Evgeny Kuznetsov. Run, Lola, Run, or What Cinderella Forgot - Europe at the Ball in Yugoslavia

Run, Lola, Run, or What Cinderella Forgot - Europe at the Ball in Yugoslavia
Experiences of parallel existence

Evgeny Kuznetsov

Date of publication: October 11, 2000

The reason for writing this article was a wonderful coincidence of circumstances. The turmoil and revolution in Yugoslavia (special mention should be made of the content of the enthusiasm and the characterization of what happened as an “epoch-making revolution”, as well as the extreme inadequacy of those who utter such things) led to the cancellation of the broadcast of the Russia-Yugoslavia football match, which aroused some interest of the author. As a result of accidentally switching TV channels, his gaze was drawn to an unusually dense and meaningful video sequence of the film, which, as it turned out later, is perhaps the most meaningful and complete attempt to understand the modern mental state of Europe and the cultural and essential research of political and social doctrines following from the context. The film Run, Lola, Run by Tom Tykwer, as a very informative insight, provides an opportunity to get a direct sensory understanding of those prerequisites for the decisions and worldview of modern Europeans, which, refracted in the context of political and other problems, shape the course of history. This is both very curious and quite fully characterizes the fact that only the opportunity to directly immerse oneself in the life and way of thinking of the “average person” can give meaning to any other way of understanding another culture and society.

It is possible that through the “rabbit hole” of German cinema’s self-understanding of the essence of its ideas about the preconditions of actions and their content, it will be possible to better explain to the Russian people what Europe forgot in Yugoslavia, where it is not at all trying to achieve certain political-economic results (as a host of conspiracy theorists mistakenly believe) and geopoliticians), but because of the desire to solve their own very acute internal problems with the help of this somewhat mystical action of the “triumph of democracy”? Which? Everyone - to the hall.

Run baby run

So, 81 minutes of exquisite and high-quality video is devoted to the simulation of the behavior of the “average person” in a situation in which he transforms from an equilibrium social subject, driven by a mass of social conditioning, actions and reactions, into an individual solving a unique problem. A punk girl, the daughter of a wealthy banker dad, is faced with a critical situation of having to find DM 100,000 in 20 minutes - the only thing that can save her friend from extreme danger. I am very pleased with the skillful layout of the problem, the competent placement of accents, and the adjustment of the system of connections, which creates both the absolute typicality of the situation and the absence (initially) of any exaggerations. The storyline is a detailed show of a series of about 10 micro-episodes that set the course of events and determine the consequences, which is also unusually meaningful. The author uses a very interesting method - having set the prerequisites for the worldview and a certain modality of decision-making, he explores the role of each accident in the formation of a holistic and - what is especially pleasing - an unusually balanced scenario, in which circumstances compensate for sharp fluctuations so that even with the most unusual course of events it remains practically in the field of reality. It is difficult to remember any analogues both in terms of the problem and the success of its solution, although the genre of “parallel consideration of alternatives” itself is not new.

The situation is determined by a series of the following factors. The core is the understanding of the teenager’s protest against the misunderstanding of his parents (otherness), and the content and root cause of the drama of the father-daughter relationship is typical (he is not his own father), but not banal, and it is also one of the key elements of the plot (which shows how one problem can refract with a new context and become the basis for many others). The second line is the problem of the adequacy of asocial (criminal) behavior as a way of solving one’s life and essential (which is especially important and plays an important role in European culture) problems. The role and significance of social trust and mutual assistance is also analyzed. It's dry to read, but organic to watch, and words can't replace impressions.

The film consists of three alternatives to the complete development of the storyline (from the guy's phone call to the girl to her meeting him at the moment when he must give money in exchange for life). And the development of these lines entirely depends on a certain premise, by setting which the author immerses the situation in a different instrumental context, and therefore shows and analyzes both the content and the results.

The first pass can be called absolutely realistic. Half of the micro-episodes are decided in favor of the running girl, the other half are detrimental. She has a “simple way” - the most convenient solution, which does not necessarily turn out to be the best in life (and the very fact of skillful arrangement of the plot and demonstration of this fact already characterizes the authors extremely positively). This simple way is to ask the father for money, which fully fits into the logic of family rules (“since the father is the one who should help”), and the philistine idea of ​​“a bank where there is a lot of money.” The girl runs to her father... catching him in the middle of a difficult conversation with his mistress, who tells him that she is expecting a child - but not from him. This is how it happens, “one to one”, or “trouble comes - open the gate”, or “trouble does not come alone” - these folk wisdom explain better than the theory of probability the existence of “chains of events”, and often very unpleasant ones. The situational conflict becomes the detonator of a long-term “mine” of family conflict, and the girl called “cuckoo” is thrown out the door into emptiness and despair. She runs to her friend to stop him from making a rash decision, but she doesn’t have time, and he follows his “convenient path” - he robs the store. The chain of subsequent situations is as it could be in reality - a security guard appears and takes the guy at gunpoint, but he does not notice the girl who stuns him with her bag. Having taken the prey, they run away - but where can they run? The police surround them within a minute and the usual and logical thing happens. The policeman's nerves lost and a bag of money thrown upward (an unusual situation) turns into a bullet in the stomach of a girl who was never able to help. It happens. In the bloody veil of approaching death, I remember some snatches from the night conversations of the heroes, in which that certain attitude that created their life arose - and, having stumbled upon a certain root cause (without naming it, but implying it), the girl and the author say - “no, so don't" and the story starts all over again.

This episode is a kind of verdict or, more precisely, an illustration of the reasons for rejecting the idea of ​​conservative development. Yes, in reality, everything is like this - if you live according to the logic of the existing rules, if everyone enters the field of “real politics” and takes optimal steps, then the overall situation will only get worse. The cruel second law of thermodynamics as a social concept is unacceptable to society - non-reduction of entropy (disorder) and inevitable degeneration - this is also the realism of expectations, which Europe lived and realized back in the last century and became a more significant root cause of the ideological tossing of the 20th century than any class-economic reasons. Europe does not believe that pragmatism can give it anything other than delaying collapse. And, in general, he does the right thing.

However, what are the alternatives? More precisely, what are they?

The second passage is one of two alternatives to inertial development, and its primacy is historically unprovable. In the European cultural tradition, this has become a kind of symbiosis of a romantic protest against reality, embodied in the belief in the ability of man to break the laws of conditioning and become the master of his own destiny. Belief in the existence of some “reason” that can justify actions and desires “beyond” the possible and acceptable, and provide a tool for breaking the lock of balance. Curious if this crowbar will work in the situation with Lola?

The story should begin with a compliment to the author. The conditionality of “going beyond” is set not by beating oneself in the chest or by terrible revelations (as happens in cheap crafts), but by a completely real “trigger” that immediately swings the yoke of the scales that meagerly measure “justice”. A loafer with a dog on the stairs in a girl’s house trips her, and, sliding down the stairs, she breaks her knee and receives from the outside (!) that prerequisite for going beyond the boundaries, which is interesting to the author. The subsequent network of micro-episodes goes completely differently - in most of them the girl wins, and the film itself moves from the genre of "European realism" into a "strong action movie" with its "coolness", daring and a hero who yesterday was the same cattle as us , and now has become the arbiter of destinies. The girl runs to her father and, finding him with a lady, no longer participates in a psychoanalysis session, but in an everyday serial squabble with jargon “who is this woman” (money in the background), breaking dishes and dirty language. Inflamed by the double negative (father is a bastard and a traitor), she - attention! - Snatches a gun from a security guard and robs his own father. Having taken him hostage, she goes down to the hall, where they give her cash and she gets her way. However, that's not all. Immediately breaking away from reality, the authors go as far as possible. Running out of the bank, the girl finds herself in the crosshairs of dozens of police and special forces. Stop! We have already seen this - and we also saw a bullet in the stomach. But here the authors let go of the laws of life, and they begin to return to execution. Is it possible that the “terrorist who took a hostage” was a young girl? No. She and a criminal can rob a store together, but not a bank alone. And the police quite rightly wave at her: “Go away, girl, don’t bother me, in the bank a terrible terrorist , and we will capture him ." Preparing for the assault, the commando pushes her beyond the cordon, and... And she is back in reality - but with a package that solves the issue. Is it done? Yes, for a Hollywood fairy tale that compensates for the downtroddenness conditioned by the society of the average man with fairy tales about his potential “immeasurable cool" - everything is normal. But not for old Europe, which has seen a lot. Here they know that “God’s mill grinds slowly, but grinds everything,” and so, the guy was stopped from making a rash step by the girl who had time hit to death by an ambulance at the moment when he almost gets his hands on the treasured bag.

Yes, superman, the dream of the followers of the touched Dionysian, “not a trembling creature,” you can crush the laws of reality and insist on your own - but the world is old and cunning, and it will take away your meaning . The game against oneself - deception through self-aggrandizement - ended for Nietzsche with mental illness, and for Europe - with a mass insanity in the construction of a “society of supermen.” These tales can be sold for money, but only neurasthenics believe in them. Could this premise be the basis for resolving the evolutionary impasse, one might bet on Haiders and Lepenes? No. You can only get caught up in them, suddenly losing your mind and memory.

So what's left? The path of “will” and “I myself” is a dead end. What then?

The third passage is the second historical alternative to inertia. In essence, this is the same conclusion of the conditionality of decisions and situations from the field of pragmatic rationality, the assumption of the existence of some positive givenness, the root cause of the existence of evolution, which abolishes the law of non-decrease of entropy. There is someone or something who/what plays “for us” and, demanding faith and purity in return, is ready to accept your sacrifices in exchange for the common good. This can be called the spirit of an old Christmas fairy tale, although here the authors do not so much “sell” the product as consider its essence and analyze the results.

The key episode (the spark of the premise of the plot) - the stairs and the boy and the dog regularly trigger events. This time it’s not the boy who’s doing the mischief, but the barking dog, but it wasn’t difficult for the nervous girl to make him whine with fear. Delighted with the victory (and a completely moral one at that), she does not push the aunt with the stroller, does not crash into the line of nuns (one of the most obvious clues), does not distract Mr. Mayer, who is driving out of the gateway, and as a result he does not crash into a car with strong guys, but - Now the most important plot spring has worked - she takes her father to an important meeting and before the dangerous confession of her mistress, and before Lola runs to the bank! So, the main core of the problem has been broken - the “easy” solution, which in reality was nothing more than a capitulation of faith in one’s own ability to solve one’s problems. The girl is left without her father's help and... What to do? But really, what should a person do if a loved one is killed in 10 minutes? Rob? Who and what? Ask? Who? However, someone has. It exists in any developed culture. The one whose existence is supposed to be remembered in moments of despair. Is this not realistic? Not at all. This is what made a person a person - the idea of ​​something or someone that is “for you if you are right.” This someone redirects the situation at the moment when a girl sees the inscription “Casino” under the wheels of a miraculously stopped truck. Of course, as in the joke about the old Jew - “at least buy a lottery ticket”! A very subtle episode about a mark missing the required price for chips (an analogy from “The Fifth Element”) - and the girl bets “20” on roulette. And DM 3,500 wins. And he puts it again - because this is not what is needed. And he wins, and having taken exactly the required amount (the missing stamp!), he leaves under the silence of the amazed public. This is a miracle.

The most interesting thing is that the authors do not allow the plot to be trivialized, which as a result explodes with some multidimensionality. A parallel line, previously also a dead end - a guy talking on the phone using a card asked from a blind woman - suddenly takes on a different development. Since the authors immediately set different prerequisites for the situation, what happens in it is what should happen in the field of these prerequisites - the guy is given money that is critical for him, since this is how it should happen in a society of love and mutual cooperation. The antisocial criminal line is present here too - the homeless man snatches a bag of money, but the hero catches up with him and, having taken the money, gives him the gun - as a guarantee of parting with personal power that is meaningless in its results, having received something more in return. The plot also contains the law of balance - not everything is good: the father and Mr. Mayer finally crash into a car with tough guys, and not casually, but head-on, and their lives hang by a thread. Having accidentally decided to “jump” into the ambulance, Lola sees in her her father and the doctor, who has already lost hope of reviving him. What should happen in the world of love and mercy? That's right, having forgotten and forgiven everything, the girl takes his hand - and he comes to life. And coming out at the turn where two deaths occurred in two previous cases, he finds a free guy who has paid off all his debts.

It doesn't happen like that! Yes. It doesn't happen that way. But this should be so, at least Europe understands that other paths are a dead end. One can only believe in such a world, and there is no point in challenging it, since the alternatives have been proven to be futile. One must be able to accept the inevitable consequences of the law of equilibrium, but in the field of this premise they are not fatal, but allow development. So, the choice is made. And, by the way, sometimes no less amazing events happen in life.

In the process of the story, many unusually revealing details are omitted, a lot of directorial and cinematographic discoveries, things that give the film an extraordinary multi-dimensionality. But it's better to watch.

Europe in search of meaning

In principle, there is almost nothing further to say. In principle, what motivates Europe in its attempts to “live morally” and impose its ideas of “truth” on everyone has apparently already become obvious. Having made key conclusions for itself in the past, having gone through more than once or twice all three paths of the “what to do” fork, the community, wishing not to dissolve in history, makes the only conclusion it needs - to persist through reintegration into the field of the premise of service. In the field of prerequisites for self-restraint as the basis for the justification of a request for a miracle. In the space of readiness to renounce power in favor of acquiring “truth”. This is a legitimate desire - especially since it is really the only alternative.

Something different should be said about the Yugoslav problem - not about the internal world of Europe, but about the internal problems of the remaining participants in the drama, who, finding themselves in this mythical reality as “monsters” or “princes”, are in fact just as real, and also need a choice of premises to goal setting. What will Russia choose as the basis for resolving the problem of “making it in time to survive”? What will the Serbs choose, who were also “bitten” and “knocked down”, and who have only just started in the race for cultural identity and political independence (Milosevic should not be considered an “independent figure”). What will the United States choose, for which a “crusade” is a convenient technological solution, but very dangerous due to the “Western” exaggeration of the role of personal strength in establishing “justice”. In principle, the answers are almost obvious, but the conclusions are updated by mass participation and unity in their adoption - which is not yet expected.

Run, Europe, run. Don't use simple solutions and don't just rely on luck. Remember that if you upset the balance, you will face a loss of meaning, and without expanding the field of love to everyone, you will find yourself under the wheels of history. Simple, in general, truths, and - which is good news - fully understood by Europeans. And in their own way and in their own language - and by Russians.