Alexey Shaburov: "Sobchak's business"

“Yesterday we visited the show“ Sobchak’s business. ”If I had to characterize the film in one word, I would call it crafty. That's right. There is no direct lies, but there are a lot of underdevelopment, defaults and gaps - completely conscious and thoughtful,” the political scientist from Yekaterinburg in Facebook writes.

"The characters of the film, telling about Sobchak, are mostly sincere, but this is the case when sincerity does not mean truthfulness and even more so.

The saddest thing in this film is what. Anatoly Sobchak is certainly a large -scale figure, the most important historical figure: as a leader of the democratic movement, and as the mayor of St. Petersburg, and as a person whose team has taken power in Russia and has been holding it for almost 20 years.

A figure of this scale requires a thoughtful, attentive, impartial and objective study. But the film, shot by his daughter, by definition cannot be impartial and objective. And this is very bad. Because if someone in the future wants to make a full-fledged film about Sobchak, he will have to look back and start from the film Ksenia Sobchak, polemicize with him, supplement and refute. And this is the task itself is ungrateful.

If we talk about any meaningful moments, then the central episode is, of course, the operation to export Sobchak abroad in 1997. After the film, you understand that this moment is one of the key points in the latest Russian history. After him, the elevation of Putin began. And this is a paradox. Look at this episode through the eyes of a modern viewer - what do we see? An investigation of corruption is being conducted against one of the former governors, he faces arrest. And suddenly one of the presidential administration officials on his own initiative takes this governor abroad, violating his job descriptions, and possibly the law. What would be with such an official in 2018? Dismissal, opal or worse. What happened to such an official in 1997? He became the director of the FSB, prime minister, president.

Why did it happen? The film does not answer this question. The sounding explanations are unconvincing, and in the presentation of history (as Yumashev, Putin and Narusov set it out) there are not enough mass of details. And there is no chance that we recognize these details soon. ”