The concept of “putting a film on the shelf” has reappeared in cinema.
This phrase was known to Soviet directors when censorship did not allow films to be released on the wide screen. But today, in addition to political ones, there are also commercial ones. The New Times dealt with the censorship and financial issue
Everything goes to the fact that "Katyn" by Andrzej Wajda, as well as "Freedom in Russian" by Andrei Smirnov or "The Charm of Evil" by Mikhail Kozakov, will never be seen by a wide Russian audience. Neither the relevance of the topic, nor the big names of the creators of these paintings did not save. Not so long ago, the release of the film "Charlie Wilson's War" about the events in Afghanistan was announced on wide screens, but the film was not shown in Russia. Distributors assured that the film would not collect box office. However, to believe that the film with Julia Roberts and Tom Hanks will be a failure is quite bold against the backdrop of the success of films of much lower quality.
"Charlie Wilson's War" was nominated for an Oscar and a Golden Globe. In America, the film, whose budget is $75 million, grossed just over 66 million at the box office (according to www.the-numbers.com). Worldwide (including US box office), the film grossed $113 million, which is also not a commercial victory. Plus $14+ million on DVD. This is one side of the problem. But another reason is also possible that the film did not reach a wide audience: the film impartially speaks of the USSR and its army, it shows how peaceful Afghan citizens are destroyed by Soviet soldiers. It can be assumed that after the "9th Company" our viewer already knows how to relate to the heroes of the Afghan war. Therefore, there is no need to correct an already created myth.
Daniil Dondurei, editor-in-chief of the Art of Cinema magazine, believes that the non-release of any film on the wide screen is primarily due to commercial reasons: “There is no need to talk about political censorship,” he said in an interview with The New Times. – I don’t know that in the last 15 years there has been any serious political censorship in our cinematography... Cinematography is moving from the sphere of art and a way of mastering life into the sphere of services, glamor magazines, show business, gossip columns and so on. This is a joint quadrille danced by four participants: political authorities, producers, artists and spectators. Everyone wants either entertainment or wonderful pacifiers like the movie "Heat" and many others - nice pictures that sell well tickets. However, the history of many cinematic projects shows a somewhat different picture.
Best of censorship
Stills from the films: "Katyn", "Forbidden to be shown", "Charlie Wilson's War"
According to rumors, the intervention of law enforcement agencies put an end to the project of Alexei Uchitel "Churchill's House", dedicated to brothels that the Soviet special services created for foreign allies. However, in an interview with The New Times, the director said that the shooting was suspended due to lack of money, and as for pressure, it was not from above, but from below: “There was indeed an attempt to ban something, but from the public. Letters were written, articles ... "
"Katyn" by Andrzej Wajda would not have paid off in the Russian box office, the distributors are sure. Although, of course, in a situation where the country's leadership refuses to admit responsibility for the Polish tragedy, the non-appearance of Katyn on our screens can also be explained by the self-censorship of the distributors.
Self-censorship is the most accurate definition to explain this phenomenon. It is safer and more profitable to make decisions about the release of films that can in no way harm the image of a “great power”, to cast doubt on the official version of our history. “Any stories about Katyn, about where one is ashamed of Russia, are not accepted by either businessmen or spectators, but are accepted only by a small part of the intelligentsia, which does not matter in terms of collection for tickets sold,” says Daniil Dondurei. Valery Shorunov, director of the Kinologistika company, agrees with him: “A wide and, therefore, commercially successful distribution of the film Katyn in Russia is impossible today. The fact is that spiritual cleansing in the reconstruction of historical truth is not among the primary needs of compatriots today. Let us recall the times that have not yet been forgotten, when interest in the past was incomparably more noticeable. But even then, the rolling fate of “Come and See”, “Ascension”, even the legendary “Repentance” was far from being as successful as that of “Pirates of the 20th Century”, “Moscow Does Not Believe in Tears”, “Gone with the Wind” for the first time released in the USSR. Give another viewer
Those who go to cinemas determine the demand for film products. Therefore, the problems with the release of films such as "Katyn" or "Charlie Wilson's War" may indicate how strong the desire to re-create the heroic history of almost flawless Russia is in recent times. "Charlie Wilson's War" and "Katyn" hinders the fulfillment of these tasks, does not meet the needs of the modern audience, which means that the distribution of such films is unprofitable.
“There is another problem,” says Shorunov. Most of the cinemas are in the hands of private owners. They invested heavily in the construction and reconstruction of cinema halls. These people did not come from Mars, they are endowed with all the characteristics of representatives of Russian business and want to make a profit immediately, here and now. The repertoire policy of cinemas is subject to this. And no one will convince them that Katyn is better than Pirates of the Caribbean. Among them there are no people who monitor the purity of ideology, but there are many people responsible for profit. That's what determines everything."
Political Economy
Television has the same problem. If in film distribution the main criterion for success is box office receipts, then on TV the ball is ruled by the rating. No rating - no display. And as long as the management of the TV channels believes that the film by Mikhail Kozakov "The Charm of Evil", dedicated to the activities of the Cheka among the Russian emigration of the 1930s, will not show good numbers, the viewer will not see it. And Andrey Smirnov won't be able to sell his Russian-style Freedom TV movie, which tells the history of Russian democracy from the time of Novgorod to 1993, unless the TV bosses decide they can profit from showing the movie. Business is business.
Otar Ioseliani, whose films were banned in the USSR and whose films are unprofitable in today's France, is not in vain saying that the Soviet director and the director of the market era are two different, but equally difficult professions. The first had to bypass censorship, the second had to win the viewer's interest at any cost. Which of the tasks is easier is not yet known.
Most likely, the non-release of the "controversial" film on the screens is determined by both political and commercial reasons. And sometimes it is difficult to determine which of the reasons was the main one.
