to take place. Like the cars are all from the 40s, each character seems to their fashion sense of a different decade: Katya and the Hollywood glam from the 50s/60s, many of Sofia’s dresses look more like they belong to the late 40s than to the 70s except when she is with Katya in which she also wears dresses from the Hollywood glam (her dress from the bar reminds me of the iconic Marilyn Monroe dress), Goncharov and Andrei seem to dress like the people in the pictures of the bar so also the 40s and maybe late 30s, but the extras in most scenes look and dress in the 70s fashion (in the vendor scene there are a lot of hippie looking outfits, in the bar there is a lot of mini dresses and bell trousers).

The characters’ fashion is so well thought and planned to make you doubt when this character are actually living. They got stuck in that moment of their life (Sofia and her childhood trauma), or they are trying to emulate that era in some way (Katya wanting to have a picture perfect life she only truly saw through the movies of her childhood), or they are trying to go back in time (Goncharov wanting to go back in time to change his mistakes, but the mistakes he is trying to change are in his childhood; Andrei’s suit look really similar to the one his father and uncles are wearing in the picture he has at his house). Also, the characters connecting through their outfits, not just in color but also in the time their outfits are from. Sofia choosing a very 50s dress to go to the bar when she has decided to talk to Katya, both of them are wearing black and blue too, instead of a dress similar to the ball gown we saw her wear at the party in one of her first scenes. Andrei and Goncharov wear really similar suit during the entire movie, all are dark and beige tones, they are also very 40s looking (especially compared to the ones the other male characters wear). Finally, Katya and Goncharov are wearing very elegant clothes through the entire movie but they look kind of different, they don’t belong to the same decade: they are trying to live different lives together, but can’t really understand that they have a misunderstanding because their worlds look so similar and yet they are worlds apart.

[gay-mormon-wizard]

that scene in Goncharov where Goncharov is forced to choose between pulling Büthmor or Andrei out of the fire and he chooses Andrei is SO significant because it ultimately causes his downfall. Büthmor shows up in his dreams again and again after that to ask why Goncharov let him die, and the stress from that is what causes him to eventually slip up and reveal the rendezvous location to the man in the café. It's heavily implied that Goncharov and Büthmor were already having a clandestine romantic affair that was under strain at that point in the movie, and that Goncharov chose to save Andrei because their blossoming attraction hadn't yet been tainted by stress. It's all a subtle message warning against the urge to act out of impulse and lust rather than consistently choosing those you love.

[cherieprincess]

A major aspect of the plot of Goncharov (1973) that I don’t think people are discussing enough is the power struggle that plays out between Katya Goncharova and Sofia Ambrosini.

To Katya, Sofia is everything. Despite Katya being embittered and worn and tired of the world, and that being visible in the way she treats Sofia ("teaching" her to play cards and fire a gun and leading her through the streets, influencing her behaviour and movements, constantly making it clear she is more versed in the ways of the world than Sofia is), she still sees a chance for something new in her - something full of genuine love. She plays with Sofia at first because of her own lack of autonomy - she's frustrated, upset, and lost, and in Sofia she thinks she's found someone she can finally feel differently with, in a way that would be enjoyable to them both.

As smart and versed in the ways of the world as Katya is, with her femme fatale energy, the fact that she's convinced herself that she is more experienced than Sofia is exactly what shoots her in the foot about it. Katya allows herself to put genuine trust in Sofia because she's managed to convince herself that she's smarter and that Sofia is young and new - a sheep amongst the wolves - and Sofia played along masterfully. Katya's self-inflicted superiority, so to speak, is what drags her down; though I'm unsure if superiority is the right term. It's not that she overestimates herself, but she underestimates Sofia.

When Katya realises that Sofia hasn't just been keeping up in this game of chess, but has been winning, her delusion of grandeur shatters around her so fast. She immediately realises she's lost, and though she fights back, the way she’s easily overpowered means that in the end she has to appeal to Sofia. And yet Katya’s self-assuredness is still there - or at least an attempt to keep it up is. Her "appeal" is her softly going "Sof, you know this isn’t how our time ends." Katya is trying so desperately to hold onto some sense of power or control, so she makes a blanket statement rather than asking for mercy. And Sofia’s silent response of a smile, moments before she pushes Katya under the water, tells Katya there’s no use in pretending she still holds the reins.

So throughout, their power balance has fluctuated. Katya's seemed in control from the start, from the very first scene where she offers Sofia an apple, an unmistakeable reference to the temptation into evil that occured in the Garden of Eden. Sofia snatched control back and lifted herself on top, both figuratively and metaphorically, as she shoved Katya down into the water. And in the final scene between the two of them, the power balance is equal.

The two share a cigarette - clearly a distinct parallel of them finally sharing control over the situation - and Sofia seems entirely unfazed as Katya sharpens her knife. Sofia’s calm "If I am going to be stabbed, then I want to feel every second of it", causes Katya to laugh for the first time since the poker game at the scene near the beginning of the film, and she drops the knife. The tension between them disappears as the knife hits the ground - Katya's dropped both the knife and her mindset of having a foothold over Sofia, and Sofia's made it clear that she’s willing to take whatever Katya has to give her, but on her own terms.

Whether or not the two get to develop their relationship on equal footing, post the events of the film, is beholden to whether or not the viewer believes Katya survived or not. But whether the knife scene is the closing line to their personal story, or the opening line to a newly negotiated life between them, it leaves them at the end of a struggle that was laced through the entire film, and honestly is incredibly narratively satisfying.

[dreamterlude]

some of you guys are going really meta about goncharov when truly the most important aspect of the movie isnt whether or not katya acts as a representation of a woman trapped in patriarchy (clearly seen in the metaphor of her not being able to leave the house) or about how ice pick joe symbolizes how easy it is to fall prey to violence... at its core, goncharov (1973) is just about putting robert de niro and al pacino in the same set and seeing which of them succumbs to homoeroticism first

[ohmyoverland]

Goncharov (1973) was made for tumblrinas only

[Image Description: several simple but violent drawings of stick figures gnashing their teeth, lying in a pool of blood, stabbing something or keeling over.

Partially obscured by these drawings is the text, “Girls when throughout the movie, Goncharov’s pistol is featured as so intrinsic to his identity, it may as well be a part of him. Yet Andrey pointedly refuses to carry a gun because he prefers a close-distance, defensive dagger. Both of these weapons are representative of the ways Andrey and Goncharov guard themselves from the violence they willingly surround themselves with— until Andrey’s reversal, the men are rarely seen unarmed this way. So why does Andrey choose to shoot Goncharov with the man’s own gun? Did it feel less like a betrayal to him? Was Andrey trying to distance himself from the violence of it the way Goncharov had the entire film? Was it just convenient? Could it be another example of Andrey following Katya’s example and succeeding where she could not because he had nothing to lose? /End ID.]