Thread: Russian TV Shows

Poor henpecked guy, that husband of yours, JB. Пашет мужик как вол.

Originally Posted by JB

Ooops! I tend to speak in a mixup of Russian and English. I have developed this bad habit since my husband wants to learn English and we end up speaking to each other in this crazy mix.

That's normal, JB, nothing to worry about. I knew one American girl who once said "magazine" instead of "store" and then went duh, i've been living in Russia too long.

Henpecked? I think hubs would disagree. As for the language thing I only worry that my English will soon become unrecognizable. The Russians seem to be more tolerent of my goofs in their language than the Americans are of my goofs in English. Russians also don't make a big deal about my accent (they think I'm from Moldova or Belorus ).While the Americans keep insisting that I have an accent and ask me where I'm from!

Originally Posted by JB

Russians also don't make a big deal about my accent (they think I'm from Moldova or Belorus ).

Moldovian and Belorussian accents are so different from each other (think Cockney vs. Aberdeen), there's no way a Russian would mistake one for the other. Believe you me, ducks, Americans and Brits have a very distinctive accent in Russian. Post a sample and let's set this thing straight, shall we?

Sorry, I haven't a microphone. And I think my accent is 100% American but in Russia people keep insisting that I come form a variety of other countries because they "know that accent".

Originally Posted by VendingMachine

Originally Posted by JB

Are those shows on cable? We can get any shows from any country with cable or dish but very few British shows on the regular TV channels.

In St Pete we mostly have cable. Very few households stick to terristrial. It's so boring and low quality. With cable you get all terristrial + tons more. And there's bags and bags of British programming on every day. To us, Double Petersburgers, cable is regular. Every district has literally dozens if not hundreds of cable operators and TV studios (that's in addition to a wide selection of terristrial and satellite channels that you get on cable), in some districts I believe they even have a bunch of TV channels that broadcast entertaining images for your pets. My block of flats is huge enough to have a small CCTV studio of its own with a lot of amateur yet quite high quality children and DIY programming. Also, we have our own interactive message boards based on teletext. I have two video on demand systems in my apartment- one at the level of the district cable operator and one inhouse system, run by the above mentioned CCTV studio. The latter offers an excellent choice of old Formula 1 videos.

Wow you are very luck in respect of having access to so many channels, In England we only have access to English speaking channels, any other channels and they are mainly Hindi or Gujarati are premium channels so you have to pay more . It is very difficult for anyone to learn a foregin lanugage by listening to or even watch any foregin lanugage channels unnless you buy extra equipment and even then it is not reliable

Everything is set up England to extract more money out of people we pay more for most things than other countries and that includes TV, not only do we have to pay for a licence for the BBC channels which is none negotiable there are other main commercial channels but they are subsidised by advertisments all the time, any other channels like "Sky" which is a company run by Rupert Murdoch and beams channels in from mainly the U.S.A You have to subscribe to the more channels you have the more it costs. We do have cable operators but they show the same channels that Sky do so there isnt a much difference and a lot of the channels that are shown are shopping channels which no one is realy intersted in.



(

Originally Posted by ang12el

Originally Posted by VendingMachine

Originally Posted by JB

Are those shows on cable? We can get any shows from any country with cable or dish but very few British shows on the regular TV channels.

In St Pete we mostly have cable. Very few households stick to terristrial. It's so boring and low quality. With cable you get all terristrial + tons more. And there's bags and bags of British programming on every day. To us, Double Petersburgers, cable is regular. Every district has literally dozens if not hundreds of cable operators and TV studios (that's in addition to a wide selection of terristrial and satellite channels that you get on cable), in some districts I believe they even have a bunch of TV channels that broadcast entertaining images for your pets. My block of flats is huge enough to have a small CCTV studio of its own with a lot of amateur yet quite high quality children and DIY programming. Also, we have our own interactive message boards based on teletext. I have two video on demand systems in my apartment- one at the level of the district cable operator and one inhouse system, run by the above mentioned CCTV studio. The latter offers an excellent choice of old Formula 1 videos.

Wow you are very luck in respect of having access to so many channels, In England we only have access to English speaking channels, any other channels and they are mainly Hindi or Gujarati are premium channels so you have to pay more . It is very difficult for anyone to learn a foregin lanugage by listening to or even watch any foregin lanugage channels unnless you buy extra equipment and even then it is not reliable

Everything is set up England to extract more money out of people we pay more for most things than other countries and that includes TV, not only do we have to pay for a licence for the BBC channels which is none negotiable there are other main commercial channels but they are subsidised by advertisments all the time, any other channels like "Sky" which is a company run by Rupert Murdoch and beams channels in from mainly the U.S.A You have to subscribe to the more channels you have the more it costs. We do have cable operators but they show the same channels that Sky do so there isnt a much difference and a lot of the channels that are shown are shopping channels which no one is realy intersted in.

Best description of Sky I've ever read.

The shopping channels are taking over as well as the pointless channels set up like the pub channel and wine TV or whatever they are. It's all American, I wish they'd have more international channels, Euro news doesn't cut it.

Rather than start a new thread, I'll just stick this here since it's a TV program. I'm working my way through "Master and Margarita" and I had a couple questions:
1. What's with the coloring of the series -- is it something symbolic that I'm not getting or will they explain it?
2. I'm not sure if it's intentional or not, but when Christ was crucified, they simply tied his arms to the cross, rather than actually piercing them. What's up with this? Does Orthodox tradition hold that they weren't pierced, or is it lazy filmmaking?
3. And in the same vain, why is it Matfey who is around Christ at the Crucifixion, and not Peter?

Answer number one. Yes, I think the colouring is symbolic. We are involved in the atmosphere of that time of the century when everything wasn't so bright in our life (especially according to the book) and that there were no Technicolor and digital cameras. Everything looks like an old photo! The flourishing colours of some episodes, like with Christ, are just insertions like those of people's dreams.

Thank you. Ok, any other thoughts or answers to the other 2 questions, anybody?

To question 2:

There were different methods of "crucification" used by Romans. Sometimes, the poor victims were actually nailed to the cross; sometimes they were just tied to it by ropes or like.

Which "method" of execution was used to Christ (assuming all the New Testament events are historical. I'm not sure about it, but let's not start another boring religious discussion...) is not clear. Even some Crucifiction paintings by the artists of Renaissance are depicting victims tied to crosses, not nailed to it.

To question 3:

Yes, Bulkagov's version of the event it totally different from Evangelic version. First, according to Bulgakov, Jesus (Jeshua Ha-Nozri) did not have 12 followers at all -- only one Levius Matthew.

[quote="Barmaley"]
2. I'm not sure if it's intentional or not, but when Christ was crucified, they simply tied his arms to the cross, rather than actually piercing them. What's up with this? Does Orthodox tradition hold that they weren't pierced, or is it lazy filmmaking?
I would think that it would have to be some sort of mistake since the New Testament cleary states that "doubting" Thomas wanted to see the marks left by the nails in Christ's hands.

Originally Posted by Barmaley

2. I'm not sure if it's intentional or not, but when Christ was crucified, they simply tied his arms to the cross, rather than actually piercing them. What's up with this? Does Orthodox tradition hold that they weren't pierced, or is it lazy filmmaking?

I would think that it would have to be some sort of mistake since the New Testament cleary states that "doubting" Thomas wanted to see the marks left by the nails in Christ's hands.

Originally Posted by DDT

I would think that it would have to be some sort of mistake since the New Testament cleary states that "doubting" Thomas wanted to see the marks left by the nails in Christ's hands.

Right, which is exactly why I asked! I just wasn't sure if Orthodoxy held some other belief, or if the filmmakers/Bulgakov were lazy/uninformed.

As for there only being one disciple, though, again, is that something Bulgakov specified or was it only Matthew who actually appears (ie the other 11 just weren't around)? And again, if there is only one disciple, is this an uninformed Bulgakov or is there a reason for it?

I'm not trying to start a religious flamewar or engage in some deep religious debate, believe it or not; I was just curious about it all...

As far as I remember from reading the book, he clearly states that it was only Matthew who was at the cross. Why? Ask Bulgakov... wait... I don't think he will answer.

As for the nail vs rope, I don't think that part was written in the book... but I might be wrong. I am too lazy to find it

Originally Posted by Scorpio

Yes, Bulkagov's version of the event it totally different from Evangelic version. First, according to Bulgakov, Jesus (Jeshua Ha-Nozri) did not have 12 followers at all -- only one Levius Matthew.

And Jesus complains that "[Левий Матвей] неверно записывает за мной."

I recently read the book and I believe his hands were nailed.

if the filmmakers/Bulgakov were lazy/uninformed.

And again, if there is only one disciple, is this an uninformed Bulgakov or is there a reason for it?

Suggesting that Bulgakov or filmmakers were uninformed must be a joke! There is a reason for everything. However, unfortunately, we aren't always informed of it.

Originally Posted by MikeM

if the filmmakers/Bulgakov were lazy/uninformed.

And again, if there is only one disciple, is this an uninformed Bulgakov or is there a reason for it?

Suggesting that Bulgakov or filmmakers were uninformed must be a joke! There is a reason for everything. However, unfortunately, we aren't always informed of it.

Bulgakov's father was a theologeon or something, and Bulgakov knew Christianity very well, and was generally a very intelligent man. So he was very informed.

Everyone knows Jesus had 12 disciples, or at least they know it's more than 1 since it's plural.

Originally Posted by MikeM

if the filmmakers/Bulgakov were lazy/uninformed.

And again, if there is only one disciple, is this an uninformed Bulgakov or is there a reason for it?

Suggesting that Bulgakov or filmmakers were uninformed must be a joke! There is a reason for everything. However, unfortunately, we aren't always informed of it.

Fine, fair enough; the only reason I included Bulgakov was a) I didn't know his personal background and b) I know that Christianity was, to some extent, suppressed in Russia. Thus, this detail, in the grand scheme of things may very well have been lost on someone who didn't have a strong religious background for all I know. the reason must be on the filmmakers' side then -- either they lacked the technical resources to do the shot or they just thought it wasn't important enough to go to the trouble of doing so.

Everyone knows Jesus had 12 disciples, or at least they know it's more than 1 since it's plural.

Actually, he had 13; one of them did himself in and had to be replaced.

Originally Posted by Barmaley

Originally Posted by MikeM

if the filmmakers/Bulgakov were lazy/uninformed.

And again, if there is only one disciple, is this an uninformed Bulgakov or is there a reason for it?

Suggesting that Bulgakov or filmmakers were uninformed must be a joke! There is a reason for everything. However, unfortunately, we aren't always informed of it.

Fine, fair enough; the only reason I included Bulgakov was a) I didn't know his personal background and b) I know that Christianity was, to some extent, suppressed in Russia. Thus, this detail, in the grand scheme of things may very well have been lost on someone who didn't have a strong religious background for all I know. the reason must be on the filmmakers' side then -- either they lacked the technical resources to do the shot or they just thought it wasn't important enough to go to the trouble of doing so.

[quote:1ue0azm3]

Everyone knows Jesus had 12 disciples, or at least they know it's more than 1 since it's plural.

Actually, he had 13; one of them did himself in and had to be replaced. [/quote:1ue0azm3]

Bulgakov grew up before the revolution, and religious supression didn;t come until later in the history of the Soviet Union.

In the book Satan appears in Moscow. Are you saying Bulgakov and the filmaker thought it was true? Matthew appears in Moscow. It doens't say that in the Bible. Is Bulgakov misinformed?

As someone else said it isn't fact that Jesus was nailed to the cross.