Sokurov interview sign. Director Alexander Sokurov: heading towards a religious war breaking out in Russia

The famous Russian director Alexander Sokurov gave Sofiko Shevardnadze a long interview and talked about his vision of history. The screenwriter, who created a number of cult films, answered questions about his attitude towards Joseph Stalin, perestroika, the Bolsheviks and Soviet power.

Sofiko Shevardnadze: Alexander Nikolaevich, for the last ten years you have been scrupulously exploring the nature of power. This is what your trilogy is about - “Moloch”, “Taurus”, “Sun”, this is what “Faust” is about. What did you understand about power?

Alexander Sokurov: For me, of course, my close relationship with Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin was a great help here. Before this, there was literary-historical, theoretical observation, reading memoirs, careful study of television broadcasts, which sometimes reveal much more than any literary work: so many details, so many mental details characteristic of politicians. But nothing brought me closer to this understanding than communication with Yeltsin. It was long-term, systematic, during a difficult period of time, and, what struck me then, absolutely confidential. Of course, we were separated by age distance, different political status, and a colossal difference in experience: his experience—social, party, political—was enormous. I just watched his every word, every movement, every intonation. And everywhere I saw the manifestation of the individual will, the element of will, that dominates everything. It’s hard for me to imagine any major Russian politician who makes decisions based on the advice of experienced consultants, elders, etc. Because a politician living in the realities of this country makes the final decision, of course, on the basis of his internal impulse.

Sofiko Shevardnadze: Is this good?

Alexander Sokurov: This is dangerous, but practically inevitable, because such is the political tradition, such is the nature of monopower, all so-called democratic practice has led to this. After all, under the conditions of the Soviet Union, political activity was also democratic to a certain extent, sometimes even more so than now. At the very least, making decisions on the basis of some kind of general discussion was a clearly Soviet principle. Perhaps only Stalin radically violated it, because this man’s political experience was colossal. We are now preparing for a new film about the realities of the Second World War...

Sofiko Shevardnadze: Is this a documentary?

Alexander Sokurov: A film with game elements. This is a fantastic story that is based on direct facts, on research into what these politicians said, their conversations, thoughts, and writings. And, of course, I again return to the role of human character. None of those who came to power lost character along this path, but only increased it and showed the world more and more paradoxes of its manifestation.

Sofiko Shevardnadze: This is the main conclusion you drew from the study of power?

Alexander Sokurov: Yes: the inevitability of the role of a particular person’s character. The inevitability of an objective leader, objective decision-making, objective reflection. And the fact that the nuances of a man’s character are of great importance, including for peace and war. I don’t think about power as a political phenomenon. This is of little interest to me, perhaps due to the fact that I am not a sufficiently informed person, although some patterns are visible to me. But this refraction in the power of human character, male character, seems to me very important, very interesting.

Sofiko Shevardnadze: You were talking about Boris Nikolaevich Yeltsin. This person is also very close to me due to my family history. Even if he and my grandfather were opponents in a certain sense, they were very similar in personality scale. A real leader who leads the crowd, and not a leader of the crowd who stands inside it and depends on its opinion - for me this is a well-understood story. But if you look in retrospect, how did the paradigm of power develop and did it change at all in Soviet times and today? You mentioned that Stalin was unique in this sense.

Alexander Sokurov: He was unique because he had enormous political experience. He was the largest of all politicians of the 20th century. Perhaps only Churchill is equal to him in terms of the scale of political intuition... He was such a political organism, a “political beast,” as they sometimes say. Stalin was a politician himself.

Sofiko Shevardnadze: Why then did you make a film about Lenin and not about Stalin?

Alexander Sokurov: Because the teacher is always more interesting than the student. Because the teacher never enters the zone where the student enters.

Sofiko Shevardnadze: Is the student more dangerous in this sense?

Alexander Sokurov: The student is more predictable and understandable, because the teacher does not have time to implement his idea, and the student, referring to his teacher, sometimes blaming him and checking his action through his experience, may be less conscientious, or perhaps less responsible. The whole problem is that teachers never implement the task they set.

Sofiko Shevardnadze: Did Stalin fulfill Lenin’s tasks?

Alexander Sokurov: Implemented.

Sofiko Shevardnadze: He is often compared to Hitler. That is, on the one hand, they say that he may have been an evil genius, but there was no one greater in the 20th century. On the other hand, if he had lost the war, he would now be treated like Hitler, like a sick man who destroyed his country. Do you agree that circumstances played a role here?

Alexander Sokurov: Circumstances, of course, always play a role. But it seems to me that the role of character is still more important. Well, for example, Churchill and Stalin hated each other fiercely, all the time they suspected each other of infidelity, unreliability and deceived each other. But you just have to imagine, if you look at it humanly, what it was like for them to go to a personal meeting. When they knew what each of them was talking about the other. And these were people of the same age, life experience, level of understanding of life. And so they meet, look at each other, pat each other on the shoulder... and drink, drink, drink... Do you know that they drank a lot together? During his visit, Churchill was given such a drink that they carried him out... The details may not be so important, but, in the end, for a politician to deviate from his worldview is a catastrophic thing. And Hitler could never have done this, but Stalin could.

Sofiko Shevardnadze: Because he was larger in personality scale.

Alexander Sokurov: Naturally, because Hitler was a young politician, and Stalin was already old. He deliberately, for a long time, walked towards what he received. Everything he received was absolutely no coincidence. Perhaps this is the only politician in the 20th century who moved forward not on the basis of some luck, but only by following a calculated, calculated, chosen path. No one helped him, and he was able to overcome all the critics who surrounded him. He just put everyone on their backs.

Sofiko Shevardnadze: But you talk about it with sympathy, am I understanding correctly?

Alexander Sokurov: No, I'm not talking about sympathy. You are interested in how this happens in government. He was surrounded by brilliant politicians. The entire so-called Leninist school was a collection of very professional politicians, very well educated people in the political field. And each of them, of those whom Stalin later destroyed - he then destroyed everyone one by one - each of them taught him, in fact. So he went through first a secondary political school among them, and then a higher one. The difficulty in assessing Stalin as a politician is that he had enormous political experience. And if Churchill entered politics with a perfect political organism of the state, then Stalin himself created this system for himself, based on his own goals. This is a very big difference. Because he was such a political entity, very often moral origin or moral complication did not matter.

Sofiko Shevardnadze: I see, otherwise he wouldn’t be such a huge figure. But I want to ask about the consequences of his rule, about the post-Stalin political tradition, which still continues in one form or another...

Alexander Sokurov: She is not only Stalinist, she is Bolshevik. Because the new state was created on the basis of this party system, party methodology.

Sofiko Shevardnadze: In your opinion, is Bolshevism a human phenomenon? Not artificially invented?

Alexander Sokurov: No no. And in the practice of the Bolshevik Party, the Communist Party, a lot was captured in the systematics of the Russian state, Romanov autocracy. The harshness of the Romanov regime in relation to those who rebelled, protested, mass repressions - this simply transferred into Soviet times. The Bolsheviks took over the state with all the terrible, absurd inheritance that they inherited. They had no other methods, no other experience of conducting state, political life, except for what the Romanov state gave them.

Sofiko Shevardnadze: But before the collapse of the Soviet Union, we had already gained this experience. And what have our leaders learned in modern Russia? For example, Boris Nikolaevich... can I call him your friend?

Alexander Sokurov: Certainly. I treat him very cordially, with gratitude, pain and sympathy...

Sofiko Shevardnadze: Why with pain and sympathy?

Alexander Sokurov: It seems to me that whoever was in his place would make the same mistakes. He and I talked a lot about details, tactics, policy strategies, economics, and life. Sometimes these were difficult conversations, when he was very offended by me. One time he even had a heart attack from talking, and I can’t forgive myself for that. But I couldn’t help but tell him what I said. For some reason he listened. I don't know why. Who am I, what am I? I told him my idea of ​​what was happening to him. He was faced with the most unpleasant task, the most unpredictable trajectory of movement: he had to go back, just back.

Sofiko Shevardnadze: Not forward, but backward?

Alexander Sokurov: Certainly. Well, like a car, in order to turn around, you need to back up, and then drive out onto the road. It was about returning to the so-called private motivation in human life: money, private property, a different economy, a different state structure, a different parliament. What once existed in Russia and what we once abandoned. So you had to come there. We arrived and there was no one there anymore. Everyone is killed, everything is destroyed... A private person does not know how to manage freedom and money. The economy, the state does not know how to deal with the market, how to organize foreign policy - it should be completely different! What is Russian foreign policy outside the context of fighting someone? Incredible! How can there be a Russia that suddenly has no enemies when we have never known such a Russia? And suddenly Boris Nikolaevich comes to power - there are no enemies. We are in one world, we no longer have contradictions, we no longer have all this burden... But what is there? Idyll, some romantic circumstances. In a sense, Boris Nikolaevich was in an airless space, and this left me with an alarming and sad impression.

Sofiko Shevardnadze: Sad because he couldn't cope with it? Or is it unclear what to do about it?

Alexander Sokurov: On the one hand, because, in fact, it is not clear what to do with it. On the other hand, the historical process is always more complex than the ability of an individual to solve its problems. There is no statesman who would be adequate to the complexity of the historical process.

Sofiko Shevardnadze: I’m wondering: how would you show Boris Nikolaevich if you were making a movie?

Alexander Sokurov: I have two documentaries with him.

Sofiko Shevardnadze: I’m more likely talking about the artistic image.

Alexander Sokurov: There is no such artistic image anywhere in literature, cinema, or painting.

Sofiko Shevardnadze: But it’s in your head.

Alexander Sokurov: Yes, it’s in my head. But I don't know if I'll ever dare to do this. It is terrible when a person has such a difficult place of activity and all the best that is in him is tested by some terrible inevitability, terrible contradiction of this place. Yeltsin is an absolutely tragic figure, because he is absolutely kind and absolutely confused by this kindness. It’s surprising that a person with such an inner attitude ended up in a political position.

Sofiko Shevardnadze: Do you mean - with human feelings, with humanity? Because it is redundant in big politics?

Alexander Sokurov: Yes, sure. I have the right to say so, because we were silent for a long time next to each other. And these were moments for me of a real journey inside my interlocutor. Sometimes I could feel by the movement of his eyebrows or his hand what he was thinking about. And these were never terrible, heavy, cruel thoughts. Never - no matter what they say about him. For some people who went through the so-called party system during the Soviet period, who visited the top of the party, glimpses of this human consciousness were very characteristic. Shevardnadze definitely had this.

Sofiko Shevardnadze: They are very similar in this sense, very similar - both in kindness and inevitability...

Alexander Sokurov: And his kind of Christianity... If Boris Nikolaevich was not a Christian, he was a Soviet man, then Shevardnadze had this Christian soul, strange as it may sound.

Sofiko Shevardnadze: It was, it was.

Alexander Sokurov: This can be seen from everything, from the way he sat with his head down, thinking... By the way, in this sense they were psychologically similar to Yeltsin. We, Russia, were lucky that at a difficult historical moment, when everything could have been worse, more cruel, more final, more endless, it was he, Yeltsin, who found himself in this place.

Sofiko Shevardnadze: I experienced approximately the same thing at that time in Georgia, although on a different scale, of course, because there are only 5 million people there. But in Georgia it was completely inevitable what happened after grandfather. This “Rose Revolution”, when young guys came and shook the country, it really changed and moved forward. Another question is why. Due to some completely incorrect human measures. Apparently, such painful reforms were needed to bring the country out of a certain apathy. And they often compare: Yeltsin - Putin, Shevardnadze - Saakashvili. Can we say that Putin’s Russia was an inevitability, a logical continuation of what happened under Boris Nikolayevich?

Alexander Sokurov: Certainly. There was no unnaturalness in transferring power to Putin. And note that this did not meet with any protest in public opinion. It cannot be said that Boris Nikolaevich did not feel anxious about this. He understood that it simply wouldn’t happen, that this was a different generation, that the new leader had a different social skill. But, nevertheless, it was an absolutely organic decision, which indicates that the fundamentally Soviet party way of political life has not yet been eliminated. The generation in whose hands power is largely brought up by party principles. These people did not create a new policy or a new state. There was a Russian Federation - the Russian Federation remains. Boris Nikolaevich and I spoke several times on the topic of federalism and all this practice inherited from Lenin and Stalin. I understood him somewhat, he believed that there was no one to take on this, no one to seriously think about it and understand what the need was, what the new country should look like. Neither experts nor politicians were ready for constitutional reflection. And it is not clear where to get this new idea and, in general, what is the Russian state in our time?

Sofiko Shevardnadze: A question that has been raised since the time of Ivan the Terrible, if I’m not mistaken.

Alexander Sokurov: We need to think about this topic. It is necessary to analyze what are the reasons for the evolutionary, scientific, technical, and social lag; what are the reasons for the low standard of living of the population, what are the reasons for the low social culture of the population. Create three or four groups of serious specialists - let them be of different political orientations - and assign this task to them. And they will be able not only to discover this, but also to propose some kind of systematic work: such and such a restructuring of the state, such and such a new system of organizing different parts of the state. Resolve the issue, for example, with the North Caucasus. What's going on there? Many young people in the Caucasus are now telling me that perhaps we need to live without Russia.

Sofiko Shevardnadze: Certainly. Two Chechen wars.

Alexander Sokurov: Well, it’s clear that Chechnya should be separate. And I told Boris Nikolayevich that since such a situation is developing, let’s start discussing, talking about how to give freedom or disconnect Chechnya... A whole series of dampened, careful steps can gradually lead to this.

Sofiko Shevardnadze: Well, what Russian leader would want to go down in history as the one who destroyed Russia? No one.

Alexander Sokurov: And this does not mean the collapse of Russia.

Sofiko Shevardnadze: And what does it mean? Others will follow the Caucasus.

Alexander Sokurov: Boris Nikolaevich told me the same thing. And I said: but it’s also impossible not to move. You can lie there scratching your belly and do nothing. But when everything around you begins to corrode, you will inevitably have to think about the future.

Sofiko Shevardnadze: So you think that the disintegration of Russia is ultimately inevitable?

Alexander Sokurov: There may be different ideas here. There may be different types of disintegration. If there are already sentiments there that contrast so much with the rest of Russia, then we must honestly say: yes, we have already moved apart from each other. Nothing is eternal, absolutely reliable, unified. New forms of relationships are needed... After all, there are many different solutions to such issues in the world. Take the USA, for example, where different states live with greater tolerance, with different legal standards. This is an experience that must be taken into account. There is nothing scary or dangerous about this. We need to start thinking. What pushes us to do this is not only the difference in lifestyles, religious life and other things, but also the gigantic territory and the colossal gap in time zones, which simply does not go away. You come to Irkutsk, and they say: “Where are you from? Ah, you’re from Russia...” Four hours difference, four hours of flight - and a different way of life, other people... Thinking about the fate of Russia is not thinking about the inevitability of its collapse or its destruction. We must study Russia in its modern form and understand that we can modify it.

Sofiko Shevardnadze: The authorities that came after Boris Nikolaevich believe that they understood what Russia is and how it should be treated. Perhaps this confidence is the key to being in power. And objectively speaking, if you compare how the average person lived in the 90s and now, it’s heaven and earth... Many people will say so.

Alexander Sokurov: Certainly.

Sofiko Shevardnadze: A more nationalist-minded person will also say that geopolitically we are now much stronger than under Boris Nikolayevich, because under him they wiped their feet on us, but now they respect us.

Alexander Sokurov: And it is true.

Sofiko Shevardnadze: Putin is definitely not your comrade, not your friend. But at the same time, you are perhaps the only outstanding artist who can openly tell him what he thinks. I believe he truly respects people of genuine integrity. I don’t know, maybe he lets it in one ear, lets it out the other and then does nothing. But the very fact that year after year you have the opportunity to express your position to him says something.

Alexander Sokurov: — He knows well that I personally don’t need anything from the country. That everything I talk about is relevant only to the fate of the country or the industry of which I am a part. I really remember our conversation when we were one on one and he asked me where I had been lately. And I told him that I was in the Ulyanovsk region and that I had a bad impression of one place. "What it is?" - he says. - “The Ulyanovsk Aviastar plant, an empty plant where nothing is produced, where unfinished aircraft are parked.” And he listened in detail to all my impressions without interrupting. In general, in a one-on-one conversation he is completely different than in a public field... Just like Boris Nikolaevich, by the way.

Sofiko Shevardnadze: It's clear.

Alexander Sokurov: He listens, he really listens. But it seems to me that he may be pitted against those who systematically object to him, especially publicly. That is, you can tell him anything about me. They tell me that the FSB is currently developing it. They are looking for some incriminating documents against me, something else. I can't understand why...

Sofiko Shevardnadze: People insure themselves. They want to do PR. Self-censorship again.

Alexander Sokurov: Yes Yes. And why is it suddenly like this? I am sure that he himself does not perceive me as some kind of enemy. They always give me their word. But meanwhile, it seems to me that we somehow do not fully hear each other. I understand that he may not listen to me or not fully listen...

Sofiko Shevardnadze: And you him?

Alexander Sokurov: I may not understand him sometimes either. Because sometimes I see some contradictions that I would like to clarify by asking, for example, a question. But there are practically no personal meetings now. And I think what is missing, of course, is a direct conversation. This is a conversation in which it is impossible not to interrupt the person. I know that he really doesn't like being interrupted. After talking about Sentsov [at a joint meeting of the Council on Culture and Art and the Council on the Russian Language in December 2016 - Ed. ] many times

they remarked how I dared to intrude, stop, and interrupt the President several times. But at the same time, I did not feel any malicious irritation or vindictiveness on his part. It is very strange. I do sometimes behave abruptly, but solely because I am so alarmed by what is happening around me, I am so responsible for it... Sometimes I just can’t sleep... Anxiety is not from politics, not from an external war, but because from within happens to us, to those people who surround me. I know that there are great compatriots of mine who will never dare to say even a tenth of what I say.

Sofiko Shevardnadze: Nowadays they make one film about Putin, then another. How would you show it? What is your artistic image of Vladimir Vladimirovich?

Alexander Sokurov: A person who stands at the foot of a very high steep mountain and does not know what will happen if he climbs to the top, whether there are even more difficult peaks there and what to do: storm or arrange everything at the foot and with whom. The main thing is with whom. He sees who is next to him and understands that to storm with them is not to rise. This is what the image would be like. They are very different from Boris Nikolaevich. Yeltsin is a man who stands in the same way, but surrounded by more reliable people on the bank of a very, very wide river, where you cannot see the other bank and who is there on the bank. Here are two different images. Equally tragic, of course, and equally sympathetic. I am by nature an artistic person, not a journalistic one. And I like this medical model, which is probably applicable to cinema or drama: we are hospital employees, some group of wounded and sick are brought to us, and many of them are such scoundrels that it’s scary to touch them. But we must accept them, diagnose them at all costs, treat them and return them to society. Not to be thrown into a pit, not to be shot, not to be strangled, but to be returned to society. And let the people, or perhaps God, judge these criminals. Art has no right to kill criminals. It has no right to kill at all...

Sofiko Shevardnadze: Or condemn.

Alexander Sokurov: Or condemn. Some people in Moloch lack this. But, unfortunately, Hitler was a man with two arms and two legs. And it was precisely because he was a man that he did so many terrible things. It was his human nature that made all his atrocities accessible to a large number of people. And she turned his compatriots into such brutal hordes. The human nature of any person in leadership is dangerous. Goethe said that an unhappy person is dangerous. And it is not for nothing that in his conversations with Eckerman there are a lot of thoughts about the fact that for some reason, the disposal of great power always makes a person more and more lonely.

Sofiko Shevardnadze: It's inevitable.

Alexander Sokurov: But is it inevitable? Why doesn't wielding power make a person kinder? Why doesn’t he understand that this amount of power, this amount of violence that he has, can be used differently, that everything should be different in general?

Sofiko Shevardnadze: I believe this is what we discussed earlier. Humanity in big politics is rather a weakness. Therefore, a person who solves large-scale problems must be above it.

Alexander Sokurov: Sometimes yes. My father told me that when - this is from his military memories - Zhukov came to their army, everyone cowered in horror. As they said, death has come. This is exactly what it is. By definition, a person making total, gigantic, grandiose military decisions cannot think about an individual soldier. A colossal, terrible problem. Absolutely vicious.

Sofiko Shevardnadze: I would like to return to your words: that your outstanding compatriots, who think the same as you, do not dare to openly express this to Putin. But in general, the “artist and power” paradigm has changed a lot over the past few centuries. Previously, great artists, the same Leonardo da Vinci, Goethe, Beethoven, considered it an honor to be close to power. But after some time everything turned upside down. Now the code of honor of a self-respecting artist suggests that you must oppose the authorities. Why and how did it all change?

Alexander Sokurov: I don't know. I don’t have the idea that I should necessarily oppose. It’s just that since you live in your homeland, you have one passport, you should use every opportunity to improve your circumstances - be it political or economic. To do this, you need to do something together with those people who live with you at the same time, who have certain powers and capabilities. This is what our defense movement in St. Petersburg is built on. We're just fighting.

Sofiko Shevardnadze: Do you reproach those who do nothing?

Alexander Sokurov: No, come on, no way. Because the issue of public participation in the life of the country is also a matter of personal temperament. This is a question of whether you have enough willpower and composure so that during some serious discussion, despite the fact that there are enough educated, smart people around, no stupider than you, to enter into a conversation, express your point of view, and not be afraid make a mistake and somehow concentrate attention on some problem.

Sofiko Shevardnadze: What if everything suits you?

Alexander Sokurov: There are probably such people. Well, maybe the conductors are happy with everything, because they receive some serious support for their orchestras and theaters. I don't blame anyone for this. For me it is enough, for example, that Gergiev is a great conductor. And he gives me more at concerts and in the theater than if he acted in some other circumstances. But at the same time, I understand that he may not be interested in what interests me by definition: the architecture of St. Petersburg or some of our social problems: a large number of communal apartments in St. Petersburg, mistreatment of young people during public events, which is against I protest strongly. Against physical pressure on girls and women during public events. I'm just going wild with anger here. I’m talking about this, although it has no resonance, but this is a matter of my conscience.

Sofiko Shevardnadze: And if you were silent, would you have more opportunities in your profession now?

Alexander Sokurov: Without a doubt. At least they wouldn’t tell me that I was under investigation by the FSB, that I was being watched. I may be causing irritation to some part of the city leadership, and in the Ministry of Culture, and somewhere in the FSB, in the Ministry of Defense, to which I ask questions all the time about how they manage buildings that are a national treasure, or what happens with the film studios of the Ministry of Defense, because they need to put things in order with archiving. I understand that my behavior causes concern, and that someone may want to remove me - this can be published, I am responsible for my words. All this really interferes with my work both with my students and with our foundation, and distracts me from my artistic work.

Sofiko Shevardnadze: You, in my understanding, are not like anyone else. There are people who are silent, and there are people who undermine and destroy power. And then there is Tolstoy and you, who engage in dialogue, oppose the authorities, beg the authorities...

Alexander Sokurov: I'm not begging, I'm just saying what I think is necessary. I've never been on my knees before. And during the Soviet period, when all my paintings were closed, when I had nothing to hope for. Living in Leningrad, under Romanov, under the Leningrad Regional Party Committee, with the harshness that was here, when at Lenfilm, at the documentary film studio, picture after picture was closed, what could you do? Who are you? You are a small person. If it weren’t for Tarkovsky’s moral support then, I don’t know whether I would have stayed alive or not...

Sofiko Shevardnadze: Do you mean you thought about committing suicide?

Alexander Sokurov: Yes, I seriously thought about it twice: when I was under investigation by the KGB and when I started having serious problems with my eyesight. I have had seven eye surgeries. I went through these questions to myself. It is difficult to find a person more critical of myself than I am. I sometimes destroy myself with self-importance and self-disappointment. But you see, I can be Orthodox even at the North Pole, but I only have one Russia, only here, it doesn’t exist anywhere else. And I really feel the trouble that is going around. Maybe it’s my fault that I have this sick feeling, maybe I’m being excessive in some way.

Sofiko Shevardnadze: Listening to you, I wonder: can you be happy? When was the last time you felt happy?

Alexander Sokurov: What a difficult question... My mother asks me this question. She is 94 years old. She asks me all the time: “Sasha, why are you so unhappy?” I say: “It’s not true, mom. I'm not unhappy. I just got the wrong door. I started directing. This is beyond me. Maybe I should have studied medicine...”

Sofiko Shevardnadze: So even this process does not bring you satisfaction or happiness?

Alexander Sokurov: When “Faust” was shown on “Culture”, I sat and watched and sometimes I liked what I saw. But only when music appeared... Amazing music by Andrey Sigle. He and I were like one organism. And there is a lot of directing there, in my opinion. Well, what do you want, a huge, big picture that was shot in 36 or 37 shifts in total.

Sofiko Shevardnadze: This is a brilliant picture. Who am I to say that when everyone has already recognized her as a genius.

Alexander Sokurov: Nevertheless... You know what they say... bet your hand. It wasn’t cinema that shaped my hand or my head—it was literature, of course. And when I read Thomas Mann, or something from the letters of Tolstoy, or Faulkner, I understand what kind of height this is. For me, all perfection is in literature...

Sofiko Shevardnadze: It’s surprising that you yourself don’t realize that your cinema is absolutely equivalent to the scale of the literature that you just listed.

Alexander Sokurov: I wouldn’t like people to say that, I think that we filmmakers are generally bad students.

Sofiko Shevardnadze: But literature cannot say what music said, which has even greater power over the souls of people. Then writers are only students of great composers. This is an endless conversation.

Alexander Sokurov: It’s good if writers say so. It won't be embarrassing. But, at least, if cinema had developed clear rules throughout its practice, which in no case should be done, this would be a highly worthy declaration.

Sofiko Shevardnadze: What should you never do in cinema?

Alexander Sokurov: In no case should the role of violence, the significance of violence be strengthened. It is cinema that shows how easy it is to commit violence against a person, it is cinema that shows that it is not scary to kill; It’s not scary to mock a person; hitting a person is neither scary nor sinful. Nothing enhances a person’s inner aggression like cinema. Many times, both in Venice and in Cannes - because of which my relationship with Cannes deteriorated - I called: let us at least set restrictions at these festivals, say, at least in a year: not a single film with violence. Let's start. Well, naturally, no one agrees to this, no one wants to discuss it.

Sofiko Shevardnadze: Violence has become total - how can it not be shown if it is a huge part of our lives?

Alexander Sokurov: We need to take our head in our hands. Once upon a time we were not afraid to think. They offered the sovereign different options. And now people are not devoid of reason. It's time for everyone to think about this together. The same as about the development of Russia.

M. Peshkova- “Of all the arts, cinema is the most important for us” - Ilyich’s call came at us from every corner, having lost its second part in the course of time - about the circus. Remembering that no one has canceled Cinema Day, I decided to congratulate the wonderful director Alexander Nikolaevich Sokurov on his professional holiday.

A. Sokurov- There is no holiday, of course. I don’t even know what to say about this. There is an attempt by some cinematic organizations, probably some distribution studio that focuses on Russian cinema, to take advantage of this day to emphasize Russian cinema, and thank God. And I know perfectly well that this day will be celebrated at Lenfilm with a number of events, including two films from our foundation that will be shown there.

M. Peshkova- Which?

A. Sokurov- “Sofichka” and “Tightness”. Well, and the films that Lenfilm itself produced. Lenfilm now has a very good cinema on the studio premises, cozy and very well equipped, so films can be shown. And thank God this is happening.

But you said, the year of cinema, but, in my opinion, the year of cinema did not take place, because the main issues for cinema have not been resolved - these are the issues of financing large-scale, real debuts; The issues of dissemination of cinematographic activity and creativity on the territory of Russia have not been resolved.

Cinema is still Moscow cinema. There is no cinema of the Russian Federation, there is no Russian cinema, there is no republican cinema. It simply doesn’t exist, and no one is doing anything to make it exist.

A. Sokurov: I regret that the Ministry of Culture is not involved in this specific area of ​​financing - film production

Therefore, in general, for now, in my opinion, there is a lot of tension with the film economy. There are questions, strictly speaking, about film financing. NRZB reporting on cinematographic activities, because in cinema the most difficult, most intensive in terms of financing is the filming period. During this filming period, there are very difficult situations that require a non-standard solution to spending funds.

In general, there are very difficult circumstances when you are on an expedition, when you are working somewhere in the mountains, when you need to enter into some specific, special contractual relationships both with members of the film crew and with those who work on the film.

It is necessary to develop specific documents that are typical for financial activities in the field of theater and cinema.

I regret that the Ministry of Culture is not at all involved in this specific area of ​​financing, this specific area of ​​spending funds in this industry, which is film production. Filmmaking is very different from factory production, from factory production, from regular production that is carried out by government organizations and so on.

Therefore, we have a lot of issues that, unfortunately, the Ministry of Culture does not resolve. We have wanted to convene a meeting on film economics many times. And, as I am told in the presidential administration, these meetings are always torpedoed and are not held by the Ministry of Culture and its cinematographic block. Nobody can understand why. Nobody wants to solve questions of financing, questions of the nature of financing. Nobody can answer these questions. We are unable to convene this meeting on film economics. It fails.

M. Peshkova- How are things going with cinemas in our country: have people already gone to the cinema or are they still sitting at the zombie boxes?

A. Sokurov- Maya Lazarevna, I don’t know. Because what comes into my field of vision is the cinemas of St. Petersburg or Yekaterinburg, where I sometimes go - there, of course, there are mostly American films. And I don’t know that there are any special cinemas where only Russian films are shown – that such cinemas exist.

I want to repeat once again what I have repeated many times: I turned to a number of governors of our cities with a request to create small municipal or city cinemas with at least 100, 60 seats, even in basements somewhere, where only Russian films would be shown or the cinema of young filmmakers. Finds no support.

Therefore, it seems to me that only films of our cinematic oligarchs, rich people, films of Rodnyansky and so on, maybe Mikhalkov, I don’t know who else... maybe Fyodor Bondarchuk, make it to the screen. These, in general, of course, are our cinematic oligarchs who are making their way to the cinema screens.

With student cinema, with young cinema, in general, we simply don’t have enough strength, opportunities, connections, and so on for regular screening. This is the reality. Maybe I'm wrong and they will correct me, but what I see and what is before my eyes is.

M. Peshkova- Tell me, please, what is the fate of, relatively speaking, provincial film studios? How do they survive?

A. Sokurov- Maya Lazarevna, there are no provincial film studios. What I have been saying for many years and saying in the presence of the President does not meet with any support. The provincial so-called film studios have almost all been destroyed, destroyed. I don’t know if the only studio that has shown any signs of life in Yekaterinburg still exists in some form.

But in general, this entire extensive system of film studios that existed during the Soviet period, of course, has been destroyed. There are not even documentary studios in the Far East, Siberia, or the Volga. There are no signs of cinematic life in the North of Russia. In general, in the root Russian cities - Yaroslavl, Arkhangelsk, Murmansk, Astrakhan, the Volga region, Irkutsk, Vladivostok, Tomsk, Krasnoyarsk - there are no signs of cinematic life.

Russian cinema of the Russian Federation no longer exists in Russia, simply not. And there is no way yet to even talk about it, because no one even wants to talk about this topic.

A. Sokurov: Only films of cinematic oligarchs, rich people, Rodnyansky, Mikhalkov make it onto the screen

M. Peshkova- Yes, a very sad picture emerges with domestic cinema.

A. Sokurov- Well, she's not sad. This is a real picture, and this reality can be destroyed. A Ministry of Culture will appear, which will worry about the fate of Russian cinema, Russian cinema, the cinema of the Russian Federation, and everything can very quickly change. I don't see anything irreversible here.

Irreversibility can threaten us if we lose all the cinematic personnel, if we strangle young producers, if we strangle high-quality, serious, professional cinematic education, which we are experiencing a crisis, like everything else in our country - that will be a disaster .

And changing this situation, I assure you, is not so difficult. And there will be the political will of the Minister of Culture, there will be the political will of the new president - and all this can be changed within six months. All we need is political will.

We will always find people willing to work, capable of working, of working on a large scale, even among young people. But there is no political will, no desire to develop the cinema of a federal state. Only the cinema of Moscow groups, Moscow group interests is developing.

M. Peshkova- Tell me, please, what is the fate of the cinematheque in Russia at the moment.

A. Sokurov- A very sore question. Here you are asking the hardest, most difficult questions. We failed to create a cinematheque in St. Petersburg. Our governor said that he would not support the cinematheque if I had anything to do with it. I told him: “Consider that I no longer have anything to do with the Cinematheque.” But, nevertheless, in general, the cinema, which could have become the main cinematheque, was quickly transferred to Mrs. Tomskaya - here is a film distribution, for distribution in St. Petersburg - and this idea was simply strangled in the bud.

We fought for this for a year, met with the governor and vice-governors. Long, lengthy conversations, presenting plans, diagrams, drawings, God knows what... It was simply strangled in the bud.

I know that there was an attempt to create a system of cinematheques Gosfilmofondrm - White Pillars. It seems to me that this idea died there too. Somewhere else some work of our famous, outstanding, great film clubs is still glimmering. In Rybinsk, the film club barely exists. Now the cinema club in the Urals is closing, completely closing. I even asked our presidential adviser for culture, Tolstoy, not to close this film club. In general, I understand that this Ural cinema club is also closing. The loss of film clubs seems to me a very sad fact.

M. Peshkova- It was a whole movement.

A. Sokurov- Yes. This shape has stood the test of time. And in the most difficult times, this was work, in fact, to educate taste and worldview among young people, among people of different generations. And people of different generations sat in the halls. We only watched magnificent, beautiful world cinema and Soviet cinema too.

But, you see, neither the cinematographers’ unions nor the Ministry of Culture are interested in the qualitative development of the cinema movement, the film club movement. We have no one to turn to for help now. The President is busy with huge global problems, and we can’t get through to him with questions about the real problems of cinema. The government is also involved in global issues. And there is huge military funding. Everything goes there, we know.

We do not have the opportunity to influence changes in the field of cinema, as a sphere that can actively influence some kind of enlightenment work and educational work among the young and all the population. I mean the Russian Federation, not Moscow and St. Petersburg - nothing worries me here anymore. Nothing can be changed here. But for a large number of cities in the country - the Volga region, the North-West, the Far East, Siberia, the Urals, the North of Russia - something could still be changed here. But, you see, no changes are even expected. We do not have the strength to influence the political will of our leadership. It's a pity, a pity.

A. Sokurov: The provincial so-called film studios have almost all been destroyed, destroyed

M. Peshkova- Thank you very much! Forgive me for asking such difficult questions. I just wanted this holiday, which it is quite possible that we are talking about a revival, to really be a holiday for everyone. But it turns out that domestic cinema... it’s just, excuse me, they are spreading rot.

A. Sokurov- Well, domestic cinema exists not thanks to, but in spite of. It exists, I think that there are still a number of talented people from the older generation, the middle generation, and even more from young people, not young, but young. There are capable and talented people. Still, in Russia we are predisposed to cinema. This time has shown. And it will be very difficult to knock this out, to completely destroy this predisposition.

You just need to not kill, don’t chop... We need to put aside the ideological ax and engage in the creation and support of theatrical and cinematic work. Ax aside! To the side. I'm already tired of it. The sound of an ax simply causes a neurotic reaction in everyone: ax... ax... ax...

M. Peshkova- Thank you for talking to me. On our website there is a fragment of your conversation: “Kadyrov and cultural figures.” Do you know how many readers he got? Over 170 thousand.

A. Sokurov- But this doesn’t make me very happy, because in this conversation, which is mentioned on the site, in addition to the story with the leadership with the Chechen sector, more serious issues were mentioned there. Because the issues of relationship - these issues concerned not only the artistic environment, the quality of which we understand what it is, but, unfortunately, this mood and desire is already penetrating into the political environment, when our city leadership allows itself to commit these, so to speak, trips along this route. In my opinion, he is committing incorrect behavior for St. Petersburg and Leningrad, both social and political behavior is incorrect.

But, in fact, in this conversation, part of which is discussed and quoted, there were much more significant issues: issues of education and issues of education - both professional and cinematic, and so on. But someone, apparently, had a desire to take this out of the context of the conversation.

A. Sokurov: Domestic cinema exists not thanks to, but in spite of

Well, let it be, if this allows us to begin to understand in the Chechen sector what is happening there, what is happening to the people, is there work there with culture, with education, with enlightenment, what in general is happening there, except for militarization and all sorts of muscular actions.

It would be good if suddenly someone in the Chechen sector paid attention to the life of their own people, to the quality of life, to why so many people leave the territory of Chechnya. The question is not easy.

After all, in the end, someday the Chechen people will make claims to the Russians and the Russian state that it encouraged actions ... such a political course. Again we will be to blame for this. I don't want to be to blame for this. I have nothing to do with this.

I have great attention and a serious attitude towards the Caucasus, and in general, great serious respect for national specifics. I really love national identity, I always have. But today there is a certain limit in the sound, when you need to pay attention to what is happening. At least for now we are part of the same state.

I expressed my opinion that we may no longer be in the same state. I don’t want to be in the same state with the Chechen sector, to be responsible for what happens there. As a person who at least somehow represents the culture of Russia, I am ashamed of what is happening there. I don't see any explanation. I don’t see any reaction from the government of my country.

I am very worried about what will happen to the young people there, in the end, who will grow up there. I guess who will grow up, and I really don’t want to face this after some time.

M. Peshkova- Thank you so much for talking to me! Goodbye.

Young director Kantemir Balagov's film "Tightness", which was awarded the critics' prize at the Cannes Film Festival, was released in Russia. This is the story of life in the Jewish district of Nalchik at the height of the first Chechen war. Because of him, controversy has flared up about the trauma of the Caucasian wars in post-Soviet Russia.

Director Alexander Sokurov in an interview with Current Time, he spoke about the crisis of cinema and the political system in the world, about interethnic relations between the peoples inhabiting the Caucasus, and how he feels about the success of his student Kantemir Balagov.

– I thought this morning that my grandfather and my father could play with the same toys – soldiers. My father could play soldiers with me too. And my son and I play with different toys: I play with soldiers, and he plays with a computer. And there is no continuity of generations. How will this affect art and cinema?

- God be with him, with the cinema, God be with him. Let it fail, let it disappear, let it remain in the memories only of 60-year-old people who are fascinated by Bergman, Fellini and the understanding that once upon a time such grandiose works of art were created in the visual space. God be with him, with the cinema, it has sunk into the ground. Now, if they stop reading, if they stop listening to serious big music, then there will be trouble, then they will be animals, and your son will become an animal.

– We started over? That is, we rolled back 500 years and started over in a new reality?

- Certainly.

– Is this why the world is in the Middle Ages or not?

– No, the Middle Ages are in the world for a different reason – because the world elite is being dehumanized. Look, for example, even among the world’s political elite, can you name at least one leader of one country whom you would call a conscientious and humanitarian person? No one.

– I don’t know such a person, but I sometimes think that a bureaucracy that lives by certain rules, still driven, is perhaps better than such bright personalities than those about whom you made three of your four films.

It is an absolute crime that society allows television into its life on such a scale.

- Agree. But it must be said that a totalitarian state needs art, but a democratic state does not. A democratic state does not care what level, what kind of rise in artistic creativity there will be, it needs some kind of satisfied average figure, satisfied average quality. I see this all over the world. I see that the Germans have forgotten about their great film director, whom you know, whom you, of course, know, died, died. Italians no longer remember that they had Antonioni and the same Fellini - they don’t even really imagine or understand their ancient past in that way. This is reality - a reality coming from these new conditions.

– What should we do about this? Is there anything we can do? Perhaps we should do something about this?

– For this, some serious action is needed, for this it is necessary to comprehend in society that the party system of organizing public life is decisively outdated. Decidedly outdated. The parliamentary form of life is decidedly outdated. It is an absolute crime that society allows television into its life on the scale on which it exists.

“We can’t fight this, it’s impossible to stop it, it’s ridiculous to try, now we’ll start grumbling like old people, they’re always grumbling about something.” But I understand that this is something serious.

- Why? This is inertia, as they often say, the inertia of self-destruction, because people who are enchanted by the so-called progress, they become blind. A person needs to look back more often, just physically, physiologically somehow, somehow, psychologically as well. Then, of course, we still need to change the school system, return to separate education for boys and girls at school, without any doubt. New universities need to be created, all army systems need to be completely repurposed, and so on. These are things that humanity can do.

– Why is it necessary to separate the education of boys and girls?

– We are different, and we need to emphasize this difference, we need to support this difference.

- It's clear. But this requires a strong argument.

– Well, this is a big argument, this is a strong argument.

– To do this, it will be necessary to provide clear benefits that society will receive from such a division.

– People will get strong people and gentle people. They will receive reasonable strength and tenderness. Strength and tenderness. Because any joint presence of a modern man next to a woman, and especially during the period of formation, it destroys the male part of society.

We are different, and we need to emphasize this difference, we need to support this difference

We see this in the so-called Russian theater groups. Look at what is happening in these theater universities in Russia, to a lesser extent in Europe, where this training is joint, let’s say, ordinary, it is always ordinary. By the fifth year you basically get girls in pants. All girls, everything – both male and female...

- Why not all boys?

– Because a woman suppresses, her nature is to suppress, her task is to suppress. But a man cannot resist, he cannot return himself to his niche in these conditions, when the state, the system actually helps the woman, and not the man.

– Kadyrov will answer you: you need to practice boxing.

- Not really. Kadyrov - please do not mention this name.

- Sorry.

“Unfortunately, I even know him, so there’s no need.” There must be some kind of rationality here, and then, look at what happens in Russia, for example, and not only in Russia, women when they gain power. Look at our parliament: all the cruel, nightmare laws of the Russian Federation - all of them were initiated by women, female politicians, deputies. Look what they look like, look how they behave.

– Wait, you want to save men from women with this separate education?

The time has come when there should be distance in everything

– Distance, distance is needed, the time has come when there should be distance in everything. Distance between national groups is mandatory, distance between religious groups is mandatory. Distance between male and female is mandatory. The individual himself and the national, religious group itself will decide what degree of rapprochement is reasonable and necessary. Decides what degree is reasonable and necessary.

– Hollywood has learned to make films that are very popular with audiences and sell well, in which the screenwriters or director delve into human nature. They studied, it seems to me, everything that is possible about human nature - sexual complexes, the worldview of a person without limbs, how a person with a mental illness lives.

– Yes, yes, yes, I already understood the question.

– Look, why do they manage to put this on stream?

- Because there is a profession. American cinema, the quality of American cinema does not lie in directors or actresses, but the quality of American cinema lies in brilliant screenwriters and playwrights. They don't have great literature...

– But these are great scenarios.

– So they are sublimated, restored in cinematic dramaturgy. They have outstanding playwrights, outstanding screenwriters. That's all. Here is the answer to all of your questions. But at the same time, there are still a huge number of topics for Americans that they cannot even touch yet. I won’t even name what topics.

- Why?

- I won’t.

- Fine. Are they touching on these topics in Russia? Are there people in Russia who write about these topics?

– No, of course, we don’t have the same level of playwrights as in America.

– Does this mean that we are stuck discussing human nature somewhere at the level of classical literature?

We didn't just get stuck, we fell into this hole. And we won’t get out of this hole

- Stuck, stuck. If for the Russian public consciousness of Russia, for the political, social consciousness, individual consciousness, even the topic of homosexuality is a catastrophic topic. Even if this topic is insurmountably catastrophic for this entire nightmare Russian political and social community, of course, they are stuck. They didn’t just get stuck, they fell into this hole. And we will not crawl out of this hole.

– Does this mean that a good producer in Russia can correct the situation or not?

– The situation in Russia may change if independent but professional young film specialists appear in Russia. I would not dare to call modern Russian cinema professional. Even I have professional problems. We devote a lot of time and space in Russia to combating economic and political circumstances, and all kinds of complexes and prohibitions. So many.

– Will you agree or disagree with the idea that the most important and difficult issues for society, which an artist must articulate, in Russia are written and filmed in the most difficult language for the viewer, and because of this...

- I don’t agree. They are written and filmed in the language that these directors or these young people can write. But all these young people, directors, screenwriters, cameramen, everyone who produces films - they are from this people, they were born here, you know? A person living in Russia cannot make a film that has some kind of lunar motivation.

- That is, if you were filming your entire tetralogy in America, and the producer of the film company, he would probably demand from you, among other things, the box office, well, you would probably discuss this with him, would these be different films?

– I never discussed it. No one ever discusses the cash register issue with me, no one ever.

- This is what I wanted...

– And I myself choose the producer, I myself choose the trend of the film. If I don't have total authorship, I never work. I've never worked with an order. This is my happiness and my misfortune. I have never worked on anyone's order. Unfortunately, I do everything only according to the desire that I have. I am a literary person, I don’t like cinema, I’m not a cinema fanatic, I love literature, for me musical plasticity is the most interesting and perfect. And cinema for me is a very imperfect area into which fate has thrown me, that’s how it turned out for me.

– Tell me, do you have an idea of ​​good and evil - the main basic ethical complex - was it formed sometime in your youth and you lived with it all your life or did it change?

- No, of course it changes. There was once a time when it was difficult for me to forgive some human qualities. Now, perhaps, I can forgive anything, well, in relation to at least me personally, I forgive everything. People sometimes behave badly and disgustingly towards me, and I forgive everything. Well, maybe I won’t forgive only atrocity and the murder of a person.

– I look at the reaction on social networks to the film “Tightness”, and I see that people are saying that they saw in this film not the tragedy of the Jewish people, but the tragedy of the Russian people. And this is what became the sensation of the film. Do you understand why this happened?

– I don’t exist on networks, I never...

– Do you see the tragedy of the Russian people in this film?

“Then tell me why in this film they show for so long the famous film with the murder of a Russian Orthodox Christian?”

“I thought that you definitely wouldn’t ask me this question, because you understand everything perfectly well.” It’s strange why you ask me this question, it’s becoming uninteresting to talk.

- Do you know why? I'll explain now. I understand, but it seems to me that people who ask this question all the time, they don’t understand and, apparently, are waiting for this answer. Why exactly long?

- Well, it was even further and even longer. It was even longer. And it was cut. There was no pressure on Cantemir here. It was cut simply based on the editing of the episode it was actually in. This has been cut. And as far as I remember, at the Cannes presentation they asked to remove it altogether. We would never follow a lead and would not accept any instructions. They asked to remove it altogether. It is right that we did not remove it and were persistent in this sense. And Cantemir was right that he delicately cut back, but turned out to be persistent. This…

– Don’t you think that this is gradually, perhaps accidentally, some very big tragedy was let slip in the relations between the Caucasus and Russia, which are in the same country right now?

“There’s no need to tie this down.” Still, this is a work of art.

- Apparently they were waiting for him.

- Kantemir and in general the group that studied with me, all of them, we studied for five years, I worked to offer them a way to distance themselves from historical and social problems, because all world cinema, all young world cinema, American, European cinema - it is all catastrophically socialized.

All the plots, both American and European, are all tied to this plot of interaction, mutual influence on the plots, on the dramaturgy of the plot of social situations. Life circumstances, some kind of politics there, and so on are to blame for everything.

Many people want to isolate the tragedy of Russia and the Caucasus from this film

I kept encouraging them to look for the root cause of the characters' problems in their own state of mind. And he convinced them and told them that external problems are very insignificant compared to what is happening inside a person. But you need to look inside a person for all these nodes, and then it will become clear what, how and why. And in this sense, Cantemir took the path, in accordance with this agreement of ours, to at least for some time refrain from, again, repeating this word, speculation on social, economic and political problems. Because if the plot of this film had not included this unbridled passion and animal feeling, beautiful in its own way, this girl, there would have been nothing in this film, you know? Just because there is this explosive feminine energy that overcomes everything and literally puts this supposedly Caucasian horseman under itself, nothing would have happened there, nothing would have happened.

Therefore, in this sense, if people... while many want to isolate, isolate from this film this tragedy that is supposedly known and understandable to them - the tragedy of Russia and the Caucasus.

– What makes me ask you these questions now is also the result of the fact that Kantemir Balagov’s film “Tightness” appeared in theaters.

– Don't exaggerate the importance of this film.

- No no no. I understand, I want...

– Neither the meaning of quality, nor the meaning of the content of the film. Don't build a whole campaign around this movie, you know? You are deeply mistaken and harm both the film and this person.

- I'll finish the question. Does this mean, but you probably already answered it, that any film made by a person who was born, raised and studied in the Caucasus will lead to such conversations and discussions after its premiere?

– Well, if this film has some kind of truly emotional procedure, emotional content – ​​of course not. Of course not, of course not! Because here the plot itself, the components of this plot, they are, well, I put the word “speculative” in quotes, but I also told Cantemir: of course, speculative. Of course, I assure you, of course. This is also immersed in a very well-worked ensemble of actors. What is attractive about this picture? Because there is a family there in a quality in which neither the Russians, nor the Caucasians, nor the Tatars, nor anyone else sees it. When I came to the course, literally in the first lesson, I told them: “Nobody in Russia has the slightest idea about you. Nobody in Russia has the slightest idea about Muslims.

You are all closed, you are all in a cocoon, you are all stewing inside yourself. And everyone is afraid of you. Not only are they afraid of you here in Russia, they are afraid of you all over the world because you don’t tell anything about yourself. You don't show anything about yourself. We don’t know how your family lives, what conflicts you have between brothers and sisters, how your father and mother live, how your home is organized?”

No one has the slightest idea about Muslims in Russia

Drive around Kabardino-Balkaria, the first thing you will see is huge fences around every house. Huge fences, two or three times the height of a man. What are you hiding? Who you are? And during all five years of training we talked about this: talk about yourself, tell the truth about your people, take an example from the Russians, who delve into the Russian consciousness like no one else in the world. No one in the world exposes all the vices, and sometimes shows the virtues of the people, like the Russians. Russians are largely to blame for you, Caucasians, but look at the merits of Russian culture and the Russian way of understanding, comprehending your own character. Look at this!

Lastly, you have little time left, soon you will live separately. Look! Because then there will be complete pride, you will start from scratch. If you now do not learn anything from Russian culture in terms of self-understanding, self-criticism to form an inner consciousness, you will start from scratch, and you will die, you will die in civil wars in your small territories.

– With all my compassion and respect for Kirill Serebryannikov and those who are in prison after working with him. Russian cultural figures have been asking for so many years “give us government money, we can’t earn it ourselves.” So you took government money. And you live by the law of state money. What are the complaints?

- So. And what's the question?

- The question is...

- Why are you taking it?

- Why are you taking it?

- Of course, this comes from necessity. I have done most of my work together with Western colleagues and I know how money is raised for cinema. For example, Germany: every state has savings funds. And you have many options - you submit applications to different funds, they are considered, someone will give 100 thousand euros, someone 50 thousand euros, someone 700 thousand euros maybe, and you can eventually reach this amount . Most of the works created in cinema do not pay for themselves and are the same, probably not very approved by you, non-commercial results. What is being created in Europe now by young directors, directors in general, does not pay off, but has an impact on the development of film language and society itself in these countries.

– This means that contemporary art now lives on public money collected by German peasants, and you want to blame them for forgetting about their director and saying that democracy in this sense is not as perfect as a vibrant political regime?

– I’m trying to understand your reproach that we take money from the state. Do you know how much money you work and live on? Do you know, as a person who pays you, where he gets this money from?

– I roughly understand, yes.

- This is honest money, right? Are these crystal clear springs?

- Of course not.

- So, why are you asking me this question then? When the result of your work is most often propaganda or a political procedure, maybe I’m wrong, but the result of the director’s work is still some kind of artistic process.

- Okay, you are the director. A director can save his accountant in Russia, do you think there is such a possibility or does it exist?

“I can’t save myself either.” I have such a pile of papers hanging in the hallway at home - how to behave during an arrest. It’s been hanging on me for a year now - even before the arrests of Kirill Serebrennikov began, what can I do, what?

“We don’t have the right to tell him that he started publicly drawing attention to this problem a little late, should he have done it earlier?”

– They always talked about this. The Minister of Culture of Russia has many times reproached film directors and theater workers that there is a state order and you must fulfill the state’s task. Even before Kirill started having these problems. Do you think that the French state does not make claims for the money it issues?

– I have no doubt that yes. I don't know what it looks like

- And how! "Francophonie" is a film that was included in the program of the Cannes Film Festival, then was urgently thrown out due to political demands. If you delve into the mechanism of existence of all major international European festivals, you will definitely find there the political paws of states that, to one degree or another, exert influence and pressure on the repertoire.

– Do you think that a society without a state or any authority institutions can regulate this process itself?

- No. If it doesn’t work out, there won’t be a certain number of people who can concentrate ideas and generalize ideas. They are called the elite somehow, but in reality a certain number of conscientious people should appear in some country. I feel it myself, I’ve been feeling a lot of shame lately. This feeling of shame is very often not formulated.

These people must appear who have a feeling of shame. There should be quite a lot of them

They say you can't read other people's letters, because you can't read other people's letters, how can you explain this? I am ashamed of many people from my class for their behavior, for their lack of conscience, for their hypocrisy. It seems like educated people, they seem to have read, we live in the same time.

Many of them introduced one political system into another world, met another and again became scum, again simply manifested themselves as some kind of rotting entities. This feeling, this feeling of shame – it must exist. These people must appear who have this feeling of shame. There should be quite a lot of them.

– It turns out that you are Don Quixote and you are doomed to become the hero of a novel?

- No. But I’m definitely not Don Quixote, I’m a simple person and romantic conflicts are not mine, I’m fighting for life, I’m not fighting with windmills. I fight with real things.

For some reason, like an idiot, I am dealing with these city protection situations here in St. Petersburg, spending a lot of time on this, and in general I think that I am wounded by this entire socio-political tragedy that is unfolding in Russia.

I know where this will lead, I have already seen how it happened. I was already inside, I participated, already in my adult consciousness they were exiling Rostropovich and Vishnevsky, Solzhenitsyn, in my consciousness people were cursing Chaliapin for having once left Russia, in my consciousness people were running wild. I've already seen it, you know, I've already seen it.

“So I can only say thank you for doing this.”

– But I’m not doing this out of great intelligence. I mean that a reasonable person is more careful, a reasonable person behaves more delicately in relation to society and his contemporaries than I do. I sometimes show excessive rigidity and excessive passion. You cannot disagree to such an extent with society, with your time, with your contemporaries.

You are one of the few who can say something unpleasant to Putin’s face. Do you feel like you are being listened to?

Probably not... I’m doing this out of my mind, let’s be honest. No, I don’t have the impression that anyone is listening to this. And I never had the feeling that I meant something in my homeland and could have any influence on the development of the cultural and political process. And if I say something sharp and tough, it’s because I don’t care at all what’s happening in my Russia... And I don’t need anything from my Motherland. I have no accounts with her. She doesn't owe me anything. Maybe I owe something, as a citizen who lived in another historical space.

Westerners, speaking about Russia, note that if in Europe people rely on law and rules, then in Russia they can only rely on personal contacts and connections. Are these normal rules of the game or do we need to change something?

For Russia - normal. Because the main character is the people who are so comfortable... The people have not yet made a decision about what kind of Russia they need.
Our president monitors public sentiment, I am sure of that. And these same people tell him: wait a minute with your reforms, we have not yet decided whether we need this democracy of yours. The people say: we do not want to bear personal responsibility, which is inevitable in a democratic system. But this is also convenient for the bureaucratic fraternity of all ranks and all regions.

-So we, as a nation, are still immature people?

No, you can't say that. People reflect, think, but only in one direction. Most Russian people are far from sure that the democratic choice - a presidential or parliamentary republic - is what the people need. Because both decisions, if this is a true democratic structure, require responsibility from the people, from leaders, and from politicians. None of them is ready to bear this responsibility, and we see it.
The people vote repeatedly, even if we take into account that in all these voting there are significant violations and fraud, the Russian people still do not vote for democracy. I believe that the Caucasian peoples do not vote for democracy either...
We will soon see what young people vote for. Does she understand what democracy is, or does she perceive freedom only as a system of responsibility of the state and society of older fellow citizens to it, but not as her own responsibility. This is a question that requires an answer.
But for some reason I am sure that most of the youth will be for democratic principles; in other circumstances, our young people will degrade or go over to the side of religious armed groups.

It showed that a huge number of Russian young people, taking to the squares, behave absolutely tolerantly towards the state. And in relation to the law. Remember what happens on the streets of European cities when young Europeans or migrants take to the streets to protest - broken windows, burning cars, fights with the police...
Our youth have shown our authorities that they are ready to talk, and they ask to be listened to. And he looks intently at what methods of dialogue the people in power choose. I know from the mood among young people that today many are ready to enter into conflict with the police. They remember how the police “talked” to her on March 26... Many of them, young people, ask: “What are the police doing here? Give us representatives of the ruling party. Where are these very young people from United Russia? Let them explain to us what is happening to the country? Not with batons. Let these guys from the “fronts and parties” talk to us.”
I agreed to enter the Public Chamber. It was assumed that I would become a member of the commission on culture or urban protection. I said: “No, I will join the commission overseeing the actions of law enforcement agencies.” Because I see a lot of problems here.
And I am very concerned about the attitude of the employees who serve in these bodies. Their working conditions and service.

-Where do they get these moods from?

It seems to me that these people, people in the police and intelligence services, it seems to me, are looking at this situation with irritation and asking: what does it have to do with us? Why are we forced to participate in a purely political process? We know that law enforcement agencies are separated from politics, from party activities. But it turns out that now they are not engaged in law and order, but are taking the side of one political force. This is a big tactical and strategic mistake of the country's government. The police and intelligence services should not participate in political investigation and persecution. Because when this can heat up to an extreme degree, then there will be no force that the people will trust. And which can become a gateway between different political forces. They must be mediators in the sense of preventing politically motivated clashes on city streets. Don't be on one side of this. Because it is unknown which side the people will finally choose in all this, which we all know who they are according to the Constitution.
But, it seems to me, it is quite possible to avoid a total political crisis. If a political crisis arises in Russia, it will be very deep. It will have no analogues in world practice. The depth and scale of our crisis will be such that it will be difficult to stop and exhaust it.

-Can it be compared with the events of the last century?

I don't know. I don't say the word "revolution". This is the most undesirable, nightmarish phase of the social condition, absurd in many ways. If this happens in our country, it will happen in a different way. The worst thing that can happen in Russia is the most severe new system of punishment for public activities. Many may be punished; thousands of citizens will end up in camps. These will be people who disagree. And this disagreement is internal, from the heart.

-That is, every second.

Maybe every third. Among young people, maybe every one and a half. Because young people feel with their hearts, not with their heads. All leftism is a young phenomenon. Every revolution rests on the intemperance and hard-heartedness of a young man.

Today's youth grew up and developed in much milder conditions. Is it possible to compare your seventies and their tenths?

Of course not. People of my generation lived within the boundaries of a very specific canon. And within the boundaries of a clearly defined front line. We understood well what was good and what was bad. And we understood who was on one side of the front line and who was on the other. And those who opposed us did not hide their position. And the generation you are talking about was raised not by Russia, not by parents, and not by “our life.” It was, as if under the counter, brought up by pan-European practice, European aesthetics, the entire complex of European culture of the last third of the twentieth century. But in its absence in the social and political field of life of the Soviet, Russian state.

- The first free generation?

Quite the contrary. This is a generation that does not yet know its historical love. They cannot understand the degree of tragedy of the life of their country, the bloodiness of its history and the guilt of their own people. They do not understand the guilt of their parents, their grandparents. They were brought up on the English-speaking, Americanized aesthetics and ethics of life. Even Russian rock music, which came closest to the consciousness of young people, is the heir to the freedom of a European or American city. All aesthetic and behavioral ideals are not you and me, not from our lives... These are directors, actors, writers, film directors, politicians who imported their social, national, political norms into Russia from outside Russia. Young people don’t like Russian cinema. Moscow television, which shows series based on the clichés of American or European cinema. They transfer the realities of European life onto our matrix. And then - how it turns out.

- Is it possible to change anything from above?

I believe that the situation in Russia can be changed from above. And it would be good to start from the top, if the head of the state becomes a person with an absolutely humanitarian program, an absolutely humanitarian consciousness. A person who has no addictions, no ill memory towards anyone.
When I talked to Grigory Yavlinsky, whom I highly respect, I asked him a question: what will happen if you wake up as president? We must start all over again. Form a gigantic administrative apparatus. You need to make sure that the courts stop lying, that bribery stops, that moral people come to city administrations, and that excessive party zeal is stopped. Where will you find the people who will begin to implement your ideal program? I didn't receive an answer that convinced me. Grigory Alekseevich, of course, answered it.

-Where would you get such people?

I am not a politician, I am just a citizen, a director, a small person, one of those living in a non-main city of Russia, the provincial city of St. Petersburg. This question can be answered by people who structurally prepare themselves for large-scale political activity. But for me this is a fundamental question when I think about possible changes in the country.
…Fine. We elected a new person. And what will Russia begin to do with this person? This is a huge system of law enforcement, judicial, prosecutor's office, political institutions, FSB. Which side will they take and how long will they tolerate the humanitarian reformer? On which bridge will his life end? And what can this person do when we understand that a huge number of people in our country are guilty of their history? How to carry out this gradual transfer to the “other side of the river”, who is Charon? It’s not like you have to wade, you have to dive into deep water. And this water will swallow someone up, because it will not consider him cleansed. And only a few will come out to the other side. And there will be very few of them to do anything with such a gigantic country. I am sure that there must be a humanitarian idea for reforms in Russia. Not political. Even sinners will follow the humanitarian idea. We, the sinful Russian people, will be forced to follow only a humanitarian idea. All other ideas have already been tested in our country.

-On June 12, everyone is waiting for the first episode of Oliver Stone’s film. Will you watch "Interview with Putin" (the conversation took place on June 9. – Ed.)?

If I have time, I’ll at least watch it a little.
Our outstanding fellow countryman, Oleg Konstantinovich Rudnov, whom I had great respect for, was the producer of my large series of films, “An Example of Intonation.” One of the characters - no one knows about this - was supposed to be Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin. These are free dialogues with complex, difficult questions. Oleg Konstantinovich told me that he showed the president some series that had already been made, and the president replied that, perhaps, he was not yet ready for such a conversation. It was, I think, 2009. Five episodes were filmed. It was supposed to make three to four dozen conversations. The films, fifty minutes each, are a free conversation with a variety of people. Politicians, writers, teachers, musicians, workers, doctors, peasants.
I very much regret that Vladimir Vladimirovich did not agree to this conversation. Moreover, apparently, they told him where I intended to film it - at the Kirov plant. In the turning shop, where the machines are located, people work. We had to walk around this workshop with him. The time was economically difficult, not a special takeoff. But it didn’t happen. I had many questions then for the president of the country. Now there are fewer of them. And I think that my president will still not dare to have such a conversation with a Russian citizen. A foreigner in a conversation with the President of Russia is simply making money, and he does not care about a real deep conversation, but only needs political brilliance, verbal somersaults, and allusions. They patted each other on the shoulder and ran away. I am not a goalkeeper, I am not a striker, I am not an oppositionist, I am not a politician. I am just a citizen of my country. It is probably very difficult for a politician to talk to a citizen.

- Is it Stone’s mistake that he took on such a film?

The American does not know the true situation in Russia. Of course, he really wants to do something complimentary, to please himself. Not much for the president of a country other than his. I wonder - would Americans make such a film with an American president? I believe that this is impossible. For many reasons.
I would prefer that the President of my country resist such proposals.

This is a documentary story. You have a tetralogy about the nature of power. You show each of the characters as human beings. Could this kind of film about Putin be made by director Sokurov?

Our president already has his own director. This is Nikita Mikhalkov.

- Well, Hitler also had his own director.

I did work with Yeltsin, but I had deeply friendly relations with him, with him personally and with his family. Difficult conversations about the country are offensive for him, difficult for me. It was a long-term history of friendly relations and my affection for this man and this Russian character. But I don’t have such a relationship with the current president. I think Nikita is waiting for the next offer to make a presidential film.

- Why don’t we have modern documentary films?

Eat. We Russians are predisposed to cinema; this is our important passion and skill. But, firstly, there are strict censorship restrictions. Do you know what is happening with Vitaly Mansky’s Artdocfest festival? (in 2014, Russian Minister of Culture Vladimir Medinsky announced the refusal of state support for Vitaly Mansky’s projects, because the director “does not have the right to ask for money from the state with whose position he does not agree.” – Ed.). There are many films about the current state of Russia. We don't see them because they aren't shown to us. We do not have national film distribution in the country. The work of state television, whose task could be to sponsor the production and broadcast of serious documentaries, is viciously formatted. But, unfortunately, television has turned its back on documentary and national cinema, is afraid of it and does not show it. He is only engaged in enrichment. Because filming TV series is more comfortable and safer. This is a bad job that not only stupefies the audience, but also discredits and deprives directors, cameramen and actors of their professional qualifications. Mostly serial films of average professional level. Its place on the air could be taken by documentary and feature films. But everything is being done to prevent this from happening.

Young documentary filmmakers cannot show their films on a wide screen because of distribution certificates - they cost from 10 thousand rubles or more, but the main obstacle is the bureaucratic difficulties in obtaining them.

Of course, even for a novice director, 10 thousand rubles is not the biggest problem. But it's not that. Why on earth do you have to pay money to obtain a permit? The Ministry of Culture receives a budget from the state to carry out its functions, including issuing documents and carrying out organizational work in the field of film distribution. It doesn't do that. Therefore, the very charging of fees for permits, it seems to me, is illegal and absolutely unnatural. Having created a documentary film, a person does not know where to go with it. Television won’t take it, cinemas won’t take it. The Internet is still very little adapted for this. Documentary films still require a hall, socialization of the screening. Documentaries are best when you're sitting in the audience with someone else.

- What should be done?

I have a huge number of complaints about the work of the Russian Ministry of Culture. It would be high time for the Ministry of Culture to mind its own business and organize, for example, a national film distribution. Which we don’t have in our country.
Every person who created a work of art, especially with government money, is obliged to present his work to the viewer. In a significant part of the feature films I have made, there is still state capital. I can’t show these films because I have nowhere. And I have to. All documentaries and fiction films must be presented to the viewer in accessible circumstances. There is chaos in the field of film exhibition in the country. There is neither a film exhibition policy nor the desire of the Ministry of Culture to seriously engage in its direct responsibilities. Our Ministry of Culture is engaged in political investigation. And he does little to socialize the life of culture.

- In 2016, you asked the president a question about the fate of director Oleg Sentsov. Something has changed?

Nothing. I hope this cannot continue indefinitely. As I understand it, some political moment is being sought to effect his release. There is no time yet to untie this knot in a profitable way. I think everyone understands perfectly well the political bias of this process, this punishment.

- Should this moment be created by Ukraine?

No. We must realize the absurdity of this situation. It weighs heavily and deepens the misunderstanding of our behavior in the world. For murder in the country they give 7-8 years, and for political resistance in Crimea - 20 years in Arctic camps. I can't even compare it to anything. This is absurd and shameful. I told the president of the country about this. From his intonation I realized that he knew this was absurd. I'm very ashamed of this.

In the situation with the Gogol Center, the president also understands this. What advice would you give to Kirill Serebrennikov when the situation in which he finds himself at the epicenter is resolved?

Kirill is an independent person, with powerful connections, enormous authority, and a master of his craft. He will do what he knows how to do: stage plays and make films. When the circumstances around him are such that it will interfere with his professional work, he will simply do it outside the country. He doesn't need advice.

- Is this a story about political struggle or competition for government funding?

It seems to me that the Ministry of Culture’s dislike for Kirill is obvious, as is the contempt with which they treat the work of directors like him or me... Therefore, it seems to me that the Ministry of Culture not only supported this action-investigation, but also, perhaps, had something to do with the start of this campaign. I have one more serious question. Serebrennikov received a lot of funding - I have never received such huge money from the state in my life... When we at the fund receive money that is even small for young directors, we account for literally every step along the way of creating a film, for all expenses... Within a year We submit this reporting three times. And this is always a serious verification work with the relevant department of the Ministry of Culture. Have Kirill’s reports for these years been submitted long ago? Or not? The accounting services of the Ministry of Culture of Moscow or Russia could immediately tell from the documents that something did not add up. And it was possible to figure it out on the spot. Straightaway. As a last resort, fine them, force them to return them, and so on. There are a million mechanisms for reacting to the expenditure of public funds. Every step is calculated, everything is described. Why is the question not asked what happened to the reports that Kirill submitted three years ago? Why was she accepted then?

- The situation of director Uchitel and deputy Poklonskaya...

Eh... This is shameful, shameful. I often hear that in addition to the problem of Crimea, we now have the problem of poorly educated and unbalanced people. I have a feeling that this lady did not study well at university. By the way, where and when did she study? How can a person who says that bronze “streams myrrh” become a deputy of our highest body?

- Maybe this is testing the waters for introducing censorship in cinema?

There's no need to make it so complicated. There must be some kind of delicate vacuum created around this young lady. Do not touch, do not discuss her improvisations, doggerel. Because it is unclear what this poor woman will say next time. It is clear that her soul is tormented. Don't touch her. Unhappy woman. They say she's beautiful. Have you seen her in white and with shoulder straps, it seems, like those of a general? Well, Lord, forgive me, what is it? Such people decide the fate of my country. This is so stupid and undignified.

You know the Caucasus well. And they opened their creative workshop in Kabardino-Balkaria. What kind of phenomenon is this - Kadyrov’s Chechnya?

Yes, it seems to me that Chechnya is a difficult problem for the entire Federation. I had meetings with Chechen guys, I know Kadyrov and met with him two or three times. The Chechens are in a fighting mood. Young people express a desire to unite with Turkey and create a huge Muslim state. They are absolutely sure that they have put Russia in the position of a laundress. In my opinion, this is not a republic and not a part of the Russian Federation. This is already a separate formation. Its own army, active Islamization, militarization, glorification of cruelty, arrogance, demonstrative non-compliance with the Constitution and laws of the Russian Federation by the leadership of this formation. Were the two Chechen wars wars of national liberation? Or was there another goal? Such sacrifices as these tough people made had a fundamental purpose, a task. Freedom? Or am I wrong again? According to the logic of the current behavior of the leadership of Grozny, the Chechen people declare that they would like to live independently.

- What to do about it?

Of course, this is an evaluative opinion. But - immediately begin discussing this procedure and provide independence. At the same time, carry out military protection of the Russian Federation along the borders. And everyone lives according to their own interests, like two different states. Have you noticed that it costs nothing for the head of this sector to threaten Europe, our federal ministers, even the security forces. The Grozny leaders will finally put the Russian Federation at odds with the whole world. As a citizen of Russia, I don’t want this. And without this there are many problems. No one in the country can feel safe when it comes to this region. If the pathos of these actions is national identity, of course, the Chechen sector should form a separate Chechen state. But we must understand what this means and respond accordingly in terms of the distribution of military forces. But this is my evaluative opinion, and perhaps I am wrong. They fought for independence for a long time, and we were condemned for this war all over the world for a very long time.
Maybe it was Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin's mistake. When the difficult trials began in Grozny, it was necessary to immediately grant independence and forget about it like a bad dream. Although I know that tens of thousands of Chechen citizens have been forced to leave Chechnya in recent years. About 80 thousand live in Austria, the Austrians told me that there are problems with this population. There are many in Scandinavia and Germany. But it turns out that most of them agree with what is happening inside Chechnya. Today, the Chechens and I apparently have different moral principles, different ideas about state building and responsibility before the laws. Ideas about the value of human life also differ radically. It seems to me that even among Muslims living in Russia, the mood is decidedly different from what is happening in the Chechen Muslim society.

- Will you be recruiting a new workshop?

No. I have enough problems with what has already been done. It is with great difficulty that we manage to help students with their first full-length works. My former student Alexander Zolotukhin began filming the full-length film “The Hearer” at Lenfilm. Volodya Bitokov, also a former student of mine, has just finished filming in the mountains, and editing will begin in about 20 days. Kantemir Balagov received a prize in Cannes. Kira Kovalenko did a full-length work. True, we cannot show it in Russia, we do not have a permit. They don't give it to us.
In addition, I am afraid that I will not be able to recruit a sufficient number of guys in St. Petersburg who are ready to study. It's hard for me to study. And my students in the Caucasus understood this. Our training followed the principle of military schools. And I can hardly imagine that young Russian people would agree to such harsh conditions. Learning a profession is hard work. You have to do it by heart, by will.

- By vocation?

And that comes later. Sometimes a person, after working as a director, realizes that this is not his calling. Artistic work is a long, long journey. It is never clear where success awaits you and where failure awaits you. And doesn’t failure mean that it’s time for you to leave and do something else? Culture is an area that you have to give up quickly when you are incapacitated. Because otherwise you only bring harm, creating meaningless, gray spots.

Interviewed by Venera Galeeva, Fontanka.ru

19/02/2018

Director Alexander Sokurov gave a long interview to Sofiko Shevardnadze about the nature of power, Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin. The filmmaker tried to explain why, despite his critical position, the current president of Russia invariably gives him the floor.

“He (Putin - editor’s note) knows well that I personally don’t need anything from the country,” Sokurov says on Echo of Moscow. “That everything I talk about is relevant only to the fate of the country or the industry of which I am a part. I really remember our conversation when we were one on one and he asked me where I had been lately. And I told him that I was in the Ulyanovsk region and that I had a bad impression of one place. "What it is?" - he says. - “The Ulyanovsk Aviastar plant, an empty plant where nothing is produced, where unfinished aircraft are parked.” And he listened in detail to all my impressions without interrupting. In general, in a one-on-one conversation he is completely different than in a public field... Just like Boris Nikolaevich, by the way.”

According to Sokurov, Putin really listens to people, but is influenced by his environment.

“He listens, he really listens. But it seems to me that he may be pitted against those who systematically object to him, especially publicly. That is, you can tell him anything about me. They tell me that the FSB is currently developing it. They are looking for some incriminating documents against me, something else. I can’t understand why…” adds Sokurov. “I am sure that he himself does not perceive me as some kind of enemy. They always give me their word. But meanwhile, it seems to me that we somehow do not fully hear each other. I understand that he may not listen to me or not fully listen...”

However, the director is confident that it is better to build communication through personal meetings.

“And I think what is missing, of course, is a direct conversation. This is a conversation in which it is impossible not to interrupt the person. I know that he really doesn't like being interrupted. After talking about Sentsov [at a joint meeting of the Council on Culture and Art and the Council on the Russian Language in December 2016 - Ed. ] many times they remarked how I dared to intrude, stop, and interrupt the President several times. But at the same time, I did not feel any malicious irritation or vindictiveness on his part. It is very strange. I do sometimes behave abruptly, but solely because I am so alarmed by what is happening around me, I am so responsible for it... Sometimes I just can’t sleep... Anxiety is not from politics, not from an external war, but because from within happens to us, to those people who surround me. I know that there are great compatriots of mine who will never dare to say even a tenth of what I say.”

When asked by Shevardnadze what kind of artistic portrayal of Putin would Sokurov make in his potential film about the president, he replied: “A man who stands at the foot of a very high steep mountain and does not know what will happen if he climbs to the top, is there anything else there?” heavier peaks and what to do: storm or arrange everything at the foot and with whom. The main thing is with whom. He sees who is next to him and understands that to storm with them is not to rise. This is what the image would be like. They are very different from Boris Nikolaevich. Yeltsin is a man who stands in the same way, but surrounded by more reliable people on the bank of a very, very wide river, where you cannot see the other bank and who is there on the bank. Here are two different images. Equally tragic, of course, and equally sympathetic. I am by nature an artistic person, not a journalistic one. And I like this medical model, which is probably applicable to cinema or drama: we are hospital employees, some group of wounded and sick are brought to us, and many of them are such scoundrels that it’s scary to touch them. But we must accept them, diagnose them at all costs, treat them and return them to society. Not to be thrown into a pit, not to be shot, not to be strangled, but to be returned to society. And let the people, or perhaps God, judge these criminals. Art has no right to kill criminals. It has no right to kill at all...”