Despite the relation of story to reality, and mocking of the Brezhnev and the authorities of Culture and Arts in the 1970s of Soviet, decrease the violent and cruel condition of the film to some degree, film is successful to reconstruction of the atmosphere and approaching the condition of incompatible and idealistic person on the dilemma to being the rich official but ordinary writer or an unemployed and poor writer that his memory from being the prison guard is mixed with the nightmare of talking with Brezhnev and waiting for Mao’s arrival and some time with the suicide or the accidental death of his colleagues. What keeps the movie interesting is the light and color and long taking shots that design carefully, and what’s making question in the film with this level of creativity, is the script doesn’t pay attention to its critical character as a person, at the beginning of the film the when the mother insists on her son and accept the financial responsibility of life alone, we feel that the sense of self efficacy and inability to write has more influence on Dovlatov more than terrible condition of living in limited society. If the energy of the film is as much spent on unnecessary ideas of twenty rubles for buying doll or threatened deal with bookseller, spend on the knowing the inner contradictions of the main character, The result is even better. At the end of the movie, when Dovlatov excuses that he is cramped in the car and sits on the roof of the car there are better ways to show his incompatibility in the limited society. And if in this detestable condition he can humiliate the dealer of the literal works and prostate specialist, he can find a way to live in a society that has come from desertion and violence to pure absurdism. Due to the effect of the filmmaker the movie is worth to watch more than once unlike most of the famous films this year.