Televedel with Stanislav Belkovsky

From Friday to Friday. An ideal screenwriter of the election debate on our TV would be the great absurdist Ionesko
For a long time, in July 1990, the author for the first and last time in his life saw Eugene Ionesko. This happened in the legendary Parisian cafe Coupele. The great absurdist went in a cafe on crutches, supported by two beautiful ladies: older and younger (literary critics should know). I wanted to jump up, rush towards the classics and scream some Russian-speaking (translated) vulgarity like “Your hand, Eugene, we will die under their hooves!” - But, fortunately, the then youthful timidity retained at the table. Eugene never found out about my existence and soon died.

And sorry. Today is a pity doubly. Because the genius of the dramatic absurdity of Ionesko would be an ideal screenwriter of the television battles that began last week between the so -called candidates for the post of President of the Russian Federation. These debates are magnificent and delightful in that people who in no case want to occupy the same cherished presidential post in them. Debaters know that they, in fact, are statists, called by the very fact of their participation in the elections to legitimize the victory of Vladimir Putin in the first round (March 4 S.G.), and almost do not hide it.

We will take unchanging evil , for example, the debate on Channel One between Gennady Zyuganov and Mikhail Prokhorov. The Communist Party leader practically repeats the same thing that we heard from him 15 years ago, during the 1996 presidential campaign. Type of nationalization of strategic industries, underground subsoil and underwater depths, all mountain and lobe, a sharp increase in salaries and pensions, materialization of spirits and elephant distribution. Although then Gennady Andreevich was 52, and now - almost 68, it seems, nothing seems to have changed. And if one politicians have the notorious Botox introduced into the muscles of the face, then the other, apparently, is directly into the brain. For the gyrus to wriggle strictly along the trajectory specified in prehistoric times.

In this situation, the task of Mikhail Prokhorov, the most loyal of the pseudo -assets, Vladimir Putin, is simplified to the limit. Speak: I am good because it is no longer a cave communist Zyuganov, and you will be happy. The oligarch, however, is trying to take advantage of the ideological and theoretical heritage of his political strategists and to speculate about all sorts of invigar things such as changing the world paradigm, the sunset of the consumption society (what he himself cannot believe in, a clear business), neutrinos and the unrenaded bosons of Higgs, but in general it is completely clear what he is, there is a future, the future is a long person, a long person, a long person, a long person, a long person. Poor Misha Prokhorov, but if you, a highly respected voter, will not choose me, then only one thing remains - V.V. Putin. Yes, that is the most constant little evil, which always wants good, but it turns out how it turns out.

The most interesting TVsbata between Vladimir Zhirinovsky (if anyone forgot, the leader of the LDPR) and Natalya Narochnitskaya (like a trustee of Vladimir Putin) were the most interesting in the week. Everything is clear about Zhirinovsky, its main advantage is charisma that you can’t drink and you will not even sell the Kremlin for money (the price is too high), so we will not separately dwell on its personal qualities separately. Madam Narodnitskaya is a little less known to the general public, therefore, with all the chilling inevitability, we will say a few words about her. She is a recognized philosopher and historian, a former State Duma deputy from the Motherland bloc. Today, she leads in Paris a certain fictitious non -profit institution, consisting only of herself. The purpose of the institute is to form the image of Russia in France. The image as a result is similar to the most Ms. Narodnitskaya: somewhat tired and rumpled. It was not by chance that they made her the head of the institute: it was necessary to somehow fuse her in Paris, so as not to explain why the mistress did not get a place in any party election list. True, the French image of Russia today is largely determined by completely different people - starting from businessmen gravitating to the Northern Stream and South Stream gas pipelines, and ending (in a good sense) academician Helen Correr d'Ankos. So the professor Narochnitskaya can no longer spoil anything significant.

The leader of the LDPR was terribly indignant that he was forced to discuss FIG knows with whom, and not with the direct and main opponent Vladimir Putin. Natalya Narochnitskaya did not remain in debt and informed Sparring Partner on the debate that he had a rating 8 times shorter than Putin, and therefore she would have to argue only with her, even crack. As a result, Zhirinovsky, of course, argued his rival, but somehow dull and without a familiar light. Still, in the person of the professor, he, apparently, did not want to very much offend standing behind her, which is stronger than her-Vladimir Putin.

Moreover, it must be said that, despite all their servility and willingness to come to terms with the programmed election result, the candidates of Zyuganov, Zhirinovsky and Prokhorov partly showed themselves by unanimous frontiers - at least in some matters. For example, in the plot about the reduction of the Presidential Superfigurations and the transition to something like a parliamentary republic. This indicates a new political-intellectual fashion. To abandon the leadership and paradigm of autocracy as a recipe for any transformations in Russian territory. We will consider (or at least hope) that the political intuition of the candidates did not fail, Vladimir Putin, having chosen for a new term, will begin movement in the direction of the parliamentarization of Russia. In any case, this hints at us frantically and election -debting television.

Most of the viewers prefer the program of Andrei Malakhov the male debate , the silence of the dogs at the week of the week was lucky to look on the first channel Andrei Malakhov “Let them talk” - and thus refresh once again, as the so -called “Actual Television” is arranged. The topic was discussed: do dogs have the right to eat people. In the sense, if a person (a doctor, a social worker or just re -entertaining) comes to the house where the dog of fighting rocks live on an ongoing basis, whether he should come to terms with the fact that he will completely/partially bathe. The studio was attended by several relevant dogs, they were silent than made the most pleasant impression. Discounting people mostly yelled at each other - it seems to me that in many ways specially and played, on the instructions of television. What not only gave the moral head start of the four -legged heroes, but also hinted at the frankly staged nature of the action. And this, apparently, has already become an adamant norm not only in political, but also in informational broadcasting.

The information (more precisely, information and analytical) broadcasting nevertheless brought us its iconic, pre-election surprises. First of all: in the main programs of the largest nationwide television channels (the first, “Russia 1” and NTV) they began to let opposition to the opposition. Let not everyone and not often. But Boris Nemtsov and Vladimir Ryzhkov - for sure. Does this mean that it is these opposition politicians (and their still not registered Parnas Party) that will become the main negotiators with the Kremlin about the conditions of the radical reform of the political system - through the mediation of freedom -loving Kremitors Mikhail Prokhorov and/or Alexei Kudrin, it is still unclear. Let's see, including on TV.

But no one last week was able to cross the Rain TV channel with his megachit - an interview with Boris Berezovsky. It’s not that Berezovsky told something radically new, which, in principle, did not know the politically worried audience. Before us appeared, as the correspondent Anton Zhelnov, who had spoken with the disgraced oligarch, said, the same “charming liar”, which we often saw in the then almighty ORT in the late 1990s. But the very fact of the appearance of a Newsmaker on the air, who is not obliged to coordinate the text that is said with anyone and uses the right to joke as it seems, reminded us of the sweetest times of the live broadcast. And if it was Berezovsky, then let Berezovsky.

Still, we have a perestroika-2 smell here. Suddenly, a live broadcast will appear somewhere else. Here, they say, Leonid Parfyonov can become a large teenager, and not necessarily on NTV. And even, perhaps, ex-Boss NTV Igor Malashenko will return to Russia to engage in television again. We will see what will come of all this.