Between the "dog heart" and Stalin

Vladimir Borto explains how the Stalinist can film Bulgakov

Vladimir Borto often quotes Stalin, simulating Georgian accent. The director is sarcastic, expresses doubt that his interlocutor read Stalin, Mayakovsky, Chaadaev, and assures that he did not survive the mind and does not suffer from a split personality.

The cause of the conversation was a violent polemic around Bortko’s speech with a fierce chanting of Stalin at a meeting of the State Duma. The performance is a year ago, but now it has returned to a public discussion, and many of the discussing tried to understand: how a person who " brilliantly exposed Stalinism in that very" dog heart "suddenly turned into Sharikov and Schwonder ."

Bortko, the author of the film adaptations of the "dog heart" and "master and Margarita" and State Duma deputy from the Communist Party, claims to be consistent and logical. To understand this logic, we talked with the director.

Bortko very distinguishes the periods of Soviet power, and in the "dog heart" he made fun of Stalinism at all, but the time preceding him. Moreover, Bortko contrasts one another.

From this point of view, Stalin saves the country from Chaos (and at the same time Professor Preobrazhensky from Sharikov), returns imperial greatness (Bortko without any disgust mentions the returned signs of tsarist Russia-the form for schoolchildren, the division of theaters into academic (imperial) and provincial, and so on): “Stalin made a single state, to some kind of state, to some extent, to some extent Inheriting what was before. "

Bortko recognizes Stalin’s responsibility for repressions, but puts forward an echeloned excuse system: Stalin is not involved in a lot, something is erroneous concessions to others, something-forced steps in difficult conditions, but the country was modernized, won the war, and so on. To avoid a protracted dispute about the figures of repression, we agree on some general "minimum". Bortko recognizes 700 thousand shooting sentences in 1936–37 and 3.5 million sentences for "political" articles.

Vladimir Bortko

Bortko is trying to deny that in the USSR under Stalin there was an anti -Semitic campaign, emphasizes that the campaign was against "cosmopolitanism", and asks the question: "At least one person was shot in the" case of doctors "?"

The director generally speaks categorically against executions, but the conclusion and other types of persecution during the time of Stalin, it seems, do not cause him such a decisive rejection.

Bortko says that he does not change his beliefs and in accordance with him makes his films (“I am by myself, I don’t need tips, I am an adult, in May it will be 70”), but if several years ago his films did not really coincide with the policy of the country, now they are fully coincided.

I did not encroach on Karl Marx

- I, by conviction - what is now called "statesman". For me, the existence of Russia as a state is the most important. When the state is good, this is good, and when it is bad, it means bad. As for the “dog’s heart” and the time when it was done, it was the release of the Soviet regime, and with great pleasure I made this whole story, pointing to her, to put it mildly, shortcomings, because by this time it began to decompose. But in no case I did not encroach on Karl Marx, as, by the way, Bulgakov and Professor Preobrazhensky: "Where does Karl Marx say that you need to walk around and score the front door with boards?"

Stalin had nothing else left

Who is Stalin? Stalin is to some extent the creator of the state. Another thing is that he created it from what was after 1917, from what the balls and this whole story with the "dog heart" about. At the same time, he had to do this in fairly difficult conditions. There is little of this, we all have a small distrust of our neighbors in the West, starting from the Swedes, Germans, then Napoleon, then Hitler, living in this country. We can defend ourselves, maybe not always correct ways? Can. And Stalin had nothing else to do, as with the tension of all the forces of the state to bring him into a digestible form, fighting for his existence as such. Quote: "Either we will overcome these ten years, or they will doubt us."

Tolstoy returned, author "Pinocchio"

Stalin is guilty of some dispossession, testing, to which he had nothing to do. Here are just those who dispossessed and ordered, then went to, as they call it now, the Gulag. As for the conversation <about my speech>, I don’t know why they suddenly dug up a long -standing speech, but I do not refuse a single word.

- Let's talk more about the "dog heart." As I understand it, you have no hostility to Professor Preobrazhensky. But the concept was that experts, such as Professor Preobrazhensky, must be expelled, or at worst they should be under control, and controls the state of the cook.

- "Philosophical Steamboat" ( operation to expel the intelligentsia of 1922. - approx. ) What, under Stalin was there? There was absolutely no one, and to call Stalin in any way when all these were sent on the ship ... The ship is not Stalin, it is Trotsky. And under Stalin, on the contrary, they returned so many people. Prokofiev returned, for example, even returned Tolstoy, the author of Pinocchio, which I am very happy.

Killed the people much more than Joseph Vissarionovich

- That is, in the "dog heart" the early Bolshevik regime is described, and Stalin replaces him, who takes under the wing such as Professor Preobrazhensky?

- Do not stretch, he does not take under the wing such as Professor Preobrazhensky. I wanted to talk about that time. In 1924, this whole story was written, and where was Stalin at that time? Chaadaev wrote that our whole story was a terrible lesson for the rest. We had no nation, and the nation was slowly made. For example, did Peter the First make a nation? Yes, undoubtedly! And he killed the people much more than Joseph Vissarionovich. Is it positive and negative? Why is Stalin's people hated by liberals the main person? Not because such idiots. People have the feeling that this was done correctly. We can say that the people are not the same. Maybe, but I believe this people and speak the way he thinks. And thinks so the vast majority. Well, the liberals were unlucky, what to do ...

“I'm not sure that the liberals think about the people so.” And Stalin, of course, loved Peter the Great very much, like Ivan the Terrible ...

- Why, by the way? Because the people were killed a lot or for other reasons? Because both of them took care of the state, about the nation! This is what you need - when the nation feels one. Without this, there is no state, nothing else.

People who wanted to make the state well come to power

- Let's return to the role of personality in history, to the role of Stalin and the question of whether the state has the right to destroy the nation for the sake of this very state ...

- Does the state destroy the nation? The Lord is with you, where was it?

- In the "dog heart" - what is your attitude to Sharykov? As a result, it so turned out that the state was just given to the Sharikovs.

- The Lord is with you. Given? People who wanted to make this state well came to power. And they had nothing to do with Sharikov.

- Can we say that Stalin saves the country from the Sharykovs?

- He saves the country in general! He makes the country to live.

- "Master and Margarita." Stalin loved Bulgakov, at least something of his works.

- "Batum" ( Bulgakov’s play about the youth of Stalin. - Approx. ) He certainly did not like, since she is completely false. Everything else ... How much did he visit the "Days of the Turbins" ( staging the play by Bulgakov at the Moscow Art Theater. - Approx. )? Dozens of times. You see, they didn’t put Bulgakov, they didn’t shoot, on the contrary, they gave a two -room apartment when everyone lived in communal services in the country. Already good!

Behind him will come sooner or later, absolutely for sure

-Bulgakov treated this differently. Bulgakov was not allowed to be printed. It’s as if you were forbidden now ...

-“And you write a statement” ( Bortko cites the words of Stalin Bulgakov in the famous telephone call of 1930, after which the writer who complained about the impossibility of publishing the writer was offered the place of the director of the Assistant in the Moscow Art Theater.-approx. ). He wrote a statement, and he was accepted to work in the Moscow Art Theater. Did Bulgakov love Soviet power? No. Not that he hated her. He was a stranger to her. "Master and Margarita" begins here. The master is a look from the basement, the position of a stranger who is completely superfluous here. And sooner or later they will come for him, absolutely, of course. But there it is never said that he hates fiercely. He was just a stranger for an emerging life. And this is the tragedy, real, and not invented that Stalin is some kind of satrap. Satrap is a satrap, but the heyday of art fell at its time. Lord, what we have now, compare with his time: art, ballet, literature, cinema. Eisenstein. True, he fell for the second series ( the film "Ivan the Terrible." - Approx. ). The first series liked, but the second is not very, "incorrectly reflected the oprichnina." Well, she didn’t reflect, but he was not killed after that. And how many Stalinist awards were!

History with Crimea - I support 155 percent

- Both about Bulgakov and Eisenstein, you are talking about as if Stalin were given the right to perform their fate: he did not shoot - and thank God, and they must say thanks. I didn’t let me write-well, I arranged someone in the Moscow Art Theater. Do you think that the state has such a right? Roughly speaking, if now Vladimir Putin said: "Boertko will allow the editor to be at the studio, and no one else ..."

- Comparing these things is completely impossible. As you can’t resurrect Stalin and put him in the Kremlin. Time is different, all the other absolutely. And Putin cannot say to me: "I will appoint ..." Stalin, probably, could do this. Only the only story ... And now Putin will not say and I will not do, another time. But one thing always remains - the existence of my people, my state, is the most important thing. History with Crimea - I support this by 155 percent! As for many things taking place within the country, when Putin says one thing, but the other is done, I don’t really like it.

First, let's clean

- I would like to hear from you reasoning about how far the state can go in what you call the preservation of the state in relation to a particular person. Stalin in 1936–37 gave an indication of the destruction of about 700 thousand people, and they were shot without compliance with any legality. This was done precisely with the words about the need of the state to fight for its existence, and this very fits into what you say.

- My grandfather also hit these 700 thousand. He was shot in 1937. I will tell you where the repressions came from. Stalin wanted not the Communist Party to control the state, but the Soviets, and therefore he came up with the Constitution in 1936, according to which the Communist Party would invite the people to choose from the proposed candidates. This constitution was very good. But the Constitution had to be held through the Central Committee of the party where the old Bolsheviks (Stalin's replica were sitting: "These old Bolsheviks are only good and good, which were old"), which had to be re -elected, who really lost power. And such a Comrade Eikhe rose with three classes of education and said: "You came up with a good idea, Comrade Stalin, only first let's clean, many Trotskyists are left." And here was a political concession, which led to all these bad things.

Do we have the right to condemn what Stalin did

I raised my grandfather’s work: he was not planted by Stalin, they put his grandfather on the denunciation of his assistant, who wanted to take his place. That is a denunciation, and then the car earned. It was true, it was. Of course, this is terrible, who says ... Although you can recall France during the revolution and Cromwell in England. This is bad, it was a political concession, but the repressions were not because the bloodthirsty Stalin wanted blood, but because the machine began to work on its own. And then what happened? A striking business, those who shot, ended up in it. All! Where did Comrade Eihe? There! It was a political struggle, and this is a terrible thing! In general, humanity is somehow poorly arranged, human relations need improvement. But we are dealing with the historical era and with its results. And the results: we won the war, we practically did not have traitors inside. After that, we developed by the pace that exceeded the pace of development of Western Europe. And when you look at all this, you begin to think: do we have the right now, sitting here, to condemn what Comrade Stalin did.

- Probably, do not discuss the role of Comrade Stalin. You describe how you have read a lot of historical literature, and if after that you are still sure that Stalin is not involved in mass killings ...

- I said that?

“You said that it was a kind of car that started and drove off.”

- And did I say that she started itself? Stalin went to political concessions that led to repression. Is he to blame for this? Yes, of course, of course. But you can understand it? Yes, of course, because the results of all this surpassed ... that is, as a result, the plus affected more. Unfortunately, this minus of 700 thousand.

Executions - no, categorically

“When you are now glorifying Stalin, you are allowing the opportunity,” for reasons of this very state necessity, which Stalin justified everything he did, and this is millions and millions of victims - are you allowing the persecution for political reasons now?

- What are the political reasons for the persecution? Shoots, or what?

- Any.

- executions - no, categorically, never! There are two things: the first is the Constitution, and the second is the Criminal Code. In the Constitution - what is possible, and in the Criminal Code - what is impossible. They should be observed, nothing more, ”Bortko suddenly says.

In response to the objection that this phrase completely coincides with the program of the liberals unloved by them, he notes that the liberals must especially remember that the Criminal Code cannot be violated.

The whole conversation Bortko speaks of Stalin with a noticeable warm feeling and offers to study him more: "Maybe you will not love him, but you will understand."

I choose the state between the family and the state

In the middle of the interview with Bortko, a hypothetical situation is discussed, when not Putin, and Stalin himself would forbid him to engage in profession. The director makes fun of this assumption as meaningless. However, in the conversation, reasoning about historical circumstances sounds, from which it follows that the question of a career is too small:

- When I understand those circumstances, it is difficult to say what I could do. My phrase that I choose the state between my family and the state - of course, it is extremely painful and difficult for me. Believe me, I'm not a flayer and really love my family. But if we are talking about my people, then, of course, you do not have to think. Will I stay after that to live, I don’t know if there are two such bowls. Joseph Vissarionovich had to decide about the same thing.

Bortko has a wife, a son, a little grandson. In May, the director will turn 70.