"Everyone is only interested in those whether Tchaikovsky was a homosexual or not"

- Do you like the name of the almanac - “rebooting the future”?

“I don’t know anything about him.” I know that they called the winners of the past years and set the condition to make a film no longer than one and a half minutes.

- And how did you formulate, what to shoot about?

- And no one formulated anything to me. They said that it was necessary to devote this to the cinema of the future.

- Your short story is called " Inperpetuum infinituum . " Why?

- Just like that. I did not shoot anything, I cheated. Made from the material of his film "An unbeliever." From the chronicle that I have used at the beginning of the film.

- Why "cheat"? Why didn’t they want to remove something new?

- The fact is that I had this invitation for a long time, and then I caught myself, called and found out that I just had anything time. I’m calling, there in Italian they say, he only understood: “A whisper, a whisper”. Peter explained to me that everything needs to be done quickly. I was still late for two days, but the film was still accepted.

- Do you not like to do quickly?

- No. I am not used to today's bustle. The habits remained from youth. Yes, and no need to rebuild yourself. I love to write by hand. And then print on a typewriter. I love cassette tape recorders. (Thinking.) But I wanted to tell you about something else today. About the importance of cinema in former times and illuminism today. So I reviewed the film "Kutuzov", which came out during the Great Patriotic War, and was surprised. Cinema was attached to the cinema, even when the country lived in incredible tension, when funds were needed on another.

- When you said that you do not like today's bustle, I thought about your film "Neva", where Tolstoy and Chekhov argue. One is patriarchate and does not like modernity, the other is directed into the future.

- There are no special disputes in my film. And it does not seem to me that Tolstoy is not directed forward. My film is about something else.

Now, if a biography is removed, a “strawberry” is certainly needed, not necessarily intimate, but any. For example, as in the film that the British did (“The Last Sunday.” - Ed. ), - about the last year of Tolstoy’s life.

When I was going to make a movie about Pushkin, everyone was interested in who plays Pushkin, Natalie and Dantes. And how they will kill him. All. And I had a big script: I tried to comprehend the life of a genius, how it begins joyfully in my youth and what is happening next. Since the “brilliant man” and “genius” are not the same thing. “Brilline” is what a person is gifted by nature, and “genius” is what has matured. A genius is higher than ordinary people, and it must be visited by tragic circumstances.

- You never shot a film about Pushkin?

- It did not happen.

- And you will not?

- What are you, no, of course. Unless. I have no strength to convince someone of his need. If the "unbeliever", where there are only two characters, went with such difficulty ...

-Still, what is the "unbeliever" about?

- About the visits of Tolstoy and Chekhov to each other. Their conversations. In which the inner world is revealed, the attitude to the surrounding life, to social phenomena and to the issues of death and immortality.

By the way, I made a picture of immortality, it is called "infinity." She received a prize in Berlin, for some reason he was called comforting (prize of the ecumenical jury.-Ed.). She was never at the box office. But somehow I received state aids.

- And the film "Neva" in the end is not yet finished?

- His fate is an indicative example of the current state of the film industry. Which, from an organizational point of view, has not yet settled and is still staggering.

- This is what happens from this moment?

- From the collapse of the USSR. Do you know what budget I was allocated for the "unbeliever"? 600 thousand dollars. And they said: "And what to shoot there, these are talking heads." The people who said this were called expert council. And now there is the same. This is a screen for which the leaders are hiding. At the same time, I know that people were much younger than me in the expert council, who did not show themselves anything.

- And how did you get out of the situation?

- No way. I did not come out of it. The couple of Chekhov and Tolstoy has already passed, for which everything was supposed to be ready. At the same time, this simply could not happen. The state should have an approach to important topics. Under the Soviet regime, there were structures like Goskino. Then they understood the importance of cinema. And now everything has collapsed. At the same time, for some reason, only the bad remembers about the structure of the film process in the USSR. They only remember censorship when everyone tried to please the first person ...

- Just like now.

- Maybe. At the same time, there were so many good things. I repeat: everything was reasonable from the point of view of the organization of production. It is now not clear to whom it is not clear what amounts are given. And then the director of the picture and the director made an estimate. Everything was calculated: expeditions, scenery, objects. And on the basis of this estimate, money was issued. They did not need to run and look for as now.

-Now they give money to either magejoram companies or those who remove the state order. Your opponent, Nikita Sergeevich Mikhalkov, for example, does not experience problems with budgets.

- He does not feel. And some of my former students do not experience - they give them 30 million dollars. Now it is a dildo and amateur. The film about Tolstoy and Chekhov is not important to anyone. And before it would be important. In the USSR there was Goskino - an organization that was engaged only in cinema. And now the Ministry of Culture is engaged in everything in a row: and a large theater, and museums, and exhibitions, and objects of restoration, well, and also films-scrap. I believe that you need to return to the idea of ​​the existence of Goskino. Not inside the Ministry of Culture, but in itself. Maybe then something will change. Whatever you say, the Soviet system was very high quality. Councils of Exporting was the Ministry of Foreign Affairs from cinema. They promoted paintings, familiarized the international public with them, and organized everything. I remember how they met me when I came somewhere, because the Council of Ministers everywhere had their own representatives and even its own cinema in Paris. Today, Roskino is engaged in the advance of our films to the West. Quite good, I must say, they succeed. If the state still helped them. They will patronize me in Venice, as before the Council of Exports. I'm pleased. But in order for at least something to work, you need to revive everything good from the Soviet system.

- Did this Soviet system be very much beaten by you? “July rain” was criticized, “I was twenty years old” on the shelf.

- Well, yes, there was criticism. Following, which is even more offensive.

“Didn't you worry then?”

- How not to worry, I'm a living person. Now I am going to Venice for the festival. They collect winners there. I once received a prize for directing there. He is especially dear to me, because I shared him with Luis Bunyell. Then he was a member of the jury there. I could have been a chairman, but did not, because I did not speak foreign languages. The chairman was the actress Margaret von Trott. So, my film then did not want to release from here - the Communist Party of Italy helped. Then, however, the officials still did not release the July Rain: well, I really hope that the Venetian festival will show him someday.

- And you say that it was good in the USSR. They could release a film or not release.

- But now the dictate of money. I used to know the price. Now they also seem to know, they call the classic, but the sense? I used to finish the picture, after two to three months, the chairman of Goskino says to me: “What are the plans? What do you want to do? " They were interested in me.

- And now they are interested in blockbusters and patriotic cinema.

- Under the Soviet regime, it was not so. Some topics went down. But not the entire cinema was registered.

“Well, you were scolded for“ Twenty years ”, that, they say, you can’t show that young people have problems ?”

- No, they didn’t say that. Although ... it was a matter, they fucking, they didn’t understand something there. In order to come to something, it is necessary to doubt, doubt is the most important in the director’s life. I say to students: you must be convinced and at the same time be able to doubt. Each of these qualities separately is disastrous.

- And here is an example of modern censorship - the situation around the film “Tchaikovsky”, where the screenwriter says in an interview that Tchaikovsky's homosexuality is not proven, just not to upset officials. Does this not scare you?

- Our time is disgusting that everyone is only interested in those whether Tchaikovsky was a homosexual or not. And he is the greatest among the composers of the world. You know, when I read what budget they give this film - ten times more than what they gave me - I have no other questions left. The last minister forced me to write a letter to the banker or oil industry. So that I myself sat and write. I asked for money. And so that he himself takes away. These are my problems. And you say.

- But Mindadze did not give money at all. They said that such a view of the war "could hurt the feelings of veterans."

“I don't want to talk about it.” This is probably unfair. But this is also the result of the subjective attitude of the expert council.

“They just voted for Mindadze to get money!”

- I believe that everything should be decided by a qualified authorities. Which understands and understands, and does not sprinkle the decision on others. I'm talking about the principle, not about specific people. Here is my opinion about this.

-You once signed a petition against the return of the personality cult of Stalin.

- Well, it was a long time, yes.

“Do you know that he was returned to him in Gori a monument now?” How do you feel about this?

- I don't want to discuss this problem either. In my opinion, you can’t smear everything with one paint. Phenomena and personalities must be judged in the context of time and history. Remember what happened during the French Revolution. The only thing I can say when they say that the October Revolution is to blame for everything: I ask you to remember that the monarchy was overthrown in February. And they did all this not at all the Bolsheviks. We absolutely do not know how to approach the story reasonably.

- And how is it reasonable to approach the fact that the monument was returned?

- How can I judge? Maybe the residents wanted this?

- So many and the chapter in the textbooks want to return about which Stalin is an effective manager. You, as a person who signed a letter against the return of the cult, are you really horrified by this?

- I do not want to talk about this topic, she is too serious. The extremes are bad everywhere. Everything should be considered in a historical context.

- Would you now sign such a letter against the return of the monument?

- I would probably sign against the monument. But I consider the discussion about who won the war - Stalin or the people, I consider it stupid. He still had to do with this. Why get to the accusations to the point of absurdity?

- The war could be won by much smaller victims.

- I know yes.

-When did you sign, did you move something very sincere?

- I, God forbid, are not a Stalinist. But I will say this: where there is his merits, there is no need to deny them. We will not follow the path of the Bolsheviks and deny everything.

- And now in the protests you are participating?

- And where are these protests?