"Complete untruth"

- October 15, Izvestia newspaper appeared interview With the new director of the Kino Museum Larisa Ottovna Solonitsyna, in which she criticizes the “protest mood” of the museum team and puts in response a number of claims to employees and to you personally. How do you comment on this interview?

- To begin with, Larisa Ottovna violated our agreement - until Thursday, October 16, not to submit our mutual claims to print until we figure out a number of real or imaginary facts that cause disagreements. That is why I asked you not to post an interview on the website of Colta.ru, which took place with you on Saturday, October 11. Now we are forced to start with a reaction to her statements, where there is a lot of untruth or that half -truth, which is more dangerous than lies, as you know.

- What is this half -truth?

- Half truth in the statement that one part of the team supports the new directorate, and the other is looking for reasons for "new discontent." In the first - three people: the head of the general department (essentially - the manager), the accountant and the cleaner of the premises. The second is the rest of the team: the main keeper of the funds, all researchers, archivists, laboratory assistants.

The half -truth, that the museum was violated by the labor schedule, although in fact the “internal labor regulation rules” were formally approved. The impossibility of a single regime for all employees is explained by the fact that almost every researcher at the stock units performs several functions in our museum - a compiler, a catalog, a keeper, laboratory assistant, and here it is impossible to regulate the time of stay in the funds: you have to go to the movie organization or to private individuals. But if we evaluate the essence and scope of the work performed - both in replenishing the heterogeneous museum collections, and in their attributions and descriptions, it turns out that our museum can withstand any performance exam. I’m not talking about the film programs - they work there daily, including the weekend, until late in the evening, but not only at the Mosfilm, where the funds and the directorate are located, but in the cinema halls, where our retrospectives and cycles go and where Larisa Ottovna has never appeared in three months. Her claims like “If you want to ask a person a question, but it is not in place, and it is not known when he appears” to only one employee-Student who asked for a vacation at his own expense with the president (because the director was not in the museum that day), but did not issue this a statement about which I did not know. But Larisa Ottovna herself is quite often absent in the museum, employees with their questions and paper with current affairs are waiting for her resolutions. Perhaps she actually works 12 hours a day-for example, in the Ministry of Culture (I say without irony-trips there require a lot of time and patience) or in the editorial office of SK-News.

- Is there a complete untruth?

-It is not true that before the arrival of Larisa Ottovna, the state of the museum only increased: we ourselves, in fulfillment of the ministry’s requirements on “optimization”, discussed and outlined the ways of reducing the states, told the new director about this, and this was exactly what the position of deputy director for scientific and educational activities in the museums was abolished. Meanwhile, we are sharply lacking employees to fulfill the authorized obligations. And we raised the question to the ministry about at least another unit - at the request of the keeper of the photo fund Marianna Alekseevna Kushnirova, who is forced to describe, digitize, store, and at the same time, she continuously selects photographs to provide television, the press, for the exhibition, including Larisa Solonitsyna himself (by the way, the muse Cinema in the formation of the exposition was not even mentioned).

Complete untruth-everything that is said about the scientific and memorial office S.M. Eisenstein, in particular, that I had never invited Larisa to Larisa there. At the first meeting with the team, I suggested that the new director get acquainted with each stock unit, including with a relic on Smolenskaya, about which, by the way, she, as a cinema and as an editor of the SK-News, could have been inquired before coming to the leadership of the museum. The largest directors, cinema historians, culturalists, journalists from around the world consider it their duty to visit the "Master's House". He is still huddling in a small two -room apartment of the director of the director, who bequeathed all his inheritance to the state for the future museum. In 1966, the Moscow City Council transferred this apartment for use for scientific and memorial purposes to the Union of Cinematographers of the USSR-against its limits on housing. At the same time, ownership of the apartment withdrawn from the housing stock remained municipal. In April 1992, the three heirs of the USSR IC - a confederation of the unions of filmmakers, the IC of Russia and the IC of Moscow (together with Goskino and with the Ministry of Culture) transferred the right to use the Museum of Cinema under the constituent agreement. Unfortunately, during the conflicts between these founders of the museum, the archive of the USSR SK almost disappeared, where documents from the Moscow City Council on the apartment on Smolenskaya were also stored. The Kyiv district executive committee, and now the Arbat Council never had a question about the status of an apartment, to this day we regularly pay utility bills. And suddenly, recently, the ministerial auditors demanded to put the apartment on the balance of the Museum of Cinema (and even tried to present the same requirements for the floor of the third corps of Mosfilm, where K.G. Shakhnazarov sheltered funds and employees of the Museum of Cinema!). And on Monday, October 13, Larisa Ottovna, among other things, suggested that I think about this option: to unite Eisenstein’s scientific and memorial office and the Eisenstein cinema library at the level of the Moscow Department of Culture, but to fix the released apartment on the Balance of the Museum of Museum to accept, for example, foreign guests (which is not in it. Mini-hotel?)! She even allegedly discussed the idea of ​​unification with the director of the library. Eisenstein (E.S. Khokhlova categorically denies the very fact of such a conversation).

Complete untruth - the statement of the "Festivals is a matter for the Museum of Cinema New." Muscovites, who regularly visited in our halls of the movie center (among them, by the way, for some reason there were no filming Solonitsyna), know how many festivals we spent a year. And now we are holding: in January - Finnish, in March - April - Italian, in the fall - Japanese, there were Spanish and Latin American fests, huge festivals of the Swedish, French, German, Indian, Bulgarian cinema and round the cinema of Russia and the former allied republics. Our museum programs were held in many regions of Russia-in St. Petersburg and Nizhny Novgorod, Perm and Norilsk, Novosibirsk, Vladikavkaz and Surgut; And also for the first time we showed films of regional cinema schools in Moscow. Larisa Ottovna admits that the programs of the two festivals declared for 2015 were compiled by me - but forgets to say that they were planned by us and Maxim Pavlov for next year - long before her appearance in the Museum of Cinema.

- As for the dismissal of Maxim Pavlov?

- As for the dismissal of Maxim Pavlov, is the topic of a special conversation that we attribute to the future.

And here is another untruth: that in the Museum of Cinema five hours of working time they discuss how to “overthrow” Solonitsyn. Where, from whom does she get such information? Larisa Ottovna herself does not go to contacts with the team and does not take part in any discussions - including those when filming problems associated with our activities are discussed. It seems that they interest her last. In general, the film and museum competence of Larisa Solonitsyna was not subjected to a competitive test - even the prefix "acting" It was removed almost immediately after her appointment. Meanwhile, it is not “disciplinary rigor”, but precisely the professional insufficiency of the new director with complete self -confidence and peremptory of its decisions causes the team’s protest.

So far, we leave it outside the conversation a number of problems that divided us with the new leadership and which are not affected in Izvestia. But the period of our repeated attempts to achieve mutual understanding, alas, ended.

The whole creative part of the Museum of the Kino unanimously states that it refuses to work with Larisa Ottovna Solonitsyna as a director and requires a competition of candidates for this position with an objective and professional jury.