Tired of Mikhalkov

Horror Film "Union of Cinematographers": New series

An unfinished play for the Union of Cinematographers. Great conflict Mikhalkov VS Khutsiev entered the new phase. The magazine “The Art of Cinema” is about to be evicted from the building on the street Usievich, Marlena Khutsiev was not elected to the new composition of the scientific council of VGIK, and the opponents of Mikhalkov wrote an open letter to members of the Union of Cinematographers of Russia. As the participants in the events are regarding what happened and what is behind these events, the New Times clarified

On June 3, the “Lipetsk Manifesto” of filmmakers appeared on www.polit.ru , compiled according to the results of the round table “The future of the Russian state and the current tasks of national cinema”, which took place on May 23, 2009 as part of the Golden Vityaz MKF (among the participants of the round table - Nikita Mikhalkov and President of the IFF Nikolai Burlyaev). The manifesto, in particular, says: “Russian filmmakers passed their turning point, consolidated the positive forces of the community, demonstrated the country's cohesion of the vast majority of filmmakers around the creative mission and the newly elected leadership of the Union, headed by the unconditional leader of the Russian and world cinema, who proved their creativity and life proved randomness Fatherland and Russian culture. "

On the afternoon of May 28, the editorial office of the magazine “The Art of Cinema” (editor-in-chief-Daniil Dondure, one of the opponents of Mikhalkov) received a notification signed by the chairman of the Union of Cinematographers of Russia Nikita Mikhalkov. In the notification of the editorial office of the magazine, it was ordered to release the occupied premises until June 1.

On the afternoon of May 29, the VGIK Council of the VGIK began to work in a new composition - without Marlene Khutsiev. Nobody proposed the director of the director at the re -election of members of the academic council.

On the evening of May 29, in the living magazine, director Gennady Sidorov (“Old Women”), a post was published, entitled “to all members of the Union of Cinematographers of Russia,” - an open letter of Mikhalkov’s opponents. The letter was signed by 22 people, including Marlene Khutsiev, Eldar Ryazanov, Alexei German Sr., Vadim Abdrashitov, Alexander Mitta ... The post migrated to dozens of blogs and on news Internet sites.

Nikita Mikhalkov - The New Times: “There is such a thing -“ human dignity ”. And there is the concept of “objectivity”. And therefore, when I was charged, I answered them - at the congress. My speech was not only heard, but also approved by two thousands of members of the UK. I did not ask anywhere - I was really going to leave! But 1932 people voted for me, against - 171 and 88 abstained ... Our documents after the March Congress, the Ministry of Justice accepted, approved and registered. What else is needed? Well, what else do they need?! "

Who fired Khutsiev?

Nikita Mikhalkov: “To spread rumors that I fired Marlene Martynovich from VGIK is very strange. What do I have to do with VGIK? Where is VGIK and where am I? * * Nikita Mikhalkov - Honorary Popessor of VGIKA. It also takes in different ways of more than 20 posts, mainly commercial -leading and “honorary”. In their number - the Presidential Culture Fund, Chairman of the Board of the Tritanikita Mikhalkov Studio, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Competition “St. Anna”, Presidential Presidential International Kino -Festival, Member of the Board of Directorship “Channel One”, member of the government council for the development of cinematography, academician of the National Academy of Cinematographic Arts and Naucrussia, founder of the Golden Eagle Award.

Marlene Martynovich did not go to work for 8 months, receiving a salary. This became clear from the conversation that I accidentally heard at a meeting at VGIK, where I was invited once over the past year. Marlena Martynovich had to nominate at VGIK, as I understand it, colleagues. This did not happen. What do I have to do with it? "

Vladimir Malyshev, the rector of VGIK-The New Times: “This is a normal situation: someone comes to the scientific advice, someone comes out. Every five years, the composition of the Scientific Council according to the Charter has been re -elected at a conference, where more than 100 people are present from all VGIK departments. The conference participants are offered the composition of the Scientific Council, then they may offer additional candidates. Not a single person offered Marlene Martynovich, and she was not included in the list for secret voting ... In general, I will say frankly. In the last six months, Marlene Martynovich has never been to VGIK, although he is the head of the leading department of the university - the department of directing. We called him, sent registered letters ... I do not sign an order to dismiss his dismissal-I hope that he will come and explain. ”

Marlene Khutsiev - The New Times: “I would regard this situation as a misunderstanding. Everything should not rest against the relations of the Khutsi-Mikhalovs ... Although, of course, the fact that my candidacy was not included in the list at the conference is somehow petty and insulting. Yes, I have not been to VGIK for a long time, but there were reasons for that - and things in the UK, and some other circumstances related to VGIK, which I do not want to talk about. ”

Why did Dondurey kicked out?

Nikita Mikhalkov: “This is generally an amazing thing! At first, Dondury comes and says: “Nikita, we don’t have to take any rent from us! We are so bad, we won’t stand it, the fifth to tenth. Give us this building like that.” - “On!” - I say. And after that, 11 years, without paying anything, these premises are rented out by sublease and still receive grants from the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Press. And two more television channels - TNT and “Home” - serve and provide “art of cinema”! And the union does not receive anything. And at the same time, Dondurea is the first, talking about Mikhalkov’s monstrous financial violations ... But this is a god with him! This is, so to speak, the informal side of the question. And the formal side is as follows: the very people whom I helped to exist presented me with a complaint that the SK was underway incorrectly. Well, now we will take money for rent as expected. Tenants will pay to the Union, and not the magazine “The Art of Cinema”! If Mr. Dondury can at the expense of the means that he receives from the state and television channels, it is good to rent premises. Money will receive the IC of Russia. But this will not be decided by me, but by the Executive Directorate of the UK, which will engage in all the movement and realization and report to the rule of the IC of Russia. ”

Daniil Dondury - The New Times: “The costs of release of our journal with a circulation of 4 thousand copies are about $ 240 thousand per year. The grant of the Ministry of Culture this year is 2 million 400 thousand rubles (about $ 80 thousand - The New Times). Television sponsors help a lot (first of all, thanks to the National Association of TV presenters led by Eduard Sagalaev), this is still $ 90 thousand per year. The rest is a subscription and, until last year, sublease. In the early 90s, the IC of Russia (through the then-cinema center subordinate to him) gave the magazine money. Then they ended, and every five years we renewed the contract with the UK that we occupied the area is transferred to us in full economic management as a constituent contribution. In June 2008, the UK made an innovation: he set us a price for renting a premises we occupied 300 thousand rubles per month (about $ 10 thousand at the prices of last summer. - The New Times). At the same time, our real income from subleases amounted to $ 8 thousand per month. So consider ... The losses of the magazine in 2008 amounted to 1 million 500 thousand (about $ 50 thousand - The New Times). As for the order, then everything is clear. After all, the IC of Russia, which was created in 1958 and, I hope, will continue to remain - the founder of our magazine. Since the premises belongs to him, the document on our eviction is legitimate. The termination of the lease from a legal point of view is absolutely legal. And we will further release the magazine further. Now the most important thing is to preserve the “art of cinema”. ”

What is the power of the letter?

The opponents of Mikhalkov have not yet put forward requirements - they are limited to a written call for filmmakers "to realize the drama of the situation that has developed in our creative community."

From the open letter of Mikhalkov’s opponents: “In the Gostiny Dvor (there was an extraordinary emergency congress of the Union of Cinematographers. The New Times wrote about him in No. 13 of April 6, 2009 ) film director Mikhalkov set the long -known scene of self -denial from the throne and played the main role in it. The first, as we recall, was set and played by Ivan the Terrible. Then - Joseph Stalin. Now - Nikita Mikhalkov. (...) And behind the fence of the State Film Fund, they began to invent a new structure of the union and mechanisms of control over the mass. * * This refers to the closed captivity of the UK, held on May 18 ,2009 in the building of the white pillars. Tam was invented by the ethics commission - a kind of holy Inquisition of His Majesty Nikita Mikhalkov, the first sacrifice of which was the critic Viktor Matizen, excluded from the Union twice in a short time. There it was decided to create another leading nomenclature - the Executive Directorate of the Union of Cinematographers with unusually broad powers and the right to sell property of the UK. There was an executive director, accountable in his actions, only Nikita Mikhalkov. ”

Nikita Mikhalkov: “I read this letter. It is completely naive, childish-brothers, saved, Stalin came, Ivan the Terrible ... What nonsense! .. Of course, not the last people signed it. But what did they offer positive, creative? After all, they are united not on creation, but on destruction. And those who were at our congress are the last people?! I recall offhand: Inna Makarova, Fedor Bondarchuk, Irina Skobtseva, Nikolai Burlyaev, Leonid Yarmolnik, Vladimir Mashkov, Irina Miroshnichenko ... And who interfered with those who signed this letter, come to the congress and say everything they think? Have you come? So why wave your fists now? Come, prove that you are right, refute what I said about you is documented, reasoned. ”

Nikolai Burlyaev - The New Times: “The letter was signed by very worthy people. And I can’t understand why they are subject to this disease, which I have been observed for 50 years! The name of this disease is “Mikhalkovophobia”. ”

Alexander Mitta - The New Times: “I do not oppose Mikhalkov, I am in defense of the Cinema House, which they want to turn into a profitable commercial center. Much of this letter seems to me that I do not have a business perspective - these are all Soviet methods that no one is listening to today. A collective letter is not an action. But we do not have a commander who could raise the banner and with his activity to induce everyone to action. And when it was necessary to choose, sign or not sign a letter, I chose the first. ”

Eldar Ryazanov - The New Times: “I understand that our government is pleased, love and pretty. Therefore, you can, of course, fight, but it is pointless. The government receives information about what is happening in the UK only from Mikhalkov. With other people who do not share these “trends”, none of the members of the government has ever talked ... I think that in our country this letter is unlikely to change, although I would like ... ”

Vadim Abdrashitov - The New Times: “All speeches in the media about the split of the Union are a smoke curtain that is not visible the essence of what is happening. And the essence is this: the destruction of the public organization of the UK is underway. These are appointments to elected positions - the creation of a “controlled” rule. This is the acceleration of professional guilds - the horizontal, the main component of the structure of a public organization. This is a closed activity - the holding of the Plenum “On the side” with the prevention of a number of members of the UK. This is a complete darkening of actions in relation to the property of the UK ... And since the “mandate for the rule” was issued by state power (at least it supported all the elections, the congresses - both financially and with the help of television), then the question arises: what, the authorities are interested in the destruction of the union of filmmakers as a public organization? This is very strange, because, on the one hand, the president calls for a revival of public life, and on the other, there is a destruction of a public organization, a democratic community of filmmakers ”