Translated material
Genius visiting Goebbels
The film about Sasha Sokolov on Channel One was the reason for the dispute about cooperation with the regime
The show of the documentary " The Last Russian Writer " dedicated to Sasha Sokolov became one of the most discussed events of the week. Disputes began even before the film came to the television screens: some commentators were crushing that the story of the recognized idol of the intelligentsia was shot under the auspices of the first channel.
Yesterday in Moscow, the premiere of the documentary of the First Channel made by Anton Zhelnov and Nikolai Kartosia about Sasha Sokolov took place. Numerous photographs in the FB tape brought both the faces of friends and even the faces of friends, a glorious buffet, and most importantly - the very inspirer of the tape of Konstantin Ernst.
Honestly, most of all I would like not to write this post, but simply, that this meeting, led by this figure, I dream of.
How otherwise, if not a bad dream of double -huminia, it can be explained that for the people we have a menu of crucified boys, goropa and the allegedly empty shelves of European vegetable stores: eat and supply cannonbas to the Donbas to combat “dill”, and we, the intelligentsia, will gratefully take from the same Goebbels hands, to the elbow in the blood, films about Sasha. Sokolov or Brodsky ... We will sit in one hall, and joyfully we will drink and bite and bow in the lobby.
Everyone remembers the terrible story of Kabanov, one of the founders of the OGA, their own among their own.
How many people remained Kabanov's friends after the murder? Don't know. I only know what would be clearer, because it would be about mercy and mercy to the fallen, in the case of Ernst, about pure conformism or comformism. It is unpleasant to speak unpleasant, even the truth. And the old friendship is pleasant. And the fact that friendship is to stop a person in time, try to reason - so who wants to spoil the relationship. The difference between Kabanov and Ernst is only in the method: one with his own hands with his own wife, in one with his own hands, a machine and strangers and strangers entrusted to him by the state, and for our own we show films about culture.
To many, this position seemed too radical.
The current Russia cannot be compared at all with the Soviet Unions, who offered such people as our parents or Lotman the obvious dichotomy of black and white. The difficulty of our time for us here is in everyday choice, which often does not concern us, but others. I did not go to work in the Government (so that there were no questions - yes, I was called), but I will support friends who can show a good movie there. And if I do another exhibition that will be absolutely honest, I will not refuse that the first channel is her info sponsor. Because in this way my story, for example, about dissidents, will become available to a large number of people. And the probability that the first channel to agree with all the way it is is to maintain such an exhibition almost one hundred percent.
The older generation in our paradoxically more often preaches the teenage simplicity of moral elections - because it had the happiness of withstanding an almost perfect Soviet evil. Therefore, you are so easily waving Goebbels, which has nothing to do with our problems and does not help to solve them. I’ll say once again - simplicity is seductive, and a lot of black and white is going on, but we cannot afford it.
Just everyone lives in their coordinate system. We have almost every second thing, if not state, but nationalized. Anyone. With the rarest exception. And therefore, if you live in the Russian Federation, then you will undoubtedly encounter all the possible damnings. And in order to be only in white and impeccable, you need to sit and do not do anything. Almost nothing. Do not communicate, do not say hello, do not promote. Everything else or Iancha will contact you with a real system, which is associated with the state, power, etc. Therefore, without the beginning and endlessly, the conversation that arises here a hundred times a year. If you follow the logic of people in a white, with a clear, uncomplicated conscience, then initially the actors should refuse to act in the series, because they will be aired on goskanals, or commercial, but with state participation. To abandon museums, exhibitions, theaters and performances, because most theaters are supported either by the state budget or sponsors built into the vertical of power. Specific examples can be given by mass. Here, in the film about Sasha Sokolov, Masha Slonim is shot. Short synchronon. With the same success, you can put Masha Slonim in appearance that she starred in the film Kartosia and Zhelnova (already secondary, like the film or not), and the film will be aired on Channel One, and Ernst was on the presentation and he approved it. And he likes the movie. Well, this is the insanity to discuss all this further. I already wrote. Dozens and hundreds of such examples. There is a show voice. There is a show voice. Children. They go out on Channel One. There are charitable foundations, well -known and respected, which collect real big money on these shows. And the people whom we all know, they themselves ask, if there is an opportunity, to be among those for whom the money will be collected there. On the air of Channel One. Not on the air of VGTRK, but on the air of Channel One. There is a film and the center of the same name "Anton here is near." They were largely known and available thanks to Ernst and the first channel. In any case, the film Lyuba Arcus was shown on the air twice - this is the decision of Ernst. And so you can continue around the perimeter. Immediately again, cliches from the Nazi Germany will pop up from someone. Of course, another spontaneous discussion will immediately arise. But this is an eternal circle. It’s like kicking Chulpan Khamatov, who starred in the videos for Putin. I will never kick Chulpan for it even then and now. Never. And I can only thank Chulpan and the whole fund for what they do. And this is all from one row. I want to see and hear Masha Slonim in this film about Sokolov, I want to see her in the film about Brodsky, I want to watch these films on TV. On the first channel. And I want Lyuba Arcus to have the opportunity to show her film on Channel One again. And everyone else has their own right to choose, including hanging a portrait of Goebbels. And never turn on the first channel. And in general, a TV. Charming logic: let the prime minister be, but Ernst does not come to the pioneer at it. Why don't he come to the pioneer? He comes. This channel shows this film. And everyone who wanted to come. And they would not like - they did not come. They did not bring anyone to the chain and did not torture that they come. And then reflection begins on Facebook, oh, yes, not good, boys crucified, then - Ce. Yes, there is a crucified boy. No one interferes with this to discuss, write the text and tell on the air. And say that this is a lie. To make out with students (I did this with students and on the air), show the horror of lies. Why not? But this does not mean that the world is black - white. A crucified boy is hell. Yes. Ernst has been indicated for a long time. And he is already with this crucified boy and lives and will answer before his conscience. But there is another too. Ernst, of course, is the most talented television producer. And on its channel it gets along very different. But only on it. And with all this we coexist here, if we live in Russia, at this time. It is clear that there are exceptions. There are probably saints. They are happy people then. But I know them very little.
One of the project participants considered it necessary to explain why she agreed to shoot for Channel One.
I didn’t look Kina, but I will say. Yes, participated. And in the first edition of Sasha Sokolov’s book “School for Fools”, and in the film about Sasha Sokolov “The Last Russian Writer”. My participation was modest, and there and there. <...>
Either I didn’t care that the film was shot for 1 channel, or I generally missed my ears that it was filmed for money and by order. But, to be honest, if I asked me to give me an interview for one of my programs, I would refuse. But since I was asked about an interview for the film Anton and Sergey, it never occurred to me to refuse. I know them, I know their work.
Probably, if I were in Moscow, the authors would invite me to a party on the occasion of the premiere. I am sure that I would not go. For various reasons, but in particular, for the one, by which she did not go to the premiere show of the film about Brodsky. Seeing the posts of friends and colleagues from the last party on the occasion of the “last Russian writer” realized that yes, it’s good that she would not have gone. Somehow all this is strange and inappropriate. And Sasha Sokolov suddenly becomes a star of a secular party, and the television party praises the head of the Ernst channel. “Spit, yes kiss the villain of the pen.” In general, I agree with Katia Margolis , she very accurately wrote about this.
And so, she participated in the film. And I don’t even know whether to watch or not, I have already read too many different things.
I'll wait, let the foam settled.
Not only the cooperation of the authors of the film with the first channel, but also the political views of Sasha Sokolov himself were widely discussed: many recalled the TASS interview , in which the writer supported the annexation of Crimea.
I think what is happening now between Russia and Ukraine is a big political mistake that will be fixed. And in the end, in the historical perspective, all this will settle and will return to its place. In this sense, my look is rather not imperial, but a common Slavic one. We should not be enemies, but vice versa.
And the Crimea itself ... I'm glad that Crimea managed to save from destruction. It was true. I think it was the right move. It is important that a certain restoration of the national pride of the Russian began with him.
However, those who are familiar with the writer personally, neither the film, nor the interview have discovered anything new.
Eh, life was given us.
I won’t watch a movie, I haven’t read the interview, I don’t need it - I had already understood what was happening for a long time. And we have not seen each other for ten years, if not more.
But the memory stubbornly slips bright places. Once in the last century, Sasha and I sat in a Russian school in Norwich and drank in broad daylight. And Ivan Elagin walked past the corridor, and we called him on a glass. His wife was very strict, and he, being for a minute without a prize, was delighted.
And I must say, in my youth there was an incredible memory that now there is no trace. And in the Union I knew Elagin’s poems by heart with kilometers, and there, in Vermont, I read them for half an hour. The old man burst into tears.
If the retribution really took place, we would have forgiven something for this.
Other commentators condemned the condemnants.
The film caused a stormy reaction of the target group-no-no-exam-television, first practicing the writer in praises, and then offended by the "Crimean" Sokolov, who turned out to be a fan of "Lyuba" and not at all in the expert in geopolitics, philosophy and other intellectual fans of the paths.
The main problem of this elegant, chamber documentary is precisely its chamberness and nonsense, which would look appropriate on the Culture channel, but not on the first channel. The intellectual party took into service the self -lifting thesis of Kartosi himself - "Sasha Sokolova knows 10,000 people, and I am one of them." As a result, the project, which, taking into account the coverage of the first channel, could have a powerful educational potential, came out a simple roll call for people who for the first time in a month the dust from a TV remote and clinging to the screen, wiping tears, which are still so intelligent, understanding and enlightened connoisseurs.
All this collective Parkhburo pounced on Sasha Sokolov for the fact that he is Crimean and so on. Some compare the Ernst, who showed the film with Kabanov, who dismissed his wife. Ernst, they say, as unharmed as Kabanov.
What can I say? There will be no jokes about recording to the National Guard. But does the collective Parkhoburo really not know people around him who are close to Sasha Sokolov in the views? I know more so much. That is, we are either for freedom of opinions, or for black lists, at the head of which Sasha Sokolov will be.
In general, we just have an amazing hatred of someone else's opinion. We have our own only one who is ready to read your unwritten manual from the crust to the crust and subscribe to each letter. It is quite close to modern Ukraine, by the way. And this is the second side of the scoop. The first is Givi with a motorcycle, but at least they do not hide it, and these second people with unwritten manuals.
Nevertheless, it was for the sake of the film about Sasha Sokolov that many for the first time in many years watched Channel One.
An hour later, I will do what I have not done about a year - I will turn on the first channel. I will go, so to speak, into the radioactive zone. The last time, it seems, sinned with the federal channel with the film about Mandelstam, and before that there was Konchalovsky, and even earlier than Zvyagintsy, or it was "Russia", and, however, it does not matter. The film will be shown Anton Zhelnov and Nikolai Kartosia "The Last Russian Writer" about Sasha Sokolov. There is a bit from the name, the last Russian writers around there are several-and Shishkin, for example, Sorokin-but I really want to look at the person who once turned my ideas about style and prose.
Its three books are, it seems to me, the most interesting experiment in Russian prose over the past 50 years, a bridge thrown from the avant -garde and modernism of the first third of the 20th century, but with more convincing aesthetic results. <...>
And I don’t give a damn what he is now carrying about Crimean and Trumpnash, about Russia and America, for some reason it is customary to listen to writers as teachers of life and prophets, and they just need to read them and sometimes look at this beautiful aging face. For me, he said everything with his novels and the fact that he is an avid skier (and even earned as a coach for running skiing), and this Zen sound of falling snow, whiteness and emptiness plains, the loneliness of winter evening - the most important thing for me in his books. Today at 00:05 on, sorry, the first channel).
However, in the end, the film disappointed many.
If the authors were not so noisy about the upcoming show. That night I saw a mediocre TV show with elaborate shots: half of the hero’s head, a quarter of the head, a black nose, three heads. Cardboard and paper scenes. The hero waves a cardboard hand, which someone’s living hand pulls by the thread. The shutters of the paper abdomen of the paper hero open, there the bomb ticks, the light glance. A lot of tasteless tricks, meaning, we shot for a reason, but innovative cinema. Alas, this is not a movie at all.
Here Sasha Sokolov is skiing, here he is with his wife, she is a champion, here he is on the train, he ran somewhere, the movie camera rushes through the wagons, the family is Proffer, and Brodsky said, and Nabokov said, and Masha Slonim said that he was with his dad, with his mother, with his mother for the last time ... a long interview, the hero’s synchronous and ordered story. The most ordinary television program. "Caravan of History". An extraordinary is only visible in the fact that a lot of money was spent extraordinary.
Sasha Sokolov is certainly an extraordinary person. But we will learn about this from the comment. The authors did not even try to open in him the person who was always hidden inside the character, when the object is directed at him and he was forced to answer direct questions. In such circumstances, people say the right, correct words and nothing more. It turned out an information tape and zero emotions.
It seems to me this - the authors tried so hard to equal in aesthetics with their idol and his book that they tried to remove the tone in the tone of the kind of version "The river was called."
"He writes beautifully, now we will remove it beautifully about him."
Well, nothing special happened, of course, except for self -love. Different tasks, different talent.
Another claim to the film is what the main character appears in it.
I watched the film about Sasha Sokolov. It was necessary to call not the "last Russian writer", but "the most beautiful Russian writer." And this, unlike the "latter", would be true.
We went to people, saw a movie about Sasha Sokolov - - Strange, but not poor (soon they will show on the first channel, look). Gleb Morev giggled that it would be worth calling him not the “last Russian writer”, but “the most beautiful Russian writer” - and this is true on both points: the SS is very beautiful (both by nature and many years of sports) and not a Russian writer at all. A person once wrote a great book for a long time, and now he skiing - because he likes to ski. Right in the frame you can see the pleasure of the body from these rhythmic swings of the limbs. But this longing for the unfulfilled, curses of fate for unwritten books, all that mysterious Russian Soul, Ducha, You Know - - There is nothing at all.
Actually, this whole house in the mountains and work as an instructor for a generous Canadian pension is a private business of Sokolov’s man.
However, they don’t know how to shoot about the private case of cinema, especially since they do not know how to watch it. Therefore, the authors had to come up with a concept. And it turned out about them about the dream of a master from the Bulgakov novel: he did not deserve happiness, but deserved peace.
So everything came together - solitude, a trip to the first -class compartment, I was born in Ottawa, my parents disappeared overnight, there is no more to write about anything, and there is nothing more to dream about ... And the snow creaks under the skis, and the sky blukes. What is Nobel now ...
Why in our active and energetic "advanced" authors of the first screen, the whole complexity of the world comes down to moderately elegant, always with an aesthetic claim, but of course one -dimensional formulas, I do not know. But by the way, it’s interesting to think about it ...
The film has many punctures. It turned out to be slightly helpless. It was not possible to talk Sokolov. Возможно, он не пошел на откровения. Непонятно, почему он больше не пишет. Вместо ответа аналогия с психически больным Сэлинджером, которые на самом деле все время писал, но никому не показывал. Драма семьи, родителей, обозначена, но не раскрыта. И интонация за кадром какая-то советсткая. Могу себе представить, что Соколов трудный персонаж, не идет на живца, понимает, что десятилетия прошли. При этом у него напряженное лицо и чувствуется глубокая травма. Жалко, многое упущено
Анна Голубева в рецензии на Кольте недоумевает, почему в фильме так много лирических отступлений и так мало собственно писателя.
Вроде бы, взявшись за такую загадочную и малоизвестную фигуру, каков, по уверениям авторов, Соколов, стоит что-то о нем сказать аудитории, поместить в контекст, обозначить, так сказать, масштаб. Но этого в фильме нет. Ни тебе хроники, ни прошлого, ни критики и литературоведов. Ни звука о, например, СМОГе, где герой в московской молодости состоял (хоть какая-то привязка к местности). Ни слова о журфаке, работе егерем, разнообразных занятиях в эмиграции. Никакой творческой биографии, тем более — личной.
Да в конце концов — перед нами человек, который лучше всех живущих пишет на русском. Который создал на этом языке как минимум два шедевра мирового масштаба и в одиночку образовал новое направление отечественной словесности. Который при этом лет 30 не писал ничего крупного — и вопрос, напишет ли еще. Этому человеку 73, как бы молодо и поджаро он ни бегал на лыжах. То есть любой документалист вцепился бы в него мертвой хваткой — выудить, поймать, записать и донести до современников и потомков каждое слово. <...>
Можно только гадать, сколько и чего он за эти 10 дней рассказал, — и поражаться стойкости авторов, которые заховали все это в закрома монтажного компьютера. В трейлере к фильму Антон Желнов говорит: таких людей, как Саша, надо записывать, фиксировать для истории, — но в фильм авторы придирчиво допускают то немногое, что работает на милый им образ героя-отшельника, немногословного красавца-лыжника, эллина-буддиста, чуждого страстей и страданий. <...>
Это Саша Соколов глазами не биографов, а импрессионистов. Пренебрегающих презренной пользой, единого прекрасного жрецов.
Солидарны с этим мнением и многие другие.
Этот фильм сделан, безусловно, талантливыми людьми. Но только фильма про Сашу Соколова мне так и не показали : все время было ощущение - это пока preface, сейчас , наконец, начнется фильм. Лучшие кадры - рассказ Соколова про Кащенко, самое интересное - про родителей -грушников, которые от него ( вместе с сестрой) отказались, а в конце покончили с собой - так он говорит. Это ужас советской реальности, который, впрочем, не договорен и скомкан.
Посмотрели фильм про Сашу Соколова. Саши было немного. Еще меньше - Антона Желнова, но очень много Николая Картозия. Николай такой парит. Над Сашей, Антоном, Канадой и историей.
Я вообще не понимаю, для кого этот изысканный деликатес.
Для тех, кто не знает Сашу Соколова. - он скучен и раздражающ (((()
Для тех, кто знает Сашу Соколова - оскорбителен и примитивен.
Мне жаль затрат Антона, хотелось бы увидеть и услышать его разговоры с героем полностью, без редактуры, как они есть. Мне кажется, что главная ценность - в этих диалогах. А соревнование Картозии с Парфеновым мне вот совсем не интересно.
( а уж "Коля", "Антоша", "Илюша" - в титрах - это совсем что-то запредельное)
Но некоторые комментаторы уверены, что по меркам российского телевидения это однозначный шедевр.
Этот изысканный деликатес — для меня. Это вообще лучшее, что было в русском телевизоре лет за 7.
Если верить анонсу, опубликованному одним из создателей фильма, главная задача проекта состояла в том, чтобы признаться в любви Саше Соколову – и заодно познакомить с ним массового зрителя.
Думаю, в нашей стране есть примерно 10.000 человек, которые знают, кто такой Саша Соколов. Из них половина — врет, что читали. Половина от тех, что читали, не продвинулись дальше 20-й страницы «Школы для дураков» или «Между собаки и волком». Оставшиеся уверены, что Саша Соколов — гений, бог и от него сияние исходит. Уверен и я. Why?
Потому что «Школа» — одна из самых грандиозных поэтических книг, написанных на русском. I did not make a reservation. Это не проза, это проэзия.
Потому что своим потоком сознания Александр Всеволодович так мощно ворвался в русскую литературу, что теперь этот поток — национальное достояние, как Южный и Северный потоки.
Ну и потому, что эта книга объясняет мне, почему я такой.
Кому-то, возможно, больше понравится невероятная шпионская история, лежащая в основе фильма. Но для нас – Коли, Антона и Ильи – это признание в любви к важному автору нашей юности (*старческая слеза). Как и большинство неадекватных влюбленных, мы хотим, чтобы о предмете нашей любви знали все.
И на этом, по мнению Анны Голубевой , приходит конец репутации Саши Соколова как писателя для избранных:
Отныне Саша Соколов — герой Первого канала, пусть пока ночной. Салют из всех орудий не умолкает, фильм об элитарном писателе Соколове пиарят ТАСС и «Комсомольская правда», «7 дней», «Газета.ру», «Вечорка» — их читатели теперь тоже приобщились к кругу избранных. Это не сделает Сашу Соколова популярным писателем — но скоро у нас станет на одну национальную гордость больше.
Но судя по тому, что пишут некоторые патриоты, новый изысканный продукт Первого канала пока усвоили не все.
Саша Соколов - что это было? Почему вдруг такое информационное внимание к этому персонажу? Почему все вдруг внезапно заговорили об этом как о важном? Ведь это не важно. Моя версия. Внезапная раскрутка мало известных и мало интересных публике и еще и находящихся вне актуальной повестки дня событий или людей, типа этого Саши Соколова, мне напоминает что то вроде информационно политических учений. Как военных учат на полигоне, и даже иногда на маленьких военных операциях. Точно так же внезапные информационные бури по странным поводам, - это информационные учения. Саша этот что то вроде ракеты на стрельбище. Кто то прощупывает, как вести информационные операции. В будущем этот опыт будет использован для настоящих проектов и настоящих атак.