Wheel alignment

At the emergency congress of the Union of Cinematographers, pressing issues of cinema will not be discussed. But they will have time to quarrel properly

The cinematographer is a family specialty. Director Herman Jr. tells Newsweek that he will never join the Union of Cinematographers (UK) if Nikita Mikhalkov is its chairman, because Mikhalkov once insulted his father, director German Sr., a member of the USSR UC. Director Bondarchuk Jr. tells Newsweek that he is ready to join the union only if Nikita Mikhalkov is its chairman: Mikhalkov stood up for his father, director Bondarchuk Sr., a member of the USSR Investigative Committee.

For two young, by the standards of the aging UK, directors from the great film dynasties, these are ironclad arguments. It was the question of the chairman that split filmmakers into two camps - a question that will have to be discussed first of all by the participants in the Eighth Extraordinary Extraordinary Congress of the UK, which Nikita Mikhalkov is convening this week. After Mikhalkov was not re-elected chairman in December, but director Marlen Khutsiev was elected, a scandal began: Mikhalkov announced that the congress was held illegally. The Court agreed with this view. The cinematic community has split into three camps: those who are for Mikhalkov, those who are for Khutsiev, and those who are for the one who wins the fight.

"LOSE FAITH IN HUMANITY"

Now Mikhalkov or his protégés are considered favorites. Mikhalkov's victory may come out loud, but it is unlikely to be beautiful. In the months preceding the congress, Mikhalkov uttered a lot of unpleasant words - including about the “Lilliputian theater”, “raider seizure of power”, “fart in the soup and run away”, “Soros money” and “smells like a corpse”. It will be hard for his opponents to forget them.

There are very famous people at the trial: Marlen Khutsiev, on the one hand, and actor Vasily Livanov, on the other, seemed to find fault with each other over trifles. Livanov represented Mikhalkov's point of view and was not alone. The reason for the suit was a violation of the charter on the procedure for choosing delegates to the "Khutsiev" congress. Livanov and his comrades allegedly did not receive invitations to the so-called meetings on professions, and they could not participate in the work of the congress, and if so, the results of the congress must be recognized as illegitimate and Mikhalkov should be returned to the post of chairman of the IC.

True, it turned out at the trial that Livanov himself and two other plaintiffs not only knew about the congress, but were also physically there. On the other hand, it turned out that the election of delegates to the congress was actually rather careless - not because someone wanted to deceive someone, but because that was how they always went. Previously, there was simply no reason to challenge all these subtleties in court, says Andrey Stolbunov, Khutsiev's lawyer. At the trial, one of the witnesses testified that the plaintiff Klim Lavrentyev kept at home - so that they could not be challenged in court - the protocols for the election of delegates to past congresses, when it was Mikhalkov who won. In fact, these documents should be kept in the office of the UK.

Marlen Khutsiev spent all three days of the trial in the courtroom with a temperature. Hearing the verdict that the congress was illegitimate, he said: “Your Honor, I am losing faith in humanity!” For the 83-year-old director, this was the first trial in his life. But Khutsiev's lawyers appealed the decision of the Presnensky Court to the Moscow City Court, and it will not have time to enter into force before the opening of the Eighth, "Mikhalkov" Congress. That is, in theory, the legality of the Eighth Congress of the UK can also be challenged in court, and in general, now filmmakers will be able to sue each other for a very long time.

CALL EVERYONE BY NAME

Nikita Mikhalkov headed the UK when the 1998 crisis was just a few months away. He went to the position of not only the leader of the cinematic community, but also the lifeguard of the industry. As the current oppositionist, and once even Mikhalkov's deputy screenwriter Pavel Finn, recalls, in the late 90s, filmmakers hoped that Mikhalkov's connections, acquaintances and charisma would help the UK restore its former influence and revive the film process.

Mikhalkov also understood that the UK needed an influential leader. He did not immediately agree to lead the union and, in order for the triumph to be convincing, he convened not the usual congress for 450 delegates, but a gathering of four thousand of all members of the UK in the Kremlin. According to Finn, there was not much money in the union's budget in 1998. But Mikhalkov assured that he would find money for the congress in the Kremlin from sponsors. Then it turned out that it was not a gift, but a loan.

With this loan, financial claims began against Mikhalkov and his people in the leadership of the Union of Cinematographers. In order to pay it off, the UK had to sell the share of shares in the capital's Cinema Center inherited from the USSR UK. At the same time, the Museum of Cinema, which lived in the Cinema Center, lost its premises. The House of Creativity of Cinematographers in Bolshevo, near Moscow, required repairs, and in order to find money for repairs, they sold another House of Creativity - in Krasnaya Pakhra. It was newer and more modern than the Bolshevsky one, but there was not enough money from its sale for repairs. The dilapidated Cinema House also required repairs. Mikhalkov proposed to demolish it, build a new one in its place, and give part of the premises in it to the project investors. Cinematographers were very indignant.

At the same time, even Mikhalkov's opponents do not deny that while the financial affairs of the union were going badly, Mikhalkov managed to find money for social programs for movie veterans. According to his own calculations, in 11 years he spent more than $ 600 thousand on medicines, operations, pensions and funerals. In the eyes of ordinary members of the UK, Mikhalkov still remained an ineffective manager. “You see, they [in the leadership of the Investigative Committee] did not tell anyone anything. Why, where did the money, shares go, could it have been avoided? - Pavel Finn lists questions to Mikhalkov. - [Mikhalkov] later admitted his personnel mistakes. But the Cinema Center can’t be returned.” Mikhalkov also accused Finn of uncleanliness, and Finn calls these accusations "untrue."

Now, according to the organizing secretary of the UK, Mikhail Kalinin, things are going better in the UK. Over the past three years, the budget deficit has halved. In spite of the crisis, rental rates on the area of ​​Dom Kino SK are going to increase, the money remaining from the sale of the cinema center brings 10% per annum, and in 2009 the union's budget may even become a surplus.

At the Eighth Congress of the UK, Mikhalkov was finally going to read a big report on the state of affairs himself. At a press conference before the congress, he promised that “not to leave slandered, slandered and unheard”, to name everyone who “took the Cinema Center away”. This time, Mikhalkov announced the cost of the emergency congress in advance. It will cost twice as much as the "Khutsievskoye" - 10 million rubles. Again, sponsors are needed. Half, €130,000, according to Mikhalkov, he has already found.

GET ALL FEATURES

Khutsiev and Mikhalkov emphasize that they do not have a personal conflict, and they even give the same compliments to each other: “a wonderful director” to a “wonderful director”. The question is not about the place in art, but about the place of art itself in the life of filmmakers.

“No one has ever said that Mikhalkov is a bad actor or a bad director,” says Daniil Dondurei. “But why is he able to make amazing connections with the leadership of the country and cannot make connections with fellow filmmakers?” Indeed, of the directors, only Mikhalkov is visited by the head of state without ceremony at the dacha for a cup of tea. Almost no one showed their new film personally to Putin. True, no one made a movie about Putin for the anniversary.

Filmmakers admit that no one except Mikhalkov can get an audience with the premiere by calling, but if only he is able to do this, then why does he not talk about their common problems, filmmakers? “It seems that some important and reasonable things, such as the attitude to quotas for foreign films, the distribution of state subsidies, the general strategy for the development of the industry, simply do not reach the authorities,” says Alexei German Jr.

And both Mikhalkov and Khutsiev wrote letters to the presidents. Marlen Khutsiev asked President Medvedev to pay attention to the problems of cinematography and put his personal signature under the letter. Nikita Mikhalkov asked President Putin to stay for a third term and signed it: "On behalf of all representatives of the creative professions in Russia." “Nikita Sergeevich, as a great artist, sincerely believes that he knows best what will be best for everyone,” says Daniil Dondurei. - And sincerely surprised when they do not listen to him. Of course, he was offended [after the congress] - as if they were foolish children.

Finally, Mikhalkov's supporters and Khutsiev's supporters are fundamentally at odds over the future of the union itself. Mikhalkov believes that all functions, except for the trade union, should go from the UK to the Film Academy under his tutelage - and awards, and festivals, and vocational education, and seminars, and intrashop discussion.

“Now the academy does nothing but the Golden Eagle award,” Dondurei explains. - She is not involved in the development of laws. She doesn't give seminars. She does not finance the production of films, finally. Why does she have to do all this?

Many fear that if the reform of the union goes according to Mikhalkov's version, then the UK will simply cease to play the role for which it was created in the late 50s - the role of an intermediary between professionals and the state, a discussion club, a lobbyist and even a keeper of pure art. “Yes, the recent history of the UK does not shine with some great victories and deeds. We did not defend the Cinema Center, did not lobbied for important amendments to copyright laws, did not achieve the active participation of the UK in the distribution of state subsidies for film production, - admits Khutsiev's deputy director Dmitry Meskhiev. But that doesn't mean it won't happen again. Union is needed, especially now.”

CANNOT AGREE

However, matters may not reach the point of discussing these questions at the Eighth Congress. The main thing will still be the question of the leader. Mikhalkov said more than once that he did not want to remain chairman of the IC, who did not appreciate how he “dragged the entire union on his shoulders for eleven years,” and offered actor Mikhail Porechenkov to take his place. But his candidate did not find much support. Porechenkov's candidacy, for example, is considered by a weak supporter of Mikhalkov, Fyodor Bondarchuk: in his opinion, now there is no alternative to Mikhalkov himself.

In order for the decisions of the Eighth Congress to be recognized as legitimate, 50% of the membership of the UK must gather for it - and this is more than 2,500 people from all over the country. Most of the filmmakers live and work in Moscow and St. Petersburg, but among them there are many who, together with Khutsiev, are going to boycott the congress. Meetings were held in both capitals, but it was not possible to work out a single line. In the end, everyone will decide for themselves. “I believe that the boycott of the congress is a manifestation of weakness,” said Dmitry Meskhiev from St. Petersburg. - I will go". And German Jr., on the contrary, decided to stay at home. Director Alexander Sokurov will not go either - he does not consider it possible for himself to "intervene in this policy," his representatives reported. If people like Sokurov, Ryazanov, Khutsiev, Alexei German Sr. do not go to the congress, what kind of congress will it be? “Formality,” says German Jr.

Supporters of Khutsiev appealed to the organizing committee of the congress with a request not to let non-members of the UK into the congress - in their circle, as they believe, it will be easier to control the purity of the vote. And Nikita Mikhalkov, on the contrary, called film students to the congress - however, without the right to vote. Fyodor Bondarchuk undertook to help him ensure a quorum and bring 100 delegates to the congress from among those who worked with him on different film sets - but, having learned that it was not planned to let non-members of the union to the congress, he sort of abandoned this idea.

In the absence of many recognized authorities, the word will remain with those who simply wait, who will win, Daniil Dondurei believes: “This is not even cynicism, but internal devastation. Anemia of the creative workshop. Lack of drive. Many people have the feeling that it is “up there” that everything will be decided.”

But many thought that it would not be possible to reach an agreement at the congress - in the broadest sense of the word - even if there was a quorum and Mikhalkov again became chairman. Filmmakers are divided. “Because of all these unacceptable words, the situation has reached a dead end. I can’t talk, - Herman Jr. diagnoses. - It is necessary that someone said "enough". I don't know who it might be. But to continue in the same spirit is simply pointless. The scandal between filmmakers has already become something of a folk anecdote. “Taxi drivers are already asking me with a smile what they share there,” Herman says.