Translated material
Extrakrelevsky dreamer
The German television channel ARD showed the documentary of the director Kirill Tushi "New Freedom of Khodorkovsky".
This is the second film of the former oligarch. 47-year-old Cyril Tushi worked for this dilogy for seven years.
Carcasses come from a family with Russian roots, but he had to learn a tongue for trips to Russia. The premiere of his first film "Case of Khodorkovsky" took place on February 14, 2011 at the Berlin Film Festival.
Tushi began his work seven years ago by writing Khodorkovsky in the colony and a year later received an answer. He managed to talk with Khodorkovsky in the courtroom during the second process, he shot 180 hours of interviews and reports. Khodorkovsky in the first film is told by his acquaintances and relatives, businessmen and politicians, only Chubais and Yavlinsky refused to give interviews.
The new film included already in Europe an interview with Tushi with Khodorkovsky, the opposition’s public performances, conversations with his former and current colleagues.
Kirill Tushi told Radio Liberty about his dilogy:
He was greatly influenced by the old Soviet school, the school of life, we can say that the school of the Komsomol
- I was always interested in any ambivalence, duality, I am motivated by contradictions. And the impetus for the first film was that I saw a very smart person who calculates the options as a chess player and who made a move, which seems clearly illogical, he returned to Russia from abroad, knowing that he would be arrested. It was this of his act - the decision to return to Russia to be arrested - - I was very interested in. I know that many told him: "Hey, what are you doing? You can live perfectly in exile with your two billions." Some said that his condition abroad could have been about the loser. Why did he commit this illogical act, as is seen from the side? My first film is devoted to the study of the reasons for his fateful decision.
- And how did the second arise?
- I had two motives. The first is very simple - curiosity for a person who spent 10 years in prison. And the second is an interest in how he will treat the newly acquired freedom. In the process of filming, I talked about freedom with the composer Arvo Pyart ( the author of the works dedicated to Khodorkovsky, his music sounded in the first film by Kirill Tushi. - Ed.) And his wife Nora; Unfortunately, this was not included in the film. The theme of conversations was the metaphysical interpretations of freedom, we talked about internal freedom, spiritual, which is important for Pyart. So, I was interested in Khodorkovsky in a situation of freedom, and this incited my curiosity.
-And how does he, in your opinion, are developing? He does not owe English very well, and in general it seems that the West is not interested in him.
He is emotionally interested only in Russia. In a classic, almost romantic sense
- This is also ambivalent. His English continues to improve. But he was greatly influenced by the old Soviet school, the school of life, we can say that both the Komsomol school and the old ideological school, which it partially passed in the parental house, in particular, the thought suggested from childhood: "You must work all the time, including yourself." He was brought up as a person striving for results. It mixed a lot from Soviet culture, but also from neoliberalism. His book with Nevzlin was called "A Man with a Ruble" ... But, as a smart person, he understands that he should become open to Western values ... and at the same time he is really interested only in Russia. Its attention is concentrated on it. His interest in the West and Western is rational. He became, for example, a fan of modern communications technique, in front of him, when he meets people, all kinds of toys are laid out: an iPad, an iPhone, and so on. But this is a rational interest. He is emotionally interested only in Russia. In a classic, almost romantic sense.
Cyril Tushi
- Gerhard Schreder once said that Putin, in his opinion, is a democrat of pure water. Is the democrat, in your opinion, Khodorkovsky?
It seemed to him that it was possible to manage Russia, as a large company, as a yukos
- Well, he still had a little chance to prove his commitment to democracy. It is separated from the political life of Russia. But everything that he is preparing by the time when Putin leaves is in the direction of the democratic participation of the population: the replacement of the president, the authorities, the real separation of the church from the state, the independence of the courts ... All these normal, simple democratic institutions, in the spirit of the separation of powers, he wishes for Russia. Whether he will be able to reform Russia so much, a big question. Previously, it seemed to him that it was possible to manage Russia as a large company, as a yukos. He really thought so. Does he think the same way today, I do not know. It may turn out that he is not able to think differently, but this is a philosophy. But once again: he wants changes in Russia, corresponding to the European democratic scale and traditions.
“Does he seem to you a somewhat naive person?”
He sees the future of Russia beautiful. Soon the future, but not the nearest
- Naive? From many I hear it as criticism. Even from the Kremlin. From there you can also hear: "Yes, everything is clear. Khodorkovsky has lost contact with reality." But this is too simple to attack Khodorkovsky from this side, from such positions. Too simple. Of course, in exile, he can be said to be cursed ... The animation scenes in the film are just consistent with this, where Khodorkovsky is represented alone in a spaceship and watches the earth from space. Yes, this picture symbolizes its absence in his native country. This is undoubtedly tragic, but also a source of forces. Indeed, from the outside, from the outside much can be seen more clearly than from the inside if you are inside the observation object. Is all this naive? Of course, his chances are minimal: Stalin is again held in high esteem, the thinking and development of several generations is influenced by Putin and his propaganda, there are generations who, except Putin, have seen nothing but his “stability”. Everyone knows Putin, but almost no one knows Khodorkovsky, and if they know anything, then the stigma of the oligarch immediately arises. Is he naive? At the end of the film, he says that he imagines Russia after 30-40 years as a country, where 70 percent of the population lives in 10-12 multimillion megalopolis, in which the intelligentsia plays an important role, they listen to it, and through this new role of educated and developed people will achieve success in its development, through this layer of people, and not through oil. So he says and adds that those 30%that will not want to live in huge cities will also have every opportunity to arrange their lives on the vast expanses of Russia. He says that the future of Russia sees beautiful. A sooner future, but not the nearest. Is he naive? If you look soberly at the current state of power structures, you can cry. We can say: "O'Kay, if so many idiots love Putin, then you need to close this pan with a lid and forget about it." I talked with many people from the Khodorkovsky team who now live in Israel, and they all say: "If Putin and his people perish, if all this passes, everything will end, I will never return there anyway." So many say. And they argue: “Why? Why? The country is poisoned, the intelligentsia left the country in numerous ways and streams. Those that remained, are no longer young and not ready to leave, but one way or another the main part of the intelligentsia emigrated.”
- In your film, Nemtsov, Yashin, Maria Baronova speak about Khodorkovsky. But Alexei Navalny refused to give you an interview. Why?
- His argument is on the verge of madness for me that, they say, if he gives an interview to Western media, the Russians will again think that he was bought by Americans. I tried many times, but to no avail. Yes, of course, it is not enough in the film ... Although I heard the following from many in Russia: "Khodorkovsky and Navalny often say that they are in a strategic partnership, but in reality they both understand that they are competitors."
- The film "New Freedom of Khodorkovsky" is criticized from different sides and positions. Can you imagine criticism from Khodorkovsky’s entourage in the sense that the film does not work enough on his PR?
- Journalism does not imply compulsory friendship. No less, I think my film is just friendly and in Germany I get reproaches that with too much sympathy I show the former oligarch. Strange, huh?
The one who has such children cannot be a bad person
I really moved not only curiosity, but also sympathy. I have it. I'm not a journalist. For example, I could not interview the killers of Litvinenko, I do not want to deal with such people. I would not be able to interview with Hitler. Maybe this is stupid and speaks of my insufficient professionalism. As for Khodorkovsky, I met with his first wife, Elena, with his son Paul. They are very pretty to me. And I thought and think that the one who has such children cannot be a bad person. Thus, I almost immediately built my positive emotional bridge to Khodorkovsky. Therefore, I may have this problem with objectivity.
Cyril Tushi does not hide his surprise that Khodorkovsky is now friends with Bill Brauder, although he publicly attacked Khodorkovsky in 2005 at the Economic Forum.
The first film said that Khodorkovsky’s favorite book in childhood was "how steel was tempered." It was even more surprising to hear that the value of this book for Khodorkovsky did not fade even in places of imprisonment. Has he changed? Or are communist chimeras still live in his soul and consciousness?
Khodorkovsky in 1987 wanted to be a savior of Russia
- I thought at one time that he had changed. But now I think that his lawyer Anton Drill, who says that Khodorkovsky does not change and will not change. According to Drel, Khodorkovsky in 1987 wanted to be a savior of Russia. In this role, he saw himself in the 90s, becoming the head of Yukos. And in this installation it does not change. But it is precisely this fidelity to himself that makes him strong. Yes, in the 90s he was committed to neoliberalism, you can once again recall him with the wireless book "A Man with a Ruble" ... But they both said and say that capitalism is evil. All this sounds almost like madness. In general, I believe that Khodorkovsky in the colony was a spiritually more free person than now, when he is free.
Nevertheless, Cyril Tushi continues to believe in the political future of Khodorkovsky in Russia. The director says in the final of the film: "Khodorkovsky plans for a long time, at the time after Putin, because someday he will become history, and this strategic thinking protects him from disappointments, because his goal is free Russia-he sees ahead."
A fragment that did not enter the dilogy of Cyril Tushi about Khodorkovsky: