The Master and Margarita are the best moments of the story to read. Master and Margarita - interesting facts

A destroyed publication, a conversation with Stalin, the last words of Mikhail Bulgakov and other stories about the legendary book.

On November 11, online readings of excerpts from the cult novel by Mikhail Bulgakov "The Master and Margarita" were held in Runet. The project was attended by well-known cultural figures, businessmen and athletes, such as Diana Arbenina, Alena Khmelnitskaya, Maxim Tretyakov, as well as the Minister of Culture of the Russian Federation Vladimir Medinsky. The readings were timed to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the first publication of the book and the 125th anniversary of Mikhail Afanasyevich. Soyuz.Ru has prepared material about the great novel and shares interesting stories about The Master and Margarita with readers.

Book work

The first publication of The Master and Margarita was destroyed. The author himself got rid of it, having received a telegram about the ban on the play “The Cabal of the Holy Ones”. Bulgakov resumed work on the novel later in 1931 and originally planned to call it "Satan", "Here I am", "The Black Magician" or "The Great Chancellor". In total, the writer took about 10 years to create the manuscript.

It is believed that The Master and Margarita has always been the most important novel for Bulgakov himself. The last words of the writer, which he said about his "diaboliad", were: "To know ... To know!".

Behemoth cat

The Behemoth cat has long become a popular image in everyday life - any large black cat is associated by readers of The Master and Margarita with Bulgakov's character. Many Russians still consider the hero of the novel to be cute and somewhat funny.

Did Mikhail Afanasyevich, creating this image, think about a real hippopotamus? Would you like to see your cat huge?

It is to be assumed that it is not. After all, a hippopotamus is not only an animal that we can observe at least every day in the city zoo, but also a mythological creature, a demon of carnal desires. And it is not for nothing that in The Master and Margarita he becomes Woland's jester. So you should not imagine the hero of the novel as a fat cat, he can be thin, but definitely demonic.

Conversation with Stalin

It is known that in 1937 the author had a telephone conversation with Joseph Stalin. No one knows the details of that conversation. However, during the period of mass executions, Bulgakov and his family remained safe and sound, although the NKVD officers knew about the existence of the manuscript of the diabolical novel and repeatedly searched the writer's apartment. Many literary critics believe that some of the phrases spoken by different characters of The Master and Margarita are addressed specifically to the Secretary General. What exactly they said to each other on the phone will remain a mystery.

Master Bulgakov

Remember, once talking about the film, we touched on the problem of film adaptation - the translation of highly artistic literature into the language of cinema. So, perhaps, there is no more complex work in this regard than Mikhail Bulgakov's novel The Master and Margarita.

Such a master of Soviet directing as Mikhail Romm, even once said that this novel is one of those literary works that should not be made into films at all. Like, it is fundamentally untranslatable into the language of cinema. But the problem here is not only this.

The black mysticism embedded in the novel, as much as it always attracted directors, scared them away. The film adaptation process was also slowed down by the Soviet atheistic censorship, which, although it understood that the novel could not be called Christian in any way, but rather an anti-Christian interpretation of the gospel events, nevertheless, could not accept in it such an pressure of mysticism and the triumph of dark forces.

As Dmitry Sergeevich Likhachev noted, after The Master and Margarita, at least the existence of the devil cannot be doubted. And Bulgakov himself, by the way, originally thought to call the novel "The Gospel of Woland", and even "The Gospel of Satan." Therefore, the words of Vladimir Bortko that he filmed a large anti-Soviet feuilleton seem a little strange, especially since he literally followed page after page of the text of the work, not excluding its most terrible, mystical moments.

Stills from the film "The Master and Margarita" (director Vladimir Bortko, 2005, scene of obtaining and solemn drinking of human blood):

I drink ... your health, gentlemen!

Despite all the black energy of the fireproof novel, the best directors in the country fought for the right to film it as soon as it became available to the public. Danelia, Elem Klimov, Rolan Bykov, even Eldar Ryazanov. But they all unsuccessfully tried to approach the text of the writer. Sometimes, as I said, censorship got in the way. For example, Ryazanov was banned from staging without any explanation. But there were also difficulties in the search for a cinematic equivalent to Bulgakov's prose. Take the same cat Behemoth. It seems to be a detail, but for many it became a stumbling block. After all, Bortko also suffered with him, and the audience was not completely satisfied with the hefty animator's doll. In a word, what is organic in the book, looks funny in the film, but still quite heavy.

Stills from the film "The Master and Margarita" (directed by Vladimir Bortko, 2005, the scene of Likhodeev seeing Fagot and the cat Behemoth drinking and eating):

I see that you are a little surprised, dearest Stepan Bogdanovich. Meanwhile, there is nothing to be surprised.

Behemoth the Cat, Margarita flying on a broom - because of all this, some of the directors independently abandoned the idea of ​​​​making a film. Let's say, if we take foreign cinema, then Federico Fellini himself, who dreamed of staging, never realized it. Although censorship did not interfere with him. But still, it was abroad that the first film adaptations began to appear. First in Poland in 1971, then there was the Italo-Yugoslav version in 1972, and finally again in Poland in 1989. From foreign productions, in fact, that's all. Moreover, all these versions are recognized as weak and half-hearted. And in 2005, Bortko's film appeared - a good one, literally following every word of the writer.

And anyway, as heated discussions showed after the release of the picture, apparently, any screen version of this mystical novel cannot fully satisfy everyone. Even the most cinematic pieces of the text, such as, for example, the scene at the Patriarchs, were criticized by many. Although Oleg Basilashvili as a whole is ominously convincing in the image of Woland with a lecture that a person is suddenly mortal and generally not a master of himself.

Someone who recently believed that he was in control of something suddenly finds himself lying motionless in a wooden box. And those around him, realizing that there is no more sense from what lies there, burn him in a furnace.

The fact that working with the mystical text of a work is a risky test for those who threaten it has long been a commonplace. Bortko, however, does not agree with this. But, nevertheless, he also had various strange troubles on the set. Yes, and it was possible to shoot the picture only on the second attempt, when they took the church blessing and consecrated everything that was connected with the shooting process.

A special mystery around the domestic film productions of the novel is added by the fact that there is another film adaptation that few have seen, in good quality - certainly no one has seen it, and most simply have not heard of it. Meanwhile, it is she who is the very first domestic film version, filmed back in the ninety-fourth year. Woland was played by Valentin Gaft. His energetically mischievous interpretation of the image may seem even more convincing to some.

Yuri Kara , 1994):

Ah… mmm… Where are your things? Where did you stay?

Yes, nowhere.

And where will you live?

In your apartment.

I'm very pleased. I'm afraid you'll be uncomfortable there. And in the "Metropol" wonderful rooms ...

Isn't there a devil too?

And the devil.

Ivan, shut up.

Yes, there is no devil! Here is the punishment. And stop freaking out!

Ha ha ha! No, that's positively interesting! What do you have, whatever you miss - there is nothing?

The director of the film, Yuri Kara, during the filming had enough opportunities to think that the dark force does not exist. Otherwise, it is difficult to explain such an incredible amount of mystical coincidences and interference. For example, a car with a driver named Koroviev crashed into the director's car. Six operators changed, and the last of them, Evgeny Grebnev, died shortly after filming, and he was only thirty-seven years old. And finally, the film itself was never seen by the general public. Why so - more on that later. For now, I’ll just say that Valentin Gaft, who played Woland, says that some higher power is preventing the film from coming out.

At the same time, it cannot be said that evil somehow triumphs in a special way in this film adaptation. Although there, indeed, there is one moment that, with all the outward cheerfulness, is not just atheist, but, in general, blasphemous. And who knows, maybe that's why the film never comes out.

Stills from the film "The Master and Margarita" (director Yuri Kara, 1994):

And you, Ivan Nikolaitch, have great faith in Christ.

In-oh-oh ... Black magic began.

It is necessary to be consistent (draws a luminous face on the ground with a cane). Please, step foot on this portrait.

But... it's just weird...

Yes, I do not want.

Are you afraid?

And I don't think so!

Be afraid.

Pardon me, professor... He doesn't believe in any Christ. But ... it is ridiculous, childishly ridiculous - to prove your disbelief in this way.

Then there was no need to chatter that "an atheist, a theomachist." How do you want to preach to peasants? What propagandist are you? You are an unfortunate intellectual, that's who you are!

Who? Am I an intellectual?! Am I an intellectual?! Well, here it is! So! (Jumps up, steps on, rubs with his foot, sits down). Here!

And this episode characterizes the whole gloominess of the idea not so much of the film director, but of Bulgakov himself, because Yuri Kara, by and large, didn’t come up with anything here himself. He only took a scene from early editions of the novel, when it could still be called The Gospel of Satan. And as an artist, he, in general, had the right to treat Bulgakov's text in such a way, to use its early editions. Moreover, the peculiarity of the novel is that the canonicity of the final edition is to some extent conditional. As you know, the novel was published without the presence of Bulgakov himself - the writer had already died long ago by that time - and no one can say with absolute certainty how Bulgakov would eventually recognize the final version, which one of the numerous editions he would choose.

That is why Yuri Kara allowed for the possibility of some freedom in interpreting the work. Yes, even Bortko does not always literally follow the text. Another thing is that in the film by Yuri Kara there is a scene that, in its summary interpretation, borders on bad taste - a scene when Lenin, Hitler and Stalin suddenly turn out to be guests at Woland's ball. In this farcical moment of the film, it is well felt that it was filmed precisely in the post-perestroika years, with their clumsy and politicized nature.

Stills from the film "The Master and Margarita" (director Yuri Kara, 1994, an episode with a meeting of guests before the ball):

Traitor Judas. Ulyanov-Lenin.

I am glad, queen, to attend the ball! Very glad.

We are in awe. Felix Dzerzhinsky.

We are in awe! Joseph Stalin.

I admire you, Margarita Nikolaevna.

Generalissimo...

And I wish you all the best.

We are in awe. Adolf Gitler.

Heil... And these are still alive!

And these are specially invited.

So why, after all, the ambiguous production of Yuri Kara does not reach the viewer? Why is the picture on the shelf in our super free time? In fact, there is a purely logical explanation. At the beginning of the release of the film, the producers interfered. They didn't like that the tape was three and a half hours long. They needed two at the most. But here the director and actors have already protested. Then another obstacle appeared. The heir of Bulgakov himself intervened, a certain Shilovsky, who cannot be called a direct relative. The fact is that Bulgakov had no children, and Shilovsky is the son of the third wife of the writer, born from another marriage. They say that he even shot Mikhail Afanasyevich himself in jealousy. Although, maybe this is a rumor.

But the bottom line is that under copyright law, which, ironically, went into effect almost as soon as the film was finished, it was Shilovsky who became the master of the writer's texts. So he banned the release of the film. The reason is the distortion of the canonical edition. At the same time, Shilovsky himself notes that many actors in the film by Yuri Kara are stronger than those of Bortko. He refers to them Mikhail Ulyanov in the role of Pontius Pilate and Nikolai Burlyaev in the role of Yeshua.

Stills from the film "The Master and Margarita" (director Yuri Kara, 1994):

Yeshua Ha-Nozri, do you believe in any gods?

God is one. I believe in him.

Then pray to him. And yet, that won't help. No wife?

No. I am alone.

O hateful city! If you were stabbed to death before your date with Judas, it would be better.

And you would let me go, hegemon. I see that they want to kill me.

Do you really think, unfortunate one, that the Roman procurator will release a man who said what you said? Or do you think I'm ready to take your place?

Hegemon…

Be quiet. Be quiet.

If we ignore the mystical plot of the novel and talk about acting, then it is in them, and not in directing, that the main success of the film lies. The selection of actors here is no less stellar than in Bortko's film. And the performers of the main roles draw out the individual weaknesses of the film. Sergei Garmash in the role of Ivan Bezdomny can be considered a real find. At the same time, I am not saying that Vladislav Galkin did not cope with the role - he also felt the image well in his own way. And let's even, before comparing Galkin with Garmash, let's refresh his game in memory.

Stills from the film "The Master and Margarita" (director Vladimir Bortko, 2005, the hero speaks on the phone):

Comrade on duty! Order immediately that five motorcycles with machine guns be sent to capture the foreign consultant. What?.. Pick me up, I'll go with you... Says the poet Bezdomny from a lunatic asylum. Doctor, what is your address? Are you listening to me? Hello! (Hangs up the phone). Ugliness!

But Ivan Bezdomny, performed by Sergei Garmash, is, well, an absolute hit in the image of a proletarian poet. Moreover, it is interesting that then the actor was still almost unknown to anyone. He played so brightly, so convincingly that if the film had come out on time, he, of course, would have immediately become a star. So, the same episode of the novel, but already performed by Sergei Garmash.

Police! Comrade on duty! Urgently send five motorcycles with machine guns to capture a foreign consultant. Pick me up, I'll go with you ... Says the poet Bezdomny from a lunatic asylum. How is your address?

Karl Marx, thirteen.

Hello! Hello, police! Hello! (Hangs up the phone). Ugliness!

The specificity of this film adaptation is in a special acting courage. By the way, Valentin Gaft and Alexander Filippenko, who played in both versions, admit that there were more improvisations in the film by Yuri Kara, that it was better able to convey Bulgakov's humor, phantasmagoric intonation, and the energy of his text.

True, it may seem to someone that acting courage is sometimes excessive, in some ways even reminiscent of the eccentricity of the late Gaidai. But all this can be explained precisely by the peculiarities of directing in the early nineties, which was characterized by such a farcical bias. But Bulgakov's novel is also to some extent characteristic of taking the same image of Koroviev, which is all built on grotesque and exaggeration. This is the complexity of the role of Koroviev. It requires an enchanting, brilliant performance, but the audience should not have the feeling that the actor is overacting.

This was such a difficult task for Alexander Abdulov and Alexander Filippenko. And who coped with it better - it's even hard to say.

Stills from the film "The Master and Margarita" (directed by Yuri Kara, 1994, the hero speaks on the phone):

Hello?.. I consider it my duty to inform you that our chairman of the housing association at number three hundred and two bis on Sadovaya Nikanor Ivanych Bosoy is speculating in currency. At the moment, in his apartment number thirty-five, in the ventilation, in the toilet, in newsprint, four hundred dollars. Timofey Kvastsov, a tenant of the aforementioned house, is speaking. I swear to keep my name secret! I fear the revenge of the above chairman.

In general, of course, to compare who played better, who played worse, in some ways and unlawful. Everyone imagines heroes in their own way. And then some artists switched from one version to another. And yet the comparison is inevitable.

The Master turned out to be interesting in the film by Yuri Kara. He was played by the actor of the Lenkom Theater Viktor Rakov. The image he created differs markedly from Bortkov's production. Bortko, having chosen Alexander Galibin for this role, an actor with a characteristic anemic dry face, offered him to play very minimalistically. In its own way, this is justified, since the Master in the novel is written sparingly and even schematically. And yet, perhaps, he is too unemotional in Bortko, representing, as it were, a kind of mask.

The master, performed by Viktor Rakov, is, as it should be according to the novel, exhausted, has the necessary dignity, but at the same time, one feels lightness and naturalness in him. However, it's all a matter of taste.

You see, what a strange story. I am sitting here for the same reason as you. It is because of Pontius Pilate. The fact is that a year ago I wrote a novel about Pilate.

Are you a writer?

I am a master. (Puts on a yarmulke.) She sewed it for me with her own hands.

As for Margaret, it's more complicated. Anastasia Vertinskaya, despite her innate aristocracy, does not always seem quite convincing. In the end, Yuri Kara himself was not too pleased with her. But Anna Kovalchuk, for all her languid beauty, can hardly be called such an impeccable hit in the image.

In general, both the Master and Margarita, despite the fact that their names are stated in the title of the novel, are perhaps not its main characters. There is even an opinion that they perform only a certain function in order to better reveal the mystical plane of being. This was what occupied Bulgakov, who planned to create a kind of Faust of the twentieth century. Recall that he himself said: "I am writing a novel about the devil." And the title of the work constantly varied around the name of Woland.

And, of course, also a key figure in the structure of the novel, and hence the film, is Pontius Pilate. It is no coincidence that the very first, still Polish film adaptation, directed by Andrzej Wajda, was called: “Pilate and Others”. Pilate worries Bulgakov as the best illustration of a man caught between good and evil, as a problem of conscience. And in the film by Yuri Kara, these pangs of conscience of a strong man are very accurately shown by Mikhail Ulyanov.

Stills from the film "The Master and Margarita" (directed by Yuri Kara, 1994):

And for the third time we announce that we ask for Barravan.

How? Even after my petition? The intercessions of the one in whose person the Roman power speaks?

But is the office of governor irremovable?

Fine. So be it... It's too tight for me. Closely.

It's stuffy today. Somewhere there is a storm.

It's not because it's stuffy. Because I feel close to you, Kaifa, it has become. Take care of yourself, High Priest.

And now about Pontius Pilate performed by Kirill Lavrov. Of course, one cannot but admit that he deeply felt the role and managed to show the wavering, tormented soul of this powerful world. And this despite his advanced age. But still. There is a moment in the novel when Pilate shouts in the voice of the commander of the cavalry guards. So, when Mikhail Ulyanov does this, his angry cry sounds much more convincing.

Stills from the film "The Master and Margarita" (directed by Yuri Kara, 1994):

And the kingdom of Truth will come?

It will come, hegemon.

It will never come!!! Never!!!

Stills from the film The Master and Margarita (directed by Vladimir Bortko, 2005):

And the kingdom of Truth will come?

It will come, hegemon.

It will never come! Criminal! Criminal! Criminal!

Pilate occupies much more space in the structure of the novel than Yeshua. In all editions of the work, it never says: "A novel about Yeshua." Always - "The Romance of Pontius Pilate". Moreover, as you know, Yeshua is an underestimated image of Jesus Christ. It is shown, as it were, through Woland's glasses. This creates confusion in the audience's perception - many identify Yeshua with Jesus Christ. In Bulgakov's text, Yeshua's behavior is described in the following words: "he was frightened, he said touchingly, he smiled ingratiatingly." And if a writer describes his character in this way, then this is not only not a god-man, but also clearly not his hero.

It is interesting that our directors, seemingly realizing that this is Bulgakov's character, and not Christ, still try to avoid understated characteristics of the image. Bortko invited the strong Bezrukov with a twinkle in his eyes. But Bulgakov's text is essentially provocative. And under the guise of a literary character, it refutes the very resurrection of Jesus Christ, and other major gospel events. For example, his entry into Jerusalem on a donkey. A symbolic event that has become an important holiday for Christians.

Stills from the film The Master and Margarita (directed by Vladimir Bortko, 2005):

Is it true that you came to Yershalaim through the Susa gates riding on a donkey and accompanied by a crowd of mob shouting greetings to you, as if to a certain prophet?

I don't even have a donkey. And I came to Yershalaim exactly through the Susa gates, but on foot. Accompanied by one Levi Matthew. And no one shouted anything to me, since no one in Yershalaim knew me then.

The peculiarity of the film by Yuri Kara is that, unlike Bezrukov, the actor Nikolai Burlyaev tried to create the image of a truly God-man, and not a smiling wandering philosopher. Burlyaev was already an Orthodox person at that time and decided to correct Bulgakov's text, removing from it all pitiful phrases and a request to Pilate for mercy. As a result, playing Christ, of course, did not work out, but the image acquired more inner freedom and divine greatness.

Stills from the film "The Master and Margarita" (directed by Yuri Kara, 1994):

Then you must swear you didn't do it.

What do you want me to swear?

At least your life. It's time to swear by it, as it hangs by a thread. Know that.

Don't you think you hung her, hegemon? If so, you are very mistaken.

I can cut this hair.

And in this you are wrong. Agree that only the one who hung it can cut the hair.

Then Nikolai Burlyaev nevertheless regretted that he decided to play the one who was impossible to play. He realized that it was pointless to try to defeat Woland on his own territory. After all, Bulgakov, reducing the image of Christ, in the end, agrees to the fact that Yeshua, through his student, asks Woland to take with him and reward the Master with eternal rest. And what is surprising here is not even that the Master deserved not light, but peace. It is surprising that Yeshua, on behalf of Levi Matthew, asks the devil about this. With special pathos, this scene was made in Bortko's film.

Stills from the film The Master and Margarita (directed by Vladimir Bortko, 2005):

He read the Master's essay. And asks you to take the Master with you. And gave him peace. Is it hard for you to do this?

The spirit of evil.

It is not difficult for me to do anything, and you know this well. Why don't you take him to yourself, into the Light?

He didn't deserve the Light. He deserved rest.

Tell me what will be done. And leave me immediately.

He asks that the one who loved and suffered because of him, you would take too.

Introduction

The analysis of the novel "The Master and Margarita" has been the subject of study of literary critics throughout Europe for many decades. The novel has a number of features, such as the non-standard form of "a novel within a novel", an unusual composition, rich themes and content. It was not in vain that it was written at the end of the life and career of Mikhail Bulgakov. The writer put all his talent, knowledge and imagination into the work.

Genre of the novel

The work "The Master and Margarita", the genre of which critics define as a novel, has a number of features inherent in its genre. These are several storylines, many heroes, the development of action over a long period of time. The novel is fantastic (sometimes it is called phantasmagoric). But the most striking feature of the work is its "novel within a novel" structure. Two parallel worlds - the masters and the ancient times of Pilate and Yeshua, live here almost independently and intersect only in the last chapters, when Levi, a disciple and close friend of Yeshua, pays a visit to Woland. Here, two lines merge into one, and surprise the reader with their organicity and closeness. It was the structure of the "novel within the novel" that enabled Bulgakov to show two such different worlds so skillfully and fully, events today and almost two thousand years ago.

Composition features

The composition of the novel "The Master and Margarita" and its features are due to the author's non-standard methods, such as the creation of one work within the framework of another. Instead of the usual classical chain - composition - plot - climax - denouement, we see the interweaving of these stages, as well as their doubling.

The plot of the novel: the meeting of Berlioz and Woland, their conversation. This happens in the 30s of the XX century. Woland's story also takes the reader back to the thirties, but two millennia ago. And here begins the second plot - a novel about Pilate and Yeshua.

Next comes the tie. These are tricks of Voladn and his company in Moscow. From here the satirical line of the work also originates. A second novel is also developing in parallel. The culmination of the master's novel is the execution of Yeshua, the climax of the story about the master, Margaret and Woland is the visit of Levi Matthew. An interesting denouement: in it both novels are combined into one. Woland and his retinue are taking Margarita and the Master to another world to reward them with peace and quiet. Along the way, they see the eternal wanderer Pontius Pilate.

"Free! He is waiting for you!" - with this phrase, the master releases the procurator and completes his novel.

Main themes of the novel

Mikhail Bulgakov concluded the meaning of the novel "The Master and Margarita" in the interweaving of the main themes and ideas. No wonder the novel is called both fantastic, and satirical, and philosophical, and love. All these themes are developed in the novel, framing and emphasizing the main idea - the struggle between good and evil. Each theme is both tied to its characters and intertwined with other characters.

satirical theme- this is Woland's "tour". The public, maddened by material wealth, representatives of the elite, greedy for money, the tricks of Koroviev and Behemoth sharply and clearly describe the diseases of the contemporary society writer.

Love Theme embodied in the master and Margarita and gives tenderness to the novel and softens many poignant moments. Probably not in vain, the writer burned the first version of the novel, where Margarita and the master were not there yet.

Empathy Theme runs through the whole novel and shows several options for sympathy and empathy. Pilate sympathizes with the wandering philosopher Yeshua, but being confused in his duties and fearing condemnation, he "washes his hands." Margarita has a different sympathy - she sympathizes with the master, Frida at the ball, and Pilate with all her heart. But her sympathy is not just a feeling, it pushes her to certain actions, she does not fold her hands and fights for the salvation of those she worries about. Ivan Bezdomny also sympathizes with the master, imbued with his story that "every year, when the spring full moon comes ... in the evening he appears on the Patriarch's Ponds ...", so that later at night he can see bittersweet dreams about wondrous times and events.

The theme of forgiveness goes almost alongside the theme of sympathy.

Philosophical themes about the meaning and purpose of life, about good and evil, about biblical motives have been the subject of controversy and study of writers for many years. This is because the features of the novel "The Master and Margarita" are in its structure and ambiguity; with each reading they open up more and more questions and thoughts for the reader. This is the genius of the novel - it does not lose either relevance or poignancy for decades, and is still as interesting as it was for its first readers.

Ideas and main idea

The idea of ​​the novel is good and evil. And not only in the context of struggle, but also in the search for a definition. What is really evil? Most likely, this is the most complete way to describe the main idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe work. The reader, accustomed to the fact that the devil is pure evil, will be sincerely surprised by the image of Woland. He does not do evil, he contemplates, and punishes those who act low. His tours in Moscow only confirm this idea. He shows the moral illnesses of society, but does not even condemn them, but only sighs sadly: "People, like people ... The same as before." A person is weak, but it is in his power to resist his weaknesses, to fight them.

The theme of good and evil is ambiguously shown on the image of Pontius Pilate. In his heart he opposes the execution of Yeshua, but he lacks the courage to go against the crowd. The verdict on the wandering innocent philosopher is passed by the crowd, but Pilate is destined to serve the punishment forever.

The struggle between good and evil is also the opposition of the literary community to the master. It is not enough for self-confident writers to simply refuse the writer, they need to humiliate him, to prove their case. The master is very weak to fight, all his strength has gone into the romance. No wonder devastating articles for him acquire the image of a certain creature that begins to seem like a master in a dark room.

General analysis of the novel

The analysis of The Master and Margarita implies immersion in the worlds recreated by the writer. Here you can see biblical motifs and parallels with Goethe's immortal Faust. The themes of the novel develop each separately, and at the same time coexist, collectively creating a web of events and questions. Several worlds, each of which has found its place in the novel, are portrayed by the author surprisingly organically. It is not at all surprising to travel from modern Moscow to ancient Yershalaim, Woland's wise conversations, a huge talking cat and Margarita Nikolaevna's flight.

This novel is truly immortal thanks to the talent of the writer and the undying relevance of the topics and problems.

Artwork test

The whole set of existing books can be conditionally divided into two groups: books for the soul and just for reading. With the second, everything is clear: these are various love stories in bright covers, detective stories with loud names. These books are read and forgotten, and none of them will become your favorite desktop. Everyone has their own definition of the first. A good book means a lot to me. After all, a smart work can give a person much more than just the opportunity to have a good time. It pushes the reader to think, makes you think. You discover good books suddenly, but they stay with us for life. And rereading them, you discover new thoughts and sensations.

Following these arguments, Mikhail Bulgakov's novel The Master and Margarita can safely be called a good book. Moreover, my review of this work could consist only of exclamation and question marks: the feeling of admiration and admiration for the work of the Master is so strong, it is so mysterious and inexplicable. But I will try to plunge into the abyss of mystery called "The Master and Margarita".

Turning to the novel again and again, each time I discovered something new. Any person, reading this work, can find for himself what is interesting to him, what excites and occupies his mind. You need to get a grasp of the novel "The Master and Margarita", and then ... romantics will enjoy the Love of the Master and Margarita as the purest, sincere, desirable feeling; worshipers of God will hear a new version of the old Yeshua story; philosophers will be able to rack their brains over Bulgakov's mysteries, because behind every line of the novel is Life itself. The persecution of Bulgakov, censorship of the RAPP, the inability to speak openly - all this forced the author to hide his thoughts, his position. The reader finds and reads them between the lines.

The novel "The Master and Margarita" is the apotheosis of all the work of Mikhail Bulgakov. This is his most bitter and most sincere novel. The pain, the suffering of the Master from not recognizing him is the pain of Bulgakov himself. It is impossible not to feel the sincerity of the author, his true bitterness, sounding in the novel. In The Master and Margarita, Bulgakov partly writes the history of his life, but calls people by other names, describing their characters as they actually existed. His enemies are written out in the novel with evil irony, turning into satire. Rimsky, Varenukha, Styopa Likhodeev, "devoted" workers of art who sow only bad taste and falsehood. But Bulgakov's main opponent in the novel is Mikhail Alexandrovich Berlioz, chairman of MASSOLIT, read - RAPP. That's who decides the fate of the literary Olympus, that's who decides whether a writer is worthy of being called "Soviet". He is a dogmatist who does not want to believe in the obvious. It is with his consent that works that do not meet the ideological standards of writers are rejected. Berlioz broke the fate of the Master and many others who did not seek petty joys and devoted themselves with all their passion to their work. Who is taking their place? The author takes us to the House of Writers, where the main life is in full swing in the Griboyedov restaurant. The writer wastes all his ardor on petty intrigues, on running around the offices, on eating all sorts of delicacies, and so on. That is why we see an almost complete absence of talented literature during the reign of Berlioz.

Somewhat different, unusual Bulgakov appears before the readers in the chapters devoted to Yeshua. We see the similarity of this biblical character with the author. According to contemporaries, Mikhail Bulgakov was an honest, sincere person. Just like Yeshua, he brought kindness and warmth to his loved ones, but, like his hero, he was not protected from evil. However, the writer does not have that holiness, the ability to forgive weaknesses, there is not that gentleness inherent in Yeshua. With a sharp tongue, merciless satire, evil irony, Bulgakov is closer to Satan. This is what the author makes the judge of all those who are mired in vice. In the original version, the Great Prince of Darkness was alone, but, restoring the burnt novel, the writer surrounds him with a very colorful retinue. Azazello, Koroviev, the cat Behemoth were created by the Master for petty pranks and tricks, while the sir himself has more significant things to do. Bulgakov shows him as the arbiter of destinies, gives him the right to punish or pardon. In general, the role of black forces in The Master and Margarita is unexpected. Woland appears in Moscow not to encourage, but to punish sinners. He comes up with an unusual punishment for each. For example, Styopa Likhodeev escaped with only a forced trip to Yalta. The director of the variety show, Rimsky, was punished more severely, but he was left alive. And the most difficult test awaits Berlioz. A terrible death, a funeral turned into a farce, and, finally, his head in the hands of Messire himself. Why is he punished so harshly? The answer can be found in the novel. The biggest sinners, according to the author, are those who have lost the ability to dream, to invent, whose thoughts follow a measured path. Berlioz is a convinced, inveterate dogmatist. But there is a special demand from him. The chairman of MASSOLIT manages the souls of people, directs their thoughts and feelings. He is entrusted with selecting books on which future generations are brought up. Berlioz is from the breed of those pseudo-writers with whom Bulgakov fought all his life. And the Master takes revenge on his enemies, forcing the heroine of the novel, Margarita, to defeat the hated House of Writers. He takes revenge for persecution, for persecution, for his broken destiny, for desecrated works. And it is impossible to condemn Bulgakov - after all, the truth is on his side.

But not only dark, gloomy feelings the author put into his favorite creation. “Love jumped out in front of us ... and struck us both at once ...” These words open the kindest, brightest pages of the novel. This is the love story of the Master and Margarita. The faithful assistant, the wife of the writer Elena Sergeevna, was reflected in the image of Margarita - the most sensual image. Only the love of Bulgakov's half-holy half-witch saved the Master, and Woland gives them well-deserved happiness. Having gone through many trials, but having kept their love, the Master and his Muse leave. And what is left for the reader? How did the novel-life end?

“This is how it ended, my disciple…” - the last words of the Master. They are addressed to Ivan Homeless. The poet has changed a lot since we met him on the first pages of the novel. Gone was the former, incompetent, insincere, false Ivan. The meeting with the Master transformed him. Now he is a philosopher eager to follow in the footsteps of his Master. That's who remains among the people and will continue the work of the Master, the work of Bulgakov himself.

Every page, every chapter of the novel made me think, dream, worry and resent. I discovered a lot of new and interesting things. The Master and Margarita is not just a book. It's a whole philosophy. Bulgakov's philosophy. Its main postulate can probably be called the following idea: each person must, first of all, be a thinking and feeling person, which for me is Mikhail Bulgakov. And if, as R. Gamzatov said, “the longevity of a book depends on the degree of talent of its creator,” then the novel The Master and Margarita will live forever.