Igor Mantsov. The theme of hero and traitor

The theme of hero and traitor
Igor Mantsov

Publication date: August 24, 2004

"Keep your distance, don't get close, disdain them !" - no, that’s not what Confucius said, not Zarathustra, that’s what the coach-second told the Russian Olympic boxer. Sensitive Athenian microphones convey native speech in full. The collision of biological bodies immediately faded into the background. The speech gesture provoked a new reality: the athletes moved into the ethical dimension . Now these were not two pieces of meat, not dodgy middleweights, but giants, heroes and demigods. "Disdain them!" - means dodge and hit. However, “dodge and strike” with an ethically charged preamble is no less than an existential choice, destiny.

But here is a case of the opposite property. Four years ago, Alexander Sokurov’s film “Taurus” was released . Previously, only narrow specialists gathered for Sokurov’s films: comrades-in-arms, friendly critics, two or three hidden critics who changed their appearance and gender. Now, when the director artistically simulated the political field, all sorts of public figures came along. The offensive Valeria Novodvorskaya delight , complete with a confused correspondent: “A successful movie. Lenin is even more disgusting here than I expected.” almost swallowed the microphone with

Let’s take Novodvorskaya’s remark more seriously than we would like. What did the avowed anti-Soviet react so actively to? Sokurov transferred the hero and demigod to the category of “biological body”. It is unlikely that he offended, he simply eliminated the historical distance and restored the everyday life of 1922. Well, wasn't Lenin a man ? Mayakovsky also suggested: “Like us, he overcame illness . ” The paradox is that no one remembers this human dimension anymore , hence all the misunderstandings. They say, for example, that Lenin ruined the Country. Lord have mercy, how is this possible? This is a big, big Country. But here is a small, tired, shot politician. Don’t be confused, it was the Country that killed Lenin. This is what the film is about.

In essence, Novodvorskaya meant this: at a close distance, a person is insignificant . This is exactly what Novodvorskaya does, as they say, for fun and for fun . In Russia for a long time, since the very twenties, there has been no politics, an exclusively painful clash of pride with complexes. A clash of “literate” plebeians with semi-literate ones. Historical distance automatically starts the machine for the production of rhetorical figures, provoking the birth of heroes and demigods. The same type of consciousness idolizes and throws off its pedestal.

It is generally accepted that the Past is facts that have taken place and processes that have completed. "Taurus" demonstrated: contrary to popular belief, the Past is not completed. Here he is, Lenin, asking his loved ones: “Who was it?” , - referring to Stalin who looked at the light. "It was the general secretary of our party!" - his wife Nadenka and sister Mashenka laugh at him. “Well, he’s a strong personality, strong ,” Lenin admires. “ And who elected him there?” - “So you chose it!” - Mashenka sneers, constantly presenting a moral account to her brother.

A very important , good episode, just like the whole picture. “Mashenka”, she seems to be speaking from the position of a self-confident ordinary person like Novodvorskaya. Evaluates Lenin's remark from our time, from the Future, from the position of comprehensive knowledge. She's both funny and disgusted. However, Arabov-Sokurov’s “Lenin” is not the bronze idol that is so hated and prayed for for eight decades, but a tricky middleweight . Here he is, Lenin, a man at a crossroads: either he will secretly go to a Politburo meeting, or to the toilet, or to the next world. Is he disgusting? Yes, weak, seduced by evil spirits, but alive. A person is in his place - that’s how he should be understood.

You physically feel the incompleteness of the historical narrative! Suddenly you realize that Lenin doesn’t remember Stalin, not because he’s lost his mind, but because he’s too close: “So it turns out he’s Georgian?!” Let's not laugh, let's be surprised by the accuracy of the artistic solution! In 1922, it is difficult to remember both the appearance and nationality of the newly appointed General Secretary. This “Mashenka”, a witty projection of the post-Soviet Novodvorskaya, disdains both one and the other. Trades in historical time, speculates on historical odds. Lenin himself does not disdain the insidious mustachioed guest, he simply lives very close to him, at arm's length. He breathes the same air : “Who was it? General Secretary? Georgian? I don’t remember . ”

I’m not for Lenin, not for Stalin: who exactly are they?! In "Taurus", which, after Novodvorskaya's remark, I avoided for four years and which I accidentally watched a couple of days ago, the correct historical distance was developed for the first time. It seems, however, that today's Russia loves a living person even less than even cursed heroes and demigods. How much have we gained in this case? The historical revision in general terms has been completed, the past has been changed and once again frozen. Meanwhile, the inhabitants do not give birth, but die out, but the bronze idols are almost all in their places.

For example, “the whole truth” was published about Vitaly Bonivur and Sergei Lazo, the overthrown gods of the Far Eastern pantheon. It turns out that the first’s real name is Banevur, and no one tore out his fiery Komsomol heart. The Cossacks were taking Banevur for interrogation, he jumped off the cart and ran through the surrounding swamps. The guards' rifles were loaded with explosive bullets. These same bullets hit him in the back and tore open his chest. Hence the legend of the torn out heart. Please note, there was no special intention of the Bolshevik ideologists; some anonymous mechanism was at work here, establishing the poetic trope as a historical truth: “explosive bullets” - “torn out heart.” Lazo, who, according to legend, was burned alive, was treated even more radically: “it is difficult to put a person in a locomotive firebox , ” “in the locomotive firebox of those years, you can only burn a large cat . ” In short, Lazo has no alibi at all; Lazo was “simply shot.” Not a hero. Not a fighter. Jerk.

The most unpleasant thing is this: our Past has become deserted . The human nature of the overthrown gods is not recognized, it is ridiculed. Who are these “Lenin” and “Lazo” now? Not otherwise, swamp schmuck. The collective will fearfully removes these people , yesterday's gods, from the World. And how does the collective unconscious perceive those who believed in the gods, built, plowed and gave birth, the so-called people? Even worse: like stupid slaves. Look behind you: there is no one there! An industrial desert, in the middle of which busts rise and where the bloody soldiers of the Great Patriotic War wheeze in death. Among the living there are several dozen universally recognized actors, along with ideologically untainted ballerinas.

In Russia they still uncritically confuse “gods” with “people”, “heroes” with “philistines”. Meanwhile, Socrates already called not to confuse, but to distinguish: “Let them not try to instill in our young men the belief that gods give birth to evil and that heroes are no better than people. We will prohibit such statements and will order that they be expressed in both songs and legends.” " the opposite . Or: “We will force the poets to assert that either these evil deeds were committed by others, or, if they were, then that they were not the children of the gods . ” It is important to understand: this is not so much a totalitarian project as an insightful analysis . Socrates and Plato know: gods and heroes are by no means a product of ideology, but an inalienable part of the World.

Borges’s elegant short story “The Theme of the Traitor and the Hero” is about this: “The narrator’s name is Ryan, he is the great-grandson of the young, heroic, handsome, shot Fergus Kilpatrick, whose name adorns the poems of Browning and Hugo, whose statue rises on a gray hill in the middle of the red swamps . ” The narrator finds out that the rebel leader Kilpatrick was in fact a traitor, that his “heroic death” was played out in full accordance with the dramatic texts of Shakespeare who came to hand.

Further, Borges surpasses himself in wit. Studying the transcripts and diaries, Ryan becomes convinced that the passages imitating Shakespeare are "LESS dramatic" than those of the English playwright. It turns out that the only argument against Kilpatrick was this very “lack of theatricality” of the historical plot! Ryan suspects that the comrades in the liberation struggle, who cunningly executed the traitor Kilpatrick, weakened the drama of their “production” deliberately: “... so that in the future someone would guess the truth . ”

Phenomenal move! Borges implies that the Hero is always the product of an anonymous machine for the production of dramatic rhetoric . As a result, Ryan decides to keep silent about his “discovery” and publishes a book glorifying the Hero. A witty tautology: a “book,” by definition, “glorifies the Hero,” and that is its purpose, the book. “Perhaps this was FORESeen ,” Borges sneers. It is useful to re-watch Sokurov with Borges on his lap. Lenin and Stalin cease to be Titans, because the filmmakers destroy the narrative chain, replacing vivid drama with barely discernible everyday life.

Finally, the film that provoked the above thoughts. A very average, even by genre standards, is the American film “King Arthur,” directed by Antoine Fuqua, starring Clive Owen and Keira Knightley. The Americans take the Heroes of medieval European legends, Arthur, Lancelot, Tristan and Merlin, to plant them on historical soil, in the 5th century. The film is poorly conceived , so the legendary heroes easily acquire flesh and blood. Borges is useful again. In accordance with the logic of his “narrator Ryan,” we have the right to suspect Antoine Fuqua’s relaxed version of unreliability.

Something is wrong here! There's a traitor somewhere nearby! I study the available sources: it is true, according to the version of Geoffrey of Monmouth, the cause of Arthur’s death was the infidelity of his wife, the beautiful Guinevere. Fuqua's picture ends with their joyful wedding. The worst, therefore, is yet to come. The majority of viewers, satisfied with the genre trinket, have no idea about this.