K. Sobchak inspired "Nika"

An interesting media story came out. The media reported that K. Sobchak was booed at the Nika award ceremony when she asked Chulpan Khamatova about campaigning for Putin. It’s interesting here how the fact has shifted: the point is not that she did something like that, but that after that she was booed.

Briefly, the excess is described as follows: K. Sobchak turned to the actress before presenting a special prize from the Academy of Cinematographic Arts to the founders of the Gift of Life charity foundation, Ch. Khamatova and D. Korzun. Namely, K. Sobchak asked Ch. Khamatova whether she would have campaigned for presidential candidate V. Putin if she had not headed the Gift of Life fund. The question caused indignation in the audience, the co-host of the ceremony E. Mironov and the founder of the award Y. Gusman. Ch. Khamatova did not answer the question.

It looked like this:

Now, so as not to waste time on these 7 and a half minutes, the scenario of events. That is, restoration of the script from the presentation (collected from messages from different news agencies).

- The founders of the “Gift of Life” fund, actresses Khamatova and Korzun take the stage to receive a special prize from the Russian Academy of Cinematographic Arts “Nika” for helping sick children.
- The head of the Theater of Nations, E. Mironov, presents the award, stating that Khamatova and Korzun “ raised a tsunami of kindness and indifference ” and made the face of the country “ much prettier .” Mironov is also indignant at the people who discussed the video in which Khamatova called for voting for the candidacy of Prime Minister V. Putin in the presidential elections.
- K. Sobchak, who led this part of the event, supports the topic set by Mironov and asks Khamatova whether she would campaign for Putin if she were not involved in charity.
- A whistle is heard in the hall, and the second host of the ceremony, the founder of “Nika” Yu. Gusman asks the co-host to refrain from political discussions.
“ We have freedom of speech. And I have the right to ask questions everywhere that I consider necessary ,” Sobchak answers.
- Khamatova does not answer the question about campaigning for Putin, recalling that the Nika ceremony is a celebration of cinema.
- Mironov states that the difference between Sobchak and actresses is that they “ do a good deed not for the sake of advertising or for the sake of the number of views on YouTube .”

First feelings

Here the local feelings are also interesting. however, they were not developed. Here. For example. E. Mironov’s words about “ raised a tsunami of kindness and indifference .” Is Mironov not on the topic of tsunamis? It was a year ago, in Japan. Did he mean it?

“ We have freedom of speech. And I have the right to ask questions everywhere that I consider necessary ,” but there is a nuance here, the question presupposes an answer, but here it was clearly not expected, so there was no question. Therefore, it would be more logical to present the phrase in the version that freedom of speech presupposes the ability to say whatever you want at any moment - why, in fact, restrict freedom of speech with questions?

These are, of course, small details and they are simply here to give the event a greater human dimension than that arising from some booing at Sobchak. And now her expanded position, presented on her blog . She “ immensely respects ” Khamatova and tried several times to invite her to an interview, but to no avail, so this was the only opportunity to ask a question “ for which the whole country was waiting for an answer .” Well, this is not exactly freedom of speech, but purely a problem of the journalist K. Sobchak, who is not being given interviews, which is why she went to excess. However, the phrase that the whole country was waiting for an answer is not bad. At least, journalist K. Sobchak knows for sure that exactly the whole country is waiting for an answer to this question - in which there is an obvious statehood of her thinking. But only she immediately explained that after Mironov’s words about “ idlers ” and “ bastards ” “ criticizing on sofas on the Internet ,” she could not remain silent. That is, it turns out that the whole country that is waiting has nothing to do with it.

The public, which had already joined the debate on this topic in the morning, had already remembered the Gospel, quoting: “ See that you do not do your alms in front of people so that they see you: otherwise you will have no reward from your Heavenly Father. So, when you do do not blow a trumpet of alms before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that people may glorify them ." Well, about the left hand, which should not know about the actions of the right. The nuance, however, is that the activities of the Foundation, in fact, are aimed precisely at attracting public attention to the subject of fundraising for the stated purposes.

The topic of the work activity of the author of the excess also arose - from herself: “ I was aware that after this story, most likely, I would never again be invited to host political programs on federal TV, not only political programs (this is out of the question), but even entertaining. But I thought it was more important to give Chulpan the opportunity to answer this difficult question in front of a large audience ." Yes, it’s gallant: not to ask the question yourself, but to give the opportunity to answer.

In this regard, an intolerable impartiality arose from M.Yu. Sokolov : “ I am afraid that the matter may not be limited to a loss of income from participation in television programs. Problems may also arise with the invitation of the citizen K. A. Sobchak as a presenter for anniversaries, weddings, etc. , because in respect for the position of bloggers and at such events, you can ask the venerable hero of the day, happily married people, etc. many difficult questions ." There, in the comments, you can find a number of considerations that further expand the context of this event.

Side topics

There is another topic in society that looks emotional, but if you take a closer look, it’s not so much. It is formulated something like this: if they asked you, “ did you campaign for Putin from the heart. So why are you breaking down? ” As for “breaking down,” that’s a different matter. Maybe on the topic of privacy in Russian society. But here, “ campaign from the heart .” What does the soul actually have to do with it? Was Putin supposed to be elected to the post of local Archangel, who must be loved with all hearts and souls, otherwise it won’t do?

Accordingly, Khamatova campaigned not for Putin as an Archangel, but for a candidate for public office. The state, through Putin, provided her with assistance, after which Khamatova campaigned for him. There is no venality in this, since this is not about the Archangel, but about the relationship between the foundation and the state. This representative of the state fulfilled his promises to the fund, which is a logical reason to campaign for him. Her behavior would be illogical if she campaigned in the presence of unfulfilled promises. Then there would be a question.

There is also another thing in this story: the trend has returned. The fact is that, starting in November, the topics causing public indignation changed (very quickly). None of them returned - attempts to return were not very successful, since something new was found. And here - that's how it is. Return of the topic and enthusiasm for it. Are new reasons for public outcry over?

It is also curious that conspiracy theorists have not yet correlated this event with Astrakhan. It’s really interesting - there’s one story, there’s another, and all the interest is in the other one. Why does the remake win here? Well, yes, it’s in Moscow and, what’s more, on TV. Well, this means that the protest has taken root on television screens. And this, of course, is an achievement of terrible power - could it have been predicted in November?