Translated material
The "ash" killed the screenwriter
Width PX Height PX
The url has been copied to your clipboard
No Media Source Currently Available
0:00 0:14:08 Download the media file Fragment of the ether. Full video version is available hereAlexander Melman: You yourself understand that it was a collective vote, and I have no complaints about this vote this time. This was chosen by a majority of votes. I had a special opinion here, as if from others, but most gained it. I’m not what I am forced, in principle, I agree, because the programs are certain Arkady Mamontov, because Dmitry Kiselev with famous statements is all. And such an aggressive presentation is a certain trend on the Russia-1 channel. Even the fact that Evgenia Revenko was removed from the final program because he was a moderator and nothing more, and Dmitry Kiselev came with what he came with, he simply does not jump out of his pants in order to speak beautifully in support of the one he supports and against the one he does not support - we all understand this. For me, by the way, anti-consuming was how the TV Center Channel illuminated the mayor’s elections and, in particular, this is the hypocrisy of the TV Center channel that it refused to provide air for the debate.
Elena Rykovtseva: On the pretext that we are a federal channel, why do we need local debate.
Alexander Melman: However, in the news, he perfectly promoted the mayor and perfectly made Anti-Pir to Mr. Navalny. And there was still the appearance of Mr. Dorenko, that I was also very badly struck by me. What to be surprised, on the one hand, and on the other hand I saw it again, again the return of 12 years ago, again this Dorenko completely mossy in this sense and acting clearly to order. For me, this was the main anti-production.
Elena Rykovtseva: Nevertheless, do you support the choice of colleagues?
Alexander Melman: We have democratic centralism, as it is called.
Elena Rykovtseva: Yuri Bogomolov, your opinion?
Yuri Bogomolov: I categorically support this anti-event. Because nothing more propaganda, tendentious, inciting hatred, as they believe, to the fifth column or to liberalism, can not be imagined even in Soviet times, and I found Soviet time, I remember the propaganda of the name of Yuri Zhukov and other more scrupulous in this regard, Zorin, suppose, sorry, Borovik. I remember all this, it was more restrained.
Elena Rykovtseva: Moreover, everyone you listed, talked about another country.
Yuri Bogomolov: And in this case, as I understand it, Dmitry Kiselev also believes that all these liberals are saboteurs, to put it mildly. Therefore, they allow God to know what. The only thing who sprinkles him on the same channel is Zhirinovsky with his last performance in the “duel”, where there was absolutely fascoid rhetoric. Here is the question of depriving him of a word in the Duma, I would raise the question in the media about depriving him of the air.
Elena Rykovtseva: Words on television. All his life this question is posed to the press, before colleagues, before endless corporate ethics and - impossible, without it.
Yuri Bogomolov: What he said is something beyond. This has not yet happened on our air, such anger. As I understand it, he understands that he is very tired and any moderate malice does not amuse his pride. Therefore, he spits on everything, on all decency and behaves in this way. But I must say that indeed throughout the season we saw the programs not only on the Russian channel, but also on NTV - these “anatomy of protest” are numerous. I then regretted that our informal club did not highlight the picture of Andrei Loshak's “Anatomy of the Process”.
Alexander Melman: He was there, but did not gain the desired percentage.
Yuri Bogomolov: Because if we celebrate this “anatomy”, then we would have to note somehow another.
Elena Rykovtseva: You noted what was on the Russia channel, but I emphasize, you noted with the word “Xenophobsky”. And this is a serious accusation of the channel. If you wrote “anti -iliberal”, “anti -Optional”, “anti -bolot”, they would not have moved, but you say “Xenophobsky”.
Yuri Bogomolov: Zhirinovsky is Zhirinovsky, suppose, Vladimir Solovyov, who seems to claim the role of an arbiter of a dispute between one and others, is engaged in such frauds, distortions, such humanities. He does not allow people to express his arguments to people, he immediately begins, as soon as he sees that the argument is irresistible, he begins to distort, dump to the side, distract and so on. In this, he fed, what to talk about. But still, what Zhirinovsky allowed himself was largely a response to Solovyov’s connivance, while Soloviev did not interrupt him.
Alexander Melman: Here I just want to say that, from my point of view, Vladimir Soloviev is one of the most professional leading talk shows.
Yuri Bogomolov: What do you mean by Solovyov’s professionalism?
Elena Rykovtseva: Skillful.
Alexander Melman: I agree with you, sometimes I need to interrupt and apply power, he does not do this, for what - for the sake of political insinuations or for the sake of the rating, it is difficult to say now. I don't want to say about it. Lena asked a question about xenophobia. It seems to me that a certain aggressive trend is chosen where a political broadcast is given. Because again, the sign of Revenko. Although Sergey Brilev in a completely different style, in that old style continues to work, in principle, tactics have been chosen, that the best defense is an attack. An order may be given to all channels or to choose some kind of programs separate and definite presenter. But in principle, if we trace Vladimir Putin’s policy in relation to many events of recent years, then this is not aggression, but a rather strict reaction responds to television too.
Yuri Bogomolov: You know, it's not about. You say - through all the channels. Channel One does not allow itself. The fact is that Kiselev, Soloviev - they are the first students.
Alexander Melman: They have different stylistics, different feed.
Yuri Bogomolov: What is the stylistics, what is the presentation?
Alexander Melman: Aggressive attacks on Solovyov are also incomprehensible to me.
Yuri Bogomolov: What are aggressive attacks?
Alexander Melman: I do not want us to specifically go to this discussion. I can characterize what I think of Mr. Soloviev, no matter how personally it is treated. I say once again that for conducting talk shows you need to have certain abilities that this person has fully. I want to say that in principle, political television with us is a kind of replacement of meanings, it is not a statement of meanings or not a definition of them, but a certain imitation. But in this imitation broadcasting there are certain leaders, not public opinion, but leaders in presentation, professionalism. I believe that Mr. Soloviev is one of them. When he specifically discusses some very serious political topics, then, of course, his ears are visible, because here he plays one of the “duelists”.
Yuri Bogomolov: He always plays the role of a judge who helps one side to score goals into the other gates.
Alexander Melman: Not always. And far from always he has such determining topics. He often has not so significant topics, and he shines in them.
Yuri Bogomolov: Did you see the “duel” program yesterday?
Alexander Melman: Of course. And what?
Yuri Bogomolov: It was also evident that when Khakamada very clearly and clearly began to formulate the postulates one after another, Soloviev began to get nervous and knock it off from some position. Thank God she is an experienced girl, strong and could not knock her down.
Alexander Melman: It seems to me that you want to see what you want to see and you do not notice the other side of Solovyov’s work. Because he very often besieged Mr. Zheleznyak no less tough. I understand that this is all the game, and Khakamada understands that this is a game, all this game format. But in principle, television has long been from a serious thought and behavioral model of throwing into society. In the 90s it was. Let's compare television of the 90s and zero.
Yuri Bogomolov: Do not compare. It is necessary to compare TV presenters with some standards of human decency.
Alexander Melman: So you put, sorry, Yuri Alexandrovich, yourself above Mr. Solovyov, you consider him initially dishonorable. I believe that this is a completely wrong approach.
Elena Rykovtseva: Excuse me, please, no one said this. “Initially,” the word did not sound. Of course, Yuri Bogomolov draws conclusions on the basis of what he sees, nothing more. Initially, it means a priori on a person to put a stigma.
Alexander Melman: This is a stigma, to put a stigma that a person is dishonest. I can't say that about the host.
Yuri Bogomolov: I watched him for too long and in some period I wrote a completely benevolent column about him. Because in the beginning there was no stigma and there was no bias.
Alexander Melman: This is your opinion, you have absolute right to him. I have another opinion. But why print a person. Completely different, diverse in all of its manifestations.
Yuri Bogomolov: I will say why. The fact is that you think that I am imprinting it, and I think that you caress him and are trying to turn it up.
Alexander Melman: For something negative, I speak negatively about him.
Yuri Bogomolov: What did you say negative?
Alexander Melman: If good, I say well.
Yuri Bogomolov: What is good?
Alexander Melman: He is very professionally conducting talk shows.
Yuri Bogomolov: You have one word - professionally. His professionalism is to plug one.
Alexander Melman: Absolutely not. You yourself are one -sided at him, and this is wrong. As by the way, many colleagues. This is wrong.
Yuri Bogomolov: You protect him.
Alexander Melman: No, I am objective. A thousand times he was offended by me and the line that he said on the air, it doesn’t matter to me, it’s funny to me. But I just want to be unbiased, not engaged. But it turns out that you are engaged. But not by someone, but by himself, with his own ideas, the original people about this person, already somehow specified.
Elena Rykovtseva: The television critic should always be bred only by himself.
Elena Rykovtseva: Peter from Moscow, judge us at that moment.
Student: Hello. Recently, we watched 1993, October events, there the armored personnel carrier makes the BTR in the direction of the Ostankino television center, the person was put 50-60, the shooting was on the supporters of the Supreme Council by the Yeltsinists. It was such a fascizoid period then, and then was Zhirinovsky as it was. And today the story is a little different. Of course, Zhirinovsky, the legal norms, moral standards and all sorts, but it was an open discussion, Shevchenko could answer as he answered. By the way, I really liked the Kurginyan in the “historical process”, although he, as you said, sprayed saliva. We have a period of breaking, we have a period of formation and even, perhaps, I would question the period of breaking and destruction of the system, mentality, and cultural. Instead of one country, we wanted to quickly build another. But it was a period of Yeltsin fascism.
Elena Rykovtseva: Peter, there are no such formulations, they are unfair, sharp. If, Peter, it is mitigated to convey what you said, a good discussion, interesting, people have the right to a free statement of the point of view, Zhirinovsky spoke out, Shevchenko spoke out, Peter liked it.
Yuri Bogomolov: But how did he speak? The man still talks about someone's fascism.
Elena Rykovtseva: Peter, in a situation where the specific show Zhirinovsky against Shevchenko is discussed, nevertheless, the channel is discussed not so much as the politician actually says. We must immediately share everything. Let's listen to Sergey from the Tula region.
Student: Good evening. You know, Solovyov’s program reminds me of a bard of perestroika times, there was such a Pavel Asmolov, if you remember, he had a good song, there are such words: “Commentators with a smile give out today that no one would have said from them under torture yesterday. Meanwhile, the same where it is necessary, they will be grinded, and lick, and not from a high salary, they were removed in five minutes. ” This is about Solovyov. According to yesterday’s program with Hakamad and Zheleznyak, indeed the sailor of Zheleznyak. And how magnificently, Soloviev called Putin almost a large politician of the 90s. Already really "wow!". In the 90s, as far as I know and everyone knows, Vovochka Putin was in St. Petersburg some kind of small-crippled official. But, of course, he twisted some figs-migli at his level.
Elena Rykovtseva: Thank you. We understood your opinion about this program. Let's finally be the best. The main prize of the telepress club is the show "Voice". There is nothing to talk about here. Or is there anything about? For decency, I must say.
Yuri Bogomolov: Why for decency? I can say why the “voice” is three heads, ten heads higher.
Elena Rykovtseva: Well, nothing can be said to be bad about the “voice”!
Yuri Bogomolov: There is really nothing bad to say. The trend is interesting here. Namely: all these years entertaining and all this riot of entertainment projects on the First Channel, on the second, on the fourth and so on, so reduced the taste, the idea of what is good, what is bad.
Elena Rykovtseva: And no one was expecting anything from these shows.
Yuri Bogomolov: It was so plywood. When a “voice” appeared, suddenly something real and genuine, and a genuine voice, and a genuine man, and not artificially created at the “stars factory”. When there was the first season, it seemed to me: well, everything, the kingdom of Philip Kirkorov with his subjects ended.
Alexander Melman: It is like the kingdom of Zhirinovsky - it will never end.
Yuri Bogomolov: And here I see at the end of that season - the devaluation of the votes begins, they begin to pull them out according to the show, to it, to it. These artists really begin to get lost. We only remember Dina Garipova, and then because the “Eurovision”, all the others are already on dancing and sakes exist on the air. I was very afraid of the next season. But, thank God, nevertheless, the Earth did not imprison as Russian and overseas, and we see new voices, we are waiting for Friday.
Elena Rykovtseva: I do not agree, you said they were on dancing. Firstly, for any of them, such a dance that was provided to him is a thousand times better and cooler than he did. This is first. Secondly, you have not seen all the dancing. You didn’t look one hundred percent, and I watched all Sobyanin’s election show at work, and you did not see a concert on Red Square, which opened and closed the Buzhor method from the show “Voice” with a song about Moscow. That is, it is very honorable. Evgeny Kungurov later participated in the popular show “One to one” ... That is, they were given great opportunities for television, much larger than they had.
Yuri Bogomolov: What is one concert on Red Square for Sergey Sobyanin or participation in the show “One to one”?
Elena Rykovtseva: After this concert, he receives an invitation to another 50 concerts. This is his earnings, this is his life.
Yuri Bogomolov: You see, stars from the Star Factory will also receive invitations and do it in the cities and weights of Russia, but this does not make them stars.
Alexander Melman: Here, Yuri Alexandrovich and I will not succeed, unfortunately, but I would share the program itself and the consequences, that way out of the winners, participants. Because, indeed, they may have a completely different fate, it may often be not quite happy. We know numerous examples when people are used in this way, and then throw it overboard - this is another question. But the program that we are talking about, I first of all want to note the appearance of really sincere emotions, real passion. I am always for passion. Television is plastic, as a rule, in most shows this happens, but here I myself find myself thinking that I look with my breath, I cry, laugh, I have my emotions, although I am not a client of the Kashchenko hospital.
Elena Rykovtseva: No, when we watch the show "Voice", we are all customers.
Alexander Melman: This is certainly wonderful. Here, in the formulation of our award, “Adaptation” is written - this Channel One can do like no one else.
Elena Rykovtseva: I, completing this topic, will say that the absolutely brilliant composition of the jury. Because the problem is now that no jury cannot be perceived after them, in any “ice age” and even in the Channel One show.
Yuri Bogomolov: A “ice age” is coming nearby - this is such a pathoca, watching is disgusting. How they all do not suffer from diabetes themselves.
Александр Мельман: «Один в один» было хорошее жюри, там был замечательный Хазанов, я с удовольствием слушал.
Юрий Богомолов: Отвратительное.
Елена Рыковцева: Александр, вы просто очень добрый человек.
Александр Мельман: Я не добрый, но как критик я совсем не могу быть недобрым, вы же знаете. Поэтому все нормально, все хорошо.
Елена Рыковцева: Фильм «Жизнь и судьба», который сделал Сергей Урсуляк, получил специальный приз. Никаких споров здесь нет, все абсолютно за.
Юрий Богомолов: Споры были раньше.
Елена Рыковцева: Споры были раньше, когда вы решали, кому спецприз?
Юрий Богомолов: Споры были раньше, когда обсуждали критики.
Александр Мельман: А потом, когда состоялся, все поняли, что это настоящий фильм. Я написал в сегодняшней заметке и сравнил сериал «Пепел», что сделал Урсуляк и что сделано в этом сериале. Что сделал Урсуляк в фильме «Жизнь и судьба» и что сделал, извините, господин Бондарчук в фильме «Сталинград» - это две большие разницы.
Елена Рыковцева: Мы переходим к последнему событию телевизионному — это сериал «Пепел». Почему я выделяю его отдельно? Он получил большие цифры рейтинга и очень много критики, не в том смысле, что критики вообще, а острой критики. Масса отзывов в социальных сетях. Причем, что удивительно, люди пишут: какой кошмар, какой картон, какая фанера. Но одной рукой он пишет, вторым глазом в телевизор. Объясните, пожалуйста, феномен этого телесериала. Понятно, на чем он был основан, этот интерес — Машков, Миронов, говорили, что снимается как большое кино. Что получили на выходе?
Юрий Богомолов: Гармаш, Хаматова… Вы знаете, я понимаю интерес зрителей к этой истории. Интерес связан с некоторыми сюжетными кульбитами, когда один герой, происходит с ним метаморфоза - он из вора становится доблестным офицером. Другой герой из доблестного офицера становится преступником. И когда эти кульбиты — это такой цирк, герои совершают сальто на наших глазах, это само по себе любопытно. Но если в этом действе задействованы большие актеры, известные актеры - это еще больше привлекает. Там замечательная молодая актриса Лядова Елена, и она, как мне кажется, единственная, кто держит, и не пустота за всем этим. У нее есть какая-то история. Я ее наблюдаю давно, и в картине Учителя, и в «Елене» - у нее был эпизод, но как она сделала замечательно, и здесь она держит свою марку. В то время как остальные знаменитые актеры просто по инерции работают, по инерции того, что они когда-то наработали, что катит им, и в меру стараются, в меру плывут по течению. Но главное, что меня не устраивает и становится препятствием: я не вижу никакого смысла во всей этой истории. Это как игра в какое-нибудь домино. Там нет мифологии, того, что есть в «Ликвидации».
Александр Мельман: Вот эти самые актеры замечательные Машков, Миронов и все остальные, почему же они у других режиссеров, в данном случае у Сергея Урсуляка играют совершенно по-другому. Это вопрос к режиссеру. Хотя Вадим Перельман считается очень хорошим режиссером, с моей точки зрения, он снял лучший фильм среди русских в Америке.
Елена Рыковцева: Может быть, есть сценарии, которые невозможно сыграть по-другому.
Александр Мельман: Я перехожу к сценаристу основному, которого зовут Эдуард Багиров. С моей точки зрения, это абсолютно не талантливый человек, это человек, который имеет некую, простите за выражение, крышу. Потому что я помню эти плакаты с его романом «Гастарбайтер», никто его не знает, вдруг по всей Москве это происходит. Я помню, что он писал в Фейсбуке про русских женщин гадости. Я помню, что он стал доверенным лицом кандидата в президенты Путина. Я выстраиваю такой ряд, главное то, что он не талантливый человек. Значит, какой-то административный ресурс у него есть и вот, пожалуйста, он уже сценарист такого проекта, в котором участвует хороший режиссер и замечательные артисты. С моей точки зрения, сериал проваливается из-за нижайшего качества, потому что там нет ни атмосферы, ни души, ни духа, картонные фигуры, сделанные из лучших представителей российского актерского цеха.
Елена Рыковцева: Бесконечная глупость смысловая, концовка просто маразм. Когда вдруг из-за кустов герой Машкова начинает стрелять по машине, оказывается, он его караулил, чтобы убить, попадает в эту несчастную женщину, почти убил, но она хрипит, и он с ней едет, она дважды умирает, сначала хрипит у него в машине, а потом он еще и падает с ней с моста в этой машине. Это фантастика. Причем даже в какой-то момент думаешь, в какую же больницу он ее довезет, когда вокруг ничего нет. А проще с моста.
Юрий Богомолов: Что касается Багирова, я не читал его романов, но я его видел по телевизору время от времени. Это такой агрессивный персонаж, малоталантливый — это видно. Вдруг решил себя показать на этом поприще.
Александр Мельман: Не вдруг, у него есть определенная поддержка.
Юрий Богомолов: Я в данном случае не берусь судить. Я в таких случаях догадки оставляю в стороне. Еще почему к этому фильму такой интерес: была такая раскрутка как главная премьера сезона.
Александр Мельман: Три месяца шел анонс, пиар был серьезный.
Юрий Богомолов: Все ждали очередную «Ликвидацию».
Александр Мельман: Поучились бы у Сергея Урсуляка.
Юрий Богомолов: Я хочу сказать, на этом фоне, как ни странно, лучше смотрелся «Высоцкий».
Александр Мельман: Полная версия - очень хорошее кино вдруг стало.
Юрий Богомолов: Не очень хорошее.
Елена Рыковцева: Но лучше, чем «Пепел».
Юрий Богомолов: Там видно то, о чем вы так волновались по поводу Соловьева — профессионализм.
Клуб телепрессы также вручил свои специальные призы циклу "Мост над бездной" (автор и ведущая Паола Волкова — посмертно, режиссер Андрей Зайцев, канал "Культура"), телеканалу "Москва-24", телеканалу "Дождь" и коллективу программы "Неделя с Марианной Максимовской" (РЕН ТВ). Оценки, которые дали этим проектам гости программы «Лицом к событию», вы можете услышать, посмотрев полную видеоверсию этого эфира по ссылке http://youtu.be/_OeCIs48azI