Hayes with you

The Union of Cinematographers of the Russian Federation published a draft ethical charter , which he intends to accept at his nearest plenum.

More precisely, these are three projects, but surprisingly similar, as if their authors wrote off each other under his desk. After the plenum accepts the charter, each member of the Union will be able to join it in an arbitrary written form.

In the preamble, it is emphasized that the Charter is a “advisory act that does not have mandatory legal force that does not violate the basic rights and freedoms of a person” and that it will observe its film industry workers “on the basis of moral self -control”. At the same time, in the package of accompanying documents there is a letter from the first deputy chairman of the IC Sergei Lazaruk addressed to the Minister of Culture Vladimir Medinsky, in which he asks not to send a draft of the Charter for discussion in the Public Chamber, but to provide "the right to make a decision on the fate of the Chainematographers themselves." Therefore, there was a danger that the edited text of the Charter would be imposed on the union from the outside. What is not surprising, given that the project was created in response to the proposal of Vladimir Putin.

Putin turned to this issue twice. First-as a prime minister at a meeting of the Government Council for the development of domestic cinematography in November 2011. He suggested that his participants "talk about what value installations should carry films in themselves, about the benefits of cinema for society."

“Our cinemas,” the head of government continued, “television broadcasts, radio broadcasters fill out more and more products with scenes of violence, murders, betrayals. Moreover, children and adolescents are not limited to them.” He assured that the state is not going to revive censorship - the professional community should adopt the "laws of corporate ethics", "a set of internal, ethical norms."

But the community ignored the instruction, and in May of this year President Putin returned to the topic at a meeting on the problems of domestic cinema in Sochi.

Having announced data on the amount of state financing of film production (6 billion 612 million rubles in 2013), he said that the viewer was dissatisfied with the return:

It is quite logical that people count on adequate return: that we will have more and more tapes that meet the strategic tasks of the country's development, and the needs of society, which carry serious, creative and creative charge, promoting the values ​​of a healthy lifestyle, patriotism, spirituality, mercy and responsibility.

Recalling that his call to create the Charter did not take the effect, the first person uttered a rather annoyed monologue about the “unfair attitude to state support”: having received money, manufacturers, according to him, “change the conditions of the game”, spray funds.

The Minister of Medinsky, for his part, called the priority topics, the financing of which will be carried out primarily: "70 years of victory in the Great Patriotic War, the fight against drug addiction, the heroes of labor, the centenary of the First World War, and so on."

This time the hint was understood. The Plenum of the UK, held in June, decided to "support the idea of ​​the president." Soon, a resolution of the Union Secretariat was established a working group for the development of the Charter, whose fruits were published this week.

In his persistent recommendation, the president referred to the American Code of Hayes, just as in due time to the American law on foreign agents: they say, here is the light of democracy - also regulates, and does it correctly.

Those who signed this code then took the obligations not to shoot paintings that undermine the moral principles of society, incapitizing the sympathy of the audience to the side of criminals, not allowing neglect of religious and family values, not to allow the propaganda of violence, drug culture and alcoholization of society.

Putin is convinced that the code, although it has been canceled a long time ago, in fact continues to act:

It is clear that you, many, in any case, of those sitting here, but almost everything, and I know that - we can say: nothing is observed from this code today. I would not say that nothing is observed. But the fact that he worked for 37 years functioned, this nevertheless created a certain framework and showed moral guidelines, nevertheless, during the functioning of this document, several generations of citizens with certain values, attitudes and life landmarks form.

Here, of course, an involuntary doubt creeps up. Indeed, at the same Sochi meeting, director Stanislav Govorukhin spoke about the dominance of American film products:

The Americans are not the first to consider themselves the first on the planet not only because there is an economy, an army, a printing press, but also because American cinema, American light music, all seven billion on the globe listen to it, and at least three quarters of the planet live according to Uncle Sam and profess their moral values.

But if the Hace Code and the grains sown by him are so good, why are we not satisfied with these values?

Apparently, the president still does not quite clearly imagine the circumstances and reasons for the emergence of the Code.

Back in 1915, the US Supreme Court ruled that the feature cinema was not protected by the first amendment to the constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech. It was a decision on the lawsuit of the film rolling company to the authorities of Ohio, which established the censorship committee for pre -viewing all the film products intended in the show in the territory of the state. In those years, cinema was not yet a serious art - it was not without reason in his decision that the court indicated that this and circus would require the right to freedom of speech.

The decision of the Supreme Court led to the fact that in other states there were departments overseeing the rental. Stormy activity was developed by Christian fundamentalists, requiring the ban on immoral, from their point of view, works. The censors at their discretion edited finished films, and their work paid for the film company. Manufacturers incurred high expenses, bringing the films in accordance with the instructions of the censors, and these instructions in each state were their own. Among other things, after the famous case of the rape and murder of actress Virginia RAPP in the house of comedian Rosko Arbel in 1921 (Arbacle was ultimately acquitted) a hail of exposures associated with the personal life of the movie stations fell on Hollywood.

President of the Association of American film producers Will Hayes rushed to save the situation. He tried to negotiate with each staff, convinced the studio to coordinate his projects with him so as not to disfigure finished tapes later, but all this helped the matter much. Then Hayes compiled a small memo and invited the studios to be guided by it. But he did not compose the code of his name - he was written by the jealous Catholic Martin Quigly and Jesuit Father Daniel Lord. The most ferocious amendments to him, as well as their strict performance - all this took place with Hais Joseph Brine's successor.

The Moral Code of Hollywood, which entered into force on March 31, 1930, strictly regulated a demonstration on the screen of a naked body, completely excluded obscene expressions. It was impossible to blaspheme from the screen, depict clergymen as comic or negative characters, make fun of the current legislation and inspire sympathy for its violators. Drinking alcohol was allowed only to negative heroes or when it is absolutely necessary in the plot. It was forbidden to show in detail the methods of committing crimes, childbirth, and drug use scenes. Mentions of sexually transmitted diseases and sexual hygiene were not allowed. Divorce or marital treason should be depicted as an unconditional misfortune and moral fall of heroes. But the ardent kisses were forbidden, not to mention more passionate and frank love scenes. Topics such as prostitution, homosexuality and love connection between representatives of various races were considered completely unacceptable.

Moreover: studios were charged with the obligation to monitor the moral appearance of the actors; They began to break out contracts for scandalous behavior in private life.

The archaism of the Code was obvious to the public even when it was accepted: the "roaring twenties" liberated America, and the film industry was forced to follow the Victorian set of rules. After the Second World War, Hollywood suffered a new attack: the American film industry began to lose the competition of Western European - after all, European filmmakers did not observe any Code. Studios began to arise in order to violate the Hace Code or to go around it cunningly. Alfred Hitchcock in the painting "Bad Glory" defiantly violated the rule according to which the kiss on the screen should not last longer than three seconds: his heroes performed by Carey Grant and Ingrid Bergman interrupted the kiss every three seconds, and then continued to kiss - as a result, the kiss lasted two and a half minutes.

In 1952, the US Supreme Court ruled that the first amendment applies to cinema. The decision was made in connection with the ban in the state of New York by the film of the founder of Italian neorealism Roberto Rossellini "Love". In 1966, the film Michelangelo Antonioni "Photo Emergency" did not receive a rental certificate, but MGM still released it on the screen.

In a word, the Hais Code was thoroughly leaked and in 1968 was replaced by a system of classification of films that does not prohibit anything, but warning the audience, what kind of spectacle they have to see. This was the case with the "voluntariness" of moral obligations.

And now something similar is going to introduce the Union of Cinematographers of Russia.

One of its main goals, the ethical charter proclaims “the formation of a civil position based on the traditional values ​​and principles of Russian statehood”, priorities - “the development of civilian and patriotic feelings, love for the Fatherland and its centuries -old traditions” and “orientation towards family values, responsible education of children, and the continuity of generations”. Members of the Union, who join the charter, take the obligation to "not harm the fundamental foundations and security of society", "respect traditions, history, symbols of the Fatherland; to honor historical figures, not to subject the historical facts and biographies of outstanding people to gross distortions", "avoid the inappropriate, insulting use of religious and sacred symbols, humiliating attitude to the priests of traditional Pronunciations, insulting the feelings of believers, "" support the ideas of collegiality, collectivism, self -organization of social life and the development of civil society. "

All this seems to me meaningless rhetoric, where one word contradicts another: for example, collegiality and civil society are, in my opinion, mutually exclusive concepts. "Foundations", "principles of statehood" and "traditional values" can be interpreted at all, not to mention "gross distortions of historical facts." But if desired, you can "bring anything under the article".

Russia wants to be the center of moral revival, and it takes the instrument for almost a centuries -old prescription.

One of the participants in the Sochi meeting told the president that since 2010, Russian cinema "Leloga" - the share of Russian films in the Russian rental is 15.4 percent. With such a charter, if it becomes a guide to action, its competitiveness will decrease even more.