"Tired of the Sun-2"

Marina Timasheva: We usually discuss historical cinema with Ilya Smirnov, and the current film is not just historical, but: “Great movie about the Great War”. Or, I quote another advertising slogan that struck me, “four years of filming - like four years of the Great War.” So, the “presentation” of Nikita Mikhalkov.

Ilya Smirnov: I will try to be serious. Firstly, not a single parodist will still think of such self-promotion. And secondly ... of course, ideally, the work should be reviewed as such, in vitro, but in practice it is very difficult to jump out of context. You know very well people who have done the fight against the Mikhalkov profession, and no matter what he would take off, they will still mock. I would not want to be in their company.

Marina Timasheva: Even if these people are right?

Ilya Smirnov: He who admired the “twilight” and “penal battalion” has no moral right to scold Mikhalkov today. “Present”, in any case, no worse. But it was not by chance that I called these two films. Mikhalkov has “continued the same line of rethinking the results of the war”

http://archive.svoboda.org/programs/otb/2005/obt.090805.asp

That is, translated into Russian, turning history inside out. By the way, this does not apply to the first film “Burnt by the Sun”: it was interesting, and the characteristic features of the Stalinist era are reflected in it. The NKVDshnik from the "former" gets scores with the red commander.

Marina Timasheva: And both, I remember, die. And now they came to life like Sherlock Holmes, only Mikhalkov, unlike Conan Doyle, does not delve into the explanation of wonderful resurrectings. Oleg Menshikov to the question: “Your hero opened his veins in the bathroom ... He survived, or something?”, He answers: “Cinema is a great illusion!”

http://www.menshikov.ru/interView/interView_190804.html

The action of the film “Buried by the Sun” took place in 1936, the commander’s daughter was five years old, in 1941 she was at least 18. Dapkunaite refused to act, Victoria Tolstoganova instead. Why was it to do? It was possible

Start from the clean sheet, leave the same commander alive and continue its story already in the war, thus observe at least some logic. There is also a feeling that the script is written in order to show how the bridge exploded, how the bomb hit the church, how the plane fell and so on. That is, plot vicissitudes are subordinated to the spectacular effect, and not at all historical or human logic, that is, meaning. And the meaning of how he looks now (until the appearance of the third part): that Kotov, that is, Nikita Sergeyevich himself - the personification of the Russian people, strong, faithful, courageous and God -fearing. Such a hero - cling to the ground, prayed and all: neither the bayonet does not take it, nor

Bomb, not a tank. Almost the same, except for the word, the hero belongs to his daughter, who plays the daughter of the commander.

Ilya Smirnov: And together with a friend, they kill two armed Fritz with his inventory with his inventory, so much so that they don’t even have time to pitch. Girls are ninja.

Marina Timasheva: You see, you were erased to ironize, but it turns out by itself. With me, just say “war”- I'm starting to cry. How to try, to shoot such a picture about 1941 that even I had to restrain laughter, out of respect for other viewers who were sitting nearby. And after all, this Gignol was released under the slogans of patriotism and our answer to Chamberlain, that is, Spielberg. Probably, everyone remembers that Nikita Sergeyevich Mikhalkov said that the idea of making “Tired of the Sun-2” came to him after he saw Spielberg’s film “Save Private Ryan”.

And inside the “Present” as if a completely independent film. About an hour and a half after the start, from the moment when Evgeny Mironov enters the frame. It seems like a real movie begins, shot seriously. It feels that “presentation” was composed in parts of different people, each to the best of their culture, intelligence, talent. Therefore, the picture breaks up into pieces, into some separate scenes. Or, as our advanced film experts say, “the narrative in the“ present ”is non -linear, the action takes place at least three continuums.”

http://www.vremya.ru/print/251875.html

I read, Mironov tells how he understood that he cannot - does not have time - to act in the picture of Mikhalkov, except in the episode. “Think of some episode, I will be happy to shoot with pleasure” ... Two weeks later Mikhalkov calls: “Old man, I came up with a brilliant episode, such a story!” So the strongest piece of the film appeared. Quite by accident. And we are no longer about how to connect “continuums” with history. God forbid to knit them among themselves. Tell me, for example, how in the NKVD personnel department they might not know who their responsible employee is married to?

Ilya Smirnov: To whom is this a question? To the NKVD?

Marina Timasheva: To the screenwriters, probably. But who are these heroes of the invisible on the front screen? The same Evgeny Mironov recalls: “I knew how long and hard he (Mikhalkov) wrote this story, changed the scriptwriters” (123), Vladimir Moiseenko said further: “I worked on the script with Alexander Novototsky. We were invited when a certain text was already written - Panfilov, Volodarsky, Dead Tyurin took part in his creation ... At first we simply redone separate episodes Scenario, but then it turned out that I had to rewrite almost everything ”(118). Some nonsense: Mikhalkov, Moiseenko, Novototsky, Volodarsky, Panfilov, Tyurin ...

Ilya Smirnov: And together - Romek Arkady Raikin: "Who sewed the costume?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WXL3DYEN5G

Marina Timasheva: Some people even have doubts: do we understand the genre correctly? Maybe this is a fantastic epic. Or just an attraction, like “inglorious bastards” Tarantino.

Ilya Smirnov: I pick up the source, the magazine “My among strangers”, publisher N.S. Mikhalkov, this is actually a large booklet to the film “Present”. And there the same Moiseenko admits: “Stalin with Beria in the film also (like the main character, Kotov - I.S.) are mythologized. These characters are not historical, they are signs, symbols” (121). But one such statement accounts for many others. “For the filming group, the issue of historical reliability, it would seem, in such a slight moment as wings of a half, turned out to be fundamental. So that they had to order them in America” (88). “We must dip the viewer at that time” (9). It is precisely what claim to the role of history teachers. And now I will say what for which I was invited as a historian. What kind of image of the past is built. He is not chaotic at all. A specific line is persistently drawn.

Marina Timasheva: Do you mean that you won the war with God's help?

Ilya Smirnov: I will start with a quote from Sergei Makovetsky in the same book magazine: “I don’t like it when they reproduce history, we need the truth about the war, especially the young generation.” And a little further: “You just think about it - fifty million lived in the occupied territory! What happened to these people after the laid, when Soviet troops came there, because if you end up in the territory occupied by the Germans, you automatically become a traitor to the homeland” (35). How to understand this? That the parish of the Soviet troops is not liberation, but “stripping”? And who was in the occupied territory - an “automatic traitor”?. Four of my close relatives were in the occupied territory, and none of them were accused of betrayal. That is, the “truth about the war” is the primitive stamps from the agitprop of the 90s.

Marina Timasheva: Maybe Makovetsky just made a reservation?

Ilya Smirnov: But how the director made a reservation. Self -critically admitted that not all rights. “... Connoisseurs of military operations will find a large number of inaccuracies. On August 27, 1941, it could not happen that Riga was burned for killing two Germans - there was simply no partisan movement at that time, punitive expeditions against the civilian population began later” (20).

Do you understand? They inspire us that the Nazis destroyed the civilian population only in response to the actions of the partisans.

And in the film itself, look: one German shoots the gypsies, while others condemn him: “Are you, SS?”, They call even crazy. And the ship with the wounded fascist pilots will be drowned for a reason, but only after they shot at them from this ship, and the commander first tried to ban the attack.

So, in order not to move away from the box office, we take the “Wehrmacht History”, which we recently reviewed, the translation from German, and read, as General E. Göpner in the summer of 1941, one of the first to practice the destruction of Russian villages, near which partisans were seen http://www.svobodanews.ru/content/transcript/1624127.html#ixz0leugfaffw

But the instructions of the same general (by the way, was considered “liberal” in the Wehrmacht) to deploy “Barbarossa” according to the plan (you see? There are only instructions for deployment):

"The war against Russia is an important segment in the struggle of the German people for existence. This is the old struggle of Germanism against the Slavs, the protection of European culture from Moscow -Asian floods, protection from Jewish Bolshevism. This struggle should be the purpose of the destruction of today's Russia and therefore will be carried out with unheard of cruelty" http://vestnik.yspu.org/releases/novye_issledovaniy/23_13/,

Keitel’s order: “In all cases, speeches against the German occupation authorities, regardless of circumstances ..., it is necessary to proceed from the fact that we are talking about the disturbances of communist origin ..., human life in countries that are concerned, absolutely nothing and nothing is worth

An awesome effect is possible only by using extraordinary cruelty. Ruisance for the life of every German soldier in such cases should be, as a rule, the death penalty of 50-100 communists. Methods of these executions should still increase the degree of frightening effect ” http://lib.ru/memuary/1939-1945/nurnberg/np5.txt

Episode at the beginning of the film: how they are shot from automatic weapons of people locked in a hut. Yes, fixed in the sources. And also, after all, they recently discussed in the program “On top of the barriers”. Sonderkandrd Dirlenger. Her methodology.

http://www.svobodanews.ru/content/transcript/1773797.html#ixzz0levmcimd But in the film our troops of the NKVD do this. And before our side, the director does not apologize for inaccuracies.

Sorry, it's not about details. Not about the shape of the wings of one and a half. Not about when the penal battalions actually appeared. And not even about whether it is possible to swim on mines and walk along a large one from an airplane.

In the film there is no Nazism as anti -human ideology, as an absolute evil. Just the Germans. One is better, the other is worse.

Now we look who is on the other side. The main power of the Red Army (after the Terminator Kotov) is of course the Lord God. In addition to jokes. A prayer was shot down by a fascist plane. And the cadets did not pray - only one of them, but, apparently, not to God, Muslim Allah - and what, as a result, the cadets died.

Marina Timasheva: Here we can say that at a minute of mortal danger, even unbelievers begin to turn to God.

Ilya Smirnov: I do not deny the fact that in a moment of mortal danger all heavenly forces recall. And even the fact that during the war there really was a certain revival of Orthodoxy http://wwww.svobodanews.ru/content/transcript/1841695.html But it is precisely “definite”. It is impossible to demand protocol accuracy from artists, but we must have some idea of the era, right? With prayers, they fought in the First World War, suffered a crushing defeat from the Germans, and Russia simply broke up. Apparently, Nikolai Romanov was not Orthodox enough compared to Joseph Dzhugashvili. Or there was not enough holiness.

But in the second world they did not fought under the banners. And not a cross hooked over the Reichstag, but the Red Banner.

Yes, what am I explaining, Mikhalkov understands this no worse than me, otherwise he would not clean it so diligently. As you know, he dedicated the picture to the “father-front-line soldier”, and on the premiere in the form of a “triangle”, the field mail reproduced his famous verses: “Summer night, at dawn, Hitler gave the troops an order ...” I began to read: some kind of torn text. As if really “viewed censorship” ...

Marina Timasheva: The ticket is small, not to fit everything.

Ilya Smirnov: So I will help, there is a place on the air.

And from the sea to the sea

The Bolsheviks rose

And from the sea to the sea

Russian regiments stood up.

We got up, with the Russians, one

Belarusians, Latvians,

People of free Ukraine,

Both Armenians and Georgians,

Moldavians, Chuvashi -

All Soviet peoples

Against the common enemy,

All to whom is sweet freedom

And Russia is the road! ...

And we have in power

Not a landowner, not a banker,

And a simple worker is a master

And the collective farm foreman.

Chosen by the people

Our Soviet deputy

Not a noble nobility.

And not rich in gold.

http://www.world-art.ru/lyric/lyric.php?id=14675

I understand that in the real Soviet Union this was not the case. But so correctly, and, in principle, it should be so. Millions of people believed in this and won with this faith.

Marina Timasheva: I'm afraid you will be accused of Stalinism for these additions.

Ilya Smirnov: Stalin is just in full growth in the film. There are no prohibitions on Stalin. And the spirit of Molotov is hovering, who, during the famous Pact “Molotov -Ribbentrop”, argued that, they say, it was impossible to wage an ideological war with Hitler - for the destruction of Nazism as a worldview http://www.hrono.ru/dokum/molotov.html Vyacheslav Mikhailovich was still convicted in Soviet times. And well, now it is again adopted. There is no Nazism in the film. Communism too. Apparently, to the Hitler generals whom we quoted, he simply dreamed. There are individual communists, but these are caricature characters, it seems like from the works of Novodvorskaya, it is clear that they cannot seriously fight. So there was what war? Just tribal, right? And our tribal God turned out to be stronger? Well, what then is its world-historical meaning? What is it interesting for other peoples? After all, tribal wars in history have enough since those times that the Egyptians with the Hittites shared the Middle East.

Christians were also very often led by politicians and tyrants, not better than Stalin, which does not cancel the enormous influence of Christian ideas and their roles in history. This will not deny this even an overturned atheist. As one metropolitanist-surrealist noted in connection with the “present”, “the Soviet soldier fought with the Nazis, but also with his own state” http://www.kommersant.ru/doc.aspx?docsid=1346052 sorry, but this does not happen. And if you try to “dip” the viewer in what does not happen, as in a reliable past, it turns out absurd, in some places turning into a farce.

Marina Timasheva: Sometimes it seems to me that everyone is too severely treated by Nikita Mikhalkov, that he is not a politician, not an ideologist, but simply an actor who is primarily interested in himself, his role.

Ilya Smirnov: The costs of any profession should be counterweights. And then - do I attack Mikhalkov? Is this his personal problem? Does his opponents have some other attitude to domestic history? This is the problem of the ruling elite, which orders a certain ideology and cinema as a means of bringing ideology to the population.