something that frustrates me about the goncharov renaissance is that everyone's talking about it in relation to the godfather and not enough people are talking about the age of innocence! the age of innocence was released exactly 20 years before goncharov and scorsese and thelma schoonmaker both called it his most violent film; though there are no shootouts, no knife fights, and no on-screen violence, there is suffocating underlayer of emotional violence throughout the film. this is important when discussing goncharov because you can see that same emotional violence simmering under the surface of katya's storyline.

that's one of the reasons why i think it gets lost amidst discussions of goncharov and andrey (aside from the obvious homoeroticism). katya's storyline--full of betrayal, dead ends, and overwhelming emotional violence--is bloodless, almost eerily so. while goncharov threatens rybek in the bathhouse, katya meets with the italians to arrange for his death. at first the viewer thinks that she is having an affair with ice pick joe; but instead all she wants from him is a way out of the suffocating life she was born into! when people criticize cybil shepherd's performance they always point to this scene because they expect katya to cry, to scream or break down in the arms of a man who is not her husband so they can call he a hysterical slut. but katya does not cry. her voice wavers only once in the entire scene. but look at her hands while she talks, the way she lights a cigarette but does not smoke it, a solid two inches of ash waiting to fall off.

and that final shot of katya watching the husband she betrayed bleed out in the arms of another man because she has no comfort left to give him him....you have to wonder whether it was all for nothing. i get chills every time.

sure brothers k is better structured. sure it’s a more mature novel. sure it’s a more controlled piece of work.

buuut the idiot has better characters <3 sorry i don’t make the rules