Nikita Mikhalkov joined the last battle with the movie
Operation "Continurator-2". The seventh congress of Russian filmmakers has not yet taken place, but a sensation has already happened: the guild of the directors did not choose the current chairman of the Union - Nikita Sergeyevich Mikhalkov. This was followed by a second sensation: by the decision of the Secretariat, led by Mikhail Porechenkov, the results of objectionable voting in the guilds were canceled due to numerous violations of legal norms. On Monday, December 15, an extraordinary plenum of the reign was appointed, which, most likely, will be decided to postpone the congress from December to January
It just so happened that the problems of the cinema community are the problems of the entire Russian society, but on a very reduced scale of 1: 100,000. Watching how the community lives and survives, you get a more or less reliable idea of the fate of certain social processes and trends. In other words, the upcoming congress is, if you like, fortune -telling at a cinematic thickest about what awaits us in a not too remote future.
Origin
This union, like other creative “collective farms” (writer, composer, artist) was born by the Soviet government in order to control the brains of people of free professions and, as much as possible, control them.
The "child" turned out to be late (year of birth-1965) and to some extent wayward. If only because there were a XX Congress of the CPSU and a thaw behind. In addition, the first “blanket” generation of Soviet filmmakers has grown: Klimov, Panfilov, Smirnov, Abdrashit ... already due to these circumstances, the newborn public organization was fraught with liberalism, democracy and revisionism.
Riot in the Kremlin Palace
That rebellious congress of filmmakers that took place behind the Kremlin wall in 1986, combined many impulses: primarily to freedom of expression, but also a strong antinomenclature orientation was strong, and, as usual, they made themselves the career lust of young and early cinema figures.
An insignificant event, as it seemed then, was the lack of a new, talented film director Nikita Mikhalkov in the new rule of the Union of the young, talented film director. Then and now many explained and explain this by the fact that in his speech at the congress he defended Sergei Fedorovich Bondarchuk. In fact, the reason was different.
Nikita
The congress did not like the mentor, moralizing intonations of a young man. The filmmakers at that moment felt too democratic, internally free, so that at an intuitive level they would not recognize his messianic claims and authoritarian manners. Although his authority, as an unusually gifted master, was not questioned by anyone for a minute. It’s just that his colleagues liked the style of his behavior on the rostrum.
For the very reason why the community of free filmmakers refused the young Mikhalkov in trust in 1986, after 12 years it called him to the kingdom. By that time, the spirit of liberty had gone from the heads of freedom -loving artists, and the material instability of their position in the market has become a reality.
Given me back!
Cinematographers were the first to go freely on the sea of the market. And the first to crash. As soon as they survived, they immediately turned to the state for help.
They were the first to enter the path of democracy in a single public organization. And the first to feel all the difficulties and difficulties of this path on themselves. Their leaders (Ele Klimov, Andrei Smirnov), realizing the futility of their efforts, stepped aside, and the flock turned with a prayer for help to a “strong hand”. Such was the hand of Nikita Mikhalkov, by that time a successful film entrepreneur. He dictated his conditions for the reign, with which the vast majority of ordinary and already very elderly filmmakers joyfully agreed.
So the democratic form of government in the Union of Cinematographers (SK) of the Russian Federation was replaced by authoritarian. There was 1998 in the yard. There was very little time left before President Yeltsin steps aside and all of Russia will ask President Putin’s authoritarian hand.
Besogon
The authoritarianism of Mikhalkov in a separate public organization for the past ten years did not bring to filmmakers happiness. His promises of the extra -budgetary fund, about the tax on the cassett, about the salvation of the remaining property, about the fight against corruption within the Union remained promises. But Mikhalkov’s stylistics of edification, which once pushed his colleagues from him, acquired grotesque forms. At the same time, there was a lot of struggle against opponents and simply disagreed, of which Mikhalkov called "demons."
At the previous Congress, Nikita-Besogon (so he named himself), under the knock of the hooves of the runners, the demon was re-elected. True, with great difficulty and a big scandal. Meanwhile, the rating of trust in him was melting. He reached the lower point last year, at a meeting of Moscow filmmakers, when it became known about the real threat to the demolition of the cinema house on Vasilievskaya, which Mikhalkov has been seeking for a long time and with great perseverance.
It was then that the White Hall of the Old House of Cinema rebelled and expressed a rather unanimous distrust of his deity, as a result of which, in all likelihood, the leader of the national cinema has matured the idea to leave a post to his successor. He appointed artist Mikhail Porechenkov as a successor. Most likely, the operation, under the code name "successor" would have passed without any problems if a new historical situation had not arisen.
Stay
In the context of the global financial crisis and a sharp reduction in film production, all the problems of filmmakers (both material and professionally creative) were sharply aggravated. Pensioners need an additional “social umbrella”, young - work. Therefore, the eyes of the masters of the cinema again turned to the Union. The question remained unanswered how to convert the UK, so as not to be left alone with the market - on the one hand, and with the crisis - on the other. And there is another third party - a state that has recently been showing an increasing ideological interest in making the elderly and young goldfish to serve on their premises.
The proposals, according to which the union was to be headed by Marlene Khutsiev, and to fulfill the directorial functions - Alexander Rodnyansky, turned out to be inoperative. Including because Rodnyansky refused the post of chief manager ...
Cinematographers have a choice: either create a close -knit democratic structure and transform the union of filmmakers into a union of professional guilds, or again fall in the feet of Nikita Mikhalkov and ask him to become a successor to himself.
***
Preparation for the congress until recently was in full swing. In early December, cinema veterans called the union’s apparatus with a request to go in and get a free food rations. In the package there were a jar of red caviar, a bottle of vegetable oil, cheese, a can of soluble coffee and something else.
Familiar election technology. At the congress itself, especially if it is postponed, Mikhalkov will feed other dishes. Most likely, promises of packages with state orders for historical and patriotic cinema.
Why are filmmakers outraged by the actions of the leadership of the UK? The New Times turned for comments on the president of the guild of film experts and film critics of the Union of Cinematographers of Russia Viktor Matizen
At a meeting of the secretariat and the leaders of the guild of the UK, on December 11 it was announced that the lawyer working with the Union had found procedural violations in the election of delegates to the congress. The essence of the violations is that the general meeting of Muscovites-member Muscles of the UK was not held and voted by professions, and at some meetings there was supposedly no quorum.
We intend to hold an emergency assembly of Muscovites-member Muscovites, get their voices and properly arrange the voices of those with whom you can contact by phone or email. And let someone try to challenge the legality of this will. If with this we come to the Extraordinary Plenum of the Board on Monday, we will be able to convince him not to transfer the congress - despite the fact that there are people who want to delay the congress or not to hold it at all in order to maintain the current leadership. If Nikita Sergeyevich will again push the chairmen of the UK, the scandal cannot be avoided, but if he behaves prudently and does not allow him to put his candidacy for the next time of the chairmanship, I would suggest letting him in with the world. The fact that he was elected is our fault.
Nikita Sergeyevich, who has a bunch of duties and other work, simply did not engage in the union, relying on his proteges, I would even say that he appointed in the UK, not consulting with the board and secretariat. Naturally, they did not cause confidence, but provoked sharp discontent. Among the "Gray Cardinals" Mikhalkov is Dmitry Piorunsky, a smart man, but far from cinema and problems of filmmakers. Igor Ugolnikov, who managed to cause widespread irritation to his manners. Manipulator Klim Lavrentiev. The manager of the affairs Losev, who entered into a contract that is not profitable for the Union. This policy led to the fact that the meeting of Moscow filmmakers expressed distrust of Nikita Mikhalkov himself - and this was probably the first time when he was publicly confused. The union has more property, but for a long time it disposed of it very poorly. A house of creativity in Pakhra was sold, the proceeds were invested in the reconstruction of the House of Creativity in Bolshev, but it stagnated, the land is idle, the unfinished house rot ... the owners of the premises in Moscow were leased at low prices. SK sold his share of shares in the “Cinema Center” and allowed to throw a movie museum from there. All this happened under the presidency of Mikhalkov. Something was probably squinted intentionally, but much-by mismanagement.
Now the owner seemed to have appeared-this is Mikhail Kalinin, an organizational secretary of the Union, who will cope with the conduct of cases related to the operation of property and the repair-feeding of the Central House of Cinema (CDC). He has already begun to cope with them, in the last two years the union crawls out of the financial pit. But in order to solve external affairs (lobbying and defending the interests of filmmakers before the government and the State Duma), a person who could affect affairs in cinematography, in particular, reorganizing the state financing of cinema.
Pavel Finn, Kinodermaturg: It would be nice that at this congress those who led the SK 8 years old would tell the filmmakers about what they actually did during this time. They did nothing! Only destroyed. The cinema center was mediocre, there were practically no creativity houses left ... with special forces, the Confederation of the Union of Cinematographers of the CIS countries and the Baltic countries, which is headed by Rustam Ibrahimbekov, was expelled with special forces. And this confederation today is the only living organism that does the most important work unites our fragmented film community. What, the Union of Cinematographers of Russia is bad from such activities?! The Moscow Union of Cinematographers was practically destroyed. We have nowhere to live. But the Moscow Union several years ago concluded a unique agreement with the Moscow government, with its culture department about joint activities, one of the results of which was today the current film festival “Moscow Prime Minister”.
In the newspaper SK-Novosti, the results of an independent audit of the Union of Cinematographers of Russia were recently published, who eloquently “hint” that it would be nice to talk with the prosecutor ... And if a decision is made that the current leadership is worthy and further than managing the UK, then the community of filmmakers are worthy of these leaders.
Mikhail Porechenkov, answering the New Times question about the situation in the UK: no comments
Vladilen Arsenyev, producer, screenwriter: I know very well and understand what is happening in our cinema today: nothing good!
And in such a situation, you begin to think that there are not many filmmakers today who can support and help domestic cinema with their authority in power structures and at the international level. And who does not know that Mikhalkov has great authority?! In America and Europe, few can name more than one surname from Russian cinema - and this is the surname of Mikhalkov. Therefore, I think that today - all the more so in the conditions of the economic crisis - it is best not to change the head of the Union of Cinematographers of the Russian Federation. Mikhalkov is often accused of working only for himself. But this is not entirely true. We had money - the shares of the Kinocenter on Krasnaya Presnya were sold, the situation with rent has changed (now they are renting out the premises at a normal price). Of course, a lot of things still need to be done. But always the work of a public organization was held on the most authoritative person. As for the transfer of the date of the congress, this is due to the simple inattention to the quorum of the congress of members of the UK. On December 11, a working meeting of the SK Secretariat and the leaders of the guild was held, where we received data on the union, registered at the congress. From these data it follows that many guilds simply did not gain quorum to work at the congress. If, for example, in the guild of screenwriters of 354 members of the SK registered 349, and 352 were registered in the guild of actors of 610, then only 158 were registered in the guild of 450 members of the UC. And only 68 people were voted for the congress from the guild - so many ballots were in urns ... The simplest in the current situation is - the simplest in the current situation. To assemble a congress with a quorum more than 50% (so that both delegates and the congress were considered legitimate), to understand who its members want to see the “at the helm” and to make decisions important for domestic cinematography.
