Translated material
Lonely citadel
Director Nikita Mikhalkov leaves the Board of Trustees of the Film Foundation, which included the press secretary of the Prime Minister of Russia Natalya Timakova. According to him, he was prompted by the irresponsibility of the leadership of the fund, due to the poor work of which nothing that are not important or it is not clear to whom the necessary paintings come out.
“I am leaving the college, from the Board of Trustees, because I feel my irresponsibility, I speak only from myself, and, unfortunately, the irresponsibility of the leadership of the Fund,” the RBC information agency, the statement of Mikhalkov at the meeting of the board of the Ministry of Culture of Russia. He explained that he decided to care after he saw a new composition of the Board of Trustees of the Film Fund, which, in particular, included the press secretary of the Russian Prime Minister Natalya Timakova.
“When a person of opposite views comes to the council, forgive me for the word“ ideological, ”is one thing. When a person comes, clothed with power and capabilities, this is another, ”said Mikhalkov. Later, in a conversation with reporters, he accused Timakov of Latent Russophobia, the Vedomosti newspaper said. “With its help, destructive processes are underway under the cover of democracy,” he said, recalling Timakova’s statements in defense of the Yeltsin Center.
Natalia Timakova /24smi.org
Recall that in April, the Channel Channel General Konstantin Ernst, First Deputy General Director of VGTRK Anton Zlatopol and press secretary of the Prime Minister of Russia Natalya Timakova, were included in the Board of Channel. This was stated in the Decree of the Government of Russia, published on the official website of the government. And in July, the Public Council at the Ministry of Culture invited the Film Fund in open sources the results of its activities, information about the volume of state support, cash fees and the attendance of each film for which the funds were allocated.
The Federal Fund for Social and Economic Support of Russian Cinematography was established in 1995, in 2009 its powers were expanded - the non -profit organization received the right to make decisions on the financial support of certain Russian paintings. Mikhalkov himself was a member of the Board of Trustees of the Film Foundation since 2009 - from the moment the Fund received the authority to financial support for films and film companies and from the Federal Fund for Social and Economic Support for Russian Cinematography has turned into the current Film Foundation.
Political scientist Alexei Makarkin, the first vice-president of the Center for Political Technology, the editor-in-chief of Politkom.ru, agreed to talk with Polit.ru about the situation.
Alexey Makarkin“In fact, this is part of the preparation for the new time of the president, as not only in the movie. Because if we talk about Mikhalkov’s claims to the Film Fund, they, say, could still be corporate. You can imagine, for example, that Mikhalkov is offended, that his opinion does not take into account that he remains in the minority. But, firstly, the fact that this is happening is already interesting-that Mikhalkov was somewhere in the cinematic sphere in the minority. It is also interesting that he talks about it.
It turns out that if the chairman of the Union of Cinematographers is in the minority, then someone else is responsible for bad films, someone except him from his point of view. Someone is responsible for this wrong policy, and this is not a cinematic community, but, apparently, someone else. Further, Mikhalkov calls Natalia Timakov with open text. But it is clear that Timakov cannot be considered without the mention of Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. Timakova works with him for a long time, and criticism of Timakova is in reality indirect criticism of the prime minister.
It is curious that this happened almost immediately after the arrest of Kirill Serebrennikov. It would seem that these are two completely different events, but I think it is still possible to draw some parallel. And this is probably due to the hardware struggle around the prospects of individual figures - the same Medvedev, who is completely unclear whether the prime minister will remain. And there is a wider question - that, probably, in the Russian authorities (if you simplify the matter somewhat) there are two approaches to how to position yourself and which course to choose for the fourth presidential term. Which course is optimal? A real choice is, of course, the choice of one person - president.
So there are two approaches. One is to try to agree with the West, try to get out of the isolation in the obsolete direction in which Russia was. There is an idea that in the case of isolation, and even multiplied by self -isolation, Russia can repeat the path of the USSR. Therefore, it is necessary to use the possibilities in order to try to agree. Moreover, difficult times are expected: after the presidential election, unpopular measures will have to be taken, and in this situation, closeness from the point of view of some elites only worsens the situation of Russia.
It gives Russia less opportunities, reduces its resources, distracts them to defense, to ensure security. In a word, if you make unpopular decisions in the social sphere and at the same time you grow or retain the military expenses in a broad sense at a high level, then this is how to determine budget priorities - a great risk. In this context, of course, it seems appropriate to preserve at least the elements of the cultural policy that was carried out in the previous period, that is, until 2014. Cultural policy, in which the award of an Oscar or any other major international prize would be perceived not as a sabotage against the country, not as an attempt to undermine its potential and discredit it - but would be perceived as a great cultural success in the international arena.
As part of this approach, Serebrennikov cannot be arrested, because this is a person who represents the country in the world cultural community. Arresting him is like shooting yourself.
Kirill Serebrennikov / AGN "Moscow" / Photo: Anton KardashovThere is also the exact opposite approach. It is associated with the idea that the confrontation between Russia and the West is global and systemic in nature and that it will not disappear, even if Russia goes to meet the West; And that you need to prepare for a long period when the West will consider Russia as an enemy. And Russia, in turn, in the framework of this approach should be maximally mobilized, maintain a high level of military expenses - and must protect the west as much as possible. That is, the course that was in cultural policy with the beginning of the conservative wave (2012 - the reaction to protests on the Bolotnaya and on the street of Academician Sakharov) should not only continue, but should become the only true. Both cinema and theatrical art should act in the conditions of "wartime". Although the war has not been officially declared, but from the point of view of this part of the elites, the unnecessary war is going on and will still go for a very long time.
In this regard, for example, if a filmmaker or theater figure receives recognition in the West, then this can be considered as an anti -Russian step. And a real patriot should make a patriotic movie - or put up performances, designed in a patriotic or classical tradition that unite most people. In addition, they are understandable to ordinary citizens, inspire them to accomplish - and so on.
I must say that Nikita Mikhalkov at one time, in the early 1990s, himself became the owner of the Oscar: he received him for the film “Tired of the Sun”, then causing a sharp reaction from the Communists, Stalinists. Supporters of the idea of the great power accused Mikhalkov then that he shot a film, too acceptable for the West, but in fact, slander at the Great Soviet Union. But, as we see, times are changing - now Mikhalkov is positioning himself as an ideologist of sovereignty. This is evident from his attacks on the Yeltsin Center, and according to his other statements. And now he shows that government structures in the field of culture are not working decisively, not enough quality and not patriotic enough. These are, in fact, accusations against Timakova by Mikhalkov. And that is why he does not want to have anything in common with them.
Nikita Mikhalkov, frame from the film "Burnt by the Sun" / Kinopoisk.ruI think that these two approaches, as I said, can be put in one row. That is, the course to try to somehow stay in the modern global world or return to it-and the course to try to create your alternative to this global world. The problem is that both of these approaches are very vulnerable, if we talk about their prospects. I understand that behind each of them there are quite serious representatives of the elite. But both of these approaches are related to big problems, ”said Alexei Makarkin.