| Mikhail Shvydkoy does not want to quarrel with Nikita Mikhalkov The latest issue of the Russian cinematography bulletin “Kinoprotsess” for last year was published only now - with a slight delay. Kinoprotsess, a departmental publication funded by the Ministry of Culture, publishes documents, information about events in Russian cinema, expert opinions, interviews, and quotes from the press. The newsletter does not provide its own comments, but this time they deviated from the rule: on the cover of the issue, one of the topics of which was the Fifth Congress of the RF Investigative Committee, there is a cartoon, understandable, however, only to the initiated. Behind the mask of Nikita Mikhalkov, his two main assistants, Dmitry Piorunsky and Klim Lavrentyev, replace each other. Piorunsky stood behind Mikhalkov from the moment the latter was elected chairman of the RF IC, was the “father” of his reforms and was responsible for the fact that they did not work out. At this congress, they officially said goodbye to him, as well as to the era of “managers-managers,” and Lavrentyev, known as a master of bureaucratic intrigue, came to the fore. In the same issue of Kinoprotsess, a fragment of the transcript of the congress was published with the subtitle “documentary feuilleton,” from which it is clear with what virtuoso dexterity Klim Lavrentyev conducts voting of the board of directors according to an absurd, but extremely effective scheme.
The cartoon displeased not only Nikita Mikhalkov, but also the leadership of the Ministry of Culture: an order was received not to distribute the issue at the Golden Aries award ceremony (filmmakers receive part of the circulation for free). Mikhail Shvydkoy and his deputy Alexander Golutva took the joke of the editor-in-chief of the newsletter Vyacheslav Shmyrov so seriously that the editor’s chair began to rock under him.
Why are the leaders of the ministry so afraid of ruining relations with the chairman of the Union of Cinematographers that they are almost ready to sacrifice a qualified and intelligent worker (this is due to our personnel shortage)?
Of course, Nikita Mikhalkov is a strong personality, with great connections and influence. But Mikhail Shvydkoy is not prone to confrontation and always prefers to settle matters peacefully. Moreover, at the last congress, all conceivable curtsies were made to the Ministry of Culture, and relations, which during the merger of Goskino with the Ministry of Culture almost reached a fight, are now the most blissful. However, if necessary, Shvydkoy is not at all afraid of conflicts (remember Vladimir Vasiliev, Gennady Rozhdestvensky or Georgy Gergiev). And the initiatives coming from Nikita Mikhalkov and his union obviously do not meet with sympathy in the pragmatically minded Ministry of Culture. One thing is clear: Shvydkoy needs the SK in its current form. The question is, why? I offer a version based, however, solely on my own observations.
The Union, no matter what its leaders say, is not a relevant institution today. Young, active professionals do not need it. For example, Alexey Balabanov, who directed the highest-grossing and most popular films today (“Brother” and “Brother-2”), is not a member of the union at all. And those of its members who make films that are in demand today (either auteur or commercial) are not seen either at congresses or on the sidelines of the union. Today, the public has ceased to be interested in the problems of the union, and only the charismatic Nikita Mikhalkov remains a newsmaker. Not a single initiative of the IC during Mikhalkov’s reign was implemented; not once did the union’s opinion change the policy of managing the industry. Nevertheless, they rush around with the union, like in a good family with an elderly grandfather who has lost his mind a little; it is not necessary to listen to him, but to offend him with inattention is indecent. True, the IC has one important function - it organizes and even financially helps those filmmakers who, having lived their lives under one system, are forced to live out their lives in another, alien, uncomfortable one, unable to re-realize themselves. The Union does not just offer them help - it preserves the environment in which they can exist, hiding from the harsh new conditions. At the meetings of the union, one is struck by the inadequacy of ideas about what is happening in the country, the world, culture, and the lack of dialogue with the changed texture of life. But people are not to blame for their inability to revolutionary break the system of skills, and the union allows them to preserve the system, to exist in a group. There is no harm from this - it will go away on its own, and there is no need to pinch them for prominent places - then you yourself will have to lull them to sleep.
In general, the “no shaking” decision is obviously a wise one. Imagine that a miracle happened and a mobile, rigid social organization was born, capable of clearly fulfilling its main function: control over power. And well, check all laws, regulations, count money, maintain the rights of each specific professional. And why does the government need this? It’s good that miracles don’t happen, and a normally structured society is a matter of the distant future.
So the editor of Kinoprotsess simply needs to be given a slap on the wrist and even be included in the registration card of a member of the RF IC. Alena Solntseva |
|
