New version of the old myth

What appeared “Young Guard” in its modern version? What new ideological meanings were loaded with it? The series, which began to show Channel One by Victory Day, is discussed by writer Boris Minaev and Yuri Bogomolov. And also about today's ideology of the holiday. Presenter Elena Rykovtseva.

Full video version of the program

Elena Rykovtseva: I will present the guests of our program today: with us, Yuri Bogomolov, television critic, film critic, Boris Minaev, writer. The series "Young Guard" was released on Channel One, we watched four episodes. We will have a conversation today about the new ideological filling of Victory Day, what appeared new this year, which is unusual and unexpected. It is no coincidence that we will start with this new series, because in comparison with the old film, some without a doubt sounded the new notes of the semantic, there is no dispute, that they exist, another question is how to interpret them.

Yuri Bogomolov: In the announcements, it was flashed that this is the genuine story of the “Young Guard”, making it clear that that “Young Guard” by Sergey Gerasimov and Alexander Fadeev is not entirely genuine, mythological - this is already a myth, and as it really was, you will now learn. Honestly, I first thought that there would be some documentary version of all these events. Already in Soviet times, it was clear that not everything there is accurate and reliable in relation to reality. Soviet historiography was all involved in myths and had a propaganda character. Now it turned out that this is also fiction, this series is new, here, too, it is also not necessary to demand thoroughness and absolute adequacy of the facts that took place. They rehabilitated Stakhovich.

Elena Rykovtseva: He is in the life of Tretyakevich, and in the novel there was Stakhovich.

Yuri Bogomolov: Here he is rehabilitated. And all this does not look as perfect as in Gerasimov’s film.

Elena Rykovtseva: I want to move on to this imperfect moment, which, in my opinion, is absolutely associated with current events, with the war in the Donbass. It clearly seemed to me that in this series, firstly, a new force was introduced, to which the Germans are a free application, the main butchers, the main reptiles, the main scoundrels and killers are Ukrainian agreements. Why am I falling on the word "Ukrainian", because it somehow turns out-by some chance or by some kind of plan, that if it is a Ukrainian agreement, a traitor, a policeman working for the Nazis, the Germans, he certainly has a Ukrainian accent, he necessarily Mikola, he is necessarily Stepan, who speaks Ukrainian. The main policeman - he just got off the pictures, the advertisement of Ukrainian restaurants, only there are still not enough carcasses, outwardly this is the appearance of a classic Ukrainian from these Gogol films and so on. It seemed to me that this was emphasized, because no positive character speaks in Ukrainian. The only thing to whom the film “G” is allowed to pronounce is Sergey Tyulenin, apparently for some balance, and everything else, all the negativity, all meanness and betrayal were incorporated by those who say either a surzhik, or in the Ukrainian language. The main policeman passes from Russian to Ukrainian, depending on which of the member of the gang is being addressed. How to regard this moment? To consider this through the prism of the current moment or is it a pure accident?

Boris Minaev: This is not an accident, of course. I, having watched the two episodes, knowing that this moment is already discussing on social networks, I carefully looked and came to the conclusion that there is just a classic model of a film book, a little primitive - there are very good people, there are bad ones. This is not the Ukrainian language - this is a surzhik, such a dialect in which some Ukrainian words are present, Russian and Ukrainian are mixed and a slightly different phonetic sound. Young Guards are beautiful Soviet Komsomol members, as we know, many of them are at a very young age, schoolchildren, they try to speak beautiful pure Russian. These policemen, who are collaborators, traitors, are simply rude, bad ignorant people. And the rest is a classic example of the fact that different types of a very bad person, very cruel, drinks vodka continuously in every frame. This small, vile, cowardly. I think that the film is a long story, it was written, and was done long before the Donbass events.

Elena Rykovtseva: He could have thought long, and to be done in the last year. We do not know these circumstances.

Boris Minaev: It seems to me that we specify this moment here. Another thing is that really the theme of the policemen, the topic of traitors is only part of the topic that our huge part of the country was in the occupation, and how people lived there. They lived, they worked, someone in the hospital, someone in the office, someone as an accountant, someone did something forcibly, someone voluntarily to make money. This unknown part of the war, slightly hooked it a little.

Elena Rykovtseva: I’ll clarify that I specially watched the Gerasimov version of the “Young Guard”, two episodes. The only scoundrel for the entire film, working for the Nazis, is Ignat Fomin, a man with a Russian surname, with the purest Russian language, a fist and a traitor whom they hang safely in the very first series. As for the Ukrainian language, one of the newlywords walks in the embroidered shirt, the fricatives also jump from them, surgical words say exceptionally positive characters, there are kind women who go into the Ukrainian language, and they all carry a positive beginning. Not a single surge -shaped traitor in this film.

Yuri Bogomolov: About the Ukrainian language, surzhik and so on. I recall Soviet cinema, because the Ukrainian language was always used as a colorful paint that insulated a person, gave a comic coloring and so on. Therefore, I do not think that everything was so mechanically calculated here.

Elena Rykovtseva: How to insulate a butcher? There, even the Nazis are horrified by his cruelty, he makes minced meat from a man, this scoundrel is Ukrainian.

Yuri Bogomolov: I'm talking about the function of the Ukrainian language. Remember the famous operetta "Wedding in Malinovka." It happened, but I do not think that it was done absolutely consciously, purposefully. I think that here the problem is that our propaganda machine of federal channels created a certain system of values and anti -intensities, Ukrainians are already “dill”, Bandera, fascists, as you can understand them. It’s like during the war that the Germans were necessarily fascists for a Russian person. The famous leaflet of Ehrenburg: Kill not a fascist, but a German. There were many unpleasant responses on this occasion, but in this case he insisted. And the point was that the German entered such a negative hero that the fascist is an ideological detail, and the German is a real beast, enemy, and so on. I am afraid that the results of the propaganda work that federal channels conducted, led to the fact that now Ukrainians would not have to be clarified whether they or someone else, it will be enough to say "Ukrainians". And naturally, the language will be perceived just like that.

Elena Rykovtseva: I do not think that this is by chance. Too a large array of time is devoted to this line, it somehow convexly served. When the battles around Ukraine began, individual Ukrainians, maybe even many, suddenly began to say: it has always been, always in Soviet and Russian cinema, we were belittled in Russian culture, a negative attitude towards Ukrainians was always formed. I argued and said that I did not notice it. But not so long ago I talked with one person, from Russia, who carefully watched Soviet cinema, he said: as you could not notice it, it really was always. You will pay attention, remember: if the traitor is a Ukrainian, if he is a traitor to his homeland, he is a Ukrainian. I did not ask him about the examples of specific, but a person had such an impression. Did you have the feeling that the image of the Ukrainian was deliberately made negative before these events?

Boris Minaev: I want to say that on the same day when I watched the “Young Guard”, the film “Liberation” was shown on the first channel, one of its parts. It is considered very official, ideological and so on. I treat him well, he is connected with my childhood, with the first perception of war. In this film, one of the main topics, and this is no coincidence, because it is due to the turn of the foreign policy of the then Soviet, the theme of Western allies sounds very powerfully, the American, English military leaders are shown, show the Polish army, show the Yugoslav partisans. When it comes to ours, there is a complete international, there are definitely Ukrainians, Belarusians, Georgians. This is one of the main properties of Soviet military cinema and its internationalism, they always do not forget to remind you that they all fought together, that they died all together, I'm not talking about such classic cases as the "father of the soldier" and so on.

Yuri Bogomolov: "The fall of Berlin", when different peoples, liberated prisoners run to Stalin in the final scene. Soviet ideologists very vigilantly observed that the entire palette of nationalities was represented, and in this sense they do not forget Ukraine.

Elena Rykovtseva: This is also a new theory for you, a new concept, which, it turns out, was a biased attitude towards Ukrainians in cinema before?

Yuri Bogomolov: In the cinema - no, it was not. In everyday life, in the army service, there were problems there. Because they were considered the most severe corporals, the foremen are Ukrainian. And the cinema was too controlled by the party and the government, an ideological apparatus.

Elena Rykovtseva: And at the subconscious level, they just didn’t fix it, but the character was introduced? Now in the "Young Guard" not everyone attaches the importance of this surzhik, this line, and someone gives, looks under the microscope. Maybe then it was the same?

Yuri Bogomolov: Kinematographer Dovzhenko, Ukrainian, and today he would be called a nationalist, he was suspected of this even then, but, nevertheless, he very clearly and clearly carried out the apology of Ukrainian special nature. For him, Ukraine was a natural element that he respected, loved, read. As for the Soviet period-this should be so aimed at this in order to distinguish somewhere, you can probably see somewhere.

Boris Minaev: We are now talking about an unexpected theme of policemen in the "Young Guard", but this corresponds to historical truth. The young heads were not executed by the Germans, but by the locals.

Elena Rykovtseva: By horror, in nightmare, they changed their roles with the Germans, there the Germans already look rather intelligent compared to these terrible trousers.

Boris Minaev: I have a dual attitude towards the film. On the one hand, he causes me to rejection, because now “and the dawns are quiet here”, these Soviet movies are equated, just playback. They are considered so important for a new generation that they are simply in a new language with new persons, with new actors, upgrading a little, you can re-put so that people remember, know that the youth watched it. This is a very strange approach to me. If we look in the theater when they put Chekhov, Gorky, Ostrovsky, everything always changes, a new meaning is always introduced into the classics. There people are dressed differently, everything is different. The cinema has a different nature, the movie develops with the nation, with the country, with the mass consciousness. It seems to me that there was an important turn in military film -darkness, when they began to put new topics about the war. The film "Cuckoo", the film of Vera Glagoleva about women who gave birth from the Germans, they were sent to the island. The film "Life and Fate". It all started with the films of German Sr. Another war is that we did not know before the war. In the end, we must say that for the German people it was a tragedy, popular misfortune. In this direction, the turn of the movie was close to me, important, it was just beginning. And this is just a reproduction in its pure form of what was before. Naturally, when you just play, you drag all sorts of stamps here. Naturally, these policemen are so caricatured that they are similar to the operettical characters of the "Wedding in the Robin". When Lyubka Shevtsova sings or does something for the Germans, all sorts of sloppy stories-this is a quote, oddly enough, from the American film "Cabaret".

Frame from the series "Young Guard". Lyuba Shevtsova and "Artist"

They recall "elusive avengers." That is, it is a blind story - it is inevitable with the mechanical reproduction of plots and heroes. On the other hand, it is no coincidence that Fadeev took up this story, because, of course, the Young Guards are excited. These people are not just Soviet partisans, no one has authorized them - this is such a spontaneous struggle for freedom, it is almost a children's game, this plot will always attract when a group of young people fights for freedom, risking life. Therefore, the feeling is dual.

Yuri Bogomolov: Indeed, Fadeev, in principle, young people, yesterday’s schoolchildren, students who are organized in a certain connection, a group that is going to rebuff the invaders is the resource of idealists. In general, I must say that in totalitarian regimes, by the way, the Hitler Youth was such idealists, this resource is often used by dictators. In this case, why did Comrade Stalin not like the first version of the "Young Guard"? Because there was no leading and guiding party of the party. Did they do everything themselves? It was necessary to show. Fadeev had to rewrite Roman. Here there is an immanent something against the guys, these boys and girls are really idealists. And there is novelty in this. Another thing is that I really lacked the super -entertainment or supervision. After all, they are not just shooting about the war, but they remove about something else. I do not think that in feature cinema war can be adequately depicted, since war is a certain life material, it is a prism through which the artist is trying to consider something today or tomorrow. "Life and Fate", which is great this novel and what is good this film, because there is a metaphorically about the Battle of Stalingrad, subconsciously. Each of these characters has its own Stalingrad battle. Humanity is at stake in this film, not just the life of people, but humanity, as a certain matter, without which the life and development of human civilization is impossible. Therefore, this novel is still considered the greatest novel of the twentieth century, it is popular and especially popular in the West. He found us in the shadow of Solzhenitsyn glory and success, but in general this is the greatest novel. On the eve of the holiday it was shown. I am only afraid that this novel, which is shown after midnight, will drown in that patriotic molasses that fell upon us in connection with this holiday.

Elena Rykovtseva: I will read SMS from Sergey from Moscow: "That's fun - the policemen speak in Surzhik, and Ignat Fomin is in Russian. Is this a reservation according to Freud? Remember Yanukovych." I don’t know what kind of reservation you are talking about when the policemen really talk on Surzhik, even rather in Ukrainian with a splash of Russian words, and Ignat Fomin speaks pure Russian. You can talk about some new ideological filling of Victory Day, or is it the same Victory Day, which was always?

Boris Minaev: A difficult topic. I would like to start good. In fact, this year there is an Immortal Regiment action, ordinary people, everyone who wants, with photographs of their relatives go to the Victory Parade, that is, they carry portraits of those who have already died, did not live, died in the war, but they are with us. This is a good action. Despite all the warlike patriotism of the parade, this is a good human note. A minute of silence, I met a title somewhere on the Internet that for the first time a minute of silence. No, she is not the first time, she was always in Soviet times. It is very good that the whole country will be silent.

Yuri Bogomolov: They decided to transfer her in the morning.

Boris Minaev: When people remember, they try to be involved in all the events that are bad in this. Nevertheless, you know, there are some points that are very upset. Not only Russia fought, all nations, in Central Asia, millions of evacuated, who were saved from hunger, all the peoples who participated in victory, our allies. Suddenly, in Yekaterinburg, a photo exhibition is prohibited about the participation of the allies in the war on the grounds that now it is impossible to talk about it, in general these photographs are provided by consulates of foreign states in Yekaterinburg - this is generally almost espionage. They took, the exhibition was banned. In general, it is very strange not to say that all the peoples of the Soviet Union and all the peoples of Europe participated in this victory. Now this victory is soil for contention. Now, in some terrible resentment at everyone that our role is not recognized, they do not come to the parade. Here, taking this opportunity, I want to say about the most important event for me, I never thought that I would quote Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, but this case came. During a direct line, he was asked how he reaches the fact that the Red Army acts not as a liberator, but as an invader. Vladimir Vladimirovich, how do you like the son of a front -line soldier to hear and see it? - asked him TV presenter Maria Sittel, waiting for an angry and patriotic answer. What did our president answer? Он начал с того, что "невозможно ставить на одну доску нацизм и сталинизм, потому что нацисты прямо, открыто объявили одной из целей своей политики уничтожение целых этносов – евреев, цыган, славян. При всем уродстве сталинского режима, при всех репрессиях, даже при всех ссылках целых народов все-таки цели уничтожения народов никогда сталинский режим перед собой не ставил". Я несколько оторопел от этого пассажа, потому что это довольно резкая оценка сталинского режима. А этот День Победы отличается еще и тем, что Сталин у нас везде, на всех портретах. Но главное он сказал потом: "Второе, может быть не очень приятное для нас, все-таки мы, то есть не мы, а наши предшественники дали определенный повод для этого. Потому что после Второй мировой войны мы пытались навязать многим восточноевропейским странам свою модель развития и делали это силой. Надо это признать, и в этом ничего нет хорошего – это нам аукается сегодня". Я считаю, это очень важная оценка, ее совершенно никто не заметил. Я не вижу никакой реакции на это, я вижу, что российское телевидение не послушалось президента и продолжает идти в эту сторону, что как же так, никакие мы не оккупанты. Мы, конечно, не оккупанты – мы освободители, но разговор о том, что было после 1945 года совершенно необходим.

Елена Рыковцева: Он с телевидением часто расходится. Тут такое дело, что он работает на внешнюю публику, а телевидение на внутреннюю. И все друг другом довольны.

Борис Минаев: Два печальных для меня момента праздника – это сталинизм совершенно открытый, и второе – эта агрессивность, которая основана на том, что этот вопрос до сих пор не решен нами для самих себя. И пока мы это не решим, не поймем, у нас будет такой День Победы.

Елена Рыковцева: Плюс попытка замазать союзников, то, в чем всегда, все годы, безотносительно последнего, российская идеология обвиняла Запад, что они принижают роль Советского Союза у себя.

Юрий Богомолов: Я бы вот на что обратил внимание в связи с тем, что мы видим вокруг себя в нашей стране. В 1945 году мы отпраздновали победу над гитлеровской военной машиной. Но я не думаю, что мы тогда понимали, что фашизм мы победили в тот момент. Могло показаться, что победили, тогда отождествляли, мы говорили "немец", "Гитлер", подразумевали "фашизм". После этого наша идеология держалась на том, что у нас фашизм невозможен, поскольку мы получили такую прививку в борьбе с фашизмом. А сегодня, когда слышишь речи Жириновского, Дугина и многих других, понимаешь, что если не фашизм, то фашизоидность некая существует в нашем обществе. Я не знаю, как еще можно расценивать речи "Хирурга" Залдостанова, как не проявление каких-то фашизоидных явлений. Это прорывается в эфир, это вдруг получает определенную санкцию, раз это в эфире федеральных каналов, значит, это санкция для бытовой среды, для улицы, для площади, для всего остального. Мы не отдаем себе отчет, что эти вещи могут развиваться. Есть замечательный роман Камю "Чума", там прозрачная метафора, чума – это фашизм, как ею заболели, а потом как она вроде бы прошла. Но Камю заключает свой роман фразой о том, что ее бацилла где-то притаилась в складках белья, в подвалах и только ждет случая, когда эта бацилла пошлет "крысы" на площади и улицы разносить эту заразу. Я сильно подозреваю, что мы недооцениваем возможности фашизоидности в нашем обществе и в нашей стране. Победа действительно великая, была жертвенной. Тот парад и та эйфория, фанаберия патриотическая, которую мы сегодня наблюдаем. Я вижу счастливые лица наших граждан, которые любуются этой военной техникой, этим количеством железа и выражают чувство гордости. Хорошо, любопытна эта выставка железа, к тому же умного, но с другой стороны, чем гордиться, почему надо гордиться железом, которое убивает, которое калечит, которое приносит столько бедствий. Почему это становится центром, осью праздника – этот самый парад, вокруг которого должно все вертеться. Я этого не понимаю, но для массовой аудитории это становится зрелищем, становится вдохновляющим зрелищем. Это тоже наносится ущерб. Мы все говорили, что когда война кончилась, Сталин не торопился особо праздновать, не было праздника, был день поминовения в сквере Большого театра, когда собирались люди и вспоминали, не было даже выходных дней. Затем наша власть эту дату приватизировала, национализировала, огосударствила, а тема поминовения тех жертв, которые были принесены, она ушла, стала чисто ритуальной. Вспомните фильм "Июльский дождь" Хуциева, вроде современность, а кончается тем, как молодые люди, которые не знают, чем себя занять, вдруг видят в сквере Большого театра старых людей, которые чокаются и вспоминают. И там настоящее, они живут как бы не совсем реальной жизнью, а там они живут настоящей. Завтра на канале "Культура" после огромного перерыва будет показываться фильм "Обыкновенный фашизм". Тем из наших слушателей, кто не видел, не знает, что это за фильм, я бы хотел, чтобы они посмотрели. Может быть, могут возникнуть аллюзии с нашим настоящим?