Translated material
Radio Liberty - Programs - Time Difference
Author and presenter Vladimir Tolts
"Russian chronicle writing and the "puppet chronicle" of modern Russia"
Having heard the musical intro of a popular television program, one should not think that a radio version of Viktor Shenderovich’s program “Total” will follow. But the melody you are familiar with here is not accidental, since today we will talk about the relationship between the Russian chronicle tradition and what you see on television.
Viktor Shenderovich:
...It never occurred to me, I was told after some time that such a chronicle was being created in parallel with daily work...
Vladimir Petrukhin:
What brings the position of the author of “Dolls” and the “Total” program closer to the position of a chronicler - paradoxically as it may seem - is an attempt to illuminate modern events from the point of view of morality, ethics...
Andrey Yurganov:
...I think this is untenable, if only because Shenderovich, in principle, acts precisely as a destroyer of myth. Shenderovich is an anti-chronicler, a person who ridicules.
Vladimir Tolts:
Viktor Shenderovich and researchers of medieval Rus' in the program "Russian chronicle and puppet chronicle of modern Russia."
The topic of the program - the relationship between the Russian chronicle tradition and what you see on television today - has already been outlined. I’ll tell you what inspired me to choose her, as well as about the participants in today’s program.
It seems that everyone, including orthodox Leninists (and for a long time already), the thought expressed at one time by Ilyich: “Of all the arts, cinema is the most important for us” is recognized as hopelessly outdated. Cinema has been thoroughly replaced by television. The latter has long been not only art, a means of information and advertising, but for many - the standard of life and its integral component (and often, unfortunately, a surrogate substitute).
In Russia, television is sometimes equated to a painkiller, a potent drug for treating social ills, and is even described as “opium for the people.” At the same time, everyone - unanimously - views television as a powerful political weapon. No wonder Yeltsin figuratively equated television executives to “siloviki ministers.”
I will not continue this metaphorical series any further. I’ll just mention the comparison that amazed me and prompted me to create this program. The journalist called the relatively recently popular television programs “Dolls” and “Total” “a true chronicle of modern Russia.” I found it interesting.
I ask Viktor Shenderovich, the author and participant in these television programs, what he thinks about this comparison?
Viktor Shenderovich:
It didn’t occur to me myself; they told me after some time that such a chronicle was being created in parallel with daily work. Moreover, they later told me that in one of the American universities, at the faculty of Slavic studies, they watched my tapes and studied this science on them - “Sovietology” (I don’t know what it is called now - “Rushology”, “Russian studies”?). In fact, it's quite logical: tell me what was funny this week, what was the joke of this week and, in general, we can understand what was the main thing.
Vladimir Tolts:
Well, let's find out.
To do this, I invited two experts on the Russian Middle Ages to the Moscow studio of Radio Liberty: Doctor of Historical Sciences, leading researcher at the Institute of Slavic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Professor Vladimir Yakovlevich Petrukhin, and Professor of the Russian State Humanitarian University Andrei Lvovich Yurganov.
The first question is - what is chronicle writing? Who is the chronicler with whom the wonderful, talented and witty writer Viktor Shenderovich is so famously compared today?
Andrey Yurganov:
Chronicle writing is what is written, that is, as if written history - for a person. Chronicle writing is something that a medieval person, in principle, cannot live without, because for him this is a meaningful life.
Vladimir Tolts:
And here is the answer to the same question from Professor Petrukhin.
Vladimir Petrukhin:
Chronicle writing is a specific Russian, or rather Old Russian, genre, when mostly scholar-monks recorded events by year or year. These were the main events, from the point of view of the medieval scribe, so the monks recorded not only historical events, from our point of view, but also events that were significant for them, as an expression of God’s will, as a sign of God. Comets, famine, and enemy invasions were very significant for them, and chroniclers tried to see historical and God’s signs in these events, and not just some historical fact.
Phonogram (excerpt from the "Total" episode):
“Hello, the information and parasitic program “Total” is on air, in the studio of Viktor Shenderovich.
Eh, Russia, a beautiful and special country, nowhere is power so close to the people, and the people do not listen with such trepidation to the state of power. We feel each other like a child and, I apologize, a mother. It comes to amazing things: all over the world, for example, people monitor their health, and we monitor the health of the president..."
Vladimir Tolts:
- How popular is Viktor Shenderovich’s program “Total” and the “Dolls” program produced with his participation? - I ask my colleague Anya Kachkaeva. (And here it should be noted that Anna Grigorievna is not only a television commentator for Radio Liberty, but also a candidate of philological sciences, senior lecturer at the Department of Television and Radio Broadcasting, Faculty of Journalism, Moscow State University.)
Anna Kachkaeva:
- In Russia they don’t believe in the president, in the government, in a good life and in television ratings. But in a television company, both the program policy and the fate of all programs depend on the rating. If the rating is high, it means that the program has expensive advertising and the program has good airtime.
From a ratings point of view, Viktor Shenderovich’s programs have such a position that you can’t imagine a better situation; even a repeat of his Saturday program “Total” is on the Monday evening broadcast.
According to the sociological service "Gella", which carries out measurements in Moscow, the "Dolls" program in 1998 almost consistently took second place in the section of humorous programs, second only to the "Gentleman Show" program on ORT, but ahead of the "Town" program on Russian television, "Funny Panorama" with Petrosyan on ORT and "The Benny Hill Show" on TV-6.
And in the list of the 100 most rated programs of all federal television channels, which is prepared weekly by specialists from the National Institute of Social and Psychological Research, the “Dolls” program invariably occupies 20th or 22nd lines, after news, weather, programs “Time”, “Itogi”, “Field of Miracles”, “Good Night, Kids” and film hits such as “Office Romance” and “Old Songs about the Main Thing”. True, “Total” in this list of the hundred most rated programs does not rise above 50th place, but does not fall below 75th.
One thing remains unchanged - both programs of Viktor Shenderovich are always included in the hundred most popular television programs on Russian television.
Phonogram (excerpt from the "Total" episode):
“Hello. Our last information and parasitic program of this year is on the air, so to speak, the final “Total”, according to the pages of our programs.
It's time to hit the money. Although, what kind of "grandmother" is there - after the 17th?..
But first things first.
Yeltsin: “Something is not going well with us... with the Constitutional Court.”
It must be said frankly that the last thing that went wrong with the Constitutional Court this year was. Mostly, everything else was not going well... Either the imperialist was crap, or the stars were aligned incorrectly, but the economy was always giving a thrush. It seems like they did everything right with her, according to science, but she doesn’t care.
And what kind of people led it... And what kind of people led it! But - not fate!
However, the main thing for us is to be able to correctly explain why it didn’t work out..."
Vladimir Tolts:
Before continuing, let me remind you that what is on air is not the “Total” program, but an episode of the Radio Liberty program “Time Difference,” dedicated to comparing Russian chronicles with what you see on television.
Let us return, however, to the journalistic definition of popular satirical programs as a modern chronicle.
Question for historians: tell me, do the traditions of ancient Russian chronicle writing continue in modern Russian culture?
Andrey Yurganov:
- To answer this question, we still need to illuminate the problem of medieval chronicles a little deeper, because traditions are what determines continuity. But of course there cannot be complete continuity, because we are not medieval people, and there is little that connects us with the Middle Ages. Therefore, we can only talk about some similar forms , about something that can be somehow connected with what happened.
But I want to say that chronicle writing is, first of all, a person’s mood, it is a certain expectation of something, and most often and mainly, of course, it is an expectation of the second coming of Christ. These are very complex moods, but this mood always contains, so to speak, an updated system of values , which we sometimes call ideology in our language.
Therefore, if we talk about today’s chronicle writing, then we should probably say that in our current worldview, the chronicler is our language , our own language is the chronicler.
Vladimir Petrukhin:
- In modern Russian culture it is difficult to talk about the traditions of chronicle writing itself. Along with the end of ancient Russian culture, with Peter’s reforms, another form of description of events, historical events came, a form that is still known to us, the first newspapers were published in Peter’s era, and until now a living response to historical events is this journalistic form, daily, but not chronicle.
Nevertheless, official, even official historiography, especially in the Soviet period, indeed, one might say, continued the tradition of chronicle writing. True, this tradition was a godless tradition, for this tradition was not continued by monastic chroniclers, but by official, official historians.
“From congress to congress” is a kind of medieval Russian tradition...
Vladimir Tolts:
Well, the difference between what Shenderovich writes from party chronicles “from congress to congress” (despite his obvious parody of officialdom) is, I think, obvious to everyone. And from chronicles, as historian professors described it to us, too.
Does Viktor Shenderovich himself understand this?
Viktor Shenderovich:
- I don’t know, it depends on who the chronicler is. Because an attempt to write down reality in general as it is (there was such a trend even in prose, I don’t remember, of course, the terms), but an attempt to sit down and write down the whole day, the whole flow, (little things, not little things), write down everything - this is impossible. Therefore, a good historian, a real chronicler, he identifies the main thing. In this sense, of course, you want to be a good historian and isolate the main thing, maybe not what lies on the surface.
The wonderful Leonid Izrailevich Likhodeev, with whom I once studied in a seminar, to whom I am very grateful, grateful beyond the fact that I simply had the good fortune to communicate with this man, he formulated it grandiosely. And somehow I was reading my little things, short, completely intuitively written, not meaninglessly written, that is, just some kind of miniatures, something was just seething in me, and I wrote it down, and he said: “That’s why this is funny?”, Analyzing some story, “Because it’s true.” Funny because it's accurate, funny because it's true. If it weren't true, it wouldn't be funny.
And this is a very important postulate for me: try to make people laugh with the truth, try to make people laugh with an accurate analysis. When this succeeds, then it becomes an anecdote, then it seems to go to the public. If not, then a joke, even verbally, let’s say, very well done, it remains some kind of trick.
That's why I try to be a chronicler.
Phonogram (excerpt from the "Total" episode):
“This week, by the way, marks exactly 8 years of the famous monetary reform of 1991. Those who were not crushed in queues at savings banks these days remember it vividly to this day. The purpose of the reform, according to its author, USSR Prime Minister Pavlov, was “dealing a mortal blow to the shadow economy.”
The blow was indeed powerful. This creature - the shadow economy - has barely recovered. Many “shadow old women” died in the arms of their “shadow old men” without a single sip.
Various craftsmen did the same with us, with the “shadow workers”, and then they did the same thing more than once...
Vladimir Tolts:
- Why are the programs “Total” and “Dolls” so popular? - I ask Anna Kachkaeva.
Anna Kachkaeva:
- One of the television critics called the “Total” program “a landmark program of uncensored television.” But this definition is more suitable for the “Dolls” program, which the authorities, represented by the prosecutor’s office, began to fight, but came to their senses in time - the case against rubber doubles of famous politicians looked too ridiculous.
But the program “Total” is certainly a landmark program in terms of television form. Because “Total” is the first and so far the only regular humorous and political program on Russian television . This is not Zhvanetsky or Zadornov with his author’s monologues, which television only broadcasts.
“Total” is the accurately guessed format. Essays on modern political mores, or rather, political comics for adults: visual, accessible, funny. The image of Shenderovich is not the image of a chronicler, it is the image of a cunning, laughing man in the street who publicly laughs at something that everyone already knows about, but cannot really express in words.
The program’s techniques are simple: if you repeat fragments of speeches, pauses or gestures of politicians five times, scrolling through these frames in an accelerated recording, you won’t want to, you’ll laugh. And if you provide these shots with a calm and unsmiling commentary, it turns out even funnier. Shenderovich is not afraid to laugh openly, sometimes rudely, realizing that subtle irony is not for such a mass spectacle as television is considered to be. And audiences love this laughable accessibility.
There is one more circumstance that appeals to the Russian man in the street: if what is called muzzle on the table is in Russian, brutal, dashing comments are at a premium in Russia. For this understandable brutality, the audience loves Sergei Dorenko, and for this they also love Shenderovich. Serious information and analytical programs explain something complicated and boring about the budget, but Shenderovich will grab the cue, show, for example, an excited Zhirinovsky tearing off his jacket, and everything becomes clear. Shenderovich brilliantly appeals to the bottom, to use Bakhtin's term.
One of my colleagues, paying tribute to Shenderovich’s talent, once wrote that his programs “are irony and sarcasm, with tears sewn into the lining.” Beautiful, even intelligent. But this is still not about television - the mass audience does not appreciate the sad humor of Chaplin's miniatures. A television program is an affordable product in a beautiful package that must be profitably sold to the audience.
Viktor Shenderovich knows how to sell television products. It is no coincidence that the best time was chosen for both of his programs on the NTV channel, the most expensive from the point of view of advertisers: Saturday and Sunday evenings. Just imagine: everyone has already returned from the dacha, the children have calmed down and do not require special attention, everyone has finally had dinner and now you can lounge in front of the TV and watch Shenderovich, relax and laugh.
A normal viewer never wonders why Shenderovich is funny to watch, the viewer simply laughs. And this, in the end, is the answer to the question why Viktor Shenderovich’s programs are so popular.
Vladimir Tolts:
Let me remind you: today’s episode of our program is dedicated to comparing the ideas and principles of Russian chronicle writing with what you see on television, namely the popular satirical programs “Total” and “Dolls.”
So, as Anna Grigorievna explained to us, I like Shenderovich because his programs are accessible and funny. Professor Yurganov believes that this is incompatible with the chronicle tradition.
Andrey Yurganov:
Is it possible to laugh when you sacredly believe in something and something is essential, important, existential for you, that is, something you cannot do without?
Since we do not have any ideology, since it has not been formed and so far no one is apparently going to form it, Shenderovich ridicules the language that is not yet capable of creating some more durable ideological forms.
But when someone wants this, then everyone will forget about Shenderovich, some chronicler will appear who will write the history or the present that someone will probably want to have.
Vladimir Tolts:
One cannot but agree with Andrei Lvovich on one thing: both “Dolls” and “Total” really ridicule the language, the language, first of all, of those who would like to have a chronicle about themselves, written in a combed, smooth language that they do not even speak. Moreover, often this is not even a parody, but a direct quotation.
Phonogram (excerpt from the "Total" episode):
Chernomyrdin: “It could be done, but something is in the way... You can’t do it, you can’t jump over, you can’t put the cart before the horse! That’s why we say, that’s what, why we couldn’t do it, that’s why we didn’t do it...”
Shenderovich: “Viktor Stepanovich was a man of outstanding ability and foresight. In addition to leading the country, he knew a lot of Russian and told them his thoughts .
He himself predicted his sudden departure a month before his resignation, but he was digging a hole for others."
Chernomyrdin: “1998 should be the year of an offensive on everything, act, make mistakes - we will correct them. We will replace them, as the president said, as the president said today.”
Shenderovich: “The replacement of CheVeeS itself took place in full accordance with the laws of Darwinism, all politics is based on these laws: monkey quarrels, the confrontation of a strong leader with smaller but well-organized creatures, the privatization of the domestic savannah, the division of the electorate - one 20%, the other 7-8, a “water truce” over a cup of tea, but also, in fact, parting with neighbors in the “executive branch”...
Vladimir Tolts:
What, by the way, is the relationship between the “television chronicler” and those sitting on “different branches” of power? We remember that recently the “Dolls” program, one of the authors of which is Viktor Shenderovich, was the object of close and biased attention of the Prosecutor General’s Office (the investigators formulated their interest in the best traditions of “lese majeste” cases: they were interested in “who exactly proposed to make a doll of the first official of the country?”)
Now both “Dolls” and “Total” seem to be in favor with the authorities...
It is tacitly admitted that a funny foam act is not the worst way to increase the notorious ratings of even not the best political trends and characters.
Viktor Shenderovich:
- Well, in fact, there was no special favor, the favor lies in the fact that they don’t touch it - this is my biggest favorite and I don’t need anything else.
My position is that I must keep my distance. Moreover, I do not have the right to close contact with any of them, because as soon as I become a person named so-and-so, that’s it - I need to go to his support group, become an image maker, I don’t know who - all my work as an everyman, Ivanushka the Fool, maybe not quite Ivanushka, but certainly a fool in the Russian popular understanding, will be finished, of course. And I won’t have faith, and it won’t be right!.. Therefore, for me, distance is the most optimal position.
Vladimir Tolts:
We have already talked about the popularity of Shenderovich’s programs. But to claim that they enjoy universal love would be an obvious mistake. Some viewers (I'm not talking now about the investigators of the Prosecutor General's Office - they carried out the investigation according to their position and order) actively do not accept him, Shenderovich, and his program.
- Why?
Anna Kachkaeva:
- There is a simple explanation for this question: Shenderovich is a Jew who mocks and humiliates Russians. - The explanation is primitive; in fact, it explains little. (Although, of course, there are viewers who accuse Shenderovich of precisely this; just read the newspaper “Zavtra”.)
Vladimir Tolts:
We honor! - There, the complaints against “Dolls” and “Itogo” are very diverse: this is not only Shenderovich’s nationality that the newspaper does not like, but also accusations of “Satanism,” for example, and even an attempt on the life of the prototypes of their foam heroes.
From the newspaper "Zavtra":
“It is customary to play with dolls in childhood, and NTV, which is now just five years old, has not escaped the addiction to this game, of course. Except that it dissected the idea of children’s fun in its own, entevash, way: if a child, playing with dolls, masters with their help the skills of caring for, educating, nurturing a person, then the authors of “Dolls” seem to only need their characters so that, if possible, they are driven from the world...
Shvonderovich himself, against this background, is not very interesting, the plots here could have been cooked up not by him, but by some other Shvonderovich or anyone else, with any similar surname from their Odessa joke - their name is legion...
The Shvonderovichs favor those who are ready to be their doll. And with those who oppose them, the conversation is simple: if you don’t want to be our doll, blame yourself! And then, instilling in their idols either the images of Lukashenko, Zyuganov, Seleznev, Anpilov, hated by the puppeteers, or even recent “friends” who somehow displeased them, the manipulators, inventive in terms of reprisals, sadistically arrange for some of them to die on the street, for some an accident, for others a fire, freezing, in extreme cases, a camp, a prison, a psychiatric hospital - but they invariably make it clear: the ritual verdict has already been pronounced. And this is fully consistent with the entire satanic policy of NTV."
But we got carried away with quotes (although we can’t do without them).
Anna Kachkaeva:
So, among my colleagues and acquaintances, I had difficulty finding a person who does not like Shenderovich. It turned out to be my university colleague, a Siberian by birth, a candidate of science, a teacher, a quite successful economist under the age of forty, educated, secular, modern. My interlocutor, without rudeness, without irritation, explained quite reasonably why he was outraged by the works of Viktor Shenderovich. For example, Mr. “Brain Scientist” diagnoses patient “R” (from the context it is clear that this is Russia).
Phonogram (excerpt from the "Total" episode):
“The Russians who brought “R” to the emergency department long ago drew attention to her inappropriate behavior: “R” lay in bed for a long time, did not work anywhere, walked around unwashed, disheveled, drunk, with huge gold earrings in her ears. “R” walked at night, played in the casino, in pyramids, bet on “red” and “black”, was illegible in relations, including international ones. Sometimes “R” became aggressive, then she walked around beaten, but always confident in her own rightness.
At the reception: barefoot, proudly raising her head, she enters the doctor’s office, beats her chest, says that she is a generous soul, that everyone should love her for her beautiful eyes, for her birch chintz.
According to the doctors' conclusion: the condition is serious, attention is drawn to memory disorder, behavioral disorder, and pronounced infantilism. The patient needs long-term treatment, preferably occupational therapy."
Vladimir Tolts:
So, what does Anna Kachkaeva’s acquaintance say to all this?
Anna Kachkaeva:
“A normal citizen should be offended for the country.”
I admit that it should. They were probably just as offended by Radishchev, and by Chaadaev, and by Saltykov-Shchedrin, and by the Smenovekhites, who, by no means, admired their own Fatherland. All of them, if desired, can also be accused of lack of patriotism.
But it is difficult to argue with the following arguments of my interlocutor: after all, there are themes and images that are dangerous to touch.
“When an Orthodox cross is hung on a pig or dressed in the uniform of a Russian general, and a tax policeman’s uniform is put on a goat - this is already a visible, completely repulsive image. And this is what hurts the feelings, honor, and dignity of the people, and finally kills any faith in reasonable power and normal democratic institutions. Such offense has nothing to do with insulting party views or resentment against bad power. Such offense is associated with deeper feelings: with concepts of national archetype, especially when it comes to religion."
One can argue with this opinion, but, it seems to me, it should not be dismissed. In any case, when Viktor Shenderovich enters the slippery field of parodies of something sacred specifically for Russians (no matter how this national holiness may seem to someone to be far-fetched patriotism), he dooms himself to a meaningless confrontation.
A pig in crosses and general's uniforms, as a rule, is rarely perceived as a well-fed church official, a corrupt general or a shameless politician; many, looking at this bestial electorate , are offended primarily for the state. And at the same time against Shenderovich.
Vladimir Tolts:
When I met with Viktor Shenderovich in Moscow, I showed him the publications we cited from the newspaper “Zavtra” and asked: what did he want by showing a pig with a cross on the screen? Was he really targeting Orthodoxy and national shrines?
Viktor Shenderovich:
- It’s funny that the row of shrines is separated by commas - the Orthodox cross and the colonel’s uniform, and the general’s hat. This is a kind of Prokhanov’s idea of national shrines, but God bless him! (I have already been accused of inciting national hatred, and precisely in connection with the Orthodox cross on the neck of the Pig, our character). By the way, it’s funny that this character, like Goat (we have two such animal characters, it was supposed that there would be more of them, it was supposed to be like an Orwellian barnyard - it didn’t work out, but there were some dolls left), this is a certain part of the electorate .
It’s nice when someone recognizes themselves, but it would be very impudent on their part to claim that these are the Russian people. I know a huge number of Russian people who don’t recognize themselves in either the Goat or the Pig and laugh wonderfully about it! And if people recognize themselves, then that’s their problem...
As for inciting national hatred, apparently these people who write about national shrines and spiritual shrines are not aware that nationality has nothing to do with religion, at least the Christian faith. As for shrines, I have shrines, my own idea of national shrines and, let’s say, universal shrines. It seems to me that this was formulated a long time ago, not even two thousand years ago, but I would venture to say, five thousand years ago and has not changed much since then: there is no need to lie, there is no need to kill, there is no need to steal - that’s all the shrines, in fact, by and large.
What do I want to say? - There is not even an internal task, even for oneself, there is a feeling of life, there are certain, excuse the pompousness, democratic ideals, there is the Declaration of Human Rights, which I like no less than the 10 commandments. And if what these people call national shrines strongly contradicts this thin book about human rights, then we have different shrines.
The program in question, and the pig in our country, is predominantly “new Russian” - the golden Orthodox cross on the “new Russian” is an object of decoration and nothing more. Just like the Mercedes 600 and the chain around the neck, the Orthodox cross occupies exactly the same place on the “new Russian”. This is not an article of faith, as you might guess, for a person from the six hundredth Mercedes, most often, it is not primarily. Not to mention, I repeat, that the concept of “new Russian” has nothing to do with nationality at all, because last year’s tax returns, let’s say: the most “new Russian” in our country was a Kalmyk, followed by a Jew, and so on. This has nothing to do with the national at all.
Vladimir Tolts:
As I can understand from conversations with respected participants in our program today, one of the significant differences between the compilers of the chronicles and the writer participating in our program, who is trying to be a modern television chronicler, is their different understanding of their own role.
If Viktor Shenderovich, putting on the mask of a man in the street, a person from the crowd, tries to record the most significant moments of history for this level of perception, then the medieval chronicler himself felt like the author of the present, the creator of this history.
Andrey Yurganov:
Exactly. Exactly the chronicler! Because the chronicler records what exists in our self-image. Chronicler is a language that is not a language in the literal sense of the word. Language can be understood not only as human physiology, but above all, of course, as his thinking abilities.
Today we are in a state where we cannot, or, more precisely, we no longer believe in anything, we have destroyed everything that was created, that was once a chronicler, and now when this destroyed is no longer there, does not exist for us, because we have renounced it, another, chronicle has not yet been created, but it is being created. And at this moment these contours that are being created, they are still very unviable. After all, it is not clear, in essence, what to believe in!..
Over the past years, we have achieved great results in exposing, but now we need to achieve the same results in unity, the people must somehow, at least unite in something. I believe that, despite my great respect, of course, for Shenderovich’s personality, for his undoubted ability to laugh, although often his smile resembles a grimace (and I noticed this a long time ago!), with all this, I cannot help but notice that he still somehow fulfills a certain role, a certain order. And in this case, of course, it is difficult to say that he speaks as if from everyone or laughs from everyone; he guesses, of course, the mood of many.
And I’m not at all sure that this is laughter, it seems to me that this is some kind of very bitter laughter, this, apparently, is what unites us so far.
Vladimir Tolts:
Well, different times have (each their own) common denominators, their own heroes, each their own unifying pathos. If before it was heroic or, on the contrary, villainous and vile princes and the “high calm” of chronicle writing, now it is bitter laughter at the puppet doubles of the “powers of this world,” who are often, in turn, as powerless as their foam alter egos.
And above myself too...
Phonogram (excerpt from the "Total" episode):
“Finally, about the glorious dates that Russia unnoticed this year.
It has been 5 years since the adoption of the Constitution, plus the same number of Decrees of the President of Russia on the state flag and anthem of the Russian Federation. True, since then the State Duma has not approved either the flag, the anthem, or even the coat of arms.
So Mother Russia lives under the tricolor, but with a hammer and sickle, and she has no clarity about anything: here she has a Constitution in force, here the Steppe Code, there in general Sharia... In the fifth year after the fall of communism, without regaining consciousness, she celebrated the anniversary of the Komsomol. He sits knee-deep in elrigestan with a double-headed eagle on a five-pointed star, suffering."
Andrey Yurganov:
Note that this is not just laughter - I again return to this - you, too, will probably agree that when we watch "Dolls", we not only laugh, we also seem to think, we see, as it were, another reflection of these figures, a folk, so to speak, understanding of them. And in this sense, we like it, because we read what is not read in our chronicles, in what is broadcast every day in Vesti or in other information programs. This means that this is still a very peculiar reflection of our world, we crave some kind of symbolism, but we don’t see it yet, and we really want, of course, to understand the world for now, since there is no symbolism, but at least in such a reflected, funny, sad form, so that we can at least somehow come closer to understanding what is happening to us.
Because if you limit yourself to just news reports, it will become completely scary.
Vladimir Tolts:
Listening to this, you involuntarily come to the conclusion that each of the times has an adequate chronicle: some are terrible and heroic, others, on the one hand, no less terrible, on the other, bitterly funny, “puppet-like”...
In conclusion, a question for historians, the question with which we began this program:
- In your opinion, how thorough is the comparison of satirical television programs with the chronicle? Maybe this is just a journalistic metaphor?
Andrey Yurganov:
- I think this is untenable, if only because Shenderovich, in principle, acts precisely as a destroyer of the myth.
Myth is a language, it is our very existence, reality itself. And he destroys the reality that we face in every possible way, he does not allow any ideological forms to form in the language that could bind our community and make it strong. And in this sense, Shenderovich is an anti-chronicler, a person who makes fun.
Let me note that the old Christian problem - it is very relevant for today - did Christ laugh?
Vladimir Petrukhin:
- Well, most of all, of course, this genre is distinguished (as a parody should be different from some serious, monotonously serious enterprise, which was chronicle writing), this genre is distinguished precisely by irony, and self-irony, which is very important, not irony in relation to some other foreign people or other historical event that does not concern you, but irony towards one’s own history , irony in relation to one’s own people - this feeling was completely unusual for the medieval chronicle writing.
The reaction of the author of these programs in itself is ironic; a reaction to the most important modern events is, of course, a sign of a new culture, not a medieval culture.
But at the same time, what brings the position of the author of “Dolls” and the “Total” program closer to the position of the chronicler, paradoxically, is an attempt to illuminate modern events from the point of view of morality . Here is the irony, it is also focused on problems of morality and the place of historical events in the moral life of our people - this is what, in my opinion, brings Shenderovich’s programs closer to the positions of medieval Christian chroniclers.