In search of Rasputin

The Russian version of the film about Rasputin with Depardieu in the main role is not that disappointed, but as if not at all. There is no movie in essence, there is no plot in it. That is, the external plot, of course, is present, well -known facts are reproduced, but there is no internal connection in them, there is no logic of unfolding events, and even more so characters. This is not a plot, but a "picture", as they say now. There is an American term “dramatisaeshn”: they conduct any educational program on television about, say, ancient Rome, and in addition to speaking specialists and real surviving places-say, the Coliseum-periodically and not in the focus there are some figures in toga and with swords, depicting, say, the murder of Caesar or the battle of the Puni War. This is called "dramatisaeshne", in this case - illustrative material. As a picture in a book, just moving. Here is such a picture, such an empty, purely external illustration - a film about Rasputin, and such a film will not be pulled out. Yes, by the way, he is outwardly not similar to Rasputin, not the same type. Rasputin had an elongated and generally rather noble face-if it weren’t for amazing demonic, burning eyes, tangible even in black and white photographs. Depardieu, of course, has an expressive appearance in his own way, but there is nothing, so to speak, the mystical in it, on the contrary, is realized by the flesh. His energy is a different order.

Yes, if you think about it, the plot of Rasputin is generally difficult to solve at its deep level. The main scenes in this plot should be the premature of blood at the infant, the investigator. Outside of this, there would be no such confidence in the royal family towards Rasputin. And it is very difficult to put such scenes, this is not for a running duty craft. But in the topic there is, of course, a very rich external material, grateful for use. You can recall the case of a successful disposal of this material in the long -standing play by Alexei Tolstoy's "Empress's Conspiracy". In the diaries of Korney Chukovsky there is an interesting evidence: he left a description of the actor Monakhov as Rasputin in this play. In his performance, Chukovsky wrote, you begin to love Rasputin, Rasputin’s charm and some indigenous Russianness is conveyed. The point is not that Depardieu is a Frenchman, but that there are now no such Russians who could feel the type of Rasputin. Too much time has passed, another era. But Alexei Tolstoy and co-author of his historian Schegolev knew all these stories and positions, they were indigenous Russian people. Alexey Tolstoy, if you want, was a kind of Rasputin himself, he himself fascinated the then power.

By the way, a detail. In the film, someone speaks of Rasputin: he is Hlystovets. The authors of the Russian version do not even know what to say a whip.

But in principle, the plot of Rasputin is so deep and complex that it cannot be solved adequately by means of mass culture, especially at an external visual level. This is neither for cinema, nor for the theater. This plot is religious-mystical, and multi-layered mystical. The very figure of Rasputin is already extremely complicated in its unusualness. His mystical giftedness is undeniable. He undoubtedly had some htonic inspirations. And he was not only able to stop bleeding, but also felt his secret, deep, precisely chthonic connection with Russia, with the royal dynasty. After all, he correctly predicted her fate: will not be me, and you will end. He warned against joining the World War: the matter is politically necessary, but mystically disastrous. This, by the way, notes Solzhenitsyn with a sympathetic understanding. For all that, Rasputin was clearly not a saint, he abused his gifts and was generally, so to speak, not at the height of his mission, which many, primarily the royal family wanted to see it. By the way, this type of believing crook is by no means specifically Russian, it is present, for example, in America: read Sinclair Lewis’s novel Elmer Gantry or at least superficially with the stories of television preachers.

There is a very interesting judgment about the Rasputin of the philosopher, later the priest and theologian of Father Sergius Bulgakov. He wanted to put the phenomenon of Rasputin in touch with the teachings of Vladimir Solovyov about the king, the high priest and the prophet. Monarchical power is justified as religiously authorized, as theocracy, but in addition to the figures of the king and high priest, the figure of the prophet is necessary - as a folk religious protrud that judges both the students and the kings. These are the types of biblical Old Testament prophets. And in the appearance of Rasputin, one could try, hoped for the appearance of a prophetic figure-put it in this sacred-historical context. But such a substitution clearly failed, the behavior of Rasputin himself was too scandalous and everything that started around him, all this host of great -sculpture nymphos and exchanged crooks. And with bitter irony about. S. Bulgakov writes about the king:

And is it not the right one who was asleep when he, the theocratic king, how he correctly and deeply understood in his royal heart (contrary to all those around him, who wanted to see in him only a political monarch, an autocratic emperor), recovered inspiration from above, the spirit of the prophetic, and found him ... in Rasputin.

The mystical plot, thus, failed, did not take place - in the history itself, which has long been restrained and rationalized. Or so to speak: mysticism continues to act in human affairs, but acts, as it should be, secretly and cannot be controlled in any way. The unity of the king with the people in the person of the half-luster-sipharlatan is a cruel, of course, a parody. Today, this plot is called - spiritual scrapers.

Well, well.