Order 444

Order #444 knocked out of NTV Leonid Parfenov .

Did we like the Parthenov? In some years - very. It was, most likely, the mid -90s, when the postmodern discourse (a way of speaking, if rudely determined) was still Vnova - and we wanted to consume it. Then it became more boring, since there was a change in the genre. After all, the Parfenov analyst is not God the news, but the showman is a first -class.

His television fate was built contradictory: it is impossible to be a showman and an analyst at the same time, even if you have a magnificent team and the boys from it are ready to get into any dangerous and fraught with unpredictable consequences. But he did not calculate the costs (I don’t even mean material) - he rushed to where it was “interesting”, and he built his programs as a series of “tasty” things, realizing the long -standing dream of a Russian consumer: so that it was smart and simple, and useful.

Probably, Parfenov could be accused of many "borrowings": there was clearly some foreign model of just such behavior on the air, but, frankly, too lazy to look for analogues. The world is so small, there are so few forms and formats in which you can still work as a TV presenter, so he has the right to creative plagiarism. This is so that it is more understandable - you take someone else's, you think for a long time over it, and then you make something of your own, tied to the local culture, habits, customs. He knew how to do this Parfenov. And the reporters brought up by him were drawn into the format and carried out what he planned.

We are talking about the will: someone should have a will to send someone somewhere, bear the full responsibility for everything, and then coldly mount everything mined, adding some “baubles” (almost T-90 tanks Leonid Gennadievich dragged into the studio) so that the viewer would not miss the viewer. It was a very beautiful strategy, and I remember that in 2000 I really did not want Parfenov to leave NTV, as Kiselev left. In Kiselev, it was rational, in Parfenov - sensual and emotional, and I, rationalist, still wanted some plasticity, humidity and ambiguity in the perception of the outside world. And Parfyonov tried to give me this: each time everything is worse and worse, but this is the fate of all constant headings. They "get tired", and they can not always be saved by changing the layout, stylistics, design, something else external. They get tired intellectually, and the “curators” of such headings need to “refresh their eyes” from time to time: to read some other literature or a stupid Hollywood film to watch, maybe from such a stupid viewing of typical products there will be a certain thought.

Parfyonov tried to produce freedom. This phenomenon is multi-stage: at first you learn to speak freely, then you understand something about your rights, then you try to behave as a free person who has the right. But at the very beginning, anyway, as it were, “Rhetoric of Freedom” - or a person in a “box” that shows you how a free person should behave.

I think that for so many Parthenov it was a kind of "factor" of freedom, many taught many to use this gift of gods. I had my own experience in gaining freedom, but it was always very interesting for me to observe how others do it: with the help of a “picture” on the screen of TV, artificially dynamized speech (so quickly that it sometimes resembles hysteria). This was justified: back (where "confidence in the future") we are unlikely to want to pass, but for several years we were proved as difficult, but the life "local" is extremely exciting.

The circumstances of the dismissal of Parfenov are dark and simple: the official statements of Nikolai Senkevich are ridiculous, and the matter, apparently, in the change of culture: Putin's era wants to have his own culture. Why is the Parfenov that arose turned around and built several projects in the Yeltsin era? She went irrevocably, and now the authorities require a different stylistics.

The question is: where are you going to all talented people who have discovered in the 90s and who can do something? There are no concentration camps, not everyone will die from binge, therefore, some free space is needed to carry out their creative gift. And it seems to be it, but the dismissal of Parfenov is a completely unambiguous signal: it will be less and less. And here you don’t even know whether to rush to occupy or neglect it, since it becomes either official or very dependent on large business, which, in turn, depends on the supreme power.

I do not know the language in which everything can be seriously talking about this. Maybe this is sociology, maybe cultural studies. However, I want simple logic: what do you want? As a simple layman, reader and viewer, I have the right to ask this.